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
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
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 Punishment 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. 73. Chap. xviii Reflections upon certain passages in Dr. J. Owen's Book styled Communion with God concerning Christ his being made ruddy in his own blood Morally by the Imputation of sin and concerning that blessed Bartering and Exchange pretended by him betwixt Believers giving up their sins to Christ and their taking from him that Righteousness which he wrought for them His obscure ambiguous un-Scriptural phrases reproved and his mistakes therein according to obvious construction detected An Objection answered wherein a two-fold Taking or Receiving of a thing is specified and applyed to the purpose in hand His mistake in affirming that the Saints by giving up their sins to Christ and taking from him his Righteousness do fulfil the whole of that in 2 Cor. 5.21 The falshood of the reason asserted by the Doctor why those who said Lord Lord were disappointed in their expectation instead whereof the true reason or reasons are assigned That for sinners to plead their repentance and duties is not to barter with themselves only to take Christs work out of his hand and to ascribe it to other things or to say their duties shall bear their iniquities according as the Dr. misconstrues the matter but it is in very deed and in true construction to put the work of their being actually saved into the hand of Christ and to keep it there The manner of a sinners Bartering with Christ laid open if it may fitly be so styled p. 81 82. Chap. xix In what sence may it be truly said That we are interessed in Christs Merit or Satisfaction In answer hereunto it is said That three things may possibly be meant by the Merit or Satisfaction of Christ which being distinctly specified the Question is accordingly determined p. 98. 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 p. 102. 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 p. 105. Chap. xxii Another benefit pretended to be had by Justification through Christs Righteousness imputed over and above the pardon of our sins is That remission of sin doth take off a sinners obligation to punishment but Justification by Christs Righteousness imputed doth put him into a state of favour and acceptation with God the vanity of which pretence is discovered The definition of Justification given by the late Assembly of Divines in their lesser Catechism explicated so as to reconcile it with the truth of Scripture though not from tautology Three main grounds of the mistake in the difference here pretended to be betwixt remission of sin and justification by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness p. 114. Chap. xxiii A third benefit pretended by a sinners justification through Christs imputed Righteousness over and above remission of sin is That this latter doth only free the sinner from eternal death but justification doth moreover intitle him to eternal life the vanity of which pretence is discovered with an answer to what is objected to the contrary by Mr. Anth. Burges An Answer also to the Question Whether believing sinners are not restored by Christ unto a greater degree of felicity by their justification through Christs Righteousness supposing the Imputation of it than upon the bare score of the forgiveness of their sins The Contradictions of Mr. Anth. Burges in certain particulars instanc'd in p. 118. 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 p. 129. Chap. xxv Another evil Consequence of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence disowned viz. That Believers are as perfectly Righteous as is Christ The Righteous yea that they are more Righteous than if they had in their own persons perfectly kept the whole Law and that they are as acceptable to God the Father as is Christ himself The falshood and impiety of which sayings at large manifested and some Scriptures which are suborned to speak against the truth vindicated That man may be said to be justified by the Righteousness of another and not by his own three ways in the Application of which distinction it is plainly declared in what sence we are and in what sence we are not justified by the Righteousness of another and not by our own Several unjustifiable and intolerable sayings of Dr. Owen in his Book styled Communion with God related with brotherly and necessary animadversions thereupon p. 133. Chap. xxvi Another evil Consequence of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence opposed That God sees no sin in the Saints all their sins being covered from the sight of God by their being clothed with the Righteousness of Christ the falsity of which is discovered and certain Scriptures vindicated from their abuse A reply to Dr. Owen who denies That it will follow from the said Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us that we are as perfectly righteous as Christ is p. 147. 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 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 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
be it observed That as Righteousness in the former sense may not unfitly as I think be styled a Passive and in the latter an Active Righteousness so the said two different senses of the word Righteousness do differ as Officium Beneficium the one being the receiving of some good They differ as work and wages as Duty and Mercy or benefit confer'd on us the other the doing of some good or duty performed by us The phrase receiving righteousness see in Psal 24.5 He shall receive the blessing from the Lord and Righteousness from the God of his Salvation Righteousness in that place being the self same thing with Gods blessing his saving blessing The phrase doing righteousness see in 1 Joh. 3.7 He that doth righteousness is righteous As this is stiled a sowing of righteousness Prov. 11.28 so that may very fitly and suitably to the language of Scripture both of the Old and New Testament be styled Reaping Righteousness Hos 10.12 Gal. 6.7 8 9. Now in this proper formal sense of the word Righteousness the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us is a doctrine however owned by too too many yet by very many others of our own and forraign Protestant Churches justly disowned as that which is no where to be found in Scripture whether in the words or meaning of any Text in Scripture for to assert that Christs Righteousness is in this sense imputed to us is to assert That God doth account or reckon that the Righteousness which Christ wrought we wrought in and by him or that we are reputed by God to have fulfilled the Law and satisfied Divine Justice in and by Christ that what Christ did in his own natural Person God doth account we did in and by him for to have any thing imputed to a man in the propriety formality or essential nature of the thing is to be reputed the doer of what is so imputed to him these being terms equivalent and explicatory one of another and as thus explicated do the Brethren whom I do take upon me in this point to oppose openly own the said doctrine touching the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us it being their errour to think that Christs Righteousness cannot be accepted by God in our behoof or prove savingly beneficial to us unless it be imputed to us in their said sense or to imagine as they do a necessity that what is imputed to or for the justification of a sinner should be reputed to be done by him who is justified for it sufficeth to imputation in this case if that which is done be accepted of God in the behalf of sinners or instead of that which a justified person should in his own person have performed Nor is there any cause or colour for them to suspect that the denial of the said Imputation in their said sense doth infer or include a denyal of Christs satisfaction whether in the thing it self or in the blessed effects of it I am at once both sorry and I wonder to read such passages as these in some learned Authors they saying to this purpose viz. That human reason or mans understanding cannot comprehend how Christs satisfaction can be of saving benefit to us unless it be imputed to us in its formal and essential nature The contrary whereunto is as obvious to be conceived by any unprejudicate person as obvious almost can be For my own part I do humbly conceive it to be a great and dangerous mistake to think that Christ satisfied Divine Justice for believing sinners that they might be reputed by God to have satisfied in and by him as their surety the truth of Scripture to my understanding being this viz. That Jesus Christ did in human nature and his own person as Mediatour or in the person of a Mediatour betwixt God and Man satisfie Divine Justice not that we might be reputed to have satisfied in and by him or that his very satisfaction should be imputed to us but that no such satisfaction should be required of us and that his fulfilling of the law of Mediatorship was accepted of God not as our fulfilling either of that law for the law of Mediatorship belonged not to us it being peculiar to Christ himself or of any other law whatsoever but it was reckoned reputed or accepted by God as a satisfaction for our not fulfilling the law of God imposed upon mankind I mean the law in the rigour of it or as a covenant of works and that such an exact fulfilling of the law should not be exacted of us as the covenanted condition of our salvation but that faith and sincere obedience to the Gospel of Christ should be so required And I am glad to perceive that in asserting the end of Christs satisfaction for mankind I have the concurrence of the Authour of the Book lately published styled The interest of Reason in Religion he saying pag. 548. It was in consequence of Christs susception to be our Sponsor or Mediator say I the word Sponsor and Mediator being promiscuously used by the Apostle as appears by comparing Heb. 7.22 with chap. 8.6 and this latter word being of more frequent use with the Apostle than the former that being only once in its usage applyed to Christ in Scripture and with respect to the obedience of his life and sacrifice of his death as the procuring and deserving cause that God entred into a covenant with mankind promising to pardon their sins receive them into favour and crown them with life upon such terms and conditions as the Father and Son thought fit to prescribe In these words the word Mankind is remarkable the Authour saying expresly That for Christs sake for the obedience of his life and sacrifice of his death as the deserving cause thereof God entred into a Covenant not only with a few with the Elect only but with Mankind promising And I am the more glad to perceive that I have the concurrence of the said Authour in asserting the Covenant of Grace to be procured for Mankind because I shall have occasion by and by to mention some things wherein I am necessitated much against my will to dissent from him and certain others of my Brethren And I shall take a fit occasion to do it in answer to an Argument for the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sense disowned by my self with many others taken from those words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 5.21 from which words I have seen in a certain learned Author the Argument thus formed as shall be expressed in the beginning of the next Chapter CHAP. IV. ' An Objection from 2 Cor. 5.21 answered and also retorted The blasphemy of Mr. William Eyre in his Assize-Sermon preached at Sarum 1652. reproved QUomodo in what sort or manner Christ was made sin for us in the same manner was he made Righteousness to us But he was made sin for us only by Imputation Ergo Answ This Argument is not at all to the purpose in hand or
them and by justification he accepts us as Righteous is all one as to say That by remission of sin God pardoneth or dischargeth us from our sins of Commission and by Justification he pardoneth or dischargeth us from our sins of Omission and how unreasonable this assertion is it 's easie to determine The main grounds of the difference in this Chapter pretended to be betwixt remission of sin and Justification seem to be these 1. Because such pretenders do not consider that there are sins of Omission as well as of Commission and that whensoever or to whomsoever God pardons the one he pardons the other 2. Because they fancy an Imputation of Christs Righteousness to a sinner in or towards his justification which is not towards or in order to his pardon whereas it is the undoubted truth of Scripture that Christs Righteousness is no more or otherwise imputed for or in order to the one than the other 3. Because they fancy such a kind of Imputation of Christs Righteousness or that it is in such a sence imputed to a sinner in his justification they making it not the Medium unto a sinners righteousness but the very thing it self as is repugnant both to reason and Scripture CHAP. XXIII A third benefit pretended by a sinners justification through Christs imputed Righteousness over and above remission of sin is That this latter doth only free the sinner from eternal death but justification doth moreover intitle him to eternal life the vanity of which pretence is discovered with an answer to what is objected to the contrary by Mr. Anth. Burges An Answer also to the Question Whether believing sinners are not restored by Christ unto a greater degree of felicity by their justification through Christs Righteousness supposing the Imputation of it than upon the bare score of the forgiveness of their sins The Contradictions of Mr. Anth. Burges in certain particulars instanc'd in A Third benefit much-what of affinity with that in the foregoing Chapter pretended by a sinners justification through Christs imputed Righteousness over and above the Remission of his sins is That remission of sin doth only free a sinner from eternal death but justification doth more i. e. it entitles him to eternal life To this I reply That the thing here pretended hath been indeed asserted by several Writers and Preachers but for the discovery of their mistake therein I need not say much more than to desire the Reader to reflect upon what hath been already said specially in the foregoing Chapter and withal to consider That forasmuch as the loss or forfeiture of our title to life is one part of the deserved punishment of sin it must needs follow that a sinners deserved punishment being remitted through a pardon he is Ipso facto and eo nomine restored unto that title to life eternal which by his sin he had lost or forfeited If a sinner being obliged to lose heaven and to be cast into hell for his sin shall be once pardoned through the dissolution of that his obligation by a pardon he becomes In statu quo prius he hath right to impunity of both kinds I mean to freedom from hell and to the enjoyment of heaven If the loss of the enjoyment of God be punishment of its kind called therefore Poena damni then doth pardon of sin restore right to that enjoyment of God else the sinner is not fully pardoned no more than justified as if a Traytor or Murderer be pardoned yet must lose his goods he is then pardoned as to his life and lands but not as to his goods So that a sinner so far forth as he is pardoned he is justified there being no more in the justification of an offendor than pardon of sin as to the form or formal nature of the thing I will spend this Chapter in answering such Arguments as I have seen alledged for the strengthening of the said vain pretence and shall begin with Mr. Anthony Burges He saith in his Book of Justification the second part Object It follows not where all evil is removed in a subject capable all good is introduced if a man shall not be damned he must be saved for though these are inseparable yet this doth not follow Ex naturâ rei but extrinsecally by the order and appointment of God because God might have delivered a sinner from hell and yet have annihilated him as a King may forgive a Malefactor by sparing his life and yet not admit him for a Courtier and make him a Favourite Is not Annihilation an eternal evil Why then doth this Author or how can he in reason suppose a person pardoned to be annihilated he acknowledging withal that pardon of sin doth remove the eternal evil that was deserved Answ 1. Although I grant That hell-torments are one thing and the annihilating of a sinner is another yet I must needs say That this learned Author with certain others do speak after a strange rate or notion of pardon who do speak of a person pardoned or disobliged from punishment and yet will suppose him to be annihilated For to suppose him to be annihilated is to suppose him not to be pardoned but punished and that severely too 2. They who say That God might have freed a sinner from eternal death and then by annihilation have rendred him uncapable of eternal life do in plain consequence say That God might have pardoned a sinner and then have punished him 3. Though I yield these three things 1. That Annihilation is rather to be chosen than hell That Praestat non esse quam semper miserum esse 2. That upon that account a sinner set free from hell and yet annihilated may be said to be pardoned in a diminutive sence that is to halves or comparatively with himself if he had been cast into that lake which burneth with fire and brimstone for ever 3. That God in his soveraignty or by vertue of his absolute dominion or à priori might if he had so pleased have in such sort pardoned a sinner to halves by annihilation This I yield For as it is in Gods power to pardon a sinner upon what terms in what way and at what time so also how far forth or in what degrees it seemeth good to his divine wisdom and pleasure But these Concessions notwithstanding be it considered That God hath in his Word revealed his divine will and pleasure in this point viz. That he is so well pleased with the satisfaction of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord as to promise unto and in due time to bestow upon believing sinners not a partial pardon but a full and plenary pardon of sin and from this plenary pardon so promised according to Gods good pleasure it doth I say necessarily follow That if a sinner be pardoned with that pardon which the Gospel promiseth and which alone is here in question he is Ipso facto restored into Gods favour and fatherly acceptation and entitled to life
they do in a passive sence of the word receive it i. e. they by means of their believing do enjoy the righteousness or obedience of Christ in the saving fruits and effects thereof 2. The Doctor doth errâ— grosly in thinking That by the righteousness of the Law the Apostle means his own evangelical righteousness or obedience to the Gospel-Law and that this is it which heopposes to Christs personal righteousness or to Christs obedience to the Law For it is plain both by the Text it self and Context That by the Law he means the Jewish Law and that by his own righteousness he means that which was his own when a Jew not that which was his own when a Convert to the Christian faith and that the things there opposed are Judaism and Christianity or Judaical observances and the practical knowledg of Christ So that our own evangelical righteousness is neither in the same kind nor in any other kind there opposed to the obedience of Christ nor is it either in that Scripture or in any other excluded from such an end which Christs Righteousness doth obtain I mean the salvation of a sinner For in order to this end our evangelical righteousness stands not in any opposition but in a due subordination to Christs As Christs Righteousness doth after a manner peculiar to it self so doth our own righteousness in its manner tend to our obtaining that which St. Peter styles The end of our faith even the salvation of our souls Whence that command of the Apostle So run that ye may obtain 1 Cor. 9.24 It is by running that through by or under Christ we do obtain 3. The Doctor perverts the sence of 1 Cor. 1.30 that Scripture in no fort proving the thing for the proof whereof it is alledged by him For the Apostle doth not there say as he would have him That Christ is made Righteousness unto us by Gods reckoning or imputing Christs perfect and compleat obedience of the Law unto us this being the thing undertaken by him to be proved by that Scripture which as that Scripture doth not prove for it proves only that Christ was of God made Righteousness unto us so another place of Scripture 2 Cor. 5.21 doth most convincingly disprove it it being there asserted that we are made in Christ the Righteousness of God i. e. very righteous by God the abstract being put for the concrete as is very usual in the language of Scripture and particularly so used Esa 60.17 where God promiseth to his Church that he will make all their Exactors Righteousness i. e. very just honest or righteous it being I say there asserted that we are of God made in Christ most righteous by means of his being made sin i. e. a sin-offering for us not by Gods reckoning to us Christs perfect and compleat obedience to the Law In the same Page again he abuses that Text in Rom. 5.10 saying The issue of the death of Christ is placed upon reconciliation that is a slaying of the enmity and restoring us into that condition of peace and friendship wherein Adam was before his fall But is there no more to be done Notwithstanding that there was no wrath due to Adam yet be was to obey if he would enjoy eternal life Something moreover there is to be done in respect of us if after the slaying of the enmity and reconciliation made we shall enjoy life being reconciled by his death we are saved by that perfect obedience which in his life he yielded to the Law of God Answ 1. I have already vindicated that Scripture from the same abuse put upon it by the Doctor having manifested that by the life of Christ is there meant the life which he now lives in glory interceding for us at the right hand of God not the life which he lived on earth 2. Had the Apostle meant the life which Christ lived on earth it will not thence follow that his meaning was that we are saved by Gods reckoning to us the perfect and compleat obedience of that his life i. e. imputing his obedience it self unto us 3. Though being reconciled to God there is somewhat to be done by us i. e. in order to the continuing of our friendship with God nevertheless there needs no more to a sinners salvation at present than his present reconciliation nor doth there need more to his future and final salvation than the continuance of his reconciliation and friendship with God For if being reconciled to God he and we do continue friends we shall as certainly be saved as it is certain that Christ at the right hand of God ever liveth to make intercession for us 4. It is salsly insinuated by the Doctor That Christ hath done more or that it is needful that he should do more for our salvation than for our reconciliation I mean for the beginning continuing or perfecting of the one than of the other salvation from the guilt of sin whether it be initial progressive or consummate being in effect the same benefit with Reconciliation with God in its being begun continued and made perfect in the fruit thereof 5. If there was no wrath due to Adam nothing could ever have obstructed his entrance into life the contrary whereunto is presumed by the Doctor 6. As it was once already said so I say again That Adam was to obey not that he might enjoy a right to eternal life which he had not antecedently to that his actual obedience but that his title thereunto might be continued and he thereupon might be brought at last to the full enjoyment thereof The Doctor proceeds in the same Page to abuse the Scriptures by whole clusters which I will endeavour to manifest in the next Chapter 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 HE saith p. 186. There is distinct mention made of Reconciliation through a non-imputation of sin as Psal 32.1 Luk. 1.77 Rom. 3.25 2 Cor. 5.19 and justification through an Imputation of righteousness Jer. 23.6 Rom. 4.5 1 Cor. 1.30 although these things are so far from being separated that they are reciprocally affirmed of one another which as it doth not evince an identity so it doth an eminent conjunction And this last we have by the life of Christ Answ 1. There is no mention at all so much as of the word Reconciliation in three of the four recited Scriptures viz. Psal 32.1 Luk. 1.77 Rom. 3.25 And by perusing the places the Reader may know
Sinner with a witness a great Sinner the word Scelus being used by Latinists sometimes for Scelestus But I do not charge this sense as intended by that Renowned Authour however it be owned by Mr. William Eyre in his Sermon forecited he quoting in the Margin of his Book certain of the Ancients Austin and Oecumenius as asserting the same 4. If the said Authour must be supposed to insinuate That the phrase To be made sin is pregnant of more sense or doth imply more than To be made a Sinner I can say no less than there is no such implication but an implication of the contrary For To be made sin is a less thing yea it is quite another kind of thing than to be made a Sinner for to be made a Sinner is to be made Culpable Reus culpae or guilty of fault whereas to be made Sin doth imply no more than respectively to suffering to be dealt with as a Sinner or to be made a Sin-offering as was afore said 5. As guilt is distinguished or a distinct thing from punishment these two things usually distinguished by Reatus Culpae Poenae and sometimes by Obligatio ad Culpam Obligatio ad Poenam as hath been already said Christ cannot be truly said to have been made Sin in respect of the guilt this being in effect to say That he was made Culpable or a Sinner and did thereupon deserve to suffer 6. As to know no Sin and to do no Sin are phrases of the self same adequate sense and importance so also are the phrases To be made a curse and to be made accursed the former though more emphatically significant of the Speakers intended sense yet not importing more sense as intended to be spoken 7. Christ was no otherwise made Sin than he was made a curse for in this very respect he is in one Scripture said by the Apostle to have been made Sin for us in that as the Apostle expresseth and interprets himself in another Scripture he was made A Curse for us for he was made a Sin-offering by undergoing the cursed death of the Cross or as Saint Peter expresseth the matter 1 Pet. 2.24 By bearing our sins in his own body upon the Tree as the Altar upon which he offered himself as a Sacrifice without any spot of Sin to God 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 HAving thus replyed to the words of that Learned Bishop under whose authority the Adversaries do in this contest take shelter I shall address my self to make answer to Mr. Robert Ferguson who being a zealous asserter of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sense here disclaimed and oppugned by me doth endeavour the propugnation and defence thereof in the following passages of his fore-named Book The Interest of Reason in Religion Mr. Ferguson P. 409. I will not here discourse how inconsistent it seems with the wisdom and sapience of God to introduce a perfect righteousness such as that of his Son was meerly to make way for his justifying us upon an imperfect righteousness such as that of our obedience is Answ So far as appears to me by the reading of his Book this Brother hath not the true notion I do not say of justification in general or of the word as indefinitely taken but of Gospel-justification or the justification of a sinner which neither is nor can be otherwise than by a pardon and this pardon is not ex nudâ Dei voluntate meerly of divine will and pleasure but merited by the satisfaction of Christ Of this his mistake of the quiddity or true nature of Gospel-justification I may have occasion to speak in reply to some other passages of his Book In the mean time I shall take it as a truth not to be gainsaid That Gospel-justification is forgiveness of sin this kind of justification being it alone that a sinner is a subject capable of and thereupon I do reply That however the matter seems to this Author nevertheless in truth it is no way inconsistent with the wisdom of God for the sake of his Sons most perfect righteousness to justifie or pardon sinners upon an imperfect righteousness such as that of our obedience is which if perfect would have no need of pardon P. 409. Nor shall I argue Mr. F. How that the righteousness of Christs life and sacrifice of his death must be imputed to us for justification in a proportionableness to our sins having been imputed to him in order to his expiatory suffering Answ I have already granted that in what sence or sort our sins may be said to have been imputed to Christ his righteousness may be said to be imputed to us but withal declared that neither of them can be truly so said to be imputed in the proper sence of the words sin and righteousness which is the sence of this Author and his Abettors but in an improper sence i. e. in the fruit and effects both of the one and the other P. 409 410. Mr. F. To attribute Christs sufferings meerly to Gods dominion without any respect to sin is the grossest of Socinianism and repugnant to the Scripture in an hundred places Answ They who deny the imputation of Christs righteousness unto us in the sence by this Author asserted are far from attributing Christs sufferings meerly unto Gods dominion without any respect to sin For as they do unanimously preach and print that Christs sufferings had a respect to our sins so they do attribute his sufferings not meerly to Gods dominion without any respect to sin but to that voluntary compact which was betwixt the Father and the Son that Jesus Christ should suffer for sin and sinners and that thereby he merited our pardon 2. Consequently I cannot forbear to say That it doth very ill become this Author to insinuate so foul a slander against his Brethren as guilty of Socinianism gross Socinianism the grossest Socinianism in this matter ‖ Mr. F. See amongst other Scriptures Esa 53.5 6. 1 Pet. 2.24 Gal. 3.13 and Dr. Stillingfleet's vindication of them from the exceptions of Crellius P. 410. To say That our sins were imputed to Christ in the effects of them but not in the guilt is to contradict all principles of reason For guilt and obnoxiousness to punishment being equipollent
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
Covenant or Decree of God and at the time appointed most fully make whence it is that the Apostle says He gave himself A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a counter-price a satisfaction instead of a satisfaction 1 Tim. 2.6 2. The second Law or Covenant is that wherein we sinners are the Restipulators and which in Scripture is styled The Promise The Law of Faith The Gospel The new Covenant wherein God through Christ doth promise remission of sin upon certain conditions upon performance whereof he doth accordingly bestow it upon us 3. Remission of sin may be styled Justification in respect of the profit or benefit thereof and this both special and general 1. Special In that it doth prevent remove or take away the obligation to condemnation which is due to sinners which condemnation is the direct opposite to Justification as is apparent by many Scriptures 2. In general In that it is equivalent unto or will prove to be of like universal benefit priviledge or emolument to a sinner with that kind of Justification which is the justification of a person who in himself is altogether just and never was obnoxious Thus have I replyed to the whole of what Mr. Ferguson hath said in his second Chapter concerning a sinners Justification and the imputation of Christs Righteousness unto him But before I proceed to reply to any other passage in his Book which concerns the matter in hand I will answer a Question that will come in fitly to be proposed by occasion of what hath been said upon this last namely That the justification of a sinner is By a Law 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 acknowledge 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 Q. HOW is the Justification of a sinner to be denominated whether Evangelical or rather Legal Answ I propose this Question not for the satisfaction of Mr. Ferguson but for the sake of some other Brethren who may need a due information therein And my answer is That forasmuch as that Law by which a sinner is justified is The Law of Faith of Grace or of the Gospel it is therefore to be denominated not a Legal but an Evangelical Justification Herein by not Legal I must not in reason be understood to mean Not in any sence so or by no Law at all but not by the Law of works or as the word Legal is opposed to or contradistinguished from the word Evangelical And there cannot be as I think a more convincing Argument to prove That Evangelical in the case or question in hand is the fittest name than by alledging that The Law of works is not the Law By which but a Law From which i. e. by an appeal from which to the Law of grace a sinner is and is to be justified which will be granted by all viz. That the Law by which a sinner is justified is an Evangelical Law the Law of the Gospel For forasmuch as the Law by which a man was and is to be justified is two-fold 1. The Law of God Creator commonly styled Lex originalis or Law of works 2. The Law of God Redeemer called Lex remedians or the Law of grace or faith and forasmuch as the former Law was enacted as the Rule of justifying an innocent person and the latter of a sinner how can we better express the difference betwixt the justification of an innocent and a sinner than by styling the former a Legal and the latter an Evangelical Justification The peculiar species of the Law by which a person is justified is that which doth specificate the justification it self and is therefore most apt and fit to give it its peculiar denomination I desire That the answer here given may the rather be duely weighed and observ'd because it may serve to rectifie the mistake of a certain learned Author perhaps also of some other Brethren who albeit he doth allow a sinners justification to be Evangelical ex parte principii Evangelical Grace in Christ being the fountain of it and so to be called with a respect thereunto nevertheless he will not allow it roundly and absolutely to be denominated Evangelical but rather Legal for these two reasons Because it is Legal ex parte termini medii 1. Ex parte termini because it is minated in the satisfaction which is to be made or performed to the Law He hath freed me from the Law of sin and death To this I answer What he means here by the satisfaction to be made to the Law upon which the justification of a sinner is by him said to be terminated I do not know nor will I take upon me so much as to guess lest I should mistake his meaning only I will say as followeth 1. That by the Law of the Spirit of life Rom. 8.2 is meant the Evangelical Law the Gospel of Christ or Law of Faith 2. That Justification is one part at least of that saving benefit which the Apostle comprizeth under the expression of his being by that Law made free from the Law of sin and death it being as well the guilt of sin as the power of sin which by that Law he was made free from 3. Consequently I say That that Scripture proves not the Author's purpose but the direct contrary viz. That because it is by the Law of the Gospel that we are made free or justified from the guilt of our sins therefore our Justification is to be called Evangelical and not Legal 2. Respeciu medii in respec̄i of the means says he which is the Legal Righteousness of Chrifr by or through faith imputed to us To this I answer 1. As in some respect the Righteousness of Christ may be styled Justitia Legalis the Law of his Mediatorship requiring it and it being the rule thereof so in another respect it may be fitly said to be Justitia pro-Legalis it being to us instead or standing us instead of a perfect legal Righteousness so also in another respect it may very fitly be styled and so I find it styled by some Authors our evangelical righteousness and an evangelical righteousness it may I say be very fitly styled 1. Because the Gospel is it and it alone not the light of nature by which it is revealed and made known to the world 2. Because it was of Gods grace to appoint it 3. To accept it also and this for gracious or Gospel-ends viz. the pardon or justification of sinners And for this reason I may well conclude That the justification of sinners is to be denominated not a legal as the Author contends for but an evangelical Justification 2. As for his saying That this
these words To appoint to them that mourn in Zion to give unto them beauty for ashes the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness So that by the whole of that expression we can understand no more than the great goodness and bounty of God let the particulars in the retail thereof whether in temporals or spirituals or in both be what they will promised or manifested to his Church and manifested by them in a suitable manner of open and solemn rejoycing for them Quest May it not be truly said in some sence that Believers are clothed with Christs Righteousness Answ Yes Yet more fully be it known that as it may be truly and falsly said that Christs Righteousness is imputed to us according to the different sences of the word Righteousness mentioned in the third Chapter so it is both true and false to say That we are clothed with the Righteousness of Christ e. g. Christs Righteousness being taken properly in its essential nature it is notoriously false to say that we are clothed therewith For so taken it is Christs own clothing and not ours he is glorious in this apparrel and he will not give this his glory to another and as Saul's Armour would not fit David so neither will Christs Righteousness taken in this sence suit with any other but himself who was God and man in one person As it is a point of disloyalty in a vassal to put on the Ensigns of Majesty upon himself The Crown Royal upon his head so it is a disloyal thought a most unbecoming thing for a wretched sinner to imagine himself vested with the Royal Robe of Christs Righteousness the only begotten Son of God But as the word Righteousness is taken improperly Effectivè for the fruits and effects of it so it is true to say That we are clothed with his Righteousness i. e. we are clothed our spiritual nakedness is covered we are arrayed with a garment or garments procured or purchased with the Righteousness of Jesus Christ So that if the Question were thus formed May Christs Righteousness be truly said to be a sinners clothing It must be answered That this Proposition Christs Righteousness is a sinners clothing is true Praedicatione causali but not Essentiali or formali i. e. it it self or in it self is not our clothing nor are we vested in or with it but with the fruits of it it being the meritorious cause that hath procured all necessary clothing for the covering of our nakedness for our comfortable appearance before God and our gracious acceptance with him which clothing may summarily be refer'd I think to these two heads viz. Justification and Sanctification both which may be said to be our clothing Nevertheless I do judg it to be more fitly and intelligibly said That our sins are covered with a pardon rather than with Christs Righteousness the one being verified in an immediate sence the other in a sence more remote both in it self and from common understanding But it must ever be remembred that the pardon which covers our sins is a blessing purchased by the Righteousness of Christ and for that reason in such a sence as a ransomed Captive or bought Servant is said to be his Masters or Redeemers money because he was bought with their money in a like sence may the clothing wherewith we are clothed be said to be the Robe of Christs Righteousness because Christs Righteousness was the price wherewith that our clothing whatsoever it be be it sanctification or justification grace or glory for even with this Believers are said to be clothed upon 2 Cor. 5.2 4. was dearly bought or purchased And in this sence the price or hire it self which is given for an House is used to signifie the House wherewith it was hired as appears by Act. 28.30 where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth properly signifie the hire of a thing be it of an House or ought else and which was given by St. Paul or some other in his behalf is styled His own hired House 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 FOrasmuch as there are several passages in Dr. Owen's Book of Communion with God wherein the contrary is asserted to what hath been maintained in the foregoing Chapters he asserting That over and above the taking away the guilt of sin it is necessary in order to our being saved that we should be actually righteous and for that purpose that the Righteousness of Christ should be imputed to us I shall therefore think it not amiss to recite the chief of those passages and to reply thereunto which shall be the subject of three or four of the ensuing Chapters The Doctor having told us That Christ satisfies for sin and procures the remission of it p. 116. he proceeds to say in the following page There is something more required it is not enough we are not guilty We must also be actually righteous Not only all sin must be answered for but all righteousness is to be fulfilled By taking away the guilt of sin we are as persons innocent but something more is required to make us to be considered as persons obedient I know nothing to teach me that an innocent person shall go to heaven be rewarded if he be no more but so Adam was innocent at his first creation but he was to do this to keep the Commandments before he entred into life he had no title to life by innocency This then moreover is required that th◠whole Law be fulfilled and all the obedience performed that God requires at our hands This is the souls second enquiry and it finds a resolution only in the Lord Christ For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life his death reconciled us then are we saved by his life The actual obedience which he yielded to the whole Law of God is that Righteousness whereby we are saved If so be we are found in him not having our own righteousness which is of the Law but the Righteousness which is of God by faith Phil. 3.9 This I shall have occasion to handle more at large hereafter Answ Somewhat to this purpose being alledged by other Authors hath been already answered in Chap. 23. Nevertheless I shall here make reply to every dictinct passage in the words recited 1. When all sin is answered for all the righteousness which God requireth for that time is fulfilled For the Law is fulfill'd two ways viz. Either by performance of perfect obedience to it or by suffering sufficient punishment for the breach of it Either of these is a satisfaction to the justice of God Now Gods Law doth not bind to both these Copulativè i. e. it
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