Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A44575
|
A discourse concerning the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us, and our sins to him with many useful questions thereunto pertaining, resolved : together with reflections more at large upon what hath been published concerning that subject by Mr. Robert Ferguson in his Interest of reason in religion, and by Dr. John Owen in his book styled, Communion with God / by Thomas Hotchkis ...
|
Hotchkis, Thomas.
|
1675
(1675)
|
Wing H2890; ESTC R4137
|
132,797
|
236
|
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
that in the Scotch Liturgy after the Petition That God would grant us true repentance and his holy Spirit the following words are inserted That we may receive from him absolution from all our sins which insertion I never heard to have been challenged by any of our Scottish Brethren as holding forth any false Popish or un-Christian doctrine nor do I know any colour of reason for such an accusation or suspicion albeit I do well know That to pray to God to grant unto us true repentance and his holy Spirit That we may receive from him absolution from all our sins is all one in effect and the self same thing as to pray to God to grant unto us those requests That we may be justified or not condemned but escape wrath to come But forasmuch as Dr. O. is such a professed adversary to all manner of set-Liturgies for the carrying on of Gods publick Worship as appears by what he hath written p. 296 297. and forasmuch as I do not know of what credit with him an Assembly of Divines at St. Peters-Westminster is more than a Convocation at St. Pauls-London or what considerable valuation he hath for either of them I will not therefore urge him with the Authority of either the one or the other nor indeed with any other Authority but what I am most assured he will own and which indeed is all-sufficient for my purpose viz. The divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures Having ended this Chapter I shall now proceed to specifie the next evil Consequence of the said Imputation here disowned which shall be the subject of the Chapter next ensuing CHAP. XXVI Another evil Consequence of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sence opposed That God sees no sin in the Saints all their sins being covered from the sight of God by their being clothed with the Righteousness of Christ the falsity of which is discovered and certain Scriptures vindicated from their abuse A reply to Dr. Owen who denies That it will follow from the said Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us that we are as perfectly righteous as Christ is ANother evil Consequence of the said Imputation of Christs Righteousness to Believers in the sence aforesaid is That God sees no sin in them This seems to be an unavoidable Consequence of the former for if Believers are as perfectly righteous as Christ the Righteous and more perfectly righteous than if they had perfectly kept the whole Law in their own persons and if they are in the sight of God as the very Son of God himself then doth it follow that God sees no sin in them for how can God see any sin in any person so perfectly righteous And this is that Consequent which is owned by Mr. Will. Eyre in his Assize-Sermon before cited he saying p. 11. The soul that hath Christs Righteousness put upon him by Gods gracious Imputation hath all his sins covered and hidden from the sight of God the eye of divine justice sees not the least spot of sin Eph. 5.27 or iniquity in those that are clothed with it the Saints through his death are presented holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight Col. 1.22 In answer hereunto 1. I have in certain Chapters of my Exercitation concerning the nature of forgiveness of sin suggested several Rules for a due interpretation of those Metaphorical phrases whereby forgiveness of sin is expressed in Scripture such as these Gods covering our sins blotting them out casting them behind his back hiding his face from them whereby is not meant a bare intuitive sight in God but Gods not seeing our sins so as to condemn us for them or that the Saints shall no more be condemned for their sins than if God did not see them than if they were blotted out covered or hid from his sight See Ch. 3. and 4th and 9th 2. As for those fore-cited Scriptures Eph. 5.27 Col. 1.22 they do indeed prove partly what Believers at present are viz. That they are in a present state of reconciliation with God reconciled pardoned justified and partly what at last they shall be that is That they shall be presented perfectly holy as a spouse in perfect beauty But they do not prove what Mr. Eyre doth insinuate viz. That they are now so presented or that God sees not the least spot of sin or iniquity in them Quest Do not some deny this and the former evil Consequence of the said Imputation of Christs Righteousness Answ Yes For so indeed Dr. Owen in his Book styled Communion with God would seem to do but with what success may appear by my Reply to that his answer which he makes to an Objection both which I shall recite as I find them p. 187. Having asserted in the foregoing Pages that Christs active obedience is reckoned or imputed to Believers mis-alledging and mis-interpreting for that purpose several Scriptures Phil. 3.9 2 Cor. 5.21 he objecteth against it and answers to it in the words following Object But if this be so then are we as Righteous as Christ himself being Righteous with his Righteousness Answ But first here is a great difference if it were no more than that this Righteousness was inherent in Christ and properly his own it is only reckoned and imputed to us or freely bestowed upon us and we are made righteous with that which is not ours But secondly the truth is that Christ was not righteous with that Righteousness for himself but for us so that there can be no comparison only this we may say We are righteous with his Righteousness which he wrought for us and that compleatly To this Answer I reply 1. That the difference here mentioned by the Doctor and said to be Great is indeed Small For the difference is rather Modal than Substantial a difference rather Quoad Modum than Quoad veritatem rei I mean plainly a difference about the manner how Christs Righteousness was his own and how it is Ours For he doth acknowledg that the self same individual Righteousness which Christ wrought for us is Ours the only difference being in the Modus or manner how it was His and how Ours i. e. His properly inherently or originally Ours improperly by Donation Imputation or at the second hand 2. As the said difference is comparatively small so it is nothing at all as to the matter in hand or the purpose for which it is alledged For notwithstanding this Modal difference if the self same individual Righteousness which Christ wrought for us be truly and substantially Ours or in it self imputed to us it will follow from thence unavoidably as I think that we are as righteous with Christs Righteousness as Christ himself was with it 3. Although it be true that Christ was not righteous with that Righteousness for himself but for us i. e. for our behoof and that we might reap the fruit and benefit of it and although upon such a construction of his Righteousness its being not for himself