it being his right to have the Preheminence in all things Certainly St. Peter's eyes were not opened to see this as his priviledg when he said to our Saviour Depart from me for I am a sinful man O Lord for had he owned any such glorious priviledg or been sensible of the excellency thereof he would in all reason have mated his Lord and Master as I may so say or have set himself cheek by chole with him and have said Abide by me keep not at distance from me for I am as perfectly Righteous as thou art The same Author doth further amplifie and illustrate the said priviledg of the Saints saying p. 12. This Priviledg is not only negative but positive as they are uncloathed and stript of their own filthy garments Zech. 3.4 so they are cloathed upon with the immaculate robe of Christs Righteousness adequate and commensurate to the Law of God by the obedience of one says the Apostle Rom. 5.19 many are made righteous i. e. perfectly and compleatly righteous more than if they had kept the Law in their own persons hereby we come to have boldness and confidence in the sight of God his infinite purity and holiness doth not daunt or discourage us from going to him for as Christ is before him so are all they that do believe in him through that Righteousness of his that is put upon them see Eph. 3.12 Rom. 5.2 But the meaning of those words By the obedience of one many are made Righteous is not as this Author expounds it perfectly and compleatly Righteous more than if they had kept the Law in their own persons but the meaning is They are for the meritoriousness sake of Christs obedience made Righteous with another kind of Righteousness than is that which doth consist in their personal perfect and compleat performance of the Law of God yea with such a kind of Righteousness as is not competible with it viz. with the pardon of their sins or that kind of evangelical justification which is styled The gift of grace v. 15. and the free gift of many offences to justification v. 16. and the gift of Righteousness v. 17. For sinners to be made or constituted Righteous is in the sence of the Apostle as appears by the context to be justified out of the abundance of Gods grace in Christ or to be freely pardoned which no persons can be or be said to be who are as perfectly and compleatly Righteous as if they had kept the Law in their own persons For those who are as perfectly and compleatly righteous and more righteous than if they had kept the Law in their own persons are not justified of grace at all or are they capable of a gracious pardon And as for the boldness and confidence which the Apostle speaks of in Eph. 3.12 and Rom. 5.2 it is an holy boldness and confidence grounded upon their pardon of sin and justification through Gods grace in Christ mentioned in the foregoing Paragraph and not upon any such mis-construction of the sacred Scriptures as this Author was so extreamly over-bold and confident to suggest And whether Believers may be truly As for that in Zech. 3.4 the true sence whereof is here perverted by Mr. Will. Eyre I shall vindicate it from his abuse in Ch. 34 in answer to Dr. Owen by whom it is in like sort perverted also or fitly said to be cloathed with the Righteousness of Christ or to have Christs Righteousness put upon them I shall speak my thoughts more at large in a peculiar Chapter and in answer to that Question purposely put In the mean while I shall presume to say That it is not only false but as I am perswaded blasphemous to say as doth this Author That as Christ is before God so are all they that do believe in him through his Righteousness For Jesus Christ is before God a Saviour of sinners and whereas Believers in Christ are before God sinners still i. e. Rei culpae guilty persons and as such however pardoned they do still stand before God and shall so stand to all eternity Christ is before God the Son of God by nature and Righteous without a pardon whereas Believers in Christ are before God his sons by the adoption of grace and Righteous by or with a gracious pardon in the blood of Christ The next to Mr. Eyre I will quote is the Author of the Book styled The Marrow of Modern Divinity who says p. 127. That God the Father in that voice from heaven Mat. 3.17 and Joh. 12.30 doth chear the hearts of poor sinners and greatly delight them with singular comfort and heavenly sweetness assuring them that whosoever is married unto Christ and so in him by faith he is as acceptable to God the Father as Christ himself according to that of the Apostle He hath made us acceptable in his beloved Eph. 1.6 Wherefore if you would be acceptable to God and be made his dear child then by faith cleave unto his beloved Son Christ and hang about his neck yea and creep into his bosom and so shall the love and favour of God be as deeply insinuated into you as it is into Christ himself and so shall God the Father together with his beloved Son wholly possess you and be possessed of you and so God and Christ and you shall become One entire thing according to Christs prayer That they may be One in us as thou and I are One. I need say little more to the words of this Author than was said to those of Mr. Will. Eyre it being enough for me to say to every Reader of these lines as the High-Priest said to the by-standers at Christs arraignment he indeed causlesly but I justly Ye have heard their blasphemy Only I desire the Reader to observe further 1. How he doth wrong the Apostle by bringing him in to abett him in his said blasphemy I mean by alledging that in Eph. 1.6 as if the Apostle in saying That God hath made the believing Ephesians accepted in the Beloved had said That they were as acceptable to God as Christ himself whereas it will appear That the Apostle did intend by that very expression to insinuate a peculiarity of the Fathers Love to that his only begotten Son who lay in his bosom from all eternity 2. Observe how like a canting Familist he speaks in saying That upon our hanging about Christs neck and creeping into his bosom i.e. upon our believing in Christ God the Father together with his beloved Son will wholly possess us and be possessed of us and so God and Christ and we shall become One Entire Thing 3. Observe how notoriously he doth abuse the words of our Saviours Prayer and our Saviour Christ himself in them as if in praying That Believers might be one as the Father and he were one he had requested That they all may become One entire thing To pray That Believers may keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace
without any distinction that I never found it expresly said to be imputed to us or to be ours by imputation or any part of our righteousness If any man hath any where in the Bible read such sayings I beseech him to direct me to the Repositories Chapter and Verse where they are to be found that having read them I may at once believe both my own eyes and his CHAP. II. Q. Have all our Protestant Preachers and Writers erred from the truth of Scripture who have spoken of Christs Righteousness under the name or notion of a Righteousness imputed or have asserted the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us Answ No God forbid two reasons of which answer are rendred Q. 2. FOrasmuch as it hath been very ordinary with our Protestant Divines both in their Sermons and Writings both in polemical and positive Divinity to say That Christs Righteousness is imputed to us and imputed to us for righteousness have all of them erred from the truth in so saying Answ No God forbid for although none of them have precisely kept to the form of wholsom words but swerved or varied rather from the language of Scripture in that saying nevertheless there is no necessity to conclude them all to be under error upon that account for 1. A man may possibly yea we do very ordinarily speak the truth of Scripture although not in the words or terms of Scripture An assertion may be a Scriptural truth though it be not formed or asserted in Scripture-words and phrase 2. There are several senses of the word Righteousness respectively whereunto it is as well true as false to say That Christs Righteousness is imputed to us and this I will endeavour to explicate in answer to the following Question which will be the subject of the next Chapter CHAP. III. Q. In what sense is it true or false to say That Christs Righteousness is imputed to us In answer hereunto a twofold acceptation of the word Righteousness is specified respectively to which different acceptation of the word it is determined in what sense the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us is to be asserted and in what sense it is to be renounced with certain Reasons of the abrenunciation thereof Q. 3. WHat are those divers acceptations of the word Righteousness with respect whereunto the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us may be asserted as a truth or is to be rejected as an Errour Answ The word Righteousness is taken in a double sense viz. properly or figuratively 1. It is taken in Scripture sometimes yea very often improperly or figuratively not for the thing it self but for the issue or benefit thereof This kind of Trope is usual in Scripture and in common speech it being ordinary with us to put the name of a thing in the propriety of it instead of its return in the blessed issue fruits or products thereof In this sense the word is taken Job 33.26 where Elihu says That God will render to a man his righteousness i.e. not the thing it self but the fruit and comfort of it In this sense those who fear God are said to eat the labour of their hands i.e. that emolument which with their hands they did labour for Ps 28.2 In the like sense he who planted a Vineyard is said to eat or not to eat of it i.e. of the fruit of it Deut. 20.6 Thus work is put for the reward of it Rev. 14.13 Job 34.11 The work of a man will he render unto him Thus Ephes 6.8 Whatsoever good thing any man doth the same shall he receive of the Lord i.e. not the self same thing that is done but the same in the fruit and reward of it In the like sense are those words of St. John to be understood wherein he admonishes the Elect Lady and her Children to beware That they lose not the things which they had wrought i.e. the reward of the things wrought by them Now in this sense it is true to say and a truth worthy of all acceptation That Christs Righteousness is imputed to us that is in the saving effects of it or blessings procured by it In this sense to say That Christs Righteousness is imputed to us is the self same thing as to say That the fruit and benefit procured by his Righteousness is confer'd upon us And this I doubt not is the meaning of the Apostle in those his saying Rom. 5.18 19. That by Christs Righteousness the free gift of pardon or justification comes to us and That by his obedience we the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the many there mentioned are made righteous i.e. we for the sake of his righteousness or obedience are constituted righteous i.e. pardoned or justified And be it observed That as Righteousness so sin also in the same figurative sense is said to be imputed to a sinner i.e. in the deserved fruits and effects of it When the deserved punishment thereof is or is not inflicted upon a sinner then is his sin said to be imputed or not imputed to him In this sense those words of Shimei supplicating his Soveraign for pardon are to be understood he saying Let not my Lord impute iniquity unto me 2 Sam. 19.19 Where by iniquity he doth not mean the thing it self in a proper sense Ipsam culpam the sinful action or the act of sinning but the deserved fruit and punishment of it In this sense the word sin or iniquity are very oftentimes taken in Scripture as in Gen. 4.13 and 19.15 Luke 7.18 And as touching the word impute when applyed to what is in it self good or desirable be it observed That it is the manner of Scripture sometimes to express the collation of a benefit upon us or derivation thereof unto us by the word impute whether the benefit it self accrues to us by the way of debt or free donation as appears Rom. 4.4 To him that worketh the reward is reckoned or imputed for so the word is rendred three times in the same Chapter v. 22 23 24. not of grace but of debt i.e. on such a one it is confer'd not of grace but of debt and so to be reputed In this sense to say Christs Righteousness is imputed to us is all one as to say Christs Righteousness is in the saving fruit and benefit thereof confer'd upon us and he who says so speaks the very truth of Scripture Having declared in what sense the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ may and ought to be asserted and maintained I shall in the next place specifie the sense wherein it is to be rejected in order whereunto let it be observed that 2. The word Righteousness is sometimes taken properly and formally for the very thing it self in its essential nature in which sense as it is very oftentimes taken when applyed to the righteousness of man Prov. 10.2 12 28. Acts 10.35 Rom. 6.13 18 20. so likewise to the Righteousness of Christ Rom. 5.18 where the Righteousness of Christ is expresly mentioned And
Imputation of his obedience we are made Righteous No as to the words Imputed and Imputation there is Altum silentium not a word or syllable 2. The Doctor adjoyns thereunto Phil. 3.9 saying That this is that which the Apostle desires to be found in in opposition to his own righteousness To which I answer That the righteousness wherein St. Paul did there desire to be found was not the obedience or righteousness of Christ in opposition to his own evangelical obedience as the Doctor here says and too too many with him but his own evangelical obedience or the sincere practice of Christian Religion together with the blessed consequents and benefits thereof or promised through Christ thereunto in opposition to a Judaical righteousness styled his own he being a perfect Jew by descent an Hebrew of the Hebrews with all its carnal priviledges of which that Nation did so much boast which notwithstanding being put in competition with those of Christianity were in his esteem no better than dung than that we call Garbage or Dogs-meat as is the importance of the word there used by him whereby to express his contempt in the highest degree That this is the true meaning of the Apostle I may have occasion farther to demonstrate In the mean while I shall take into consideration what the Doctor affirms concerning our own obedience or righteousness and Christs he saying in these words This distinction the Apostle doth evidently deliver and confirm so as nothing can be more clearly revealed Ephes 2. 8 9 10. To this be it answered Of a truth I perceive how like to the black or yellow Jaundise that distemper of the intellect is which we call Prejudice or Prepossession in that it makes us as confident as confidence it self that we do see and see evidently and as clearly as can be such entities and adjuncts of entities as have no visible existence to the eye or understanding of any impartial man For 1. there is neâ— vola nec vestigium no sign or footstep of the distinction betwixt Christs obedience and ours in that Scripture for ought appears to me 2. All I see in these words is A distinction betwixt the Grace of God together with the obedience or works of faith or faith wrought in us by free grace and certain other works in opposition unto and contradistinction from the said Grace and Faith i. e. works wrought by their own natural strength without the infusion of special graces antecedent to the Ephesians their embracing the faith of Christ and consequently such works as do make for boasting 2. Hereupon I cannot but wonder in what term or terms of the said Scripture the most sharp-sighted or Eagle-ey'd Divine can perceive the obedience of Christ to be so evidently there delivered as that nothing can be more clearly revealed Surely the Doctor will not say That by Grace or by Faith visibly there mentioned is meant the obedience of Christ for Grace and Faith and Christs obedience are without all controversie several things whether physically metaphysically or theologically considered so that one member of the Doctor 's distinction is evidently wanting in that Scripture although I readily grant that forasmuch as every act doth presuppose an object faith must be understood there not as excluding but as including the person and obedience of Christ I will not say though some peradventure will as its adequate but as its partial however prime object 3. Were the obedience of Christ there expresly mentioned nevertheless it is to be denied That this obedience of Christ is there opposed to our obedience i. e. to our evangelical obedience or to the faithful works thereof as the Doctoâ— would have it but to another kind of works which do make for boasting as was afore-said And this I may perhaps endeavour to make apparent in another Treatise and there manifest how the Doctor doth mistake the true sence of the word saved in that Scripture which although he interprets for justified and so indeed in some Scriptures it is to be interpreted and it is an important truth that Gospel-Justification is the self-same thing with salvation from the guilt of sin nevertheless by saved in that place is meant sanctified quickned regenerated saved from the power of sin This right interpretation of the word saved doth utterly make void what the Doctor says in the following lines whereby to confirm the distinction betwixt Christs obedience and our evangelical obedience to be there as evidently delivered so as that nothing can be more clearly revealed I shall now return to the fore-cited words of Mr. Ferguson to which I answer 1. I do deny That to assert that the precise nature of Gospel-Justification doth consist in Remission of sin doth bid defiance to the Scripture in an hundred places or that that Principle doth imply That we are not at all justified And if I should say in compliance with the language here of this Author I do defie Mr. Ferguson to prove what he hath charged as the effect of the said Principle I think I should be blameless But I shall choose to forbear that word it being my desire and design to reply with words of alike meekness as wisdom whatever provocation there be to the contrary 2. I deny That to state the whole of our assoilment from the accusation of the Law in Remission is indeed to say That we are not justified 3. I deny That to say That a sinner is in an improper sence said to be justified is indeed to say That we are not justified Deus bone To say That God is said in an improper proper sence to render to a man his work work being put for wages or the reward of his work is this indeed to say That God will not render to a man his work or that his work shall not be rewarded of God 4. Because it is such an abhorring to this Author to conceive or speak of a sinner his being in an improper sence said to be justified I will therefore the matter being now ripe for such a purpose put it to the Question as followeth in the next Chapter CHAP. XII Q. Is a sinner said in a proper or improper sence to be justified In answer hereunto it is declared 1. That the Question in it self is immaterial 2. Nevertheless for the satisfaction of Mr. F. the Question is answered and therein it 's proved That the Justification of a sinner is of or in its kind a proper Justification and in what respects so said to be specified An Objection answered Q. IS a sinner said in a proper or an improper sence to be justified Answ 1. I think this Question to be too too near of affinity with those which St. Paul in one place calls unprofitable and vain Tit. 3.9 and the native product whereof as he says in another 1 Tim. 6.4 are envy strife railings evil surmisings and for that cause I am convinc'd that it ought not much to be disputed it being no whit material
expression 1 Cor. 14.9 intelligible speech or as our Translation renders it words easie to be understood I mean who do in plain down-right Scripture-language preach remission of sin through the blood righteousness or obedience of Christ do preach all that is true or truly comfortable in that doctrine which in the Sermons and Writings of many doth go under the name of Christ imputed Righteousness Object But do not the contrary minded pretend that Justification by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness it self to a sinner is a greater benefit than remission of sin and that also which a sinner over and above the pardon of his sin hath absolute need of in order to his admittance into the Kingdom of Heaven Answ I am not altogether ignorant of what is to that purpose pretended by too too many of my Brethren whose pretences I shall faithfully relate and because I do judg them to be weak and groundless I will endeavour to manifest the same in the ensuing Chapters CHAP. XXI One benefit pretended by divers That by Remission of sin a sinner is freed from the punishment deserved by his fault but by Christs Righteousness imputed he is freed from the fault it self the vanity of which pretence is discovered Several Objections answered wherein is shewen That a sinner may be disobliged from suffering the punishment deserved for his fault and yet remain faulty still and that it is repugnant to the nature as well as to the Law of God for God to repute a sinner to be that which he is not or not to have committed those faults which he hath committed That it is one thing for God to repute a person to be innocent and quite another to be dealt with respectively to impunity as innocent In what sence a Thief having made satisfaction for his theft is in the sence of the Law a Thief still The main ground of mistake in this matter specified 1. IT is pretended that by remission of sin the sinner is freed from the punishment deserved by his fault but by his justification through Christs Righteousness imputed to him he is freed from faultiness or the fault it self To this purpose saith Mr. John Warner in his Book styled Diatriba Fidei justificantis qua justificantis printed in the year 1657 the Book it self being chiefly written in opposition to Dr. Hammond Mr. Baxter Mr. Woodbridge and my self as to several passages in my Exercitation concerning the nature of forgiveness of sin His words p. 139. are these Whereas pardon of sin doth take away Reatum poenae justification doth constitute a man so righteous as to take away Reatum culpae To the same purpose I have read in another Author who says That whereas remission of sin takes away the punishment justification takes away the fault so that the Law hath no power to pronounce us faulty So Mr. Anth. Burges of Just 2d part p. 268. As for the vanity of this pretence I have said enough already partly in this Treatise and partly in the 4th Chapter of my Exercitation concerning the Nature of forgiveness of sin and if need be am ready to say more for the discovery thereof And for the better understanding of the matter let the difference betwixt Guilt of fault and Guilt of punishment be rightly understood and still remembred viz. That these two do differ Sicut Meritum poenae and Obligatio ad luendum poenam in the former sence he is guilty who hath committed a fault and thereby hath deserved punishment but in the latter sence he only is guilty that remains actually obliged to suffer the punishment which he by his fault had deserved Now as I have said before as Christs Righteousness is no more or otherwise imputed to a sinner for his justification than his pardon so also his justification doth stand him in no more stead than doth his pardon albeit Justification doth even as Remission of sin take away the guilt of punishment yet it neither doth nor can take away the guilt of fault or faultiness it self from the sinner so that albeit the Law cannot pronounce a sinner who is justified to be guilty as a person actually obliged to suffer for his fault yet it may and doth and cannot otherwise choose but pronounce him faulty or guilty of fault yea the Law in its express pronouncing a person to be pardoned justified or not guilty of punishment doth implicitly pronounce him to be guilty of fault So true are those sayings Quod factum est fieri infectum non potest Habere eripitur habuisse nunquam it a peccare cessat peccavisse nunquam Hereupon it was most truly said by the Poet Ne non peccârim Mors quoque non faciet But because I am well assured that Mr. Warner and Mr. Burgess are not alone in that their mistake as aforesaid I will therefore relate certain passages which I have somewhere read objected against the truth here and in the 4th Chapter of my said Exercitation asserted and return answer thereunto Object Either in forgiving sin God must Peccantem non peccantem facere or else he doth nothing Answ 1. If this be true that God in forgiving sin doth make a sinner to be no sinner or of faulty not faulty then there is no difference at all as to this particular betwixt forgiveness of sin and justification seeing God in forgiving the sinner as well as in justifying him doth make him no sinner i. e. not faulty or culpable Object Gods taking off the obligation to punishment is in order to his making Peccantem non peccantem i. e. a sinner to be no sinner Answ I deny that Gods taking off a sinners obligation to punishment is in order to any such matter as is here pretended For his taking off a sinners obligation to punishment is in order to his non-inflicting or his actual taking off the punishment it self in his appointed time 2. If it were truly said that Gods taking off a sinners obligation to punishment were in order to his making of a person faulty not faulty then the difference betwixt remission of sin and justification cannot be as is here pretended Object As long as a sinner is faulty he is still obliged to punishment Answ Woe be to us if this be true For if there be truth in that saying we have all cause to say with the Disciples Who then can be saved 2. Be it known to sinners for their great Consolation in Christ that what is here objected is a notorious mistake the very truth being this viz. That a sinner may be disobliged from suffering the punishment deserved by his fault even when and while he stands faulty yea although to all eternity he doth stand faulty and in very deed every pardoned or justified sinner shall so stand before God it being a thing simply impossible but that he who is pardoned or justified by Gods free grace through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus should remain faulty or culpable as to his former
sins even unto all eternity Object It is not a contradiction to say A sinner may become no sinner in Gods account or by Imputation that being done for him and made over to him which be should have done himself Answ 1. Whereas the Scripture tell us that Christ is our Mediator and Advocate with the Father this Objection supposeth him to have been our Mandatory Proxie or Delegate and that Christs doings were so done for us and in such a sence made over to us as that God imputes the very things done or the very doing of the things themselves unto us the error of which imagination I have already sufficiently as I hope demonstrated 2. As a person having sin'd or committed a fault is thereupon to be denominated a sinner even so doth God still from thence forward account of him neither is it possible that God should upon any account whatsoever repute him otherwise than as a person faulty For look upon what account any one shall affirm that God doth repute any such person not faulty he must upon the same account attribute to the All-seeing God a mistaken judgment i. e. to repute a person to be such a manner of person as indeed he is not or not to have committed the fault or faults which indeed he hath 3. As it is a contradiction for any one to say That what is done was never done so it is a notorious untruth to say That God reputes a man not to have done the faults which he hath done or not to have thereby deserved what he hath deserved Object What difference is there betwixt being imputed innocent and dealt with as innocent And if justified persons be accounted innocent then their faultiness is done away by Imputation Answ 1. There is a plain difference betwixt imputed I think the Objector would or should have said reputed innocent and dealt with respectively to impunity as innocent For the former doth imply that the person is esteemed to have committed no fault and thereupon that he is justified by works the latter doth imply that although a person be a sinner yet his punishment is remitted and that he is justified by free grace 2. Persons that are justified by grace or with a Gospel-kind of justification are not accounted innocent for upon the account of innocency they must be justified by works and not by grace and consequently their faultiness is not done away by any imaginary imputation whatsoever 3. It is one thing for God to repute a man Innocent and quite another thing for God to repute him As Innocent For for God to repute a person Innocent is to repute him to have committed no fault but for God to repute a person As Innocent is for God to pardon him or not punish him for his faults but to deal with him as one who never committed any 4. Though I readily grant that the faults of a person pardoned or justified are done away as to the Non-imputation of guilt of punishment in which respect their pardon or justification is styled a Non-imputation of their faults to them Ps 32.2 2 Cor. 5.18 nevertheless I must still deny that the faultiness of such a person is done away and affirm the contrary viz. That his faultiness or his sin in the faultiness thereof is still imputed to him i. e. that he is still reputed by God to have done or committed a fault and thereby to have deserved punishment Object Though in justifying a sinner God doth not Peccata non peccata facere yet he may Peccantem non peccantem facere Answ Because God cannot do the former therefore he cannot do the latter For Peccatum and Peccans being Conjugata it doth necessarily follow that whosoever doth Peccantem non Peccantem facere he must in order thereunto Peccatum non Peccatum facere for that cannot be done without this A man cannot of Peccans be made Non Peccans till that his Peccatum be made Non Peccatum Peccatum must be undenominated Peccatum or denominated Non Peccatum before Peccans can possibly be undenominated Peccans or denominated Non Peccans I conclude therefore that in his pardoning or justifying a sinner God doth not yea cannot do either of the said things I say Cannot because it implyes a contradiction i. e. to make one that hath sin'd not to have sin'd or that which once was a sin not to have been a sin Object A Thief having made satisfaction for his fault is in the sence of the Law no longer a Thief or faulty as to theft and so it is in the case of a sinners justification Answ 1. I readily both give and grant that look how it is with a Thief who by himself hath made legal satisfaction for his fault so it is with a justified sinner I say not who hath made satisfaction for himself in or by Christ but for whom Christ hath made satisfaction and which satisfaction as so made by Christ God hath accepted And the case of both I judg to be this viz. That although both of them do still remain faulty or Rei culpoe yet neither of them are Obligati ad poenam i. e. actually obliged to suffer the punishment deserved by or for their faults 2. Those words A Thief that hath satisfied for his fault is in the sence of the Law no longer a Thief are ambiguous For as the word Thief may signifie two things viz. One that hath stollen and one that is liable or obliged to suffer for his theft so the foresaid words may signifie either that the Law cannot say That such a one hath stollen or That such a one is liable or obnoxious to be condemned Now although the said Thief who hath made legal satisfaction be in the sence of the Law no longer a Thief in the latter sence of the word Thief yet he still is a Thief in the former sence of the word and shall be still so senced by the Law even so long till theft be no theft or the Law become never to have been a Law or till that which is once done shall become a thing that never was done Object The faultiness of the sin and of the person from that sin are two things the act of theft will be theft but the person committing that though once a Thief yet having satisfied the Law in the sence of that Law is become no Thief Answ 1. This in part hath been already answered in my reply to the Objection immediately foregoing wherein hath been declared in what sence of the word Thief the said person is in the face of the Law looked upon as no Thief and yet still as a Thief i. e. though not as one who is obliged to suffer for his theft yet as one who hath stollen or committed theft 2. I deny that the faultiness of the sin and of the person resulting from that sin are two things i. e. two separable things as the Objector pretends For there is not one faultiness of the sin
and another of the person nor can the faultiness of theft or of any other sin be separated from the person of him who hath committed such sins the faultiness of such sins will in the simple faultiness thereof result upon the persons of such sinners so long as Peccans and Peccatum Furtum and Furans are Conjugata 3. One special reason why some do not perceive their mistake in this pretended difference betwixt remission of sin and justification they asserting remission takes away the punishment but justification the fault seems to be this viz. Because they do not discern or mind the difference betwixt that two-fold guilt of sin which upon occasion hath oft-times before been mentioned and once at least explicated Guilt of fault and of punishment this being one main difference betwixt them viz. That guilt of punishment is a thing separable from the sinner but the guilt of fault not so For although it be most true that satisfaction being made for a fault which was the case here suppos'd the fault doth not Redundare in personam i. e. result upon the criminal in the punishment thereof this being the case of every pardoned or justified sinner nevertheless the Reatus simplex faultiness it self this being a thing inseparable from the sin and sinner doth still result upon him and shall abide upon him till such time as the foresaid contradictions can be verified which will be Ad Groecas Calendas neither in this world nor in the world to come Thus have I answered to what I ever hitherto have read touching the first grand benefit which is pretended to be in a sinners justification by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto him over and above that which doth consist in the Remission of his sin I proceed to the mention of another which shall be the subject of the next Chapter CHAP. XXII Another benefit pretended to be had by Justification through Christs Righteousness imputed over and above the pardon of our sins is That remission of sin doth take off a sinners obligation to punishment but justification by Christs Righteousness imputed doth put him into a state of favour and acceptation with God the vanity of which pretence is discovered The definition of Justification given by the late Assembly of Divines in their lesser Catechism explicated so as to reconcile it with the truth of Scripture though not from tautology Three main grounds of the mistake in the difference here pretended to be betwixt remission of sin and justification by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness 2. A Second benefit pretended to be had by justification through Christs imputed Righteousness over and above the pardon of our sins is this That remission of sin doth take off a sinners obligation to punishment but justification puts him into a state of favour and acceptation with God To this pretence I reply 1. Forasmuch as the punishment of sin is privative as well as positive of loss as well as of sence as are the common expressions and forasmuch as the loss or privation of a sinners favour and acceptance with God is one part of that punishment which is threatned for sin it cannot therefore be otherwise but that if the punishment of our sins through a pardon be remitted but that our persons should be accepted and restored into favour with God To this purpose it is observable that Reconciliation with God and remission of sin are used in Scripture as terms Synonimous or of the same importance reconciliation with God being a part at least of remission of sin for proof whereof see 2 Cor. 5.19 where Gods reconciling the world to himself is said to be his not imputing to them their trespasses which non-imputation is as hath been before-said all one with remission of sin See also Heb. 2.17 and 9.12 where we find it to be all one for Christ to make reconciliation for sinners as to purchase remission or redemption for them See Act. 10.43 with Rom. 5.11 To receive remission of sin and to receive atonement or reconciliation with God are there mentioned as the same thing 2. I desire the Reader to consider whether if a sinner through the remission of his sins be not brought into an estate of favour and acceptation with God Psal 32.1 the Psalmist had sufficient ground to pronounce a sinner blessed upon the account of the forgiveness of his sins Had not remission of sin in its very nature implyed the acceptation of our persons with God the Psalmist would doubtless not have said as there he doth once and again Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered and Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no iniquity Quest Do not the late Assembly of Divines make justification to be more than remission of sin as seems by that description of justification which in their lesser Catechism is by them described to be An act of Gods free grace wherein he pardoneth all our sins and accepteth us as righteous in his sight for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us Answ 1. That God accepts us as righteous for the righteousness sake of Christ is the truth of Scripture and a truth worthy of all acceptation but that this is for the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us no Scripture doth expresly affirm and forasmuch as those Divines do not explain the meaning of that their saying I am willing to construe it in such a sence as agrees with the Scriptures and as hath been opened in the third Chapter of this Treatise 2. I am willing also to make such a construction of those additional words in their description of justification And accepteth us as righteous in the sight of God as to reconcile them to the truth of Scripture and the best construction that possibly to my understanding can be made thereof is this viz. That those words are a meer tautology Gods pardoning us is all one with his cleansing us from all unrighteousness whereupon be it seriously considered How God can be said to cleanse us from all unrighteousness and not eo nomine accept us in his sight as righteous For there being sins of omission as well as commission if God pardon the former as well as the latter he must of necessity accept of our persons as righteous for as by pardoning a sinner his sins of commission he accepts of him as a person that hath done no evil so by pardoning him his sins of omission God accepts him as a person that hath performed all good and what is this but to accept him as righteous positively righteous There needs no more therefore to righteousness than pardon of sin For that which puts an offendor into such a state as if he had broken the Law in nothing and had performed it in every thing that doth necessarily justifie or constitute him righteous The premisses considered it doth evidently appear That to say By the remission of our sins God dischargeth us from the punishment of
do not mis-remember they I say thus asserting do yield that Believers shall enjoy through Christ a greater degree of glory in heaven than they lost by the fall of Adam or in him But they say That they are entitled unto this overplus of glory not simply by vertue of the remission of their sins or justification for this say they doth only restore them Adstatum quo prius to such a degree of happiness as they lost in Adam but by vertue of the super-aded grace of adoption and of this opinion are those two learned Authors Mr. Will. Bradshaw and Mr. John Goodwin and how far forth Mr. Baxter is inclinable thereunto and what his opinion more fully is himself hath declared in a peculiar Section thereabout in his Book against Colvinus if my memory do not fail me 2. As for my own sence I conceive 1. That as the loss of Gods fatherly love and favour and our becoming children of the devil was one part of the punishment of mans sin 2. As thereupon it follows That our adoption or being restored into Gods fatherly love and favour is one prime branch at least of forgiveness of sin So consequently 3. That Believers are no otherwise entitled to that farther degree of glory by vertue of their Adoption than by vertue of the remission of their sins and I do the rather conceive this to be the truth because whatever that higher degree of glory here supposed is I doubt not but the loss or miss thereof is threatned for sins committed against the Covenant of grace together with a greater degree of positive punishment than was threatned to Adam for breach of the Covenant of works Now forasmuch as Jesus Christ hath by his satisfaction procured pardon for sins committed explicitly against the New as well as the Old Covenant always excepted to final non-performance of the conditions of that New Covenant which are summarily comprehended in Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ and forasmuch as this pardon is promised and vouchsafed to sinners upon their repentance and faith in Christ it doth as I think necessarily follow That what sinner soever hath his sins all his sins against both Covenants pardoned that person is immediately discharged or freed not only from that punishment and loss of favour which he did incur and forfeit in Adam but he is moreover set free from that greater degree of punishment which is threatned for sins committed against the Covenant of grace and is also by his pardon entitled to that higher degree of glory and happiness which is supposed to be promised in the same But that he is entitled thereunto by his justification with such an Imputation of Christs Righteousness as is here pretended I see no reason at all to acknowledg and therefore I must still deny it till I see it proved adding withal that as for the said higher degree of heavenly glory supposed to be enjoyed by Believers for Christs sake I think it to be a matter rather of curious than necessary enquiry wherein we are not to be solicitous of being wise above what is written I shall close this Chapter with the words of Mr. Anth. Burges the said Author of the Tract concerning Justification first part p. 143 144. Remission of sin says he is not only Ablativa mali but also Collativa boni it is not a meer negation of-punishment due to us but also a plentiful vouchsafing of many gracious favours to us such as a Son-ship and right to eternal life These words in his first Book concerning Justification when I compare with what he says directly and professedly contrary thereunto in his second Book which came forth some years after which are these p. 269. Remission of sin and justification differ in this consideration In forgiveness of sin there is Ablatio mali in justification there is Collatio boni when sin is forgiven the eternal evil deserved is removed but when we are justified eternal good is promised When I say I compare those contradictory sayings of the same Author together I call to mind what is said to have been facetiously replyed in Parliament to one Mr. Jordan a Member thereof upon his declared change of mind What ailest thou thou Jordan that thou wast driven back What ail'd this Author so plainly and palpably to contradict both the truth and himself It seems that that Greek Proverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Second thoughts are best is not always true There are certain other contradictory passages in this Author concerning the subject which I am now treating upon He says p. 268. Whereas remission of sin doth only take away the guilt of sin justification doth remove the sin it self But he saith p. 432. Notwithstanding the Imputation of Christs active obedience God doth see the imperfect graces and sins of his people Again Although it be this Author 's professed design in his Book second part to maintain the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence impugned in this Treatise he making Justification to consist of two integral parts viz. Remission of sin and Imputation of righteousness nevertheless he seems plainly to contradict himself and to yield the cause by me contended for in this Treatise touching the manner of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness my assertion as aforesaid being this viz. That it is not in it self immediately or in its essential nature imputed to us but in the blessed effects or benefits thereby purchased for us and by God according to promise confer'd on us And he saith the same pag. 135 136. None say Christs obedience is imputed unto us in such a sence as that we should be said to be the efficients of that righteousness but that we should be the passive subjects receiving the benefit of it CHAP. XXIV Q. What are the evil Consequents which do naturally flow from the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence here impugned In answer hereunto one mischievous consequence is specified viz. That Christ is a sinner and the greatest of sinners Quest WHAT are the evil Consequents which do seem necessarily to follow from that doctrine touching the Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us in the sence which in this Treatise is disowned Answ Having in the foregoing Chapters manifested that no good at all over and above Remission of sin doth or can come of it this Question comes in very fitly to be demanded What are the evil consequents to it And if besides the No good or profit I shall be able to prove that there are many mischievous consequences thereof I hope that those who have espoused it will no longer be enamour'd with it but will be contented rather to give it a Bill of divorce and fairly to dismiss it Mr. Baxter saith It is the heart and root of so many errors yea of the whole body of Antinomianism that he would rather write a great volume against it than leave it with a brief touch Mr. Baxter's Confession p. 229. and p. 266.
Righteousness shall not be theirs Where by the way observe the unjustifiableness of those Antinomian sayings of the Doctor p. 118. That Christ himself is the Righteousness that he requires at our hands And p. 166. It will one day appear that God abhors the janglings of men about the place of their own works and obedience in the business of their acceptation with God To these sayings I reply 1. Christ himself is our Righteousness in such a sence as he is said to be our Life i. e. not in a formal but in a causal sence the predication in such Propositions not being Formalis or Essentialis but Causalis as is the manner of Logicians to express such matters 2. As it is not truly said in a literal but only in a tropical sence that Christ himself is our Righteousness so it is not true in any sence I know to say That Christ himself is the Righteousness which he requires at our hands neither do I remember any such saying in Scripture but rather that Christs Righteousness or Obedience How many disputes have been managed says Dr. O. p. 166 167. how many distinctions invented how many shifts and evasions studied to keep up something in some place or other to some purpose or other that men may dally withal Hereby it appears that the Doctor will not suffer evangelical obedience to have any manner of place one or another in order to our acceptance with God was a thing required at his hands and not at ours 3. As Christs Righteousness was a thing required at his hands so it is apparent by the Scriptures that there is a personal evangelical Righteousness required at our hands in order to our acceptation with God by through or for the Righteousness sake of Christ and without which evangelical Righteousness the unrighteous shall not be accepted with God Mat. 5.20 and 25. last 1 Cor. 6.9 4. It will one day appear how God abhors the vain janglings that I may not say also the juglings of men who not perceiving or acknowledging the consistency or subordination of our own personal Righteousness to Christs in the business of our acceptation with God would thrust either of them out of their proper place i. e. either Christs Righteousness out of the place or office of the alone meritorious cause or our own evangelical Righteousness i. e. our return to God by faith and repentance from the office or place of a condition of our acceptation What God said to Cain Gen. 4.7 If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted the same in effect doth God in his Gospel say to every sinner If thou dost well i. e. If thou dost believe in Christ if thou dost repent and convert thou shalt be accepted through Christ if otherwise sin lies at the door and will obstruct thy acceptation with God Again Observe from the premisses the unreasonableness of that other saying of the Doctor p. 219. where having quoted 1 Cor. 1.30 he says Not that Christ is this or that part of our Acceptation with God but he is all he is the whole To this I answer as the very truth is 1. Although Christ be the whole and sole meritorious cause of our acceptation with God yet he is not the whole nor any the least part of our acceptation it self For Christ being altogether a cause extrinsecal to our acceptation with God he cannot possibly be any part of or ingredient into the thing it self For this were to make Christ to be a cause intrinsecal to it and consequently either the formal or material cause thereof for these only are Causae or Partes Constitutivae which do Ingredi naturam rei neither of which he can be said to be but the meritorious cause 2. As was afore said so I say again That in order to our acceptation with God both Christ hath his part and we have our part to act both of them being severally and joyntly assigned us of God So that if by the whole of our acceptation with God the Doctor doth mean that Christ and his Righteousness is all that God requires in order to our acceptation with him his saying is to be rejected as false and a branch of Antinomian doctrine 2. I desire that the foresaid distinction may the rather be observed because it may serve to discover the maleyolence or in-sincerity or at least to speak most favourably and with the utmost of charity the ignorance of those who say That the dispute here is Whether we are justified before the Just and Holy God by our own righteousness or by the Righteousness of a Mediator These are the very words of the Author of the late Book styled ‖ In the last Page of the Preface to his Book Anti-Sozzo who should either have had more wit to know or more grace to acknowledg the contrary viz. That the Dispute between Protestant and Protestant is not Whether sinners be justified before God by their own Righteousness or by the Righteousness of Christ our Mediator but whether there be not also an evangelical Righteousness consisting in a return to God by faith and repentance required of every sinner in order to his being justified for the sake of Christs Mediatory Righteousness as the alone meritorious cause thereof And this is that which however some Protestants do dispute and seem to gainsay yet others do not but do professedly maintain among whom I shall instance in the late Assembly of Divines as appears by the Confession of their Faith and Catechism they professing Ch. 15. Sect. 3. of their Confession That although repentance be not to be rested in as a satisfaction for sin or any cause of the pardon thereof which is the act of Gods free grace in Christ nevertheless it is of such necessity to all sinners that none may expect pardon without it And as appears also by the express answer which they do instruct every Catechumen to make unto this Question What doth God require of us that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the Law the answer put into their mouths being this That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the Law he requireth of us repentance towards God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ and I might also instance in the judgment of our own Church touching the necessity of a personal Righteousness in sinners that so they may be justified before God through the Righteousness of Christ or for his sake absolved from their sins This appears by the tenor of that discharge or absolution which after the general Confession in the Liturgy every Minister is in Gods Name and as his Commissioner to pronounce saying He pardoneth and absolveth all them that do truly repent and wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance and so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy through Jesus Christ our Lord. I do well remember