phrases he cannot be supposed to have been made liable to the last upon the account of our sins without having been brought under the first Nor is it imaginable how without submitting to the guilt of our sins he could have been punished should it be granted that without respect to them he might have suffered Though without any habitude to sin his sufferings might have been dolorous yet they could never have been penal Answ 1. To say That our sins were imputed to Christ in the effects of them i. e. in the deserved punishment thereof but withal to deny that our guilt of fault was imputed to Christ is not to contradict all principles nor any one principle of reason 2. Nor doth it at all contradict any of those Scriptures alledged by this Author in the Margin of his Book which Scriptures do only prove an imputation of our sins to Christ in the sence I own and acknowledg i. e. in Christ his undergoing suffering for them but not in his taking our guilt upon him And as Dr. Stillingfleet doth well maintain the imputation of our sins to Christ in the former respect i. e. the effects of them so I am perswaded that that most learned Doctor is a man of more reason and better principled than to maintain the imputation of our guilt to Christ as this Author would have it 3. I grant That guilt and obnoxiousness to punishment are equipollent phrases but I deny that it will follow from thence that because Christ took upon him to suffer the punishment which we for our sins deserved he did therefore take upon him our guilt He did indeed take upon him a certain guilt or obligation to suffering i. e. a guilt or obligation peculiar to himself but not the same guilt that lay upon us not our guilt not the same numerical guilt for Philosophy tells us that an accident being removed from the subject perisheth nor the same specifical guilt i. e. of the same sort but a guilt specifically different not having the same but a far different Substratum ground foundation or efficient from ours ours being Violatae Legis grounded or founded upon our transgression of Gods Law but his Sponsionis propriae an obligation of contract or consent founded upon the agreement betwixt him and his Father in that behalf Obligation to punishment we stile guilt and our guilt was guilt of fault and of suffering for our fault from or by vertue of Gods Law threatning the same but Christs guilt was only guilt of suffering for our fault arising from or by vertue of his voluntary undertaking and compliance with the will of his Father Briefly That Law of God which did threaten man with suffering for sin did not oblige Christ to suffer for it or us nor did he die by vertue of that Law threatning man with death upon supposition of his sin Gen. 2.17 nor was that Law fulfilled or executed in his death but by occasion of that sin-threatning Law transgressed by man he did voluntarily oblige himself in the person of a Mediator to suffer and to suffer death for us or for our sins i. e. the expiation of them 4. Christ may well be supposed to be liable to suffering upon the account of our sins by vertue of the said contract betwixt him and his Father without having been brought under our personal specifical guilt And it is easily imaginable that without submitting to our personal guilt he might suffer such suffering as was equivalent to that punishment which we by our sins had deserved This is as easily imaginable as to imagine how St. Paul should take upon himself to satisfie for the damage which was done to Philemon by the injury of his unfaithful servant Onesimus and was willing to have the same imputed to him as the word signifies Philem 18. and yet not submit unto or take upon him Onesimus his personal guilt of defrauding or wrong-doing And to speak the very truth in such a sence as St. Paul was willing to take upon himself the wrong done to Philemon by Onesimus and to have it reckoned to him saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impute it unto me meaning thereby not Onesimus his personal guilt Reatum culpae or his sin it self but the effects of it in the damage thereby sustained by his Master In the like sence I say were our sins reckoned or imputed to Christ he taking upon him an obligation by his doings and sufferings to satisfie for the damage or wrong done to God as I may so say I mean to vindicate the Honour and Authority of the Law and Law-giver to demonstrate the justice of God his hatred of sin And indeed herein viz. in an aptitude for the attainment of these and the like ends of God our Maker Ruler Law-giver Benefactor better than the damnation of all mankind could have done consisteth the meritoriousness and satisfactoriness of Christs doings and sufferings and this is the reason of our styling them satisfactory or meritorious 5. Though we deny that Christ took upon him our guilt of sin yet it will not follow from thence that we deny his sufferings to have had any habitude or respect at all to sin as is here insinuated by this Author for had it not been for our sin he had never suffered 6. Forasmuch as Christs sufferings had not the self same individual or kind of habitude to sin as our sufferings in case we had suffered according to our desert would have had i. e. forasmuch as Christs sufferings were not merited or inflicted on him by or upon account of any sin of his own therefore are his sufferings to be accounted rather dolorous than penal I mean punishments in a strict and the most proper acceptation of the word punishment being properly and strictly Malum triste inflicted upon a guilty person propter malum turpe Proper punishment I conceive to be the effect of proper guilt which is Reatus Criminis Guilt of fault not meerly Contracius of Contract as Christs was P. 410. Mr. F. 'T is a thing utterly unintelligible how Christ could be made sin for us and have our punishment transferred to him without a previous imputation of sin and the derivation of its guilt upon him Answ What this Author hath asserted to be unsupposable unimaginable and here asserts to be utterly unintelligible I have already as I am perswaded made plain obvious and easie to be understood by every intelligent impartial unprepossessed Reader and I shall shew my self ready to do it further as this Author shall minister occasion P. 410. Mr. F. Now by proportion If our sins were imputed to Christ otherwise than meerly in the effects of them so must likewise the righteousness of his life and sacrifice of his death be otherwise imputed to us than meerly in the benefits of them Answ Having made it apparent in my foregoing Answers to this Authors arguings that our sins in the propriety of the word were not imputed to Christ or otherwise
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
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
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
legal Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us by or through faith I answer 1. It is not at all imputed to us in the sence of this Author i. e. properly and in its essential nature but only in the saving effects thereof as I have already I hope convincingly demonstrated 2. Nevertheless I grant that in subordination to the Righteousness of Christ faith is a Medium or means of a sinners justification though it is another kind of Medium than is Christs Righteousness to which it is subordinate in the justifying of a sinner Christs Righteousness being such a Medium as hath the nature or efficiency of a meritorious cause but our faith having only the nature of a condition simply so called I have thought meet to intimate this for these two reasons 1. To prevent the mis-understanding of what I said in the foregoing Chapter wherein was said that Gospel-pardon was ex Christi satisfactione and ex peccatoris fide which must not be so understood as if the word ex did imply the self same importance in both places For the truth is that as the particle ex is of different importance it importing sometimes one kind of cause and sometimes another and sometimes no cause at all but an antecedent condition and the same I may say of the particles in English Greek and Hebrew corresponding to the Latine particle ex so in the former application of the particle it doth imply efficiency or an efficient meritorious cause but in the latter only an antecedent or a condition sine quâ non 2. To prevent the mis-construction of the word faith in many places of Scripture where by faith many do understand only its object Christ or his Righteousness whereas as faith and Christs Righteousness are two things of distinct consideration so by faith in such sayings as these We are justified By faith and saved By faith we are to understand not only the object thereof as implyed Christ or his Righteousness but also the act believing or the thing it self faith Lastly I answer That forasmuch as God is graciously pleased in his Gospel to appoint and to declare his acceptance of faith as the condition of a sinners justification through or for the sake of Christs Righteousness therefore I answer as before That a sinners justification is to be denominated rather Evangelical than Legal I shall now return to Mr. Ferguson and reply to certain other passages which I find here and there dispersed in his Book as grounds for the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us in the sence by him contended for CHAP. XV. Several mistakes in Mr. F. according to the obvious construction of his words detected That Christ suffered not the Idem but the Tantundem manifested by three things distinctly specified and two evil consequences of the contrary Doctrine With a Caution in the close P. 536. MAN having taken off his dependency upon God Mr. F3 by transgressing the Law of Creation Gods Rectorship over him which is regulated by his wisdom holiness veracity and the eternal rectitude and righteousness of his nature would not allow that he should be received into favour but in such a way and by such means as may secure the ends of government manifest the displicency that is in God to sin evidence his truth and immutability in proceeding according to the penal Law which in pursuance of his own Attributes and mans rational nature and relation he had at first enacted Answ I assent to the whole of what is here recited except this That God did for the ends specified proceed according to the penal Law which at first was enacted in which saying there is a complication of mistakes involved for 1. That Law was only dispenced and not executed neither upon Christ nor upon mankind not upon Christ for Christ was not at all threatned in that Law neither did he die the death by vertue of that Law however by occasion of it as hath been already said Nor was that Law executed upon all mankind supposing and taking it for granted that by the death there threatned is meant eternal as well as temporal death 2. A mistake of the nature of that obligation which a divine commination doth induce seems to be implyed in the said words of this Author for Comminatio est obligatio Legem violantis ad poenam ferendam The threatnings of God do induce only an obligation upon transgressors to suffer the punishment threatned but not any necessary obligation upon God to inflict it non Legem ferentis ad inferendam that commination did signifie what man was bound to suffer not what God was bound to do Upon disobedience man was bound to suffer but God was not thereupon bound to inflict punishment otherwise supream Law-givers could have no power to pardon and therefore there is no necessity that the punishment threatned should be executed and it is an error to assert or imagine any such necessity The only inevitable effect of that threatning was That upon mans sin punishment should be his due and so it was man being bound to punishment Ipsofacto upon his offence committed And herein is the difference betwixt a Commination and a Denunciation of punishment this being an act of judgment or sentence or else a prediction of a decree to punish whereupon the punishment denounced is always inflicted 3. There seems also to be this mistake a mistake of very evil consequence implyed in the clause fore-cited viz. That Christ suffered the Idem not the Tantundem the same suffering to which that Commination did oblige and that a sinners liberation from the punishment to which he was obliged was by the way of strict payment not satisfaction or compensation 4. There seems also to be this mistake implyed in the said clause viz. That the ends of Gods soveraign rule and government could not be secured by a Compensation or without strict solution or payment of that very debt of punishment which was by the sin of man contracted And if I were sure that this Author would own this opinion for God forbid that I should causlesly fasten any thing upon him or any of my Brethren viz. That the sufferings of Christ were Ipsa debiti solutio and not Pro debito satisfactio Christs sufferings were not the very payment of our debt in kind but a valuable satisfaction to divine justice for our not payment of it or for Gods not exacting of us the payment thereof I would more at large suggest somewhat of my own and endeavour to improve what hath been so far as my knowledge reacheth said by others against it Nevertheless because there are of my Brethren who do maintain that Christ suffered the very Idem which was in a sinners obligation and not the Tantundem at least that it is not much material whether we say the one or the other I will for their satisfaction do these two things 1. I will briefly set down the substance of what is commonly and
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
That it is the root of many dangerous errors very plainly subverting the Christian Religion And in those few sheets which he wrote in reference to Mr. Edw. Fowler 's Book styled The Design of Christianity his words are p. 12. It is not to be denied or hid that more than down-right Antinomians have so ill expounded the points of Christs suretiship and of the Imputation of our sin to him and of the Imputation of his Righteousness to us as hath proved the great occasion of some mens running into the contrary error yea and as would exclude all pardon of sin and all true Religion had their notions been practically and prevalently held He names also several Authors both of our own and forreign Churches Olevian Vrsin Piscator Paraeus Windeline Camero Wotton Gataker Bradshaw Le Blank by whom their opinions have been confuted Mr. Joseph Truman in his Book styled The great Propitiation p. 92 93. saith thus You may see how contrary to reason as well as Scripture that way of theirs is who hold that Christs fulfilling of and Christs obedience to the Law is accounted imputed as if Believers had fulfilled and obeyed the Law in his so doing You may hold the active and passive Righteousness of Christ a satisfaction to justice for our breach of the Law both of them a valuable consideration on which God will acquit the Offenders so they do but perform the Gospel-conditions and I can easily says he answer all the Arguments I have read to exclude his active obedience from being part of the satisfaction to justice for the breach of the Law But to hold over and beside such a satisfaction for our disobedience that there is made over to us a right to his obedience so as God to account us as if we had obeyed the Law in him beside the danger of making God account men as perfect as Christ and accounting that which is not true it is 1. Altogether needless 2. It makes the death and sufferings of Christ needless 3. It dissolves the Law its obliging us to obedience I will instance in some of the prime mischievous consequences of the doctrine here opposed which being cryed up by some Authors as a Gospel-mystery a Mystery of piety will manifest it to be indeed A mystery of iniquity 1. It follows from thence That Christ was made a sinner or That by Gods Imputation and mans Reputation Jesus Christ was the greatest sinner in the world Mr. Eyre affirms the former as hath been said the latter is asserted by Dr. Grew in his late printed Sermons upon Jer. 23.6 he quoting the Authority of Luther for one branch of the assertion touching Gods Imputation and that Scripture in Mar. 15.28 touching mans Reputation as if because he was reputed a transgressor by the unbelieving Jews therefore it 's to be concluded that he was or was to be so reputed by all others What Christian ears can bear with the sound of such a saying as this That by Imputation of God Jesus Christ was the greatest sinner in the world And how false is it to say That God did repute Jesus Christ to be otherwise whether in life or death than indeed he was i. e. A Lamb without spot and blemish holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners as the Scriptures speak of him 1 Pet. 1.19 Heb. 7.26 The truth is if any such saying hath dropt from the pen of Luther it is not to be justified but to be abhorr'd For Christ by Imputation was no sinner at all nor so reputed either by God or man except such as did not know him and who therefore hang'd him on the tree As for the said Dr. Grew he says indeed p. 23 24. That in this sence only Christ was made sin for us in that he took on him the obligation to punishment Where let two things be observed 1. That the Doctor doth mistake and mis-report the true sense of that Scripture wherein Christ is said to have been made sin for us the true sence whereof is as hath been already said not that he was made sin it self or sin at all for us but a sin-offering or a sacrifice for sin 2. Be it observed That the Doctor doth not say that Christ took on him An obligation but The obligation to punishment by which saying he must rationally be understood to mean ‖ The error whereof I have manifested in another Chapter against Mr. Ferguson Our obligation to punishment or the same obligation wherein or whereby we sinners were bound to punishment And if he had meant otherwise his own reason and understanding would no more have suffered him to approve that saying fathered upon Luther of Christ his being the greatest sinner in the world by Imputation than his stomack would have served him to have eaten his excrements 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 wayes 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 2. ANother evil Consequence of this doctrine is That Believers are as perfectly Righteous as is Jesus Christ the Righteous This Consequence is owned by divers among whom I shall instance only in two or three Authors The first shall be Mr. Will. Eyre who in his fore-cited Assize-Sermon says p. 10. That upon Christ his becoming our Surety and taking our sins upon himself sinners are thereby made as perfectly Righteous as Christ the Righteous Nor doth he content himself only to say it but he doth also wrest that Scripture in 1 Joh. 3.7 to prove it I say wrest that Scripture to prove it for that Text proves no such thing but only this viz. That he who doth righteousness is born of him as is the expression 1 Joh. 2.29 that is doth resemble him or is like him as a child resembles the father who begat him Yea he doth bless that his false doctrine with his subsequent prayer therein taking Gods holy Name in vain by saying Now the good Lord open all our eyes to see the real and glorious excellency of this Priviledg But while he doth thus proclaim the Priviledg of the Saints have we not cause to say That he hath forgotten that Prerogative of our Saviour mentioned by the Apostle Col. 1.18
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
O. himself as well as any others For the Doctor doth distinguish concerning a double Law to which Christ as our Mediator did perform obedience 1. General i. e. the Law of nature or moral Law comprizing every Law of God whereto we were subject and obnoxious 2. Special or the peculiar Law of Mediatorship which respected himself meerly and to this peculiar Law he refers Christs obedience in dying Joh. 10.18 Thus he doth distinguish in his Book Comm. p. 178 179. Now what obedience of Christ is imputed to us or to which of those Laws to one or both as he doth there determine so he doth fully explain in his late Vindication p. 213 214. whose words I shall transcribe as followeth Plainly says he I have shewed that there was an especial Law of Mediatorship which Christ was subject unto as the commandment of the Father That he should be incarnate that he should be the King Priest and Prophet of his Church that he should bear our iniquities make his soul an offering for sin and give his life a ransom for many were the principal parts of this Law The whole of it I have lately explain'd in my Exercitations unto the second part of the Exposition on the Epistle to the Hebrews This Law our Lord Jesus Christ did not yield obedience to in our stead as if we had been obliged originally unto the duties of it which we neither were nor could be although what he suffered penally in any of them was in our stead without which consideration he could not have righteously suffered in any kind And the following trivial exception of this Author about the obligation on us to lay down our lives for the Brethren is meet for him to put in seeing we are not obliged so to die for any one as Christ died for us Was Paul crucified for you But secondly Christ our Mediator and as Mediator was obliged unto all that obedience unto the moral Law and all other Laws of God that the Church was obliged unto and that which I have asserted hereon is That the effects of the former obedience of Christ are communicated unto us but the latter obedience it self is imputed unto us And as for the former obedience his express words are Comm. p. 181. It is not Imputed unto us as though we had done it though the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and fruits of it are Thus by comparing the words of the said Authors together we may palpably perceive the difference betwixt them reconcile them who can for me for I cannot so that how the Doctor can avoid coming under the said terrible censure or sentence of his Brother Mr. F. I know not But the comfort truly is That as the curse causeless shall not come and is not therefore to be dreaded so Mr. Ferguson's sentence being groundless need not therefore to be feared whether by the Doctor or by any other For he who denies the Imputation of our sin to Christ and of all he did and suffered all his active and all his passive obedience to us in Mr. Ferguson's Law-sence doth not disclaim Christ his being our Mediator in any proper sence nor doth he renounce any part or tittle of the Gospel as hath been already manifested in this Treatise nor doth the said denial impeach any such Union of Believers with Christ which the Scriptures do assert by what name soever it be entitled whether Legal or Moral or any other name of mans imposing Nor doth it properly belong to the office of Mediation or to a proper Mediator that what is done by him in person should be in it self properly and formally considered imputed unto or reckoned as done by the person in whose behalf he doth mediate Yet if instead of the word Mediator Mr. F. had used the word Surety I would have yielded That Christ is not in any place of Scripture said to be our Surety in a strict and proper sence of the word For so far as hitherto I have apprehended the sence of the word in the propriety thereof a proper Surety is bound to the Creditor in the self same Bond or obligation with the principal Debtor Now the case betwixt Christ and us is otherwise for he is not bound in the same Bond with us nor was our obligation translated upon him or assumed by him but he took upon him an obligation peculiar to himself which obligation was not only individually but also specifically different from ours ours being Obligatio Criminis and his only Contractus as hath been before said and prov'd Moreover Christ is not our Surety in any more proper sence than our sins are proper debts or God a proper Creditor which expressions are not proper but Metaphorical And withal I will say That although I should deny that Christ is in any place of Scripture said to be our Surety in a proper sence yet it will not from thence follow that I do deny the whole Gospel or any the least scruple of the Gospel I shall now return to the words of Dr. O. forecited whereupon I desire it may be observed 1. That having asserted Christs dying for our sins to be a principal part of the Law of Mediation peculiar to himself he doth both affirm and deny his obedience thereunto to have been in our stead 1. He doth simply deny that his obedience thereunto or dying for us was in our stead 2. He doth affirm it in some respect to have been in our stead viz. as his death was penal and so likewise that all which he suffered penally in what pertained to the peculiar Law of the Mediator was in our stead and this he affirms for this reason viz. because otherwise he could not have righteously suffered in any kind To which I reply 1. To the reason of his affirmation and that by denying the force of it and by asserting the contrary viz. That although Christs death as penal had not been in our stead i. e. imputed to us in the Law-sence as aforesaid as if we had suffered in and by him what he suffered which is the Doctor 's meaning of the word instead nevertheless he might righteously suffer and he did righteously suffer in that kind and in many other kinds besides death it self For he did no less spontaneously than at the will of his Father take upon him an obligation so to do i. e. to be obedient even unto death for the expiation of our sins whereupon the Doctor may remember the old and true saying Volenti non fit injuria 2. As to what was both affirmed and denied by the Doctor I reply 1. What he denies simply I shall simply affirm That Christs death was in our stead yea in all manner of considerations of it it was in our stead 2. What he affirms concerning the death of Christ in one respect or under one consideration of his death I shall deny under consideration of the sence of the phrase instead as by him intended saying Christ did not either in
that or any other consideration of his death die in our stead i. e. strictly and in a Law-sence In personâ nostrâ as if so be God had reckoned his death to be our death or that we had suffered death in and by him or as if our obligation to suffer punishment had been transfer'd upon him 3. Forasmuch as the Doctor doth simply deny that which for my own part I never did but do simply and positively affirm the contrary viz. That the death of Christ was in our stead I may well think it strange that he hath hitherto escaped the charge of Socinianism whereas if my self or any of my Brethren who maintain what I have professedly asserted in this controversie should simply deny That Christs death was in our stead I am much afraid that we should not so escape but that rather our names would be enrolled in that black List But that it may farther appear what a great gulf there is fixed betwixt us and the Socinians I do here profess in my own and I do not know but that I may sincerely make the same profession in the name of all those my Brethren saying After all this Dispute I do freely and plainly confess and acknowledg and this I do without any of Dr. Owen's distinctions That All Christs Mediatory Obedience To Any Law Whatsoever Common To Us Or Peculiar To Himself Especially His Obedience To The Death Of The Cross Was Under All Considerations Both As A Penalty As A Price And As A Sacrifice In Our Stead And Forasmuch As The Dignity Or Value Of All His Obedience Did Depend Upon The Dignity Of His Person He Being Both God And Man I Do Confess That All His Obedience Was In Our Stead That is To Bestead Us And That It Did Bestead Us In The Purchasing Of A Pardon And Life Eternal For Us Upon Terms Expressed In the Gospel Promised To Us And Upon Performance Thereof To Be Confer'd Upon Us And That the Said Obedience Of Christ Both Active and Passive As It Is Usually Stiled Is Imputed To Us Although Not Immediately And In It Self Yet To As Much Purpose And Real Benefit As If It Were Actually Or Could Possibly Be So Imputed that is That It Is Imputed To Us In All Its Saving Fruits And Blessed Effects All That His Foresaid Obedience Making Up One Entire Meritorious Cause Of All The Said Benefits And Blessings Hereupon as God makes his appeal saying And now O Inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah judge I pray you between me and my vineyard what could have been done more than in like sort shall I make my appeal to all saying And now Men Brethren and Fathers judge I pray you betwixt us who do make the said Confession of our faith in this matter and our adversaries who notwithstanding will clamour against us and stigmatize us with that odious name of Socinianism what need we what can we saâ—vâ veritate say more whereby to acquit our selves from all cause or colour of being accused as Socinians Lastly I reply upon occasion of the Doctor 's fore-cited words That forasmuch as he doth acknowledg Christs death to have been in our stead only as it was penal or a punishment it is therefore justly enquirable under what consideration or in what respect his death was not in our stead and by observing what he says concerning the death of Christ p. 188. Comm. it seems to me That he denies it to be in our stead as it was a Price and as it was a Sacrifice and that this may appear to others as well as to my self I will recite his words as followeth The death of Christ is in Scripture proposed under a three-fold consideration Of a Price of a Sacrifice and of a Penalty 1. It is a Price 1 Cor. 6.20 1 Pet. 1.19 1 Tim. 4.6 Now the proper effect and issue of the death of Christ as a price or ransom is Redemption 2. P. 189. It was a Sacrifice also Heb. 10.5 Esa 53.10 Eph. 5.2 Now the end of Sacrifices such as his was bloody and for sin Rom. 4.3 Heb. 2.17 was Atonement and Reconciliation Eph. 5.2 Esa 53.10 Dan. 9.24 Rom. 5.10 3. It was also a Punishment a punishment in our stead Esa 53.5.6.12 1 Pet. 2.34 Now bearing of punishment tends directly to the giving satisfaction to him who was offended and on that account inflicted the punishment His substituting himself in our room being allowed of by the Righteous Judg satisfaction to him doth thence properly ensue To this I reply saying 1. Redemption and Reconciliation are not at all distinct benefits of the death of Christ for they are one and the self same saving benefit they being but distinct or several names given in several respects to one and the same thing And the very truth is That Redemption i. e. redemption from the guilt of sin I mean the word Redemption passively taken and Reconciliation with God even as also forgiveness of sin and justification with many other words which might be named are Synonimous expressions in Scripture importing in effect the self same thing as may appear by the current of the Scriptures many whereof have been already named to which more were it needful may easily be added 2 Cor. 5.18 19. Eph. 1.7 Col. 1.14 Rom. 5.9 10. and 4.24 25. Gal. 3. 13 14. with v. 8. 2. As Redemption and Reconciliation are one and the same saving benefit of Christs death so much less do they flow from any such nice or distinct consideration as the Doctor affirms i. e. the one from the consideration of Christs death as a Price and the other as a Sacrifice But as they are in effect one saving benefit so they flow from one cause the death of Christ our reconciliation flowing no more or otherwise from the death of Christ as a Sacrifice than as a Price nor doth our redemption more flow from the death of Christ as a Price however it may be thence denominated than from it as a Sacrifice but entirely from the death of Christ as a meritorious cause it being all one in effect to say it follows from it as an expiatory Sacrifice as to say it follows from it as a valuable Price 3. I know no more reason to say That satisfaction is the issue of Christs death considered as a Penalty than as it was a Price or Sacrifice for Christs death was as well a Price satisfactory and a Sacrifice satisfactory as a Punishment satisfactory For the end of paying a Price and the end of Sacrifices was satisfaction of its kind and to say that Christs death was a Propitiatory or Expiatory Sacrifice is all one I ever thought as to say it is a Satisfactory Sacrifice So that I am altogether dissatisfied as to the fountain or rise of the Satisfaction here mentioned by the Doctor God being as well satisfied by the death of Christ under the notion of a Price or Sacrifice as of a Penalty 4. In what sence the death of Christ was or may be said to be a Punishment I have already declared in answer to Mr. F. and it will not be needful here to repeat what hath been there said 5. Finally Whereas the Doctor doth only affirm That Christs death was in our stead under the consideration of a Penalty I have already in the third Branch of my Reply shewed That it was under all considerations in our stead both as a Penalty as a Price and as a Sacrifice and I have explained moreover in what sence it was in our stead and I desire the Reader that he would again so peruse it as if it had been in this place together with my said Appeal again inserted I will conclude with that Prayer of Calvin which Beza his Scholar tells us was his constant form before his Lectures in the publick Schools Det nobis Dominus in Coelestis suae sapientiae mysteriis cum verae pietatis profructu versari in gloriam suam aedificationem nostram Amen Books Printed for and Sold by Walter Kettilby at the Bishops Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard H. Mori Opera Theologica Folio Price 1 l. 10 s. Dr. More 's Reply to a late Answer to his Antidote against Idolatry with the Appendix Octavo Price 4 s. Spencer dissertatio de Urim Thummim Octavo Price 3 s. 6 d. Frederici Lossi Observationes Medici Octavo Price 2 s. 6 d. Epigrammata Juvenilia in quatuor partes divisa Encomia Seria Satyras Jocosa per Gulielmum Speed Price bound 9 d. Dr. Smyth's unjust mans doom as examined by the several kinds of Justice and their obligation with a particular representation of Injustice and danger of partial Conformity Octavo Price 1 s.