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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
so the other 2 Cor. 5.21 makes point blank and most fully against him as hath been already demonstrated The Doctor goes on saying in the same Page and in the words immediately following But yet farther This that is the removal of our guilt or deliverance from a state of rejection or un-acceptation will not compleat our Acceptation with God The old quarrel may be laid aside and yet no new friendship begun We may be not sinners and yet not be so far righteous as to have a right to the kingdom of heaven Adam had no right to life because he was innocent he must moreover do This and then he shall live He must not only have a negative righteousness he was not guilty of any thing but also a positive righteousness he must do all things This then is required in the second place to our Compleat Acceptation that we have not only the non-imputation of sin but also a reckoning of righteousness Now this we have in the obedience of the life of Christ This also was discovered in the last Chapter The obedience of the life of Christ was for us is imputed to us and is our Righteousness before God By his obedience are we made righteous Rom. 5.18 Answ All this in effect hath been already answered the repetition whereof being needless I add that 1. It is here contrary to sense and reason supposed by the Doctor that the old quarrel betwixt God and us may be taken away and yet no new friendship begun For it is alike as to suppose darkness to be expel'd and yet no new light to be introduced or sickness removed and no health brought in place And as for the word Reconciliation I have always hitherunto understood the meaning of the word passively taken that it is To be made friends and I cannot reconcile it to sense or reason to make any other construction of it as if persons could be Reconciled and yet not made Friends 2. It is a senseless contradiction for the Doctor to imagine as he doth that Adam was not guilty of any thing and yet that he had not a positive as well as a negative righteousness For to imagine or suppose this is to suppose him to be guilty of no sin at all and yet to suppose him guilty of some sin i. e. of sin or sins of omission 3. Suppose that Adam must have a positive as well as a negative righteousness in order to his right to life yet it will not follow from thence That in order to our right to life we must have the positive righteousness or perfect obedience of Christs life in it self imputed to us for that end the Imputation of Christs positive Righteousness unto us for that purpose being no more necessary than the Imputation of his negative Righteousness 4. A non-imputation of sin and a reckoning of righteousness are the self same thing in effect as appears evidently by Rom. 4.5 6. and so likewise is reconciliation or a non-imputation of sin all one with righteousness or our being made the righteousness of God in Christ as appears by 2 Cor. 5.19 21. That act of God whereby he doth perfectly pardon our sin is interpretatively nothing else but an Imputation of a perfect righteousness or a fulfilling of the Law even as that act by which the Sun dispels the darkness doth fill the air with light 5. The obedience of Christ verily was for us but it may not therefore be truly said in it self to be imputed to us nor is it our righteousness before God otherwise than in a causal sence 6. Nor doth that Text here alledged by the Doctor Rom. 5.18 prove in the least that the obedience of Christs life is imputed to us it having been oft times for this purpose alledged by him but still I must say to no purpose 7. The Imputation of righteousness which is indeed all one with the non-imputation of sin we have from the joynt obedience of Christs life and death but not from both of them or from either of them in themselves imputed to us 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 I Shall close what I have to say concerning the Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us by acquainting the Reader that the fore-named Authors Dr. O. and Mr. F. do to my seeming so plainly differ betwixt themselves touching that Righteousness of Christ by them asserted to be imputed to us that I am not able to reconcile them Mr. F. asserting the Imputation of all Christs Mediatory Obedience unto us but the Doctor only one part thereof And that what seems thus to me may appear to others I will more at large recite the words of them both and thereupon leave the judgment thereof to every indifferent and intelligent Reader God says Mr. F. p. 558 559. having admitted the interposure of Christ on our behalf and having inflicted sufferings upon him as a punishment for our sins and having accepted those sufferings as a sacrifice of atonement for the expiation of our guilt and having also agreed with his Son and declared in the Covenant of grace the terms on which we are made partakers of the benefits thereof we upon the performance of these conditions come to have all that Christ did and suffered as our Mediator Imputed to us in a Law-sence And this being all that we do intend by a Legal Vnion with Christ namely That by the Covenant of redemption Christ so becomes our Surrogate as to have our sins in a Law-sence imputed to him and we through fulfilling the terms of the Covenant of grace have all that Christ did and suffered as our Mediator Imputed in a Law-sence to us He must not only disclaim Christs being Mediator in any proper sence but renounce the whole Gospel that donies it Thus we perceive plainly that Mr. F. is for the Imputation of all Christs Mediatory obedience unto us as of our sins to him in a Law-sence that is and as that phrase is usually explained in such sort as if we had done all that he did and suffered all that he suffered or as if God did repute that we in and by Christ had done and suffered the whole thereof Thus Mr. Rols in his Prodromus explains the sence saying p. 86. God reckons Believers in and by Christ their Surety to have satisfied divine justice And we perceive also by the words fore-cited what a dreadful sentence Mr. F. passes upon all those who gainsay the said Imputation of all Christs Mediatory obedience which for ought I can perceive will light heavily upon Dr.
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
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
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
properly and formally or otherwise than in the fruits and effects of the one and of the other The reason thereof rendred P. 537. To say Mr. F. That Christ suffered only for our advantage and not in our room is plain Socinianism and to say That he bare our punishment without being charged with our guilt is plain non-sence and yet to remonstrate to such a Relation between him and us as may and ought to be styled a Legal Vnion is to vent repugnancies in the same breath Answ What is here said hath in effect already been answered and to the same purpose I say again 1. The imputation of Socinianism is causless forasmuch as we do acknowledg what they deny viz. That Jesus Christ being God and man in one person did make a satisfaction or compensation to Gods justice and by his doings and sufferings did merit the pardon of our sins 2. We deny not but that Jesus Christ may be truly said to have suffered in our room or stead and for that cause to be styled in the word of one of the Ancients our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he suffered that which was equivalent to the suffering which being due to us we should have suffered and thereby to save us from suffering and we say That Christ suffered in the person of a Mediator to procure our pardon and reconciliation with God Only we do deny That Christ was in such a sence our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that he did in such a strict sence die in our room and stead as that he may be said to die in nostrâ personâ in such sort representing our persons as that we can truly be said to have satisfied in and by him or that his sufferings are in their essential nature imputed to us One King may be said to rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the room of another though he may not therefore be said to be the Representative of that other as Archelaus is said to have reigned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the room of his Father Herod Solomon in the room of David 1 King 5.5 Benaiah to be made Captain-General of the Host in the room of Joah 1 King 2.35 and Elisha to be substituted or anointed a Prophet in the room of Elijah 1 King 19.16 although none of these can be truly said in a strict sence to represent the persons of those in whose room they were substituted 3. If by Our punishment this Author meaneth the Idem the self same punishment which we should have born it hath been already gainsaid and the contrary truth proved as also that he did not bear our guilt neither our guilt of fact or fault at all nor the self same guilt or obligation to punishment as was ours but another kind of obligation that was peculiar to himself 4. What non-sence soever there is in saying That Christ bare Idem supplicium our very punishment without being charged with our guilt nevertheless it is true sence and the sence of Scripture to say That Christ did contract or take upon him an obligation to suffer and did actually undergo such sufferings as were equivalent to that punishment which we deserved to suffer and this without being charged with our guilt 5. The things being justly to be denied which he doth here presume as granted or to be granted viz. That Christ did at all take upon him our Reatus facti or culpae our guilt of fact or fault or the self same guilt or obligation to punishment which was ours it follows That there is all the reason in the world to remonstrate unto any such union of Christians with Christ by what name soever dignified or distinguished Mystical Conjugal Political Legal Evangelical Supernatural the native consequence whereof is That Christ was charged with our guilt of sin That he took upon him the self same obligation to punishment which was ours That our sin really in it self was imputed to him and undergone by him and That his doings and sufferings briefly his Righteousness was formally in it self imputed unto us All these Consequents are justly to be remonstrated against and consequently so are all the Antecedents be they never so specious from whence they do naturally and necessarily result or flow for as the common saying is Ex vero nihil nisi verum From truth nothing but truth doth natively and necessarily issue These things considered it is easie to answer his arguings in p. 556 557. which I shall more at large now recite and reply to CHAP. XVII That Christ may very well be said to be made sin for us to bear our sins to die for our offences although it cannot be truly said that he did bear our sin it self or sin in it self or otherwise than in the fruit and effects of it the contrary whereunto is pretended by Mr. F. Mr. Ferguson's mistake in confounding an Antecedent impulsive cause with a meritorious cause the difference whereof is asserted and exemplified His mistake in not distinguishing betwixt An obligation and Our obligation to suffer That though our sins did properly merit Christs suffering nevertheless it will not follow from thence that Christ himself did merit it or took upon him the meriting thereof That Christ may be said in an improper sence to be punished The word Demerit of punishmeit ambiguous a two-fold sence whereof is specified The Arguments which overthrow the Popish doctrine of believers being discharged from the guilt of sin but not the punishment altogether mis-applyed by Mr. F. to the point in hand P. 556 557. Mr. F. HAD not the susception of our sins preceded as the antecedent impulsive cause of Christs sufferings he could neither be said to be made sin for us nor to bear them nor to have them laid upon him nor to die for our offences nor to be our ransom Nor could the inflicting of sufferings upon him have been either good in it self or an act of Rectoral justice in God or have had any tendency to his glory or to the honour of his Law or to deter sinners from offending yea preclude once the consideration of sin as the meritorious cause of the Agonies which Christ underwent and the love wisdom justice and Rectorship of God are obnoxious to reflections and stand liable to be impeached And if it be once obtained that our sins are the meritorious impulsive cause of Christs death his susception of our guilt will necessarily follow For guilt being nothing but an obligation to punishment and it being impossible to conceive such a habitude betwixt a person and sin that it should be the meritorious impulsive cause of his punishment and yet he not be under an obligation to punishment it plainly follows that guilt must be supposed antecedent to a demerit of punishment Guilt and punishment being Relates he that is obnoxious to the latter must be previously under the Imputation of the former as Bishop Andrews expresseth it Christ was first made sin in respect of the guilt
and then a curse in respect of the punishment Serm. of Justification on Jer. 23.6 Ans Almost all of this either in the same words or in words to the same effect hath been before recited out of this Author and a reply accordingly shaped thereunto And for that reason it is necessary only to repeat the Answers which have been already given I answer then 1. Christ may very well be said to be made sin for us to bear our sins to have them laid upon him to die for our offences and to be our ransom in that he did take upon him an obligation to suffer and suffer to death for the expiation of them although it cannot be truly said That Christ did bear our sin it self properly and formally taken but only in the fruit and sad consequents of it viz. suffering equivalent punishment to that which was due to us for it 2. As to the Authors expressions Antecedent Impulsive Cause 1. It is the Authors mistake to confound an Antecedent Impulsive Cause with a Cause Meritorious That he doth so is most apparent and undeniable by his fore-cited words But that it is his mistake so to do be it considered 1. That the misery of an indigent Creature may be well said to be an antecedent impulsive cause of that compassion which is shewed towards it by those who are conscious unto or spectators of its misery And accordingly I doubt not to aver That the miserable effects of sin specially in making us obnoxious to the vengeance of eternal fire was an antecedent impulsive cause moving God speaking of him after the manner of men which we must do or else we can scarce say any thing of him fore-ordain the sufferings of our Lord Redeemer Christ Jesus whereby to rescue us out of our wretched and otherwise forlorn condition Yet who will or can justly say That the misery of a Creature doth in a strict or proper sence merit the pity whether of God or man This if it did pity would scarce deserve the name of pity I mean it would not be so thank-worthy forasmuch as that which is merited deserves little if any thanks Is a Labourer obliged to give his Master thanks for his wages which he hath earned or merited Misery may be well said to be Res apta nata an object naturally fit to move mercy or to be an impelling cause thereunto and yet not a Meritorious cause thereof in the strict and proper usual sence of the word Meritorious 2. Though I grant it as a truth and a fit saying That our misery contracted by sin was an antecedent impulsive cause of Gods mercy in delivering up Christ for us all nevertheless I do utterly deny that our sins were the Meritorious cause of Christs death or sufferings I grant that our sins were the Occasion of Christs sufferings but I deny that our sins did merit his sufferings And I have just and great cause so to do forasmuch as our Logick tells us that there is a great difference betwixt an Occasion and a Cause truly so called as this Author cannot but know very well I remember the saying of David to Abiathar 1 Sam. 22.22 I have occasioned the death of all the persons of thy fathers house which notwithstanding it could not be said That he had caused their death In like sort may we say to God We have occasioned thee to bruise the Son of thy love and to put him to grief we have been the occasion of all his sufferings but we may not say That our sins did merit them 3. Forasmuch as what this Author hath sought he cannot obtain viz. an acknowledgment That our sins were the meritorious cause of Christs death and forasmuch as he makes this the ground of his following inferences it is not therefore needful that I should use many words in replying thereunto For if the foundation of a building be removed the superstructure falls of it self and without hands Nevertheless I add 3. Although I do deny that our sins were the meritorious cause of Christs sufferings nevertheless I do assert that Christ was under An obligation to suffer for our sins It is this Authors great mistake not to distinguish in this contest betwixt Christs obligation and Ours whereas as hath been aforesaid these are two obligations specifically different and all his inferences here are utterly groundless e. g. 1. That Christ could not suffer or be under An obligation to suffer except he had been under or had taken upon him Our obligation to suffering 2. That he could not else have been said to bear our sins to be made sin for us to have our sins laid upon him to die for them nor to be our ransom 3. That without this the inflicting of sufferings upon Christ could not have been either good in it self or an act of Rectoral justice in God or have had any tendency to his glory or All these inferences I say are altogether groundless 4. I answer Ex abundanti If our sins could properly be said to have merited Christs sufferings nevertheless it will not from thence follow That we meriting that he should suffer then he himself did merit it or took upon him the meriting thereof and therefore although guilt as he says must be supposed antecedent to a demerit of punishment yet where there is no such demerit as in Christ there was not there 't is not necessary to suppose any antecedent guilt Nor indeed in any case but where the person suffering is properly punish'd which Christ was not but only a sufferer of that which we for our sins deserved to have suffered in our own persons and which if we had personally suffered it would have been formally and properly a punishment to us but was not to him because he never deserved it nor was any such guilt or deserving it imputed to him or taken upon him And yet he may be said in some improper sence to be obliged to punishment I do not mean the word improperly in reference to Obliged for Christs obligation to suffering however it was not at all Obligatio Criminis yet being truly Obligatio Contractus it was therefore In suo genere a proper obligation but to the word Punishment and I do therefore express the matter now plainly and say That Christ may be said to be obliged to punishment improperly so called because he did voluntarily undertake and obliged himself to suffer those pains which being inflicted on us would have been properly or proper punishments 5. As for the testimony of that renowned Bishop Andrews I have made reply thereunto in an entire Chapter Ch. 5. and I have thought it my part the rather so to do because as I perceive by my late reading not Mr. Ferguson only but certain other Brethren by their allegation of that saying of the Bishop have adopted it as their own There is but one passage more which I have observed in my reading of his Book throughout to refer to the matter in hand The
he proceeds to express this Commuting of Believers their sins with Christ and his Righteousness with them in the following words p. 223. Having thus by faith given up their sins to Christ and seen God laying them all on him they draw nigh and take from him that Righteousness which he hath wrought out for them So fulfilling the whole of that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.21 He was made sin for us that we might become the Righteousness of God in him They consider him tendring himself and his Righteousness to be their Righteousness before God they take it and accept of it and compleat this blessed bartering and exchange of faith Anger curse wrath death sin as to its guilt he took it all and takes it all away Answ As to one of the passages here recited I need not say much more than what hath been already said in answer to Mr. F. wherein I have manifested what manner of guilt our Saviour took upon him I will only say further That I have with a complication of affections grief and sadness with a mixture also of some indignation and abhorrency taken notice of three or four things in his express words 1. I observe That in his asserting that Christ was made red in his own blood Morally by the Imputation of sin whose colour is red and crimson he seems to say with Mr. F. that Christ did take our sin upon him not only in the punishment but also in the guilt thereof This I say seems to be his meaning 1. Because the hainous nature or guilt of sin is set forth in Scripture by the Metaphor here used by him of redness like to that of crimson or scarlet 2. Because he says expresly not only that Christ took upon him Anger Curse Wrath Death but sin also as to its guilt in which words he makes the guilt of sin a distinct thing from the punishment of it which he expresseth in the four preceding words Anger Curse Wrath and Death Now the contrary truth to this his meaning if indeed he did mean as he spake I have already made known in my answer to Mr. F. and to the words of Bishop Andrews Ch. 5. 2. I observe his canting phrases laying down our sins at the cross of Christ upon his shoulders Commuting Exchanging Bartering By faith Giving up our sins to Christ and Taking from him his Righteousness language obscure ambiguous most alien from the Scripture more fit to delude than to edifie any common Reader or Hearer And if any partial or less intelligent person shall be offended with the word Canting as in his apprehension Durus Sermo a censure too harsh I will for his satisfaction say as followeth 1. As for the Doctor 's expression The Saints giving up their sins to Christ by faith Laying down their sins at his cross upon his shoulders I know no such sayings in Scripture and I do therefore judg them fit to be rejected with words like those of the Apostle in another case The holy Scriptures have no such custom of speaking nor the Churches of God 1 Cor. 11.16 And I do judg thus the rather because the inspired Scriptures were given of God to be attended unto as the rule of our speaking in and about the concernments of our soul and matters of Religion as well as of our thinking 2. A bad meaning of the phrases is very obvious to any common understanding That Christ did and will own our sins in the simple guilt thereof or that our guilt of sin was imputed to him by God and being thus tendred to Christ laid by us at his cross on his shoulders will be welcomed and accepted by him as an acceptable offering or as a grateful present in which fond imagination we do wrong God and Christ and do out of measure flatter our selves as hath been already manifested 3. The best construction which I can according to the utmost of my understanding make of the said phrases is That the Saints do verily believe that Christ did bear their sins in the deserved punishment thereof And if the Doctor 's meaning was no more than this I answer 1. We may believe this as an undoubted truth and yet not be Saints An historical faith as it 's usually styled is not therefore necessarily a sanctifying or saving faith 2. It was God himself who did antecedently to our believing lay our sins upon Christ i.e. in his suffering for them but we do no where read in Scripture that the Saints by their faith do lay their sins upon him although it is most true that every sinner ought to make a penitential confession of his sin to God with faith in Christ who was sacrificed for them 3. The said true construction if that indeed was the Doctor 's meaning is a thing so latent in his said expressions that without an Interpreter could scarcely be found out So that upon the hearing of such uncouth phrases from the mouth of any Minister well may the Auditors sigh saying in allusion to that in Ezek. 20. last Ah Lord God doth not the Preacher speak Parables 2. As for the Doctor 's other expressions The Saints their taking from Christ that Righteousness which he hath wrought out for them and his tendring it to them to be their Righteousness before God I say of them much-what as I did of the former viz. 1. I do not remember and such express sayings in Scripture and I cannot therefore approve them as agreeable to the form of wholesome words 2. I see no reason upon which in charity to presume that the Doctor had any good meaning in the said phrases i. e. that his particular meaning therein for I judg him not for want of a good meaning in general which a man may have both in speaking falsly and doing wickedly Joh. 16.2 was sound and good For it appears by the current of his Book That he would have sinners to believe that that very Righteousness which Christ wrought for them is in it self tendred to them and taken by them and that it is in its essential nature imputed to them and is their Righteousness before God I shall to this purpose in this place transcribe onely one passage out of his Book p. 200. Christ says he tenders his Righteousness to sinners declares the usefulness and preciousness thereof to their souls stirs them up to a desire and valuation of it and lastly effectually bestows it on them reckoning it to them as theirs that they should By it and For it and With it be perfectly accepted with the Father Scarce any thing can be more plainly spoken as well in this as in other passages of his Book hereafter to be mentioned from whence to conclude That he asserts Christs Righteousness it self or in it self to be imputed to sinners and that with the Imputation of the very thing it self Pardon of sin in the blood of Christ being in truth a Righteousness in its kind Believers may with it boldly and confidently
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
that in the Scotch Liturgy after the Petition That God would grant us true repentance and his holy Spirit the following words are inserted That we may receive from him absolution from all our sins which insertion I never heard to have been challenged by any of our Scottish Brethren as holding forth any false Popish or un-Christian doctrine nor do I know any colour of reason for such an accusation or suspicion albeit I do well know That to pray to God to grant unto us true repentance and his holy Spirit That we may receive from him absolution from all our sins is all one in effect and the self same thing as to pray to God to grant unto us those requests That we may be justified or not condemned but escape wrath to come But forasmuch as Dr. O. is such a professed adversary to all manner of set-Liturgies for the carrying on of Gods publick Worship as appears by what he hath written p. 296 297. and forasmuch as I do not know of what credit with him an Assembly of Divines at St. Peters-Westminster is more than a Convocation at St. Pauls-London or what considerable valuation he hath for either of them I will not therefore urge him with the Authority of either the one or the other nor indeed with any other Authority but what I am most assured he will own and which indeed is all-sufficient for my purpose viz. The divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures Having ended this Chapter I shall now proceed to specifie the next evil Consequence of the said Imputation here disowned which shall be the subject of the Chapter next ensuing 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 ANother evil Consequence of the said Imputation of Christs Righteousness to Believers in the sence aforesaid is That God sees no sin in them This seems to be an unavoidable Consequence of the former for if Believers are as perfectly righteous as Christ the Righteous and more perfectly righteous than if they had perfectly kept the whole Law in their own persons and if they are in the sight of God as the very Son of God himself then doth it follow that God sees no sin in them for how can God see any sin in any person so perfectly righteous And this is that Consequent which is owned by Mr. Will. Eyre in his Assize-Sermon before cited he saying p. 11. The soul that hath Christs Righteousness put upon him by Gods gracious Imputation hath all his sins covered and hidden from the sight of God the eye of divine justice sees not the least spot of sin Eph. 5.27 or iniquity in those that are clothed with it the Saints through his death are presented holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight Col. 1.22 In answer hereunto 1. I have in certain Chapters of my Exercitation concerning the nature of forgiveness of sin suggested several Rules for a due interpretation of those Metaphorical phrases whereby forgiveness of sin is expressed in Scripture such as these Gods covering our sins blotting them out casting them behind his back hiding his face from them whereby is not meant a bare intuitive sight in God but Gods not seeing our sins so as to condemn us for them or that the Saints shall no more be condemned for their sins than if God did not see them than if they were blotted out covered or hid from his sight See Ch. 3. and 4th and 9th 2. As for those fore-cited Scriptures Eph. 5.27 Col. 1.22 they do indeed prove partly what Believers at present are viz. That they are in a present state of reconciliation with God reconciled pardoned justified and partly what at last they shall be that is That they shall be presented perfectly holy as a spouse in perfect beauty But they do not prove what Mr. Eyre doth insinuate viz. That they are now so presented or that God sees not the least spot of sin or iniquity in them Quest Do not some deny this and the former evil Consequence of the said Imputation of Christs Righteousness Answ Yes For so indeed Dr. Owen in his Book styled Communion with God would seem to do but with what success may appear by my Reply to that his answer which he makes to an Objection both which I shall recite as I find them p. 187. Having asserted in the foregoing Pages that Christs active obedience is reckoned or imputed to Believers mis-alledging and mis-interpreting for that purpose several Scriptures Phil. 3.9 2 Cor. 5.21 he objecteth against it and answers to it in the words following Object But if this be so then are we as Righteous as Christ himself being Righteous with his Righteousness Answ But first here is a great difference if it were no more than that this Righteousness was inherent in Christ and properly his own it is only reckoned and imputed to us or freely bestowed upon us and we are made righteous with that which is not ours But secondly the truth is that Christ was not righteous with that Righteousness for himself but for us so that there can be no comparison only this we may say We are righteous with his Righteousness which he wrought for us and that compleatly To this Answer I reply 1. That the difference here mentioned by the Doctor and said to be Great is indeed Small For the difference is rather Modal than Substantial a difference rather Quoad Modum than Quoad veritatem rei I mean plainly a difference about the manner how Christs Righteousness was his own and how it is Ours For he doth acknowledg that the self same individual Righteousness which Christ wrought for us is Ours the only difference being in the Modus or manner how it was His and how Ours i. e. His properly inherently or originally Ours improperly by Donation Imputation or at the second hand 2. As the said difference is comparatively small so it is nothing at all as to the matter in hand or the purpose for which it is alledged For notwithstanding this Modal difference if the self same individual Righteousness which Christ wrought for us be truly and substantially Ours or in it self imputed to us it will follow from thence unavoidably as I think that we are as righteous with Christs Righteousness as Christ himself was with it 3. Although it be true that Christ was not righteous with that Righteousness for himself but for us i. e. for our behoof and that we might reap the fruit and benefit of it and although upon such a construction of his Righteousness its being not for himself
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
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.