A Synopsis of Quakerism, Error 3
Error 3. That we are not juſtified by imputed righteouſneſs, W. Pen.
THe word juſtifie foreign and foreign, and the Heb. foreign ſignifies juſtum facere, and in the Scripture uſage, it is a foren-ſick word, and ſignifies to pronounce righteous, and ſo is oppoſed to condemnation and accuſation, Rom. 8. 33. The word impute foreign properly ſignifies the ſame with foreign ſupputo, to caſt account, and the Heb. foreign ſignifies to think, imagine, and reaſon, and hence in Scripture it is applied to a legal act, whereby the righteouſneſs of one, viz. Chriſt is admitted for another, and ſo far accounted and eſteemed that others, as that he obtains the benefit of it, to all intents and purpoſes, as if it had been his perſonal righteouſneſs. I ſhall produce for the word and thing but one Scripture, which is expreſs for us, Rom. 4. 6. As David deſcribes the bleſſedneſs of the Man, to whom the Lord imputeth Righteouſneſs without Works, [that is the Righteouſneſs of another, without Works of her own, elſe there were contradictio in adjecto.] And obſerve, the Apoſtle gives us the ſum of Davids Words, verſ. 7. 8. which ſpeak not of Imputation of Righteouſneſs in terms, but of Forgiveneſs, and not imputing Sin, which muſt be ſuppoſed to lie in Imputation of Righteouſneſs, as Effects in their Cauſe. Now in abſolutely free Forgiveneſs, there's no Imputation of Righteouſneſs, but what is our own inherently, according to Pen, and other Socinians.
Three Arguments will ſuffice to evince the Truth on our ſide.
Arg. 1. From the proportion which our Juſtification by Chriſts Righteouſneſs bears to our Condemnation by Adam's Sin, but our Condemnation was by Imputation of Aams Sin. Therefore our Juſtification is by the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, Rom. 5. 19. points us out to this Collation; As by one mans Diſobedience, many were made Sinners; ſo by the Obedience of one, ſhall many be made Righteous.
Arg. 2. From the proportion, which our being made Righteous, bears to Chriſts, being made Sin. But Chriſt was made Sin by Imputation. Therefore ſo are we made Righteous, 2 Cor. 5. ult, gives ground for Arguing from ſuch Proportion; For he was made Sin for us, who knew no Sin, [i. e. by an Experimental knowledge of its Operation in himſelf, Peter therefore ſayes, he did no Sin, 1 Pet. 2. 21.] that we might be made the Righteouſneſs of God in him.
Arg. 3. From the proportion, which Imputation of Righteouſneſs to us, bear to the matter of our Juſtification, which (as we have ſhewn before) being the Righteouſneſs of another, cannot be made ours any other way, than by Imputation. So, and no otherwiſe, the ſureties payment of the Debt becomes the Act of the principal Debtor.
This laſt Argument ſuggeſts an Anſwer to W. P's Cavils about the word Impute, that it is altogether uſed to expreſs what is perſonally theirs, of whom it is ſpoken, p. 29. For ſuppoſing it were ſo ordinarily, yet when it is applied to the act of one perſon, by Operation of Law made another, it cannot be ſo meant. For it is a good rule, Verba intelliguntur ſecundum Subjectam materiam, words are to be interpreted, when ambigious, according to their Subject matter. I ſhall propoſe, and anſwer one Objection of another Quakers, before I come to Pens.
Obj. How can God account us to have done what we have not? So Whitehead, Voyce of Wiſdom. 3. Head.
Sol. We muſt not fancy any miſapprehenſion or falſe Judgment in God: God does not (to ſpeak ſtrictly) account us to have done and ſuffered what we did not, as the Creditor does not account the principal to have paid the debt, which he knows the ſurety paid for him. But God admits of what Chriſt did for our behoof, as if it had been our perſonal Act. As the Creditor Cancels the Bond, lets the Debtor out of Priſon, and gives him every way as Legal a Diſcharge upon the ſureties payment of the debt, as he could have done upon his Perſonal Payments.
Next, I ſhall take notice of Pens Scriptures and Arguments.
As for Exod. 23. 1. Prov. 17. 15. one anſwer will ſerve both. God does not, no… allowes he Man to juſtifie the Wicked, In ſenſu compoſito, as we ſay whilſt he is ſuch; nor does God juſtifie the the Wicked, in juſtifying thoſe to whom Righteouſneſs is Imputed, for by that Imputation, they are firſt made Righteous, and then Juſtified, or Legally declared to be Righteous: So that unleſs you will deny, that the Act of one Perſon may by contract, or Act of Law, become the Act of another, as was above explained, there's no weight in your Allegations. As for Ezek. 18. 20. The Son ſhall not bear the Iniquity of his Father.
Anſw. Exod. 34 7. One of God's names is, Viſiting the Iniquity of the Fathers, upon the …hildren, &c. Thus then we collect, that this place ſignifies Gods Perpetual and Immutable right, which to us ſeems to be equitable, in regard of the neer Conjunction between Parent and Child, (the Child being but the Parent multiplied.) That in Ezekiel, Imports Gods gracious Receſſion from his right, becauſe of their more than ordinary a…daſity, in charging his wayes with inequality, verſ. 25. verſ. 3. he tells them they ſhould not have occaſion any more to uſe that Proverb, verſ. 2. the meaning whereof, was, verſ. 19. The Son bears the Iniquity of his Father; which implies, they had had occaſion to uſe it. See Joſh. 22. 17. 2 Sam. 21. 9, 14. Inſtances of the Jewes Children, bearing the Iniquity of their Fathers.
But ſuppoſe that were Gods ſtanding Rule, yet he might in Soveraignty, relax his Law, ſo far as to admit of Chriſt, a ſurety, inſtead of the Malefactors: and that he hath done, I have proved before.
As for all the reſt, they deſigne to prove, we are juſtified by an Inherent, and ſo not by an Imputed Righteouſneſs. The chief, I anſwered before, on the Head of Juſtification: The reſt are obvious.
Arg. 1. God cannot Juſtifie what is oppoſite to his pure Nature.
Anſw. Nor does God juſtifie what is oppoſite to his pure Nature, in juſtifying a Perſon in himſelf impure, upon the Righteouſneſs of another, imputed to him. For, ſuppoſing the right of Soveraignty veſted in God, to admit of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, for our perſonal Righteouſneſs, and an intimate Conjunction between Chriſt and us, as one in Nature, and myſtically by Faith, when God juſtifies a Perſon for imputed Righteouſneſs; he juſtifies one as truly (though not in the ſame manner) Righteous, as if he had been per…onally Righteous.
Arg. 2. If man were juſtified by Innocency before the Fall, then ſo muſt he be juſtifled after it.
Anſw. We deny the Conſequence, becauſe man having broken the Covenant made with him, God was at his free choice, how he would deal with him, (and that God did not think fit to juſtifie Man by a perſonal Innocency or Righteouſneſs, I ſhall prove, under the 4th. Head of Errours) which I preſume Pen underſtands; for otherwiſe, we are ſince the Fall, juſtified by Innocency, or a perfect Righteouſneſs, as before it, we ſhould have been, only the manner of Communication is different; the one by a Phyſical, the other by a Legal Act or Operation.
Arg. 3. Sin came not by Imputation, but actual Tranſgreſſion.
Anſw. The Sin of Adam was made his poſterities, Rom. 5. 12, 14. by Imputation: Adam was a Common Root to Mankind by Nature, but a Common Perſon by Divine Conſtitution, in that poſitive Precept and Threat, Gen. 2. 17. and the Promiſe therein inculded, in caſe of Obedience; whence as if he had ſtood, we had all ſtood in him; ſo he Falling, we all Fell, or Sinned in him, as the Apoſtles Phraſe is, Rom. 5. 12. And thence the Apoſtle argues, That as by one mans Diſobedience many were made Sinners▪ ſo by the Obedience of one, ſhall many be made Righteous, Rom. 5. 19.
Arg. 4. A man cannot be ſaid to be actually Sinful, and Imputatively Righteous: He may as well be ſaid to be actually Damned, and Imputatively Saved.
Anſw. Why not, as well as to ſay, a man is actually poor, not worth a Groat: but imputatively Rich, as having by his Surety, paid his debt of Thouſands; or to ſay, the nine Men throughout a mutinous Army, are actually Guilty, and yet imputatively Innocent, when the tenth man is admitted to ſuſtain the puniſhment due to the reſt. Yet there's not the like reaſon to ſay, a man is actually Damned, and imputatively Saved; no more th…n to ſay, a man is actually dead, and imputatively alive: for Imputation is an act of Law, and makes only a relative, not a real change, as from being condemned to be juſtified, not from being dead, to be a alive.
W. P's Conſequences, are ſome the ſame with his Arguments, as 1, 2, 3, 6. and ſo anſwered already and the other three are co-incident upon the matter; and the ſum of them is, that if we be juſtified by imputed Righteouſneſs, there is no need of Inherent Righteouſneſs.
Anſw. There is no need of Inherent righteouſneſs for Juſtification, but yet there is need of it as to other ends, as to make us meet for Heaven, Col. 1. 12. The different uſe or need of imputed and perſonal Righteouſneſs, may be expreſſed by this Similitude, I egitimation gives … right in Law to our Parents eſtate.
The uſe of reaſon, gives a natural capacity of injoying it. Imputed Righteouſneſs, gives us a Title to the Heavenly Inheritance. Inherent, gives us a fitneſs for the enjoying of it, (it lying in communion with God;) without likeneſs of diſpoſition, there can be no liking of each other.