truly as I believe said by the most learned judicious Divines whose writings I am acquainted with in this matter 2. I will suggest two or three things which I conceive to be the native consequences of Christ his suffering the Idem of our obligation and not the Tantundem For the first be it considered 1. That the person who made the payment was not the same who was in the obligation but another For it was not Christ who was in the obligation but the sinner the Law threatning not him in person or him in our person but the sinner Briefly that Law obliged none to die but the sinner nor any other to die for or instead of the sinner 2. The sufferings of Christ were not altogether of the same kind There was that exclusion of sinners from the favour of God threatned in the curse and which shall one day be executed upon some sinners which was not suffered or undergone by Christ For as the Apostle says upon supposal of a perfect similitude betwixt our great High-Priest and those after the order of Aaron Then must Christ often have suffered since the foundation of the world Heb. 9.26 Even so upon supposition The ground of Christs obligatioÌ„ and our obligation to suffer is extreamly different for ours was founded upon the guilt of sin committed but Christs was founded upon his own voluntary sponsion whence it is that ours is justly denominated Obligatio Criminis but His only Contâ—actuâ— that whatsoever suffering was threatned to the sinner was inflicted upon Christ I may say Then Jesus Christ should have often suffered since the foundation of the world yea to the end of the world yea world without end even to all eternity His sufferings forasmuch as he was both God and man in one person however they were equivalent to whatsoever was threatned by the original Law to sinners yet they were not the same 3. The ground and reason of Christs and sinners obligation to suffer was not of the same kind or denomination his being Obligatio fidejussoria or Contractus but ours Criminis or ex delicto as hath been already said As sinners were obliged to suffer by one Law so Christs obligation did result from another and that Law peculiar to himself 2. As for the evil consequences of asserting That Christ suffered the Idem the same thing which was in a sinners obligation to suffer be it considered that thence it will follow That a sinner should Ipso facto have an immediate present right to be discharged from his obligation to suffer according to that celebrated saying of the Civilians Solutione ejus quod debetur tollitur obligatio which to say is a branch of down-right Antinomian doctrine which maintains the Justification of Infidels or of sinners in their damnable unbelief 2. It follows That a sinners discharge from his obligation to suffer is not truly and therefore cannot rationally be styled Pardon of sin or that a sinner upon such a supposition cannot rationally be said to be pardoned For I look upon the sayings of those two learned men Grotius and Wotton as undoubted truths viz. Vbi idem solvitur vel à debitore vel ab alio debitoris nomine nulla contingit remissio nihil enim circa debitum agit Creditor aut Rector Grot. de satisf p. 119. Where the same thing is paid either by the debtor himself or by any other in his name there is no remission or pardon of the debt The Creditor or Rector doth in that case act nothing he only receives the debt And says Mr. Wotton De reconcil Pecc p. 157. Poena ac venia diversa sunt ita planè ut qui poenas dederit non sit absolutus qui absolutus est supplicio affectus non fuit Punishment and pardon are contrary so the word Diversae is here to be construed so as that he who hath suffered the punishment for his sin is not pardoned or absolved and he who is absolved i.e. absolved by a pardon was not punished My reply to what this Author says in the next Page shall be the subject of the following Chapter Only lest I should seem willing which is indeed a thing far from me to charge this Author with the holding of any point of doctrine which he doth dis-own I think it meet at the close of this Chapter to give the Reader to understand that he doth else-where in effect say That Christ did not suffer the Idem but the Tantundem for he says expresly p. 557. That Christ submitted to the demerit of our sins so as to undergo the penalty in the substance and kind of it though not in the adjuncts and consequential accidents which would have accompanied it upon such weak finite depraved subjects as we are that we should have undergone Hereupon all that I can peremptorily say is this viz. 1. That I am not able to reconcile this Author with himself in both his said sayings For if Christ did undergo the penalty of the Law which we should have undergone only in the substance and not in the circumstances thereof as here specified how was it true to say as he said in Page 536. That in Christs suffering for our sins God did evidence his truth and immutability in proceeding according to the Penal Law which in pursuance of his own Attributes and mans rational Nature and relations to God he had at first enacted For was not the circumstances adjuncts or accidents of punishment as well as the substance of punishment threatned to man in that penal Law and which man having sin'd should accordingly have undergone Now if Christ did undergo the penalty only in the substance but not in the adjuncts threatned how is this consistent with his saying That in the sufferings of Christ God did proceed according to the penal Law which at first was enacted 2. It is not reconcileable to but flatly against the truth to say That Christ suffered that punishment in kind which we should have undergone For I would demand of him Was not eternal death comprized in the penalty threatned in that Law at first enacted 3. If by Gods truth and immutability Mr. F. means as it is evident he doth the immutability and truth of God in fulfilling that his threatning-word Gen. 2.17 it is his notorious mistake so to think or say For that penal Law was not by the sufferings of Christ fulfilled or executed but through a compensation or through his compensatory sufferings dispenced with as was upon occasion before said God therein manifesting his mercy and justice but not his truth and immutability respectively to that threatning-Law CHAP. XVI The Imputation of Socinianism groundlesly charged by Mr. F. upon his Brethren Mr. F. his charging his Antagonists with nonsence refuted That sort of union with Christ to be renounced the native consequence whereof is the reciprocal Imputation of our sins to Christ and of his Righteousness to us in the sence of Mr. F. with his Adherents i.e.
legal Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us by or through faith I answer 1. It is not at all imputed to us in the sence of this Author i. e. properly and in its essential nature but only in the saving effects thereof as I have already I hope convincingly demonstrated 2. Nevertheless I grant that in subordination to the Righteousness of Christ faith is a Medium or means of a sinners justification though it is another kind of Medium than is Christs Righteousness to which it is subordinate in the justifying of a sinner Christs Righteousness being such a Medium as hath the nature or efficiency of a meritorious cause but our faith having only the nature of a condition simply so called I have thought meet to intimate this for these two reasons 1. To prevent the mis-understanding of what I said in the foregoing Chapter wherein was said that Gospel-pardon was ex Christi satisfactione and ex peccatoris fide which must not be so understood as if the word ex did imply the self same importance in both places For the truth is that as the particle ex is of different importance it importing sometimes one kind of cause and sometimes another and sometimes no cause at all but an antecedent condition and the same I may say of the particles in English Greek and Hebrew corresponding to the Latine particle ex so in the former application of the particle it doth imply efficiency or an efficient meritorious cause but in the latter only an antecedent or a condition sine quâ non 2. To prevent the mis-construction of the word faith in many places of Scripture where by faith many do understand only its object Christ or his Righteousness whereas as faith and Christs Righteousness are two things of distinct consideration so by faith in such sayings as these We are justified By faith and saved By faith we are to understand not only the object thereof as implyed Christ or his Righteousness but also the act believing or the thing it self faith Lastly I answer That forasmuch as God is graciously pleased in his Gospel to appoint and to declare his acceptance of faith as the condition of a sinners justification through or for the sake of Christs Righteousness therefore I answer as before That a sinners justification is to be denominated rather Evangelical than Legal I shall now return to Mr. Ferguson and reply to certain other passages which I find here and there dispersed in his Book as grounds for the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us in the sence by him contended for CHAP. XV. Several mistakes in Mr. F. according to the obvious construction of his words detected That Christ suffered not the Idem but the Tantundem manifested by three things distinctly specified and two evil consequences of the contrary Doctrine With a Caution in the close P. 536. MAN having taken off his dependency upon God Mr. F3 by transgressing the Law of Creation Gods Rectorship over him which is regulated by his wisdom holiness veracity and the eternal rectitude and righteousness of his nature would not allow that he should be received into favour but in such a way and by such means as may secure the ends of government manifest the displicency that is in God to sin evidence his truth and immutability in proceeding according to the penal Law which in pursuance of his own Attributes and mans rational nature and relation he had at first enacted Answ I assent to the whole of what is here recited except this That God did for the ends specified proceed according to the penal Law which at first was enacted in which saying there is a complication of mistakes involved for 1. That Law was only dispenced and not executed neither upon Christ nor upon mankind not upon Christ for Christ was not at all threatned in that Law neither did he die the death by vertue of that Law however by occasion of it as hath been already said Nor was that Law executed upon all mankind supposing and taking it for granted that by the death there threatned is meant eternal as well as temporal death 2. A mistake of the nature of that obligation which a divine commination doth induce seems to be implyed in the said words of this Author for Comminatio est obligatio Legem violantis ad poenam ferendam The threatnings of God do induce only an obligation upon transgressors to suffer the punishment threatned but not any necessary obligation upon God to inflict it non Legem ferentis ad inferendam that commination did signifie what man was bound to suffer not what God was bound to do Upon disobedience man was bound to suffer but God was not thereupon bound to inflict punishment otherwise supream Law-givers could have no power to pardon and therefore there is no necessity that the punishment threatned should be executed and it is an error to assert or imagine any such necessity The only inevitable effect of that threatning was That upon mans sin punishment should be his due and so it was man being bound to punishment Ipsofacto upon his offence committed And herein is the difference betwixt a Commination and a Denunciation of punishment this being an act of judgment or sentence or else a prediction of a decree to punish whereupon the punishment denounced is always inflicted 3. There seems also to be this mistake a mistake of very evil consequence implyed in the clause fore-cited viz. That Christ suffered the Idem not the Tantundem the same suffering to which that Commination did oblige and that a sinners liberation from the punishment to which he was obliged was by the way of strict payment not satisfaction or compensation 4. There seems also to be this mistake implyed in the said clause viz. That the ends of Gods soveraign rule and government could not be secured by a Compensation or without strict solution or payment of that very debt of punishment which was by the sin of man contracted And if I were sure that this Author would own this opinion for God forbid that I should causlesly fasten any thing upon him or any of my Brethren viz. That the sufferings of Christ were Ipsa debiti solutio and not Pro debito satisfactio Christs sufferings were not the very payment of our debt in kind but a valuable satisfaction to divine justice for our not payment of it or for Gods not exacting of us the payment thereof I would more at large suggest somewhat of my own and endeavour to improve what hath been so far as my knowledge reacheth said by others against it Nevertheless because there are of my Brethren who do maintain that Christ suffered the very Idem which was in a sinners obligation and not the Tantundem at least that it is not much material whether we say the one or the other I will for their satisfaction do these two things 1. I will briefly set down the substance of what is commonly and
is imputed to us In answer hereunto a twofold acceptation of the word Righteousness is specified respectively to which different acceptation of the word it is determined in what sence the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us is to be asserted and in what sence it is to be renounced with certain Reasons of the abrenunciation thereof p. 4. Chap. iv An Objection from 2 Cor. 5.21 answered and also retorted The blasphemy of Mr. William Eyre in his Assize-Sermon preached at Sarum 1652. reproved p. 10. Chap. v. Q. Did Christ take upon him the Guilt as well as the Punishment of our Sins Answ No. A brief explication of the Distinction of Guilt commonly styled Guilt of Fault and Guilt of Punishment together with a Reply to what is alledged by certain late Writers out of Bishop Andrews p 13. Chap. vi An Answer to several unjustifiable passages in Mr. Ferguson's Book styled The Interest of Reason in Religion His false and manifold uncharitable insinuations answered Wherein 't is shewed what manner of guilt or obligation to punishment that was which Christ took upon him That Christ did not suffer however by occasion of that Law Gen 2.17 as transgressed yet not by vertue thereof as if that Law in or by his sufferings had been executed His mistake of the true nature of Gospel justification demonstrated That it is not against the essential Holiness of God as Mr. Ferguson pretends to justifie a sinner upon an obedience Ex. parte sui seu peccatoris imperfect with the reason of his mistake p. 16. Chap. vii That the Scripture doth no where assert a surrogation of Christ in our room in such a strict Law-sence as that we may be said in and by him to have done and suffered what he did and suffered and in or by him to have redeemed our selves And that Christ did not in such a Law-sence represent us as Proctors and Attorneys do their Clients Ambassadors their Princes or Guardians their Pupils acting accordingly in our names but officiating as a Mediator betwixt God and Man The evil Consequences charged by Mr. F. upon the contrary Doctrine are denied His thwacking Contradiction imputed to others avoided by them retorted upon himself p. 25. Chap. viii Mr. Ferguson's mistake in thinking that a sinner by his justification is freed from the guilt of punishment and fault too That Christs righteousness is not more or otherwise imputed to us for in towards or in order to our justification than the remission of our sin The nature of justification forensick opened both of justification indefinitely considered as also of Gospel-justification in special The truth of the matter laid down in several Propositions p. 28. Chap. ix That those who assert That the Law of works is abrogated do in substance of truth accord with those who choose rather to express themselves saying It is relaxed or dispensed with God in justifying a sinner doth not pronounce him just and righteous that is no sinner A sinner not otherwise made just and righteous by his being justified than by his being pardoned through Christ That a sinner cannot possibly be justified from the accusation of the Law in it's charging him to be a sinner p. 36. Chap. x. That the difference betwixt remission and Gospel-justification is not at all in this viz. That remission is the result of mercy and the act of one exercising favour and justification the off-spring of Justice as Mr. F. says The usage of words in common speech sometimes in signification contrary to that of Scripture exemplified in the language of our Brethren of Scotland Mr. Ferguson's notorious mistake in asserting That to justifie is no where in the Scripture-usurpation equipollent with to forgive p. 39. Chap. xi Mr. Ferguson's mistake in saying That we are made Righteous With the Righteousness of Christ as also Dr. Owen's in his Book styled Communion with the Trinity refuted and that in Rom. 5.18 alledged by him answered wherein is declared That it is one thing to be justified By and another thing to be justified With the Righteousness of Christ The Doctor 's misinterpretation of Phil. 3.9 and Eph. 2.8 That the asserting of the whole of Justification to consist in remission of sin hath no such evil consequences as Mr. F. chargeth it with p. 42. Chap. xii Q. Is a sinner said in a proper or improper sence to be justified In answer hereunto it is declared 1. That the Question in it self in immaterial 2. Nevertheless for the satisfaction of Mr. F. the Question is answered and therein it 's proved That the Justification of a sinner is of or in it's kind a proper Justification and in what respects so said to be specified And Objection answered p. 48. Chap. xiii Q. Why or for what reasons may pardon of sin be called Justification and Vice versâ Or What reasons are there for their promiscuous use in the N. T Answ In answer whereunto 1. It is acknowledged That the Question is in it self not so considerable 2. Nevertheless for the satisfaction of many dissenting Brethren in answer thereunto several reasons of the thing are assigned and specified p. 54. Chap. xiv Q. How is the justification of a sinner to be denominated whether Evangelical or Legal Answ Rather Evangelical and the reason assigned The Arguments of those on the contrary side both answered and retorted who acknowledg that the justification of a sinner is Evangelical ex parte principii but would not have it absolutely to be so styled but rather a Legal justification The reason why this Question is debated and answered p. 58. Chap. xv Several mistakes in Mr. F. according to the obvious construction of his words detected That Christ suffered not the Idem but the Tantundem manifested by three things distinctly specified and two evil consequences of the contrary Doctrine With a Caution in the close p. 63. Chap. xvi The Imputation of Socinianism groundlesly charged by Mr. F. upon his Brethren Mr. F. his charging his Antagonists with non-sence refuted That sort of union with Christ to be renounced the native consequence whereof is the reciprocal Imputation of our sins to Christ and of his Righteousness to us in the sence of Mr. F. with his Adherents i.e. properly and formally or otherwise than in the fruits and effects of the one and of the other The reason thereof rendred p. 69. Chap. xvii That Christ may very well be said to be made sin for us to bear our sins to dye for our offences although it cannot be truly said that he did bear our sin it self or sin in it self or otherwise than in the fruit and effects of it the contrary whereunto is pretended by Mr. F. Mr. Ferguson's mistake in confounding an Antecedent impulsive Cause with a meritorious Cause the difference whereof is asserted and exemplified His mistake in not distinguishing betwixt An Obligation and Our Obligation to suffer That though our sins did properly merit Christs suffering nevertheless it will not follow from
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
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
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
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
obey God to fly from wrath to come but to serve God to obtain salvation and why should we not take the way or use the means to obtain the end or why did God constitute such and such things as means for such and such ends but that as by him they were appointed so by us they should be used to attain the same But for all this the Doctor doth so spite at the Gibeonites who are contented to do the meanest services which God puts them to that so they may escape the wrath of God in their own Consciences here and in the slames of Hell hereafter I say he doth so detest the whole race of the said Gibeonites as to fling another stone at them in a few pages after whose words I shall recite as I find them pag. 248. and with a few Animadversions thereupon I will conclude this Chapter The Saints motive to obedience is love The rule of their obedience their walking with God is the Law of liberty as divested of all its terrifying threatning damning cursing power and rendred in the blood of Christ Jesus sweet tender useful directing helpful as a rule of walking in the life they have received not the way of working for the life they have not These instances may suffice to manifest that liberty of obedience in the family of God which his sons and daughters have that the poor convinced Gibeonites are not acquainted withall Answ 1. As hope and fear are well consistent with love so are those as well as this the motive of the Saints obedience and so they ought to be as in part hath been already proved as to fear in Noah Job and David and as is easily proveable even by the current of the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament See Heb. 4.1 12 28 29. Rom. 11.20 Phil. 2.13 And as for hope its being a principle or motive of the Saints obedience see Act. 26.7 1 Joh. 3.3 1 Pet. 1.13 14 15. To multiply Scriptures for the proof of this which is so evident in nature is as needless as to light a candle at noon day As he that ploweth is moved to do it with hope of a crop every other labourer with hope of some gain 1 Cor. 9.10 so are the Saints moved and to be moved with the hope of the Gospel to be stedfast to it and immoveable from such a conversation as doth become it 1 Cor. 15.58 2. It is not the Law of God as diversed of all its terrifying threatning damning cursing power which is the rule of the Saints obedience Such doctrine is a branch of what Dr. More stiles that loathsome and pestilential error of Antinomianism and indeed it is a root which of it self beareth gall and wormwood and therefore by all due means to be eradicated out of Gods husbandry the hearts and minds of his people where the Devil that envious one hath planted it And for the extirpation thereof or confutation of this dangerous piece of Antinomianism what need I say more than to desire the Reader to open his Bible and to read the tenour of the Laws of God given by him as the rule of every ones living I mean both as the directing and obliging rule and then to speak his mind whether the Law of God the rule of the Saints obedience hath not the usual Sanction of Laws i.e. a commination of terror even the terrible curse of damnation upon supposition of their disobedience thereunto Doth not God command the Saints to beware of Apostasie and to persevere in faith and holiness upon peril of damnation Ezek. 18.24 Rom. 8.13 Heb. 4.1 10. 3. It is the Doctors error as of many others to think that the Law of God cannot be sweet tender useful directing helpful to the Saints as a rule of walking with God except it be divested of its sanction as aforesaid for although its sanction be supposed will not the Saints say as did Hezekiah in another case Good is the word of the Lord which he hath spoken Esa 39.8 Yea are not the very comminations of God useful and helpful even of their own nature and proper tendency to the Saints in their walking with God as well as his precepts or directions He that denys this which is so proveable both by Scripture and reason is worthy to be taught as Gideon taught the men of Succoth with briars and thorns of the wilderness I mean to be confuted with stripes rather than with words or arguments 4. It seems this Doctor hath not sufficiently studied the reason why Gods Law the Law of the Gospel is styled a Law of Liberty for if he had he might have known that it is so styled for this reason among several others because it imposeth no servile yoaks like those laid upon the Jews and enjoineth only such services as are suited and most agreeable to our rational nature and in the performance of which consisteth our truest freedom and liberty 5. It is another branch of Antinomian doctrine to say That the Law of God is a rule of the Saints walking in the life they have received not the way of working for the life they have not This is an error which as it hath been abundantly confuted by Mr. Baxter in several of his Writings so I have already refuted in this Chapter and more at large in the 28th Chapter of my Exercitation concerning the nature of Forgiveness of sin wherein is manifested the consistency of these two working From and For life and that the Saints from the life of grace they have received do work and ought to work For the life of glory which as yet they have not received Lastly While the Doctor pretends to maintain that liberty of obedience in the family of God which as he says the sons and daughters of God have he makes them worse slaves than the Gibeonites were ever made by Joshua Now alas for the poor convinced Gibeonites these poor convinced unconvinced Gibeonites convinced in conscience that it is their duty to serve God but not convinced that it is their sin to serve Him to this end to fly from wrath present in a wounded conscience or from wrath to come in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone Convinced that it is their duty to love God but not convinced that the love of God and the love of their own souls are things inconsistent Convinced that a main motive of their serving God should be their love of Him but not convinced that love to their souls-safety and salvation should be no motive at all unto or end of their serving of God! I will say to these poor Gibeonites who cannot so easily put off humanity or be perswaded out of all love to themselves specially to their souls Let it be a very small thing with you to be judged of this mistaken Doctor yea to be judged by mans judgment for he that will judg you at the last is the Lord who will judg your present Judges who
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