unto justification of life actually if they do not wilfully neglect and reject them And less than this I see not how the Apostle's words can signifie if you consider the nature of the Comparison he makes between the effects of the first Adam's disobedience and the second Adam's obedience in reference unto all men without exception of any As by the disobedience of the former all men were brought under an utter incapacity of being justified and saved so long as the original Covenant in the Rigour of its Sanction remained in force So by the obedience of the latter all men are put into a capacity of being justified and saved by vertue of new terms in the new Covenant which are obtained thereby and by which the old terms are Cancelled or Superseded These things being so I leave you to judge whether there be any need of or any occasion for such a formal imputation of Christ's righteousness unto our justification to answer the Law in its demands of perfect legal obedience as a condition of it and the accusations thereof for want of it as Mr. F. contends for and Mr. S. opposeth For this demand and this accusation was taken off so soon as the new Covenant founded by God in Christ's active and passive obedience took place And this benefit of having new terms of life granted which accrues to the world by Christ's Mediatory undertaking does not at all depend upon our believing in Christ but is absolutely free and that wherein he hath been aforehand with us and with all men which have been born into the world since the Covenant of Grace did first commence and remains made good to them whether they beleive it or no. So that from thence forth no man shall be condemned for want of a perfect legal Righteousness but only for want of an Evangelical righteousness And because this is a matter of weight I will add yet somthing further to prove that this new Covenant by which the terms of the old are cancel'd is made and establisht in Christ not only with some part of mankind viz. Such as shall be saved as some would restrain it who think it in the nature of it absolute and not conditonal no not in reference to particular persons which yet it must needs be if made to all unless all were eventually to be saved but it 's made with all men universally And to this purpose I pray you consider the declaration of God's grace and favour to all mankind in those words of his to Abraham Isaac and Jacob mentioned no less than five times in the book of Genesis viz. In thee and in thy Seed shall all families all Nations of the earth be blessed Chap. 12.3 and 18.18 and 22.18 and 26.4 and 28.14 By which the unbelieving Jews indeed understood that in time all Nations should become proselytes to Judaism and their Nation become the head of all Nations and the Messias a glorious visible head over them But in opposition hereto and to their expectations of Justification by the Law St. Paul interprets it to be meant of the Covenant of Grace established in Christ with all Nations and Families of the Earth who are all so far blessed hereby as to have new-terms of Salvation granted them Gal. 3. For whereas they understood by seed the whole posterity of Abraham in Jacob's line as if all Nations should be blessed in them St. Paul restrains it only to Christ as all Nations were to be blest in him as head of the Covenant vers 16. He saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ And then that the blessing promised to all Nations in this Seed was the Covenant appeares by the next words in vers 17. And this I say that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430 years after cannot disanull that it should make the promise of none effect This Covenant we see was then confirmed of God in Christ not then first made for it was extant in the world before And to the same sense St. Paul had said before in vers 8. The Scriptures foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through Faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying in thee shall all Nations be blessed And when he saith that God in those words preached the Gospel unto Abraham it is all one as to have said he declared to him the Covenant for Gospel here and Covenant in vers 17. are two words indeed but signifie the same thing as frequently they do elsewhere And St. Peter expresly calls that promise to Abraham the Covenant Acts 3.25 And besides St. Paul declares what the nature and substance of that Covenant or Gospel was which is extended to all Nations in that promise and that he sayes was that God would justifie the heathen through Faith which is a breif description of the Covenant of Grace These things then being so that God hath established a new Covenant with all men and thereby cancelled the Rigorous Sanction of the Primitive Law as that required perfection of Obedience as the Condition of Justification I now leave you to judge whether Mr. F. doth not build the necessity of the imputation of Christ's Righteousness unto Justification in the sense he asserts it necessary upon an imaginary foundation and groundless Supposition and if he do that foundation being removed that which he builds thereon must needs fall Having I hope Sir by this time satisfied you and clearly evinced that I have not without cause charged Mr. F. with the former of the two grand mistakes above mentioned I shall now proceed to endeavour to do the like touching the Second which Second as you may remember was in that he holds that although we should answer all that the Gospel requires both in respect of a righteousnes of inherent Grace and of personal sincere obedience yet we could not be justified without such a perfect righteousness imputed to us and derived upon us as would adequately answer the demands and accusations of the Law That thus he holds is evident by what he sayes in p. 414. and in other passages in the same Section I shall not need here to do again what I have done already that is to prove the non-necessity of the imputation of such a righteousness unto us for our Justification as every way answers the demands of the Law as considered in its originall Rigour and severity That which remains for me to do is to demonstrate to you that M. Ferguson is under a mistake in denying that our answering all that the Gospel requires in a righteousness both of inherent Grace and personal sincere obedience is a vailable to justification without the imputation of Christ's righteousness in Mr. F's sense and withall to shew that we are said in a proper sense to be justified by believing and obeying the Gospel and that Mr. F. had neither ground nor fair pretence to charge Mr. S's sentiment of
Animadversions On that part of Mr. ROBERT FERGVSON'S BOOK Entituled The INTEREST of REASON IN RELIGION Which Treats of JUSTIFICATION In a LETTER to a Friend LONDON Printed by T. R. for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's head in St. Paul's Church-yard 1676. SIR I Return you with Mr. Ferguson's Book my hearty thanks for the Loan of it I have read it and find many things well said in it And where I find anything otherwise I impute it not to his want of ability if the Cause would bear it but the Cause it self in those particular Instances which I suspect him to be defective in For neither he nor any other of what ability soever he be can as Solomon sayes make that streight which God hath made crooked Eccles. 7.13 And therefore the greater the parts be of any man who yet cannot make work of a Cause he undertakes it doth but make me so much the more doubtfull of the goodness of that Cause if it were any whit doubtfull to me before I will give you one instance of this nature out of Mr. Ferguson's book Chap. 2 Sect 10. Where he asserts that Mr. Sherlock's Notion as he calls it of Justification is not any wayes maintainable but by perverting innumerable texts from their plain and naturall Sense to a Metaphorick and that it is accompanied with this fatall unhappiness of turning agreat part of the Bible into mere insignificant and empty Metaphors P. 402. 403. And then represents Mr. Sherlock's notion thus That we are only justified by believing and obeying the Gospel of Christ That the Sacrifice of Christ's death and the Righteousness of his life have no other influence upon our acceptance with God but that to them we owe the Covenant of Grace That is God being well pleased with the obedience of Christ's life and the Sacrifice of his death entered into a new Covenant with mankind wherein he promiseth pardon of Sin and eternal life to those who believe and obey the Gospel So that the Righteousness of Christ is not the formal cause of our Justification but the Righteousness of his life and death is the Meritorious Cause whereby we are declared Righteous and rewarded as Righteous persons The Covenant of Grace which God for Christs sake hath made pardoning our past sins and follies and rewarding a sincere though imperfect Obedience The Gospel by its great arguments and motives and powerfull assistances forms our minds to the love and practice of Holiness and so makes us inherently righteous and the Grace of the Gospel accepts and rewards that sincere Obedience which according to the Rigor and Severity of the Law could deserve no reward P. 404. Mr. Ferguson having made this recital out of Mr. Sherlock's book knew not how as it seems to make good his charge there-from unless Mr. S. would be so kind as to grant what Mr. F. doth affirm but Mr. S. himself no where asserts And therefore although he grants in P. 416. That in reserence to the mere demands of the Gospel we may in a proper sense be said to be justified Yet he saith that in reference to the Law which is that alone which accuseth us we cannot in any prepriety of speech be said to be justified but that justification wheresoever it regards our discharge from the accusation of the Law must be taken Metaphorically he meanes I suppose unless we are discharged from that accusation by having the righteousness of Christ imputed to us Whether this be true or no I shall put to the Tryal afterwards But in the mean time pray you consider how little reason Mr. F. had to go about to charge Mr. S. with holding Justification in a Metaphorick sense unless he had first shewed us that according to M. S's sentiment of Justification before represented he had made somthing else necessary to it than that which is an answering of the demands of the Gospel which yet he hath not done that I can see But indeed M. F. is so far from doing that as that he hath done the quite contrary as you cannot but perceive when you compare Mr. F's concession and Mr. S 's notion touching Justification together for Mr. F. acknowledgeth as I said before that in reference to the mere demands of the Gospel we may in a proper sense be said to be Justified and M. S. saith no more as M. F. recites him but that we are only Justified by believing and obeying the Gospel And if to believe and obey the Gospel be not to answer the demands of the Gospel and no more pray you get Mr. F. to tell us what is But if it be then Mr. F. instead of making good his charge against M. S. hath himself even fairly acquitted and discharged him from it and might well have taken himself off here and saved himself the labour of further prosecution But however though M. S. doth not yet it seems Mr. F. doth hold that we must be Justified if Justified at all by answering the demands of the Law as well as of the Gospel although the Scipture tells us that he that abideth in the Doctrine of Christ which is the Gospel he hath both the Father and the Son Rep. Jo. 9. And because Mr. F. is of opinion that the demands of the Law must be answered or else we cannot be Justified therefore he thinks Mr. S. ought to be so too which if he can perswade him to be then he doubts not but that he shall be able to make good his charge against him And therefore to lay a foundation for a necessity of a perfect legal Righteousness unto Justification though not inherent in our selves yet by derivation of it from our Saviour in whom it was he does in effect assert the Original Legal Covenant to remain still in force notwithstanding the establishing with men the Evangelical and that in order to our Justification it is not enough to have an Evangelical Righteousness to answer the demands of the Gospel but that we must also have a perfect legal Righteousness to answer the demands of the Law though not in our selves but by derivation from another as was said before Whether this be not so judge I pray you by his own words comparing what he sayes in P. 411. and P. 414. which are these Now as the introduction of the law of faith hath not abrogated the law of perfect obedience but this as well as that doth remain in force each of them requiring a conformity to its own demands So supposing us to answer all that the Gospel requires yet the other law abiding uncancelled and we being all guilty of the violation of its terms there lies accordingly a charge against us from which by Justification we are to be acquitted p. 414. And again p. 411. That secluding not only the righteousness of Christ's life but the satisfaction of his death as the Matter and the imputation of it as the formal Cause of justification it seems repugnant to the immutability and essentiall
F. undertakes to defend therefore Mr. F. insinuates to his Reader that Mr. S's Notion doth imply unless he will allow that we are Justified by being made righteous by the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us such a Justification as cannot be properly so called nor maintained to be such without perverting the Scriptures from their plain and proper sense to that which is but so Metaphorically And to this end he takes it for granted that Justification in Mr. S's Notion of it contains in it remission of Sins and then argues that remission of Sin is not Justification in a proper sense and consequently that Mr. S's Notion of justification cannot be made good from the Scriptures without understanding them in an improper sense But if Mr. F. would have done this designed business indeed against Mr. S. he should have done one of these two things which yet he hath not done Either first shewed that Mr. S. hath defined justification by pardon of sin or Secondly that according to his Notion of it it must be so defined neither of which he hath done that I finde And therefore he doth but beat the air while he would have his Reader think he is beating Mr. S. That pardon of sin is promised in the Covenant of Grace to those that believe and obey the Gospel Mr. S. doth indeed assert and that according to the Scriptures and this pardon when vouchsafed doth discharge us from whatever lay against us either from Law or Gospel and is called in Scripture a not mentioning our sins unto us Ezek. 33.16 the remembring them no more Heb. 10.17 a not imputing of them Rom. 4.8 2. Cor. 5.19 but then these are two distinct things to justifie a person against an accusation of not believing and obeying the Gospel and the conferring upon him the benefits promised to those that have If they be not different but one and the same thing then the giving of eternal life it self is an assentiall part of our justification as well as the forgiveness of our sins for that as well as the forgiveness of sins is promised to those who believe and obey the Gospel And I think no man yet ever asserted that the giving of eternal life was justification it self but a benefit promised to those who are justified according to St. Paul Rom. 8.30 Whom he Justified them he also glorified Justification is God's imputing righteousness to men or their faith to them for righteousness and thus Abraham was justified by having his faith imputed to him for righteousness But pardon of sin is his not imputing to them their Trespasses and I must needs say I cannot apprehend how the imputation of faith for righteousness and the non-imputation of sin can be all one God in justifing men avoucheth and pronounceth them to be such as to whome he hath promised pardon that is true believers such as have performed the condition of the promise But then the counting of this performance of the condition for righteousness unto them is one thing and the conferring on them the benefit promised on that condition is another as I said If God had promised pardon only upon account of what Christ hath done and suffered for Sinners without any condition to be performed on their part then they would have had title to pardon without the justification I speak of But since it is otherwise a man's title to pardon is not cleared without being justified in order thereto as a performer of the condition Moreover the clearing the equity of God's proceeding in pardoning some and not other some depends upon this viz. That he can justifie one sort to be such as have repented and performed the condition on which he promised pardon whereas he cannot do so concerning the other Ezek. 18. And when I consider this I cannot see but that we have as much reason to think it meet and necessary that there should be such a difference between justification and pardon as hath been intimated as there is to believe that its fit and necessary that the reason and equity of god's proceedings should be cleared before Angels and men in pardoning some and not others And if this be found agreeable to reason then you have an evidence from the reason and nature of the thing why it should be so as well as from the Scriptures to shew that it is so Yet it s very true also that there is so very close and inseparable a connexion between Justification and Remission of Sin as that the Scripture which does not alwayes nicely difference things which yet are distinguishable but sometimes terms things by the same name which differ only but in some respect and sometimes denotes things of the same nature by different phrases and forms of speech I say the connexion between Justification and Remission is so close and inseparable as that the Scripture sometimes speakes of them promiscuously scarcely leaving any difference to be discerned between them which I conceive hath led so many to place Justification in Remission of Sin as are of that Judgement Such is Rom. 4.6 7. for one where the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth Righteousness without works is thus described by David as St. Paul saith reciting his words saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered Where you will hardly perceive any difference made between the imputation of Righteousnes and forgiveness of Sins unless we distinguish between righteousness imputed and the blessedness of haveing sin pardoned as consecuent upon it which I think may very well be done For the Apostle doth not say that David describes the Justification of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness withont works when he saith Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven but the blessedness of such a person who is so justified or to whom righteousness is imputed Which blessedness he placeth in the forgiveness of sins and being restored to the Divine favour So that these words of David as I said are not a description of Justification but of the blessedness a man comes to be possessed of by being justified The reason and design of the Apostle in reciting these words of David I shall shew afterwards Again Acts 13.39 is another such Scripture where it 's said that by him all that believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses Where to be justified and to be delivered from the desert of sin seem to be the same Unless you will distinguish as well you may between that from which we are delivered to wit the obligation to Punishment and that by meanes whereof we come so to be delivered to wit our being justified and then to be justified from those things signifies no more here than by justification to come to be pardoned and so delivered from condemnation But if you will understand Justification in a large sense as comprehending and taking in with it its effects in which sense faith