Faith and Manners The Authority of Testimony is proper only to those Ages which immediately succeeded the Apostles for it may reasonably be presumed that those Persons who convers'd with the Apostles themselves or convers'd with those who convers'd with the Apostles who understood the Phrase and Dialect of that Age and those particular Controversies and Disputes which were then on foot may be able to give us a better account of the traditionary sense of Scripture and of the practice of the Apostles than those who lived in after-Ages and upon this account the Writings of those who lived in the first Centuries have always had a just Esteem and Authority in the Christian Church but still the more Ancient they are the greater is their Authority and the farther they are removed from the Fountain of Tradition so their Authority lessens The Authority of Discipline and Order is that Authority which every particular Church has over her own Members or which the Universal Church represented in General Councils has over particular Churches For while we live in Communion with any Church we oblige our selves to submit to its Government and at least so far to receive those Doctrines which she owns as not to disturb Publick Peace and Order by our Private Disputes But in all other cases he has the greatest Authority who has the best Reason and it is a childish thing to urge the bare Authority of any Man or Church when it hath neither Scripture nor Reason to support it So that I do not urge the consent of these Reformed Churches upon account of any inherent Authority but to make it appear how vainly Mr. Ferguson brags when he charges me with opposing the received Doctrines of Protestant Churches For indeed those Doctrines which I oppose are meer Novelties and were never publickly owned by any Reformed Church and never had any greater Authority than what an Assembly of Divines and an Ordinance of Parliament could give them He who understands what notion the first Reformers had of justifying Faith that it is fiducia misericordia propter Christum a firm and stedfast belief and hope that they should find mercy with God for Christs sake can never imagine that they once dreamt of such an Imputation of Christs Righteousness to them as should make them stand in no need of Mercy or of such a Iustification as is the Off-spring of Iustice and imports one transacting with us in a Iuridical way without the infringement of Law or Equity in opposition to Pardon and Remission which is the result of Mercy and the act of one exercising favour which is Mr. Ferguson's Account of it in his own words But thirdly As this Notion of Imputation has no Foundation in Scripture as I abundantly proved in my former Discourse of which our Author takes no notice and it was very wisely done of him for I am sure he cannot answer it so it overthrows the principal Doctrines of the Gospel and contradicts its main design I shall briefly name some few First Justification by a perfect Righteousness is inconsistent with pardon and forgiveness Mr. Ferguson acknowledges That to justifie and to pardon are wholly distinct in their Natures and Ideas and always separated in the cases of such as are arraigned at humane Tribunals and that thus it is in the actings of God too Now I wonder he did not consider that by the same reason the same subject is not capable of both He who is universally justified in our Authors notion that is who is acquitted and absolved in a Juridical way i. e. as perfectly innocent and righteous needs no pardon nor is he capable of it because he has no sins to be pardon'd and he who is pardon'd cannot be justified in this sense because Pardon supposes him a Sinner and Justification supposes him innocent which hath some little appearance of a Contradiction So that the Gospel-way of Justification which is by Pardon and Forgiveness is quite discarded and we are justified by a legal Righteousness or by the Works of the Law that is by a perfect and unsinning Obedience though the Apostle tells us That by the Works of the Law no flesh shall be justified for though this perfect Righteousness whereby we are justified be not our own but the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us yet it is the Works of the Law still which is an express Contradiction to the Apostles Doctrine And I wonder what our Author thinks of all those Promises of Pardon which are contained in the Gospel and which are the greatest support and comfort of Sinners when it is impossible to find any place for them in his New-Gospel Secondly This notion of Justification overthrows the Necessity and Merit of Christs Death and Sacrifice the vertue of a Sacrifice consists in the expiation and forgiveness of sin but now if Justification excludes Pardon there is no need of a Sacrifice if nothing will satisfie the demands of the Law but a perfect and unsinning Obedience then there can be no Sacrifice for sin or at best it is to no purpose for it cannot satisfie the Law and therefore not expiate our sin and if Christ have satisfied the Law by his perfect Obedience there is no reason why he should suffer the penalty for no Law can oblige us both to obey it perfectly and to endure the Penalties for the breach of it though we do perfectly obey it So that if Christ died for our sins and if remission of sins must be preached in his name then we are not perfectly righteous by the imputation of his Righteousness but must obtain the pardon of our sins through Faith in his Blood Thirdly This notion of Justification destroys the Grace and Mercy of God in the Justification of a Sinner This Mr. Ferguson expresly owns That Pardon indeed if there could be any such thing is the result of Mercy but Iustification is the Off-spring of Iustice and imports Gods transacting with us in a Iuridical way without the infringement of Law or Equity And I know not any assertion which more expresly destroys the Grace of the Gospel Whereas St. Paul attributes our Justification as well as Pardon to the Grace of God We are justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Iesus Nor will it relieve him to say that our Justification is an Act of Grace because though we are justified in a proper Law-notion by a perfect Righteousness yet this Righteousness is not inherent but imputed which is an act of Grace for besides that this implies a contradiction to be justified in a proper Law-sense by an imputed that is an improper Righteousness and that God proceeds in a Iuridical way without the infringement of Law and yet admits of such a Righteousness as not the Law but only Grace can accept I say besides this we may for the very same Reason say that Pardon is an act of Justice because it is purchas'd by the Death of Christ.
that Homily which seem to favour that notion of our Justification by the Imputation of Christs Personal Righteousness though that phrase of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness is nowhere used throughout the whole Homily but if we will take that Explication which the Homily it self gives of them it will evidently appear that there was no such thing intended by them I shall produce these expressions in their proper places and in the management of this Argument shall First explain the sense of our Church concerning the Doctrine of Justification out of the Homilies of Salvation Faith Good Works and Repentance And Secondly Show you how the state of the Controversie is altered at this day and what a just reason this is for a more particular explication of those Expressions which occasioned the corruption of the wholsom Doctrine of our Church First I shall enquire what is the true sense of the Church of England concerning the Doctrine of Justification And first I observe that our Church places the nature and essence of Justification in the forgiveness of sins This is evident from the very first words of the Homily Because all men be Sinners and Offenders against God and Breakers of his Law Commandments therefore can no man by his own Acts Words and Deeds seem they never so good be justified and made righteous before God but every man of necessity is constrained to seek for another Righteousness or Iustification to be received at Gods own hands that is to say the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in such things as he hath offended And this Iustification or Righteousness the forgiveness of sins which we so receive of Gods Mercy and Christs Merits embraced by Faith is taken accepted and allowed of God for our perfect and full Iustification So that our full and perfect Justification consists in the forgiveness of our sins whereby God over-looking what we have done amiss deals with us as with Righteous Persons that is bestows Eternal Life on us The Homily takes notice of two ways of Justification The first is by our own Works when we live so innocently and vertuously as to be acquitted and absolved by God according to the strict Rules of Law and Justice But in this way no Sinner can be justified for the Law justifies no man who is a Transgressor of the Law and therefore since we are all Sinners and can neither expiate our past sins nor perfectly keep the Law for the future it is impossible that we should be justified by our own Acts and Deeds It remains therefore that no Sinner can be justified or accounted Just and Righteous before God without the pardon and forgiveness of his Sins this is the Justification and Righteousness of a Sinner that God forgives his wilful sins and covers all the defects of his good Actions for when the sin is pardoned and covered the man is innocent and righteous Now this Account I am sure cannot please Dr. Owen and his Friends who look upon the forgiveness of sin but as one part of our Justification and that the most inconsiderable too which only makes us innocent and delivers us from the condemnation of the Law but cannot entitle us to future Happiness besides Innocency as they tell us there is required a perfect Righteousness the first is owing to the Death of Christ which expiates our sins the second to the Imputation of Christs perfect Righteousness to us which makes us perfectly just and righteous this is a down-right contradiction to the Doctrine of our Church which teaches us that God accepts and allows of this forgiveness of sin for our full and perfect Iustification And indeed forgiveness of sins is a true Evangelical way of Justification in opposition to a Legal Justification which consists in perfect and unsinning Obedience the first our Church requires but the Doctor and his Friends exact the latter a perfect Righteousness of Works for as the Doctor observes Life is not to be obtained unless all be done that the Law requires that is still true If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments they must be kept by us or by our Surety All the difference the Doctor knows between the Law and the Gospel is only this that the Law required a perfect Righteousness from every man in his own Person the Gospel accepts of a perfect Righteousness in the Person of our Mediator but still we are justified by a Legal not Evangelical Righteousness that is by a Righteousness of Works not by pardon and forgiveness And it has been before observed by some learned men that to place our Justification in the forgiveness of our sins as our Church doth and in the Imputation of Christs Personal Righteousness to us as others do are not very consistent For by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us we are Legally Righteous or have a perfect Righteousness of Works and Forgiveness of sins and a perfect Righteousness destroy each other for if we are perfectly Righteous whether in our own Persons or by Imputation we need no Forgiveness and if we need Forgiveness it is plain that God does not so much as impute a perfect Righteousness to us So that when our Church places the whole nature of our Justification in the Forgiveness of sins it is a good Argument that she never thought of a Legal Righteousness of Works of the Imputation of Christs perfect Righteousness and Obedience to make us righteous before God But for a fuller Explication of this Doctrine of Justification we are taught in that Homily that there are especially three things which must go together in our Iustification upon Gods part his great Mercy and Grace upon Christs part Iustice that is the Satisfaction of Gods Iustice or the price of our Redemption by the offering of his Body and sheddidg his Blood with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly and upon our part true and lively Faith in the Merits of Iesus Christ which yet is not ours but by Gods working in us This is a much more intelligible way of explaining the Doctrine of Justification than by the Material Formal Efficient Instrumental Causes and such-like terms of Art which need more explication than the Doctrine it self and therefore I shall follow this method and reduce the Doctrine of the Homilies under these three Heads What is Gods part what is Christs part and what is required on Mans part in the business of Justification First Let us consider what is Gods part in the Justification of a Sinner and that is the Mercy and Grace of God which expresses it self first in providing a Ransom for us as it is expressed in the Homily That our Iustification doth come freely by the meer Mercy of God and of so great and free mercy that whereas all the World was not able of themselves to pay any part towards their Ransom it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy without any our Desert or Deserving to prepare for us the
most precious Iewels of Christs Body and Blood whereby our Ransome might be fully paid the Law fulfilled and his Iustice satisfied There is no Controversie between us about this matter that it was an expression of the undeserved Goodness of God to send Christ into the World to save Sinners And secondly The Mercy of God is seen in the very Act of Justifying us in accepting this Atonement and in forgiving our sins Thus we are informed in the second part of that Sermon of Salvation Justification is not the Office of Man but of God for Man cannot make himself righteous by his own Works neither in part nor in the whole for that were the greatest arrogancy and presumption of Man that Antichrist could set up against God to affirm that a man might by his own Works take away and purge his own Sins and so Justifie himself But Justification is the Office of God only and is not a thing which we render to him but which we receive of him not which we give to him but which we take of him by his free Mercy and by the only Merits of his most dearly beloved Son our only Redeemer Saviour and Justifier Jesus Christ. Bywhich words it is very plain what is understood by Justification being Gods Act and not Mans that is that it is an Act of Favour and Grace not of Merit and Desert Though God may be said to Justifie an Innocent Man when he pronounces him Just and Righteous according to Law which is the proper office of a Judge i. e. to acquit an Innocent Man when he is arraigned yet in this case an Innocent Man may be said to Justifie himself because he is Justified by his own Actions and God only like a Just and Righteous Judge pronounces the Sentence of Justification that is acquits and absolves him as his actions deserve which strict Justice requires But in the Justification of a Sinner who dares not stand the trial of strict Justice but appeals to the Grace and Mercy of God Justification is properly Gods Act and not Mans is owing to the Divine Grace and Mercy not to Mans Merit and Desert Upon the same account we are told in the same place that not our own Act to believe in Christ or that this our Faith in Christ which is within us doth not justifie us for that were to count our selves to be justified by some Act or Vertue that is within our selves Which I confess sounds very like what some men say That Faith doth not justifie us as our own Act but as it apprehends the Righteousness of Christ and applies it to us by which Righteousness thus apprehended by Faith we are justified but there is nothing less meant in this place as will appear from considering the whole Sentence which is this So that the true understanding of this Doctrine We be justified freely by Faith without Works or that we be justified by Faith in Christ only is not that this our own Act to believe in Christ or this our Faith in Christ which is within us doth justifie us and deserve our Justification unto us for that were to count our selves to be justified by some Act or Vertue that is within our selves but the true understanding and meaning thereof is that although we hear Gods Word and believe it and do never so many Works thereunto yet we must renounce the Merit of all our said Vertues of Faith Hope Charity and all other Vertues and good Deeds which we have done shall do or can do as things that be far too weak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve Remission of our Sins and our Justification and therefore we must trust only in Gods Mercy and that Sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Christ Jesus the Son of God once offered for us upon the Cross to obtain thereby Gods Grace and Remission as well of Original Sin in Baptism as of all Actual Sin committed by us after Baptism if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to him again The meaning of which is plain that we are not justified by Faith as our own act as we are not justified by Hope and Charity as our own acts that is that they cannot merit our Justification or the Forgiveness of our sins When we have done the best we can we must still fly to the Mercy of God through the Merits of our Lord Jesus Christ that distinction of Faiths justifying not as our own Act but as it apprehends the Righteousness of Christ and cloaths us with the perfect Robes of his Righteousness for which God accounts us perfectly Righteous is of a later date than these Homilies and very inconsistent with the Doctrine contained in them Thus you see what Gods part is in the Justification of a Sinner viz. To provide a Ransom and to forgive sins in vertue of that Ransom that is to justifie those who according to the strictness and rigor of the Law are not Just and Righteous Persons Thus to conclude this in the words of the Homily You have heard the Office of God in our Iustification and how we receive it of him freely by his Mercy without our Deserts Let us now consider what is Christs part in our Justification and that is expressed by Iustice that is the satisfaction of Iustice or the Price of our Redemption by the offering of his Body and shedding of his Blood with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly The plain meaning of which is that we are justified for the sake of Christs Merits that his Obedience in doing and suffering the Will of God in dying for our sins and in fulfilling the Law is the meritorious cause of our Justification that is did deserve at Gods hands that for Christs sake he should pardon all humble penitent and believing Sinners This is all the Imputation of Christs Righteousness which our Church acknowledges that the Righteousness of Christ is the meritorious Cause of our Justification Thus we are told That Infants being baptized and dying in their Infancy are by this Sacrifice washed from their sins brought to Gods favour and made his Children and Inheritors of his Kingdom of Heaven And they which in act or deed do sin after their Baptism when they turn again to God unfeignedly they are likewise washed by this Sacrifice from their sins in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be imputed to their damnation Which is to the same sense with that of St. Iohn that if we walk in the light as he is in the light if we are holy as God is we have fellowship one with another and the Blood of Iesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin 1 Iohn i. 7. And to this sense our Church expounds those Texts Rom. iii. All have offended and have need of the Glory of God but are justified freely by his Grace by Redemption which is in Iesus Christ whom God hath set forth to us for a Reconciler and Peace-maker through
would be a greater blemish to the VVisdom and Justice of God than the necessity of Holiness to our Justification can be to the freeness of his Grace Having explained in what sense our Church rejects Good VVorks from the Office of Justifying viz. That nothing which we can do is so perfect as to merit and deserve Justification it is time to consider what our Church attributes to Faith in the Justification of a Sinner and upon what account she affirms That Faith only justifies And I cannot better explain this than in the words of the Homily it self which are these Truth it is that our own Works do not justifie us to speak properly of Iustification that is to say our Works do not merit or deserve remission of our sins and make us of unjust just before God But God of his own Mercy through the only Merits Deservings of his Son Iesus Christ doth justifie us Nevertheless because Faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins and that by Faith given us of God we embrace the Promise of Gods Mercy and of the remission of our sins which thing none other of our Vertues or Works properly doth therefore Scripture useth to say That Faith without VVorks doth justifie and forasmuch that it is all one Sentence in effect to say Faith without Works and only Faith doth justifie us therefore the old ancient Fathers of the Church from time to time have uttered our Iustification with this speech Only Faith justifieth us meaning none other thing than St. Paul meant when he said Faith without works justifieth us And because all this is brought to pass through the only Merits and Deservings of our Saviour Christ and not through our Merits or through the merit of any Vertue that we have within us or of any Work that cometh from us therefore in that respect of Merit and Deserving we forsake as it were altogether again Faith Works and all other Vertues For our own imperfection is so great through the corruption of original sin that all is unperfect that is within 〈◊〉 Faith Charity Hope Dread Thoughts Words and Works and therefore not apt to merit or deserve any part of our Iustification for us And this form of speaking use we in humbling of our selves to God and to give all the Glory to our Saviour Christ which is best worthy to have it These words are so plain that they need no comment and there are three things contained in them which do evidently declare the sense of our Church in this matter First That our Church does not attribute our Justification to Faith upon account of any Merit or Desert in Faith above other Vertues and Graces for in respect of Merit and Deserving we are taught to forsake again Faith it self as well as Works and all other Vertues As our Works do not merit or deserve remission of our sins no more does Faith Secondly That the reason why our Church attributes our Justification to Faith only is to declare that we owe our Justification wholly to the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ That God of his own Mercy through the only Merits and Deservings of his Son Iesus Christ doth justifie us And thus immediately before we are told That the meaning of this Proposition or saying We be justified by Faith in Christ only according to the meaning of the old ancient Authors is this we put our Faith in Christ that we be justified by him only that we be justified by Gods free Mercy and the Merits of our Saviour Christ only and by no vertue or good VVorks of our own that is in us or that we can be able to have or to do for to deserve the same Christ himself only being the Cause meritorious thereof So that whoever attributes the Justification of a Sinner wholly to the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ without any other intervening Merit or Desert though he may differ in the phrase and manner of expression yet does acknowledge all that our Church means by being justified by Faith only and cannot justly be charged with deserting or opposing the Doctrin of our Church And therefore Thirdly the true Reason why our Church attributes our Justification to Faith only and not to Justice or Charity or the Love of God or any other Grace or Virtue is this because Faith only connects the necessity of Obedience and a Holy Life with the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ and thereby both secures and enforces our Duty and attributes the glory of all to Free Grace which is the great design of our Church For Justifying Faith according to the sense of our Church as abundantly appears from what I have discoursed above includes in its own nature Repentance and the Love of God and the sincere purposes of a new Life which as opportunity serves must actually produce all the Fruits of Righteousness for without this we cannot embrace the Promise of Pardon and Forgiveness which is made upon the condition of Repentance and a new Life But then it is the proper office of Faith when we have done our best to depend upon the Mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ to pardon our many sins and defects and to accept and reward our imperfect services which attributes the glory of all not to our Merits and Deserts but to the Grace and Mercy of God Thus our Church tells us that the reason why Faith only is said to justifie is because Faith doth directly send us to Christ for Remission of our Sins and that by Faith given us of God we embrace the Promise of Gods Mercy and of the Remission of our Sins which thing none other of our Virtues or Works properly doth That is Justice or Charity or any other Virtue doth not in its own nature include a dependence on the Grace and Mercy of God for its Acceptance and Reward and therefore should we be justified by these Virtues considered as distinct from Faith which alone embraces the Promise of Mercy we must be justified by their proper Merit and Desert not by the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ. But now Faith is not only an active and vigorous Principle of a new Life but in its own nature includes a necessary dependence on the Promise of Pardon it sends to Christ for the Remission of our sins not immediately for this is not the first act of Faith but when we have done our best it teaches us to renounce the Merit of our own Works and to trust in the Mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ for our Pardon and Reward which ascribes the Praise of all to the Mercy of God Upon the same account our Church tells us that Faith doth not shut out Repentance Love Dread and the Fear of God to be joyned with Faith in every man that is justified but yet it shutteth them out from the office of Iustifying so that though they be all present in
Does it not as much belong to a supreme and unaccountable Judge to pardon as to absolve And is not Pardon as properly opposed to Condemnation as Absolution is But to let all this pass it is worth considering how our Author in his way can explain Justification in a proper sense He tells us that the proper notion of Justification is to acquit and absolve the Innocent suppose this to be true though it may admit of some dispute whether this forensick use of the word be its proper sense I would willingly learn of our Author how a Sinner can be justified in this proper sense that is how he who hath broken the Laws of God can be acquitted and absolved as innocent how God who cannot lie can declare that that man hath never broken his Laws nor done any thing amiss who is a Sinner Yes says our Author this may be done very well by the imputation of the perfect Righteousness of Christ to Sinners which makes them perfectly innocent suppose this to be true yet is this the proper notion of Justification that a Sinner is innocent and righteous by Imputation Is there no difference then between an imputed and an inherent and personal Righteousness Justification in a proper sense requires a Personal Righteousness and Innocency and I doubt it will require some good lusty tropes to make an imputed Righteousness the matter of our Justification in this Law-notion So that for ought I can see the imputation of Righteousness in his gross notion is as metaphorical a Justification as the Pardon of sin though not half so good sense But I have not thus done with our Author There are three things more which I would desire him to consider at his leisure and to answer when he is able The first is this That Pardon of Sin whether it be a proper or metaphorical Justification is the true Scripture-notion of the Justification of a Sinner Justification indeed in its full extent and latitude signifies the acceptation of our Persons and the restoring us to a state of Grace and Favour with God which is somewhat more than bare Remission but the first Act of Justification on Gods part and that which draws all the rest after it is the Pardon of our Sins this is a Sinners Righteousness wherewith he must appear before God This is the Commission which Christ gave to his Disciples To preach Remission of Sins in his Name this is the great Priviledge of the Gospel that now by Christ all that believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses Act. xiii 39. That is that now Christ hath made a tonement and expiation for those sins for which the Law of Moses did appoint no Sacrifice Where to be justified signifies to be delivered from the guilt and condemnation of Sin that is to be pardoned But not to heap up many Testimonies I shall principally insist on the Fourth Chapter to the Romans as being the proper Seat of this Controversie There St. Paul enquires by what means our Father Abraham was justified before God And in answer to it he tells us that Abraham was not justified by Works but by Faith Where by Works the Apostle does not mean only the Works of the Mosaical Law an External and Ceremonial Righteousness for he proceeds to that in the tenth verse but he seems principally to intend a perfect and unsinning Righteousness Let us then examine what the Apostle means by Justification by Faith what this Righteousness of Faith is as it is opposed to a Righteousness of Works and there are four expressions whereby this Righteousness is described which signifie one and the same thing That it is an imputed Righteousness vers 3 6. that it is a Righteousness without Works that it is a Justification of the ungodly vers 5. that it consists in the Pardon of Sin vers 7 8. I shall begin with the last because this is Mr. Ferguson's grand Charge against me That I place Iustification in the forgiveness of Sin but so does our Apostle and alledges the Authority of the Prophet David for it Even as David also deseribeth the blessedness of that man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without Works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin vers 6 7 8. This is the Justification of Faith in opposition to Justification by Works that those who heartily believe in God as Abraham did though they have been formerly guilty of many sins and are still subject to many infirmities and defects yet God for Christs sake will forgive their past sins and their present imperfections and will reward them above the Deserts and Merits of their Works A Righteousness of Works consists in Innocency and Perfection but a Righteousness of Faith in Sincerity and Pardon Upon this account it is called an imputed Righteousness Faith was accounted and reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness and blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness Which signifies that this is matter of Grace not of Debt for to him that worketh is the reward reckoned not of Grace but of Debt When a man is justified by Works he is absolved because he is innocent and rewarded because he hath merited a Reward which is the Justification for which Mr. Ferguson pleads in a direct opposition to St. Paul but Justification by Faith requires the favour and acceptance of God because though it includes an honest and sincere mind and a readiness to do our best to please God yet it is consistent with a great many infirmities and miscarriages and defects which cannot pass the trial of strict Justice and this is imputed Righteousness when God accepts of that for our Righteousness and Justification which in a strict sense is not Righteousness Whatever is imputed to us for Righteousness must be good but imperfect If it be not good it is no part of Righteousness and therefore cannot be imputed instead of the whole and if it be perfect there is no need of this gracious acceptation it is then a strict and proper not an imputed Righteousness Upon the same account it is called a Righteousness without Works vers 6. Which must not be understood in such a loose sense as if God would justifie a man who does nothing which is good as if he would account that man righteous who does no Righteousness which is expresly contrary to the Doctrine of St. Iohn 1 Epist. iii. 7. But the meaning is either that God sometimes accepts of great and generous Acts of Faith instead of Works when there is no occasion or opportunity of Action which was the case of Abraham when he believed in hope against hope that he should have a Son in his old Age to which the Apostle principally refers in the 5th verse when he tells us That to him that worketh not but believeth his Faith is counted for Righteousness Or
And therefore if our Author would make good his notion he must shew how Pardon is more an act of Grace than Justification and how Justification is more the Off-spring of Justice than Pardon and if he dare stand to this notion there needs not many words to prove that he overthrows the whole Grace of the Gospel Fourthly There is another very ill consequence of this notion that it destroys the necessity of an inherent Righteousness or of a good Life For what necessity can there be that we should have a Righteousness of our own when we are perfectly righteous with the imputed Righteousness of Christ The Law demands a perfect and unsinning Righteousness and it is impossible it should demand any more we answer this Charge by the perfect Righteousness of Christ and when this is done we are innocent and righteous and have a title to the Rewards of a perfect Obedience and what can be desired more from us Mr. Ferguson indeed supposes that the Law requires a perfect Obedience and that the Gospel over and above this requires Faith and a sincere Obedience and that Christ was our Substitute to make Satisfaction to the Demands of the Law and not of the Gospel And that by his Death he hath only freed us from what we were obnoxious to upon failure of perfect Obedience but not at all from what we are liable to in case of Unbelief and want of sincere Obedience Now though this be true in some sense that is that Christ by his Death hath expiated our sins and thereby delivered us from the condemnation of the Law upon the failure of perfect Obedience and hath sealed the Covenant of Grace in his Blood which accepts and rewards a sincere though imperfect Obedience yet as it is applied by him it is down-right non-sense for if we perfectly answer the Demands of the Law by the imputation of Christs perfect Righteousness there is no need of the Gospel nor any place for it Perfection includes Sincerity as the greater includes the less and therefore if the Righteousness of Christ answers the Demands of the Law as to a perfect Obedience it shuts out any farther Demands of the Gospel He who is perfectly righteous is sincere too and he who can answer the Demands of Justice needs not the allowances of Grace and Mercy So that the Imputation of Christs perfect Righteousness does supercede our own Endeavours and makes our own Righteousness needless for this Reason I charged them before and do so still with setting up the Person of Christ in opposition to his Laws and Religion with magnifying his Personal Righteousness so as to evacuate all the Obligations of Duty And now methinks I can deal with any thing in Mr. Ferguson but his Brow and Confidence who is of the true breed and can stare the Sun in the face without blinking for after all this he declares That let me but once justifie my Charge of their making the Personal Righteousness of Christ our Personal Righteousness or that they maintain Christ to have fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead he does assure me that he will not only be ready to allow my severest Reproofs but to commend and second them Now unless by Personal he means inherent nothing in the World can be more plain then that he himself makes Christs Personal Righteousness our Personal Righteousness for we are Personally Righteous with the Righteousness of Christ and answer all the Demands of the Law with it and then I conceive it must be a Personal Righteousness not by inhesion indeed with which I never charged them but by imputation And as for Christs fulfilling Righteousness in our stead unless he has some secret quirk in that phrase our stead Doctor Owen does not only profess this but endeavours to prove it by several Arguments that Christ did not keep the Law for himself but for us and that not for our good only but that we might be righteous with his Righteousness and fulfil the Law in him He keeps the Law as our Mediator and Surety and Representative and I think that is so for us as to be in our stead this I have discours'd at large in my former Book and thither I shall refer my Reader Having thus justified my self in a proper Law-notion from the Accusations of this Author I shall farther consider how he justifies his dear Friends the Nonconformists from that Charge of toying with Scripture-Metaphors and Phrases and turning them into Burlesque And truly he is the most wretched Apologist that ever I saw sometimes he acknowledges the Charge with respect to particular Persons who through ignorance inadvertency or wantonness prevaricate in this matter but would not have the whole Party which was never done by me traduced for the folly of a few but if we should enquire how few those are who thus prevaricate in this matter and judge of it by their late Writings I doubt it would appear by computation that they never had so many Prevaricators at Cambridge since the first Institution of that Order and then let any one judge how well this agrees with what he asserts in the same breath that he knows none more observant of these Rules which he had before laid down in the sensing and applying of Metaphors than those who are stiled Nonconformists which proves nothing but that he has very little good Acquaintance But indeed Mr. Ferguson has taken the best course he could I had shewed in particular instances how they had abused Scripture-Phrases and Metaphors but he did not think fit to descend to particulars but instead of that collects a great many good Rules out of Glassius and Vossius and tells us how they ought to expound and use Metaphors and then without any farther proof concludes that they do so Whereas should we suppose that all the Nonconformists understood the Rules of Rhetorick as well as our Author though I fear many of them never read so much Rhetorick in their Lives before and I wish reading this may do them some good yet it is a very different Art to understand the Rules of Rhetorick to practise them whether they have any Skill in the first or no I know not but I am sure if they have they are as saving of it as ever men were as if they were afraid it would waste by too common a use Just after the same manner he vindicates the Nonconformists from those Aspersions lately cast upon them as if they were Defamers of Reason disclaiming it from all Concern in Religion c. To wipe off this Reproach which was not cast upon them but which they brought upon themselves by their perpetual Declamations against Reason our Author writes a large Chapter to shew the Use of Reason in Matters of Religion and this must pass for a Justification of the Nonconformists and now they will be thought the only Rational Divines Whereas in truth had he managed this Argument with as much accuracy as
faith in his Blood to shew his Righteousness And in the Tenth Chapter Christ is the end of the Law unto Righteousness to every man that believeth And in the Eighth Chapter That which was impossible by the Law in as much as it was weak by the flesh God sending his own Son in the similitude of sinful flesh by sin damned sin in the flesh that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us which walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit Which Texts are alledged by our Modern Divines to prove the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us as the formal cause of our Justification but our Church expresly tells us that she understands these Texts to signifie no more on Christs part but Iustice or the Satisfaction of Gods Iustice. And whereas these new Divines make such a difference between the Active and Passive Righteousness of Christ that by his Death and Sufferings he expiated our Sins and by his Active Obedience makes us righteous Our Church knows no difference in this matter but assures us that they both concur to the same effect to make satisfaction for our sins He made satisfaction to Gods Iustice by the offering of his Body and shedding his Blood with fulfilling the Law perfectly and throughly Which account I expresly gave of it in my former Discourse p. 330. Edit 2. p. 231. In this sense we are taught that Christ is now the Righteousness of all them that truly believe in him he for them paid their Ransom by his Death he for them fulfilled the Law in his Life So that now in him and by him every true Christian Man may be called a fulfiller of the Law for asmuch as that which their infirmity lacked Christs Iustice hath supplied Which last clause the Looking-Glass-Maker thought fit to leave out for he had so much wit in his anger as to see that it did not make to his purpose for the meaning of it is this that Christs active and passive Righteousness is imputed to us to procure the pardon of our sins thereby to supply the defects of our Righteousness not to make us formally righteous though our Righteousness be imperfect and defective yet Christ by his Righteousness having obtained the pardon of our sins we may be said in him to fulfil the Law in as much as that which our Infirmity lacked Christs Iustice his Merit and Satisfaction as it is before explained hath supplied And once for all our Church tells us what she means by being justified by Christ only We put our Faith in Christ that we be justified by him only that we be justified by Gods Mercy and the Merits of our Saviour Christ only and by no vertue and good works of our own that is in us or that we can be able to have or to do to deserve the same Christ himself being the only cause meritorious thereof So that the plain sense of our Church is that Christs part in our Justification is only to be the meritorious cause of it to merit Pardon and Justification for all those who heartily believe in him And who-ever of our Communion have affirmed any more they have in so doing plainly deserted the Doctrine of our Church And therefore Doctor Prideaux himself does expresly disown the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ in any other sense than that of Merit Iustificamur per justitiam Christi non personae quâ ipse vestitus est sed meriti quâ suos vestit nobis imputatam that is We are justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us not by his Personal Righteousness as Dr. Owen affirms with which he is cloathed himself but with the Righteousness of Merit with which he cloaths those who belong to him And in answer to a passage out of Bellarmine he adds Quis unquam è nostris nos per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justificari asseruit that is Who among us ever affirmed that we were formally justified by the imputed Righteousness of Christ. And as the learned Forbs observes it sounds very like a contradiction to assert that the Righteousness of Christ is both the meritorious and the formal cause of our Justification Nequit enim fieri ut eadem res simul fit causa efficiens ad quam meritum reducitur formalis ejusdem effecti quia sic simul de essentia effecti foret non foret cùm causa formalis interna sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 efficiens autem externa tantum ut constat that is It cannot be that the same thing should be both the efficient as Merit is and the formal cause of the same effect for so it must both be of the essence and not of the essence of the effect for a formal cause is internal and belongs to the nature and essence of the thing but an efficient is an external cause as every one knows And therefore when the Learned Bishop Davenant asserts the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us to be the formal cause of our Justification and explains it by our being justified ex intuitu meritorum Christi propter Christum with respect to the Merits of Christ and for Christs sake though he uses a different phrase which too many since have abused to bad purposes yet he seems to mean no more by it than we do who say that the Righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification for that must be explained by the same phrases of being justified for Christs sake and with respect to the Merits of Christ and indeed the only difference the Bishop makes between the Righteousness of Christ being the meritorious and the formal cause of our Justification is no more but this that in the first case he considers the Merits of Christ absolutely as the price of our Redemption in the second he considers those same Merits of Christ applied to particular persons for the pardon of their particular sins which still makes it no more than a meritorious cause His words are these Eadem unica justitia Christi in se suo valore considerata est meritoria causa humanae justificationis considerata autem quatenus imputatur donatur applicatur tanquam sua singulis credentibus in Christum insitis subit vicem causae formalis And that he intends no more by a formal cause than what others express by a meritorious cause is plain in this that he acknowledges the imputation even of Christs active Righteousness only in the sense of Merit He expresses his agreement with Vasques in this matter who acknowledges the imputation of the Merit of Christs active Obedience Cùm dicimus Merita Christi nobis imputari idem de justitia sanctitate illius existimamus nam cùm Merita Christi ex sanctitate ejus dignitatem accipiant eodem sensu quo Merita nobis dicuntur imputari ipsa etiam Iustitia Christi imputari dicitur that is When we say that
are essential to justifying Faith and it is not justifying Faith without them such as Repentance and Contrition without which no Faith is a true justifying Faith and therefore we may observe in our Homilies that sometimes Faith is made an essential part of Repentance sometimes Repentance is made essential to a justifying Faith as appears from what I have discoursed above The reason of the mistake is this That these men do not distinguish between the general notion of Faith and Iustifying Faith Faith in general as it signifies a belief of the Being and Providence of God and the Truth of the Scriptures c. is necessary to produce any good Actions for without Faith it is impossible to please God but this bare Assent of the Understanding is not justifying Faith till it excite in us a hearty sorrow for our sins and sincere purposes of a New Life and a great Trust and Affiance in the Mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ So that Repentance and the Purpose of a New Life are at least essential to justifying Faith and not the fruits and effects of it but the actual performance of these Vows and Promises and the faithful discharge of our Duty to God and Men in a holy and blameless Life may be called the effects of justifying Faith not that they are not as necessary to a justifying Faith as Repentance is but because our Justification is begun without them God in infinite Grace and Mercy receiving us into favour upon our first return to him though these good Works must necessarily follow to compleat and perfect our Justification as it is expresly observed from St. Chrysostom in the Homily of Good Works concerning the Thief upon the Cross that if he had lived and not regarded Faith and the Works thereof he should have lost his Salvation again And in this sense we are told in the Homily of Salvation That Faith doth not shut out the justice of our Good Works necessarily to be done afterwards that is after our Justification of Duty towards God And upon the same account our Church in her XII Article teaches us That Good Works are the Fruits of Faith and follow those who are Iustified And this gives an easie and plain account of the XIII Article of our Church which rejects those Works which are done before Justification that is before a Iustifying Faith as is plain from the Article Works done before the Grace of Christ and the Inspiration of his Spirit are not pleasant to God forasmuch as they spring not of Faith in Iesus Christ neither do they make men meet to receive Grace or as the School-Authors say deserve Grace of Congruity yea rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done we doubt not but that they have the nature of Sin The plain meaning of which is this That Works done before Justifying Faith are not pleasing to God that is whatever Works we do before we repent of our sins and purpose to live a New Life and trust in the Mercy of God and Merits of our Saviour for Pardon and Acceptance cannot please God because such are not Good Works for when we reject Works done before Justification we must not reject Justifying Faith it self nor any thing which is necessary and essential to it for then we run our selves into such a Labyrinth out of which we shall never find a way And indeed I find that some men are very sensible what weight our Church lays upon the necessity of Repentance in order to our Justification and use some little Arts to avoid it for that Description of Faith which is given us in the first part of the Sermon of Faith concluding thus We do trust that our offences be continually washed and purged whensoever we repenting truly do return to him with our whole heart stedfastly determining with our selves through his Grace to obey and serve him in keeping his Commandments and never to turn back again to sin Which maks Repentance of our sins and a sincere and stedfast purpose of a new life antecedently necessary to the justfying Act of Faith they use this evasion that the Homily adds Whensoever we repenting return to him either with respect to future sins to the forgiveness of which we all acknowledge Repentance to be necessary or else to distinguish a saving from a counterfeit and sudden Faith not as if true Evangelical Repentance had any influence upon the very Act of Iustification as Faith has The first account is the strangest that ever I met with for there can be no imaginable reason assigned why Repentance should be necessary to obtain the Pardon of those sins which we commit after Justification and not necessary to our first Justification I am sure neither the Scripture nor the Articles and Homilies of our Church nor the Confessions of any Reformed Churches which I ever yet saw ever made such a distinction The Commission which our Saviour gave to his Apostles was to preach Repentance and Forgiveness of sins in his Name to the unconverted and unjustified Jews and Heathens and both the Homilies of our Church and the Augustan-Confession do in express words found the Doctrine of Repentance upon that first Commission given to the Apostles and do thence conclude the necessity of Repentance in order to Forgiveness for since Justification consists in the forgiveness of our sins a repeated Forgiveness is but a repeated Justification of a Sinner and why that should be necessary to the after-acts of Justification which was not necessary to the first is beyond my Understanding The second account is much better that it is to distinguish between a saving and a counterfeit Faith but then this very distinction confirms the antecedent necessity of Repentance to Justification for the difference between a saving and counterfeit Faith according to this Account is that a saving Faith supposes Repentance or includes it in its very nature but a counterfeit Faith does not as for what they add that Evangelical Repentance hath not such an influence upon our Justification as Faith has is none of our present dispute if it be but acknowledged to be antecedently necessary we will consider the rest hereafter And now it is time to proceed to the last thing I proposed to consider what our Church attributes to Faith in the matter of our Justification And to state this matter plainly I shall first enquire in what sense our Church rejects Works from the Office of Justifying and attributes it to Faith alone And secondly what the Office of Faith is in the Justification of a Sinner First In what sense our Church rejects Works from the Office of Justifying and attributes it to Faith alone And it is easily observed that our Church acknowledges the antecedent necessity of some Works to our Justification as we are expresly taught in the first part of the Sermon of Salvation And yet that Faith doth not shut out Repentance Hope Love Dread
and the Fear of God to be joyned with Faith in every man that is justified but it shutteth them out from the Office of Iustifying So that although they be all present together in him that is justified yet they justifie not all together So that no man must expect this great Blessing of Justification unless together with Faith he have Repentance Hope Love Dread and the Fear of God which supposes that a man must be a true Penitent and a true Lover of God before he is justified Though Repentance and Hope c. have no actual influence upon our Justification yet they are causae sine quibus non such causes without which the effect will never follow which necessarily intitles them to the nature of Conditions for a Condition which hath no natural or meritorious Efficiency is only a causa sine quâ non and though it is true that the accidental presence of one thing with another which produces any Effect will not entitle it to any degree of Efficiency yet where there is such a natural Union between two things that neither of them can act alone though the effect may more immediately belong to one than to the other yet they both concur to it though the hand does immediately apprehend any thing or lay hold on it yet the Shoulder and the Arm is naturally necessary to produce this action because the Hand cannot move of it self And if they will allow us this similitude which they themselves sometimes use that Good VVorks be the Shoulder and Arm that upholds Faith we will allow Faith to be the Hand And thus it is in Moral Causes where the presence of two things of Faith suppose and Works is necessarily required in order to the same Effect there must be a concurrence of both though it may be in different manners When our Church asserts the necessary presence of some internal Graces and Vertues together with Faith in him who is to be justified she plainly acknowledges that we shall never be justified without them though not for them which is all that any one desires who denies and rejects the Merits of Good Works And as these internal Acts of Repentance Hope c. are antecedently necessary to Justification so Good Works must necessarily follow as we are taught in the same place Nor the Faith also doth not shut out the Iustice of our Good Works necessarily to be done afterwards of Duty towards God for we are most bounden to serve God in doing Good Deeds commanded by him in his holy Scripture all the days of our Life but it excludeth them so that we may not do them to this intent to be made good by doing of them that is to be justified by them And this we are taught is so necessary that unless these Good Works follow as the necessary Fruits of Faith we shall loose our Justification again as you heard above In what sense then does our Church reject good Works and attribute our Justification to Faith alone And that we are told over and over in the most plain and express words that it is only to take away the Merit of Good Works and to attribute our Justification to the free Mercy of God and Merits of Christ not to our own Works and Deservings Hence it is that Justification by Works is so often opposed to our Justification by the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ which are inconsistent in no other sense but that of Merit for though Good Works be supposed the necessary Conditions of Justification yet if they be acknowledged so imperfect as not to merit we shall still need the Merits of Christ to expiate our sins and the Mercy of God to pardon them and to accept of our imperfect Services But the words of the Homily are very express where after alledging the concurrent Testimonies of the ancient Fathers for Justification without Works by Faith alone we have this Explication given of them Nevertheless this Sentence that we be justified by Faith only is not so meant of them that the said Justifying Faith is alone in man without true Repentance Hope Charity Dread and Fear of God at any time and season nor when they say we be justified freely they mean not that we should or might afterward be idle and that nothing should be required on our parts afterward neither they mean not so to be justified without Good Works that we should do no Good Works at all But this saying that we be justified by Faith only freely and without Works is spoken for to take away clearly all Merit of our Works as being unable to deserve our Justification at Gods hands and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of Man and the goodness of God the great infirmity of our selves and the might and power of God the imperfectness of our own Works and the most abundant Grace of our Saviour Christ and therefore wholly to ascribe the Merit and Deserving of our Justification to Christ only and his most precious blood-shedding Hence for a man to be justified by his own Works is expounded as if we should affirm That a man might by his own Works take away and purge his own sins and so justifie himself That is when they reject Justification by Works they understand by it a meritorious Justification Thus in the third part of the Sermon of Salvation we are expresly taught That the true meaning of this Proposition or Saying We be justified by Faith in Christ only according to the meaning of the old ancient Authors is this We put our Faith in Christ that we be justified by him only that we be justified by Gods free Mercy and the Merits of our Saviour Christ only and by no vertue or Good Works of our own that is in us or that we can be able to have or to do for to deserve the same Christ himself only being the Cause meritorious thereof This is so expresly the Doctrine of the Homilies that I need not multiply Testimonies for the proof of it from whence it is evident that our Church owns the necessity of Good Works to all intents and purposes excepting Merit and in this sense they reject Faith too as it is our own Work But now because our Church and all the Reformed Churches expresly reject Works in the matter of Justification under the notion of Merit and Deserving in which sense alone they are injurious to the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ from whence we argue that they own the necessity of Works upon all other Accounts and reject only the Merit of them Some tell us that we should rather argue that they put no difference between Works and the Merit of Works in the matter of Justification but equally reject them both But pray why so Truly for no Reason that I know but that it best serves their Hypothesis They acknowledge that there is a difference between Works and the Merit of Works but will by no means own that
we either have done shall do or can do as things that be far too weak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve Remission of our Sins and our Iustification and therefore we must trust only in Gods Mercy and that Sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Iesus Christ the Son of God once offered for us upon the Cross to obtain thereby Gods Grace and Remission as well of our Original Sin in Baptism as of all actual Sins committed by us after Baptism if we truly repent and unfeignedly turn to him All this is called being justified by Faith only which includes a renouncing the Merits and Deserts of our own Works but first requires that we should do good Works before we renounce the Merit of them and an affiance in the Mercy of God for Pardon and Forgiveness upon the conditions of Repentance and a new Life This is all I contend for which is the Antient Catholick Doctrin of our Church against those modern notions of Reliance and Recumbency or the virtue of any particular Act of Faith in the Justification of a Sinner Thirdly I observe that should any man affirm in express words that we are justified by Works as well as by Faith meaning no more by it than that good Works are the necessary Conditions not the meritorious Causes of our Justification though he would differ in the manner of expression yet he would agree with our Church in the true notion of Justification whereas those who use the same phrase of being justified by Faith only and by Faith without Works thereby excluding the antecedent necessity of Repentance and Holiness to our Justification though they retain the same form of words yet renounce the constant Doctrin of our Church and are the only Apostates and Innovators Which may satisfie any man how unjustly I am charged with corrupting the Doctrin of our Church when I have only expressed the true sense and meaning of it in such words as are less liable to be mistaken and how vainly my Adversaries pretend to be such Obedient Sons of the Church of England when under an Orthodox Form of Words they have introduced such Doctrins as are diametrically opposite to the declared sense of this Church After this large and particular Account of the Doctrin of the Church of England concerning the Justification of a Sinner it is time in the second place to consider how the state of the Controversie is altered at this day and how those men whom I oppose have corrupted the Doctrin as well as rejected the Authority of our Church And though I have already given sufficient Intimations of this yet it may be of great use more particularly to shew how directly opposite these new and fantastick Notions are to the establisht Doctrin contained in our Articles and Homilies which though it would admit of a very large Discourse I shall comprize in as few words as may be And first whereas our Church expresly asserts that in the Justification of a Sinner on Gods part is required Mercy and Grace Justification consisting in the free Pardon of all our sins Mr. Ferguson very agreeably indeed to his own Principles expresly asserts that Justification does not consist in the Pardon of sin nor is it the result of Mercy but the off-spring of Justice Remission as he acknowledges is the result of Mercy and the act of one exercising Favour but Iustification is the off spring of Iustice and imports one transacting with us in a juridical way without the infringement of Law or Equity This Notion I have examined already and shall add nothing further for the Confutation of it It is directly contrary to the Doctrin of our Homilies and I hope that is Argument enough with these men who pretend such a mighty veneration for the Antient and Catholick Doctrin of our Church But then if any man should wonder as well he may how a Sinner should be justified in this Law-notion according to the strict Rules of Justice that is that a Sinner is justified not by being pardoned but by being acquitted and absolved as an innocent man who has never offended the account of this will farther discover what Friends they are to the Doctrin of our Church For secondly whereas the Church of England requires no more on Christs part but Iustice or the Satisfaction of Gods Iustice or the Price of our Redemption which makes him the meritorious Cause of our Iustification that God for Christs sake forgives the sins of true Penitents these men place our Justification in the Imputation of Christs personal Righteousness to us They tell us that Christ as our Surety and Mediator hath fulfilled all Righteousness for us and in our stead and that by being clothed with his perfect Righteousness we are accounted perfectly righteous and so are justified not as Malefactors when they are pardoned but as righteous and innocent men who are acquitted and absolved And I have already informed Mr. Ferguson how effectually this Notion undermines the necessity of an inherent Righteousness To be justified by the Merits of Christ signifies no more than to be justified by the gracious Terms and Conditions of the Gospel which is founded on the Merits of Christ which was purchased and sealed with his meritorious Bloud For the Merits of Christ do not immediately justifie any man but whereas strict Justice will not admit of Repentance nor accept of an imperfect though sincere Obedience God has for the sake of Christ who hath expiated our sins by his Death entered into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy wherein he promises Pardon to true Penitents and this necessarily requires an inherent Holiness not to merit but to qualifie us for the Grace of God But if we be made righteous by a perfect Righteousness imputed to us if this will answer all the demands of Law and Justice what need is there of an imperfect Righteousness of our own The Righteousness of Christ imputed to us makes us righteous as Christ is and what need is there then of any Righteousness of our own which would be according to the Proverb to burn day and to light up Candles in the Sun Dr. Owen takes notice of this Objection and pretends to give an Answer to it which must be a little considered for a little will serve the turn And first he observes that here is a great difference if it were no more than that this Righteousness was inherent in Christ and properly his own it is only reckoned and imputed to us or freely bestowed on us But does not this Imputation make it ours How then can we answer the demands of the Law with it Is any thing the less ours because it is not originally ours but so by Gift And the Doctor was sensible that this Answer would not do and therefore secondly he tells us the Truth is that Christ was not righteous with that Righteousness for himself but for us How plain are things when men will speak out So that now
when he did openly bind himself by Covenant to do it viz. in that first Promise which he made to Adam after his Fall Put then God laid Iniquity on Christ by way of execution as he in time served the execution upon Christ which may be considered as it was virtual or as it was actual and real The execution was served upon Christ in the virtue of it from the first instant that ever there was a transgression committed and not only at that time when sin was first committed and from thence to the time of his suffering but also afterwards from the time he had suffered to the end of the world For you must know that Christ was to bear the sins of the Elect from the beginning to the end of the world and he was to discharge this debt at once and therefore he does not actually do this either at the beginning or at the end of the world but in the fulness of time Christ came and reckoned with the Father and the Father hath so much of him for all that is past and as much for all for after-times to the end of the world Saith Christ to the Father here is so much for every one of mine that they have run out for the time that is past and here is so much for every one of my Members that shall come after they will commit so many sins in time to come here is so much for all that sin they shall commit And this is Gods serving execution actually upon Christ when he died upon the Cross in the fulness of time But thirdly as for Gods laying Iniquity upon Christ by way of particular application of it to this and that man You must observe That concerning the Elect in general as they were in the eye of the Lord before they had a real Existence and Being so all their Iniquities were laid upon Christ from Eternity But the particular application of this grace to persons must be in time and this done either secretly or manifestly As for this secret application which is so called because it is a secret thing for a time to these for whom he does it it is at the very instant that such a person hath a being in the world the manifest application is when the sinner actually believes and thereby knows that God hath laid his sins on Christ. In the secret application of this grace unto a person this person hath a full discharge and in the manifestation he hath the comfort of this discharge So that every elect Sinner is justified from Eternity as Christ died and bore his sins from Eternity viz. in the Counsel and Decree of God His sins are actually paid for and removed from his Surety too from the time of Christ's suffering upon the Cross. From that time there was not one sin to be reckoned either to Believers who are Christ's Members or to Christ himself he having them made satisfaction and upon it given out unto the world it is finished And this discharge is actually though secretly applied to them as soon as they have any being and they know that they are discharged as soon as they believe This is the Antinomian account of Justification and supposing their first Principle that Christ did represent the persons of the Elect and do all in their name and stead I cannot see how it is possible to confute it I confess I cannot answer Dr. Crisp's reasoning That God hath not one sin to charge upon any Elect person from the first moment of conception till the last minute of his life because the Lord hath laid it on Christ already He did lay sins on him When did he lay them When he did pay the full price for them Now suppose this person uncalled commits Iniquity and that this Iniquity is charged upon him seeing that his iniquities are laid upon Christ already how comes it to pass that they are charged upon this Elect Person again How come they to be translated again from Christ and laid upon this Person Once they were laid upon Christ it must be confessed for the bloud of Christ cleanseth us from all sin Was there by one act of Christ the expiation of sin and all at once that are committed from the beginning of the world to the end thereof how comes it to pass that this and that sin should be charged upon the elect persons when they were laid upon Christ long before And I profess I cannot see one hairs breadth difference between Dr. Owen and Dr. Crisp in this matter unless it be that Dr. Crisp speaks his mind plainly and honestly and Dr. Owen endeavours if it be not a natural infirmity to cloud his sense with a multitude of words and to lose himself and his Readers in a labyrinth of distinctions as to give some plain evidences of it Dr. Owen in his Book entituled Salus electorum sanguis Iesu or The death of death in the death of Christ p. 145. Printed 1648. lays down these Propositions First That the full and due debt of all those for whom Christ was responsible was fully paid in to God according to the utmost extent of the Obligation Secondly That the Lord who is a just Creditor ought in all equity to cancel the Bond to surcease all Suits Actions and Molestations against the Debter full payment being made to him for the Debt And since he ought to do this we need not doubt but he being a just Creditor does do it Thirdly That the Debt thus paid was not this or that sin but all the sins of all those for whom and in whose name this payment was made Fourthly That a second payment of a debt once paid or a requiring it is not answerable to the justice which God demonstrated in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation for our sins and therefore it is not just with God to require the payment of that Debt again of us which Christ hath already paid for us And fifthly That whereas to receive a discharge from further trouble is equitably due to the Creditor who hath been in Obligation his Debt being paid the Lord having accepted of the payment from Christ in the stead of all them for whom he died ought in justice according to that Obligation which in free grace he hath put upon himself give them a discharge And Sixthly considering that relaxation of the Law which by the Supreme Power was effected as to the persons suffering the punishment required such actual satisfaction is made thereto that it can lay no more to their charge for whom Christ died than if they had really fulfilled in the way of obedience whatever it did require Now I can by no means understand what all these Propositions can signifie else but to prove that those for whom Christ died are discharged upon his payment of their Debt and so are justified from Eternity as Christ paid their Debt from Eternity in the Decree of God and are
but commends that divine power and vertue which appeared in him and accounts this the best answer to the Arrians objection from these words That Christ was God participatione tantum gratiâ only by participation and by Grace On Ioh. 17. 21. That they all may be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us Mr. Calvin observes Tenendum est quoties unum se cum patre esse in hoc capite pronunciat Christus sermonem non habere simplicitèr de divinà ejus essentiâ sed unum vocari in personâ mediatoris quatenùs caput nostrum est That is we must acknowledge and own that as often as Christ calls himself one with the Father in this Chapter it does not simply and primarily refer to the unity of the Divine Essence but he is one with the Father considered as Mediator and head of the Church That is as he acts in Gods name and authority and does his will And he adds That many of the Fathers expound these words of Christs being one with the Father as he was Eternal God but this they were forced to by their contention with the Arrians longè autem aliud Christi consilium fuit quà m ad nudam arcanae suae divinit at is speculationem nos evehere But Christ had a quite different design in these words than to raise them to a naked contemplation of his secret and unsearchable divinity And now if Mr. Ferguson will be a just and impartial Judge he must accost Mr. Calvin as he has done me I would not be thought to impeach Mr. Calvin of opposing the Godhead of Christ but this I affirm that if his glosses of Col. 1. 19. Col. 2. 3. and 2. 8. Joh. 14. 20. Joh. 1. 14. and add Joh. 17. 21. which are as much the same as Mr. Sherlock's with those the Socinians impose upon those places be admitted we have some of the main proofs of it wrested out of our hands But to proceed Dr. Owen hath given in his charge against me very fully and emphatically He that shall consider what reflexions are cast in this discourse on the necessity of satisfaction to be made unto divine Iustice and from whom they are borrowed the miserable weak attempt that is made therein to reduce all Christ's mediatory actings to his Kingly Office and in particular his Intercession the faint mention that is made of the satisfaction of Christ clogged with the addition of ignorance of the Philosophy of it as it is called well enough complying with them who grant that the Lord Christ did what God was satisfied withal with sundry other things of the like nature will not be to seek whence these things come nor whither they are going nor to whom our Author is beholden for most of his rare notions which it is an easie thing at any time to acquaint him withal The Doctors chief skill lies in scandalous insinuations but he is just like other men when he comes to reason As for that attempt to reduce all Christ's Mediatory actings to his Kingly Office I have given a sufficient account of that in answer to Mr. Ferguson and suppose I shall hear no more of it As for my faint mention of the satisfaction of Christ clogged with an ignorance of the Philosophy of it what he calls a faint mention I cannot tell but I did more than once expresly assert it and that very heartily but I must beg his pardon that I dare not pretend to understand the strict Philosophy of that Atonement made by Christ so long as I assert that every Christian may easily learn all that is useful and necessary for him to know We may all know whatever the Scripture has revealed about it that Christ died for our sins that he died for us that he is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world that we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son that his bloud is the bloud of the Covenant that he has redeemed his Church with his own bloud and hath purchased and ratified the New Testament with his bloud which gives us the greatest assurance of the pardon of our sins and the promises of eternal life upon the conditions of a lively active faith which is made perfect by works But then there are some enquiries concerning this matter of a nicer speculation as wherein the proper nature of atonement and expiation consists in what sense the death of Christ may be said to satisfie the justice of God whether Christ died as the Surety of particular Persons or as the Surety of the Covenant whether Christ suffered the Idem or the tantundem what is the immediate effect of Christs death whether to give an actual right to those for whom he died to pardon and life or to seal the Covenant of grace with mankind and to put all men into a possibility of salvation I presume the Doctor knows that these and a great many more such questions are hotly disputed among those very men who do not use to make a very faint mention neither of the satisfaction of Christ and methinks the Doctor should for once have commended the young mans modesty that he would not peremptorily determine these matters rather than blame me for professing my ignorance And as for what the Doctor adds that this favours of a compliance with them who grant that the Lord Christ did what God was satisfied withal If I mistake not this is the utmost of what he himself can bring it to whether right or wrong I shall not now determine for he expresly affirms that Christ could not merit of God with that kind of merit which ariseth from an absolute proportion of things and gives this wise reason for it because Christ in respect of his humane nature though united to the Deity is a Creature and so could not absolutely satisfie nor merit any thing at the hand of God This merit from an absolute proportion can be found only among Creatures and the advancement of Christs humanity takes it not out of that number neither in this sense can any satisfaction be made to God for sin And therefore he founds the merit and satisfaction of Christ upon Gods constitution and determination predestinating Christ unto that work and appointing the work by him to be accomplished to be satisfactory equalling by that constitution the end and the means Which at most signifies no more but this that what Christ did was not in its own nature satisfactory but was only what God was satisfied with upon account of his own constitution and determination And therefore all the merit the Doctor ascribes to Christ is the accomplishment of that condition which God required to make way that the Obligation which he had freely put upon himself might be in actual force Which he says is no more than what Mr. Baxter assigns to our own works By which we may learn what a lame and conditional merit