The Righteousness of God Through Faith, Postscript
POST-SCRIPT.
THere are two Paſſages in the foregoing Sermons which have been exclaimed againſt publickly and privately by one that heard them not: And I do believe he was angered by more than two. For he is one that makes union to Chriſt, our having this Righteouſneſs upon us, and our being juſtified by it to be given us in way of reward of ſomething done by us; and he is the man that makes the ſtate of Believers to be undecided and in ſuſpenſe during this Life. Both which Errors are damning; the former in its Nature and direct tendency; the latter in its Grounds and Principles. And whether he do not in truth diſown the imputation of our Sins unto Chriſt, and of his Righteouſneſs unto us, it is like if he live the VVorld will ſee more fully; for he hath given ſuch pregnant indications thereof as do amount to at leaſt juſt cauſe of jealouſie. But touching theſe things he thought it beſt to keep ſilence, and to fix his nails where he thought he had better advantage.
The one Point is, pag. 7. That the Incarnation of Chriſt is no part of his Humiliation. As to the truth of it as there laid down, I ſhall ſay little more, knowing it cannot be overthrown. The whole ſtreſs of the matter lyes in thoſe two words, Incarnation and Humiliation, how they are taken. If the former be taken largely, as compriſing Chriſts taking both our Nature and the common ſinleſs Frailties of it, together with his being in the form of a ſervant, and made under the Law, I know not why it ſhould be denyed to be a part of his Humiliation. But if it be taken ſtrictly for his dwelling in Fleſh, or Humane Nature, comprehending under it both the act of aſſumption and the relation or union ariſing and effected thereby between the Humane Nature ſo aſſumed, and the Perſon of the Son of God who did aſſume it; neither the one nor the other of theſe, neither the act of aſſuming, nor the Union of the two Natures effected by it may be allowed to be any part of Chriſt's Humiliation. For Humiliation is not in this argument to be taken laxly and improperly for any thing which hath Goodneſs or Grace in it, as God's beholding things in Heaven and in Earth, is ſaid to be an humbling of himſelf, Pſal. 113.6. So Chriſt might have been ſaid to humble himſelf, though he had never been Incarnate. But in this ſubject Humiliation ought to be taken preciſely, for that which is proper and peculiar to the ſecond Perſon in the Trinity, which the Apoſtle calls his being in the form of a Servant, or rather his being made under the Law. Between which there may be conceived ſome difference; for Chriſt is now in his ſtate of Exaltation Gods Servant, but he is not now under the Law, as he was in the days of his Fleſh and Frailty. And taking theſe words thus, it is far from being a ſingular conceit of mine, that the Incarnation of Chriſt is not a part of his humiliation. Mr. Bradſhaw not only ſaith expreſly, Chriſt's aſſuming the Humane Nature, cannot properly be ſaid to be a part of his Humiliation, but gives his reaſon for it, of Juſtif. ch. 17. Sect. 7. and makes the Title of that Chapter to be this, Chriſt that he might taken on him the guilt of ſin, was made man: Whence it is evident that in his Judgment (which is alſo the current Judgment of all Chriſtians) Chriſt's becoming Man was not the effect of the guilt of ſin being on him, but the way of his becoming capable to have our guilt imputed to him. I ſuppoſe none will imagin that Chriſt had been in a ſtate of Humiliation if our guilt had not been upon him. Dr. Ames is as expreſs as expreſs can be to the ſame purpoſe. Marrow of Div. l. 1. chap. 20. ſect. 3, 4. Mr. Norton againſt Pinchion, Part. 2. chap. 3. p. 205. hath theſe words, Incarnation is not a Mediatorly or Office-Act, but an Act conſtituting the perſon called to that Office. Mr. Samuel Stone (a Divine of very exquiſite judgment and acuteneſs, and one ſo far from being an Antinomian, that he wrote againſt ſome of their Tenets, as I gather from Mr. Baxters Script. Goſp. def. l. 1. p. 73.) hath theſe words, Prin. of Orac of God, part 1. ch. 17 q. 2. What is Chriſts humiliation? Anſw. The abaſement of Chriſt, whereby he became ſubject to Divine Juſtice to ſatisfie for our offences, and to merit Life and Happineſs. This abaſement preſuppoſeth his Incarnation and Ʋnction. His Incarnation is therefore no part of his humiliation. And in his following explication he ſaith, The ſtate of abaſement falls upon the Son of God incarnate, his Incarnation is one part of his fitneſs to redeem, and hence the Son of God is incarnate before his humiliation in order of Nature, being the ſubject of humiliation. Hence the humiliation is aſcribed to the whole Perſon. Laſtly, ſince the preaching of theſe Sermons, an underſtanding Perſon tells me that that eminent Servant of Chriſt now in glory, Mr. John Collins delivered the very ſame thing, and being taxed for it by one who would not receive ſatisfaction from him, the matter was brought to Dr. Owen, who readily declared himſelf to concur in his judgment with Mr. Collins. It is true, Divines commonly ſay Chriſt was humbled in his Conception. So beſides others, Mr. Alexander Richardſon, Ames, Stone, who yet hold that his Incarnation was no part of his Humiliation, and that in good conſiſtency with themſelves, and with the Truth. For Chriſt's Incarnation is one thing, his Conception is another: By the one he became Man, by the other the Son of Man; the former implies only his participation of the Nature, the other together with the nature, the manner, and way of his partaking thereof; though ſtill in Chriſt they did concur and co-exiſt. Beſides there is a difference between ſaying Chriſt humbled himſelf in his Conception, and ſaying his being conceived was part of his Humiliation. The former I readily aſſent to; for there were many circumſtances of great abaſement attended not only his Birth, but his very Conception. But as to the latter I would not ſo crudely aſſert it without ſome explication. For that the Virgin Mary conceived him, is agreed on by all Chriſtians; nor do I ſee reaſon to diſſent from that of Ames, That the Humane Nature was really related to Mary as to its cauſe. But yet I do not remember that I have met with it in any judicious Writer, that Mary was a cauſe either of Chriſt's Incarnation, or of his Humiliation. And for my own part I would chuſe to refer Chriſts Conception (taken preciſely as abſtracted from all the afflictive or eclipſing circumſtances of it) to the things that made him allyed in blood to us, and ſo a fit Perſon to ſtand and act as our Surety, rather than to his actual performing the work of Suretiſhip as antecedently ſtanding in that relation unto us. For as I do not think the precept of the Moral Law obligeth us to be conceived, nor that the curſe of it doth inflict it on us as a puniſhment, ſo neither do I ſee that Chriſt's Conception was any part of his fulfilling that Law for us, either in the precept, or in the penalty of it. Nor do I think it any dangerous Hereſie to hold that it is not imputed to us any more than that his Reſurrection, Aſcenſion, and Interceſſion are not. And yet whatever there was in Chriſt's Conception, of his fulfilling the Law either in the precept, or in the curſe of it, I do look upon as a part of his Righteouſneſs which is imputed to us. But though there were circumſtances of great abaſement in Chriſt's Conception, yet I can by no means aſſent to that which was again and again aſſerted at Pinners-Hall by him, who there oppoſed Chriſt's Incarnation being no part of his Humiliation, namely, That the Son of God was united to an Embrio. I do not herein tranſgreſs the Apoſtles rule, 1 Tim. 5.19. I have ſeen the Notes of that Sermon taken by two Perſons, and have had this atteſted by at leaſt twice too. An Embrio is an unformed unorganized maſs or lump, not a perfect Humane Nature. To ſay that the Son of God did aſſume, or was united to ſuch a thing as an Embrio is a piece of Ignorant Blaſphemy. But alas, whither will the heat of oppoſition carry Men. That the Engliſh Reader may not think I am ſingular herein, he may look into Mr. Nortons, Ortho, Evang. ch. 3. p. 39.
But what is the reaſon why Chriſt's Incarnation muſt needs be made a part of his humiliation? I ſuſpect there is a ſecret at the bottom of this matter. I doubt he diſcerns that if Chriſt's Incarnation be taken up and admitted to be a part of his humiliation, it puts an Engine into his hand to overthrow the imputation of Chriſt's humiliation unto us. For if one part of it be not imputed, it's eaſie inferring, the reſt is not. And it is no difficult task to evince that the Incarnation of Chriſt is not imputed to us. But for that very reaſon I did, and ſtill do judge it neceſſary to be ſo expreſt in diſtinguiſhing between Chriſt's Incarnation and his Humiliation, and to declare the former not to be a part of the latter.
The other point deeply reflected on, is pag. 22, 23, 24, 25. That Bilievers are as Righteous as Chriſt is, as he is their Surety. I heard it, and took it in firſt many Years agoe in a Sermon from that Reverend Man of God, my Honoured Father in Law, Mr. William Ben of Dorcheſter, a Man ſo ſhining in Holineſs, ſo excelling in clearneſs of Goſpel-Light, and ſo abounding in Solid, Spiritual, Practical, Scriptural Notions, that I have not known many that have gone beyond him, few that equalled him. I have ſince conſidered, all that I have met with againſt it in Papiſts, Socinians, and their Followers: And am and was well aware that ſome Learned Men ſeem to decline owning it, but 'tis only in the ſenſe in which their Adverſaries mean it, and would infer it. Others ſeem to own it with certain limitations and explications. I no way doubt, but that, as by me delivered, it will be found a Truth that will abide in ſtrength, and firmneſs, when all the Papiſts, Socinians, and Semiſocinians on Earth have broken their Teeth upon it. And this I ſay with an eye particularly to his Diſcourſes who ſo publickly duplicate page duplicate page quarrelled at it, in which by the account I had of them I could find nothing fit to be taken notice of. It is an eaſie thing to quote many that tax it as madneſs and blaſphemy to ſay Believers are equal with Chriſt, but they muſt be underſtood in a limited ſenſe, and as meaning ſuch an equality as interferes with Chriſt's Headſhip, and with his having the pre-eminence in all things. For taken abſolutely, and in all reſpects it will not hold. Believers are Men equally with Chriſt, and they are juſtified from their ſin equally with Chriſt, for they are perfectly juſtified, and perfectly freed from the revenging Wrath of God in this Life, and from Condemnation. Mr. Bradſhaw though he be not for ſuch an imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, as others are, who are not Antinomians, as Dr. Owen, Dr. Jacomb, Mr. Ant. Burgeſs, yet ſaith, God doth not only forgive to Perſons juſtified all their ſins, but doth alſo, even in like manner eſteem them themſelves, and accounts them in the ſame place as if they were altogether free from all manner of ſin both of commiſſion and omiſſion. Perinde aeſtimat e…demque loco habet. What would this diſſatisfied Perſon have ſaid, if I had affirmed that we have a whole and unmaimed righteouſneſs, againſt which God in his moſt exact juſtice cannot proceed; no more than he can call his own Son to a ſecond Death, or not accept his face, who is the righteouſneſs of God himſelf? Or if I had ſaid, that Mary under the Croſs was more juſt imputatively than Chriſt, which was alſo true of every Believer then living, when Chriſt was under the actual imputation of Sin. And that God looking on Believers through Chriſt ſeeth no more ſin (ſafely underſtood) than he ſeeth in him. The former are the words of Reverend Mr. Cartwright againſt the Rhemiſts on Rom. 2.13. and the latter of Mr. Norton, Orth. Evang. ch. 14. pag. 324. I might multiply quotations to the ſame purpoſe. But to what end? I fear it is a diſlike and heart-hatred of ſtanding juſtified in the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt imputed and in it only, that lyes at the bottom in theſe oppoſitions. For the thing is evident in it ſelf (and I can hardly think any man is ſo forſaken of common underſtanding as to deny it) that if it be the ſame righteouſneſs in which Chriſt and we ſtand, he and we are ſo far as that righteouſneſs makes righteous, equally righteous: If it be the ſame righteouſneſs that is upon him and upon us, it muſt needs have the ſame effect as to making righteous. Let it be but owned and believed that it is Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, and not our own, either Faith or other Graces, or Obedience that we ſtand juſtified in before God, and what I have delivered muſt be owned, and is ſo, whether Men ſee it or not. But if Chriſt's Righteouſneſs be not upon us, if that be not the only righteouſneſs in which we ſtand juſtified; it is then abſurd and monſtrous and blaſphemous, or whatever men that like not ſtanding in the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt pleaſe to call it, to ſay that imputatively we are as righteous as Chriſt is righteous as our Surety.
It may be that ſome or other who do believe theſe things to be bleſſed and glorious Truths may think it had been better not to have ſpoken them out. I muſt crave leave in this to diſſent from them, I do not think that in ſuch a Subject we ſhould at ſuch a time be mealy-mouthed. Had Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Zanchy, and others of the firſt Reformers been as faint and complying in their expreſſions, as ſome very great and good men then were; and as Peter Martyr himſelf for ſome time was, the precious truths of God had been greatly obſcured, and the Light thereof not propagated down to us, as it is at this day.
FINIS.
End of the text · Nathanael Mather, The Righteousness of God Through Faith (1694)