is imputed to us In answer hereunto a twofold acceptation of the word Righteousness is specified respectively to which different acceptation of the word it is determined in what sence the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us is to be asserted and in what sence it is to be renounced with certain Reasons of the abrenunciation thereof p. 4. Chap. iv An Objection from 2 Cor. 5.21 answered and also retorted The blasphemy of Mr. William Eyre in his Assize-Sermon preached at Sarum 1652. reproved p. 10. Chap. v. Q. Did Christ take upon him the Guilt as well as the Punishment of our Sins Answ No. A brief explication of the Distinction of Guilt commonly styled Guilt of Fault and Guilt of Punishment together with a Reply to what is alledged by certain late Writers out of Bishop Andrews p 13. Chap. vi An Answer to several unjustifiable passages in Mr. Ferguson's Book styled The Interest of Reason in Religion His false and manifold uncharitable insinuations answered Wherein 't is shewed what manner of guilt or obligation to punishment that was which Christ took upon him That Christ did not suffer however by occasion of that Law Gen 2.17 as transgressed yet not by vertue thereof as if that Law in or by his sufferings had been executed His mistake of the true nature of Gospel justification demonstrated That it is not against the essential Holiness of God as Mr. Ferguson pretends to justifie a sinner upon an obedience Ex. parte sui seu peccatoris imperfect with the reason of his mistake p. 16. Chap. vii That the Scripture doth no where assert a surrogation of Christ in our room in such a strict Law-sence as that we may be said in and by him to have done and suffered what he did and suffered and in or by him to have redeemed our selves And that Christ did not in such a Law-sence represent us as Proctors and Attorneys do their Clients Ambassadors their Princes or Guardians their Pupils acting accordingly in our names but officiating as a Mediator betwixt God and Man The evil Consequences charged by Mr. F. upon the contrary Doctrine are denied His thwacking Contradiction imputed to others avoided by them retorted upon himself p. 25. Chap. viii Mr. Ferguson's mistake in thinking that a sinner by his justification is freed from the guilt of punishment and fault too That Christs righteousness is not more or otherwise imputed to us for in towards or in order to our justification than the remission of our sin The nature of justification forensick opened both of justification indefinitely considered as also of Gospel-justification in special The truth of the matter laid down in several Propositions p. 28. Chap. ix That those who assert That the Law of works is abrogated do in substance of truth accord with those who choose rather to express themselves saying It is relaxed or dispensed with God in justifying a sinner doth not pronounce him just and righteous that is no sinner A sinner not otherwise made just and righteous by his being justified than by his being pardoned through Christ That a sinner cannot possibly be justified from the accusation of the Law in it's charging him to be a sinner p. 36. Chap. x. That the difference betwixt remission and Gospel-justification is not at all in this viz. That remission is the result of mercy and the act of one exercising favour and justification the off-spring of Justice as Mr. F. says The usage of words in common speech sometimes in signification contrary to that of Scripture exemplified in the language of our Brethren of Scotland Mr. Ferguson's notorious mistake in asserting That to justifie is no where in the Scripture-usurpation equipollent with to forgive p. 39. Chap. xi Mr. Ferguson's mistake in saying That we are made Righteous With the Righteousness of Christ as also Dr. Owen's in his Book styled Communion with the Trinity refuted and that in Rom. 5.18 alledged by him answered wherein is declared That it is one thing to be justified By and another thing to be justified With the Righteousness of Christ The Doctor 's misinterpretation of Phil. 3.9 and Eph. 2.8 That the asserting of the whole of Justification to consist in remission of sin hath no such evil consequences as Mr. F. chargeth it with p. 42. Chap. xii Q. Is a sinner said in a proper or improper sence to be justified In answer hereunto it is declared 1. That the Question in it self in immaterial 2. Nevertheless for the satisfaction of Mr. F. the Question is answered and therein it 's proved That the Justification of a sinner is of or in it's kind a proper Justification and in what respects so said to be specified And Objection answered p. 48. Chap. xiii Q. Why or for what reasons may pardon of sin be called Justification and Vice versâ Or What reasons are there for their promiscuous use in the N. T Answ In answer whereunto 1. It is acknowledged That the Question is in it self not so considerable 2. Nevertheless for the satisfaction of many dissenting Brethren in answer thereunto several reasons of the thing are assigned and specified p. 54. Chap. xiv Q. How is the justification of a sinner to be denominated whether Evangelical or Legal Answ Rather Evangelical and the reason assigned The Arguments of those on the contrary side both answered and retorted who acknowledg that the justification of a sinner is Evangelical ex parte principii but would not have it absolutely to be so styled but rather a Legal justification The reason why this Question is debated and answered p. 58. Chap. xv Several mistakes in Mr. F. according to the obvious construction of his words detected That Christ suffered not the Idem but the Tantundem manifested by three things distinctly specified and two evil consequences of the contrary Doctrine With a Caution in the close p. 63. Chap. xvi The Imputation of Socinianism groundlesly charged by Mr. F. upon his Brethren Mr. F. his charging his Antagonists with non-sence refuted That sort of union with Christ to be renounced the native consequence whereof is the reciprocal Imputation of our sins to Christ and of his Righteousness to us in the sence of Mr. F. with his Adherents i.e. properly and formally or otherwise than in the fruits and effects of the one and of the other The reason thereof rendred p. 69. Chap. xvii That Christ may very well be said to be made sin for us to bear our sins to dye for our offences although it cannot be truly said that he did bear our sin it self or sin in it self or otherwise than in the fruit and effects of it the contrary whereunto is pretended by Mr. F. Mr. Ferguson's mistake in confounding an Antecedent impulsive Cause with a meritorious Cause the difference whereof is asserted and exemplified His mistake in not distinguishing betwixt An Obligation and Our Obligation to suffer That though our sins did properly merit Christs suffering nevertheless it will not follow from
properly and formally or otherwise than in the fruits and effects of the one and of the other The reason thereof rendred P. 537. To say Mr. F. That Christ suffered only for our advantage and not in our room is plain Socinianism and to say That he bare our punishment without being charged with our guilt is plain non-sence and yet to remonstrate to such a Relation between him and us as may and ought to be styled a Legal Vnion is to vent repugnancies in the same breath Answ What is here said hath in effect already been answered and to the same purpose I say again 1. The imputation of Socinianism is causless forasmuch as we do acknowledg what they deny viz. That Jesus Christ being God and man in one person did make a satisfaction or compensation to Gods justice and by his doings and sufferings did merit the pardon of our sins 2. We deny not but that Jesus Christ may be truly said to have suffered in our room or stead and for that cause to be styled in the word of one of the Ancients our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he suffered that which was equivalent to the suffering which being due to us we should have suffered and thereby to save us from suffering and we say That Christ suffered in the person of a Mediator to procure our pardon and reconciliation with God Only we do deny That Christ was in such a sence our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that he did in such a strict sence die in our room and stead as that he may be said to die in nostrâ personâ in such sort representing our persons as that we can truly be said to have satisfied in and by him or that his sufferings are in their essential nature imputed to us One King may be said to rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the room of another though he may not therefore be said to be the Representative of that other as Archelaus is said to have reigned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the room of his Father Herod Solomon in the room of David 1 King 5.5 Benaiah to be made Captain-General of the Host in the room of Joah 1 King 2.35 and Elisha to be substituted or anointed a Prophet in the room of Elijah 1 King 19.16 although none of these can be truly said in a strict sence to represent the persons of those in whose room they were substituted 3. If by Our punishment this Author meaneth the Idem the self same punishment which we should have born it hath been already gainsaid and the contrary truth proved as also that he did not bear our guilt neither our guilt of fact or fault at all nor the self same guilt or obligation to punishment as was ours but another kind of obligation that was peculiar to himself 4. What non-sence soever there is in saying That Christ bare Idem supplicium our very punishment without being charged with our guilt nevertheless it is true sence and the sence of Scripture to say That Christ did contract or take upon him an obligation to suffer and did actually undergo such sufferings as were equivalent to that punishment which we deserved to suffer and this without being charged with our guilt 5. The things being justly to be denied which he doth here presume as granted or to be granted viz. That Christ did at all take upon him our Reatus facti or culpae our guilt of fact or fault or the self same guilt or obligation to punishment which was ours it follows That there is all the reason in the world to remonstrate unto any such union of Christians with Christ by what name soever dignified or distinguished Mystical Conjugal Political Legal Evangelical Supernatural the native consequence whereof is That Christ was charged with our guilt of sin That he took upon him the self same obligation to punishment which was ours That our sin really in it self was imputed to him and undergone by him and That his doings and sufferings briefly his Righteousness was formally in it self imputed unto us All these Consequents are justly to be remonstrated against and consequently so are all the Antecedents be they never so specious from whence they do naturally and necessarily result or flow for as the common saying is Ex vero nihil nisi verum From truth nothing but truth doth natively and necessarily issue These things considered it is easie to answer his arguings in p. 556 557. which I shall more at large now recite and reply to CHAP. XVII That Christ may very well be said to be made sin for us to bear our sins to die for our offences although it cannot be truly said that he did bear our sin it self or sin in it self or otherwise than in the fruit and effects of it the contrary whereunto is pretended by Mr. F. Mr. Ferguson's mistake in confounding an Antecedent impulsive cause with a meritorious cause the difference whereof is asserted and exemplified His mistake in not distinguishing betwixt An obligation and Our obligation to suffer That though our sins did properly merit Christs suffering nevertheless it will not follow from thence that Christ himself did merit it or took upon him the meriting thereof That Christ may be said in an improper sence to be punished The word Demerit of punishmeit ambiguous a two-fold sence whereof is specified The Arguments which overthrow the Popish doctrine of believers being discharged from the guilt of sin but not the punishment altogether mis-applyed by Mr. F. to the point in hand P. 556 557. Mr. F. HAD not the susception of our sins preceded as the antecedent impulsive cause of Christs sufferings he could neither be said to be made sin for us nor to bear them nor to have them laid upon him nor to die for our offences nor to be our ransom Nor could the inflicting of sufferings upon him have been either good in it self or an act of Rectoral justice in God or have had any tendency to his glory or to the honour of his Law or to deter sinners from offending yea preclude once the consideration of sin as the meritorious cause of the Agonies which Christ underwent and the love wisdom justice and Rectorship of God are obnoxious to reflections and stand liable to be impeached And if it be once obtained that our sins are the meritorious impulsive cause of Christs death his susception of our guilt will necessarily follow For guilt being nothing but an obligation to punishment and it being impossible to conceive such a habitude betwixt a person and sin that it should be the meritorious impulsive cause of his punishment and yet he not be under an obligation to punishment it plainly follows that guilt must be supposed antecedent to a demerit of punishment Guilt and punishment being Relates he that is obnoxious to the latter must be previously under the Imputation of the former as Bishop Andrews expresseth it Christ was first made sin in respect of the guilt
and then a curse in respect of the punishment Serm. of Justification on Jer. 23.6 Ans Almost all of this either in the same words or in words to the same effect hath been before recited out of this Author and a reply accordingly shaped thereunto And for that reason it is necessary only to repeat the Answers which have been already given I answer then 1. Christ may very well be said to be made sin for us to bear our sins to have them laid upon him to die for our offences and to be our ransom in that he did take upon him an obligation to suffer and suffer to death for the expiation of them although it cannot be truly said That Christ did bear our sin it self properly and formally taken but only in the fruit and sad consequents of it viz. suffering equivalent punishment to that which was due to us for it 2. As to the Authors expressions Antecedent Impulsive Cause 1. It is the Authors mistake to confound an Antecedent Impulsive Cause with a Cause Meritorious That he doth so is most apparent and undeniable by his fore-cited words But that it is his mistake so to do be it considered 1. That the misery of an indigent Creature may be well said to be an antecedent impulsive cause of that compassion which is shewed towards it by those who are conscious unto or spectators of its misery And accordingly I doubt not to aver That the miserable effects of sin specially in making us obnoxious to the vengeance of eternal fire was an antecedent impulsive cause moving God speaking of him after the manner of men which we must do or else we can scarce say any thing of him fore-ordain the sufferings of our Lord Redeemer Christ Jesus whereby to rescue us out of our wretched and otherwise forlorn condition Yet who will or can justly say That the misery of a Creature doth in a strict or proper sence merit the pity whether of God or man This if it did pity would scarce deserve the name of pity I mean it would not be so thank-worthy forasmuch as that which is merited deserves little if any thanks Is a Labourer obliged to give his Master thanks for his wages which he hath earned or merited Misery may be well said to be Res apta nata an object naturally fit to move mercy or to be an impelling cause thereunto and yet not a Meritorious cause thereof in the strict and proper usual sence of the word Meritorious 2. Though I grant it as a truth and a fit saying That our misery contracted by sin was an antecedent impulsive cause of Gods mercy in delivering up Christ for us all nevertheless I do utterly deny that our sins were the Meritorious cause of Christs death or sufferings I grant that our sins were the Occasion of Christs sufferings but I deny that our sins did merit his sufferings And I have just and great cause so to do forasmuch as our Logick tells us that there is a great difference betwixt an Occasion and a Cause truly so called as this Author cannot but know very well I remember the saying of David to Abiathar 1 Sam. 22.22 I have occasioned the death of all the persons of thy fathers house which notwithstanding it could not be said That he had caused their death In like sort may we say to God We have occasioned thee to bruise the Son of thy love and to put him to grief we have been the occasion of all his sufferings but we may not say That our sins did merit them 3. Forasmuch as what this Author hath sought he cannot obtain viz. an acknowledgment That our sins were the meritorious cause of Christs death and forasmuch as he makes this the ground of his following inferences it is not therefore needful that I should use many words in replying thereunto For if the foundation of a building be removed the superstructure falls of it self and without hands Nevertheless I add 3. Although I do deny that our sins were the meritorious cause of Christs sufferings nevertheless I do assert that Christ was under An obligation to suffer for our sins It is this Authors great mistake not to distinguish in this contest betwixt Christs obligation and Ours whereas as hath been aforesaid these are two obligations specifically different and all his inferences here are utterly groundless e. g. 1. That Christ could not suffer or be under An obligation to suffer except he had been under or had taken upon him Our obligation to suffering 2. That he could not else have been said to bear our sins to be made sin for us to have our sins laid upon him to die for them nor to be our ransom 3. That without this the inflicting of sufferings upon Christ could not have been either good in it self or an act of Rectoral justice in God or have had any tendency to his glory or All these inferences I say are altogether groundless 4. I answer Ex abundanti If our sins could properly be said to have merited Christs sufferings nevertheless it will not from thence follow That we meriting that he should suffer then he himself did merit it or took upon him the meriting thereof and therefore although guilt as he says must be supposed antecedent to a demerit of punishment yet where there is no such demerit as in Christ there was not there 't is not necessary to suppose any antecedent guilt Nor indeed in any case but where the person suffering is properly punish'd which Christ was not but only a sufferer of that which we for our sins deserved to have suffered in our own persons and which if we had personally suffered it would have been formally and properly a punishment to us but was not to him because he never deserved it nor was any such guilt or deserving it imputed to him or taken upon him And yet he may be said in some improper sence to be obliged to punishment I do not mean the word improperly in reference to Obliged for Christs obligation to suffering however it was not at all Obligatio Criminis yet being truly Obligatio Contractus it was therefore In suo genere a proper obligation but to the word Punishment and I do therefore express the matter now plainly and say That Christ may be said to be obliged to punishment improperly so called because he did voluntarily undertake and obliged himself to suffer those pains which being inflicted on us would have been properly or proper punishments 5. As for the testimony of that renowned Bishop Andrews I have made reply thereunto in an entire Chapter Ch. 5. and I have thought it my part the rather so to do because as I perceive by my late reading not Mr. Ferguson only but certain other Brethren by their allegation of that saying of the Bishop have adopted it as their own There is but one passage more which I have observed in my reading of his Book throughout to refer to the matter in hand The
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
sinner to be quite another thing and of another kind than indeed it is An Objection answered p. 152. 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 p. 155. Chap. xxix Another evil Consequence of the said Imputation That it overthrows the necessity of new obedience in order to a sinners being saved by Christ Whence it is that divers Authors whereof some are named do assert That Christians are not to do any good duties that they may be saved Several passages to this purpose in Dr. Owen's Book styled Communion with God related with Animadversions thereupon more at large p. 157. Chap. xxx Q. May Believers be truly or fitly said to be clothed with the Robe of Christs Righteousness or the like form of words Four Reasons why the said Question is proposed and answered The Answer it self 1. That there are no such express sayings in Scripture nor any Scripture wherein Christs Righteousness is set forth under the Metaphor of Rayment 2. That our own personal Righteousness in the several branches thereof doth go under the Metaphorical expressions of Robes comely rayment and splendid array Several Scriptures objected to the contrary answered In what sence 't is true and in what false to say that we are clothed with the Robe of Christs Righteousness And that it is more fitly and intelligibly said that it purchaseth or procureth Clothing for us than that it is it self our Clothing p. 175. Chap. xxxi Dr. Owen's mistake in thinking That when all sin is answered for all the Righteousness which God requireth for that time is not fulfilled the contrary whereunto is proved Several other of his mistakes discovered and his mis-interpretations of several Scriptures p. 184. Chap. xxxii That it is no where said in Scripture that we do receive the Righteousness of Christ The Doctor 's perverting that in Phil. 3.9 from the true meaning of the Apostle That he perverts the sence of 1 Cor. 1.30 utterly beside the meaning of the Apostle That he mistakes the sence of Rom. 5.10 That Christ hath done no more by the obedience of his life for a sinners salvation than for his reconciliation the contrary whereunto is supposed by Dr. O. His iterated mistake touching the end of Adam's obedience p. 189. Chap. xxxiii The Doctor 's allegation of several Scriptures to no purpose That we are no otherwise justified than we are reconciled or pardoned through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness the contrary whereunto is pretended by Dr. O. That none of those Scriptures alledged by him to prove the Imputation of Christs obedience it self unto us do evince the same His error in attributing our justification to the life of Christ whereas the Apostle doth Rom. 5.9 expresly attribute it to his Death however it is not to be understood as excluding the obedience of his Life p. 194. Chap. xxxiv Dr. 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. 198. 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 Dr. 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 senceless 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 Dr. 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. 203. Chap. xxxvi The difference betwixt Dr. Owen and Mr. Ferguson in their opinion concerning the Imputation of Christs Righteousness or Obedience unto us plainly laid open in their own words recited That the Doctor denies Christs death to have been in our stead but only as it was penal The Author's opinion plainly and expresly declared in opposition to the Doctor 's That satisfaction was no otherwise the effect of Christs death as a penalty than as a price and as a sacrifice p. 208. OF THE IMPUTATION OF Christs Righteousness c. CHAP. I. Q. Is the Righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to Believers Answ Although it be yielded that in Rom. 5.18 there is express mention of the word Righteousness undeniably to be understood of the Righteousness of Christ nevertheless neither in that Scripture nor in any other place is Christs Righteousness expresly said to be imputed to Believers Q. 1. IS the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us i.e. to believing sinners Answ That the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers is an assertion no where in terms to be found in Scripture And whereas by the Righteousness of one or that one Righteousness mentioned Rom. 5.18 is unquestionably meant the Righteousness of Christ expressed by name in the foregoing verse Yet this Righteousness of Christ is not there or in any other place of Scripture for ought I know expresly said to be imputed to us and forasmuch as the Scriptures are so silent therein I cannot but wonder that any one should affirm that the sound of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness is in the Scriptures as shril or loud as was that of the Trumpet at Mount Sinai as if the sound thereof had gone forth ten times out of the mouth of the Apostle in that one Chapter Rom. 4. whereas the truth is that although there be frequent mention in that Chapter of the words Righteousness and Imputed nevertheless as to the Imputation of Christs Righteousness there is Altum silentium a deep silence it being neither in that nor in any other Chapter of the Bible expresly asserted that Christs Righteousness is imputed to us I will conclude this short Chapter with the suffrage of Pareus de justitia Christi Act. Pass Nunquam legi humanam sanctitatem Christi nobis imputatam esse justitiam nostram vel ejus partem Si quis legit quaeso mihi ostendat ut ego legam credam In this sort must I needs say of the Righteousness of Christ whether Active or Passive or both or
imputed to him than in the effects of them I may well and warrantably infer by proportion that the righteousness of Christs life and sacrifice of his death his doings and sufferings formally and properly taken are not imputed unto us or otherwise imputed than meerly in the benefits of them P. 411. Neither will I press Mr. F. how that secluding not only the righteousness of Christs life but the satisfaction of his death as the matter and the imputation of it as the formal cause of justification it seems repugnant to the immutability and essential holiness of God to justifie us upon an imperfect obedience the Law which requireth a perfect obedience remaining still in force and denouncing wrath in case of every failure Answ By these words it appears again that this Author doth mistake the true notion and right conception of Gospel-justification he supposing that the righteousness of Christs life and satisfaction of his death is the matter and that the imputation of it is the formal cause thereof whereas the unquestionable truth to my simple understanding is that if we speak of matter in a proper sence as here viz. for a material cause in way of contradistinction to a formal cause neither the righteousness of Christs life nor satisfaction of his death can fitly be said to be the matter or material cause of a sinners justification the satisfactoriness both of his life and death of his doings and sufferings being undoubtedly the external impulsive or morally efficient cause thereof and how one and the same thing should put on the habitude of two causes so different in kind as is the material and efficient that being internal and pars constitutiva rei and this wholly external I do not understand such a conception being altogether contrary to the Logick which hitherto I have been acquainted with 2. Whereas this Author and others make the imputation of Christs righteousness to be the formal cause of justification I do clearly conceive them mistaken and that the formalis ratio or formal cause of Gospel-justification is forgiveness of sin this being Res ipsa the very thing it self wherein the justification of a sinner doth consist 3. Had this Author rightly apprehended or minded that a sinners justification is or doth consist in the pardon of his sin he would scarce have questioned it as a thing in the least wise repugnant to the immutability and essential holiness of God to justifie us upon an imperfect obedience For what though it may be granted that the Law which requireth a perfect obedience and denounceth wrath in case of every failure doth remain still in force i. e. so far forth as to command the one and to threaten the other yet I presume he will not I am sure he ought not to say That that original Law the Law of works I presume he means doth still stand in its primitive force as a Covenant of works both promising life to sinners upon perfect obedience or conditionally upon their not being sinners and threatning death unavoidably upon every failure Doth this Author forget That there is a Law of Grace of oblivion a Lex remedians a Law of indempnity enacted by God through the blood of Christ whereby the force of that Law so threatning may as to the execution of the threatning be vacated by a gracious pardon and certainly so shall be upon a sinners sincere however imperfect obedience to the Gospel of Christ 4. This Author seems to think that a sinner is justified in respect of the precept or preceptive part of the Law i. e. as one who had in and by Christ performed all manner of duty whereas a sinner is justified only in respect of the sanction of the Law i. e. as one who notwithstanding his failings hath right to impunity and to a discharge for Christs sake by a pardon CHAP. VII That the Scripture doth no where assert a surrogation of Christ in our room in such a strict Law-sence as that we may be said in and by him to have done and suffered what he did and suffered and in or by him to have redeemed our selves And that Christ did not in such a Law-sence represent us as Proctors and Atturneys do their Clients Ambassadors their Princes or Guardians their Pupils acting accordingly in our names but officiating as a Mediator betwixt God and Man The evil Consequences charged by Mr. F. upon the contrary Doctrine are denied His thwacking Contradiction imputed to others avoided by them and retorted upon himself P. 411. NEither shall I urge how there can have been no surrogation of Christ in our room Mr. F. nor can we properly be said to be redeemed by him as our substitute if all redounding to us by his death be only the procurement of the Gospel-Covenant in which God upon such conditions as he there requires undertakes to pardon our iniquities and sins A surrogation in our room and stead to acts and sufferings which are not in a Law-sence accounted ours I am so far from understanding that without admitting injustice in the Rector who allows the substitution it seems to me a thwacking contradiction especially if we consider that Christ was our substitute to make satisfaction to the demands of the Law and not of the Gospel and that by his obedience and death he hath only freed us from what we were obnoxious to upon failure of perfect obedience but not at all from what we were liable to in case of unbelief and want of sincere obedience Answ 1. The Scripture no where asserts such a surrogation of Christ in our room as that we can properly be said to be redeemed by him as our substitute For had he been in a strict proper sence our substitute there is cause to assert That we have in and by him redeemed our selves yea that we rather have redeemed our selves than he us or That we are our own Redeemers rather than Christ For what is done by a proper substitute is not in a Law-sence so much his act who doth it as ours whom he as our surrogate and substitute doth personate or represent let the representation be Quocunque modo or quacunque ratione i. e. whether he represent us by our own will consent or constitution as Proctors and Atturneys do their Clients that pay and receive moneys and transact matters in their names and Ambassadors who are imployed by Princes to deal with forreign States and Nations or by allowance and authority of Law as what Tutors and Guardians do in the name of their Pupils in these cases whatsoever is done by such substitutes in the person of another is not so properly and in Law-construction his act who doth it as theirs whose substitute he is and whose person he doth represent 2. Forasmuch as this Author doth assert such a surrogation of Christ in our room as that we can properly be said to be redeemed by him as our substitute if he shall notwithstanding that assertion deny That we have
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
there hath been enough said already for a due resolution of this in the determination of the third Question nevertheless for the more abundant satisfaction of any who perhaps may need it I will answer thereunto as followeth There be three things which possibly may be meant by the Merit and Satisfaction of Christ 1. Christs Righteousness it self or his very doings and sufferings themselves wherein his Righteousness did consist 2. The valuableness satisfactoriness or meritoriousness of that his Righteousness and Obedience 3. The thing or things which by Christs meritorious obedience were merited These three do differ in sence and signification as Efficient Efficiency and Effect The first Christs Righteousness or Obedience hath the nature of an Efficient cause The second the satisfactoriness of Christs Obedience of Causality The third the thing or things merited of an Effect so caused Now when we say that we are interessed in Christs merit and satisfaction that they are Ours that they are imputed to us or bestowed upon us the words Merit or Satisfaction are to be understood in the third sence of the words and in neither of the two former sences If the Question were thus formed or worded What is the subject of Christs merit or satisfaction It is truly to be answered 1. As merit is taken in the second sence the subject thereof I mean Subjectum immediatum seu inhaesionis is Christs merit or satisfaction as taken in the first sence of the words before specified For the worthiness the Vis aptitudinalis or aptitude of Christs Righteousness to merit or satisfie hath to that his Righteousness the habitude of an Adjunct even as the keenness of a Knife or its aptitude to cut hath to the Knife it self the same kind of respect 2. As merit or satisfaction is taken in the first sence yea also in the second sence of the words as before specified so Christ himself is the subject thereof I mean Subjectum denominationis In these two sences his Merit and Satisfaction is truly his own Merit and Satisfaction and so to be denominated but not Ours they being in the said sences of the words Incommunicable to us 3. As Christs Merit or Satisfaction are taken in the third sence of the words before-named Believers are the subject thereof for they are the persons who have interest in or do partake of the saving fruits effects or benefits thereof or thereby purchased Now in this only sence in my apprehension can Christs merit or satisfaction be truly said to be Ours To be imputed to us or bestowed upon us or we to have interest in it or as is the usual expression of some Preachers to have it made over to us Briefly In such a sence as Our Demerit may be said to be Christs so his Merit may be said to be Ours As the word Merit so the word Demerit may possibly mean three things 1. The evil act or action of sinning 2. The demeritoriousness or deservingness of punishment that doth necessarily adhere to that evil action 3. The punishment it self thereby deserved Now in the two former sences of the word a sinners Demerit is his own and not Christs nor did Christ ever assume to or take upon himself our Demerit in any such sence but only in the third sence of the word as that word doth import the punishment it self which we by our sins had merited or deserved CHAP. XX. Q. To what profit would the Righteousness of Christ in it self imputed to the justification of a sinner be more than the Imputation of it in the benefit thereof Answ None at all except that be a benefit which the Familists do pretend unto and which they call Our being Christed with Christ The suffrage of the very learned Dr. Henry More An Objection answered taken from the pretence of several benefits which being distinctly specified in the following Chapters are there manifested to be null and void Quest CU I bono To what purpose or profit would the Righteousness of Christ imputed or the imputation thereof in the sence here disowned to the justification of a sinner be more than the imputation of it in the benefit thereof unto him viz. the remission of his sin Answ None at all so far as I have been able by all that I have heard or read hitherunto to comprehend For what more doth a sinner need or can he in reason desire to receive from God or is he capable of receiving from God through Christ than a free and full pardon of all his sins upon his faithful and penitential return to God in him What more should God do for a penitent and believing soul than to be merciful to his sins or to him a sinner these are Scriptural expressions of Gods pardoning mercy Ps 51.1 Luk. 18.13 Heb. 8.12 for the Righteousness sake of Christ or the meritoriousness thereof Is there any thing beyond Heaven that a believing sinner a sanctified soul can desire And what is it that can keep a sinner out of the Kingdom of Heaven but sin unpardoned Sin retained doth indeed keep the gate of Heaven fast shut against us by the arm of the Almighty but sin remitted or the remission of sin makes those everlasting doors to fly open even as that iron gate did to Peter of its own accord Act. 12.10 whereupon to every pardoned soul there is an entrance ministred abundantly into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ I know no benefit that a sinner is capable of receiving by any imputation of Christs Righteousness beyond what hath been said he doth or shall enjoy through the pardon of his sin unless we shall account it a benefit to be Christed with Christ a benefit which as I do not understand so neither do I think it to have any existence otherwise than as of old in the brains of Jacob Behmen and Henry Nicols so in those their followers styled The Tribe or Family of Love who have infer'd Our being Christed with Christ from such an Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us which being by many others unwarrantably asserted is in this Treatise deservedly disclaimed and opposed I do here call to mind the words of the very learned Doctor Henry More very pertinent to the present purpose If you prescind it says he from remission of sin through the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross this phrase Imputative Righteousness hath no signification at all and that therefore there is no damage done to our Religion if it be not accounted a distinct Article from the Remission of sins in the blood of Christ For it cannot afford any true and useful sence distinct there-from nay I may say any that is not mischievous and dangerous and such as tends to that loathsom and pestilential error of Antinomianism The premisses considered there is just cause to conclude that those Ministers who without affectation of new phrases and modes of speaking do love still to utter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is the Apostles
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
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.
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
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
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