without any distinction that I never found it expresly said to be imputed to us or to be ours by imputation or any part of our righteousness If any man hath any where in the Bible read such sayings I beseech him to direct me to the Repositories Chapter and Verse where they are to be found that having read them I may at once believe both my own eyes and his CHAP. II. Q. Have all our Protestant Preachers and Writers erred from the truth of Scripture who have spoken of Christs Righteousness under the name or notion of a Righteousness imputed or have asserted the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us Answ No God forbid two reasons of which answer are rendred Q. 2. FOrasmuch as it hath been very ordinary with our Protestant Divines both in their Sermons and Writings both in polemical and positive Divinity to say That Christs Righteousness is imputed to us and imputed to us for righteousness have all of them erred from the truth in so saying Answ No God forbid for although none of them have precisely kept to the form of wholsom words but swerved or varied rather from the language of Scripture in that saying nevertheless there is no necessity to conclude them all to be under error upon that account for 1. A man may possibly yea we do very ordinarily speak the truth of Scripture although not in the words or terms of Scripture An assertion may be a Scriptural truth though it be not formed or asserted in scripture-Scripture-words and phrase 2. There are several senses of the word Righteousness respectively whereunto it is as well true as false to say That Christs Righteousness is imputed to us and this I will endeavour to explicate in answer to the following Question which will be the subject of the next Chapter CHAP. III. Q. In what sense is it true or false to say That Christs Righteousness is imputed to us In answer hereunto a twofold acceptation of the word Righteousness is specified respectively to which different acceptation of the word it is determined in what sense the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us is to be asserted and in what sense it is to be renounced with certain Reasons of the abrenunciation thereof Q. 3. WHat are those divers acceptations of the word Righteousness with respect whereunto the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us may be asserted as a truth or is to be rejected as an Errour Answ The word Righteousness is taken in a double sense viz. properly or figuratively 1. It is taken in Scripture sometimes yea very often improperly or figuratively not for the thing it self but for the issue or benefit thereof This kind of Trope is usual in Scripture and in common speech it being ordinary with us to put the name of a thing in the propriety of it instead of its return in the blessed issue fruits or products thereof In this sense the word is taken Job 33.26 where Elihu says That God will render to a man his righteousness i.e. not the thing it self but the fruit and comfort of it In this sense those who fear God are said to eat the labour of their hands i.e. that emolument which with their hands they did labour for Ps 28.2 In the like sense he who planted a Vineyard is said to eat or not to eat of it i.e. of the fruit of it Deut. 20.6 Thus work is put for the reward of it Rev. 14.13 Job 34.11 The work of a man will he render unto him Thus Ephes 6.8 Whatsoever good thing any man doth the same shall he receive of the Lord i.e. not the self same thing that is done but the same in the fruit and reward of it In the like sense are those words of St. John to be understood wherein he admonishes the Elect Lady and her Children to beware That they lose not the things which they had wrought i.e. the reward of the things wrought by them Now in this sense it is true to say and a truth worthy of all acceptation That Christs Righteousness is imputed to us that is in the saving effects of it or blessings procured by it In this sense to say That Christs Righteousness is imputed to us is the self same thing as to say That the fruit and benefit procured by his Righteousness is confer'd upon us And this I doubt not is the meaning of the Apostle in those his saying Rom. 5.18 19. That by Christs Righteousness the free gift of pardon or justification comes to us and That by his obedience we the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the many there mentioned are made righteous i.e. we for the sake of his righteousness or obedience are constituted righteous i.e. pardoned or justified And be it observed That as Righteousness so sin also in the same figurative sense is said to be imputed to a sinner i.e. in the deserved fruits and effects of it When the deserved punishment thereof is or is not inflicted upon a sinner then is his sin said to be imputed or not imputed to him In this sense those words of Shimei supplicating his Soveraign for pardon are to be understood he saying Let not my Lord impute iniquity unto me 2 Sam. 19.19 Where by iniquity he doth not mean the thing it self in a proper sense Ipsam culpam the sinful action or the act of sinning but the deserved fruit and punishment of it In this sense the word sin or iniquity are very oftentimes taken in Scripture as in Gen. 4.13 and 19.15 Luke 7.18 And as touching the word impute when applyed to what is in it self good or desirable be it observed That it is the manner of Scripture sometimes to express the collation of a benefit upon us or derivation thereof unto us by the word impute whether the benefit it self accrues to us by the way of debt or free donation as appears Rom. 4.4 To him that worketh the reward is reckoned or imputed for so the word is rendred three times in the same Chapter v. 22 23 24. not of grace but of debt i.e. on such a one it is confer'd not of grace but of debt and so to be reputed In this sense to say Christs Righteousness is imputed to us is all one as to say Christs Righteousness is in the saving fruit and benefit thereof confer'd upon us and he who says so speaks the very truth of Scripture Having declared in what sense the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ may and ought to be asserted and maintained I shall in the next place specifie the sense wherein it is to be rejected in order whereunto let it be observed that 2. The word Righteousness is sometimes taken properly and formally for the very thing it self in its essential nature in which sense as it is very oftentimes taken when applyed to the righteousness of man Prov. 10.2 12 28. Acts 10.35 Rom. 6.13 18 20. so likewise to the Righteousness of Christ Rom. 5.18 where the Righteousness of Christ is expresly mentioned And
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 Rector of Stanton by Highworth in the County of Wilts Remissio peccatorum est justitia imputata Cham. Tom. 3. l. 21. c. 19. Idem sunt Remissio peccatorum Justificatio Urs Cat. Q 60. LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishops-Head in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCLXXV THE EPISTLE TO THE READER Courteous Reader THE Scope of this Treatise is to demonstrate Christ's Righteousness to be in no other Sence imputed to Believers than were their Sins to him that is as their Sin it self or in it's formal nature was not imputed to Christ but only in the deserved punishment thereof so neither is Christ's Righteousness imputed to them otherwise than in it's blessed fruits and saving effects So that Sinners being justified by Christ's Obedience or made righteous as St. Paul expresseth it is no more than their being disobliged and acquitted from Condemnation for the merit of Christ's Righteousness The occasion of my Undertaking this Service was the perusing some late Books concerning whose Authors though I must bear them record that they have a zeal of God yet I cannot say as gladly I would that it is according to knowledg The Doctrine maintained in this Treatise is by one of the said Authors Mr. Rolls accused as damnable doctrine as a limb of Popery yea the very Rats-bane of Popery and the maintenance of it an express contradiction of the Church of England in the great point of Justification By which words and many others to the same purpose he hath done more credit to the Church of Rome and more wrong and dishonour to our own Church than I believe he did intend or was aware of Another of those Authors Dr. Owen in his Vindication against Mr. Sherlock hath very much of the same uncharitable and unadvised talk And after the perusal of these Mr. Ferguson's Book styled the Interest of Reason in Religion came to my hands wherein I perceived the like fervent and inordinate Zeal Hereupon as the Apostle saith of the good Zeal of his Corinthians that it had provoked very many the Zeal of these Brethren for the upholding and propagating Error hath in a different Sence provoked me viz. to offer an helping hand for the defence of the truth nor hath ought else induced me hereunto as having not the least Pique at any of those Authors persons in regard of their dissent from my sentiments or on any other account they being all perfectly unknown to me nor the least touch of envy at their Popularity nor was I excited to this undertaking by any other If any shall object against my thus voluntarily appearing in this Contest as Eliab did against his brother David's forwardness to another kind of Combate saying it is the pride and naughtiness of thy heart I think it enough to reply as David did Is there not a Cause Seeing so many at this time employ to the utmost their Pens and Tongues to decry and defame the great Truths here contended for and to defend and promote the erroneous Principles here opposed As for my manner of writing I was solicitous only to speak intelligibly to the capacity of ordinary Readers not affecting curiosity of the Stile And I hope it will appear that I have endeavoured to right the Truths of the Gospel without wronging any of my dissenting Brethren by misrepresenting their words or sence or uncomely reflections upon any of them I think it expedient likewise to declare that in this Controversy concerning imputed Righteousness I do not step forth as a second to any who have of late appeared for the Cause I maintain either particularly Mr. R. Baxter Mr. William Sherlock Mr. Joseph Truman Mr. Edward Fowler or any other My only aim was according to my slender Talent to serve and bear witness to the truth without design to please or gratify any person If after this Profession of an honest meaning and sincere desire to do good it shall prove my Lot to hear ill in any kind to be accused as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Prevaricator one who would build again what by his Subscription to the Articles and Homilies of the Church of England he hath destroyed to be reproached as a Socinian or to suffer by any other name of intended Ignominy I shall not thereupon be so surprized as if some strange thing had happened to me nor shall I in the least I hope through God's grace be discouraged by such usage nor yet exasperated but shall say in the words of the Prophet Jeremy Truly this is a grief and I must bear it Lastly I think it not amiss to add this Information that the following Treatise is only one Part of what I designed to publish concerning imputed Righteousness and that I have almost perfected a second part concerning Forgiveness of Sin as that very Righteousness which is said in Scripture to be imputed by God to believing Sinners for the sake of Christ's Righteousness and withal concerning Faith as the thing it self which is most expresly and very frequently said in Scripture to be imputed for Righteousness with the resolution of many material Questions pertaining thereunto I desired to have had both these parts published together but this having been a great while in the Press it was thought more advisable that it should not stay for the other but come out by it self To conclude Let us be zealously affected alwaies Gal. 4.18 but with the great St. Paul's Limitation in a good thing and according to the weight of every such matter let the height of our Zeal be and above 1 Pet. 4. ◠all things let us have fervent Charity among our selves May the God of Peace and Love and Truth be with us all This shall be ever the heart's desire and prayer of Stanton July 26. 1675. Reader Thy aged Servant in the Work of the Gospel Thomas Hotchkis THE CONTENTS 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 pag. 1. Chap. ii Q. Have all our Protestant Preachers and Writers erred from the Truth of Scripture who have spoken of Christs Righteousness under the name or notion of a Righteousness imputed or have asserted the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us Answ No God forbid two reasons of which answer are rendred p. 3. Chap. iii. Q. In what sence is it true or false to say That Christs Righteousness
Sinner with a witness a great Sinner the word Scelus being used by Latinists sometimes for Scelestus But I do not charge this sense as intended by that Renowned Authour however it be owned by Mr. William Eyre in his Sermon forecited he quoting in the Margin of his Book certain of the Ancients Austin and Oecumenius as asserting the same 4. If the said Authour must be supposed to insinuate That the phrase To be made sin is pregnant of more sense or doth imply more than To be made a Sinner I can say no less than there is no such implication but an implication of the contrary For To be made sin is a less thing yea it is quite another kind of thing than to be made a Sinner for to be made a Sinner is to be made Culpable Reus culpae or guilty of fault whereas to be made Sin doth imply no more than respectively to suffering to be dealt with as a Sinner or to be made a Sin-offering as was afore said 5. As guilt is distinguished or a distinct thing from punishment these two things usually distinguished by Reatus Culpae Poenae and sometimes by Obligatio ad Culpam Obligatio ad Poenam as hath been already said Christ cannot be truly said to have been made Sin in respect of the guilt this being in effect to say That he was made Culpable or a Sinner and did thereupon deserve to suffer 6. As to know no Sin and to do no Sin are phrases of the self same adequate sense and importance so also are the phrases To be made a curse and to be made accursed the former though more emphatically significant of the Speakers intended sense yet not importing more sense as intended to be spoken 7. Christ was no otherwise made Sin than he was made a curse for in this very respect he is in one Scripture said by the Apostle to have been made Sin for us in that as the Apostle expresseth and interprets himself in another Scripture he was made A Curse for us for he was made a Sin-offering by undergoing the cursed death of the Cross or as Saint Peter expresseth the matter 1 Pet. 2.24 By bearing our sins in his own body upon the Tree as the Altar upon which he offered himself as a Sacrifice without any spot of Sin to God CHAP. VI. An Answer to several unjustifiable passages in Mr. Ferguson's Book styled The Interest of Reason in Religion His false and manifold uncharitable insinuations answered Wherein 't is shewed what manner of guilt or obligation to punishment that was which Christ took upon him That Christ did not suffer however by occasion of that Law Gen. 2.17 as transgressed yet not by vertue thereof as if that Law in or by his sufferings had been executed His mistake of the true nature of Gospel justification demonstrated That it is not against the essential Holiness of God as Mr. Ferguson pretends to justifie a sinner upon an obedience Ex parte sui seu peccatoris imperfect with the reason of his mistake HAving thus replyed to the words of that Learned Bishop under whose authority the Adversaries do in this contest take shelter I shall address my self to make answer to Mr. Robert Ferguson who being a zealous asserter of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sense here disclaimed and oppugned by me doth endeavour the propugnation and defence thereof in the following passages of his fore-named Book The Interest of Reason in Religion Mr. Ferguson P. 409. I will not here discourse how inconsistent it seems with the wisdom and sapience of God to introduce a perfect righteousness such as that of his Son was meerly to make way for his justifying us upon an imperfect righteousness such as that of our obedience is Answ So far as appears to me by the reading of his Book this Brother hath not the true notion I do not say of justification in general or of the word as indefinitely taken but of Gospel-justification or the justification of a sinner which neither is nor can be otherwise than by a pardon and this pardon is not ex nudâ Dei voluntate meerly of divine will and pleasure but merited by the satisfaction of Christ Of this his mistake of the quiddity or true nature of Gospel-justification I may have occasion to speak in reply to some other passages of his Book In the mean time I shall take it as a truth not to be gainsaid That Gospel-justification is forgiveness of sin this kind of justification being it alone that a sinner is a subject capable of and thereupon I do reply That however the matter seems to this Author nevertheless in truth it is no way inconsistent with the wisdom of God for the sake of his Sons most perfect righteousness to justifie or pardon sinners upon an imperfect righteousness such as that of our obedience is which if perfect would have no need of pardon P. 409. Nor shall I argue Mr. F. How that the righteousness of Christs life and sacrifice of his death must be imputed to us for justification in a proportionableness to our sins having been imputed to him in order to his expiatory suffering Answ I have already granted that in what sence or sort our sins may be said to have been imputed to Christ his righteousness may be said to be imputed to us but withal declared that neither of them can be truly so said to be imputed in the proper sence of the words sin and righteousness which is the sence of this Author and his Abettors but in an improper sence i. e. in the fruit and effects both of the one and the other P. 409 410. Mr. F. To attribute Christs sufferings meerly to Gods dominion without any respect to sin is the grossest of Socinianism and repugnant to the Scripture in an hundred places Answ They who deny the imputation of Christs righteousness unto us in the sence by this Author asserted are far from attributing Christs sufferings meerly unto Gods dominion without any respect to sin For as they do unanimously preach and print that Christs sufferings had a respect to our sins so they do attribute his sufferings not meerly to Gods dominion without any respect to sin but to that voluntary compact which was betwixt the Father and the Son that Jesus Christ should suffer for sin and sinners and that thereby he merited our pardon 2. Consequently I cannot forbear to say That it doth very ill become this Author to insinuate so foul a slander against his Brethren as guilty of Socinianism gross Socinianism the grossest Socinianism in this matter ‖ Mr. F. See amongst other Scriptures Esa 53.5 6. 1 Pet. 2.24 Gal. 3.13 and Dr. Stillingfleet's vindication of them from the exceptions of Crellius P. 410. To say That our sins were imputed to Christ in the effects of them but not in the guilt is to contradict all principles of reason For guilt and obnoxiousness to punishment being equipollent
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
refused commuting with them but would have given them the benefit of his Righteousness in exchange for their parting with their own unrighteousness And because as our Saviour speaking concerning the worshipping of God in Spirit and in truth says The Father seeketh such to worship him so Christ himself seeketh such Chapmen as will forsake all their sinful ways that so they may win him and the benefit of his Righteousness I will therefore speak a few words whereby to drive the bargain betwixt the Saviour and the sinner to which end my advice to every sinner is as followeth 1. If ever you mean to drive a saving bargain with Christ or by bartering with him gain the benefit of his Righteousness you must know the market-rate or to speak in the language of Scripture Luke 14.28 You must sit down and count the cost And in the name of the living God I beseech you to take heed of thinking That it is enough for you to lay down your sins at the cross of Christ upon his shoulders or to give up your sins to Christ in the guilt of them which some use to call An applying of Christ to our selves For if this be all I may well say in allusion to those words of our Saviour Mat. 5.47 What do you more than others more than those others who said Lord Lord. 2. You must rightly understand what are the commodities that Jesus Christ doth offer or expose and withal the true value and worth of them they being the fruits of his Righteousness Remission of sin Reconciliation with God Redemption Justification unto life Everlasting salvation It is the office of Gods Ministers faithfully to acquaint sinners that although Christ hath done his work in bearing the burden of their iniquities in the punishment thereof nevertheless there is a certain burden or yoke of duty to which every sinner is to submit his neck and shoulders that would have the benefit of Christs sufferings actually confer'd upon him which yoke and burden for our comfort our Saviour assures us is easie and light 3. You must after a due deliberation and count of the cost come to a fixed resolution to come up to the market-price and to bid no less than Christ doth demand For if we mean to barter with him we must not think to bring him down to our terms the wearing of his Livery professing his name doing some more cheap easie external duties but we must come up to his terms i.e. we must deny our selves take up our cross and follow him as he hath from the beginning told us Mat. 16.24 For though we may cozen or cheat our selves yet Christ will neither cozen us nor would he that we should be cozened by our selves or by any others 4. Let no man deceive you with vain words as if the doing according to the foresaid Resolution were a bartering with your selves and not with Christ or a taking of the work out of Christs hand and ascribing it to your own faithful performances For this is but to do our own work under Christ and by his helping grace this is to be workers together with God this is under Christ to do our own part for the saving of our selves which every sinner must do who expects to be saved through Christ Acts 2.40 1 Tim. 4.16 'T is true as the Doctor says That the work which Christ came to do in the world was to bear our iniquities and to lay down his life a ransom for our sins but withal it concerns us all to remember that we have a work or works to do that the benefit of that his ransom and sufferings may be ours whereupon as to us they may not at last prove in vain and we reproached as those who have rejected or frustrated the counsel of God against our selves Luk. 7.30 Our only work is not to give up our sins to Christ to lay them upon his shoulders or to believe that he hath born them We can never barter or commute with Christ meerly upon such terms Nor let us regard such vain words as are here suggested by the Doctor as if repenting for our sins and doing our duty that we may be saved by Christ were in effect to say Our repentance our duties shall bear our iniquities The truth is in these four things 1. Whether we repent or not repent whether we do or not do our duty most undoubtedly Christ hath born our iniquities 2. If Christ had not born our iniquities although we had done our duty in repenting our repentance would have been to no saving purpose for we must still our selves have born our iniquities notwithstanding 3. Though Christ hath born our iniquities nevertheless repentance for sin and converting therefrom to God in Christ are our duties and duties of such indispensable necessity that unless we do repent and be converted we our selves must bear our iniquities in the eternal punishment thereof 4. To repent and to do our duty that we may not our selves in this sort bear our iniquities is not in any rational construction to say as the Doctor it seems doth interpret it That our repentance and duties shall bear our iniquities I have been the more copious in answer to the said passages of the Doctor that I might preserve or rescue the souls of men from being ensnared thereby And although I expect no thanks for my pains from many but contempt and derision rather nevertheless forasmuch as I look upon the said passages as dangerous gins and snares suited in their own nature to entangle sinners instead of tending to their edification in ought that is good I shall not repent of this my work and labour of love I will now proceed to the proposal of such useful Questions as in the beginning of this Chapter I intimated should be the subject of several the Chapters following 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 FOrasmuch as such sayings as these are ordinarily heard from the mouthes and to be seen in the printed Sermons of many popular Preachers Believers are interessed in the Merits of Christ They may lay claim to his Merits Christs Satisfaction is theirs They may challenge it as their own and forasmuch as such sayings are by the common sort of Hearers and Readers not to mention any the Authors accustomed to such words either not at all understood or mis-understood and indeed forasmuch as such sayings do need a due explication as well therefore to promote the truth as to prevent error in the minds of people by their mis-conceptions I will propose and answer the following Question Quest In what sence may it be truly said That we are interessed in Christs merit and satisfaction or That we may challenge and lay claim thereunto as Ours Answ Although
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
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
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
the matter here in controversie which is not Whether Christs Righteousness be imputed to us or whether our sins were imputed to him for although it be not expresly and in terms asserted in any place of the Bible either that our sins were imputed to Christ or that his Righteousness is imputed to us nevertheless it is readily and unanimously granted That both of them may truly be asserted in a certain sense to be imputed the only Question being this viz. In what sense were our sins imputed to Christ and in what sense is Christs Righteousness imputed to us whether as Sin and Righteousness are taken properly and formally or else figuratively and in the effects thereof whether Formaliter or Effective as are the School termes And that either the one or the other were in their formal and essential nature imputed our Sins to Christ or his Righteousness to us or otherwise imputed to him or us than in the fruits and effects thereof that Scripture in 2 Cor. 5.21 doth not prove Yea that Scripture doth plainly and convincingly prove and disprove that sense of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness which I have and still do both own and disown i.e. own in the said figurative and improper but disown in the formal and proper sense of the word Righteousness And for the purpose in hand an Argument from the said Scripture may be thus formed In what manner or in what sense of the word Sin Christ was made Sin for us or our Sin was imputed to him after such a manner or in the same sense were we made the Righteousness of God in him or his Righteousness was imputed to us But he was not made Sin for us nor was our Sin formally taken and in its essential nature imputed to him but only in its poenal fruits or punishment deserved by it Ergo For proof of the Minor for the Major will be yielded by all those with whom I am now in the dispute be it considered That if our Sin it self properly in its essential nature had been imputed to Christ then had he been reputed by God to have deserved or contracted the guilt of what he suffered which if so he could not have satisfied for us or his sufferings be reckoned by God as satisfactory to Divine Justice 2. The Apostle doth not say that Christ was made a Sinner for us nor do I know how such a saying can be vindicated from blaspheming the Holy One of God 3. If Sin as properly taken was imputed to Christ and he in that sense of the word was made Sin for us I see not but that this blasphemy will from thence follow viz. That God reputed Christ to be a Sinner or made him a Sinner for us And this is that I find in a printed Sermon preached by Mr. William Eyre at the Assizes at Sarum His Text was Psal 45.10 1652. and dedicated to the Councel of War then sitting at Whitehall wherein he says pag. 10. That such was Christs zeal for Righteousness that to make us righteous he was content himself to be made a Sinner And to abet him in his blasphemy he alledgeth the authority of the Apostle saying So the Apostle He was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 What So the Apostle Verily not so for the Apostle says He was made Sin for us the importance of which word is not that he was made a Sinner for us but that he was made a Sacrifice for Sin or a Sin-offering for us in which sense the word Sin is frequently taken in the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament which being so obvious and well known I need not to specifie Rom. 8.3 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 Q. DID not Christ take upon him our guilt or the guilt of our sins as well as the punishment of them The former is Meritum poenae the deserving of punishment the latter is Obligatio ad luendam poenam an obligation to suffer the punishment it self deserved Answ No Christ did not take upon him Reatum culpae guilt of fault but only that which we call Reatum poenae the former some Casuists do stile if I do not mistake Obligation to fault the latter Obligation to punishment See Bishop Sanderson De juramento lect 1. Sect. 12. But because there are it seems very learned men who are otherwise minded in this matter I think my self obliged for the truths sake to reply to certain passages which I have lately read in some Authours of whom two I perceive do alledge the authority of that most learned Bishop Andrews in his Sermon upon Jer. 23.6 wherein having quoted the said words of the Apostle in 2 Cor. 5.21 he says Mark how every thing is lively and as full as can be imagined Christ one not only that had done no sin but that had not so much as known sin hath God made not a sinner but sin it self as in another place not accursed but a curse it self sin in respect of the guilt a curse in respect of the punishment Answ Under Episcopal favour I humbly crave to reply by suggesting my thoughts as followeth 1. If this Authour must be supposed to insinuate that to know no sin doth imply more than to do no sin I conceive it to be a mistake for although To know no sin may be yielded to be a more significant or as is here said a lively expression yet I do not think that it is significant of more than we are given to understand by that other expression He did no sin these two phrases the one of St. Paul the other of St. 1 Peter 2.22 being of the self same adequate importance There be many phrases that are more emphatically significant of the truth or sense intended by the speaker that do not imply more truth or more of sense than other not so emphatical but plain and downright expressions Besides I leave it to the consideration of the Learned whether the expression He knew no sin be not an Hebraism the Apostle therein speaking after the manner of the Hebrews in whose language the word know is used for To do and this both as applyed to good and evil as were easie to exemplifie to know good and evil being no more in true sense and construction than to do them 2. As it is remarkable indeed that the Apostle doth not say that God made Christ a Sinner so withal it is remarkable that he doth not say that God made him Sin it self but Sin 3. The phrase to be made Sin it self seems to sound forth this sense viz. To be made Sin in it self which to say is to imply that Christ was made a
phrases he cannot be supposed to have been made liable to the last upon the account of our sins without having been brought under the first Nor is it imaginable how without submitting to the guilt of our sins he could have been punished should it be granted that without respect to them he might have suffered Though without any habitude to sin his sufferings might have been dolorous yet they could never have been penal Answ 1. To say That our sins were imputed to Christ in the effects of them i. e. in the deserved punishment thereof but withal to deny that our guilt of fault was imputed to Christ is not to contradict all principles nor any one principle of reason 2. Nor doth it at all contradict any of those Scriptures alledged by this Author in the Margin of his Book which Scriptures do only prove an imputation of our sins to Christ in the sence I own and acknowledg i. e. in Christ his undergoing suffering for them but not in his taking our guilt upon him And as Dr. Stillingfleet doth well maintain the imputation of our sins to Christ in the former respect i. e. the effects of them so I am perswaded that that most learned Doctor is a man of more reason and better principled than to maintain the imputation of our guilt to Christ as this Author would have it 3. I grant That guilt and obnoxiousness to punishment are equipollent phrases but I deny that it will follow from thence that because Christ took upon him to suffer the punishment which we for our sins deserved he did therefore take upon him our guilt He did indeed take upon him a certain guilt or obligation to suffering i. e. a guilt or obligation peculiar to himself but not the same guilt that lay upon us not our guilt not the same numerical guilt for Philosophy tells us that an accident being removed from the subject perisheth nor the same specifical guilt i. e. of the same sort but a guilt specifically different not having the same but a far different Substratum ground foundation or efficient from ours ours being Violatae Legis grounded or founded upon our transgression of Gods Law but his Sponsionis propriae an obligation of contract or consent founded upon the agreement betwixt him and his Father in that behalf Obligation to punishment we stile guilt and our guilt was guilt of fault and of suffering for our fault from or by vertue of Gods Law threatning the same but Christs guilt was only guilt of suffering for our fault arising from or by vertue of his voluntary undertaking and compliance with the will of his Father Briefly That Law of God which did threaten man with suffering for sin did not oblige Christ to suffer for it or us nor did he die by vertue of that Law threatning man with death upon supposition of his sin Gen. 2.17 nor was that Law fulfilled or executed in his death but by occasion of that sin-threatning Law transgressed by man he did voluntarily oblige himself in the person of a Mediator to suffer and to suffer death for us or for our sins i. e. the expiation of them 4. Christ may well be supposed to be liable to suffering upon the account of our sins by vertue of the said contract betwixt him and his Father without having been brought under our personal specifical guilt And it is easily imaginable that without submitting to our personal guilt he might suffer such suffering as was equivalent to that punishment which we by our sins had deserved This is as easily imaginable as to imagine how St. Paul should take upon himself to satisfie for the damage which was done to Philemon by the injury of his unfaithful servant Onesimus and was willing to have the same imputed to him as the word signifies Philem 18. and yet not submit unto or take upon him Onesimus his personal guilt of defrauding or wrong-doing And to speak the very truth in such a sence as St. Paul was willing to take upon himself the wrong done to Philemon by Onesimus and to have it reckoned to him saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impute it unto me meaning thereby not Onesimus his personal guilt Reatum culpae or his sin it self but the effects of it in the damage thereby sustained by his Master In the like sence I say were our sins reckoned or imputed to Christ he taking upon him an obligation by his doings and sufferings to satisfie for the damage or wrong done to God as I may so say I mean to vindicate the Honour and Authority of the Law and Law-giver to demonstrate the justice of God his hatred of sin And indeed herein viz. in an aptitude for the attainment of these and the like ends of God our Maker Ruler Law-giver Benefactor better than the damnation of all mankind could have done consisteth the meritoriousness and satisfactoriness of Christs doings and sufferings and this is the reason of our styling them satisfactory or meritorious 5. Though we deny that Christ took upon him our guilt of sin yet it will not follow from thence that we deny his sufferings to have had any habitude or respect at all to sin as is here insinuated by this Author for had it not been for our sin he had never suffered 6. Forasmuch as Christs sufferings had not the self same individual or kind of habitude to sin as our sufferings in case we had suffered according to our desert would have had i. e. forasmuch as Christs sufferings were not merited or inflicted on him by or upon account of any sin of his own therefore are his sufferings to be accounted rather dolorous than penal I mean punishments in a strict and the most proper acceptation of the word punishment being properly and strictly Malum triste inflicted upon a guilty person propter malum turpe Proper punishment I conceive to be the effect of proper guilt which is Reatus Criminis Guilt of fault not meerly Contracius of Contract as Christs was P. 410. Mr. F. 'T is a thing utterly unintelligible how Christ could be made sin for us and have our punishment transferred to him without a previous imputation of sin and the derivation of its guilt upon him Answ What this Author hath asserted to be unsupposable unimaginable and here asserts to be utterly unintelligible I have already as I am perswaded made plain obvious and easie to be understood by every intelligent impartial unprepossessed Reader and I shall shew my self ready to do it further as this Author shall minister occasion P. 410. Mr. F. Now by proportion If our sins were imputed to Christ otherwise than meerly in the effects of them so must likewise the righteousness of his life and sacrifice of his death be otherwise imputed to us than meerly in the benefits of them Answ Having made it apparent in my foregoing Answers to this Authors arguings that our sins in the propriety of the word were not imputed to Christ or otherwise
in and by Christ redeemed our selves or are in and by him our own Redeemers it behoves him to consider how he can avoid the just imputation of that thwacking contradiction which upon his swopping mistake he insinuates his adversaries in this point to be guilty of And it concerns him also to consider how his Hypothesis can be maintained without admitting that injustice which he mentions in the Rector who notwithanding his allowance of the said substitution doth deny instantly to confer upon us the benefits of Christs redemption and satisfaction these being no other than what we our selves have in and by Christ made a full satisfaction for and which upon that account we may fitly and properly be said to have purchased for our selves 3. Whatsoever bad consequences there be of Christs being our surrogate and substitute in such a strict Law-sence as he doth fancy to himself there is no such repugnancy or contradiction as here he speaks of that doth follow from what we do assert in this matter viz. That Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us that he died for our sins as a ransom sacrifice atonement or propitiation and forasmuch as he suffered for our sakes and in our stead i. e. such suffering as was equivalent to what we deserved and such as was fit to attain the ends designed by our Creator and Redeemer better than the damnation of all mankind could have done we do not deny but that our sins may be said to be imputed to Christ and his sufferings to us but neither of them properly and in their essential nature not our sin it self to him or his sufferings themselves to us but both of them in their effects our sin to him in its penal and his sufferings to us in its saving effects And this as we do so we may very well and warrantably maintain notwithstanding it be yielded as the truth is That Christ was substituted or given of God to make satisfaction to the demands of the Law and not of the Gospel in the sence here specified by this Author 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 HItherto I have related the arguings of this Author word for word as I find them continued together from p. 409. to p. 412. and accordingly the Reader may if he please take view of them all as contiguous But forasmuch as I judg'd it most conducive to the conviction of gain-sayers and to the edification of all to shape my reply thereunto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 period by period I have therefore accordingly recited them and suited my reply to every distinct period in those pages As for his ensuing arguings in the same Chapter to the close thereof I cannot in such sort recite them verbatim without the transcribing of seven or eight whole pages from p. 413. to p. 421. nor will it be at all necessary so to do it being fully satisfactory to demonstrate that his arguings do proceed upon his utter mistake of the true nature of Gospel-justification or that peculiar kind of justification whereof a sinner is the subject or subjective matter and for the manifestation thereof be it considered That he premiseth these two things p. 413 414. 1. That to justifie is in its proper acceptation here a forensick term signifying to acquit and absolve one that is accused 2. That justification not only supposeth us to be indited but withal imports an absolution from the charge of that Law of the breach whereof we are accused viz. The Law of perfect obedience which is not abrogated by the Law of faith but doth remain in force and we being all guilty of the violation of its terms there lyes accordingly a charge against us from which by justification we are as he says to be acquitted Now yielding to the former of the two premisses which he proves by several Scriptures apt to the purpose I reply to the latter That there being a two-fold guilt which the Law of God being violated may be supposed to accuse us of or charge us with the ignorance or non-observance of which distinction is the cause of great confusion and misunderstanding in the doctrine of justification viz. guilt of fault and guilt of punishment i. e. actual obligation to punishment it is the great mistake of this Author as of many other of our Brethren to think that by justification we are freed or acquitted from both the said kinds of guilt or as some do imagine that by pardon of sin we are freed from the latter kind of guilt and by justification with the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us from the former Whereas the truth is That the righteousness of Christ is no more nor otherwise imputed to or for the justification of a sinner than it is to or for the non-imputation i. e. the pardon of his sins and that there is no possibility for a sinner by any plea whatsoever to be justified or acquitted from the former kind of guilt I have already manifested and shall farther manifest according to occasion in the sequel of this Treatise In the mean time I will speak somewhat more at large for the due understanding of the nature of justification both as indefinitely considered and specially as the subject thereof is a sinner And in order thereunto I will lay down the following Propositions 1. Justification as indefinitely taken Propos 1. or as abstracted from the consideration of the special quality of the person justified is the absolution of a person suppos'd to be accused from the guilt that he is charged with and according to the quality of the person accused guilty or not guilty such is the nature of his justification If innocent he is justified à reatu culpae from guilt of fault or from having deserved any punishment through any fault he is charged with In this sence the word is taken in many Scriptures as in Deut. 25.1 Esa 5.23 And so I conceive the word is taken in 1 Cor. 4.4 Only it is to be understood that St. Paul there speaks of that kind of justification which is commonly styled Justificatio causae not personae his meaning being not that he was conscious to himself of no sin at all but not of insincerity or unfaithfulness in his stewardship or Ministerial office in which respect he was able to justifie himself although that was a thing comparatively not so material forasmuch as he must stand to the final sentence of God the Judge of all 2. If the person accused be guilty or culpable Propos 2. his justification is of another kind or nature
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
Imputation of his obedience we are made Righteous No as to the words Imputed and Imputation there is Altum silentium not a word or syllable 2. The Doctor adjoyns thereunto Phil. 3.9 saying That this is that which the Apostle desires to be found in in opposition to his own righteousness To which I answer That the righteousness wherein St. Paul did there desire to be found was not the obedience or righteousness of Christ in opposition to his own evangelical obedience as the Doctor here says and too too many with him but his own evangelical obedience or the sincere practice of Christian Religion together with the blessed consequents and benefits thereof or promised through Christ thereunto in opposition to a Judaical righteousness styled his own he being a perfect Jew by descent an Hebrew of the Hebrews with all its carnal priviledges of which that Nation did so much boast which notwithstanding being put in competition with those of Christianity were in his esteem no better than dung than that we call Garbage or Dogs-meat as is the importance of the word there used by him whereby to express his contempt in the highest degree That this is the true meaning of the Apostle I may have occasion farther to demonstrate In the mean while I shall take into consideration what the Doctor affirms concerning our own obedience or righteousness and Christs he saying in these words This distinction the Apostle doth evidently deliver and confirm so as nothing can be more clearly revealed Ephes 2. 8 9 10. To this be it answered Of a truth I perceive how like to the black or yellow Jaundise that distemper of the intellect is which we call Prejudice or Prepossession in that it makes us as confident as confidence it self that we do see and see evidently and as clearly as can be such entities and adjuncts of entities as have no visible existence to the eye or understanding of any impartial man For 1. there is neâ— vola nec vestigium no sign or footstep of the distinction betwixt Christs obedience and ours in that Scripture for ought appears to me 2. All I see in these words is A distinction betwixt the Grace of God together with the obedience or works of faith or faith wrought in us by free grace and certain other works in opposition unto and contradistinction from the said Grace and Faith i. e. works wrought by their own natural strength without the infusion of special graces antecedent to the Ephesians their embracing the faith of Christ and consequently such works as do make for boasting 2. Hereupon I cannot but wonder in what term or terms of the said Scripture the most sharp-sighted or Eagle-ey'd Divine can perceive the obedience of Christ to be so evidently there delivered as that nothing can be more clearly revealed Surely the Doctor will not say That by Grace or by Faith visibly there mentioned is meant the obedience of Christ for Grace and Faith and Christs obedience are without all controversie several things whether physically metaphysically or theologically considered so that one member of the Doctor 's distinction is evidently wanting in that Scripture although I readily grant that forasmuch as every act doth presuppose an object faith must be understood there not as excluding but as including the person and obedience of Christ I will not say though some peradventure will as its adequate but as its partial however prime object 3. Were the obedience of Christ there expresly mentioned nevertheless it is to be denied That this obedience of Christ is there opposed to our obedience i. e. to our evangelical obedience or to the faithful works thereof as the Doctoâ— would have it but to another kind of works which do make for boasting as was afore-said And this I may perhaps endeavour to make apparent in another Treatise and there manifest how the Doctor doth mistake the true sence of the word saved in that Scripture which although he interprets for justified and so indeed in some Scriptures it is to be interpreted and it is an important truth that Gospel-Justification is the self-same thing with salvation from the guilt of sin nevertheless by saved in that place is meant sanctified quickned regenerated saved from the power of sin This right interpretation of the word saved doth utterly make void what the Doctor says in the following lines whereby to confirm the distinction betwixt Christs obedience and our evangelical obedience to be there as evidently delivered so as that nothing can be more clearly revealed I shall now return to the fore-cited words of Mr. Ferguson to which I answer 1. I do deny That to assert that the precise nature of Gospel-Justification doth consist in Remission of sin doth bid defiance to the Scripture in an hundred places or that that Principle doth imply That we are not at all justified And if I should say in compliance with the language here of this Author I do defie Mr. Ferguson to prove what he hath charged as the effect of the said Principle I think I should be blameless But I shall choose to forbear that word it being my desire and design to reply with words of alike meekness as wisdom whatever provocation there be to the contrary 2. I deny That to state the whole of our assoilment from the accusation of the Law in Remission is indeed to say That we are not justified 3. I deny That to say That a sinner is in an improper sence said to be justified is indeed to say That we are not justified Deus bone To say That God is said in an improper proper sence to render to a man his work work being put for wages or the reward of his work is this indeed to say That God will not render to a man his work or that his work shall not be rewarded of God 4. Because it is such an abhorring to this Author to conceive or speak of a sinner his being in an improper sence said to be justified I will therefore the matter being now ripe for such a purpose put it to the Question as followeth in the next Chapter CHAP. XII Q. Is a sinner said in a proper or improper sence to be justified In answer hereunto it is declared 1. That the Question in it self is immaterial 2. Nevertheless for the satisfaction of Mr. F. the Question is answered and therein it 's proved That the Justification of a sinner is of or in its kind a proper Justification and in what respects so said to be specified An Objection answered Q. IS a sinner said in a proper or an improper sence to be justified Answ 1. I think this Question to be too too near of affinity with those which St. Paul in one place calls unprofitable and vain Tit. 3.9 and the native product whereof as he says in another 1 Tim. 6.4 are envy strife railings evil surmisings and for that cause I am convinc'd that it ought not much to be disputed it being no whit material
truly as I believe said by the most learned judicious Divines whose writings I am acquainted with in this matter 2. I will suggest two or three things which I conceive to be the native consequences of Christ his suffering the Idem of our obligation and not the Tantundem For the first be it considered 1. That the person who made the payment was not the same who was in the obligation but another For it was not Christ who was in the obligation but the sinner the Law threatning not him in person or him in our person but the sinner Briefly that Law obliged none to die but the sinner nor any other to die for or instead of the sinner 2. The sufferings of Christ were not altogether of the same kind There was that exclusion of sinners from the favour of God threatned in the curse and which shall one day be executed upon some sinners which was not suffered or undergone by Christ For as the Apostle says upon supposal of a perfect similitude betwixt our great High-Priest and those after the order of Aaron Then must Christ often have suffered since the foundation of the world Heb. 9.26 Even so upon supposition The ground of Christs obligatioÌ„ and our obligation to suffer is extreamly different for ours was founded upon the guilt of sin committed but Christs was founded upon his own voluntary sponsion whence it is that ours is justly denominated Obligatio Criminis but His only Contâ—actuâ— that whatsoever suffering was threatned to the sinner was inflicted upon Christ I may say Then Jesus Christ should have often suffered since the foundation of the world yea to the end of the world yea world without end even to all eternity His sufferings forasmuch as he was both God and man in one person however they were equivalent to whatsoever was threatned by the original Law to sinners yet they were not the same 3. The ground and reason of Christs and sinners obligation to suffer was not of the same kind or denomination his being Obligatio fidejussoria or Contractus but ours Criminis or ex delicto as hath been already said As sinners were obliged to suffer by one Law so Christs obligation did result from another and that Law peculiar to himself 2. As for the evil consequences of asserting That Christ suffered the Idem the same thing which was in a sinners obligation to suffer be it considered that thence it will follow That a sinner should Ipso facto have an immediate present right to be discharged from his obligation to suffer according to that celebrated saying of the Civilians Solutione ejus quod debetur tollitur obligatio which to say is a branch of down-right Antinomian doctrine which maintains the Justification of Infidels or of sinners in their damnable unbelief 2. It follows That a sinners discharge from his obligation to suffer is not truly and therefore cannot rationally be styled Pardon of sin or that a sinner upon such a supposition cannot rationally be said to be pardoned For I look upon the sayings of those two learned men Grotius and Wotton as undoubted truths viz. Vbi idem solvitur vel à debitore vel ab alio debitoris nomine nulla contingit remissio nihil enim circa debitum agit Creditor aut Rector Grot. de satisf p. 119. Where the same thing is paid either by the debtor himself or by any other in his name there is no remission or pardon of the debt The Creditor or Rector doth in that case act nothing he only receives the debt And says Mr. Wotton De reconcil Pecc p. 157. Poena ac venia diversa sunt ita planè ut qui poenas dederit non sit absolutus qui absolutus est supplicio affectus non fuit Punishment and pardon are contrary so the word Diversae is here to be construed so as that he who hath suffered the punishment for his sin is not pardoned or absolved and he who is absolved i.e. absolved by a pardon was not punished My reply to what this Author says in the next Page shall be the subject of the following Chapter Only lest I should seem willing which is indeed a thing far from me to charge this Author with the holding of any point of doctrine which he doth dis-own I think it meet at the close of this Chapter to give the Reader to understand that he doth else-where in effect say That Christ did not suffer the Idem but the Tantundem for he says expresly p. 557. That Christ submitted to the demerit of our sins so as to undergo the penalty in the substance and kind of it though not in the adjuncts and consequential accidents which would have accompanied it upon such weak finite depraved subjects as we are that we should have undergone Hereupon all that I can peremptorily say is this viz. 1. That I am not able to reconcile this Author with himself in both his said sayings For if Christ did undergo the penalty of the Law which we should have undergone only in the substance and not in the circumstances thereof as here specified how was it true to say as he said in Page 536. That in Christs suffering for our sins God did evidence his truth and immutability in proceeding according to the Penal Law which in pursuance of his own Attributes and mans rational Nature and relations to God he had at first enacted For was not the circumstances adjuncts or accidents of punishment as well as the substance of punishment threatned to man in that penal Law and which man having sin'd should accordingly have undergone Now if Christ did undergo the penalty only in the substance but not in the adjuncts threatned how is this consistent with his saying That in the sufferings of Christ God did proceed according to the penal Law which at first was enacted 2. It is not reconcileable to but flatly against the truth to say That Christ suffered that punishment in kind which we should have undergone For I would demand of him Was not eternal death comprized in the penalty threatned in that Law at first enacted 3. If by Gods truth and immutability Mr. F. means as it is evident he doth the immutability and truth of God in fulfilling that his threatning-threatning-word Gen. 2.17 it is his notorious mistake so to think or say For that penal Law was not by the sufferings of Christ fulfilled or executed but through a compensation or through his compensatory sufferings dispenced with as was upon occasion before said God therein manifesting his mercy and justice but not his truth and immutability respectively to that threatning-Law CHAP. XVI The Imputation of Socinianism groundlesly charged by Mr. F. upon his Brethren Mr. F. his charging his Antagonists with nonsence refuted That sort of union with Christ to be renounced the native consequence whereof is the reciprocal Imputation of our sins to Christ and of his Righteousness to us in the sence of Mr. F. with his Adherents i.e.
he proceeds to express this Commuting of Believers their sins with Christ and his Righteousness with them in the following words p. 223. Having thus by faith given up their sins to Christ and seen God laying them all on him they draw nigh and take from him that Righteousness which he hath wrought out for them So fulfilling the whole of that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.21 He was made sin for us that we might become the Righteousness of God in him They consider him tendring himself and his Righteousness to be their Righteousness before God they take it and accept of it and compleat this blessed bartering and exchange of faith Anger curse wrath death sin as to its guilt he took it all and takes it all away Answ As to one of the passages here recited I need not say much more than what hath been already said in answer to Mr. F. wherein I have manifested what manner of guilt our Saviour took upon him I will only say further That I have with a complication of affections grief and sadness with a mixture also of some indignation and abhorrency taken notice of three or four things in his express words 1. I observe That in his asserting that Christ was made red in his own blood Morally by the Imputation of sin whose colour is red and crimson he seems to say with Mr. F. that Christ did take our sin upon him not only in the punishment but also in the guilt thereof This I say seems to be his meaning 1. Because the hainous nature or guilt of sin is set forth in Scripture by the Metaphor here used by him of redness like to that of crimson or scarlet 2. Because he says expresly not only that Christ took upon him Anger Curse Wrath Death but sin also as to its guilt in which words he makes the guilt of sin a distinct thing from the punishment of it which he expresseth in the four preceding words Anger Curse Wrath and Death Now the contrary truth to this his meaning if indeed he did mean as he spake I have already made known in my answer to Mr. F. and to the words of Bishop Andrews Ch. 5. 2. I observe his canting phrases laying down our sins at the cross of Christ upon his shoulders Commuting Exchanging Bartering By faith Giving up our sins to Christ and Taking from him his Righteousness language obscure ambiguous most alien from the Scripture more fit to delude than to edifie any common Reader or Hearer And if any partial or less intelligent person shall be offended with the word Canting as in his apprehension Durus Sermo a censure too harsh I will for his satisfaction say as followeth 1. As for the Doctor 's expression The Saints giving up their sins to Christ by faith Laying down their sins at his cross upon his shoulders I know no such sayings in Scripture and I do therefore judg them fit to be rejected with words like those of the Apostle in another case The holy Scriptures have no such custom of speaking nor the Churches of God 1 Cor. 11.16 And I do judg thus the rather because the inspired Scriptures were given of God to be attended unto as the rule of our speaking in and about the concernments of our soul and matters of Religion as well as of our thinking 2. A bad meaning of the phrases is very obvious to any common understanding That Christ did and will own our sins in the simple guilt thereof or that our guilt of sin was imputed to him by God and being thus tendred to Christ laid by us at his cross on his shoulders will be welcomed and accepted by him as an acceptable offering or as a grateful present in which fond imagination we do wrong God and Christ and do out of measure flatter our selves as hath been already manifested 3. The best construction which I can according to the utmost of my understanding make of the said phrases is That the Saints do verily believe that Christ did bear their sins in the deserved punishment thereof And if the Doctor 's meaning was no more than this I answer 1. We may believe this as an undoubted truth and yet not be Saints An historical faith as it 's usually styled is not therefore necessarily a sanctifying or saving faith 2. It was God himself who did antecedently to our believing lay our sins upon Christ i.e. in his suffering for them but we do no where read in Scripture that the Saints by their faith do lay their sins upon him although it is most true that every sinner ought to make a penitential confession of his sin to God with faith in Christ who was sacrificed for them 3. The said true construction if that indeed was the Doctor 's meaning is a thing so latent in his said expressions that without an Interpreter could scarcely be found out So that upon the hearing of such uncouth phrases from the mouth of any Minister well may the Auditors sigh saying in allusion to that in Ezek. 20. last Ah Lord God doth not the Preacher speak Parables 2. As for the Doctor 's other expressions The Saints their taking from Christ that Righteousness which he hath wrought out for them and his tendring it to them to be their Righteousness before God I say of them much-what as I did of the former viz. 1. I do not remember and such express sayings in Scripture and I cannot therefore approve them as agreeable to the form of wholesome words 2. I see no reason upon which in charity to presume that the Doctor had any good meaning in the said phrases i. e. that his particular meaning therein for I judg him not for want of a good meaning in general which a man may have both in speaking falsly and doing wickedly Joh. 16.2 was sound and good For it appears by the current of his Book That he would have sinners to believe that that very Righteousness which Christ wrought for them is in it self tendred to them and taken by them and that it is in its essential nature imputed to them and is their Righteousness before God I shall to this purpose in this place transcribe onely one passage out of his Book p. 200. Christ says he tenders his Righteousness to sinners declares the usefulness and preciousness thereof to their souls stirs them up to a desire and valuation of it and lastly effectually bestows it on them reckoning it to them as theirs that they should By it and For it and With it be perfectly accepted with the Father Scarce any thing can be more plainly spoken as well in this as in other passages of his Book hereafter to be mentioned from whence to conclude That he asserts Christs Righteousness it self or in it self to be imputed to sinners and that with the Imputation of the very thing it self Pardon of sin in the blood of Christ being in truth a Righteousness in its kind Believers may with it boldly and confidently
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
for us and this also antecedently to our believing it is not Believers who made him to be sin for themselves or for any others Yea as the Apostle said in another case 2 Tim. 2.13 If we believe not yet he abideth faithful he cannot deny himself in like sort may it here be truly said Although sinners believe not yet God ever was and still abideth faithful to fulfil or verifie the whole of that of the Apostle saying God made him to be sin for us That we might be made together with that in Joh. 3.16 and other the like sayings in Scripture God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life Our unbelief as the Apostle says elsewhere Rom. 3.3 cannot make the faith of God without effect i. e. cannot hinder the fulfilling of his Word The Doctor having pronounced the said Commutation to be a blessed Bartering and Exchange proceeds to tell us how much Jesus Christ is therewith honoured saying in the same Page Many indeed cry Lord Lord and make mention of him but honour him not at all How so They take his work out of his band and ascribe it unto other things their repentance their duties shall bear their iniquities They do not say so they do so The Commutation they make if they make any it is with themselves All their Bartering about sin is in and with their own souls The work that Christ came to do in the world was to bear our iniquities and lay down his life a ransom for our sins 1. Although it be very true and a sad truth it is that many do cry Lord Lord and do not honour him at all yea do dishonour him in so saying yet it is no less false to say as the Doctor hath here said in his answer to the Question How so For the reason is not as he says Because they take Christs work out of his hand and ascribe it to other things their repentance and duties but the true reason or reasons thereof are such as these 1. Because perhaps they did never rightly understand the work which Christ did put into their hand i. e. which he did impose upon them in order to their enjoyment of salvation through his sufferings and blood-shed It is thus with too many who do deceive themselves in thinking that a form of godliness will sufficiently serve for that end although they deny the power thereof 2. Because if they do know the work put into their hands or imposed upon them for that end yet they will not do it i. e. they will not so believe as to repent and convert that they may be saved 3. Consequently because they do ascribe that to a form of godliness or to the bare profession of Christianity which through the mercy of God in Christ is promised only to the power and practice of Christian Religion The truth of what I have herein answered to the said Question How so and the falshood of the Doctor 's answer thereunto is apparent by that very Scripture in Mat. 7.21 1. It is evidently false that those vain and empty Professors did commute only with themselves and would have no bartering with Christ for that they would fain have commuted with Christ is apparent by their closing and scraping acquaintance with him saying Lord Lord or to speak in the Doctor 's phrase by laying down their sins at his cross upon his shoulders who had born their iniquities These words uttered by their own mouthes Lord Lord do audibly speak their presuming upon Christ to save them or their making account that Christ would barter with them 2. The truth of the reason or reasons as before specified by me is most apparent also For they did not repent according as were their duty to have done but they did continue to be workers of iniquity as our Saviour tells them to their faces v. 23. and upon that account he bad them depart from him not upon any such account as the Doctor would have it As if they would take Christs work out of his hands and ascribe it to their repentance which was impossible for them to do who did not repent except through self-deceit in thinking they were penitent whereas indeed they were not and would have no bartering with him but with their own duties So that if we will believe our Saviour Christ we cannot believe what the Doctor hath said in answer to the said Question How so 2. If those carnal Professors had indeed repented and converted from their iniquities They might well and warrantably have pleaded their repentance and conversion as a title through the mercy of God in Christ for their admittance into the Kingdom of Heaven saying Lord Lord open unto us instead of saying Hast not thou taught in our street have not we eaten and drunk in thy presence in thy name cast out devils they had been able to say with David I have kept thy Word I have been upright before thee and have kept my self from mine iniquity or as Hezekiah or Nehemiah or St. Paul said of themselves 2 King 20.3 Neh. 14.22 2 Tim. 4.7 Christ would not doubtless have turn'd them going with that cutting word Depart from me but have said for their comfort as to the good servant Well done good and faithful servants For thus to have pleaded was not to take any work proper to Christ out of Christs hand or to ascribe ought that was peculiar to Christ to any other thing which to have done was far from those Old Testament and New Testament Saints before-named Did David in that saying Lord save me for I am holy Ps 86.2 renounce all bartering with Christ or take the work of his salvation out of Christs hands or ascribe that to his own personal holiness that was peculiar to the person of Christ I trow not Yea for professed Christians in such sort to plead as aforesaid is in very deed to put the work of their salvation into the hands of Christ who as he did by bearing their iniquities purchase their being saved conditionally upon their return to God through him by faith and repentance so he gives repentance to sinners that thereupon both he and they may be in a proximate or moral capacity he of pardoning and saving them and they of being pardoned or saved by him Briefly then the sin and folly of those carnal Professors was not that they would not at all or upon any terms Barter with Christ only with themselves but that they would have bartered with Christ with coyn not currant or with counterfeit ware i. e. not with true repentance for sin in the name of Christ and conversion from it but with an outside profession of Christianity owning Christ professedly as their Lord and Master themselves in the mean time being servants to or workers of iniquity For had they indeed parted from their sins they had never parted from Christ nor would Christ have
and another of the person nor can the faultiness of theft or of any other sin be separated from the person of him who hath committed such sins the faultiness of such sins will in the simple faultiness thereof result upon the persons of such sinners so long as Peccans and Peccatum Furtum and Furans are Conjugata 3. One special reason why some do not perceive their mistake in this pretended difference betwixt remission of sin and justification they asserting remission takes away the punishment but justification the fault seems to be this viz. Because they do not discern or mind the difference betwixt that two-fold guilt of sin which upon occasion hath oft-times before been mentioned and once at least explicated Guilt of fault and of punishment this being one main difference betwixt them viz. That guilt of punishment is a thing separable from the sinner but the guilt of fault not so For although it be most true that satisfaction being made for a fault which was the case here suppos'd the fault doth not Redundare in personam i. e. result upon the criminal in the punishment thereof this being the case of every pardoned or justified sinner nevertheless the Reatus simplex faultiness it self this being a thing inseparable from the sin and sinner doth still result upon him and shall abide upon him till such time as the foresaid contradictions can be verified which will be Ad Groecas Calendas neither in this world nor in the world to come Thus have I answered to what I ever hitherto have read touching the first grand benefit which is pretended to be in a sinners justification by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto him over and above that which doth consist in the Remission of his sin I proceed to the mention of another which shall be the subject of the next Chapter CHAP. XXII Another benefit pretended to be had by Justification through Christs Righteousness imputed over and above the pardon of our sins is That remission of sin doth take off a sinners obligation to punishment but justification by Christs Righteousness imputed doth put him into a state of favour and acceptation with God the vanity of which pretence is discovered The definition of Justification given by the late Assembly of Divines in their lesser Catechism explicated so as to reconcile it with the truth of Scripture though not from tautology Three main grounds of the mistake in the difference here pretended to be betwixt remission of sin and justification by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness 2. A Second benefit pretended to be had by justification through Christs imputed Righteousness over and above the pardon of our sins is this That remission of sin doth take off a sinners obligation to punishment but justification puts him into a state of favour and acceptation with God To this pretence I reply 1. Forasmuch as the punishment of sin is privative as well as positive of loss as well as of sence as are the common expressions and forasmuch as the loss or privation of a sinners favour and acceptance with God is one part of that punishment which is threatned for sin it cannot therefore be otherwise but that if the punishment of our sins through a pardon be remitted but that our persons should be accepted and restored into favour with God To this purpose it is observable that Reconciliation with God and remission of sin are used in Scripture as terms Synonimous or of the same importance reconciliation with God being a part at least of remission of sin for proof whereof see 2 Cor. 5.19 where Gods reconciling the world to himself is said to be his not imputing to them their trespasses which non-imputation is as hath been before-said all one with remission of sin See also Heb. 2.17 and 9.12 where we find it to be all one for Christ to make reconciliation for sinners as to purchase remission or redemption for them See Act. 10.43 with Rom. 5.11 To receive remission of sin and to receive atonement or reconciliation with God are there mentioned as the same thing 2. I desire the Reader to consider whether if a sinner through the remission of his sins be not brought into an estate of favour and acceptation with God Psal 32.1 the Psalmist had sufficient ground to pronounce a sinner blessed upon the account of the forgiveness of his sins Had not remission of sin in its very nature implyed the acceptation of our persons with God the Psalmist would doubtless not have said as there he doth once and again Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered and Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no iniquity Quest Do not the late Assembly of Divines make justification to be more than remission of sin as seems by that description of justification which in their lesser Catechism is by them described to be An act of Gods free grace wherein he pardoneth all our sins and accepteth us as righteous in his sight for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us Answ 1. That God accepts us as righteous for the righteousness sake of Christ is the truth of Scripture and a truth worthy of all acceptation but that this is for the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us no Scripture doth expresly affirm and forasmuch as those Divines do not explain the meaning of that their saying I am willing to construe it in such a sence as agrees with the Scriptures and as hath been opened in the third Chapter of this Treatise 2. I am willing also to make such a construction of those additional words in their description of justification And accepteth us as righteous in the sight of God as to reconcile them to the truth of Scripture and the best construction that possibly to my understanding can be made thereof is this viz. That those words are a meer tautology Gods pardoning us is all one with his cleansing us from all unrighteousness whereupon be it seriously considered How God can be said to cleanse us from all unrighteousness and not eo nomine accept us in his sight as righteous For there being sins of omission as well as commission if God pardon the former as well as the latter he must of necessity accept of our persons as righteous for as by pardoning a sinner his sins of commission he accepts of him as a person that hath done no evil so by pardoning him his sins of omission God accepts him as a person that hath performed all good and what is this but to accept him as righteous positively righteous There needs no more therefore to righteousness than pardon of sin For that which puts an offendor into such a state as if he had broken the Law in nothing and had performed it in every thing that doth necessarily justifie or constitute him righteous The premisses considered it doth evidently appear That to say By the remission of our sins God dischargeth us from the punishment of
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
any Law that Christ did and fulfill'd And if this be his meaning as it seems plainly to be I must crave leave to gainsay saying That God did not require of Christ to do and fulfil whatsoever was required of us by vertue of any Law There are things required of us by vertue of divine Laws peculiar to us and the doing whereof is inconsistent with the person of Christ and office of his Mediatorship and he did plainly refuse when he was upon earth to do some things which some of us are by the Law of God obliged to do because he was under no such Law for the doing of them 2. The Doctor in saying That Christ yielded perfect obedience to the Law as it stood in that conditional Do this and live doth seem to mean That the Law to which Christ yielded perfect obedience was the Law and Covenant of works made with Adam and that as such he yielded obedience thereunto whereas the Law to which Christ yielded perfect obedience was the Law of Mediatorship and a Law in that respect peculiar to himself there being but one Mediator betwixt God and man the man Christ Jesus 3. Whereas the Doctor says That Christ yielded perfect obedience to the Law as a Covenant of works as a means of life to procure life by it as the tenor of a Covenant I conceive no such thing to be true but that the truth is That Jesus Christ did yield perfect obedience to the Law of Mediatorship or that to speak in his own words he did finish the work which God gave him to do as Mediator whereby to purchase life for us according to the tenor of another Law or Covenant i. e. the New Testament in his blood 4. Although Christ hath freed us from obedience to the Law of works as a Covenant of life and from obeying it for this end that we may obtain life everlasting according to the tenor of that Covenant nevertheless he hath not freed us from obeying the Law or Covenant of grace for this end that we may in so doing obtain everlasting life It is not vain as the Doctor censures that some say confidently but it is the very truth of Scripture which all should say with the most assured confidence That we must work that according to the Law of grace we may have life For Seek good and not evil that ye may live Rev. 22.12 says the Prophet Amos ch 5.14 Blessed are they that do his Commandments that they may have right to the tree of life i. e. life everlasting 5. The Doctor 's charge is notoriously false and groundless to say That to work for life is all one as to say We are under the old Covenant Fac hoc vives Is it all one to say Do this i. e. perform perfect and perpetual obedience that thou maist live as to say with St. Peter Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out Or to say with the Prophets Esay and Jeremy Let the wicked forsake his may and the unrighteous man his thoughts and return to the Lord Esay 55.7 8. And Jer. 4.14 Wash thine heart from wickedness that thou maist be saved Or to say with the Apostle So run that ye may obtain obtain what what less than life everlasting as appears by the Verse following wherein he interprets himself 1 Cor. 9.24 25. 6. Walking is in truth working our Christian walking is our Christian working yea I will say it is our Christian warring fighting running wrestling doing like the Olympian Athletae even all that belongs to the Champions of Christ God Angels and Men being spectators All these are comprized under the Metaphorical and Scriptural phrase of Walking with God 7. As our obedience is a way of walking with God so it is a way of working to come to him nor are we more freed from obedience evangelical obedience as a way of working to come to God than we are freed from it as a way of walking with God 8. Evangelical working or obedience as it is the way of walking with God so it is eo nomine the way of coming to God or that will through the mercy of God in Christ bring us to God and as the means must be used that by the use thereof we may obtain the end so are we as well in reason as in conscience to betake our selves to the way of walking with God that therein or thereby we may be brought or come to God I proceed to the examination of certain other passages to the same purpose in the Doctor 's forecited Book wherein he says p. 244. There being an impossibility of obtaining life by the Law we are exempted from it as to any such end and that by the Righteousness of Christ Gal. 3.21 22 23. To this I answer By the Law in that Scripture is meant the Mosaical Law by the perfect obedience whereof there was indeed an impossibility for any persons of obtaining life or justification unto life But this doth not prove that there is any impossibility of obtaining life by the Law of the Gospel or that we are exempted from it as to any such end 2. It is the promise of God in Christ first made to Adam Gen. 3.15 and afterwards renewed to Abraham and which promise is specified v. 16 17. by which sinners are exempted from absolutely perfect obedience to any Law of God to this end that they thereby may have life 3. Although by the Righteousness of Christ What the Law of Moses or of Works could not do the Law of the Gospel through the mercy of God in Christ can do i. e. the condition thereof being kept it can save sinners included in that promise sinners were exempted from the said perfect obedience to any Law to this end that they may have life nevertheless sinners are not upon any account whatsoever exempted from sincere obedience to this end that they may have life according to the tenor of the Gospel-promise wherein life is promised to those and only those who perform the condition thereof The Doctor proceeds to say in the following Page 245. There be Gibeonites outwardly attending the family of God that do the service of his house as the drudgery of their lives the principle they yield obedience upon is a Spirit of bondage unto fear Rom. 8.15 the rule they do it by is the Law in its dread and rigour exacting it of them to the utmost without mercy and mitigation the end they do it for is to fly from the wrath to come to pacifie conscience and seek righteousness as it were by the works of the Law The Saints obedience is a free obedience without fear terror bondage and constraint they go forth unto all holy obedience in Christ Answ 1. What opinion the Doctor hath of the Gibeonites literally or properly so called I know not but certain I am that he had no cause to use their name as here he doth in the way of reproach and disgrace
and the like vertues Col. 3.12 Put on as the elect of God bowels of mercies kindness Eph. 4.22 23. Put off concerning the former conversation the old man and v. 24. Put on that new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness 1 Pet. 5.5 Be ye clothed with humility Our own righteousness in the several branches thereof is that which in many Scriptures is commended to us under the notion of splendid rayment which adorns us makes us lovely in the eyes of God and which is in his sight of great price 1 Pet. 3.3 5. 1 Tim. 2.9 10. To this purpose I might instance in many sayings out of the Proverbs of Solomon were it needful But forasmuch as several Scriptures are objected to the contrary of what hath been here said in the first branch of my Answer I will therefore specifie some of the chief of them and reply thereunto Object Rev. 3.18 What else is meant by the white rayment there mentioned but the Righteousness of Jesus Christ Answ 1. The Question may as well be demanded What is meant by the Gold there spoken of but the Righteousness of Christ For we are not otherwise clothed with the robe or rayment than we are enriched with the gold of Christs Righteousness 2. By the white rayment is there meant our own righteousness consisting of such gracious dispositions and works of holiness which do adorn the Disciples of Christ in his sight more than the most Lilly-white and splendid rayment doth the greatest Princes in the eye of men And this I conceive to be meant by that rayment of needle-work wherein the Bride the Lambs wife is said to be brought unto him Ps 45.13 14. And this is that righteousness of the Saints wherewith they are said to be ‖ Rev. 19.8 arrayed as in fine linnen clean and white righteous works being that rayment wherewith every Christian man and woman should be clothed or adorned 1 Tim. 2.10 Object Rom. 13.14 Are not Christians there commanded to put on the Righteousness of Christ Answ 1. Whatever be the thing which the believing Romans are there commanded to put on I am perswaded that the Apostles meaning there is That we should put it on not as a garment but rather as Armour we being as well said to put on this as that He prosecutes that Metaphor mentioned v. 12. Put on the Armour of light 2. Consequently I think that we have no more reason to conclude that by the garment which we are there commanded to put on is meant Christs Righteousness than that his Righteousness is it which under the Metaphor of the Armour of light we are commanded to put on in the verse next before But I am content that the Reader judg of them 3. I know no surer way rightly to understand what the Apostles true meaning was That we should put on than by considering what we should put off Now forasmuch as the things which he would have us put off are what he stiles the works of darkness i. e. wicked works of all sorts especially such as are there named I may therefore safely I doubt not conclude That by our putting on the Lord Jesus Christ he means our putting on the graces or vertues of the Lord Jesus Christ these being the image of our Lord Christ and it being ordinary to call the image of a thing or person by the name of the person or thing which it doth resemble And in this sence the word Christ is used Gal. 4.19 My little children of whom I travel in birth again till Christ be formed in you Object Gal. 3.27 Doth not the Apostle there mean that the Galatians having been baptized into Christ had put on the Righteousness of Christ Answ By Christ there is not meant the Righteousness of Christ and what is the very thing there meant by the Apostle that the baptized Galatians had put on I know no surer way to understand than by considering the scope of the Apostle in that Epistle what it was that he would have them to put off Now that which the Apostle in this Epistle especially would have the Galatians to put off was Judaism in all the parts of it as such So that as by the Lord Jesus Christ in Rom. 13.14 is meant Christianity in opposition to Gentilism or those heathenish vices there specified so by Christ in Gal. 3.27 I conceive is meant Christianity or the practice of Christian Religion in opposition to Judaism As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ not Moses you have taken upon you the profession of Christian Religion not that of the Jewish or Mosaical Law Object Is not Christs Righteousness the thing it self meant by the wedding garment Mat. 22.12 Answ No but those holy qualifications and gracious dispositions wherewith a Christian should attend upon God in his sacred Ordinances and in his solemn approaches to God should be vested with even as men upon festival occasions do apparrel themselves in rayment suitable thereunto Object Is not the Righteousness of Christ that garment of salvation and robe of righteousness wherewith God is said Esa 61.10 to have clothed or covered his Church Answ It were easie to name many Authors who have perverted that Scripture to such a sence whereas the truth is that there is no more cause to think that the Righteousness of Christ is meant by the garment there mentioned than where mention is made of the same word by the Prophet elsewhere Ch. 52.1 saying Awake awake put on thy strength O Zion put on thy beautiful garments O Jerusalem The very truth of the matter is 1. As the words are a promise although after the manner of Gods speaking by his Spirit in the Prophets it is expressed in the preterperfect tense and as the good promised is expressed by the name of Salvation and Righteousness these in effect being one thing so by Righteousness is meant Gods beneficence and bounty with the several fruits of it confer'd upon his Church in their preservations deliverances restorations In this sence the word Righteousness is frequently taken in Scripture Hos 10.12 It is time to seek the Lord till he come and rain Righteousness upon you Ps 24.5 He shall receive Righteousness from the God of his salvation so that there is no more cause to affirm That by Righteousness in Esa 61.10 is meant Christs personal Righteousness than to make the same construction of the word in the places fore-cited where God promiseth to rain Righteousness upon them or that they shall receive Righteousness from him as the God of their salvation 2. As for the Metaphorical expression of being clothed and covered with the garment of salvation and robe of righteousness it is an allusion to the custom of the Jews and indeed of all Nations which was to clothe and attire themselves sutably to their present condition whether of prosperity or adversity fasting or feasting times as is expressed v. 3. of that Chapter in
that or any other consideration of his death die in our stead i. e. strictly and in a Law-sence In personâ nostrâ as if so be God had reckoned his death to be our death or that we had suffered death in and by him or as if our obligation to suffer punishment had been transfer'd upon him 3. Forasmuch as the Doctor doth simply deny that which for my own part I never did but do simply and positively affirm the contrary viz. That the death of Christ was in our stead I may well think it strange that he hath hitherto escaped the charge of Socinianism whereas if my self or any of my Brethren who maintain what I have professedly asserted in this controversie should simply deny That Christs death was in our stead I am much afraid that we should not so escape but that rather our names would be enrolled in that black List But that it may farther appear what a great gulf there is fixed betwixt us and the Socinians I do here profess in my own and I do not know but that I may sincerely make the same profession in the name of all those my Brethren saying After all this Dispute I do freely and plainly confess and acknowledg and this I do without any of Dr. Owen's distinctions That All Christs Mediatory Obedience To Any Law Whatsoever Common To Us Or Peculiar To Himself Especially His Obedience To The Death Of The Cross Was Under All Considerations Both As A Penalty As A Price And As A Sacrifice In Our Stead And Forasmuch As The Dignity Or Value Of All His Obedience Did Depend Upon The Dignity Of His Person He Being Both God And Man I Do Confess That All His Obedience Was In Our Stead That is To Bestead Us And That It Did Bestead Us In The Purchasing Of A Pardon And Life Eternal For Us Upon Terms Expressed In the Gospel Promised To Us And Upon Performance Thereof To Be Confer'd Upon Us And That the Said Obedience Of Christ Both Active and Passive As It Is Usually Stiled Is Imputed To Us Although Not Immediately And In It Self Yet To As Much Purpose And Real Benefit As If It Were Actually Or Could Possibly Be So Imputed that is That It Is Imputed To Us In All Its Saving Fruits And Blessed Effects All That His Foresaid Obedience Making Up One Entire Meritorious Cause Of All The Said Benefits And Blessings Hereupon as God makes his appeal saying And now O Inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah judge I pray you between me and my vineyard what could have been done more than in like sort shall I make my appeal to all saying And now Men Brethren and Fathers judge I pray you betwixt us who do make the said Confession of our faith in this matter and our adversaries who notwithstanding will clamour against us and stigmatize us with that odious name of Socinianism what need we what can we saâ—vâ veritate say more whereby to acquit our selves from all cause or colour of being accused as Socinians Lastly I reply upon occasion of the Doctor 's fore-cited words That forasmuch as he doth acknowledg Christs death to have been in our stead only as it was penal or a punishment it is therefore justly enquirable under what consideration or in what respect his death was not in our stead and by observing what he says concerning the death of Christ p. 188. Comm. it seems to me That he denies it to be in our stead as it was a Price and as it was a Sacrifice and that this may appear to others as well as to my self I will recite his words as followeth The death of Christ is in Scripture proposed under a three-fold consideration Of a Price of a Sacrifice and of a Penalty 1. It is a Price 1 Cor. 6.20 1 Pet. 1.19 1 Tim. 4.6 Now the proper effect and issue of the death of Christ as a price or ransom is Redemption 2. P. 189. It was a Sacrifice also Heb. 10.5 Esa 53.10 Eph. 5.2 Now the end of Sacrifices such as his was bloody and for sin Rom. 4.3 Heb. 2.17 was Atonement and Reconciliation Eph. 5.2 Esa 53.10 Dan. 9.24 Rom. 5.10 3. It was also a Punishment a punishment in our stead Esa 53.5.6.12 1 Pet. 2.34 Now bearing of punishment tends directly to the giving satisfaction to him who was offended and on that account inflicted the punishment His substituting himself in our room being allowed of by the Righteous Judg satisfaction to him doth thence properly ensue To this I reply saying 1. Redemption and Reconciliation are not at all distinct benefits of the death of Christ for they are one and the self same saving benefit they being but distinct or several names given in several respects to one and the same thing And the very truth is That Redemption i. e. redemption from the guilt of sin I mean the word Redemption passively taken and Reconciliation with God even as also forgiveness of sin and justification with many other words which might be named are Synonimous expressions in Scripture importing in effect the self same thing as may appear by the current of the Scriptures many whereof have been already named to which more were it needful may easily be added 2 Cor. 5.18 19. Eph. 1.7 Col. 1.14 Rom. 5.9 10. and 4.24 25. Gal. 3. 13 14. with v. 8. 2. As Redemption and Reconciliation are one and the same saving benefit of Christs death so much less do they flow from any such nice or distinct consideration as the Doctor affirms i. e. the one from the consideration of Christs death as a Price and the other as a Sacrifice But as they are in effect one saving benefit so they flow from one cause the death of Christ our reconciliation flowing no more or otherwise from the death of Christ as a Sacrifice than as a Price nor doth our redemption more flow from the death of Christ as a Price however it may be thence denominated than from it as a Sacrifice but entirely from the death of Christ as a meritorious cause it being all one in effect to say it follows from it as an expiatory Sacrifice as to say it follows from it as a valuable Price 3. I know no more reason to say That satisfaction is the issue of Christs death considered as a Penalty than as it was a Price or Sacrifice for Christs death was as well a Price satisfactory and a Sacrifice satisfactory as a Punishment satisfactory For the end of paying a Price and the end of Sacrifices was satisfaction of its kind and to say that Christs death was a Propitiatory or Expiatory Sacrifice is all one I ever thought as to say it is a Satisfactory Sacrifice So that I am altogether dissatisfied as to the fountain or rise of the Satisfaction here mentioned by the Doctor God being as well satisfied by the death of Christ under the notion of a Price or Sacrifice as of a Penalty 4. In what sence the death of Christ was or may be said to be a Punishment I have already declared in answer to Mr. F. and it will not be needful here to repeat what hath been there said 5. Finally Whereas the Doctor doth only affirm That Christs death was in our stead under the consideration of a Penalty I have already in the third Branch of my Reply shewed That it was under all considerations in our stead both as a Penalty as a Price and as a Sacrifice and I have explained moreover in what sence it was in our stead and I desire the Reader that he would again so peruse it as if it had been in this place together with my said Appeal again inserted I will conclude with that Prayer of Calvin which Beza his Scholar tells us was his constant form before his Lectures in the publick Schools Det nobis Dominus in Coelestis suae sapientiae mysteriis cum verae pietatis profructu versari in gloriam suam aedificationem nostram Amen Books Printed for and Sold by Walter Kettilby at the Bishops Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard H. Mori Opera Theologica Folio Price 1 l. 10 s. Dr. More 's Reply to a late Answer to his Antidote against Idolatry with the Appendix Octavo Price 4 s. Spencer dissertatio de Urim Thummim Octavo Price 3 s. 6 d. Frederici Lossi Observationes Medici Octavo Price 2 s. 6 d. Epigrammata Juvenilia in quatuor partes divisa Encomia Seria Satyras Jocosa per Gulielmum Speed Price bound 9 d. Dr. Smyth's unjust mans doom as examined by the several kinds of Justice and their obligation with a particular representation of Injustice and danger of partial Conformity Octavo Price 1 s.