Page images
PDF
EPUB

exempt from punishment; nay, an immunity, which Chap. 11. is ex Juftitia, as in the cafe of an innocent perfon, though it fuppofe a Righteousness in him, yet it is no more it felf a righteousness than in the other cafe; it is diftinct from his Righteoufnefs as a confequent is from its antecedent: Now if a pardon or immunity from punishment be not our Righteousness, then Chrift's Righteousness (which was penal and obediential to an infinite value, and did compenfate the very culpâ, and free us from it) is, as foon as it is made ours by Imputation, our Righteousness against the Law.

Thirdly, If a pardon might be called Juftification,it is but improperly fuch; there are then as(I will fuppofe for Difcourfe fake) three forts of Juftification to be distinguished, one by the idem, the very fame perfect Righteousness, which the Law calls for, another by the tantundem, a Righteousness which is a plenary fatisfaction to the broken Law; a third by Remiffion only: the firft is more strictly Juftification than the second, because the very Letter of the Law is fulfilled in it, which it is not in the other; the second is more properly Juftification than the third, because there is a plenary compensation to the Law in it; when in the other there is nothing but a meer condonation: the third is the most improper Juftification of all the reft, because it communicates not a Righteousness, but an Indulgence: Now in our cafe, had there been no fatisfaction at all, Justification, if poffible, must have ftood in remiffion only; but a great and glorious fatisfaction being made, it seems very strange, that Juftification fhould confiit only in the less proper, in remiffion, which frees us à pana, whilft the proper, Chrift's Satisfaction, which.

Chap. 11. ina way of compenfation, frees us à culpâ, is waved : It is true, it is not totally waved; it is allowed to be an antecedent meritorious caufe of Juftification, but being no Ingredient in it, Juftification ftill confifts in the lefs proper, while the more proper in that refpect is waved.

Before I pass on, I must confider one objection; pardon takes away reatum pene, the obligation to punishment, and what more can be done to a finner? ftill the reatus culpæ abides, the fault will be a fault; the Sinner a Sinner; that is, one who finned; and if no more can be done to a finner, why is not immunity from punishment, his Righteoufnefs, or what can be Righteousness if that be not fo?

In answer to this great Objection, I shall offer two or three things.

First, It is indeed a rule of reason, that, factum infectum fieri non poteft; yet it is worthy the confideration of the Learned, whether the culpâ, which ever continues in facto, in it felf, may not yet cease in jure, fo far as not to redound upon the Perfon to make him culpable? I fhall only mention one inftance, and fo leave it; the Bleffed Virgin, not being, as her Son was, conceived of the Holy Ghoft, was no doubt fubject to Original Sin, that put a culpâ upon every part of her, and factum infectum fieri non poteft. Nevertheless, when the Word was made Flesh; when his Body was framed out of the Substance of the Virgin, no culpâ did remain, or redound upon his Humane Nature, much lefs upon

his Sacred Perfon which affumed it: in Sacred Mysteries we must not be too peremptory upon our reason, but speak with all caution and re

verence.

Secondly,

Secondly, Beatus culpe, or guilt of fault, may be Chap. 11. confidered under a double notion, either in it felf, in its intrinfecal defert of punishment, or else in its redundancy upon the finner, which confifts in three things. First, it fo redounds upon him as to denominate him a finner, that is, one who hath finned; then it fo redounds as to make him continue worthy of punishment; and again it fo redounds, as actually to oblige him to punishment: Now the reatus in its felf, in its intrinfecal defert, must needs be perpetual, because fin cannot ceafe to be fin, the denominating him a finner, one who hath finned, must be perpetual too, because factum infectum fieri non poteft: but, as I take it, that redundancy which makes him worthy of punishment, is removed in Juftification, and that which actually obliges him to punishment, is removed in remiffion;it is usually faid in the Schools,tranfit actus, manet reatus, after the Act of Sin is paffed and gone, the guilt abides; we may fay of the finner, that he hath finned in præterito, nay, and in præfenti, that he is filius mortis, worthy to die, and fuffer punifhment; but after he hath received the great atonement, after Chrift's fatisfaction (which is more than an æquipondium to his unworthiness) is Imputed and made over to him, he continues no longer worthy of punishment; the fin it felf is worthy of it, but he is not; he was once worthy of it, but now he is no longer fo. I cannot imagine, that Chrift's it, or worthy ones, Rev. 3. 1. fhould remain at Savare, worthy of Death, Rom. 1. 32. Or that the pure Heavens fhould be inhabited by fuch as ftill continue worthy of Hell: Christ's Righteousness so much outweighs and counterpoifes the meritum pæne that is

Chap. 11. in fin, that though the worthiness of punishment cannot be separated from the fin it felf, yet it ceases to redound upon the finner, as foon as he believes and hath an intereft in that Righteousness: Its true, the finner as he is in himself, is worthy of punishment, but as he is in Chrift, a part or Member of him, a participant of his Satisfaction, he is not worthy thereof.

Thirdly, If we look diftinctly upon a fatisfaction, or plenary compenfation for fin of the one hand, and upon a pardon, or immunity from punishment of the other, it will be easily feen where our Righteousness lies, and what is our juftifying Plea and matter against the Law; a pardon frees from punishment, but a Satisfaction falves the honour of the broken Law, repairs the damage done to it, compensates for tbe violations of it, and comes in the Room of that perfect conformity which the Law did primarily aim at in this therefore not in the other ftands our Righteousness as to the Law. Thus much touching my fifth Reason, that Juftification consists not in a pardon.

Sixthly, Chrift fuffered noftro loco, in our place and ftead; thofe pregnant Scriptures (that he gave his Life a ranfoma, in the ftead of many, Matth. 20. 28. that he gave himself armor a counterprize for all, 1 Tim. 2. 6. that he suffered the just for the unjust, 1 Pet. 3. 18.) are no cold improprieties, but full proofs of it; he did fuftinere noftram perfonam, fuftein our perfon in his fufferings; there was a double commutaton, his person was put in the room of our perfons, and his fufferings in the room of our fufferings; he that fatisfies for another, muft do it nomine debitoris, he that

pays

pays in his own name, cannot fatisfie for another. Chap. ff. When our Saviour faid to Peter, That give an of for me and thee, Matth. 17. 27. if Peter had paid it only in his own name, he could not have fatisfied for his Mafter. In like manner, if Chrift had suffered only in his own Name, he could not have fatisfied for Peter or any other: The Debt which he fatisfied for was ours, not his; he stood as our Representative, and fatisfied for us; he did not only fuffer noftro bono, that the profit might be ours, but noftro loco, that the Satisfaction it felf might be ours; nevertheless, according to Divine Conftitution; that is, that it might be ours; not immediately, but as foon as we become Members of him; not according to the full latitude, but according to the capacity of Members; not to all intents, but that it might be the matter of our Juftification as to the Law.

Having laid down my Reasons, I fhall now proceed to answer the Objections made against Imputed Righteousness; only here I muft remember the Reader of one thing. Let him not think that there are no Mysteries in our Religion, as if all there were within the line of Humane Reafon: There are Super-rational Mysteries in Chrift's perfon; mortal and immortal, temporal and eternal, the Creature and the Creator; do in an ineffable manner meet together in one Perfon; and why may there not be fuch in Chrift Myftical too? The union between Chrift and Believers is a great Mystery, Ephef. 5.32. and the communication of his Righteoufnefs to them, which enfues upon that union, hath too much of Mystery in it to be measured by Humane Reason. Proclus faid well, τὶ δὲ λογισμοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις καθυβρίζεις τὰ θεια, “Why doft "thou reproach Divine things with Humane Rea

Aaa

"fon

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »