lived and came to Heaven but without Faith never any man had Life the Thief that was hanged when Christ suffered did believe only and the most merciful God justified him though as Bishop Davenant observes his Faith produced a great many good Works in a very short time but then it follows If he had lived and not regarded Faith and the Works thereof he should have lost his Salvation again but this is the effect that I say that Faith by it self saved him but Works by themselves never justified any man Where he prefers Faith above Works because Faith being a Universal Principle of Obedience is accepted by God without Works when there wants time or opportunity to act them though in no other case but no Works can be pleasing and acceptable to God unless they proceed from a true and hearty Faith Neither Faith is without Works having opportunity thereto nor Works can avail to everlasting Life without Faith The third thing noted of Faith is What manner of Good Works Faith produces and the Good Works of Faith are not some external Acts of Hypocrisie or some worthless and flattering Devotions not some Arbitrary Superstitions c. but are the substantial Duties of Religion which consist in the love of God and of Men which make us like to God and useful to the World as is excellently discoursed in the Second and Third parts of the Homily of Good Works So that according to the sense of our Church Justifying Faith is not an idle and unactive Principle but is fruitful in Good Works and no other Faith can justifie us but such a lively Faith as abounds in all the Fruits of Righteousness according as it hath occasion and opportunity of doing good But to make this still more evident I observe farther that whereas our Church seems to lay the greatest stress upon one particular Act of Faith in the matter of Justification viz. our trust in the Mercy of God and our apprehending the Promise of Forgiveness through the Merits of our Lord Jesus Christ she also makes a good Life or at least a firm and stedfast Resolution of a good Life antecedently necessary to this Justifying Act of Faith or to our Trust and Affiance in the Mercy of God through the Merits of our Lord and Saviour This is evident from that Reason which is assigned why no wicked men can have a sure Trust and Confidence in Gods Mercy For how can any man have this true Faith this sure confidence in God that by the Merits of Christ his sins be forgiven and be reconciled to the favour of God and to be partaker of the Kingdom of Heaven by Christ when he liveth ungodly and denieth Christ in his Deeds Surely no such ungodly man can have this Faith and trust in God For as they know Christ to be the only Saviour of the World so they know also that wicked men shall not enjoy the Kingdom of God They know that God hateth Unrighteousness that he will destroy all those that speak untruly that those who have done good Works which cannot be done without a lively Faith in Christ shall come forth into the Resurrection of Life and those that have done evil shall come unto the Resurrection of Iudgment Very well they know also that to them that be contentious and to them that will not be obedient unto the Truth but will obey Unrighteousness shall come indignation wrath and affliction c. The plain meaning of which words is this that no wicked man can have a true Faith in Gods Mercy because the Promise of forgiveness is made upon the Conditions of Repentance and a New Life whereas God hath threatned eternal damnation against all wicked Livers and therefore for any man while he lives in wickedness to hope to be pardoned by God for Christs sake is an express contradiction to the Promises and Threatnings of the Gospel and surely no man shall be justified for believing a lie Thus in the first part of the Sermon of Faith the design of which is to prove that a true lively justifying Faith is fruitful in Good Works we are expresly taught That he that believeth that all that is spoken of God in the Bible is true and yet liveth so ungodly that he cannot look to enjoy the Promises and Benefits of God although it may be said that such a man hath a Faith and Belief to the Words of God yet it is not properly said that he believeth in God or hath such a Faith and Trust in God whereby he may surely look for Grace Mercy and everlasting Life at Gods hands but rather for indignation and punishment according to the merits of his wicked Life This contains the very same Doctrine which was expressed in the former Paragraph farther gives us an account what distinction our Church makes between Credere Deo Credere in Deum to believe God and to believe in God the first signifies to believe whatever is contained in the Word of God to be true the second is to yield such Obedience to the Revelations of the Divine Will as may encourage us to trust in God for the Accomplishment of all those gracious Promises of Pardon and Eternal Life This is all the fiducial Reliance which our Church teacheth to trust to the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ for Pardon and Eternal Life upon our faithful discharge of all Gospel-Obedience The same Doctrine is more expresly taught if it be possible in the Second Part of the Sermon of Faith Verily verily I say unto you He that believeth in me hath everlasting Life Now forasmuch as he that believeth in Christ hath everlasting Life it must needs consequently follow that he that hath this Faith must have also Good Works and be studious to observe Gods Commandments obediently For to them that have evil Works and lead their Life in Disobedience and Transgression or breaking Gods Commandments without Repentance pertaineth not everlasting Life but everlasting Death as Christ himself saith They that do well shall go into Life eternal but they that do evil shall go into everlasting fire c. What can be more expresly said to prove the inseparable Union of Good Works with Faith in the Act of Justification In the Homily of Repentance this Doctrine is so plainly taught that there can be no possible evasion We are there told That the true Preachers of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven and of the glad and joyful tidings of Salvation have always in their godly Sermons and Preachings unto the People joyned these two together Repentance and Forgiveness of sins even as our Saviour Jesus Christ did appoint himself saying So it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise again the third day and that Repentance and Forgiveness of Sins should be preached in his Name among all Nations Forgiveness of sins as I observed before is Evangelical Justification and the necessary condition of Forgiveness is Repentance This is proved in that
new Converts If ye continue in my words then shall ye be my Disciples indeed Iohn viii 31. Why does he not correct the whole Gospel the language of which is He that continueth to the end shall be saved Upon the next Plea he has a learned Dispute about the Pharisees Memories which were better than any Concordance for the Hebrew Text I know the Story as well as he and do not much matter what the credit of it is but is not this a wise reason why our Saviour did not name the Text in preaching to a promiscuous Auditory because it may be some few great Rabbies knew where to find it whereas the generality of the people are said not to know the Law In the next place he disputes as learnedly whether Iudas hanged himself and I perceive this great Critick thinks every one must be as impertinent as himself who cannot meet with the word Iudas or hanged or the like but whether it be to the purpose or not must dispute the case whether Iudas were hanged for if he broke his Neck or had drowned or burnt himself it had been all one to my purpose and I was not disposed to go out of my way to pursue Feathers and Butterflies Upon the next he gravely observes That there are no good men but sleep sometimes unless they be wiser than the five wise Virgins We will allow him this so they do not sleep to let their Lamps go out as the five foolish Virgins did On the next he observes That it is a huge commendation of good Knowledge that I say If a good man have the keeping of it it is never the worse for him though if he think this any disparagement to good Knowledge I perceive he understands Rhetorick as little as Logick or thinks his Readers understand neither On the next when I say That keeping the Lords day strictly is one good thing which doth well in the company of more he is afraid I forgot my self and stumbled upon a Puritanical saying before I was aware and adds that notwithstanding I thus commend a strict observation of the Lords day I could like well enough of a Book of Sports the uncharitableness of which Censure contrary to the express sense of my words I leave to be corrected by his own Conscience if he have any left And here our Author thinks fit to break off for it was not safe to go any farther those other Pleas which this poor man makes to defend himself against the imputation of Hypocrisie are such on which he dares not venture as That he performs all these Duties with life and zeal That he is constant and perseveres in godly courses and that he is conscious to himself of his Honesty and Sincerity in all this that he does all with a good heart for God that is out of a hearty Devotion to God and Reverence for his Laws and if such a man may be a Hypocrite no man can be sure of his Sincerity Only upon this last he observes That Mr. Shephard only says That a man may think he hath a good heart to God and yet deceive himself whereas I wish he had said that a man who thinks he hath a good heart to God must needs be mistaken and then I would say the whole Doctrine concerning Marks and Evidences were at an end Now to make it appear what a fair Adversary I have of this Author I shall transcribe this whole passage Object But some men are conscious to themselves of their own hypocrisie but I do all with a good heart for God Answ. So thou maist think of thy self and be deceived Upon this I observe If this be an Objection let a man have what marks he will the Objection will still be good for after all it may be objected that a man may be deceived in it and think he hath these marks when he hath them not And as a proof of this Mr. Shephard adds There is a way that seemeth right to a man but the end thereof is death thou mayest live so as to deceive thy self and others and yet prove an Hypocrite On which I observe that the sense of this argument is this As if because some men may think themselves good who are in a bad way no man could ever be sure that he were in the right and thus farewel all Evidences So that there is no need Mr. Shephard should say that he who thinks he hath a good heart towards God must needs be mistaken in order to overthrow the Doctrine of Marks and Evidences for if a man who is conscious to himself of his own sincerity that he hath a great reverence and regard for God in all his actions may be deceived in it it is sufficient to destroy all Marks and Evidences For if we cannot be sure what the workings and motions purposes and resolutions and habitual inclinations of our own Minds are we can be sure of nothing and if a man who is as sure of this as inward sense and feeling can make him may be deceived then there is no way to be sure of it this makes men as down-right Scepticks in the Doctrine of Marks and Evidences as to deny the truth of our Senses or of our Faculties does in Philosophy That refined Hypocrisie wherewith men deceive themselves does not consist in such an hypocrisie and deceitfulness of the heart as conceals it self from it self which is absolutely impossible but in a false and hypocritical Religion when they think to please God by some exterior homage or flattering Devotions or costly or pompous Ceremonies or by an Orthodox Faith or counterfeit Reliances or any other mode or form of Religion without a sincere Obedience to his Laws the men know that they are Villains all this while that they are guilty of notorious wickedness as the Scribes and Pharisees were but they flatter themselves that they may be very dear to God notwithstanding this either for the sake of the Righteousness of Christ or some hypocritical performances of their own These are the ways which seem right to a man when the end thereof is death This is the sum of our Authors charge against me for perverting mens words and how he hath acquitted himself in it let the Reader judge and all the amends I shall require of him is to turn his Looking-Glass upon himself and to view his own face in it But there is one Argument still behind to prove that I could have no good design in writing that Discourse and when I have answered that I hope I may pass at least for a well-meaning man And that is That I thrust out my sting against those who have written nothing taken notice of by me that can be supposed to hurt or hinder Godliness And though he mentions those he instances only in one a fault which at all turns he corrects in me now suppose this were true is there nothing fit to be corrected but what has an immediate tendency to
effect the Salvation of Mankind But this troubles him too that I say they are the different administrations of this Mediatory Kingdom for says our Author Is an Office an Administration No by no means therefore I say they ought not to be look'd on as different Offices but as different Administrations of the same Supreme Office which comprehends them all But then he would fain know what kind of Totum a Mediatory Kingdom is to the Offices of Prophet Priest and King Why Sir just such a Totum as consists of three parts His mistake which occasions this wondering humour is that he thought a Mediatory Kingdom and the Office of a King to be of equal extent and therefore that the Office of a King could not be contained under a Mediatory Kingdom as a part is contained in the whole Whereas every Puny in Divinity knows that a Mediatory Kingdom is of a larger extent than the meer Office of a King and contains the Prophetical and Priestly Offices under it Which is like another of his mistakes that because as he observes from Doctor Iackson and Doctor Hammond Christ was consecrated to his Priestly Office by his Sufferings and Death therefore he was not consecrated to his Mediatory Office as I assert by being anointed with the Holy Ghost and with Power as if Christ might not have a general Consecration to his Mediatory Office and a particular Consecration to the particular parts of it though Doctor Hammond only says That the Death of Christ was his Consecration to his Melchisedechi an Priesthood but was it self an act of his Aaronical Priesthood But I see the most innocent expressions shall not escape the severest Censures when we have to deal with men who can understand nothing which is out of their common road of phrases Mr. Ferguson draws up a very severe Charge against me upon this score as if I confounded the Offices of Christ and denied his Priesthood and his Expiation and Sacrifice and yet would have the World believe that if he had not been in a very good humour he could have handled me after another rate Truly what his humour is I cannot tell but I am sure that either his Understanding or his Conscience is not very good He takes a great deal of laudable pains to prove that the Offices of Prophet Priest and King though they be not separated in their Subject the Person of Christ yet they are in their Natures Objects Acts and Effects distinguished one from the other But do I any where deny this Because I say that they are several Parts and different Administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom does it hence follow that they are not several Parts and different Administrations That they do not differ in their Natures Acts and Effects As for instance the Paternal Government consists of very different parts as the Education of Children providing Food and Raiment for them correcting them when they do amiss and incouraging their Vertues placing them with prudent Masters and Governours and providing for their future subsistence and the like Now will any man say that there is no difference between feeding Children and correcting them and sending them to School and putting them out to serve an apprentiship to a Trade whereby they may get their Livings because all these do equally belong to a Fathers care and are contained under the general notion of Paternal Government Thus when we say that Christ is a Saviour or which is the same thing a Mediatory King and that the Offices of Prophet Priest and King are but the several Parts and different Administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom that is they are all essential to the Office of a Saviour and included in the notion of it and necessary to the same end the Salvation of Mankind can any man hence reasonably infer that they do not differ in their particular Natures Acts Objects and Effects But Mr. Ferguson proves that I make no difference between Christs Priestly and Kingly Office because I say that Christs offering himself a Sacrifice for Sin was an Act of Kingship But I say no such thing My words are these When he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin he acted like a King Now can our Author perceive no difference between these two expressions that Christs offering himself a Sacrifice for Sin was an Act of Kingship and When he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin he acted like a King The first signifies that the nature of his Sacrifice and Oblation consists in the exercise of a Regal Power which indeed confounds his Priestly and Kingly Offices the other only signifies that at the very same time and in that very Act when he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin he exercised the Power of a King too that is as I explained it that his Life was not taken from him by external force and power but his laying down his Life was an Act of Authority He had power to lay it down and he had power to take it again And I wonder Mr. Ferguson should think it any derogation from our Saviours Power and Authority that he adds This Command have I received from my Father for I would fain know of him what Authority and Power that is which Christ as Mediator has not received from his Father and does not exercise by his Command and in subordination to him A Mediatory Kingdom is a received and subordinate Power it is Obedience with respect to God and Authority and Power with respect to Men. And had this Author been so honest as to have considered what I immediately subjoyn he could not have suspected me of Socinianizing or of confounding the Priestly and Kingly Office viz. Herein Christ differs from other Kings that he laid the Foundation of his Kingdom in his own Blood that he purchas'd and redeem'd his Subjects with the Sacrifice of himself Such another mistake one may observe in our Author when he makes me to say That the Sacerdotal Office is only a part and different Administration of the Regal Whereas I never thought that the Sacerdotal Office was part of the Regal Office but that the Priestly and Kingly and Prophetical Offices were several Parts and different Administrations of the Mediatory Kingdom And when I affirm that they were several parts of the Mediatory Kingdom I had not so little wit in the same breath to affirm that they were parts of each other which is a down-right contradiction but I see our Author with all his Learning cannot distinguish between a Kingly Office and a Mediatory Kingdom In the like manner he arraigns me for a Socinian for asserting that Intercession signifies the Administration of Christs Mediatory Kingdom the Power of a Regal Priest to expiate and forgive sins Though either our Author is very ignorant or cannot but know that what I there assert has no affinity with the Socinian Notion for I expresly attribute the Virtue and Efficacy of his Intercession to the Expiation and Sacrifice of
Christ and to this I will stand Let us hear then what Mr. Ferguson has to object against it And first he can by no means understand how the Righteousness of Christs Life and Death can be the meritorious cause of Gods forgiving our sins and follies he should have said of that Covenant wherein God promises to forgive our sins upon certain Conditions for asmuch as according to what I express elsewhere his Essential Goodness obliged him to it The words which he cites to this purpose are these That the natural notions which men have of God assure them that he is very good and that it is not possible to understand what Goodness is without pardoning Grace Now I would know of Mr. Ferguson which of these three he will reject whether he will deny that the natural notion of a Deity includes infinite Goodness or that the notion of infinite Goodness includes Pardoning Grace when there is a just and honourable occasion for it or that the Merits of Christs Life and Death have purchas'd the Grace and Mercy of the Gospel If he believe all these he is as much concerned to answer this Objection as I am if he deny them he must either turn Atheist or Socinian But pray who told him that the Goodness of God did immediately oblige him to pardon Sinners or that the Goodness of God confers an antecedent title on Sinners to Grace and Pardon May not a good God consult the Reputation of his Holiness and of his Authority and Government and dispence his Pardons in such prudent Methods as his own Infinite Wisdom shall direct And may he not then require the intervention of a Sacrifice and of a very meritorious one too to purchase and seal his Pardon to Sincers The Essential Goodness of God only proves That he may pardon Sin without a Sacrifice but it does not prove that either he will or must The next Exception is very surprizing That because I elsewhere assert That the whole Mystery of the Recovery of Mankind consists only in repairing the Divine Image which was defaced by Sin that is in making all men truly good and vertuous c. He cannot imagine how the Covenant of Grace can be so much as necessary to the promising of Remession of Sins much less that the Death of Christ was needful to procure it to that end But pray why so Is not the Promise of Pardon purchas'd and sealed with the Blood of Christ absolutely necessary to encourage men to be good Does not the Gospel represent this to be the last and ultimate end of what Christ hath done and suffered to rescue Mankind from the Power of the Devil and Dominion of their Lusts and to renew them after the Image of God If Mr. Ferguson be ignorant in these matters I can direct him to a very good Book which will better instruct him But suppose he know no other end of Christs Death but to satisfie a natural vindictive inexorable Iustice yet if this must be done before any thing else can be done is it not absolutely necessary to the last and ultimate end which is to transform men into the Image of God and to bring them to the fruition of him For the satisfaction of Justice in what sense soever he pleases to understand it can only be a means in order to the Recovery of lost Man not the Recovery it self In the next place he tells us That it seems inconsistent 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 What force there may be in that phrase of introducing a perfect Righteousness I cannot tell but I can discover no inconsistency with the Wisdom of God to accept reward those who are sincerely but not perfectly righteous for the sake of one who is If God bestowed so many Blessings on the Posterity of Abraham for the sake of their Father who was not perfectly righteous I wonder our Author should think it any derogation to the Divine Wisdom to accept and reward our imperfect Obedience for the sake of the perfect Righteousness Obedience of Christ. Nay though we should suppose that God had sent Christ into the world upon no other design but to set a most perfect Example of Holiness Obedience to the Divine Will and to give a plain Demonstration how highly he is pleased with Obedience to his Laws should not only greatly reward him in his own Person but should promise for his sake to pardon and reward all those who imitate though imperfectly his Example which in our Authors Phrase is to introduce a perfect Righteousness meerly that he may justifie us upon an imperfect one this would be no greater blemish to the Wisdom of God than it is to chuse fit and proper ways of expressing his love to Holiness and encouraging the Obedience of his Creatures But our Author proceeds very Rhetorically Nor shall I â—â—gue how that the Righteousness of Christs Life and Sacrifice of his Death must be imputed to us for Iustification in proportion to our Sins having been imputed to him in order to his Expiatory Sufferings He may argue thus if he pleases and I shall perfectly agree with him in it Let us then consider how he manages this Argument Christs Sufferings must not be attributed meerly to Gods Dominion without any respect to Sin This I grant therefore our sins were imputed to him not only in the effects of them but in the guilt This I so far grant that the Sufferings of Christ had respect to the guilt of our Sins otherwise he could not have been a Sacrifice for Sin but whereas he adds That it is a thing utterly unintelligible I hope Mr. Ferguson thinks it never the less true for that how Christ could be made sin for us and have our punishment transferred to him without a previous imputation of sin and the derivation of its guilt upon him I am so far of another mind that I think it unintelligible how it should be so for besides that guilt cannot be transferred upon an innocent Person though punishment may I cannot understand how Christ should suffer for our sins if the guilt of our sins were transferred upon himself if he died for our sins it is plain that the guilt is accounted ours still though the punishment be transferred on him And this is essential to the nature of a Sacrifice that it dies not for it self but for another and therefore not for its own but for anothers guilt continuing anothers Christ was no Sinner in any sense but a Sacrifice for Sin which differ just as much as bearing the guilt and bearing the punishment of sin Were our sins transferred on Christ in Mr. Ferguson's way so that our sins become his and that he may be called a Sinner nay the greatest of Sinners the necessary consequence of this
it seems this Righteousness is not so properly Christs Righteousness as ours he had no need to fulfil all Righteousness for himself but for us as our Mediator and Surety So that here can be no comparison between the Righteousness of Christ inherent in him and imputed to us because it is not so much his Righteousness as ours But was not Christ personally righteous with this Righteousness Did he so fulfil Righteousness for us that he himself had no interest in it Can it be inherent in him and he not righteous by it And if Christ in his private capacity as a man subject to the Law were righteous with that very Righteousness which makes us righteous then we are righteous as Christ is and not only righteous with his Righteousness which he wrought for us and that completely but righteous with the very same Righteousness that makes him righteous which excludes indeed all comparison as the Doctor well observes because we cannot so properly compare a thing with it self but it demonstrates the Identity or Sameness of this Righteousness And here unless I will prove my self an arrant Coward I must accept that Challenge the Doctor has sent me to stand to that Resolution I gave in my former Discourse to that Question What Influence the Sacrifice of Christs Death and the Righteousness of his Life have upon our Acceptance with God Which signifies no more than what is meant by our being saved by the Merits and Righteousness of Christ and the Answer I gave to it is this That all I can find in Scripture about it is that to this we ow the Covenant of Grace that God being well pleased with the Obedience of Christs Life and with the Sacrifice of his Death for his sake entred into a new Covenant with Mankind wherein he promises Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life to those who believe and obey the Gospel Now I would desire the Doctor to take notice that I stand to this and accept his Challenge let him chuse what seconds or thirds or fourths he pleases This Assertion the Doctor says cannot be reconciled to common Sense or the fundamental Principles of Christian Religion And indeed he has discovered a great many Absurdities in it which are enough to put any man out of conceit with such a Doctrin for hence it follows if we will believe him for we have only his bare word for it That God entred into a new Covenant originally only for the sake of those things whereby that Covenant was ratified and confirmed But how does this follow Did I ever affirm that the Death of Christ did only ratifie and confirm the Covenant Do I not every where assert that Christs Death did procure and purchase as well as seal the Covenant of Grace And I hope God may be said to enter into Covenant for the sake of a meritorious Cause What he means by Gods originally entring into Covenant I cannot tell unless it be that this was the first moving cause of Gods entring into Covenant but this can not be attributed to the Death of Christ upon any account but to that free Grace which first contrived the way of our Recovery and sent Christ into the world to accomplish it But however does it not follow from this Assertion That Christ was so the Mediator of the new Covenant that he died not for the Redemption of Transgressions under the first Covenant whereby the whole Consideration of his Satisfaction and of Redemption properly so called is excluded that there is no consideration to be had of his Purchase of the Inheritance of Grace and Glory with many other things of the same importance I see unless the Doctor get a very good Second there is no great danger in accepting his Challenge for is there any appearance of consequence in this that because Christ by his Death purchased and sealed the new Covenant that therefore he did not die for the Redemption of sins under the first Covenant nor to purchase the Inheritance of Grace and Glory That which purchases a Covenant purchases every thing contained in it Now the new Covenant contains the Promise of Forgiveness of sin and therefore whatever sins are pardoned in the new Covenant were expiated by the Death of Christ without which there is no Remission and consequently could be no Promise of Remission The new Covenant contains the Promises of Grace and Glory and therefore Grace and Glory are as much the purchase of Christs Death as the new Covenant is The plain account of the matter is this That Christ hath expiated our sins by his meritorious Death and Sufferings and hath purchased the Pardon of sin and eternal Life and whatever Christ hath purchased by his Death God hath promised to bestow on us in the new Covenant So that the whole virtue of Christs Death is contained in the Covenant of Grace i. e. whatever he has purchased for us by his Death is there promised and we must expect no other benefit by the Death of Christ than to be saved according to the conditions of the new Covenant which signifies the same thing with being justified and saved by the Merits of Christ and convinces us of the necessity of inherent Holiness which is the condition of the Gospel Covenant The last Absurdity the Doctor has discovered in my Assertion argues him to be a man of a very deep reach That the Gospel or the Doctrin of the Gospel is the new Covenant which is only a perspicuous Declaration of it Now suppose this were never so great an Absurdity how am I concerned in it when I expresly say that the new Covenant let it be what it will is owing to the Merits and Righteousness of Christ Though it is a mighty subtil Distinction between the new Covenant and the perspicuous Declaration of it which is like distinguishing between a Law or Contract and the Words whereby it is expressed How easie is it for such nice Metaphysical Wits to find or make Absurdities in any thing But to proceed I observe thirdly that whereas our Church attributes our Justification to such a Faith as comprehends in its notion Repentance and the Love of God and all internal Graces and Virtues and a sincere purpose and resolution to reform our Lives and external Conversation and makes all this absolutely necessary to our Justification these men on the contrary attribute our Justification to a particular Act of Faith which they call a fiducial Reliance or Recumbency on Christ for Salvation abstracted from Repentance or the Love of God or any othe Grace or Virtue And this I confess is very agreeable to their notion of Justification by the Imputation of Christs personal Righteousness to us for if we are made righteous only by being clothed with the perfect Righteousness of Christ nothing more can be required of us in order to our Justification but to apply the Righteousness of Christ to our selves which they tell us is done by coming to Christ for
not argue any change in God but in the Object and when the Object is changed the immutability of his love is the reason why he loves no longer As for what the Doctor adds In the mean time such a love of God towards Believers as shall always effectually preserve them meet Objects of his love and approbation is not to be baffled by such trifling impertinencies Whether what I have discoursed be a trifling impertinency let others judge but when he makes it a necessary effect of an immutable love effectually to preserve such Persons meet Objects of love and approbation he grants all that I have contended for that the immutability of Gods love in it self considered is no argument that he will always love the same Persons unless they continue meet objects of his love for if the love of God be so immutable as always to love the same Person be he what he will then such a man is a meet Object of love while he continues the same Person whatever his qualities are and there is no more required to this than that God should uphold him in being But if besides his being such a particular Person on whom God hath fixt his love there be any other qualifications required to make him and preserve him a meet Object of love then the Doctor must acknowledge that Gods immutable love requires an Object which does not change one who persists and perseveres in the practice of an Universal Righteousness which is all I contend for the immutable love of God to good men under that notion as good For supposing any change in the Object God must either continue to love an unmeet Object or else cease to love And let him chuse which side he pleases if the first he attributes such an immutability to God as is inconsistent with wisdom and holiness and savours more of the stubbornness and impotency of humane Passions than of a Divine Love If the latter then he makes the Love of God as mutable and Subject to changes as I do And as for that love of God to Believers which always preserves them meet objects of his love the Doctor mightily mistakes me if he thinks I designed to oppose it I acknowledge the perseverance of Believers to be the effect of the Divine Grace as well as their believing at first but if he designs this for a description of Gods electing love which is the immutable cause both of faith and perseverance as it is plain he does I wonder why he calls it Gods love to believers for Election in the Doctors judgment considers no qualifications in Persons and what he calls Gods love is more properly Gods Decree to Love when the Person is a fit object for it And it is necessary to distinguish between an immutable Decree to make and preserve a fit object of love and the immutability of the Divine Love The first depends upon an immutable Counsel The second upon the persevering meetness and fitness of the object to be Beloved I have already given several other instances of this way of reasoning from an acquaintance with Christs Person from his being our Surety and Mediator our Head and Husband and the like and intended to have added many more but this is sufficient to satisfie any impartial Reader what I mean by an acquaintance with Christ's Person and how far the Doctor and his Friends may be charged with it and therefore at present I shall only briefly consider this way of reasoning and put a conclusion to this Argument Now I readily agree with Mr. Ferguson that in many cases it is not only justifiable but necessary to Reason from Revelation and I must needs say that the instances he gives of it are unanswerable but whether they may be called deductions and consequences from Revelation let others judge As the application of general Precepts Promises and Comminations to single Individuals and universal directions to particular cases The application of ancient Prophesies to their Events whereby the Apostles proved Christ to be that Messias who was to come And the testimony of Miracles for the proof of a Revelation which are the principal instances Mr. Ferguson gives as will appear to any one who consults those Texts of Scripture which he alleadges in this behalf But this is nothing to our present Dispute the question is whether we may deduce any new Doctrinal Conclusions which are neither expresly taught in Scripture nor can be found out by meer Principles of Reason from their supposed connexion with some thing which is revealed And I think thus much we may safely say that we can know no more of matters of pure Revelation than what is revealed whatever wholly depends upon the free and Soveraign Will of God can be known no other way but by Revelation as no man can know the secret thoughts and counsels of a man but those who learn them from himself and by the same reason that we can know nothing of these matters without a Revelation we can know no more neither than what is revealed which consideration alone is sufficient to overthrow this way of reasoning from an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ. This Argument I have managed at large in my former Discourse and know not what I should add to it here unless it be a more particular application of it to our present case As for instance we learn from Revelation that Christ died for our sins to make Atonement and Expiation for them and to procure pardon and forgiveness for all true Penitents but because Christ died for our sins it does not hence follow that there is such a natural Vindictive Iustice in God as would not suffer him to pardon sin without a full satisfaction for Christ's Death being the effect of Gods free Counsel we can know no more of the cause and reason and motive of it than he has revealed there may be several other reasons assigned on Gods part why he should send Christ into the world to save sinners besides a natural Vindictive Justice and the Scripture has assigned several other reasons of Christ's Death but has never assigned this And indeed unless we will assert that the Death of Christ did necessarily result from the nature of God and was not the effect of his free choise and counsel this reasoning must be false For I hope they will acknowledge God to be as necessarily good as he is just for there is no reason why goodness should be thought the free act of Gods Will and Counsel and Justice the necessity of his Nature and if so then supposing the fall of man which brought sin and misery into the world the Death of Christ was as absolutely necessary as that God should be good and just The goodness of God according to this way of reasoning made it necessary to redeem Mankind from that state of misery and the Justice of God made it necessary for him to punish sin This punishment must fall either upon the
Sinner himself or some other in his stead the Sinner cannot suffer the just desert of sin without being Eternally miserable and none else could expiate our sins but only the Son of God incarnate who by being Man was capable of suffering and by being God gave an infinite value to his sufferings answerable to the infinite demerit of sin So that if God be as necessarily Good as he is Just his Goodness did as necessarily determine him to provide a ransom for sinners as his Justice did to punish sin and there being no other possible way of doing this but by the Incarnation and Sufferings of his own Son the Death of Christ is as necessary an effect of the Justice and Goodness of the Divine Nature as Light is of the Sun Thus though Christ died for our sins yet we cannot meerly from the Death of Christ certainly conclude that he died for all or only for some that he died for us absolutely or conditionally for the extent and efficacy of Christ's Death as well as his Death it self depends upon the Will and Counsel of God and therefore cannot be known without a Revelation Christ fulfilled all Righteousness but we cannot hence conclude that he fulfilled all Righteousness for us and that we are accounted righteous for the sake of his perfect Righteousness imputed to us for he might fulfil Righteousness for a great many other reasons and this is the most unlikely reason of all The same may be said of those choice Conclusions from Christ's being our Head and Husband our Surety and Mediator our Physician and Shepherd and Rock and Life c. Whatever Conclusions we draw from these which are not revealed in the Scripture are at best very uncertain and lubricous because all these Revelations and Offices of our Saviour with their extent and vertue and manner of their execution depend upon the free Counsel of God and therefore can be known only by Revelation Indeed those who argue and reason from an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ seem to be aware of this and therefore they endeavour to reduce the whole Mystery of our Redemption by Christ to necessary causes that God could not do otherwise and that Mankind could not be saved in any other way which is enough to prejudice all wise men against the whole Systeme of their Divinity and yet they can take no other course to uphold their cause for if it be once supposed that this may be otherwise all their Arguments will be found weak and unconcluding Thus for instance if we suppose that God may forgive true Penitents without exacting satisfaction this destroys their Notion of a natural Vindictive Justice and their wild conceit about the nature of Christ's satisfaction which is built on it as if it were only to gratifie an inexorable revenge If it be supposed that God may forgive our sins and accept and reward our sincere though imperfect services for the sake of Christ's Death and Sufferings and Righteousness without accounting us perfectly innocent and perfectly righteous with the Righteousness of Christ if God may for Christ's sake dispense with the rigour and severity of the Law and accept of sincerity instead of perfection than all their Arguments for the necessity of imputation in their notion of it fall to the ground If Christ may be our Surety and Mediator and yet not be obliged to fulfil all Righteousness in our stead if Christ may fulfil all Righteousness and yet this Righteousness not be imputed to us if the antecedent necessity of Repentance and a new Life may be reconciled with the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ than to be sure it is not necessary it should be otherwise and then all their Arguments are weak and fallacious for if they do not conclude necessarily then the contrary may be true And is it not strange presumption for any men to say that there is no other possible way for God to save Sinners than what they have described in their ill-digested Systemes and yet all their Arguments from an acquaintance with Christ's Person proceed upon this and can never be made good without it For if they be not necessarily true they may be false And if they may be false they are no good foundation for our Faith We have an excellent instance of this in Mr. Ferguson's way of proving the Mystery of the Trinity from its necessary connexion with the Doctrine of Original Sin For the Mystery of the Trinity hath a necessary Connexion with the Work of our Redemption by the Incarnation of the Son of God and the Work of our Redemption by the Incarnation of an infinite Person hath the like Connexion with the necessity of satisfying Divine Iustice in order to dispensing of Pardon to repenting Offenders and the necessity of satisfying Iustice for the end aforesaid hath a necessary Connexion with the Doctrine of the corruption of Mankind and the corruption of Humane Nature is both fully confessed and may be demonstrated by reason And thus the Mystery of the Trinity is at last demonstrated by reason that is from the wickedness and degeneracy of Mankind And thus they reason in other cases they prove the necessity of a Vindictive Justice and the necessity of Satisfaction and the necessity of the Incarnation and Sufferings of the Son of God and the necessity of his fulfilling Righteousness and the necessity of Imputation nay a necessity of the Divine Decrees themselves For the Arguments which they commonly alleadge in these cases if they have any force in them must prove all this to be necessary and without this can prove nothing else When we discourse of the free Counsels and Purposes of the Divine Will we must learn from Revelation what God has done and what he will do not argue what he must do Or we may confirm our Faith by considering how fit and becoming it is and how agreeable to the Divine Nature and Perfections or at most may argue probably from some collateral Circumstances to prove the thing likely and probable an instance of which I gave at large in my former discourse but we must pretend to know no more of matters of pure Revelation than what is revealed unless we can either comprehend the infinite Methods of the Divine Wisdom or discover a necessity of Nature in God that he could do no other than what we fancy or can pretend to a Spirit of Prophesie and Revelation to discover those hidden Mysteries to us which are either concealed or obscurely hinted in the External Revelation of the Letter And indeed sometimes they talk at this rate as if every particular man must have an immediate Revelation from Christ to enable him to expound the External Revelation which is but a dead Letter without it and I know no other secure refuge they have but to take Sanctuary in Enthusiasms and pretended Inspirations CHAP. V. Concerning the Union of Believers to Christ and the imputation of Pelagianism IT is time
and stead of particular persons then those for whom he acted are absolved and justified by the undertaking or actual performance of Christ either from Eternity or from the first moment of their being I might add several other Consequences which necessarily result from this Doctrine and are the peculiar Principles of Antinomianism as that we must not pray for the forgiveness of sins because they are long since removed by the death of Christ but only for the sense of this forgiveness that God sees no sin in his people because their sins are laid on Christ and that therefore we must not lay sin upon our own Consciences neither unless we will make our Conscience a Christ But this is enough to shew how fruitful this Principle is of absurdities and what reason I have to reject our Union to the Person of Christ considered as one who hath done all for us in our name and stead And now I need not insist long on the second thing proposed viz. our immediate Union to the Person of Christ For though all Christians are in some sense immediately united to Christ as I have shewn above yet in the Antinomian sense of an immediate Union I do utterly reject it whereby they understand an Union to the Person of Christ without any intervening Conditions on our part And this they must necessarily do according to their notion of the Person of Christ. They explain this as I observed in my former Discourse by a Conjugal Relation and a Legal Union As for a Conjugal Relation which consists in such a Union of Persons as is between a Man and his Wife which intitles us to all the personal excellencies and perfections Beauty Comeliness Riches and Righteousness of Christ as Marriage intitles a Woman to her Husbands Estate and secures us from the Wrath of God and the Accusations of the Law as a woman under Covert is not liable to any Action or Arrest I perceive Mr. Ferguson gives it over as indefensible for among all the sorts of Unions which he reckons up he takes no notice of this which is the most charming and inviting Union and most acceptable to the Sisterhood the best Friends to Conventicles of any other But I suppose Mr. Vincent will not give it over so and therefore I observe that this must be an immediate Union which requires nothing else but an embracing and clasping Faith which unites their persons to each other This Faith is no condition of Union but only such a consent to have Christ as is necessary to make the Match or rather like joyning hands which is the Ceremony of Marriage Though indeed the Marriage was made before as they say all Marriages are in Heaven Eternal Election marries them to Christ and this consenting Faith gives them only a comfortable sense of their Matrimonial Union as will appear by considering the nature of Legal Union whereby we are united to Christ as to our Surety and Mediator who does all for us in our name and stead Now it is a plain demonstration that this Union to Christ as to our Surety and Mediator is immediate for it is entirely Gods act in electing some particular persons and giving them to Christ to do all for them in their name and stead And therefore Dr. Crisp truly argues that it is God and only God that can lay our sins upon Christ that our Repentance and Faith and new Obedience cannot do it For this work of laying sin on Christ in making him our Surety to do all for us was done long since and is not to be done now Christ hath already died for all that he will die for and if he did not die for us nothing that we can do now can lay our sins upon him For as the Doctor reasons if we could a fresh by our Repentance and Faith lay our sins on Christ as our Surety how should he get rid of them again For there is no getting rid of sin but by dying for it and Christ hath already done that and is not to die again If Christ's Suretiship consists in his dying and performing all righteousness for particular persons elected and chosen by God our Union to Christ as to our Surety must be from Eternity or at least from the time of his appearing in the world for if he did not act as our Surety then he cannot do so since unless we should suppose that he must come into the world again to act over the same part in the name and stead of those who were left out of the first Roll of Election and therefore I do not wonder that these men are so much blundered and talk backward and forward in those directions they give to their hearers how to get into Christ for the truth is if we are not in Christ already there is no getting into Christ now according to their Principles Election alone and Gods giving us to Christ unites us to him not any act of our own neither Faith Repentance or new Obedience these at best can only give us a comfortable sense of our Union to Christ but can contribute nothing at all to our Union it self And therefore Dr. Owen does roundly acknowledge that Christ is reckoned to us in order of nature before we believe and by Gods reckoning Christ to us he means the imputing of Christ unto ungodly unbelieving sinners for whom he died so far as to account him theirs to bestow Faith and Grace upon them for his sake And if God reckon Christ to men before Faith he must reckon him theirs from the time of his giving them to Christ for there can be no other reason of his reckoning Christ to them at all And to shew how free and absolute this gift of Christ is he tells us That there is no condition at all in this stipulation That God should engage upon the death of Christ to make out Grace and Glory Liberty and Beauty unto those for whom he died upon condition they do so or so leaves no proper place for the merit of Christ and is very improperly ascribed unto God And therefore though the Covenant of Grace seem to run conditionally that if we repent and believe we shall be saved yet the Covenant is indeed absolute because these very conditions are part of Christ's Purchase and are promised without any condition and though God will bring us to Heaven in such a way and method as he has thought fit to prescribe to himself for the Glory of the Trinity yet all this in all the parts of it is no less fully procured for us nor less freely bestowed on us for Christ's sake and on his account as part of his Purchase and Merits than if all of us immediately upon his death had been translated into heaven From all this it appears what they mean by an immediate Union to the Person of Christ such an Union to Christ as our Mediator and Surety as is founded only on Electing Grace without any