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
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
Covenant or Decree of God and at the time appointed most fully make whence it is that the Apostle says He gave himself A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a counter-price a satisfaction instead of a satisfaction 1 Tim. 2.6 2. The second Law or Covenant is that wherein we sinners are the Restipulators and which in Scripture is styled The Promise The Law of Faith The Gospel The new Covenant wherein God through Christ doth promise remission of sin upon certain conditions upon performance whereof he doth accordingly bestow it upon us 3. Remission of sin may be styled Justification in respect of the profit or benefit thereof and this both special and general 1. Special In that it doth prevent remove or take away the obligation to condemnation which is due to sinners which condemnation is the direct opposite to Justification as is apparent by many Scriptures 2. In general In that it is equivalent unto or will prove to be of like universal benefit priviledge or emolument to a sinner with that kind of Justification which is the justification of a person who in himself is altogether just and never was obnoxious Thus have I replyed to the whole of what Mr. Ferguson hath said in his second Chapter concerning a sinners Justification and the imputation of Christs Righteousness unto him But before I proceed to reply to any other passage in his Book which concerns the matter in hand I will answer a Question that will come in fitly to be proposed by occasion of what hath been said upon this last namely That the justification of a sinner is By a Law CHAP. XIV Q. How is the justification of a sinner to be denominated whether Evangelical or Legal Answ Rather Evangelical and the reason assigned The Arguments of those on the contrary side both answered and retorted who acknowledge that the justification of a sinner is Evangelical ex parte principii but would not have it absolutely to be so styled but rather a Legal justification The reason why this Question is debated and answered Q. HOW is the Justification of a sinner to be denominated whether Evangelical or rather Legal Answ I propose this Question not for the satisfaction of Mr. Ferguson but for the sake of some other Brethren who may need a due information therein And my answer is That forasmuch as that Law by which a sinner is justified is The Law of Faith of Grace or of the Gospel it is therefore to be denominated not a Legal but an Evangelical Justification Herein by not Legal I must not in reason be understood to mean Not in any sence so or by no Law at all but not by the Law of works or as the word Legal is opposed to or contradistinguished from the word Evangelical And there cannot be as I think a more convincing Argument to prove That Evangelical in the case or question in hand is the fittest name than by alledging that The Law of works is not the Law By which but a Law From which i. e. by an appeal from which to the Law of grace a sinner is and is to be justified which will be granted by all viz. That the Law by which a sinner is justified is an Evangelical Law the Law of the Gospel For forasmuch as the Law by which a man was and is to be justified is two-fold 1. The Law of God Creator commonly styled Lex originalis or Law of works 2. The Law of God Redeemer called Lex remedians or the Law of grace or faith and forasmuch as the former Law was enacted as the Rule of justifying an innocent person and the latter of a sinner how can we better express the difference betwixt the justification of an innocent and a sinner than by styling the former a Legal and the latter an Evangelical Justification The peculiar species of the Law by which a person is justified is that which doth specificate the justification it self and is therefore most apt and fit to give it its peculiar denomination I desire That the answer here given may the rather be duely weighed and observ'd because it may serve to rectifie the mistake of a certain learned Author perhaps also of some other Brethren who albeit he doth allow a sinners justification to be Evangelical ex parte principii Evangelical Grace in Christ being the fountain of it and so to be called with a respect thereunto nevertheless he will not allow it roundly and absolutely to be denominated Evangelical but rather Legal for these two reasons Because it is Legal ex parte termini medii 1. Ex parte termini because it is minated in the satisfaction which is to be made or performed to the Law He hath freed me from the Law of sin and death To this I answer What he means here by the satisfaction to be made to the Law upon which the justification of a sinner is by him said to be terminated I do not know nor will I take upon me so much as to guess lest I should mistake his meaning only I will say as followeth 1. That by the Law of the Spirit of life Rom. 8.2 is meant the Evangelical Law the Gospel of Christ or Law of Faith 2. That Justification is one part at least of that saving benefit which the Apostle comprizeth under the expression of his being by that Law made free from the Law of sin and death it being as well the guilt of sin as the power of sin which by that Law he was made free from 3. Consequently I say That that Scripture proves not the Author's purpose but the direct contrary viz. That because it is by the Law of the Gospel that we are made free or justified from the guilt of our sins therefore our Justification is to be called Evangelical and not Legal 2. Respeciu medii in respec̄i of the means says he which is the Legal Righteousness of Chrifr by or through faith imputed to us To this I answer 1. As in some respect the Righteousness of Christ may be styled Justitia Legalis the Law of his Mediatorship requiring it and it being the rule thereof so in another respect it may be fitly said to be Justitia pro-Legalis it being to us instead or standing us instead of a perfect legal Righteousness so also in another respect it may very fitly be styled and so I find it styled by some Authors our evangelical righteousness and an evangelical righteousness it may I say be very fitly styled 1. Because the Gospel is it and it alone not the light of nature by which it is revealed and made known to the world 2. Because it was of Gods grace to appoint it 3. To accept it also and this for gracious or Gospel-ends viz. the pardon or justification of sinners And for this reason I may well conclude That the justification of sinners is to be denominated not a legal as the Author contends for but an evangelical Justification 2. As for his saying That this
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
be it observed That as Righteousness in the former sense may not unfitly as I think be styled a Passive and in the latter an Active Righteousness so the said two different senses of the word Righteousness do differ as Officium Beneficium the one being the receiving of some good They differ as work and wages as Duty and Mercy or benefit confer'd on us the other the doing of some good or duty performed by us The phrase receiving righteousness see in Psal 24.5 He shall receive the blessing from the Lord and Righteousness from the God of his Salvation Righteousness in that place being the self same thing with Gods blessing his saving blessing The phrase doing righteousness see in 1 Joh. 3.7 He that doth righteousness is righteous As this is stiled a sowing of righteousness Prov. 11.28 so that may very fitly and suitably to the language of Scripture both of the Old and New Testament be styled Reaping Righteousness Hos 10.12 Gal. 6.7 8 9. Now in this proper formal sense of the word Righteousness the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us is a doctrine however owned by too too many yet by very many others of our own and forraign Protestant Churches justly disowned as that which is no where to be found in Scripture whether in the words or meaning of any Text in Scripture for to assert that Christs Righteousness is in this sense imputed to us is to assert That God doth account or reckon that the Righteousness which Christ wrought we wrought in and by him or that we are reputed by God to have fulfilled the Law and satisfied Divine Justice in and by Christ that what Christ did in his own natural Person God doth account we did in and by him for to have any thing imputed to a man in the propriety formality or essential nature of the thing is to be reputed the doer of what is so imputed to him these being terms equivalent and explicatory one of another and as thus explicated do the Brethren whom I do take upon me in this point to oppose openly own the said doctrine touching the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us it being their errour to think that Christs Righteousness cannot be accepted by God in our behoof or prove savingly beneficial to us unless it be imputed to us in their said sense or to imagine as they do a necessity that what is imputed to or for the justification of a sinner should be reputed to be done by him who is justified for it sufficeth to imputation in this case if that which is done be accepted of God in the behalf of sinners or instead of that which a justified person should in his own person have performed Nor is there any cause or colour for them to suspect that the denial of the said Imputation in their said sense doth infer or include a denyal of Christs satisfaction whether in the thing it self or in the blessed effects of it I am at once both sorry and I wonder to read such passages as these in some learned Authors they saying to this purpose viz. That human reason or mans understanding cannot comprehend how Christs satisfaction can be of saving benefit to us unless it be imputed to us in its formal and essential nature The contrary whereunto is as obvious to be conceived by any unprejudicate person as obvious almost can be For my own part I do humbly conceive it to be a great and dangerous mistake to think that Christ satisfied Divine Justice for believing sinners that they might be reputed by God to have satisfied in and by him as their surety the truth of Scripture to my understanding being this viz. That Jesus Christ did in human nature and his own person as Mediatour or in the person of a Mediatour betwixt God and Man satisfie Divine Justice not that we might be reputed to have satisfied in and by him or that his very satisfaction should be imputed to us but that no such satisfaction should be required of us and that his fulfilling of the law of Mediatorship was accepted of God not as our fulfilling either of that law for the law of Mediatorship belonged not to us it being peculiar to Christ himself or of any other law whatsoever but it was reckoned reputed or accepted by God as a satisfaction for our not fulfilling the law of God imposed upon mankind I mean the law in the rigour of it or as a covenant of works and that such an exact fulfilling of the law should not be exacted of us as the covenanted condition of our salvation but that faith and sincere obedience to the Gospel of Christ should be so required And I am glad to perceive that in asserting the end of Christs satisfaction for mankind I have the concurrence of the Authour of the Book lately published styled The interest of Reason in Religion he saying pag. 548. It was in consequence of Christs susception to be our Sponsor or Mediator say I the word Sponsor and Mediator being promiscuously used by the Apostle as appears by comparing Heb. 7.22 with chap. 8.6 and this latter word being of more frequent use with the Apostle than the former that being only once in its usage applyed to Christ in Scripture and with respect to the obedience of his life and sacrifice of his death as the procuring and deserving cause that God entred into a covenant with mankind promising to pardon their sins receive them into favour and crown them with life upon such terms and conditions as the Father and Son thought fit to prescribe In these words the word Mankind is remarkable the Authour saying expresly That for Christs sake for the obedience of his life and sacrifice of his death as the deserving cause thereof God entred into a Covenant not only with a few with the Elect only but with Mankind promising And I am the more glad to perceive that I have the concurrence of the said Authour in asserting the Covenant of Grace to be procured for Mankind because I shall have occasion by and by to mention some things wherein I am necessitated much against my will to dissent from him and certain others of my Brethren And I shall take a fit occasion to do it in answer to an Argument for the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sense disowned by my self with many others taken from those words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 5.21 from which words I have seen in a certain learned Author the Argument thus formed as shall be expressed in the beginning of the next Chapter CHAP. IV. ' An Objection from 2 Cor. 5.21 answered and also retorted The blasphemy of Mr. William Eyre in his Assize-Sermon preached at Sarum 1652. reproved QUomodo in what sort or manner Christ was made sin for us in the same manner was he made Righteousness to us But he was made sin for us only by Imputation Ergo Answ This Argument is not at all to the purpose in hand or
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
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
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
legal Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us by or through faith I answer 1. It is not at all imputed to us in the sence of this Author i. e. properly and in its essential nature but only in the saving effects thereof as I have already I hope convincingly demonstrated 2. Nevertheless I grant that in subordination to the Righteousness of Christ faith is a Medium or means of a sinners justification though it is another kind of Medium than is Christs Righteousness to which it is subordinate in the justifying of a sinner Christs Righteousness being such a Medium as hath the nature or efficiency of a meritorious cause but our faith having only the nature of a condition simply so called I have thought meet to intimate this for these two reasons 1. To prevent the mis-understanding of what I said in the foregoing Chapter wherein was said that Gospel-pardon was ex Christi satisfactione and ex peccatoris fide which must not be so understood as if the word ex did imply the self same importance in both places For the truth is that as the particle ex is of different importance it importing sometimes one kind of cause and sometimes another and sometimes no cause at all but an antecedent condition and the same I may say of the particles in English Greek and Hebrew corresponding to the Latine particle ex so in the former application of the particle it doth imply efficiency or an efficient meritorious cause but in the latter only an antecedent or a condition sine quâ non 2. To prevent the mis-construction of the word faith in many places of Scripture where by faith many do understand only its object Christ or his Righteousness whereas as faith and Christs Righteousness are two things of distinct consideration so by faith in such sayings as these We are justified By faith and saved By faith we are to understand not only the object thereof as implyed Christ or his Righteousness but also the act believing or the thing it self faith Lastly I answer That forasmuch as God is graciously pleased in his Gospel to appoint and to declare his acceptance of faith as the condition of a sinners justification through or for the sake of Christs Righteousness therefore I answer as before That a sinners justification is to be denominated rather Evangelical than Legal I shall now return to Mr. Ferguson and reply to certain other passages which I find here and there dispersed in his Book as grounds for the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us in the sence by him contended for CHAP. XV. Several mistakes in Mr. F. according to the obvious construction of his words detected That Christ suffered not the Idem but the Tantundem manifested by three things distinctly specified and two evil consequences of the contrary Doctrine With a Caution in the close P. 536. MAN having taken off his dependency upon God Mr. F3 by transgressing the Law of Creation Gods Rectorship over him which is regulated by his wisdom holiness veracity and the eternal rectitude and righteousness of his nature would not allow that he should be received into favour but in such a way and by such means as may secure the ends of government manifest the displicency that is in God to sin evidence his truth and immutability in proceeding according to the penal Law which in pursuance of his own Attributes and mans rational nature and relation he had at first enacted Answ I assent to the whole of what is here recited except this That God did for the ends specified proceed according to the penal Law which at first was enacted in which saying there is a complication of mistakes involved for 1. That Law was only dispenced and not executed neither upon Christ nor upon mankind not upon Christ for Christ was not at all threatned in that Law neither did he die the death by vertue of that Law however by occasion of it as hath been already said Nor was that Law executed upon all mankind supposing and taking it for granted that by the death there threatned is meant eternal as well as temporal death 2. A mistake of the nature of that obligation which a divine commination doth induce seems to be implyed in the said words of this Author for Comminatio est obligatio Legem violantis ad poenam ferendam The threatnings of God do induce only an obligation upon transgressors to suffer the punishment threatned but not any necessary obligation upon God to inflict it non Legem ferentis ad inferendam that commination did signifie what man was bound to suffer not what God was bound to do Upon disobedience man was bound to suffer but God was not thereupon bound to inflict punishment otherwise supream Law-givers could have no power to pardon and therefore there is no necessity that the punishment threatned should be executed and it is an error to assert or imagine any such necessity The only inevitable effect of that threatning was That upon mans sin punishment should be his due and so it was man being bound to punishment Ipsofacto upon his offence committed And herein is the difference betwixt a Commination and a Denunciation of punishment this being an act of judgment or sentence or else a prediction of a decree to punish whereupon the punishment denounced is always inflicted 3. There seems also to be this mistake a mistake of very evil consequence implyed in the clause fore-cited viz. That Christ suffered the Idem not the Tantundem the same suffering to which that Commination did oblige and that a sinners liberation from the punishment to which he was obliged was by the way of strict payment not satisfaction or compensation 4. There seems also to be this mistake implyed in the said clause viz. That the ends of Gods soveraign rule and government could not be secured by a Compensation or without strict solution or payment of that very debt of punishment which was by the sin of man contracted And if I were sure that this Author would own this opinion for God forbid that I should causlesly fasten any thing upon him or any of my Brethren viz. That the sufferings of Christ were Ipsa debiti solutio and not Pro debito satisfactio Christs sufferings were not the very payment of our debt in kind but a valuable satisfaction to divine justice for our not payment of it or for Gods not exacting of us the payment thereof I would more at large suggest somewhat of my own and endeavour to improve what hath been so far as my knowledge reacheth said by others against it Nevertheless because there are of my Brethren who do maintain that Christ suffered the very Idem which was in a sinners obligation and not the Tantundem at least that it is not much material whether we say the one or the other I will for their satisfaction do these two things 1. I will briefly set down the substance of what is commonly and
it being his right to have the Preheminence in all things Certainly St. Peter's eyes were not opened to see this as his priviledg when he said to our Saviour Depart from me for I am a sinful man O Lord for had he owned any such glorious priviledg or been sensible of the excellency thereof he would in all reason have mated his Lord and Master as I may so say or have set himself cheek by chole with him and have said Abide by me keep not at distance from me for I am as perfectly Righteous as thou art The same Author doth further amplifie and illustrate the said priviledg of the Saints saying p. 12. This Priviledg is not only negative but positive as they are uncloathed and stript of their own filthy garments Zech. 3.4 so they are cloathed upon with the immaculate robe of Christs Righteousness adequate and commensurate to the Law of God by the obedience of one says the Apostle Rom. 5.19 many are made righteous i. e. perfectly and compleatly righteous more than if they had kept the Law in their own persons hereby we come to have boldness and confidence in the sight of God his infinite purity and holiness doth not daunt or discourage us from going to him for as Christ is before him so are all they that do believe in him through that Righteousness of his that is put upon them see Eph. 3.12 Rom. 5.2 But the meaning of those words By the obedience of one many are made Righteous is not as this Author expounds it perfectly and compleatly Righteous more than if they had kept the Law in their own persons but the meaning is They are for the meritoriousness sake of Christs obedience made Righteous with another kind of Righteousness than is that which doth consist in their personal perfect and compleat performance of the Law of God yea with such a kind of Righteousness as is not competible with it viz. with the pardon of their sins or that kind of evangelical justification which is styled The gift of grace v. 15. and the free gift of many offences to justification v. 16. and the gift of Righteousness v. 17. For sinners to be made or constituted Righteous is in the sence of the Apostle as appears by the context to be justified out of the abundance of Gods grace in Christ or to be freely pardoned which no persons can be or be said to be who are as perfectly and compleatly Righteous as if they had kept the Law in their own persons For those who are as perfectly and compleatly righteous and more righteous than if they had kept the Law in their own persons are not justified of grace at all or are they capable of a gracious pardon And as for the boldness and confidence which the Apostle speaks of in Eph. 3.12 and Rom. 5.2 it is an holy boldness and confidence grounded upon their pardon of sin and justification through Gods grace in Christ mentioned in the foregoing Paragraph and not upon any such mis-construction of the sacred Scriptures as this Author was so extreamly over-bold and confident to suggest And whether Believers may be truly As for that in Zech. 3.4 the true sence whereof is here perverted by Mr. Will. Eyre I shall vindicate it from his abuse in Ch. 34 in answer to Dr. Owen by whom it is in like sort perverted also or fitly said to be cloathed with the Righteousness of Christ or to have Christs Righteousness put upon them I shall speak my thoughts more at large in a peculiar Chapter and in answer to that Question purposely put In the mean while I shall presume to say That it is not only false but as I am perswaded blasphemous to say as doth this Author That as Christ is before God so are all they that do believe in him through his Righteousness For Jesus Christ is before God a Saviour of sinners and whereas Believers in Christ are before God sinners still i. e. Rei culpae guilty persons and as such however pardoned they do still stand before God and shall so stand to all eternity Christ is before God the Son of God by nature and Righteous without a pardon whereas Believers in Christ are before God his sons by the adoption of grace and Righteous by or with a gracious pardon in the blood of Christ The next to Mr. Eyre I will quote is the Author of the Book styled The Marrow of Modern Divinity who says p. 127. That God the Father in that voice from heaven Mat. 3.17 and Joh. 12.30 doth chear the hearts of poor sinners and greatly delight them with singular comfort and heavenly sweetness assuring them that whosoever is married unto Christ and so in him by faith he is as acceptable to God the Father as Christ himself according to that of the Apostle He hath made us acceptable in his beloved Eph. 1.6 Wherefore if you would be acceptable to God and be made his dear child then by faith cleave unto his beloved Son Christ and hang about his neck yea and creep into his bosom and so shall the love and favour of God be as deeply insinuated into you as it is into Christ himself and so shall God the Father together with his beloved Son wholly possess you and be possessed of you and so God and Christ and you shall become One entire thing according to Christs prayer That they may be One in us as thou and I are One. I need say little more to the words of this Author than was said to those of Mr. Will. Eyre it being enough for me to say to every Reader of these lines as the High-Priest said to the by-standers at Christs arraignment he indeed causlesly but I justly Ye have heard their blasphemy Only I desire the Reader to observe further 1. How he doth wrong the Apostle by bringing him in to abett him in his said blasphemy I mean by alledging that in Eph. 1.6 as if the Apostle in saying That God hath made the believing Ephesians accepted in the Beloved had said That they were as acceptable to God as Christ himself whereas it will appear That the Apostle did intend by that very expression to insinuate a peculiarity of the Fathers Love to that his only begotten Son who lay in his bosom from all eternity 2. Observe how like a canting Familist he speaks in saying That upon our hanging about Christs neck and creeping into his bosom i.e. upon our believing in Christ God the Father together with his beloved Son will wholly possess us and be possessed of us and so God and Christ and we shall become One Entire Thing 3. Observe how notoriously he doth abuse the words of our Saviours Prayer and our Saviour Christ himself in them as if in praying That Believers might be one as the Father and he were one he had requested That they all may become One entire thing To pray That Believers may keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace
they do in a passive sence of the word receive it i. e. they by means of their believing do enjoy the righteousness or obedience of Christ in the saving fruits and effects thereof 2. The Doctor doth errâ— grosly in thinking That by the righteousness of the Law the Apostle means his own evangelical righteousness or obedience to the Gospel-Law and that this is it which heopposes to Christs personal righteousness or to Christs obedience to the Law For it is plain both by the Text it self and Context That by the Law he means the Jewish Law and that by his own righteousness he means that which was his own when a Jew not that which was his own when a Convert to the Christian faith and that the things there opposed are Judaism and Christianity or Judaical observances and the practical knowledg of Christ So that our own evangelical righteousness is neither in the same kind nor in any other kind there opposed to the obedience of Christ nor is it either in that Scripture or in any other excluded from such an end which Christs Righteousness doth obtain I mean the salvation of a sinner For in order to this end our evangelical righteousness stands not in any opposition but in a due subordination to Christs As Christs Righteousness doth after a manner peculiar to it self so doth our own righteousness in its manner tend to our obtaining that which St. Peter styles The end of our faith even the salvation of our souls Whence that command of the Apostle So run that ye may obtain 1 Cor. 9.24 It is by running that through by or under Christ we do obtain 3. The Doctor perverts the sence of 1 Cor. 1.30 that Scripture in no fort proving the thing for the proof whereof it is alledged by him For the Apostle doth not there say as he would have him That Christ is made Righteousness unto us by Gods reckoning or imputing Christs perfect and compleat obedience of the Law unto us this being the thing undertaken by him to be proved by that Scripture which as that Scripture doth not prove for it proves only that Christ was of God made Righteousness unto us so another place of Scripture 2 Cor. 5.21 doth most convincingly disprove it it being there asserted that we are made in Christ the Righteousness of God i. e. very righteous by God the abstract being put for the concrete as is very usual in the language of Scripture and particularly so used Esa 60.17 where God promiseth to his Church that he will make all their Exactors Righteousness i. e. very just honest or righteous it being I say there asserted that we are of God made in Christ most righteous by means of his being made sin i. e. a sin-offering for us not by Gods reckoning to us Christs perfect and compleat obedience to the Law In the same Page again he abuses that Text in Rom. 5.10 saying The issue of the death of Christ is placed upon reconciliation that is a slaying of the enmity and restoring us into that condition of peace and friendship wherein Adam was before his fall But is there no more to be done Notwithstanding that there was no wrath due to Adam yet be was to obey if he would enjoy eternal life Something moreover there is to be done in respect of us if after the slaying of the enmity and reconciliation made we shall enjoy life being reconciled by his death we are saved by that perfect obedience which in his life he yielded to the Law of God Answ 1. I have already vindicated that Scripture from the same abuse put upon it by the Doctor having manifested that by the life of Christ is there meant the life which he now lives in glory interceding for us at the right hand of God not the life which he lived on earth 2. Had the Apostle meant the life which Christ lived on earth it will not thence follow that his meaning was that we are saved by Gods reckoning to us the perfect and compleat obedience of that his life i. e. imputing his obedience it self unto us 3. Though being reconciled to God there is somewhat to be done by us i. e. in order to the continuing of our friendship with God nevertheless there needs no more to a sinners salvation at present than his present reconciliation nor doth there need more to his future and final salvation than the continuance of his reconciliation and friendship with God For if being reconciled to God he and we do continue friends we shall as certainly be saved as it is certain that Christ at the right hand of God ever liveth to make intercession for us 4. It is salsly insinuated by the Doctor That Christ hath done more or that it is needful that he should do more for our salvation than for our reconciliation I mean for the beginning continuing or perfecting of the one than of the other salvation from the guilt of sin whether it be initial progressive or consummate being in effect the same benefit with Reconciliation with God in its being begun continued and made perfect in the fruit thereof 5. If there was no wrath due to Adam nothing could ever have obstructed his entrance into life the contrary whereunto is presumed by the Doctor 6. As it was once already said so I say again That Adam was to obey not that he might enjoy a right to eternal life which he had not antecedently to that his actual obedience but that his title thereunto might be continued and he thereupon might be brought at last to the full enjoyment thereof The Doctor proceeds in the same Page to abuse the Scriptures by whole clusters which I will endeavour to manifest in the next Chapter CHAP. XXXIII The Doctor 's allegation of several Scriptures to no purpose That we are no otherwise justified than we are reconciled or pardoned through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness the contrary whereunto is pretended by Dr. O. That none of those Scriptures alledged by him to prove the Imputation of Christs obedience it self unto us do evince the same His error in attributing our justification to the Life of Christ whereas the Apostle doth Rom. 5.9 expresly attribute it to his Death however it is not to be understood as excluding the obedience of his Life HE saith p. 186. There is distinct mention made of Reconciliation through a non-imputation of sin as Psal 32.1 Luk. 1.77 Rom. 3.25 2 Cor. 5.19 and justification through an Imputation of righteousness Jer. 23.6 Rom. 4.5 1 Cor. 1.30 although these things are so far from being separated that they are reciprocally affirmed of one another which as it doth not evince an identity so it doth an eminent conjunction And this last we have by the life of Christ Answ 1. There is no mention at all so much as of the word Reconciliation in three of the four recited Scriptures viz. Psal 32.1 Luk. 1.77 Rom. 3.25 And by perusing the places the Reader may know
whether he should believe the Doctor or his own eyes 2. Much less is there mention of Reconciliation through a non-imputation of sin as distinct from justification in any of those three Texts of Scripture 3. Though there be mention of Reconciliation and a non-imputation of sin in one of the fore-cited Scriptures 2 Cor. 5.19 yet neither is the one or the other there mentioned as distinct from justification through an Imputation of Christs Righteousness as the Doctor says 4. We are no otherwise justified than we are pardoned or reconciled to God through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness Christs Righteousness it self being no more necessary nor acting any otherwise for the effecting of the one than of the other the agency thereof being that of a morally efficient or meritorious cause towards our remission reconciliation and justification 5. If by the Doctor 's confession reconciliation and justification are reciprocally affirmed one of another I am apt to think that Philosophy will warrant us from thence to conclude an identity And by the last fore-cited Scripture the identity which the Doctor denies may undoubtedly be evinced For the non-imputation of sin together with our reconciliation with God is there mentioned as all one even the self same thing with our being made the Righteousness of God in Christ which may be truly paraphrased with our being justified by the Righteousness of Christ but is falsly glossed as the Doctor would have it with the Imputation of the perfect and compleat righteousness or obedience of Christ to the Law of God As for the other three places of Scripture alledged by him he doth manifestly wrest them For 1. Though it be said in Jer. 23.6 That this is his name whereby he shall be called The Lord our Righteousness let who will be there meant by the Lord whether God the Father as Mr. John Humfreys thinks or God the Son as many others it matters not here to make enquiry yet there is no such thing there either mentioned or meant as Justification through an Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us 2. Although in Rom. 4.5 there is mention made of Gods Imputing Righteousness unto us yet by Righteousness is not there meant the Righteousness of Christ i. e. his perfect and compleat obedience to the Law nor are we by that expression of the Apostle given to understand that the said righteousness or obedience of Christ is imputed to us but by it is meant a certain righteousness which is the effect and fruit of Christs Righteousness and which for the sake of Christs Righteousness is imputed to us or confer'd upon us 3. There is not the least sound or whisper of a sinners justification through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in 1 Cor. 1.30 although the Doctor hath endeavoured several times to pervert that Text to such a sence as was never intended by the Apostle 4. Whereas he says as he hath said often that this last i. e. justification through an Imputation of Christs Righteousness we have by the life of Christ he doth expresly contradict the Apostle who affirms That we are justified by the Blood of Christ i. e. by his bloody death The Doctor proceeds in his perverting the true sence of certain other Scriptures as after the recital of his words I will demonstrate in the following Chapter CHAP. XXXIV Doctor Owen's mis-interpretation of Zech. 3.3 4. That remission of sin is no more the proper fruit of Christs death as the Doctor would have it than is Justification That there is not required a collation of Righteousness over and above remission of sin as he asserts in order to a right to heaven His allegation of Esa 61.10 to no purpose P. 187. THIS that is the distinct mention of Reconciliation through a non-imputation of sin and Justification through an Imputation of righteousness is fully expressed in that Typical representation of our justification before the Lord Zech. 3.3 4 5. Two things are there expressed to belong to our free Acceptation before God 1. The taking away the guilt of our sin our filthy robes This is done by the death of Christ remission of sin is the proper fruit thereof but there is more also required even a Collation of righteousness and thereby a right to life eternal this is here called fine change of rayment So the Holy Ghost expresseth it again Esa 61.10 where he calls it plainly the garment of salvation and the robe of righteousness Now this is only made ours by the obedience of Christ as the other by his death Answ We are now come to Visions and Revelations of the Lord in the Expositions whereof I do confess my self to have little exercised my talent nevertheless I reply 1. In a flat gainsaying his interpretation and denial that this i. e. that reconciliation with God and justification through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness as things distinct is fully expressed in that Typical representation of the matter in Zech. 3. For although I do yield that remission of sins is represented by that visible sign I have caused thine iniquities i. e. in the guilt and punishment of them to pass from thee i. e. I have pardoned them nevertheless I deny that by the fine change of rayment is there meant the Righteousness of Christ or justification through the Imputation of it unto us but I rather think that by it is meant our own personal righteousness or holiness which doth oft-times in Scripture go under the Metaphorical expression of a splendid vest fine linnen robe or the like as I have already manifested Briefly My opinion is That in the said vision of the Prophet there is a representation of justification or remission of sin and sanctification as distinct things but not as the Doctor will have it expounded of reconciliation or remission and of justification through the Imputation of Christs Righteousness 2. Remission of sin is no more the proper fruit of Christs death as the Doctor says than is our justification for as the Apostle somewhere says We have redemption through his Blood even the Forgiveness of our sins so he doth elsewhere say We are justified by his Blood Rom. 5.9 I doubt not to say It is a great mistake in this Doctor as in many others to assign our Reconciliation or remission of sin and our Justification to several distinct causes the former to Christs passive obedience his death the other to his active the obedience of his life imputed whereas the truth is in these two things 1. That reconciliation or remission of sin and justification are the self same thing in effect as was aforesaid 2. Being the same thing in effect although they are expressed by divers names yet they are wholly to be ascribed to the whole obedience of Christ both of his life and death as joyntly constituting the meritorious cause thereof so that neither is remission of sin to be more said to be the proper fruit of Christs death than justification nor justification more properly