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
sinner to be quite another thing and of another kind than indeed it is An Objection answered p. 152. Chap. xxviii Another evil consequence of the said Imputation That it subverts the necessity of our repentance in order to our salvation by Christ that the non-necessity thereof in Believers hath been asserted by some p. 155. Chap. xxix Another evil Consequence of the said Imputation That it overthrows the necessity of new obedience in order to a sinners being saved by Christ Whence it is that divers Authors whereof some are named do assert That Christians are not to do any good duties that they may be saved Several passages to this purpose in Dr. Owen's Book styled Communion with God related with Animadversions thereupon more at large p. 157. Chap. xxx Q. May Believers be truly or fitly said to be clothed with the Robe of Christs Righteousness or the like form of words Four Reasons why the said Question is proposed and answered The Answer it self 1. That there are no such express sayings in Scripture nor any Scripture wherein Christs Righteousness is set forth under the Metaphor of Rayment 2. That our own personal Righteousness in the several branches thereof doth go under the Metaphorical expressions of Robes comely rayment and splendid array Several Scriptures objected to the contrary answered In what sence 't is true and in what false to say that we are clothed with the Robe of Christs Righteousness And that it is more fitly and intelligibly said that it purchaseth or procureth Clothing for us than that it is it self our Clothing p. 175. Chap. xxxi Dr. Owen's mistake in thinking That when all sin is answered for all the Righteousness which God requireth for that time is not fulfilled the contrary whereunto is proved Several other of his mistakes discovered and his mis-interpretations of several Scriptures p. 184. Chap. xxxii That it is no where said in Scripture that we do receive the Righteousness of Christ The Doctor 's perverting that in Phil. 3.9 from the true meaning of the Apostle That he perverts the sence of 1 Cor. 1.30 utterly beside the meaning of the Apostle That he mistakes the sence of Rom. 5.10 That Christ hath done no more by the obedience of his life for a sinners salvation than for his reconciliation the contrary whereunto is supposed by Dr. O. His iterated mistake touching the end of Adam's obedience p. 189. Chap. xxxiii The Doctor 's allegation of several Scriptures to no purpose That we are no otherwise justified than we are reconciled or pardoned through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness the contrary whereunto is pretended by Dr. O. That none of those Scriptures alledged by him to prove the Imputation of Christs obedience it self unto us do evince the same His error in attributing our justification to the life of Christ whereas the Apostle doth Rom. 5.9 expresly attribute it to his Death however it is not to be understood as excluding the obedience of his Life p. 194. Chap. xxxiv Dr. Owen's mis-interpretation of Zech. 3.3 4. That remission of sin is no more the proper fruit of Christs death as the Doctor would have it than is Justification That there is not required a collation of Righteousness over and above remission of sin as he asserts in order to a right to Heaven His allegation of Esa 61.10 to no purpose p. 198. Chap. xxxv That our deliverance from a state of rejection or un-acceptation and our Acceptation with God are not two things and to be ascribed to two several causes as the Dr. pretends That in 2 Cor. 5.21 mis-alledged by him for his purpose retorted to the purpose against him His unreasonableness in supposing the old quarrel betwixt God and us to be taken away and yet no new friendship contracted His senceless contradiction in supposing That Adam was guilty of no sin and yet not to have had thereupon a positive as well as a negative Holiness That the non-imputation of sin and the imputation of righteousness are not two things but one and the same thing That Christs Righteousness is not our righteousness before God otherwise than in a causal sence and that our Righteousness it self before God is our own personal righteousness That in Rom. 5.18 vainly alledged by the Dr. to prove his purpose That the non-imputation of sin and the Imputation of Righteousness as they are the same thing so they are to be ascribed to one and the same cause p. 203. Chap. xxxvi The difference betwixt Dr. Owen and Mr. Ferguson in their opinion concerning the Imputation of Christs Righteousness or Obedience unto us plainly laid open in their own words recited That the Doctor denies Christs death to have been in our stead but only as it was penal The Author's opinion plainly and expresly declared in opposition to the Doctor 's That satisfaction was no otherwise the effect of Christs death as a penalty than as a price and as a sacrifice p. 208. OF THE IMPUTATION OF Christs Righteousness c. CHAP. I. Q. Is the Righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to Believers Answ Although it be yielded that in Rom. 5.18 there is express mention of the word Righteousness undeniably to be understood of the Righteousness of Christ nevertheless neither in that Scripture nor in any other place is Christs Righteousness expresly said to be imputed to Believers Q. 1. IS the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us i.e. to believing sinners Answ That the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers is an assertion no where in terms to be found in Scripture And whereas by the Righteousness of one or that one Righteousness mentioned Rom. 5.18 is unquestionably meant the Righteousness of Christ expressed by name in the foregoing verse Yet this Righteousness of Christ is not there or in any other place of Scripture for ought I know expresly said to be imputed to us and forasmuch as the Scriptures are so silent therein I cannot but wonder that any one should affirm that the sound of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness is in the Scriptures as shril or loud as was that of the Trumpet at Mount Sinai as if the sound thereof had gone forth ten times out of the mouth of the Apostle in that one Chapter Rom. 4. whereas the truth is that although there be frequent mention in that Chapter of the words Righteousness and Imputed nevertheless as to the Imputation of Christs Righteousness there is Altum silentium a deep silence it being neither in that nor in any other Chapter of the Bible expresly asserted that Christs Righteousness is imputed to us I will conclude this short Chapter with the suffrage of Pareus de justitia Christi Act. Pass Nunquam legi humanam sanctitatem Christi nobis imputatam esse justitiam nostram vel ejus partem Si quis legit quaeso mihi ostendat ut ego legam credam In this sort must I needs say of the Righteousness of Christ whether Active or Passive or both or
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
eternal The premisses considered I infer these three or four Conclusions 1. That upon the removal of eternal evil from a person who is pardoned eternal good is immediately introduced by Gods order and appointment 2. That to grant as the Objector here doth that forgiveness of sin doth remove the eternal evil is to yield the cause and to acknowledg that by Gods order and appointment forgiveness of sin doth introduce eternal good or a title to eternal life 3. That if we do suppose a sinner pardoned to be only freed from hell and then annihilated we do even then therein and thereby suppose him not pardoned according to the tenor of the Gospel or with such a plenary pardon as the Gospel promiseth and consequently that to argue after such a rate as is here argued is to forsake or to depart from the subject of the Question a thing much unbeseeming a close Disputant such as this Author was by many accounted 4. That it is a groundless imagination to think as too too many do who having first unnecessarily distinguished of Christs obedience into active and passive do sort them to several distinct purposes dogmatizing thereupon That Christ by his passive obedience hath freed us from the guilt of eternal death and by his active obedience hath procured us a title to eternal life and That by forgiveness of sin we have freedom from the one and by Justification by Christs Righteousness we have title to the other As particularly Dr. Owen speaks in his Book of Communion with God And because it is much to be desired that Christians would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is the Apostles prayer for the Philippians Ch. 1.10 first try and then approve or disapprove according to the different nature of things my purpose is in certain Chapters of this Treatise to expose to an impartial examination what that Author hath dictated concerning this matter In the mean while I shall offer two things to consideration 1. Mr. Baxter says in those sheets which he wrote in reference to Mr. Edw. Fowler 's Book styled The design of Christianity We believe says he p. 17. That Christs habitual perfection with his Active Righteousness and his sacrifice or sufferings all set together and advanced in value by their conjunction with his Divine Righteousness were the true meritorious procuring cause of our pardon justification sanctification and salvation Not one part imputed to this effect and another to that but all thus making up one meritorious cause of all these effects even of the Covenant and all its benefits He adds saying and which is the main truth which I do by this whole Treatise contend for And thus Christs Righteousness is imputed and given to us not immediately in it self but in the effects and fruits As a ransom is said to be given to a Captive because it is given For him though strictly the ransom is given to another and only the fruits of it to him This I take to be the Catholick Faith in the Article before us 2. Be it considered That there is no Medium betwixt Life and Death no middle condition rationally imaginable betwixt these two Hereupon we may certainly conclude That he who by the forgiveness of his sins is freed from eternal death cannot otherwise but be conceived to have a right to life eternal I proceed to answer certain other Arguments objected from the Scriptures Object The Apostle having said Acts 13.38 39. that through Christ was preached to them the forgiveness of sins he adds as a further priviledg or benefit saying And by him all that believe are justified This is objected if I do not mis-remember in the said Book styled Communion with God Answ 1. The words being translated out of the original run thus Be it known unto you therefore Men and Brethren that by this man forgiveness of sins is preached unto you and from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses this is the entire v. 38. in the Greek and then it follows v. 39. By him every believing man is justified The words being thus rendred and an Emphasis laid upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is oft-times in Scripture as much as even do clearly make the same thing to be meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do clearly I say make justification and remission of sin to be the same thing or of the self same adequate importance that implying no more priviledg or benefit than this 2. Read the words as we find them translated and it is sufficiently clear that the words justification and remission are but varied phrases of one and the same thing it being the manner of Scripture frequently to express the self same thing by varied words and phrases 3. The said Scripture being alledged usually for the proving that justification doth denote a further priviledg than forgiveness of sin especially the Imputation of Christs active obedience must for that purpose thus be paraphrased Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins and by him all that believe have Christs active obedience imputed to them from all things from which you could not have Christs active obedience imputed to you by the Law of Moses Hereupon let any Reader judg whether this Scripture makes for the purpose for which it is alledged whether by Dr. Owen or any other of the adverse Brethren in this controversie Some other Objections there are but they are so weak that no impartial or unprejudicate person will I am most assured be swayed by them and therefore having answered the most considerable I shall let pass the rest I shall now propound another Question Quest Are not believing sinners restored by Christ unto a greater degree of felicity than Adam did lose or forfeit by his sin and are not Believers entitled to this greater degree of glory by their justification through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to them and not upon the meer score of the forgiveness of their sins Answ In answer hereunto I will set down in the first place what the opinion of others is in this matter and then speak my own sence 1. There be many who as they judg that Believers are restored to a greater degree of felicity in this life than Adam did enjoy in Paradise so also that they shall enjoy through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness a greater degree of heavenly glory than Adam should have enjoyed upon his continuance in a state of innocency But there are others who think that both of them are justly questionable and scarce proveable by the Scriptures especially the latter 2. There be others asserting That there is in the merits of Christ not only Plenitudo sufficientiae but also redundantiae or that his satisfaction was super-satisfactory not only Legalis justitiae but also Super-legalis meriti as are the expressions of the very learned Dr. Reynolds Bishop of Norwich in some of his Sermons if I
do not mis-remember they I say thus asserting do yield that Believers shall enjoy through Christ a greater degree of glory in heaven than they lost by the fall of Adam or in him But they say That they are entitled unto this overplus of glory not simply by vertue of the remission of their sins or justification for this say they doth only restore them Adstatum quo prius to such a degree of happiness as they lost in Adam but by vertue of the super-aded grace of adoption and of this opinion are those two learned Authors Mr. Will. Bradshaw and Mr. John Goodwin and how far forth Mr. Baxter is inclinable thereunto and what his opinion more fully is himself hath declared in a peculiar Section thereabout in his Book against Colvinus if my memory do not fail me 2. As for my own sence I conceive 1. That as the loss of Gods fatherly love and favour and our becoming children of the devil was one part of the punishment of mans sin 2. As thereupon it follows That our adoption or being restored into Gods fatherly love and favour is one prime branch at least of forgiveness of sin So consequently 3. That Believers are no otherwise entitled to that farther degree of glory by vertue of their Adoption than by vertue of the remission of their sins and I do the rather conceive this to be the truth because whatever that higher degree of glory here supposed is I doubt not but the loss or miss thereof is threatned for sins committed against the Covenant of grace together with a greater degree of positive punishment than was threatned to Adam for breach of the Covenant of works Now forasmuch as Jesus Christ hath by his satisfaction procured pardon for sins committed explicitly against the New as well as the Old Covenant always excepted to final non-performance of the conditions of that New Covenant which are summarily comprehended in Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ and forasmuch as this pardon is promised and vouchsafed to sinners upon their repentance and faith in Christ it doth as I think necessarily follow That what sinner soever hath his sins all his sins against both Covenants pardoned that person is immediately discharged or freed not only from that punishment and loss of favour which he did incur and forfeit in Adam but he is moreover set free from that greater degree of punishment which is threatned for sins committed against the Covenant of grace and is also by his pardon entitled to that higher degree of glory and happiness which is supposed to be promised in the same But that he is entitled thereunto by his justification with such an Imputation of Christs Righteousness as is here pretended I see no reason at all to acknowledg and therefore I must still deny it till I see it proved adding withal that as for the said higher degree of heavenly glory supposed to be enjoyed by Believers for Christs sake I think it to be a matter rather of curious than necessary enquiry wherein we are not to be solicitous of being wise above what is written I shall close this Chapter with the words of Mr. Anth. Burges the said Author of the Tract concerning Justification first part p. 143 144. Remission of sin says he is not only Ablativa mali but also Collativa boni it is not a meer negation of-punishment due to us but also a plentiful vouchsafing of many gracious favours to us such as a Son-ship and right to eternal life These words in his first Book concerning Justification when I compare with what he says directly and professedly contrary thereunto in his second Book which came forth some years after which are these p. 269. Remission of sin and justification differ in this consideration In forgiveness of sin there is Ablatio mali in justification there is Collatio boni when sin is forgiven the eternal evil deserved is removed but when we are justified eternal good is promised When I say I compare those contradictory sayings of the same Author together I call to mind what is said to have been facetiously replyed in Parliament to one Mr. Jordan a Member thereof upon his declared change of mind What ailest thou thou Jordan that thou wast driven back What ail'd this Author so plainly and palpably to contradict both the truth and himself It seems that that Greek Proverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Second thoughts are best is not always true There are certain other contradictory passages in this Author concerning the subject which I am now treating upon He says p. 268. Whereas remission of sin doth only take away the guilt of sin justification doth remove the sin it self But he saith p. 432. Notwithstanding the Imputation of Christs active obedience God doth see the imperfect graces and sins of his people Again Although it be this Author 's professed design in his Book second part to maintain the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence impugned in this Treatise he making Justification to consist of two integral parts viz. Remission of sin and Imputation of righteousness nevertheless he seems plainly to contradict himself and to yield the cause by me contended for in this Treatise touching the manner of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness my assertion as aforesaid being this viz. That it is not in it self immediately or in its essential nature imputed to us but in the blessed effects or benefits thereby purchased for us and by God according to promise confer'd on us And he saith the same pag. 135 136. None say Christs obedience is imputed unto us in such a sence as that we should be said to be the efficients of that righteousness but that we should be the passive subjects receiving the benefit of it CHAP. XXIV Q. What are the evil Consequents which do naturally flow from the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence here impugned In answer hereunto one mischievous consequence is specified viz. That Christ is a sinner and the greatest of sinners Quest WHAT are the evil Consequents which do seem necessarily to follow from that doctrine touching the Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us in the sence which in this Treatise is disowned Answ Having in the foregoing Chapters manifested that no good at all over and above Remission of sin doth or can come of it this Question comes in very fitly to be demanded What are the evil consequents to it And if besides the No good or profit I shall be able to prove that there are many mischievous consequences thereof I hope that those who have espoused it will no longer be enamour'd with it but will be contented rather to give it a Bill of divorce and fairly to dismiss it Mr. Baxter saith It is the heart and root of so many errors yea of the whole body of Antinomianism that he would rather write a great volume against it than leave it with a brief touch Mr. Baxter's Confession p. 229. and p. 266.
the fruit of Christs life than remission of sin 3. I deny what the Doctor here affirms viz. That over and above remission of sin there is required a collation of righteousness in order to a right to heaven This hath been at large already disproved in Ch. 23. 4. Whether the Doctor doth here assert Christs Righteousness it self or a right to eternal life thereby confer'd to be the fine linnen spoken of in Zech. 3. is questionable For it is doubtful what construction he would have his Readers to make of the Relative This he saying This is here called fine change of rayment I mean whether he would have it understood concerning the Righteousness of Christ or concerning the right to life eternal by it This latter construction is of the two more obvious and rational because right to eternal life is in the order of his words the nearest Antecedent the other a collation of righteousness being a little more remote But let him be understood of either as I said before so I say again That by the fine change of rayment neither of these are to be understood but the righteousness of sanctification or fine vestment of holiness 5. In the Exposition of Esay 61.10 I perceive a great difference betwixt the Doctor and very many of the Brethren of his mind in this controversie For they undertaking to shew the meaning of the Holy Ghost therein do confidently say That the Holy Ghost by the robe of righteousness and garment of salvation there mentioned doth mean The Righteousness of Christ himself and thence it is that they do rhetorically set forth the properties thereof under the notion of a Vest how that it is Fine Pure White Rich Splendid But the Doctor tells us That the Holy Ghost says not so for that which the Holy Ghost doth there mean by the garment of salvation is not the Righteousness of Christ but a right to eternal life collated upon us by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us Upon this occasion I call to mind what is charged upon the false Prophets of old Ezek. 13.7 They said the Lord saith it albeit the Lord never spoke it In like sort may it be said concerning the Authors of both the said Interpretations They say The Holy Ghost means this and that by the garment of salvation and the Robe of Righteousness whereas the truth is the Holy Ghost in the Prophets words did mean neither this nor that but some other thing as I have already demonstrated in Chap. 30. 6. Whereas the Doctor concludes saying This is only made ours by the obedience of Christ and whereas his meaning therein is that the other viz. Remission of sin or reconciliation is made ours by the death of Christ I shall still deny it Toties Quoties even as oft as the Doctor shall affirm it The Doctor proceeds to answer an Objection which in his sagacity he fore-saw would be made against the doctrine by him maintained touching the Imputation of Christs perfect obedience to the Law even it it self unto us viz. That it will follow from thence that we are as righteous as is Christ himself But this Objection together with the Doctor 's unsatisfactory Answer thereunto I have already mentioned and made a reply to upon a fit occasion in Chap. 25. to which I shall refer the Reader There is only a passage or two more in p. 193. wherein the Doctor speaks to the same purpose as before which I will recite and make reply unto CHAP. XXXV That our deliverance from a state of rejection or un-acceptation and our Acceptation with God are not two things and to be ascribed to two several causes as the Doctor pretends That in 2 Cor. 5.21 mis-alledged by him for his purpose retorted to the purpose against him His unreasonableness in supposing the old quarrel betwixt God and us to be taken away and yet no new friendship contracted His senseless contradiction in supposing That Adam was guilty of no sin and yet not to have had thereupon a positive as well as a negative holiness That the non-imputation of sin and the Imputation of righteousness are not two things but one and the same thing That Christs Righteousness is not our righteousness before God otherwise than in a causal sence and that our righteousness it self before God is our own personal righteousness That in Rom. 5.18 vainly alledged by the Doctor to prove his purpose That the non imputation of sin and the Imputation of righteousness as they are the same thing so they are to be ascribed to one and the same cause P. 193. BY his death Christ bearing the curse undergoing the punishment that was due to us paying the ransom that was due for us delivers us from this condition that is a state of rejection and our un-acceptation and thus far the death of Christ is the cause of our Acceptation with God that all cause of quarrel and rejection of us is thereby taken away and to that end are his sufferings reckoned to us For being made sin for us 2 Cor. 5.21 he is made righteousness unto us 1 Cor. 1.30 Answ 1. The Doctor doth most unreasonably make a sinners deliverance from a state of rejection or un-acceptation and his Acceptation with God to be two things whereas they are indeed but one and the same thing and done at the same time by one and the same divine act For as the Physician doth not remove the disease by one act and restore health to the Patient by another act healing the disease and restoring health being but two different names or considerations of one and the same thing in like manner God doth not deliver from a state of un-acceptation by one act and restore us to a state of Acceptation by another these two being but two different names expressions notions or considerations of the same thing 2. As our deliverance from a state of un-acceptation and our Acceptation with God are the self same thing and done by one and the same act of God so they are to be ascribed to the self same cause and not unto different causes as the Doctor would have them to be assigned to wit the former precisely to the death of Christ or the Imputation of Christs sufferings to us the latter to the life of Christ or Imputation of the obedience of his life to us neither of which indeed whether his doings or sufferings are properly and in themselves reckoned to us but only is the effects thereof as hath oft upon occasion been before said 3. The whole of our reconciliation to God our deliverance from enmity and restoration into divine favour or friendship if any one list to divide it into those two parts our Acceptation with God or Justification before God is ascribed to the death of Christ as hath been already proved from Rom. 5.9 the same being also proveable from Col. 1.20 4. As one of those Scriptures alledged by the Doctor 1 Cor. 1.30 makes nothing for him
so the other 2 Cor. 5.21 makes point blank and most fully against him as hath been already demonstrated The Doctor goes on saying in the same Page and in the words immediately following But yet farther This that is the removal of our guilt or deliverance from a state of rejection or un-acceptation will not compleat our Acceptation with God The old quarrel may be laid aside and yet no new friendship begun We may be not sinners and yet not be so far righteous as to have a right to the kingdom of heaven Adam had no right to life because he was innocent he must moreover do This and then he shall live He must not only have a negative righteousness he was not guilty of any thing but also a positive righteousness he must do all things This then is required in the second place to our Compleat Acceptation that we have not only the non-imputation of sin but also a reckoning of righteousness Now this we have in the obedience of the life of Christ This also was discovered in the last Chapter The obedience of the life of Christ was for us is imputed to us and is our Righteousness before God By his obedience are we made righteous Rom. 5.18 Answ All this in effect hath been already answered the repetition whereof being needless I add that 1. It is here contrary to sense and reason supposed by the Doctor that the old quarrel betwixt God and us may be taken away and yet no new friendship begun For it is alike as to suppose darkness to be expel'd and yet no new light to be introduced or sickness removed and no health brought in place And as for the word Reconciliation I have always hitherunto understood the meaning of the word passively taken that it is To be made friends and I cannot reconcile it to sense or reason to make any other construction of it as if persons could be Reconciled and yet not made Friends 2. It is a senseless contradiction for the Doctor to imagine as he doth that Adam was not guilty of any thing and yet that he had not a positive as well as a negative righteousness For to imagine or suppose this is to suppose him to be guilty of no sin at all and yet to suppose him guilty of some sin i. e. of sin or sins of omission 3. Suppose that Adam must have a positive as well as a negative righteousness in order to his right to life yet it will not follow from thence That in order to our right to life we must have the positive righteousness or perfect obedience of Christs life in it self imputed to us for that end the Imputation of Christs positive Righteousness unto us for that purpose being no more necessary than the Imputation of his negative Righteousness 4. A non-imputation of sin and a reckoning of righteousness are the self same thing in effect as appears evidently by Rom. 4.5 6. and so likewise is reconciliation or a non-imputation of sin all one with righteousness or our being made the righteousness of God in Christ as appears by 2 Cor. 5.19 21. That act of God whereby he doth perfectly pardon our sin is interpretatively nothing else but an Imputation of a perfect righteousness or a fulfilling of the Law even as that act by which the Sun dispels the darkness doth fill the air with light 5. The obedience of Christ verily was for us but it may not therefore be truly said in it self to be imputed to us nor is it our righteousness before God otherwise than in a causal sence 6. Nor doth that Text here alledged by the Doctor Rom. 5.18 prove in the least that the obedience of Christs life is imputed to us it having been oft times for this purpose alledged by him but still I must say to no purpose 7. The Imputation of righteousness which is indeed all one with the non-imputation of sin we have from the joynt obedience of Christs life and death but not from both of them or from either of them in themselves imputed to us CHAP. XXXVI The difference betwixt Dr. Owen and Mr. Ferguson in their opinion concerning the Imputation of Christs Righteousness or Obedience unto us plainly laid open in their own words recited That the Doctor denies Christs death to have been in our stead but only as it was penal The Author's opinion plainly and expresly declared in opposition to the Doctor 's That satisfaction was no otherwise the effect of Christs death as a penalty than as a price and as a sacrifice I Shall close what I have to say concerning the Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us by acquainting the Reader that the fore-named Authors Dr. O. and Mr. F. do to my seeming so plainly differ betwixt themselves touching that Righteousness of Christ by them asserted to be imputed to us that I am not able to reconcile them Mr. F. asserting the Imputation of all Christs Mediatory Obedience unto us but the Doctor only one part thereof And that what seems thus to me may appear to others I will more at large recite the words of them both and thereupon leave the judgment thereof to every indifferent and intelligent Reader God says Mr. F. p. 558 559. having admitted the interposure of Christ on our behalf and having inflicted sufferings upon him as a punishment for our sins and having accepted those sufferings as a sacrifice of atonement for the expiation of our guilt and having also agreed with his Son and declared in the Covenant of grace the terms on which we are made partakers of the benefits thereof we upon the performance of these conditions come to have all that Christ did and suffered as our Mediator Imputed to us in a Law-sence And this being all that we do intend by a Legal Vnion with Christ namely That by the Covenant of redemption Christ so becomes our Surrogate as to have our sins in a Law-sence imputed to him and we through fulfilling the terms of the Covenant of grace have all that Christ did and suffered as our Mediator Imputed in a Law-sence to us He must not only disclaim Christs being Mediator in any proper sence but renounce the whole Gospel that donies it Thus we perceive plainly that Mr. F. is for the Imputation of all Christs Mediatory obedience unto us as of our sins to him in a Law-sence that is and as that phrase is usually explained in such sort as if we had done all that he did and suffered all that he suffered or as if God did repute that we in and by Christ had done and suffered the whole thereof Thus Mr. Rols in his Prodromus explains the sence saying p. 86. God reckons Believers in and by Christ their Surety to have satisfied divine justice And we perceive also by the words fore-cited what a dreadful sentence Mr. F. passes upon all those who gainsay the said Imputation of all Christs Mediatory obedience which for ought I can perceive will light heavily upon Dr.