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
O. himself as well as any others For the Doctor doth distinguish concerning a double Law to which Christ as our Mediator did perform obedience 1. General i. e. the Law of nature or moral Law comprizing every Law of God whereto we were subject and obnoxious 2. Special or the peculiar Law of Mediatorship which respected himself meerly and to this peculiar Law he refers Christs obedience in dying Joh. 10.18 Thus he doth distinguish in his Book Comm. p. 178 179. Now what obedience of Christ is imputed to us or to which of those Laws to one or both as he doth there determine so he doth fully explain in his late Vindication p. 213 214. whose words I shall transcribe as followeth Plainly says he I have shewed that there was an especial Law of Mediatorship which Christ was subject unto as the commandment of the Father That he should be incarnate that he should be the King Priest and Prophet of his Church that he should bear our iniquities make his soul an offering for sin and give his life a ransom for many were the principal parts of this Law The whole of it I have lately explain'd in my Exercitations unto the second part of the Exposition on the Epistle to the Hebrews This Law our Lord Jesus Christ did not yield obedience to in our stead as if we had been obliged originally unto the duties of it which we neither were nor could be although what he suffered penally in any of them was in our stead without which consideration he could not have righteously suffered in any kind And the following trivial exception of this Author about the obligation on us to lay down our lives for the Brethren is meet for him to put in seeing we are not obliged so to die for any one as Christ died for us Was Paul crucified for you But secondly Christ our Mediator and as Mediator was obliged unto all that obedience unto the moral Law and all other Laws of God that the Church was obliged unto and that which I have asserted hereon is That the effects of the former obedience of Christ are communicated unto us but the latter obedience it self is imputed unto us And as for the former obedience his express words are Comm. p. 181. It is not Imputed unto us as though we had done it though the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and fruits of it are Thus by comparing the words of the said Authors together we may palpably perceive the difference betwixt them reconcile them who can for me for I cannot so that how the Doctor can avoid coming under the said terrible censure or sentence of his Brother Mr. F. I know not But the comfort truly is That as the curse causeless shall not come and is not therefore to be dreaded so Mr. Ferguson's sentence being groundless need not therefore to be feared whether by the Doctor or by any other For he who denies the Imputation of our sin to Christ and of all he did and suffered all his active and all his passive obedience to us in Mr. Ferguson's Law-sence doth not disclaim Christ his being our Mediator in any proper sence nor doth he renounce any part or tittle of the Gospel as hath been already manifested in this Treatise nor doth the said denial impeach any such Union of Believers with Christ which the Scriptures do assert by what name soever it be entitled whether Legal or Moral or any other name of mans imposing Nor doth it properly belong to the office of Mediation or to a proper Mediator that what is done by him in person should be in it self properly and formally considered imputed unto or reckoned as done by the person in whose behalf he doth mediate Yet if instead of the word Mediator Mr. F. had used the word Surety I would have yielded That Christ is not in any place of Scripture said to be our Surety in a strict and proper sence of the word For so far as hitherto I have apprehended the sence of the word in the propriety thereof a proper Surety is bound to the Creditor in the self same Bond or obligation with the principal Debtor Now the case betwixt Christ and us is otherwise for he is not bound in the same Bond with us nor was our obligation translated upon him or assumed by him but he took upon him an obligation peculiar to himself which obligation was not only individually but also specifically different from ours ours being Obligatio Criminis and his only Contractus as hath been before said and prov'd Moreover Christ is not our Surety in any more proper sence than our sins are proper debts or God a proper Creditor which expressions are not proper but Metaphorical And withal I will say That although I should deny that Christ is in any place of Scripture said to be our Surety in a proper sence yet it will not from thence follow that I do deny the whole Gospel or any the least scruple of the Gospel I shall now return to the words of Dr. O. forecited whereupon I desire it may be observed 1. That having asserted Christs dying for our sins to be a principal part of the Law of Mediation peculiar to himself he doth both affirm and deny his obedience thereunto to have been in our stead 1. He doth simply deny that his obedience thereunto or dying for us was in our stead 2. He doth affirm it in some respect to have been in our stead viz. as his death was penal and so likewise that all which he suffered penally in what pertained to the peculiar Law of the Mediator was in our stead and this he affirms for this reason viz. because otherwise he could not have righteously suffered in any kind To which I reply 1. To the reason of his affirmation and that by denying the force of it and by asserting the contrary viz. That although Christs death as penal had not been in our stead i. e. imputed to us in the Law-sence as aforesaid as if we had suffered in and by him what he suffered which is the Doctor 's meaning of the word instead nevertheless he might righteously suffer and he did righteously suffer in that kind and in many other kinds besides death it self For he did no less spontaneously than at the will of his Father take upon him an obligation so to do i. e. to be obedient even unto death for the expiation of our sins whereupon the Doctor may remember the old and true saying Volenti non fit injuria 2. As to what was both affirmed and denied by the Doctor I reply 1. What he denies simply I shall simply affirm That Christs death was in our stead yea in all manner of considerations of it it was in our stead 2. What he affirms concerning the death of Christ in one respect or under one consideration of his death I shall deny under consideration of the sence of the phrase instead as by him intended saying Christ did not either in
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 only justification which such a person is capable of being from another charge viz. from the guilt of punishment i. e. from his being actually bound over to suffer and from the suffering it self of that punishment which for his delinquency he deserved With the former kind of justification no flesh living all being sinful flesh can possibly be justified God himself with Reverence to the divine Majesty be it spoken hath no kind of power to justifie any wicked person no moral power for it is a sinful thing so to justifie the wicked Exod. 23.5 Prov. 17.15 nor physical power for the thing is simply impossible and doth imply a contradiction But with the other kind of justification any flesh living though never so sinful may and shall through Gospel-faith and obedience or an obediential faith be justified 3. As justification and forgiveness of sin are obviously and vulgarly taken Propos 3. or according to common usage of speech so they are contrary the one to the other as is light and darkness For to justifie a person in common use of the word is to free or absolve him from guilt of fault to acquit him as innocent from the fact or fault of which he is wrongfully accused And this kind of justification is by a two-fold plea either the denial of the fact hereby David justified himself from the imputations of Saul 1 Sam. 24.9 10. or by denying the fault pleading the fact to be no fault or breach of any Law whether of God by which plea Daniel justified himself against the accusation of his professed enemies Dan. 6.22 or man or both by which plea St. Paul justified himself against the accusations of his Countrey-men the Jews Act. 24.14 maintaining his innocency not only in respect of the Law of God but also of Caesar Act. 25.8 there being no Acts at that time made by any of the Caesars against Christian Religion nor till the fifth year of the reign of Claudius as History doth report So that if a person be justified in this vulgar sence of the word he is not so much as in a natural capacity of being pardoned nor if pardoned of being so justified as aforesaid I never heard of the substitution of one person in the room of another to have been allowed in criminal cases whatever allowance there hath been in pecuniary mulcts or matters pardon of sin and justification in the said vulgar sence being of so contrary a nature that if the one be affirmed of any person the other must needs be denied And in this sence of the word justifie this Author speaks truth in saying p. 416. That as to justifie and to pardon are not only wholly distinct in their Natures and Idea's but always separated in the cases of such as are arraigned at humane tribunals unless it be where the substitution of one person in the room of another is allowed and even then though they accompany one another yet they are both distinct acts and we have distinct notions of them For neither can an accused innocent by being acquitted be said to be pardoned nor a condemned criminal by having the execution of his sentence remitted be said to be justified 4. However in common usage justification and remission of sin are not only divers but also adverse things nevertheless if we speak of that peculiar kind of justification frequently mentioned in the Scripture whereof a sinner is the subject and of that kind of pardon that is peculiar to sinners so oft there mentioned a pardon conveyed by Law and purchased by the satisfaction of Christ not that kind of pardon which is ex nudâ voluntate if I say we do speak of this kind of justification and pardon then I do affirm it as an undoubted truth That justification and pardon of sin are words equivalent importing one and the self same thing without any real or substantial difference for proof whereof two or three Texts of Scriptures may suffice among several others to be produced Act. 13.38 39. Be it known to you that through this man is preach'd unto you the forgiveness of sins and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses i. e. for which the Law of Moses admitted no expiatory sacrifice in order to pardon Rom. 3.24 25. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God to declare I say at this time his righteousness that he might be just and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus i. e. of the Christian faith See also Rom. 4. where that which he calls blessedness v. 9. and Gods justifying the ungodly v. 5. he styleth Gods forgiving their iniquities and covering their sins Thence that of Grotius de satisfactione p. 38. Justificatio passim in sacris literis maxime in Epistolis Paulinis absolutionem significat quae praesupposito peccato consistit in peccatorum remissione ipso Paulo semet clare explicante praesertim Rom. 4. I might hereto add the testimony of other Authors famous in their generation were it needful By the way take notice That I have said nothing concerning his affirming that the introduction of the Law of faith hath not abrogated the Law of perfect obedience but this as well as that doth remain in force nor do I think it necessary so to have done For although some choose to say that that Law of our Creation or of God our Creator is abrogated or repealed there being no Law since the new modelling of the government of mankind but the Law of Redemption or of God our Redeemer the moral part of the original Law being taken into it as the matter thereof and others choose to assert only a dispensation or relaxation of that Law nevertheless I do humbly conceive that all things considered yet not so needful here to be mentioned that are said on both sides there is no real difference between them as to substance of truth but only in modes and manner of speaking and for that cause I can give liberty to any one to speak the truth with due caution in what words he pleaseth Only I must say That I dare not take liberty to my self to say That the Law of works doth now remain in force as well as the Law of faith without a just explication how far it doth and doth not remain now in force I well remember that two late worthy Authors do very differently express themselves touching the immediate effect of the introduction of the Law of faith The most learned Mr. George Lawson chooseth to say That the original Law of works is by the Law of faith or indempnity abrogated and repealed whereas Mr. Joseph Truman will not allow that saying instead thereof asserting it to be
the impartial Reader what his meaning was P 417. Mr. F. The word Justifie neither in its Etymology nor application and usage according to the institution of men and least of all in the Scripture-usurpation is equipollent to pardon nor coincident with to Forgive Answ 1. However it may be in some respects useful to know the Etymology and usage of common speech nevertheless this is not so much to be regarded in the stating or determining of any Question pertaining to Divinity the usage of words in Scripture being as the Pole-Star to direct the course of our conceptions as I may so say in such matters And for that cause I cannot but commend that passage of this Author he saying p. 155. That that which is chiefly to be attended unto in the sencing of Scripture is the use of words in sacred Writers God being many times pleased to restrain or enlarge the signification of words as in his wisdom he judgeth meet And I do the rather mind the Author of this his saying because if we regard the Etymology of the word Justifie it will to speak the least as much favour the Popish sencing of the word thâ—se sencing it To Sanctifie or to make just sensu physico i. e. by infusion of grace as the Protestants interpretation thereof who do construe it sensu juridico to make just by apology defence or plea. 2. As for the usage of words in common speech this is sometimes contrary to their common usage in Scripture as I have already declared in the use of the word Justifie this signifying in common usage to absolve or acquit a person à reatu culpae i. e. as innocent and not guilty And because this Author as I guess by his name is a Scotchman I shall therefore put him in mind That whereas to be justified and to be pardoned are all one in the usage of Scripture they are contrary in the usage of Scotland to be justified there being not be pardoned but to be hang'd our Scotch Brethren using to say That a man is justified when he is hang'd or executed as I learn from the worthy Dr. Hammond in his Notes upon some place of the Epistle to the Romans 3. It is a most notorious mistake in this Author to assert as here he doth expresly That to Justifie is least of all meaning thereby in obvious construction not at all in the Scripture-usurpation equipollent to pardon nor coincident with to forgive The not observing of the contrary truth which hath been already proved by several Scriptures I do judg to be the occasion of other errors in this matter whereupon I may sadly take up the old saying Hinc illae lachrymae The Authors next ensuing words to be animadverted upon are as followeth CHAP. XI Mr. Ferguson's mistake in saying That we are made Righteous With the Righteousness of Christ as also Dr. Owen's in his Book styled Communion with the Trinity refuted and that in Rom. 5.18 alledged by him answer'd wherein is declared That it is one thing to be justified By and another thing to be justified With the Righteousness of Christ The Doctor 's misinterpretation of Phil. 3.9 and Eph. 2.8 That the asserting of the whole of Justification to consist in remission of sin hath no such evil consequences as Mr. F. chargeth it with P. 413 416 419. Mr. F. SO that upon the whole If we be not made Righteous with the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us but that God only for the sake of Christ will dispence with the rigour of the Law and I dare affirm that Justification as it is opposed to the accusation of the Law its charging us with guilt and its passing sentence of condemnation against us thereupon doth not admit a proper sence in the whole Scripture but must every where be construed Metaphorically and that the import of it is not that we are properly and in a Law-sence justified but that such benefits accrue to us by Remission of sin as if we were so According to the sentiments of our Author we are only pardoned but by reason of some allusion betwixt the advantages redounding to us by forgiveness and the priviledges immunities and benefits which ensue upon a proper Justification we are therefore Metaphorically said to be justified It were to bid defiance to the Scripture in an hundred places to say that we are not at all justified and yet in effect their principles imply no less For by stating the whole of our assoilment from the accusation of the Law in remission of sin they indeed say that we are not justified only we are improperly said to be so Answ 1. It is the error of this Author as of many others to say that we are made Righteous With the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us And among others I perceive Dr. Owen doth err in this particular which because he pretends to prove by certain Scriptures in his late Vindication p. 102 103. I will for the truths sake reply thereunto 1. He alledgeth Rom. 5.18 By his obedience we are made Righteous made so truly says he and accepted To which I answer 1. That Scripture proves not the Doctor 's purpose nor is pertinent thereunto for the Apostle doth not say as the Doctor would have him With whose obedience but By whose obedience we are made Righteous now we may be truly said to be made Righteous By it though we neither are nor can be truly said to be made Righteous With it For 2. These two Monosyllables By and With are very much different in signification the former particle By implying the nature energy or interest of an efficient and as here applied morally efficient or meritorious cause the latter particle With pregnantly importing the nature or interest of a formal cause Now forasmuch as the Doctor is a man of such reading and learning as that he cannot be ignorant of the true state of the Question about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us it being not at all touching the meritorious cause of our Justification whether we are justified By Christs Righteousness but about the formal cause whether we are justified With Christs Righteousness imputed as some say or With the Imputation thereof as say some others i. e. with the very thing if self imputed to us or with the imputation thereof in its formal or essential nature I say Forasmuch as this Doctor cannot but know these things it did ill become his learning and ingenuity to hood-wink the eyes of the vulgar Reader from seeing the true state of the Question and consequently from perceiving how nothing at all to the purpose in hand this Scripture is that is alledged by him 3. There is not the least whisper of the obedience of Christ as Imputed to us or of the Imputation of Christs obedience to us in that of Rom. 5.18 For though the Apostle says By his obedience yet he doth not say By his obedience Imputed to us or By the
whether a sinner be said in a proper or improper sence to be justified for to use the Apostles expression Phil. 1.18 notwithstanding every way whether properly or improperly a sinner is justified truly I therein do rejoyce yea and will rejoyce yea and cannot otherwise than rejoyce and rejoyce to eternity What need there in effect to be more said to the comfort of a sinner than what our Saviour said to the Leper Son be of good chear thy sins are forgiven thee Mat. 9.2 That Leper was as happy in his having his sins forgiven him as was the penitent Publican in departing from the Temple to his house justified Luk. 18.14 2. Nevertheless forasmuch as an improper kind of Justification doth I perceive so stick in the stomack of this Brother as that he cannot digest it I shall for this once endeavour to prove That a pardoned sinner may in a proper sence be said to be justified or That a sinner justified with a pardon is properly said to be justified I am not ignorant that some very learned men do distinguish of Justification in a Law-sence into that which is properly and that which is improperly so denominated assigning the Justification of an innocent person to the former sence of the word and of a sinner to the latter But for my own part I am of opinion That both the innocent and the sinner may be truly said to be justified sensu forensi proprie dicto in a proper Law-sence For what though the Justification of these two sort of subjects be of a different kind yet both of them for their kind may be proper they being considered respectively to their different habitudes which I will endeavour to demonstrate as followeth The Charge from which an innocent person is justified is guilt of fault the Charge from which a sinner is justified is guilt of or obligation to punishment Now why may not he that is justified from this latter charge be as properly in his kind said to be justified as the former in his kind I know nothing should hinder except it be said and prov'd that the Law hinders but that the Law doth not hinder I prove Because as the case stands with sinners to God-wards there is a standing-Law for the Justification of the one as well as of the other there being a Gospel-Law for the Justification of sinners which like the Law of the Medes and Persians is not to alter but to stand even to the worlds end And forasmuch as a sinners Justification is by the Law of faith or the Gospel and in that respect is a legal kind of Justification I do therefore judge That this Author is clearly mistaken in his affirming that a sinner pardoned cannot be properly and in a Law-sence said to be justified for is not he who is justified by from and through Law the standing-Law of faith justified in a Law-sence 2. Forasmuch as there is a two-fold Justice 1. Of obedience when all is done and left undone which the Law did either command or forbid and consequently no desert of penalty incur'd 2. Of satisfaction when the breach of the Law supposed there is due satisfaction made to the Law in consideration of that breach why may not he who can plead the Justice of satisfaction be properly said to be justified as he in his kind who hath performed the Justice of obedience the former being Rectus in Curiâ as well as the latter Where by the way if I have offended this Brother by minding him of that to us Englishmen most uncouth saying of his Countreymen That a man when he is hang'd is justified or justified by being hang'd I will make him satisfaction by justifying the saying to be rational and this upon the account of the foresaid distinction of a two-fold Justice of obedience and of satisfaction upon which latter account the Malefactor executed may be reputed just i. e. with that kind of Justice called the Justice of satisfaction forasmuch as he who hath suffered the penalty of the Law hath thereby satisfied the Law To this sence is agreeable the use of the word Justifie in the form of Commission issued from our King to his Judges as I have somewhere read Praecipimus tibi quod tu justicies We command thee that thou shalt justifie i. e. see that the Law be every way satisfied But because I foresee an Objection I will therefore answer it Obj. The alone satisfaction which a sinner can plead for his pardon is not by his own either doings or sufferings but only by Christs and therefore a pardoned sinner is not properly justified or pardon of sin cannot in a proper sence be styled Justification Answ If for this reason a sinners pardon cannot in a proper sence be styled Justification then his pardon cannot in a proper sence be called pardon For according to the pretence or principle of this Author pardon of sin in a proper sence is ex nudâ voluntate upon meer good will and pleasure and without satisfaction And if so yet I hope that he will not deny Gospel-pardon of sin because it is not pardon in a proper sence Nor can I conceive any just reason why any man should be in less love and liking with Gospel-Justification because it is not properly such than with Gospel-pardon upon the same account Whereupon I shall say Let this Author reject and be displeased with both or else with neither of them upon the poor pretence of the impropriety of the word or words which if he be with either of them upon any such score all that I will say is that I cannot help it Only forasmuch as various ways of expressing the same thing do much conduce to the better instruction and more effectual conviction of an adversary I will express my mind in another manner of distinguishing as followeth As there are two integral parts of Gods Law viz. The Precept and the Sanction the one constituting Debitum Officii the other Debitum Supplicii so there is Sensu forensi a two-fold Justification 1. With respect to the precept of the Law when a person accused of fault can say to his Accusers as our Saviour did Which of you convinceth me of sin 2. With respect to the penalty of the Law when a person guilty can plead satisfaction made for his trespass or trespasses against it and that the Law therefore is disabled from condemning him Now because I do conceive as will be said more fitly in another Chapter that satisfaction is a proper righteousness of its kind respectively to the sanction of the Law even as innocency is a proper righteousness of its kind with respect to the precepts thereof I do not therefore perceive but that a sinner may as well and properly be said to be justified with respect to the sanction of the Law upon satisfaction made as an innocent person with respect to the precept of the Law upon perfect obedience thereunto But I do so little regard what this or any
sins even unto all eternity Object It is not a contradiction to say A sinner may become no sinner in Gods account or by Imputation that being done for him and made over to him which be should have done himself Answ 1. Whereas the Scripture tell us that Christ is our Mediator and Advocate with the Father this Objection supposeth him to have been our Mandatory Proxie or Delegate and that Christs doings were so done for us and in such a sence made over to us as that God imputes the very things done or the very doing of the things themselves unto us the error of which imagination I have already sufficiently as I hope demonstrated 2. As a person having sin'd or committed a fault is thereupon to be denominated a sinner even so doth God still from thence forward account of him neither is it possible that God should upon any account whatsoever repute him otherwise than as a person faulty For look upon what account any one shall affirm that God doth repute any such person not faulty he must upon the same account attribute to the All-seeing God a mistaken judgment i. e. to repute a person to be such a manner of person as indeed he is not or not to have committed the fault or faults which indeed he hath 3. As it is a contradiction for any one to say That what is done was never done so it is a notorious untruth to say That God reputes a man not to have done the faults which he hath done or not to have thereby deserved what he hath deserved Object What difference is there betwixt being imputed innocent and dealt with as innocent And if justified persons be accounted innocent then their faultiness is done away by Imputation Answ 1. There is a plain difference betwixt imputed I think the Objector would or should have said reputed innocent and dealt with respectively to impunity as innocent For the former doth imply that the person is esteemed to have committed no fault and thereupon that he is justified by works the latter doth imply that although a person be a sinner yet his punishment is remitted and that he is justified by free grace 2. Persons that are justified by grace or with a Gospel-kind of justification are not accounted innocent for upon the account of innocency they must be justified by works and not by grace and consequently their faultiness is not done away by any imaginary imputation whatsoever 3. It is one thing for God to repute a man Innocent and quite another thing for God to repute him As Innocent For for God to repute a person Innocent is to repute him to have committed no fault but for God to repute a person As Innocent is for God to pardon him or not punish him for his faults but to deal with him as one who never committed any 4. Though I readily grant that the faults of a person pardoned or justified are done away as to the Non-imputation of guilt of punishment in which respect their pardon or justification is styled a Non-imputation of their faults to them Ps 32.2 2 Cor. 5.18 nevertheless I must still deny that the faultiness of such a person is done away and affirm the contrary viz. That his faultiness or his sin in the faultiness thereof is still imputed to him i. e. that he is still reputed by God to have done or committed a fault and thereby to have deserved punishment Object Though in justifying a sinner God doth not Peccata non peccata facere yet he may Peccantem non peccantem facere Answ Because God cannot do the former therefore he cannot do the latter For Peccatum and Peccans being Conjugata it doth necessarily follow that whosoever doth Peccantem non Peccantem facere he must in order thereunto Peccatum non Peccatum facere for that cannot be done without this A man cannot of Peccans be made Non Peccans till that his Peccatum be made Non Peccatum Peccatum must be undenominated Peccatum or denominated Non Peccatum before Peccans can possibly be undenominated Peccans or denominated Non Peccans I conclude therefore that in his pardoning or justifying a sinner God doth not yea cannot do either of the said things I say Cannot because it implyes a contradiction i. e. to make one that hath sin'd not to have sin'd or that which once was a sin not to have been a sin Object A Thief having made satisfaction for his fault is in the sence of the Law no longer a Thief or faulty as to theft and so it is in the case of a sinners justification Answ 1. I readily both give and grant that look how it is with a Thief who by himself hath made legal satisfaction for his fault so it is with a justified sinner I say not who hath made satisfaction for himself in or by Christ but for whom Christ hath made satisfaction and which satisfaction as so made by Christ God hath accepted And the case of both I judg to be this viz. That although both of them do still remain faulty or Rei culpoe yet neither of them are Obligati ad poenam i. e. actually obliged to suffer the punishment deserved by or for their faults 2. Those words A Thief that hath satisfied for his fault is in the sence of the Law no longer a Thief are ambiguous For as the word Thief may signifie two things viz. One that hath stollen and one that is liable or obliged to suffer for his theft so the foresaid words may signifie either that the Law cannot say That such a one hath stollen or That such a one is liable or obnoxious to be condemned Now although the said Thief who hath made legal satisfaction be in the sence of the Law no longer a Thief in the latter sence of the word Thief yet he still is a Thief in the former sence of the word and shall be still so senced by the Law even so long till theft be no theft or the Law become never to have been a Law or till that which is once done shall become a thing that never was done Object The faultiness of the sin and of the person from that sin are two things the act of theft will be theft but the person committing that though once a Thief yet having satisfied the Law in the sence of that Law is become no Thief Answ 1. This in part hath been already answered in my reply to the Objection immediately foregoing wherein hath been declared in what sence of the word Thief the said person is in the face of the Law looked upon as no Thief and yet still as a Thief i. e. though not as one who is obliged to suffer for his theft yet as one who hath stollen or committed theft 2. I deny that the faultiness of the sin and of the person resulting from that sin are two things i. e. two separable things as the Objector pretends For there is not one faultiness of the sin
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