Covenant or Decree of God and at the time appointed most fully make whence it is that the Apostle says He gave himself A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a counter-price a satisfaction instead of a satisfaction 1 Tim. 2.6 2. The second Law or Covenant is that wherein we sinners are the Restipulators and which in Scripture is styled The Promise The Law of Faith The Gospel The new Covenant wherein God through Christ doth promise remission of sin upon certain conditions upon performance whereof he doth accordingly bestow it upon us 3. Remission of sin may be styled Justification in respect of the profit or benefit thereof and this both special and general 1. Special In that it doth prevent remove or take away the obligation to condemnation which is due to sinners which condemnation is the direct opposite to Justification as is apparent by many Scriptures 2. In general In that it is equivalent unto or will prove to be of like universal benefit priviledge or emolument to a sinner with that kind of Justification which is the justification of a person who in himself is altogether just and never was obnoxious Thus have I replyed to the whole of what Mr. Ferguson hath said in his second Chapter concerning a sinners Justification and the imputation of Christs Righteousness unto him But before I proceed to reply to any other passage in his Book which concerns the matter in hand I will answer a Question that will come in fitly to be proposed by occasion of what hath been said upon this last namely That the justification of a sinner is By a Law CHAP. XIV Q. How is the justification of a sinner to be denominated whether Evangelical or Legal Answ Rather Evangelical and the reason assigned The Arguments of those on the contrary side both answered and retorted who acknowledge that the justification of a sinner is Evangelical ex parte principii but would not have it absolutely to be so styled but rather a Legal justification The reason why this Question is debated and answered Q. HOW is the Justification of a sinner to be denominated whether Evangelical or rather Legal Answ I propose this Question not for the satisfaction of Mr. Ferguson but for the sake of some other Brethren who may need a due information therein And my answer is That forasmuch as that Law by which a sinner is justified is The Law of Faith of Grace or of the Gospel it is therefore to be denominated not a Legal but an Evangelical Justification Herein by not Legal I must not in reason be understood to mean Not in any sence so or by no Law at all but not by the Law of works or as the word Legal is opposed to or contradistinguished from the word Evangelical And there cannot be as I think a more convincing Argument to prove That Evangelical in the case or question in hand is the fittest name than by alledging that The Law of works is not the Law By which but a Law From which i. e. by an appeal from which to the Law of grace a sinner is and is to be justified which will be granted by all viz. That the Law by which a sinner is justified is an Evangelical Law the Law of the Gospel For forasmuch as the Law by which a man was and is to be justified is two-fold 1. The Law of God Creator commonly styled Lex originalis or Law of works 2. The Law of God Redeemer called Lex remedians or the Law of grace or faith and forasmuch as the former Law was enacted as the Rule of justifying an innocent person and the latter of a sinner how can we better express the difference betwixt the justification of an innocent and a sinner than by styling the former a Legal and the latter an Evangelical Justification The peculiar species of the Law by which a person is justified is that which doth specificate the justification it self and is therefore most apt and fit to give it its peculiar denomination I desire That the answer here given may the rather be duely weighed and observ'd because it may serve to rectifie the mistake of a certain learned Author perhaps also of some other Brethren who albeit he doth allow a sinners justification to be Evangelical ex parte principii Evangelical Grace in Christ being the fountain of it and so to be called with a respect thereunto nevertheless he will not allow it roundly and absolutely to be denominated Evangelical but rather Legal for these two reasons Because it is Legal ex parte termini medii 1. Ex parte termini because it is minated in the satisfaction which is to be made or performed to the Law He hath freed me from the Law of sin and death To this I answer What he means here by the satisfaction to be made to the Law upon which the justification of a sinner is by him said to be terminated I do not know nor will I take upon me so much as to guess lest I should mistake his meaning only I will say as followeth 1. That by the Law of the Spirit of life Rom. 8.2 is meant the Evangelical Law the Gospel of Christ or Law of Faith 2. That Justification is one part at least of that saving benefit which the Apostle comprizeth under the expression of his being by that Law made free from the Law of sin and death it being as well the guilt of sin as the power of sin which by that Law he was made free from 3. Consequently I say That that Scripture proves not the Author's purpose but the direct contrary viz. That because it is by the Law of the Gospel that we are made free or justified from the guilt of our sins therefore our Justification is to be called Evangelical and not Legal 2. Respeciu medii in respec̄i of the means says he which is the Legal Righteousness of Chrifr by or through faith imputed to us To this I answer 1. As in some respect the Righteousness of Christ may be styled Justitia Legalis the Law of his Mediatorship requiring it and it being the rule thereof so in another respect it may be fitly said to be Justitia pro-Legalis it being to us instead or standing us instead of a perfect legal Righteousness so also in another respect it may very fitly be styled and so I find it styled by some Authors our evangelical righteousness and an evangelical righteousness it may I say be very fitly styled 1. Because the Gospel is it and it alone not the light of nature by which it is revealed and made known to the world 2. Because it was of Gods grace to appoint it 3. To accept it also and this for gracious or Gospel-ends viz. the pardon or justification of sinners And for this reason I may well conclude That the justification of sinners is to be denominated not a legal as the Author contends for but an evangelical Justification 2. As for his saying That this
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
only relaxed or dispenced with and he gives reasons for what he says But because his reasons are not I think so convincing as to be uncapable of a satisfactory reply and forasmuch as I do apprehend the difference betwixt them all things considered to be rather verbal than real I can therefore leave every man to his own choice in wording the matter as he pleaseth Only I shall say That although I do not impute any error of judgement to Mr. F. in saying That the introduction of the Law of faith hath not abrogated the Law of perfect obedience but this as well as that remaineth in force nevertheless forasmuch as such sayings do need explication I wish for the truths sake that such sayings were not roundly and simply uttered or without due caution and explication The premisses considered it is easie what judgment to make of several passages in this Author which I will now recite and briefly animadvert upon 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 dispenced 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 its charging him to be a sinner P. 415. Mr. F. AND indeed the Socinians express themselves in this more consonantly to their principles than some others do For having stated the whole of justification in the remission of sin upon performance of the conditions of the Gospel in pursuance of this they accordingly plead for the utter abrogation of the Law Answ 1. What the Socinians do hold concerning the abrogation or non-abrogation of the sanction of the Law I concern not my self to know This only will I say That by how much the Socinians are more obliged to this Author for his charity towards them in this matter by so much are those his Brethren the some intended by him upon a contrary score bound to con him the less thanks 2. As I said before so I say again That those Brethren who do hold that the Law of works is abrogated and those who say it is not abrogated or repealed but dispenced with and relaxed do both of them agree in this truth viz. That there is a Law still in force that doth command perfect obedience under the penalty of damnation the only difference between them for ought I know being in this viz. By what Law it is now required or by what name that Law is to be styled whether the Law of works or the Law of grace wherein say the former it is indeed required under the penalty of damnation but not peremptorily and unavoidably ex parte Legis as it was in the Law of works but with a Proviso as to the execution thereof Now forasmuch as our Brethren do universally accord as aforesaid I judge this Author to be unjust in determining that the Socinians do express themselves more consonantly to their principles than some others do The Author arguing for justification its being a different thing from pardon of sin because otherwise we cannot in any propriety of speech be said to be justified from the accusation of the Law he saith in that case as followeth P. 416. Pardoned indeed we may be Mr. F. but justified in a proper sence we cannot For to suppose God to pronounce a person just that is unjust or to declare him righteous that is unrighteous is to make him pronounce a sentence that is unjust and false and to act repugnantly to his own holy and righteous nature Answ As to the justification of a sinner from the accusation of the Law whether it is or may be properly or no so called I shall speak my thoughts by and by in my Answer to a Question that shall be put expresly for that purpose Mean while it may be sufficient to say 1. That if by just and unjust this Author doth mean a sinner and no sinner as for ought I know he doth and agreeably to his principle touching the imputation of Christs righteousness to us in its essential nature he must mean he doth utterly mistake the nature of justification in thinking That a sinner through the imputation of Christs righteousness is of unjust made just i. e. of a sinner made perfectly righteous and freed from guilt of fault the impossibility whereof I have already spoken of 2. A sinner is no otherwise of unjust and unrighteous made just and righteous by being justified than by being pardoned and what kind of righteousness that is wherewith he is by his justification or pardon made just and righteous I will at large declare in Answer to a Question which shall be the subject of another Chapter 3. Forasmuch as it hath been already proved that a sinner cannot possibly be discharged from the Law its accusation of him as a sinner or its charging him with the guilt of sin this Author must needs err in thinking that in any manner of sence proper or improper a sinner can be said to be justified from the same CHAP. X. That the difference betwixt remission and gospel-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 THE difference betwixt remission of sin and Justification he doth specifie in the following words P. 417. Remission is the result of mercy Mr. F. and the act of one exercising favour but Justification is the off-spring of justice and imports one transacting with us in a juridical way without the infringment of Law or equity Answ These words are true if understood of Remission ex nudâ voluntate and of the Justification of a person innocent But if understood of Gospel-Justification the Justification of a sinner and of Gospel-pardon which for kind is both a pardon derived to us by Law and purchased for us by a satisfactory price they are notoriously untrue For as we are freely justified so we are freely pardoned by divine grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus Rom. 3.14 Eph. 1.7 Gods Justice and gracious favour joyntly concurring no less to the one than to the other 2. As it is best known to the Author himself what kind of Remission and Justification he intended in those words so it is too too suspicious by his words immediately following that he did mean Gospel-Pardon and Gospel-Justification which words of his I shall recite and leave it to the Judgment of
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-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
whether a sinner be said in a proper or improper sence to be justified for to use the Apostles expression Phil. 1.18 notwithstanding every way whether properly or improperly a sinner is justified truly I therein do rejoyce yea and will rejoyce yea and cannot otherwise than rejoyce and rejoyce to eternity What need there in effect to be more said to the comfort of a sinner than what our Saviour said to the Leper Son be of good chear thy sins are forgiven thee Mat. 9.2 That Leper was as happy in his having his sins forgiven him as was the penitent Publican in departing from the Temple to his house justified Luk. 18.14 2. Nevertheless forasmuch as an improper kind of Justification doth I perceive so stick in the stomack of this Brother as that he cannot digest it I shall for this once endeavour to prove That a pardoned sinner may in a proper sence be said to be justified or That a sinner justified with a pardon is properly said to be justified I am not ignorant that some very learned men do distinguish of Justification in a Law-sence into that which is properly and that which is improperly so denominated assigning the Justification of an innocent person to the former sence of the word and of a sinner to the latter But for my own part I am of opinion That both the innocent and the sinner may be truly said to be justified sensu forensi proprie dicto in a proper Law-sence For what though the Justification of these two sort of subjects be of a different kind yet both of them for their kind may be proper they being considered respectively to their different habitudes which I will endeavour to demonstrate as followeth The Charge from which an innocent person is justified is guilt of fault the Charge from which a sinner is justified is guilt of or obligation to punishment Now why may not he that is justified from this latter charge be as properly in his kind said to be justified as the former in his kind I know nothing should hinder except it be said and prov'd that the Law hinders but that the Law doth not hinder I prove Because as the case stands with sinners to God-wards there is a standing-Law for the Justification of the one as well as of the other there being a Gospel-Law for the Justification of sinners which like the Law of the Medes and Persians is not to alter but to stand even to the worlds end And forasmuch as a sinners Justification is by the Law of faith or the Gospel and in that respect is a legal kind of Justification I do therefore judge That this Author is clearly mistaken in his affirming that a sinner pardoned cannot be properly and in a Law-sence said to be justified for is not he who is justified by from and through Law the standing-Law of faith justified in a Law-sence 2. Forasmuch as there is a two-fold Justice 1. Of obedience when all is done and left undone which the Law did either command or forbid and consequently no desert of penalty incur'd 2. Of satisfaction when the breach of the Law supposed there is due satisfaction made to the Law in consideration of that breach why may not he who can plead the Justice of satisfaction be properly said to be justified as he in his kind who hath performed the Justice of obedience the former being Rectus in Curiâ as well as the latter Where by the way if I have offended this Brother by minding him of that to us Englishmen most uncouth saying of his Countreymen That a man when he is hang'd is justified or justified by being hang'd I will make him satisfaction by justifying the saying to be rational and this upon the account of the foresaid distinction of a two-fold Justice of obedience and of satisfaction upon which latter account the Malefactor executed may be reputed just i. e. with that kind of Justice called the Justice of satisfaction forasmuch as he who hath suffered the penalty of the Law hath thereby satisfied the Law To this sence is agreeable the use of the word Justifie in the form of Commission issued from our King to his Judges as I have somewhere read Praecipimus tibi quod tu justicies We command thee that thou shalt justifie i. e. see that the Law be every way satisfied But because I foresee an Objection I will therefore answer it Obj. The alone satisfaction which a sinner can plead for his pardon is not by his own either doings or sufferings but only by Christs and therefore a pardoned sinner is not properly justified or pardon of sin cannot in a proper sence be styled Justification Answ If for this reason a sinners pardon cannot in a proper sence be styled Justification then his pardon cannot in a proper sence be called pardon For according to the pretence or principle of this Author pardon of sin in a proper sence is ex nudâ voluntate upon meer good will and pleasure and without satisfaction And if so yet I hope that he will not deny Gospel-pardon of sin because it is not pardon in a proper sence Nor can I conceive any just reason why any man should be in less love and liking with Gospel-Justification because it is not properly such than with Gospel-pardon upon the same account Whereupon I shall say Let this Author reject and be displeased with both or else with neither of them upon the poor pretence of the impropriety of the word or words which if he be with either of them upon any such score all that I will say is that I cannot help it Only forasmuch as various ways of expressing the same thing do much conduce to the better instruction and more effectual conviction of an adversary I will express my mind in another manner of distinguishing as followeth As there are two integral parts of Gods Law viz. The Precept and the Sanction the one constituting Debitum Officii the other Debitum Supplicii so there is Sensu forensi a two-fold Justification 1. With respect to the precept of the Law when a person accused of fault can say to his Accusers as our Saviour did Which of you convinceth me of sin 2. With respect to the penalty of the Law when a person guilty can plead satisfaction made for his trespass or trespasses against it and that the Law therefore is disabled from condemning him Now because I do conceive as will be said more fitly in another Chapter that satisfaction is a proper righteousness of its kind respectively to the sanction of the Law even as innocency is a proper righteousness of its kind with respect to the precepts thereof I do not therefore perceive but that a sinner may as well and properly be said to be justified with respect to the sanction of the Law upon satisfaction made as an innocent person with respect to the precept of the Law upon perfect obedience thereunto But I do so little regard what this or any
whether he should believe the Doctor or his own eyes 2. Much less is there mention of Reconciliation through a non-imputation of sin as distinct from justification in any of those three Texts of Scripture 3. Though there be mention of Reconciliation and a non-imputation of sin in one of the fore-cited Scriptures 2 Cor. 5.19 yet neither is the one or the other there mentioned as distinct from justification through an Imputation of Christs Righteousness as the Doctor says 4. We are no otherwise justified than we are pardoned or reconciled to God through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness Christs Righteousness it self being no more necessary nor acting any otherwise for the effecting of the one than of the other the agency thereof being that of a morally efficient or meritorious cause towards our remission reconciliation and justification 5. If by the Doctor 's confession reconciliation and justification are reciprocally affirmed one of another I am apt to think that Philosophy will warrant us from thence to conclude an identity And by the last fore-cited Scripture the identity which the Doctor denies may undoubtedly be evinced For the non-imputation of sin together with our reconciliation with God is there mentioned as all one even the self same thing with our being made the Righteousness of God in Christ which may be truly paraphrased with our being justified by the Righteousness of Christ but is falsly glossed as the Doctor would have it with the Imputation of the perfect and compleat righteousness or obedience of Christ to the Law of God As for the other three places of Scripture alledged by him he doth manifestly wrest them For 1. Though it be said in Jer. 23.6 That this is his name whereby he shall be called The Lord our Righteousness let who will be there meant by the Lord whether God the Father as Mr. John Humfreys thinks or God the Son as many others it matters not here to make enquiry yet there is no such thing there either mentioned or meant as Justification through an Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us 2. Although in Rom. 4.5 there is mention made of Gods Imputing Righteousness unto us yet by Righteousness is not there meant the Righteousness of Christ i. e. his perfect and compleat obedience to the Law nor are we by that expression of the Apostle given to understand that the said righteousness or obedience of Christ is imputed to us but by it is meant a certain righteousness which is the effect and fruit of Christs Righteousness and which for the sake of Christs Righteousness is imputed to us or confer'd upon us 3. There is not the least sound or whisper of a sinners justification through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in 1 Cor. 1.30 although the Doctor hath endeavoured several times to pervert that Text to such a sence as was never intended by the Apostle 4. Whereas he says as he hath said often that this last i. e. justification through an Imputation of Christs Righteousness we have by the life of Christ he doth expresly contradict the Apostle who affirms That we are justified by the Blood of Christ i. e. by his bloody death The Doctor proceeds in his perverting the true sence of certain other Scriptures as after the recital of his words I will demonstrate in the following Chapter CHAP. XXXIV Doctor Owen's mis-interpretation of Zech. 3.3 4. That remission of sin is no more the proper fruit of Christs death as the Doctor would have it than is Justification That there is not required a collation of Righteousness over and above remission of sin as he asserts in order to a right to heaven His allegation of Esa 61.10 to no purpose P. 187. THIS that is the distinct mention of Reconciliation through a non-imputation of sin and Justification through an Imputation of righteousness is fully expressed in that Typical representation of our justification before the Lord Zech. 3.3 4 5. Two things are there expressed to belong to our free Acceptation before God 1. The taking away the guilt of our sin our filthy robes This is done by the death of Christ remission of sin is the proper fruit thereof but there is more also required even a Collation of righteousness and thereby a right to life eternal this is here called fine change of rayment So the Holy Ghost expresseth it again Esa 61.10 where he calls it plainly the garment of salvation and the robe of righteousness Now this is only made ours by the obedience of Christ as the other by his death Answ We are now come to Visions and Revelations of the Lord in the Expositions whereof I do confess my self to have little exercised my talent nevertheless I reply 1. In a flat gainsaying his interpretation and denial that this i. e. that reconciliation with God and justification through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness as things distinct is fully expressed in that Typical representation of the matter in Zech. 3. For although I do yield that remission of sins is represented by that visible sign I have caused thine iniquities i. e. in the guilt and punishment of them to pass from thee i. e. I have pardoned them nevertheless I deny that by the fine change of rayment is there meant the Righteousness of Christ or justification through the Imputation of it unto us but I rather think that by it is meant our own personal righteousness or holiness which doth oft-times in Scripture go under the Metaphorical expression of a splendid vest fine linnen robe or the like as I have already manifested Briefly My opinion is That in the said vision of the Prophet there is a representation of justification or remission of sin and sanctification as distinct things but not as the Doctor will have it expounded of reconciliation or remission and of justification through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness 2. Remission of sin is no more the proper fruit of Christs death as the Doctor says than is our justification for as the Apostle somewhere says We have redemption through his Blood even the Forgiveness of our sins so he doth elsewhere say We are justified by his Blood Rom. 5.9 I doubt not to say It is a great mistake in this Doctor as in many others to assign our Reconciliation or remission of sin and our Justification to several distinct causes the former to Christs passive obedience his death the other to his active the obedience of his life imputed whereas the truth is in these two things 1. That reconciliation or remission of sin and justification are the self same thing in effect as was aforesaid 2. Being the same thing in effect although they are expressed by divers names yet they are wholly to be ascribed to the whole obedience of Christ both of his life and death as joyntly constituting the meritorious cause thereof so that neither is remission of sin to be more said to be the proper fruit of Christs death than justification nor justification more properly
thence that Christ himself did merit it or took upon him the meriting thereof That Christ may be said in an improper sence to be punished The word Demerit of Punishment ambiguous a two-fold sence whereof is specified The Arguments which overthrow the Popish doctrine of believers being discharged from the guilt of sin but not the Punishment altogether mis-applyed by Mr. F. to the point in hand p. 73. Chap. xviii Reflections upon certain passages in Dr. J. Owen's Book styled Communion with God concerning Christ his being made ruddy in his own blood Morally by the Imputation of sin and concerning that blessed Bartering and Exchange pretended by him betwixt Believers giving up their sins to Christ and their taking from him that Righteousness which he wrought for them His obscure ambiguous un-Scriptural phrases reproved and his mistakes therein according to obvious construction detected An Objection answered wherein a two-fold Taking or Receiving of a thing is specified and applyed to the purpose in hand His mistake in affirming that the Saints by giving up their sins to Christ and taking from him his Righteousness do fulfil the whole of that in 2 Cor. 5.21 The falshood of the reason asserted by the Doctor why those who said Lord Lord were disappointed in their expectation instead whereof the true reason or reasons are assigned That for sinners to plead their repentance and duties is not to barter with themselves only to take Christs work out of his hand and to ascribe it to other things or to say their duties shall bear their iniquities according as the Dr. misconstrues the matter but it is in very deed and in true construction to put the work of their being actually saved into the hand of Christ and to keep it there The manner of a sinners Bartering with Christ laid open if it may fitly be so styled p. 81 82. Chap. xix In what sence may it be truly said That we are interessed in Christs Merit or Satisfaction In answer hereunto it is said That three things may possibly be meant by the Merit or Satisfaction of Christ which being distinctly specified the Question is accordingly determined p. 98. Chap. xx Q. To what profit would the Righteousness of Christ in it self imputed to the justification of a sinner be more than the Imputation of it in the benefit thereof Answ None at all except that be a benefit which the Familists do pretend unto and which they call Our being Christed with Christ The suffrage of the very learned Dr. Henry More An Objection answered taken from the pretence of several benefits which being distinctly specified in the following Chapters are there manifested to be null and void p. 102. Chap. xxi One benefit pretended by divers That by Remission of sin a sinner is freed from the punishment deserved by his fault but by Christs Righteousness imputed he is freed from the fault it self the vanity of which pretence is discovered Several Objections answered wherein is shewen That a sinner may be disobliged from suffering the punishment deserved for his fault and yet remain faulty still and that it is repugnant to the nature as well as to the Law of God for God to repute a sinner to be that which he is not or not to have committed those faults which he hath committed That it is one thing for God to repute a person to be innocent and quite another to be dealt with respectively to impunity as innocent In what sence a Thief having made satisfaction for his theft is in the sence of the Law a Thief still The main ground of mistake in this matter specified p. 105. Chap. xxii Another benefit pretended to be had by Justification through Christs Righteousness imputed over and above the pardon of our sins is That remission of sin doth take off a sinners obligation to punishment but Justification by Christs Righteousness imputed doth put him into a state of favour and acceptation with God the vanity of which pretence is discovered The definition of Justification given by the late Assembly of Divines in their lesser Catechism explicated so as to reconcile it with the truth of Scripture though not from tautology Three main grounds of the mistake in the difference here pretended to be betwixt remission of sin and justification by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness p. 114. Chap. xxiii A third benefit pretended by a sinners justification through Christs imputed Righteousness over and above remission of sin is That this latter doth only free the sinner from eternal death but justification doth moreover intitle him to eternal life the vanity of which pretence is discovered with an answer to what is objected to the contrary by Mr. Anth. Burges An Answer also to the Question Whether believing sinners are not restored by Christ unto a greater degree of felicity by their justification through Christs Righteousness supposing the Imputation of it than upon the bare score of the forgiveness of their sins The Contradictions of Mr. Anth. Burges in certain particulars instanc'd in p. 118. Chap. xxiv Q. What are the evil Consequents which do naturally flow from the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence here impugned In answer hereunto one mischievous consequence is specified viz. That Christ is a sinner and the greatest of sinners p. 129. Chap. xxv Another evil Consequence of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence disowned viz. That Believers are as perfectly Righteous as is Christ The Righteous yea that they are more Righteous than if they had in their own persons perfectly kept the whole Law and that they are as acceptable to God the Father as is Christ himself The falshood and impiety of which sayings at large manifested and some Scriptures which are suborned to speak against the truth vindicated That man may be said to be justified by the Righteousness of another and not by his own three ways in the Application of which distinction it is plainly declared in what sence we are and in what sence we are not justified by the Righteousness of another and not by our own Several unjustifiable and intolerable sayings of Dr. Owen in his Book styled Communion with God related with brotherly and necessary animadversions thereupon p. 133. Chap. xxvi Another evil Consequence of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence opposed That God sees no sin in the Saints all their sins being covered from the sight of God by their being clothed with the Righteousness of Christ the falsity of which is discovered and certain Scriptures vindicated from their abuse A reply to Dr. Owen who denies That it will follow from the said Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us that we are as perfectly righteous as Christ is p. 147. Chap. xxvii Another evil Consequence of the said Imputation That it leaves no place for remission of sin in persons made so compleatly righteous with Christs Righteousness and that it doth utterly overthrow the nature of Gospel-Justification making the justification of a
the only justification which such a person is capable of being from another charge viz. from the guilt of punishment i. e. from his being actually bound over to suffer and from the suffering it self of that punishment which for his delinquency he deserved With the former kind of justification no flesh living all being sinful flesh can possibly be justified God himself with Reverence to the divine Majesty be it spoken hath no kind of power to justifie any wicked person no moral power for it is a sinful thing so to justifie the wicked Exod. 23.5 Prov. 17.15 nor physical power for the thing is simply impossible and doth imply a contradiction But with the other kind of justification any flesh living though never so sinful may and shall through Gospel-faith and obedience or an obediential faith be justified 3. As justification and forgiveness of sin are obviously and vulgarly taken Propos 3. or according to common usage of speech so they are contrary the one to the other as is light and darkness For to justifie a person in common use of the word is to free or absolve him from guilt of fault to acquit him as innocent from the fact or fault of which he is wrongfully accused And this kind of justification is by a two-fold plea either the denial of the fact hereby David justified himself from the imputations of Saul 1 Sam. 24.9 10. or by denying the fault pleading the fact to be no fault or breach of any Law whether of God by which plea Daniel justified himself against the accusation of his professed enemies Dan. 6.22 or man or both by which plea St. Paul justified himself against the accusations of his Countrey-men the Jews Act. 24.14 maintaining his innocency not only in respect of the Law of God but also of Caesar Act. 25.8 there being no Acts at that time made by any of the Caesars against Christian Religion nor till the fifth year of the reign of Claudius as History doth report So that if a person be justified in this vulgar sence of the word he is not so much as in a natural capacity of being pardoned nor if pardoned of being so justified as aforesaid I never heard of the substitution of one person in the room of another to have been allowed in criminal cases whatever allowance there hath been in pecuniary mulcts or matters pardon of sin and justification in the said vulgar sence being of so contrary a nature that if the one be affirmed of any person the other must needs be denied And in this sence of the word justifie this Author speaks truth in saying p. 416. That as to justifie and to pardon are not only wholly distinct in their Natures and Idea's but always separated in the cases of such as are arraigned at humane tribunals unless it be where the substitution of one person in the room of another is allowed and even then though they accompany one another yet they are both distinct acts and we have distinct notions of them For neither can an accused innocent by being acquitted be said to be pardoned nor a condemned criminal by having the execution of his sentence remitted be said to be justified 4. However in common usage justification and remission of sin are not only divers but also adverse things nevertheless if we speak of that peculiar kind of justification frequently mentioned in the Scripture whereof a sinner is the subject and of that kind of pardon that is peculiar to sinners so oft there mentioned a pardon conveyed by Law and purchased by the satisfaction of Christ not that kind of pardon which is ex nudâ voluntate if I say we do speak of this kind of justification and pardon then I do affirm it as an undoubted truth That justification and pardon of sin are words equivalent importing one and the self same thing without any real or substantial difference for proof whereof two or three Texts of Scriptures may suffice among several others to be produced Act. 13.38 39. Be it known to you that through this man is preach'd unto you the forgiveness of sins and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses i. e. for which the Law of Moses admitted no expiatory sacrifice in order to pardon Rom. 3.24 25. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God to declare I say at this time his righteousness that he might be just and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus i. e. of the Christian faith See also Rom. 4. where that which he calls blessedness v. 9. and Gods justifying the ungodly v. 5. he styleth Gods forgiving their iniquities and covering their sins Thence that of Grotius de satisfactione p. 38. Justificatio passim in sacris literis maxime in Epistolis Paulinis absolutionem significat quae praesupposito peccato consistit in peccatorum remissione ipso Paulo semet clare explicante praesertim Rom. 4. I might hereto add the testimony of other Authors famous in their generation were it needful By the way take notice That I have said nothing concerning his affirming that the introduction of the Law of faith hath not abrogated the Law of perfect obedience but this as well as that doth remain in force nor do I think it necessary so to have done For although some choose to say that that Law of our Creation or of God our Creator is abrogated or repealed there being no Law since the new modelling of the government of mankind but the Law of Redemption or of God our Redeemer the moral part of the original Law being taken into it as the matter thereof and others choose to assert only a dispensation or relaxation of that Law nevertheless I do humbly conceive that all things considered yet not so needful here to be mentioned that are said on both sides there is no real difference between them as to substance of truth but only in modes and manner of speaking and for that cause I can give liberty to any one to speak the truth with due caution in what words he pleaseth Only I must say That I dare not take liberty to my self to say That the Law of works doth now remain in force as well as the Law of faith without a just explication how far it doth and doth not remain now in force I well remember that two late worthy Authors do very differently express themselves touching the immediate effect of the introduction of the Law of faith The most learned Mr. George Lawson chooseth to say That the original Law of works is by the Law of faith or indempnity abrogated and repealed whereas Mr. Joseph Truman will not allow that saying instead thereof asserting it to be
the impartial Reader what his meaning was P 417. Mr. F. The word Justifie neither in its Etymology nor application and usage according to the institution of men and least of all in the Scripture-usurpation is equipollent to pardon nor coincident with to Forgive Answ 1. However it may be in some respects useful to know the Etymology and usage of common speech nevertheless this is not so much to be regarded in the stating or determining of any Question pertaining to Divinity the usage of words in Scripture being as the Pole-Star to direct the course of our conceptions as I may so say in such matters And for that cause I cannot but commend that passage of this Author he saying p. 155. That that which is chiefly to be attended unto in the sencing of Scripture is the use of words in sacred Writers God being many times pleased to restrain or enlarge the signification of words as in his wisdom he judgeth meet And I do the rather mind the Author of this his saying because if we regard the Etymology of the word Justifie it will to speak the least as much favour the Popish sencing of the word thâ—se sencing it To Sanctifie or to make just sensu physico i. e. by infusion of grace as the Protestants interpretation thereof who do construe it sensu juridico to make just by apology defence or plea. 2. As for the usage of words in common speech this is sometimes contrary to their common usage in Scripture as I have already declared in the use of the word Justifie this signifying in common usage to absolve or acquit a person à reatu culpae i. e. as innocent and not guilty And because this Author as I guess by his name is a Scotchman I shall therefore put him in mind That whereas to be justified and to be pardoned are all one in the usage of Scripture they are contrary in the usage of Scotland to be justified there being not be pardoned but to be hang'd our Scotch Brethren using to say That a man is justified when he is hang'd or executed as I learn from the worthy Dr. Hammond in his Notes upon some place of the Epistle to the Romans 3. It is a most notorious mistake in this Author to assert as here he doth expresly That to Justifie is least of all meaning thereby in obvious construction not at all in the Scripture-usurpation equipollent to pardon nor coincident with to forgive The not observing of the contrary truth which hath been already proved by several Scriptures I do judg to be the occasion of other errors in this matter whereupon I may sadly take up the old saying Hinc illae lachrymae The Authors next ensuing words to be animadverted upon are as followeth 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 answer'd 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. 413 416 419. Mr. F. SO that upon the whole If we be not made Righteous with the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us but that God only for the sake of Christ will dispence with the rigour of the Law and I dare affirm that Justification as it is opposed to the accusation of the Law its charging us with guilt and its passing sentence of condemnation against us thereupon doth not admit a proper sence in the whole Scripture but must every where be construed Metaphorically and that the import of it is not that we are properly and in a Law-sence justified but that such benefits accrue to us by Remission of sin as if we were so According to the sentiments of our Author we are only pardoned but by reason of some allusion betwixt the advantages redounding to us by forgiveness and the priviledges immunities and benefits which ensue upon a proper Justification we are therefore Metaphorically said to be justified It were to bid defiance to the Scripture in an hundred places to say that we are not at all justified and yet in effect their principles imply no less For by stating the whole of our assoilment from the accusation of the Law in remission of sin they indeed say that we are not justified only we are improperly said to be so Answ 1. It is the error of this Author as of many others to say that we are made Righteous With the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us And among others I perceive Dr. Owen doth err in this particular which because he pretends to prove by certain Scriptures in his late Vindication p. 102 103. I will for the truths sake reply thereunto 1. He alledgeth Rom. 5.18 By his obedience we are made Righteous made so truly says he and accepted To which I answer 1. That Scripture proves not the Doctor 's purpose nor is pertinent thereunto for the Apostle doth not say as the Doctor would have him With whose obedience but By whose obedience we are made Righteous now we may be truly said to be made Righteous By it though we neither are nor can be truly said to be made Righteous With it For 2. These two Monosyllables By and With are very much different in signification the former particle By implying the nature energy or interest of an efficient and as here applied morally efficient or meritorious cause the latter particle With pregnantly importing the nature or interest of a formal cause Now forasmuch as the Doctor is a man of such reading and learning as that he cannot be ignorant of the true state of the Question about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us it being not at all touching the meritorious cause of our Justification whether we are justified By Christs Righteousness but about the formal cause whether we are justified With Christs Righteousness imputed as some say or With the Imputation thereof as say some others i. e. with the very thing if self imputed to us or with the imputation thereof in its formal or essential nature I say Forasmuch as this Doctor cannot but know these things it did ill become his learning and ingenuity to hood-wink the eyes of the vulgar Reader from seeing the true state of the Question and consequently from perceiving how nothing at all to the purpose in hand this Scripture is that is alledged by him 3. There is not the least whisper of the obedience of Christ as Imputed to us or of the Imputation of Christs obedience to us in that of Rom. 5.18 For though the Apostle says By his obedience yet he doth not say By his obedience Imputed to us or By the
other Authors do fancy concerning the impropriety of our being justified By or to speak more properly With a pardon that I can give them leave to think and speak therein as they please being fully assured That I am as properly said to be justified as pardoned yea though neither pardoned nor justified properly yet forasmuch as I am assured that being pardoned and justified properly or improperly I am certainly pardoned and certainly justified and shall be glorified I am well contented with it and am abundantly thankful to God and Christ Jesus for it Thus have I dared to oppose what this Author as he says hath dared to affirm viz. That if a sinners Justification be the same thing with the Remission of his sins then doth that his Justification not admit a proper sence in the whole Scripture and that to say so is in effect to say we are not at all justified and so to bid defiance to the Scripture in a hundred places And I do leave it to the judgement of every learned and impartial Reader what sentence to pronounce both upon the one and the other this his Affirmation and my Opposition I shall in the next place address my self to the answering of another Question as followeth 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 Q. FOR what reason or reasons can pardon of sin be styled Justification and Justification pardon Answ I say concerning this Question as of the former That it is not very material For if I know that Gods pardoning mercy as in Scripture it goes under divers other names Redemption Salvation Reconciliation Righteousness goes also under the name Justification I may very well rest assured that there is a reason for it because the only wise God will not give a name to any thing for which there is no reason But because this Author either is ignorant of the reasons usually rendred for it or else doth dissemble his knowledge thereof I will therefore for his sake make answer to the said Question and I desire that my Answers may be lookt upon as a Superpondium or measure running over given into his bosom My Answers are 1. One Reason why Gods saving mercy to sinners is called by different names is taken from the divers mischievous effects or consequences of sin Because sin doth make the sinner obnoxious unto or binds him over to punishment therefore is Gods saving mercy in the blood of Christ towards sinners styled Remission this being Gods loosing the bond or discharging of the sinner from the said obligation 2. If Mr. Bradshaw's opinion be right viz. That if an offendor be pardoned without any amends and satisfaction he is not at all justified and consequently where a fault is of that nature as that no sufficient satisfaction or amends can be made there can be no justification of a person so offending then this reason will well warrant Remission of sin to be styled Justification viz. Because our pardon is a peculiar kind of pardon i. e. not Pura puta omni modo gratuita meerly and in all respects free but some way merited viz. By the satisfaction of Christ our Mediator whereupon God is just and doth exercise justice in the pardoning of sinners and consequently may be said to justifie those whom he doth upon such consideration remit 3. But because this ground perhaps is not so justifiable and satisfactory forasmuch as that Delinquent that can Quocunque modo seu ratione qualicunque produce a pardon is justified from the accusation of being obliged to suffer the penalty of the Law and by consequence respectively thereunto is just Rectus in Curiâ If any I say be dissatisfied in that reason of Mr. Bradshaw's I shall offer to him instead thereof this reason viz. Remission of sin is styled Justification because it will stand a sinner in as much stead before the Tribunal of God the Judge of quick and dead as a Justification upon perfect justice would do a person who being perfectly innocent is impleaded This reason I have cause to presume will not much be regarded by this Author but distasted rather because he thinks that for this reason a sinners Justification must needs be wholly improper and altogether Metaphorical which he can by no means endure But as I have endeavoured to cure him of that his mis-conception so I doubt not but that this reason will be of a perfect good relish to others of another and more sound palate 4. Another Reason as some think is because a sinner is pardoned by course of Law his pardon is derived or accrews to him not as that of a Malefactor sometimes doth by the meer will and prerogative of his Soveraign Prince but by vertue of the Law of the Gospel enacted as an instrument for the conveyance thereof As for the Reasons of Remission of sin its being styled Justification and Justification its being styled Remission of sin I think they may be fitly to the purpose in hand thus expressed 1. Gospel-Justification is styled Remission of sin in respect of the quality of the person who is the Materia circa quam the subject about which that saving grace or mercy is conversant the person or recipient subject thereof being not an Innocent but a person in himself obnoxious viz. a sinner For Gospel-Justification though Justa just yet it is not Justification Justi but Injusti i. e. it is the discharge of a person who in himself is unjust from that obligation to punishment wherewith he is charged by the Law 2. Remission of sin is in the N. T. frequently styled Justification in regard of the manner of its conveyance which is not as many others if not most pardons from man are upon meer good will and pleasure but from Law and Covenant A sinners pardon being of a peculiar kind from what many other pardons are as in one respect it is pardon granted by God upon the satisfaction of Christ so in another respect it is upon the faith and repentance of a sinner and in both respects it may be said to be a covenanted pardon or pardon by a Law which Law or Covenant is two-fold 1. The first is a Law or Covenant peculiar to Christ as Persona restipulans God the Father therein requiring satisfaction to be made by him and thereupon covenanting and promising That no strict satisfaction should be exacted of the sinner This satisfaction according to the said Law or Covenant as commonly styled or as others style it divine decree they referring the matter to the Decretive rather than the Legislative will of God this satisfaction I say Jesus Christ did according to the said
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
make their appearance before the Judgment seat of Christ A Malefactor with the Kings pardon in his hand may boldly look his Judg in the face they are justified or accepted with God the error of which imagination I have already discovered and shall speak somewhat more of in Ch. 35. wherein I will manifest that although figuratively i. e. in a causal sence Christs Righteousness is a sinners Righteousness before God nevertheless to speak properly a sinners personal Righteousness which consists in his sanctification and Remission of sin is his Righteousness before God In the mean while I shall assert this to be the plain truth of Scripture in this matter even as in effect hath been before asserted by me upon occasion viz. That believing sinners are justified before God and accepted with him By and For the Righteousness of Christ as the meritorious cause thereof but not With the Imputation of the thing it self or With the Righteousness of Christ in it self imputed to them 3. The best and only true construction that I can possibly make of the said un-Scriptural phrases is this viz. That the Saints do take from Christ his Righteousness or the Righteousness he wrought out for them in the saving fruits or effects thereof in which sence a like phrase is used and was before upon occasion instanc't in 2 Joh. 8. where by the things which Believers had wrought are not meant the very things themselves but the fruit or reward of them But upon supposition of this true sence of the said phrase or phrases I must say 1. That the Doctor and his Adherents in this controversie concerning the Imputation of Christs Righteousness will not own or content themselves with the bare truth of that construction 2. Were the said construction the Doctor 's true meaning nevertheless I must needs say That his expression thereof is very un-scriptural and upon that account not such as becomes the Oracles of God For it is not the manner of those divine Oracles to say That Believers do by faith take Christs Righteousness in the saving fruit or effect of it but that the blessed effect thereof Comes upon them for which see Rom. 5.18 As by the offence of one judgment Came upon all men to condemnation so by the Righteousness of One the free gift Came upon all men to the justification of life and Rom. 4.9 Cometh this Blessedness upon the Circumcision only or Obj. 1 Pet. 1.9 Believers being there said to receive the end or reward for so the word ‖ Answerably to the Hebrew word gnekeb which signifies the like as appears by Ps 119.33 and 19.11 in the former place in signifies an End in the latter a Reward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies viz. both end and reward of their faith is not that all one as to take it in the Doctor 's sence of the phrase here used by him Answ No For there is a two-fold taking or receiving of a thing viz. Ethical and Physical or Active and Passive as it may be fitly expressed the former implyes our duty and is a taking or laying hold of a thing by an act of faith or believing in which sence it 's taken in the Doctor 's phrase or expression the latter imports our felicity and doth only imply our Having Enjoying or our being partakers of the thing which we are said to receive in which Physical or Passive sence it 's taken in 1 Pet. 1.9 and in which sence of the word Receive we are said to Receive evil as well as good at Gods hand Job 2.10 and Rom. 1.27 Receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet And the word is applyed to things as well as persons Heb. 2.2 Every transgression Received a just recompence of reward unless by sins there we understand sinners Every Transgression i. e. every Transgressor received the abstract being put for the concrete a thing in Scripture not unusual as circumcision for circumcised the same word also being used in the same sence Transgressions for Transgressors as some think Heb. 9.15 Briefly In such a sence as Believers are said to Receive a Kingdom which cannot be shaken Heb. 12.28 they may truly be said to Receive Christs Righteousness i. e. to receive it in the benefit or fruit thereof which fruit in the final upshot is indeed the Kingdom it self there spoken of and by which reception is not there meant a Moral or Active Reception by the hand of faith or action of believing for it is not there commanded as a duty but a Passive Reception it being there mentioned as the blessed fruit of a divine promise or Having it as is the Apostles word Rom. 6.22 You Have your fruit unto holiness and the end everlasting life and Mat. 19.27 What shall we Have therefore To which our Saviour answers v. 29. You shall Receive an hundred-fold 3. The third thing which I observe in the Doctor 's words is his Vanity in calling the said Commuting with Christ their sins with him and his Righteousness with them A Blessed Bartering and Exchange For Jesus Christ doth not like nor did he ever make offer of such a bartering or exchange as seems here to be intended by the Doctor i. e. Christs taking to himself not only the punishment but also the guilt of our sins and in the way of exchange our taking from Christ his Righteousness it self This I have already manifested so that although the Doctor hath in Gods name blessed such a Bartering Commuting Exchanging nevertheless I may truly say That sinners do no better than cheat themselves by such vain imaginations and fancyful conceits Whereupon that admonition of the Apostle Gal. 6.7 is in this case to be minded Be not deceived God is not mocked Though in commuting exchanging bartering commodities one with another we may deceive and be deceived one by another yea although in the barter and exchange here spoken of we may cozen and deceive our selves yet God and Christ will not be so mocked or deceiv'd Nevertheless I do acknowledg that there is a kind of giving and receiving betwixt Christ and a sinner which if any one lift to call Bartering may well and warrantably be styled A Blessed Bartering and what this kind of Bartering is I will declare in my reply to another passage of the Doctor 's by and by to be recited after I have intimated one thing more in his words fore-cited wherein 4. I observe his mistakes in saying That by the said Bartering Believers do fulfil the whole of that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.21 For 1. The Apostle by those expressions doth not mean such a Commutation Exchange or Bartering as aforesaid and it is a perverting of that Text to affix such a sence thereunto as the Doctor doth 2. It is not true to say That Believers by ought that is or can be done by them do fulfil the whole of that Scripture for it is God who made Christ and Christ who made himself to be sin
That it is the root of many dangerous errors very plainly subverting the Christian Religion And in those few sheets which he wrote in reference to Mr. Edw. Fowler 's Book styled The Design of Christianity his words are p. 12. It is not to be denied or hid that more than down-right Antinomians have so ill expounded the points of Christs suretiship and of the Imputation of our sin to him and of the Imputation of his Righteousness to us as hath proved the great occasion of some mens running into the contrary error yea and as would exclude all pardon of sin and all true Religion had their notions been practically and prevalently held He names also several Authors both of our own and forreign Churches Olevian Vrsin Piscator Paraeus Windeline Camero Wotton Gataker Bradshaw Le Blank by whom their opinions have been confuted Mr. Joseph Truman in his Book styled The great Propitiation p. 92 93. saith thus You may see how contrary to reason as well as Scripture that way of theirs is who hold that Christs fulfilling of and Christs obedience to the Law is accounted imputed as if Believers had fulfilled and obeyed the Law in his so doing You may hold the active and passive Righteousness of Christ a satisfaction to justice for our breach of the Law both of them a valuable consideration on which God will acquit the Offenders so they do but perform the Gospel-conditions and I can easily says he answer all the Arguments I have read to exclude his active obedience from being part of the satisfaction to justice for the breach of the Law But to hold over and beside such a satisfaction for our disobedience that there is made over to us a right to his obedience so as God to account us as if we had obeyed the Law in him beside the danger of making God account men as perfect as Christ and accounting that which is not true it is 1. Altogether needless 2. It makes the death and sufferings of Christ needless 3. It dissolves the Law its obliging us to obedience I will instance in some of the prime mischievous consequences of the doctrine here opposed which being cryed up by some Authors as a Gospel-mystery a Mystery of piety will manifest it to be indeed A mystery of iniquity 1. It follows from thence That Christ was made a sinner or That by Gods Imputation and mans Reputation Jesus Christ was the greatest sinner in the world Mr. Eyre affirms the former as hath been said the latter is asserted by Dr. Grew in his late printed Sermons upon Jer. 23.6 he quoting the Authority of Luther for one branch of the assertion touching Gods Imputation and that Scripture in Mar. 15.28 touching mans Reputation as if because he was reputed a transgressor by the unbelieving Jews therefore it 's to be concluded that he was or was to be so reputed by all others What Christian ears can bear with the sound of such a saying as this That by Imputation of God Jesus Christ was the greatest sinner in the world And how false is it to say That God did repute Jesus Christ to be otherwise whether in life or death than indeed he was i. e. A Lamb without spot and blemish holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners as the Scriptures speak of him 1 Pet. 1.19 Heb. 7.26 The truth is if any such saying hath dropt from the pen of Luther it is not to be justified but to be abhorr'd For Christ by Imputation was no sinner at all nor so reputed either by God or man except such as did not know him and who therefore hang'd him on the tree As for the said Dr. Grew he says indeed p. 23 24. That in this sence only Christ was made sin for us in that he took on him the obligation to punishment Where let two things be observed 1. That the Doctor doth mistake and mis-report the true sense of that Scripture wherein Christ is said to have been made sin for us the true sence whereof is as hath been already said not that he was made sin it self or sin at all for us but a sin-offering or a sacrifice for sin 2. Be it observed That the Doctor doth not say that Christ took on him An obligation but The obligation to punishment by which saying he must rationally be understood to mean ‖ The error whereof I have manifested in another Chapter against Mr. Ferguson Our obligation to punishment or the same obligation wherein or whereby we sinners were bound to punishment And if he had meant otherwise his own reason and understanding would no more have suffered him to approve that saying fathered upon Luther of Christ his being the greatest sinner in the world by Imputation than his stomack would have served him to have eaten his excrements CHAP. XXV Another evil Consequence of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence disowned viz. That Believers are as perfectly Righteous as is Christ The Righteous yea that they are more Righteous than if they had in their own persons perfectly kept the whole Law and that they are as acceptable to God the Father as is Christ himself The falshood and impiety of which sayings at large manifested and some Scriptures which are suborned to speak against the truth vindicated That man may be said to be justified by the Righteousness of another and not by his own three wayes in the Application of which distinction it is plainly declared in what sence we are and in what sence we are not justified by the Righteousness of another and not by our own Several unjustifiable and intolerable sayings of Dr. Owen in his Book styled Communion with God related with brotherly and necessary animadversions thereupon 2. ANother evil Consequence of this doctrine is That Believers are as perfectly Righteous as is Jesus Christ the Righteous This Consequence is owned by divers among whom I shall instance only in two or three Authors The first shall be Mr. Will. Eyre who in his fore-cited Assize-Sermon says p. 10. That upon Christ his becoming our Surety and taking our sins upon himself sinners are thereby made as perfectly Righteous as Christ the Righteous Nor doth he content himself only to say it but he doth also wrest that Scripture in 1 Joh. 3.7 to prove it I say wrest that Scripture to prove it for that Text proves no such thing but only this viz. That he who doth righteousness is born of him as is the expression 1 Joh. 2.29 that is doth resemble him or is like him as a child resembles the father who begat him Yea he doth bless that his false doctrine with his subsequent prayer therein taking Gods holy Name in vain by saying Now the good Lord open all our eyes to see the real and glorious excellency of this Priviledg But while he doth thus proclaim the Priviledg of the Saints have we not cause to say That he hath forgotten that Prerogative of our Saviour mentioned by the Apostle Col. 1.18
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
that they may accord and continue uniformly in one faith and doctrine that this agreement of all God the Father Son and Believers may be a powerful means of convincing the world that Jesus was the Christ sent by God To pray I say to this or the like purpose is this to pray That God and Christ and Believers may become One entire thing Thus have I cited a second Author or Authors should I say forasmuch as there are so many who by their several Epistles do applaud the Divinity of his Book no less than five names The third Author is brought to my hand by Mr. Samnel Rols a zealous Asserter of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence here challenged in his late Book styled Prodromus who informs me that the words following are the words of the most excellent Mr. Richard Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity or in some of his Writings annexed thereunto p. 4. alias 38. But the Righteousness wherein we must be found if we will be justified is not our own therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent quality Yet even the man that is in himself full of sin being found in Christ by faith and having his sin remitted through repentance him God beholdeth with a gracious eye putteth away his sin by not imputing it and accepteth him in Jesus Christ as perfectly righteous as if he had fulfilled all that was commanded him in the Law shall I say more perfectly righteous than if himself had fulfilled the whole Law I must take heed what I say but the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 5.21 That we might be made the Righteousness of God in him Such we are in the sight of God the Father as is the very Son of God himself To this my reply is He calls it his own righteousness not because it was his at what time he spake those words but because it was his at what time he was a Jew and before a Convert to the faith of Christ 1. That Judaism or a Judaical Righteousness is that Righteousness which St. Paul doth call his own and this in opposition to Christianity or the practical knowledg of Christ wherein alone he did desire to be found and therefore it doth not follow from thence that a sinner cannot be justified or freed from condemnation upon the account of any inherent Christian grace or graces 2. A man may be said to be justified by the Righteousness of another and not by his own in a three-fold sence 1. By way of merit 2. By way of form 3. By way of a condition In the first sence it's most true that the Righteousness by which we must be justified is the Righteousness of another even of Jesus Christ the Righteous and not our own 2. But in both the other sences it is altogether untrue For 1. That Righteousness by or to speak more accurately with which a sinner is formally justified or made righteous is alwayes a mans own viz. his pardon or the remission of his sins 2. That Righteousness by which as a condition of his discharge a sinner is justified is always his own and not anothers viz. His own faith It 's true indeed that in respect of procurement both these Righteousnesses with and by which a sinner is justified are Christs and in respect of collation they are Gods but in respect of possession or performance they may be well said to be our own Righteousness they being freely given us of God for the sake of Christ Act. 5.31 And that sinners are in this last sence of the phrase justified by some inherent quality or grace of their own certainly Mr. Hooker would not deny for he in that Citation saith That it is through repentance that our sins are remitted which is as much as to say That by or through repentance a sinner is pardoned justified or not condemned by God 3. The Apostle in saying We are made the Righteousness of God in Christ doth not say either expresly or constructively That we are made more perfectly righteous than if our selves had fulfilled the whole Law no more than he says the same thing in Rom. 5.19 which was for that purpose alledged by Mr. W. Eyre but to no purpose as I have manifested 4. As for the closing words Such we are in the sight of God the Father as is the very Son of God himself I have said enough already declaring how such sayings are not to be justified but to be abominated as most false if not blasphemous there being nothing to be alledged for the excuse thereof save the innocent intention of the Authors I will close this Chapter with a request That the foresaid distinction touching the several sences wherein a man may be said to be justified by the Righteousness of another and not by his own may the rather be observed because it may serve for a two-fold purpose 1. It may be subservient to us how to give a ready and satisfactory answer to that passage of Dr. Owen with certain others in his often cited Book wherein he says p. 167. Christ is made of God to the Saints Righteousness and they will own nothing else to that purpose To this I answer 1. For Christ to be made of God Righteousness to the Saints is not for God to impute Christs Righteousness immediately in it self to them as the Doctor would have it he saying to that purpose as in other places so p. 110. That that perfection of obedience which we have in Christ is imputed to us but in the saving effects of it according to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 1.30 He is of God made unto us Wisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption i. e. he is causally efficiently or effectually made all these unto us And one would think that this Doctor should content himself with that sence of the phrase Christ his being made of God Righteousness unto us for he says p. 104. That in the Covenant God becomes our God and we his people and thereby all his Attributes are ours i. e. as to the benefit of them as else-where he interprets it The Doctor doth not say That upon our being in Covenant with God Gods Attributes are imputed to us nor doth he barely and simply say Gods Attributes are ours but he explicates that saying in these words that is as to the benefit of them so that there is just cause to think that the Doctor of any man should rest satisfied with that explication which others do give of such phrases touching the manner of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness or its being made ours they saying of Christs Righteousness as he says of Gods Attributes 2. Though the Saints will own nothing as the meritorious cause of their righteousness pardon or justification but the Righteousness of Christ nevertheless they may and ought to own evangelical obedience i. e. their return to God in faith and repentance as the condition without which the said saving effect or benefit of Christs
binds not a person to both these at once but Disjunctivè i. e. it binds him to obedience or to punishment primarily and absolutely to the one secondarily and Ex hypothesi i. e. upon failure of that obedience to the other Neither was Adam before his fall nor are we since bound to both at once not we I say more than was Adam For satisfaction being made for our crime we cease to be sinners and do become righteous in this sence that we are no longer bound to suffer and we are entitled to a right of being dealt with as righteous We are indeed bound to obedience for the future not to that obedience for the not performing whereof by punishment we have made satisfaction but to another new obedience which if we do not perform then are we bound by the Law to new punishment So that Christ having obliged himself to make satisfaction by suffering such punishment as was equivalent to that which by our sins was deserved and our sins being pardoned for the merit-sake thereof we thereupon are dealt with as righteous and for the future we are bound to new obedience or to new punishment not to both at once no more than was Adam in innocency The Law requireth not of us both suffering and obedience in respect of the same time and actions The consideration of this makes it most apparent that if sin be pardoned the Imputation of Christs active Righteousness or the Righteousness of the life of Christ as is the Doctor 's expression is needless And it is to no purpose to alledg that the Law requires suffering for the time past and obedience for the future which hath been acknowledged For Christ hath made satisfaction for future sins and ere long those future sins will be past and if we do not obey for the future we sin and if we sin the Law requireth only our suffering for expiation and forasmuch as Christs expiatory suffering or propitiation hath satisfied for that the benefit whereof a sinner doth enjoy in a renewed pardon he is no longer obliged to suffer So that the contrary opinion to what I here maintain doth in the consequence thereof deny that Christ hath satisfied for future sins 2. It is a palpable error in the Doctor to say That by taking away the guilt of sin we are as persons innocent but something more is required to make us to be considered as persons obedient For forasmuch as sin is as well of omission as of commission it follows unavoidably that if the guilt of the former be taken away as well as of the latter it is impossible but that a sinner so pardoned should be considered and dealt with as obedient for not to transgress the Law and to fulfil the Law are the same thing as is easily proveable by the contrary For to transgress the Law is to violate it by doing what it forbids or by omitting what it commands Ergo Not to transgress the Law is not to violate it either by committing the one or omitting the other and what is this but to fulfil the Law For he that doth neither commit the evil forbidden by the Law nor omit the good therein commanded doth fulfil it In short I say 1. That an innocent person shall doubtless go to heaven and be rewarded though he be no more than so 2. I am not apt to think that any rational creature can be more than innocent for to be innocent is to be no transgressor of any Law i.e. of any Law which commands good or forbids evil and how any one can rationally be conceived to be more innocent than to be no transgressor of any such Law I do not know except there be works of supererrogation 3. It is the Doctor 's gross mistake to think that Adam's obedience to the divine command Do this was by God constiuted the condition of his having a right or title to life for that right he had already by vertue of that habitual innocency or holiness in which he was created whereas it was the condition only of his holding that right to life which at present he had And if Adam could not have had a title to life before he had kept all the Commandments he could not have had right so long as he liv'd I mean not till his last gasp 4. The Doctor very absurdly supposeth things contradictory in supposing That Adam was or could be innocent any longer than he did continue to keep Gods Commandments For he who doth only forbear the evil which God forbids but doth not do the good enjoyned is neither truly nor reputatively innocent 5. It is falsly said by the Doctor That the resolution of the said enquiry is found in the Righteousness of the life of Christ which he lived upon earth this being evidently his meaning for which he quotes two Scriptures but abuses both of them For 1. By that life of Christ by which the Apostle says we shall be saved Rom. 5.10 is not meant the life of Christ which in the state of his humiliation he lived upon earth but the life of glory which he never to die again doth now live in his estate of exaltation and session at the right hand of God of which his life the Apostle speaks in Heb. 7.25 He ever liveth to make intercession for us 2. As for that other Text alledged by him Phil. 3.9 he hath often abused it as often as in any place of his Book he hath handled it For by the Righteousness there said to be of God by faith is not meant Christs personal Righteousness the Righteousness of Christs life imputed to Believers but that Righteousness which doth consist in the faith of Christ or in being faithful Christians CHAP. XXXII That it is no where said in Scripture that we do receive the Righteousness of Christ The Doctor 's perverting that in Phil. 3.9 from the true meaning of the Apostle That he perverts the sence of 1 Cor. 1.30 utterly beside the meaning of the Apostle That he mistakes the sence of Rom. 5.10 That Christ hath done no more by the obedience of his life for a sinners salvation than for his reconciliation the contrary whereunto is supposed by Dr. O. His iterated mistake touching the end of Adam's obedience THE Doctor saith p. 186. The Righteousness we receive is opposed to our own obedience to the Law opposed to it not as something in another kind but as something in the same kind excluding that from such an end which the other obtains Now this is that obedience of Christ to the Law himself thereby being made to us Righteousness 1 Cor. 1.30 Answ 1. By the Righteousness we receive it is evident that the Doctor means Christs obedience to the Law performed in his life-time whereupon I answer That it is neither said in that Scripture neither is there such a saying in any other Scripture That Believers do receive the Righteousness of Christ or his obedience to the Law although it be true that
they do in a passive sence of the word receive it i. e. they by means of their believing do enjoy the righteousness or obedience of Christ in the saving fruits and effects thereof 2. The Doctor doth errâ— grosly in thinking That by the righteousness of the Law the Apostle means his own evangelical righteousness or obedience to the Gospel-Law and that this is it which heopposes to Christs personal righteousness or to Christs obedience to the Law For it is plain both by the Text it self and Context That by the Law he means the Jewish Law and that by his own righteousness he means that which was his own when a Jew not that which was his own when a Convert to the Christian faith and that the things there opposed are Judaism and Christianity or Judaical observances and the practical knowledg of Christ So that our own evangelical righteousness is neither in the same kind nor in any other kind there opposed to the obedience of Christ nor is it either in that Scripture or in any other excluded from such an end which Christs Righteousness doth obtain I mean the salvation of a sinner For in order to this end our evangelical righteousness stands not in any opposition but in a due subordination to Christs As Christs Righteousness doth after a manner peculiar to it self so doth our own righteousness in its manner tend to our obtaining that which St. Peter styles The end of our faith even the salvation of our souls Whence that command of the Apostle So run that ye may obtain 1 Cor. 9.24 It is by running that through by or under Christ we do obtain 3. The Doctor perverts the sence of 1 Cor. 1.30 that Scripture in no fort proving the thing for the proof whereof it is alledged by him For the Apostle doth not there say as he would have him That Christ is made Righteousness unto us by Gods reckoning or imputing Christs perfect and compleat obedience of the Law unto us this being the thing undertaken by him to be proved by that Scripture which as that Scripture doth not prove for it proves only that Christ was of God made Righteousness unto us so another place of Scripture 2 Cor. 5.21 doth most convincingly disprove it it being there asserted that we are made in Christ the Righteousness of God i. e. very righteous by God the abstract being put for the concrete as is very usual in the language of Scripture and particularly so used Esa 60.17 where God promiseth to his Church that he will make all their Exactors Righteousness i. e. very just honest or righteous it being I say there asserted that we are of God made in Christ most righteous by means of his being made sin i. e. a sin-offering for us not by Gods reckoning to us Christs perfect and compleat obedience to the Law In the same Page again he abuses that Text in Rom. 5.10 saying The issue of the death of Christ is placed upon reconciliation that is a slaying of the enmity and restoring us into that condition of peace and friendship wherein Adam was before his fall But is there no more to be done Notwithstanding that there was no wrath due to Adam yet be was to obey if he would enjoy eternal life Something moreover there is to be done in respect of us if after the slaying of the enmity and reconciliation made we shall enjoy life being reconciled by his death we are saved by that perfect obedience which in his life he yielded to the Law of God Answ 1. I have already vindicated that Scripture from the same abuse put upon it by the Doctor having manifested that by the life of Christ is there meant the life which he now lives in glory interceding for us at the right hand of God not the life which he lived on earth 2. Had the Apostle meant the life which Christ lived on earth it will not thence follow that his meaning was that we are saved by Gods reckoning to us the perfect and compleat obedience of that his life i. e. imputing his obedience it self unto us 3. Though being reconciled to God there is somewhat to be done by us i. e. in order to the continuing of our friendship with God nevertheless there needs no more to a sinners salvation at present than his present reconciliation nor doth there need more to his future and final salvation than the continuance of his reconciliation and friendship with God For if being reconciled to God he and we do continue friends we shall as certainly be saved as it is certain that Christ at the right hand of God ever liveth to make intercession for us 4. It is salsly insinuated by the Doctor That Christ hath done more or that it is needful that he should do more for our salvation than for our reconciliation I mean for the beginning continuing or perfecting of the one than of the other salvation from the guilt of sin whether it be initial progressive or consummate being in effect the same benefit with Reconciliation with God in its being begun continued and made perfect in the fruit thereof 5. If there was no wrath due to Adam nothing could ever have obstructed his entrance into life the contrary whereunto is presumed by the Doctor 6. As it was once already said so I say again That Adam was to obey not that he might enjoy a right to eternal life which he had not antecedently to that his actual obedience but that his title thereunto might be continued and he thereupon might be brought at last to the full enjoyment thereof The Doctor proceeds in the same Page to abuse the Scriptures by whole clusters which I will endeavour to manifest in the next Chapter CHAP. XXXIII The Doctor 's allegation of several Scriptures to no purpose That we are no otherwise justified than we are reconciled or pardoned through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness the contrary whereunto is pretended by Dr. O. That none of those Scriptures alledged by him to prove the Imputation of Christs obedience it self unto us do evince the same His error in attributing our justification to the Life of Christ whereas the Apostle doth Rom. 5.9 expresly attribute it to his Death however it is not to be understood as excluding the obedience of his Life HE saith p. 186. There is distinct mention made of Reconciliation through a non-imputation of sin as Psal 32.1 Luk. 1.77 Rom. 3.25 2 Cor. 5.19 and justification through an Imputation of righteousness Jer. 23.6 Rom. 4.5 1 Cor. 1.30 although these things are so far from being separated that they are reciprocally affirmed of one another which as it doth not evince an identity so it doth an eminent conjunction And this last we have by the life of Christ Answ 1. There is no mention at all so much as of the word Reconciliation in three of the four recited Scriptures viz. Psal 32.1 Luk. 1.77 Rom. 3.25 And by perusing the places the Reader may know