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
make their appearance before the Judgment seat of Christ A Malefactor with the Kings pardon in his hand may boldly look his Judg in the face they are justified or accepted with God the error of which imagination I have already discovered and shall speak somewhat more of in Ch. 35. wherein I will manifest that although figuratively i. e. in a causal sence Christs Righteousness is a sinners Righteousness before God nevertheless to speak properly a sinners personal Righteousness which consists in his sanctification and Remission of sin is his Righteousness before God In the mean while I shall assert this to be the plain truth of Scripture in this matter even as in effect hath been before asserted by me upon occasion viz. That believing sinners are justified before God and accepted with him By and For the Righteousness of Christ as the meritorious cause thereof but not With the Imputation of the thing it self or With the Righteousness of Christ in it self imputed to them 3. The best and only true construction that I can possibly make of the said un-Scriptural phrases is this viz. That the Saints do take from Christ his Righteousness or the Righteousness he wrought out for them in the saving fruits or effects thereof in which sence a like phrase is used and was before upon occasion instanc't in 2 Joh. 8. where by the things which Believers had wrought are not meant the very things themselves but the fruit or reward of them But upon supposition of this true sence of the said phrase or phrases I must say 1. That the Doctor and his Adherents in this controversie concerning the Imputation of Christs Righteousness will not own or content themselves with the bare truth of that construction 2. Were the said construction the Doctor 's true meaning nevertheless I must needs say That his expression thereof is very un-scriptural and upon that account not such as becomes the Oracles of God For it is not the manner of those divine Oracles to say That Believers do by faith take Christs Righteousness in the saving fruit or effect of it but that the blessed effect thereof Comes upon them for which see Rom. 5.18 As by the offence of one judgment Came upon all men to condemnation so by the Righteousness of One the free gift Came upon all men to the justification of life and Rom. 4.9 Cometh this Blessedness upon the Circumcision only or Obj. 1 Pet. 1.9 Believers being there said to receive the end or reward for so the word ‖ Answerably to the Hebrew word gnekeb which signifies the like as appears by Ps 119.33 and 19.11 in the former place in signifies an End in the latter a Reward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies viz. both end and reward of their faith is not that all one as to take it in the Doctor 's sence of the phrase here used by him Answ No For there is a two-fold taking or receiving of a thing viz. Ethical and Physical or Active and Passive as it may be fitly expressed the former implyes our duty and is a taking or laying hold of a thing by an act of faith or believing in which sence it 's taken in the Doctor 's phrase or expression the latter imports our felicity and doth only imply our Having Enjoying or our being partakers of the thing which we are said to receive in which Physical or Passive sence it 's taken in 1 Pet. 1.9 and in which sence of the word Receive we are said to Receive evil as well as good at Gods hand Job 2.10 and Rom. 1.27 Receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet And the word is applyed to things as well as persons Heb. 2.2 Every transgression Received a just recompence of reward unless by sins there we understand sinners Every Transgression i. e. every Transgressor received the abstract being put for the concrete a thing in Scripture not unusual as circumcision for circumcised the same word also being used in the same sence Transgressions for Transgressors as some think Heb. 9.15 Briefly In such a sence as Believers are said to Receive a Kingdom which cannot be shaken Heb. 12.28 they may truly be said to Receive Christs Righteousness i. e. to receive it in the benefit or fruit thereof which fruit in the final upshot is indeed the Kingdom it self there spoken of and by which reception is not there meant a Moral or Active Reception by the hand of faith or action of believing for it is not there commanded as a duty but a Passive Reception it being there mentioned as the blessed fruit of a divine promise or Having it as is the Apostles word Rom. 6.22 You Have your fruit unto holiness and the end everlasting life and Mat. 19.27 What shall we Have therefore To which our Saviour answers v. 29. You shall Receive an hundred-fold 3. The third thing which I observe in the Doctor 's words is his Vanity in calling the said Commuting with Christ their sins with him and his Righteousness with them A Blessed Bartering and Exchange For Jesus Christ doth not like nor did he ever make offer of such a bartering or exchange as seems here to be intended by the Doctor i. e. Christs taking to himself not only the punishment but also the guilt of our sins and in the way of exchange our taking from Christ his Righteousness it self This I have already manifested so that although the Doctor hath in Gods name blessed such a Bartering Commuting Exchanging nevertheless I may truly say That sinners do no better than cheat themselves by such vain imaginations and fancyful conceits Whereupon that admonition of the Apostle Gal. 6.7 is in this case to be minded Be not deceived God is not mocked Though in commuting exchanging bartering commodities one with another we may deceive and be deceived one by another yea although in the barter and exchange here spoken of we may cozen and deceive our selves yet God and Christ will not be so mocked or deceiv'd Nevertheless I do acknowledg that there is a kind of giving and receiving betwixt Christ and a sinner which if any one lift to call Bartering may well and warrantably be styled A Blessed Bartering and what this kind of Bartering is I will declare in my reply to another passage of the Doctor 's by and by to be recited after I have intimated one thing more in his words fore-cited wherein 4. I observe his mistakes in saying That by the said Bartering Believers do fulfil the whole of that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.21 For 1. The Apostle by those expressions doth not mean such a Commutation Exchange or Bartering as aforesaid and it is a perverting of that Text to affix such a sence thereunto as the Doctor doth 2. It is not true to say That Believers by ought that is or can be done by them do fulfil the whole of that Scripture for it is God who made Christ and Christ who made himself to be sin
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
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
be it observed That as Righteousness in the former sense may not unfitly as I think be styled a Passive and in the latter an Active Righteousness so the said two different senses of the word Righteousness do differ as Officium Beneficium the one being the receiving of some good They differ as work and wages as Duty and Mercy or benefit confer'd on us the other the doing of some good or duty performed by us The phrase receiving righteousness see in Psal 24.5 He shall receive the blessing from the Lord and Righteousness from the God of his Salvation Righteousness in that place being the self same thing with Gods blessing his saving blessing The phrase doing righteousness see in 1 Joh. 3.7 He that doth righteousness is righteous As this is stiled a sowing of righteousness Prov. 11.28 so that may very fitly and suitably to the language of Scripture both of the Old and New Testament be styled Reaping Righteousness Hos 10.12 Gal. 6.7 8 9. Now in this proper formal sense of the word Righteousness the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us is a doctrine however owned by too too many yet by very many others of our own and forraign Protestant Churches justly disowned as that which is no where to be found in Scripture whether in the words or meaning of any Text in Scripture for to assert that Christs Righteousness is in this sense imputed to us is to assert That God doth account or reckon that the Righteousness which Christ wrought we wrought in and by him or that we are reputed by God to have fulfilled the Law and satisfied Divine Justice in and by Christ that what Christ did in his own natural Person God doth account we did in and by him for to have any thing imputed to a man in the propriety formality or essential nature of the thing is to be reputed the doer of what is so imputed to him these being terms equivalent and explicatory one of another and as thus explicated do the Brethren whom I do take upon me in this point to oppose openly own the said doctrine touching the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us it being their errour to think that Christs Righteousness cannot be accepted by God in our behoof or prove savingly beneficial to us unless it be imputed to us in their said sense or to imagine as they do a necessity that what is imputed to or for the justification of a sinner should be reputed to be done by him who is justified for it sufficeth to imputation in this case if that which is done be accepted of God in the behalf of sinners or instead of that which a justified person should in his own person have performed Nor is there any cause or colour for them to suspect that the denial of the said Imputation in their said sense doth infer or include a denyal of Christs satisfaction whether in the thing it self or in the blessed effects of it I am at once both sorry and I wonder to read such passages as these in some learned Authors they saying to this purpose viz. That human reason or mans understanding cannot comprehend how Christs satisfaction can be of saving benefit to us unless it be imputed to us in its formal and essential nature The contrary whereunto is as obvious to be conceived by any unprejudicate person as obvious almost can be For my own part I do humbly conceive it to be a great and dangerous mistake to think that Christ satisfied Divine Justice for believing sinners that they might be reputed by God to have satisfied in and by him as their surety the truth of Scripture to my understanding being this viz. That Jesus Christ did in human nature and his own person as Mediatour or in the person of a Mediatour betwixt God and Man satisfie Divine Justice not that we might be reputed to have satisfied in and by him or that his very satisfaction should be imputed to us but that no such satisfaction should be required of us and that his fulfilling of the law of Mediatorship was accepted of God not as our fulfilling either of that law for the law of Mediatorship belonged not to us it being peculiar to Christ himself or of any other law whatsoever but it was reckoned reputed or accepted by God as a satisfaction for our not fulfilling the law of God imposed upon mankind I mean the law in the rigour of it or as a covenant of works and that such an exact fulfilling of the law should not be exacted of us as the covenanted condition of our salvation but that faith and sincere obedience to the Gospel of Christ should be so required And I am glad to perceive that in asserting the end of Christs satisfaction for mankind I have the concurrence of the Authour of the Book lately published styled The interest of Reason in Religion he saying pag. 548. It was in consequence of Christs susception to be our Sponsor or Mediator say I the word Sponsor and Mediator being promiscuously used by the Apostle as appears by comparing Heb. 7.22 with chap. 8.6 and this latter word being of more frequent use with the Apostle than the former that being only once in its usage applyed to Christ in Scripture and with respect to the obedience of his life and sacrifice of his death as the procuring and deserving cause that God entred into a covenant with mankind promising to pardon their sins receive them into favour and crown them with life upon such terms and conditions as the Father and Son thought fit to prescribe In these words the word Mankind is remarkable the Authour saying expresly That for Christs sake for the obedience of his life and sacrifice of his death as the deserving cause thereof God entred into a Covenant not only with a few with the Elect only but with Mankind promising And I am the more glad to perceive that I have the concurrence of the said Authour in asserting the Covenant of Grace to be procured for Mankind because I shall have occasion by and by to mention some things wherein I am necessitated much against my will to dissent from him and certain others of my Brethren And I shall take a fit occasion to do it in answer to an Argument for the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sense disowned by my self with many others taken from those words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 5.21 from which words I have seen in a certain learned Author the Argument thus formed as shall be expressed in the beginning of the next Chapter CHAP. IV. ' An Objection from 2 Cor. 5.21 answered and also retorted The blasphemy of Mr. William Eyre in his Assize-Sermon preached at Sarum 1652. reproved QUomodo in what sort or manner Christ was made sin for us in the same manner was he made Righteousness to us But he was made sin for us only by Imputation Ergo Answ This Argument is not at all to the purpose in hand or
the only justification which such a person is capable of being from another charge viz. from the guilt of punishment i. e. from his being actually bound over to suffer and from the suffering it self of that punishment which for his delinquency he deserved With the former kind of justification no flesh living all being sinful flesh can possibly be justified God himself with Reverence to the divine Majesty be it spoken hath no kind of power to justifie any wicked person no moral power for it is a sinful thing so to justifie the wicked Exod. 23.5 Prov. 17.15 nor physical power for the thing is simply impossible and doth imply a contradiction But with the other kind of justification any flesh living though never so sinful may and shall through Gospel-faith and obedience or an obediential faith be justified 3. As justification and forgiveness of sin are obviously and vulgarly taken Propos 3. or according to common usage of speech so they are contrary the one to the other as is light and darkness For to justifie a person in common use of the word is to free or absolve him from guilt of fault to acquit him as innocent from the fact or fault of which he is wrongfully accused And this kind of justification is by a two-fold plea either the denial of the fact hereby David justified himself from the imputations of Saul 1 Sam. 24.9 10. or by denying the fault pleading the fact to be no fault or breach of any Law whether of God by which plea Daniel justified himself against the accusation of his professed enemies Dan. 6.22 or man or both by which plea St. Paul justified himself against the accusations of his Countrey-men the Jews Act. 24.14 maintaining his innocency not only in respect of the Law of God but also of Caesar Act. 25.8 there being no Acts at that time made by any of the Caesars against Christian Religion nor till the fifth year of the reign of Claudius as History doth report So that if a person be justified in this vulgar sence of the word he is not so much as in a natural capacity of being pardoned nor if pardoned of being so justified as aforesaid I never heard of the substitution of one person in the room of another to have been allowed in criminal cases whatever allowance there hath been in pecuniary mulcts or matters pardon of sin and justification in the said vulgar sence being of so contrary a nature that if the one be affirmed of any person the other must needs be denied And in this sence of the word justifie this Author speaks truth in saying p. 416. That as to justifie and to pardon are not only wholly distinct in their Natures and Idea's but always separated in the cases of such as are arraigned at humane tribunals unless it be where the substitution of one person in the room of another is allowed and even then though they accompany one another yet they are both distinct acts and we have distinct notions of them For neither can an accused innocent by being acquitted be said to be pardoned nor a condemned criminal by having the execution of his sentence remitted be said to be justified 4. However in common usage justification and remission of sin are not only divers but also adverse things nevertheless if we speak of that peculiar kind of justification frequently mentioned in the Scripture whereof a sinner is the subject and of that kind of pardon that is peculiar to sinners so oft there mentioned a pardon conveyed by Law and purchased by the satisfaction of Christ not that kind of pardon which is ex nudâ voluntate if I say we do speak of this kind of justification and pardon then I do affirm it as an undoubted truth That justification and pardon of sin are words equivalent importing one and the self same thing without any real or substantial difference for proof whereof two or three Texts of Scriptures may suffice among several others to be produced Act. 13.38 39. Be it known to you that through this man is preach'd unto you the forgiveness of sins and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses i. e. for which the Law of Moses admitted no expiatory sacrifice in order to pardon Rom. 3.24 25. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God to declare I say at this time his righteousness that he might be just and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus i. e. of the Christian faith See also Rom. 4. where that which he calls blessedness v. 9. and Gods justifying the ungodly v. 5. he styleth Gods forgiving their iniquities and covering their sins Thence that of Grotius de satisfactione p. 38. Justificatio passim in sacris literis maxime in Epistolis Paulinis absolutionem significat quae praesupposito peccato consistit in peccatorum remissione ipso Paulo semet clare explicante praesertim Rom. 4. I might hereto add the testimony of other Authors famous in their generation were it needful By the way take notice That I have said nothing concerning his affirming that the introduction of the Law of faith hath not abrogated the Law of perfect obedience but this as well as that doth remain in force nor do I think it necessary so to have done For although some choose to say that that Law of our Creation or of God our Creator is abrogated or repealed there being no Law since the new modelling of the government of mankind but the Law of Redemption or of God our Redeemer the moral part of the original Law being taken into it as the matter thereof and others choose to assert only a dispensation or relaxation of that Law nevertheless I do humbly conceive that all things considered yet not so needful here to be mentioned that are said on both sides there is no real difference between them as to substance of truth but only in modes and manner of speaking and for that cause I can give liberty to any one to speak the truth with due caution in what words he pleaseth Only I must say That I dare not take liberty to my self to say That the Law of works doth now remain in force as well as the Law of faith without a just explication how far it doth and doth not remain now in force I well remember that two late worthy Authors do very differently express themselves touching the immediate effect of the introduction of the Law of faith The most learned Mr. George Lawson chooseth to say That the original Law of works is by the Law of faith or indempnity abrogated and repealed whereas Mr. Joseph Truman will not allow that saying instead thereof asserting it to be
but for us there can be no comparison betwixt him and us nevertheless if the Doctor will allow us to say as indeed he doth that we are righteous with his Righteousness which he wrought for us and that compleatly he must allow to others the comparison aforesaid which they make to themselves touching their being as perfectly righteous as was Christ the Righteous and that God sees no sin in them For how should God see sin in them who are compleatly righteous with that Righteousness which Christ wrought for them more than in Christ himself 4. Though we forbear the comparison yet granting as the Doctor doth that we may say positively That we are righteous with his Righteousness which he wrought for us and that compleatly it will from thence necessarily follow that God sees no sin in us For supposing Christs Righteousness to be a compleat Righteousness which we cannot suppose except we suppose it to be without the least spot of sin and supposing that we are compleatly righteous with that his spotless sinless Righteousness how it is possible for God to see sin in us I do not understand or can perceive Having been so large in the foregoing Chapters touching the evil Consequences of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness asserted in the sence aforesaid I will be more brief in the rest CHAP. XXVII Another evil Consequence of the said Imputation That it leaves no place for remission of sin in persons made so compleatly righteous with Christs Righteousness and that it doth utterly overthrow the true nature of Gospel-Justification making the justification of a sinner to be quite another thing and of another kind than indeed it is An Objection answered ANother evil Consequence of the said Imputation of Christs Righteousness is That it leaves no place for remission of sins in persons made compleatly righteous with it It is certain that God forgave Christ no sin And the reason is obvious because being perfectly righteous he had no sin to be forgiven according to that of St. John 1 3 5. And in him is no sin Now if men be righteous with the same sinless Righteousness wherewith Christ was righteous they have no sin to be pardoned no more than he had Whereas Remission of sin as it is a saving benefit which we all have need of and the great purchase of Christs blood so it is that which Christ hath taught Believers daily to pray for even after and notwithstanding this Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto them if any such thing were except we will maintain that our Saviour Christ composed that pattern of prayer only for the use of Infidels and Unbelievers Now to ask Gods mercy in the forgiveness of our sins and yet to conceive our selves to be righteous with the spotless Righteousness of Christ and this compleatly is rather to mock or dissemble with God than seriously and in good earnest to worship him whom we pray unto Briefly The said Imputation doth utterly overthrow the true nature of Gospel-Justification or the justification of a sinner which doth consist in the remission of his sins as hath been already manifested For a legal or perfect Righteousness imputed to a person in the very formality thereof doth not justifie him by way of forgiveness of sins but is of it self intrinsecally and essentially his justification and is such a kind of justification as with which forgiveness of sins is not competible For what need hath he who hath a legal Righteousness imputed to him of forgiveness of sins whenas such a Righteousness excludes all sin If it be objected That a mans sins are first forgiven him and then Christs perfect Righteousness is imputed to him and so he is justified To this it hath been already answered 1. That Christs Righteousness is no more or otherwise imputed to a sinner in order to his justification than in order to the remission of his sin 2. That a person who is a sinner is capable of no other kind of justification than that which is by or doth consist in the remission of his sins 3. That if a mans sins be forgiven him he hath no need of any Imputation of any further Righteousness for his justification For when God hath given men their offences according to that expression of the Apostle The free gift is of many offences unto justification that is hath forgiven them he hath fully justified them The Apostle in that expression the gift of offences alludes to that Metaphor of debts under which notion our Saviour speaking of sin did teach his Disciples to pray for the forgiveness thereof to give a debt and to forgive it being all one Mat. 6.12 Lastly Whereas this Objection supposeth that by the passive obedience of Christ we have remission of sin and by the Imputation of the active part of his obedience we are justified as I have already disproved it and asserted withal that the whole obedience of Christ God-man doth make up the meritorious cause of all saving benefits bestowed on us so I add If we will needs distinguish the effects of Christs active and passive obedience after that manner I cannot perceive that it is any ways reasonable to invert the order of these effects and dispose of them thus Ad placitum in a cross method to their several causes producing them which some Authors presume to do and in special Dr. Owen among others Christ did not first die and then keep the Law for us but he first kept the Law and then suffered death for us Therefore if we will needs make the Imputation of the one a distinct benefit from the other reason methinks would that that which is first purchased should be first bestowed or received and consequently that Imputation of Righteousness should have a precedency in order before remission of sin CHAP. XXVIII Another evil Consequence of the said Imputation That it subverts the necessity of our repentance in order to our salvation by Christ that the non-necessity thereof in Believers hath been asserted by some MR. Baxter having charged the opinion here impugned as many ways subverting Christian Religion for proof of that charge I shall suggest to consideration Whether in the consequence thereof it doth not subvert the necessity of repentance and new obedience in order to a sinners salvation by Christ To this end be it considered how the matter is obvious to be argued e. g. If Adam had kept the Law he had needed no repentance more than Christ himself needed it Now if upon the Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us in its essential nature we may be said to have kept the Law in Christ as exactly and perfectly as he did what need of repentance have we or can we have more than the first or the second Adam Christ Jesus For if the exact and perfect obedience of Christ be the ground and reason why Christ himself needed no repentance and this obedience in all the exactness and perfection thereof be as truly Ours by Imputation as it