hath made to the World which includes whatever he hath revealed to us concerning his own Person Natures Mediation and the whole Will of God concerning our Salvation which must be learnt from the express Declarations of the Gospel not from some fanciful and imaginary consequences which is a very unsafe way in matters of pure Revelation Doctor Owen hath advanced an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ as the only Medium of saving knowledge that is when we have from the Gospel learnt who Christ is what he hath done and suffered for us when we have learnt those things which concern his Person Offices and Work we may then give free scope to our fancies and draw such conclusions as are no where expresly contained in Scripture or could not possibly have been learnt from Scripture at least not clearly and savingly without such an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ that is without reasoning and drawing conclusions from what Christ hath done suffered These conclusions must be formed into artificial Theories and Schemes of Religion and then these are the great Gospel-Mysteries and the only saving knowledge of Christ and those men only preach Christ who fill peoples heads with such choice Speculations as they have learnt from this Acquaintance with Christ. I thought there was very great reason to oppose this Principle which gave such boundless scope to mens fancies and allowed every man to frame and mold a Religion according to his own humour and was the more confirmed in this when I observed what strange Mysteries the Doctor himself had learn'd from this Acquaintance with Christ which I am sure without this he could never have learnt either from Scripture or Reason I gave several instances of this nature out of his own Writings which shall be made good in due time at present I must observe what Doctrines I there reject and in what sence I rejected such a notion of Gods Justice as represents him as fierce and savage as the worst of beings such a notion of Justice as disparages the Satisfaction of Christ as if the whole design of it were to gratifie Revenge and to appease a furious and merciless Deity which notion at first frighted Socinus out of his Wits and made him rather chuse to deny the satisfaction of Christ than to believe any thing so unworthy of God though thanks be to God that we need do neither I reject such a notion of Justice as disparages the Wisdom of God in the contrivance of our Redemption by Jesus Christ for if it were absolutely necessary for God to punish sin and there were no other Person in the World fit or able to bear the punishment of sin and to make expiation for it but only Christ there was required no great Wisdom to make the choice I reject such a notion of the Mercy and Patience of God as represents it to be the effect only of the satisfaction of Revenge which is like the tameness of an angry man when his passion is over which is an unworthy conceit of the infinite Love and Goodness of the Divine Nature I reject such a notion of Mercy as represents God to be fond easie to Sinners while they continue so and I think such a notion of Justice and Mercy very unworthy of God which represents him more concerned to punish Sin than to reform it And is it not hard that a man must be scandalized with denying the satisfaction of Christ and blaspheming God meerly for rejecting such Doctrines as are injurious to the Satisfaction of Christ and when they are pursued to their just and natural consequences are down right blasphemy against God this is a certain way to prevent the confutation of such Doctrines for you cannot confute them without discovering their blasphemy and whoever does so shall himself be charged as a Blasphemer But to proceed I reject such a notion of our Union to the Person of Christ as is unintelligible such as the Great Patrons of it cannot explain nor any one else understand for since all our hopes of Salvation depends upon our Union to Christ I can by no means think that this is such a Mystery as surpasses humane knowledge for that on which the happiness of all men depends ought in reason to be so plain that it may be understood by all I reject such a notion of our Union to the Person of Christ as intitles us to all the Personal Excellencies Fulness Beauty and to the Personal Righteousness of Christ as much as Marriage intitles a Woman to her Husbands Estate that whatever Christ hath done and suffered is as much reckoned ours when we are united to him as if we had done and suffered the same things our selves and that upon this account we are justified only by the Righteousness of Christ without respect to any inherent Righteousness in our selves Now I reject this because no Union can thus intitle us to Christs personal Excellencies and Righteousness but such a natural Union as makes Christ and Believers One Person that they are Christed with Christ which is an absurd and dangerous Heresie but neither our Marriage to Christ nor his being our Surety or Mediator can effect this for whatever Union there may be between the Person of Christ and the Persons of Believers while their Persons remain distinct their Properties and Qualifications and Righteousness must be considered as distinct too and though we may receive great advantage by what Christ hath done and suffered yet it cannot be reckoned ours in that strict notion as if it had been done by us and there is a vast difference between these two notions for the first only makes the Righteousness of Christ the meritorious cause of our Pardon and Reward which makes it necessary to have a Righteousness of our own to entitle us to these Blessings but the second makes the Righteousness of Christ our Personal Righteousness which destroys the necessity of any inherent Righteousness in our selves but of this more hereafter I reject such a notion of our Union to Christ whereby bad men may be nay must be united to Christ while they continue in their sins for if it once be granted as it must be granted if we believe the Gospel that our Union to Christ gives us an actual interest in all his Promises such as Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life it is easie to observe how this overthrows the whole Design of the Gospel if a bad man while he continues so may be united to Christ for then he is a Son of God and an Heir of Everlasting Life and what becomes then of all those Gospel-Threatnings which denounce the wrath of God against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men When Christ tells us That he who breaks the least of his Commandments shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven that except our righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees we shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and when St.
else a Righteousness without Works signifies a Righteousness without the Perfection of Works and therefore the Apostle makes a Righteousness without Works the same with an imputed Righteousness and both of them to consist in forgiveness of sins even as David also describeth the blessedness of that man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered So that forgiveness of sins which supposeth an imperfect and defective Righteousness if we will believe our Apostle is a description of Righteousness without Works Upon the same account it is called Justifying the Ungodly vers 5. which can by no means signifie that God will justifie a wicked man while he continues wicked for this is a plain contradiction to the whole Gospel but it signifies that God will justifie those who though they have been wicked which was the case of Abraham and the Gentile-World yet return to him by a hearty Repentance and a true lively Faith Justification by Works requires a perpetual Innocency and Blamelesness of Life for a man who ever was a Sinner can never be justified by Works in this sense because he can never be innocent again it being impossible that that should never have been which has been But now the Righteousness of Faith which consists in the forgiveness of sins makes him Righteous who has been a Sinner and is still an imperfect Saint not that such a man never was a Sinner but that God doth not impute his sins to him This is the Apostles account of Evangelical Righteousness and Justification that it is an imputed Righteousness a Righteousness without Works a Justifying the Ungodly or which is the sum of all that it consists in the Pardon of Sin And now let our Author tell the Apostle That this is to turn plain Scripture into Metaphors and that it is inconsistent with the Immutability and Essential Holiness of God But secondly I have something more to say to Mr. Ferguson which I suppose will be of some weight with him viz. That all the Reformed Churches are for that Metaphorical Justification which he rejects that is they place our Justification in the forgiveness of sin Thus the French Church declares in her Confession which Beza presented to Charles IX in the Name of that Church Credimus totam nostram justitiam positam esse in peccatorum nostrorum remissione quae sit etiam ut testatur David unica nosâ—â—a a selicitas i. e. We believe that our WHOLE RIGHTEOUSNESS consists in the pardon of our sins which also as David witnesseth is our ONLY Blessedness In sola Iesu Christi obedientia prorsus acquiescimus quae quidem nobis imputatur tum ut tegantur omnia nostra peccata tum etiam ut gratiam coram Deo naniscamur And we rest wholly in the Obedience of Jesus Christ which is imputed to us both that all our sins may be covered and that we may obtain grace and favour with God By which last words we learn what they and other Protestant Churches mean by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness and resting on the Obedience and Righteousness of Christ not that his Righteousness is so imputed to us as to make us formally righteous and to answer the demands of the Law which exacts an unsinning Obedience but it is so imputed to us that for the sake of Christ God forgives our sins and receives us into favour Thus the Helvetian Confession tells us Iustificare significat Apostolo in disputatione de Iustificatione peccata remittere à culpa poena absolvere in gratiam recipere justum pronunciare To justifie according to the Apostles sense of it in his dispute of Justification signifies to forgive sins to absolve from guilt punishment to receive into a state of favour and to pronounce such a person just and righteous that is not just as an innocent but as a pardon'd man Nor is the Scotch-Confession more Orthodox in this point For giving an account of those benefits we receive by the Satisfaction and Righteousness of Christ it sums them up in this Deus Pater nos in corpore Iesu Christi Filii sui intuetur imperfectam nostram obedientiam quasi perfectam acceptat omniaque opera nostra quae in se multis maculis foedantur perfecta justitia filii sui tegit i. e. God the Father beholds us as Members of Christs Body accepts our imperfect Obedience as if it were perfect and covers all our works which in themselves are defiled with many spots and blemishes with the perfect Righteousness of his Son So that according to the sense of this Church to which our Author ought to pay some Reverence we are not acquitted and absolved as innocent Persons by the Imputation of Christs perfect Righteousness but for Christs sake God accepts our imperfect Obedience as if it were perfect and covers all the imperfections and defects of our Works with the perfect Righteousness of his Son that is pardons all our sins for the sake of Christs perfect Righteousness The Augustan Confession is very express in this matter and so is their Apology Consequi remissionem peccatorum est justificari juxta illud beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates To obtain the pardon of sin is to be justified according to that saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven Thus the Churches of Bohemia declare their sense Per Christum homines gratis fide in Christum per misericordiam justificari salutem remissionem peccatorum consequi That to be justified is to obtain the pardon of sin and salvation freely by Christ. Thus we read in the Dutch Confession Credimus omnem felicitatem nostram sitam esse in peccatorum nostrorum remissione quae est in Christo Iesu eaque unica totam nostram justitiam coram Deo contineri We believe that our whole Happiness consists in the forgiveness of sins which is by Jesus Christ and that in this alone consists our WHOLE Righteousness before God And to conclude with our own Church in the Homily of Salvation we are taught that our Iustification consists in the forgiveness of sin and that this Iustification and Righteousness which we so receive of Gods Mercy and Christs Merits is taken accepted and allowed of God for our perfect and full Iustification I do not urge the Consent of Reformed Churches as if I thought their Authority sufficient to determine us in this matter they had no Authority but Reason and Scripture nor did they pretend to any other which is the true Principle of the Protestant Reformation There are but three sorts of Authority of any moment in Religion viz. The Authority of Divine Inspiration the Authority of Testimony and the Authority of Discipline and Order The Authority of Divine Inspiration is peculiar to Christ and his Apostles who spoke by an Infallible Spirit and is now confined to the holy Scriptures which are the only Infallible Rule of
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
Salvation by receiving Christ by resting and relying and rolling on Christ There is no use of Repentance or Charity or the Love of God in this affair for they cannot apply the Righteousness of Christ to us If we come to Christ for Righteousness we must come without any Righteousness of our own And yet it is hard to understand how this fiducial Reliance on Christ can apply his Righteousness to us a confident Persuasion that Christ is ours may make a fanciful application of his Righteousness to us but a mere Reliance on Christ makes no application but only signifies a Hope that it shall be applied And if they will be true to their Principles that we are justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us which is God's act whereby he applies the Righteousness of Christ I cannot understand how we can be justified by applying his Righteousness to our selves by Faith which if it have any sense must signifie our imputing the Righteousness of Christ to our selves for the Righteousness of Christ can be applied to us only by Imputation which makes our Justification our own Act and not Gods For it is as absurd to the full to say that Faith is an Instrument in doing that which is intirely Gods act or that our Imputation of Christs Righteousness to our selves is an Instrument of Gods imputing his Righteousness to us And then it is worth considering which of these two Imputations must go first if we apply that is impute the Righteousness of Christ to our selves before God has imputed it this is a false Confidence and Presumption if God imputes it first then we are actually justified and there needs no Imputation or Application of Faith to make this Righteousness ours all that can be said in this case is what the Antinomians affirm that we are first justified before we believe and that Faith is only a Sign or Evidence not an Instrument of our Justification But to let pass the Absurdities of this Doctrin every one may perceive how different this notion is from the sense of the Church of England which does not attribute our Justification to Faith as our own Act much less to any particular Act of Faith but by Justification by Faith only intends no more than that God will pardon our sins if we repent of them and reform our Lives and trust in the Mercies of God through the Merits and Mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the sense of our Church the sole object of our trust is the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ and therefore the proper Act of Faith is to embrace the Promise of Pardon upon the conditions of Repentance and a new Life we must first repent of our sins and reform our Lives and then rely on the Mercy of God for our Pardon and Reward But according to this new Divinity the sole object of our trust and reliance is the perfect and personal Righteousness of Christ which shuts out the Mercy of God and the meritorious Death and Sacrifice of Christ and the Promises of Pardon and the necessity of an inherent and personal Righteousness as abundantly appears from what I have discourst above But fourthly whereas our Church makes Christ only the meritorious cause of our Justification but still requires on our part Faith and Repentance and the Love of God as antecedent conditions of our Justification these men found all our hopes of Justification immediately on the Person of Christ. Every good Christian hopes to be justified and saved by Christ but not to be immediately saved by Christ i. e. by a bare Union to his Person but by believing his Gospel and obeying his Laws which are necessarily required on our part to give us an Interest in his Merits and Righteousness but to assert that nothing is necessary to our Justification but to apply Christ and his Righteousness to our selves by a fiducial Reliance and Recumbency is to place our hopes immediately in the Person of Christ which is the foundation of Antinomianism For this reason among others I charged them in my former Discourse with setting up the Person of Christ in opposition to his Gospel and making a new Religion of the Person of Christ distinct from and contrary to the Religion of his Gospel For the Gospel requires a great many previous conditions to entitle us to the Merits and Righteousness of Christ as that we must repent of our sins and reform our Lives and become new Creatures and then God will pardon and reward us for the sake of Christ but if an immediate Application of the Righteousness of Christ to our selves by a fanciful and Enthusiastick Faith will make all Christ ours this makes all the conditions of the Gospel void and useless and sets up the Person of Christ and his Personal Righteousness instead of his Laws and Religion The Gospel attributes the Pardon of our sins and the Acceptance of our imperfect Services to the virtue and efficacy of Christs Sacrifice and Righteousness and thus we are made righteous by Christ as by a meritorious Cause But in this way the Righteousness of Christ must serve instead of a personal and inherent Righteousness which makes us so innocent that we need no Pardon and so perfectly righteous that we merit a Reward This I take to be the grand Miscarriage in these mens Divinity which indeed is the foundation of Antinomianism though the mistake be very taking and popular which makes an opposition to it very odious that whereas Christ is our Life and our Righteousness our Wisdom and Power and the Author of all spiritual Blessings but does not dispense these Blessings immediately to us but in such ways and methods and upon such terms and conditions as are prescribed and declared in the Gospel these men send us immediately to the Person of Christ for Life and Righteousness for Beauty and Comliness for Grace and Wisdom and for the supply of all our spiritual wants which shuts out his Gospel and Religion or makes it wholly useless and let but Dr. Owen stand to what he asserts in his Vindication We do not imagin but believe from the Scripture and with the whole Church of God that we receive Grace and Salvation from the Person of Christ in those distinct ways wherein they are capable of being received if by that he means such ways as are prescribed in the Gospel and I declare I have no controversie with him about this matter Thus for instance Christ is our Righteousness as he is the meritorious cause of the Pardon of our sins and the Acceptance of our sincere but imperfect services but the way to be made righteous by Christ is not immediately to go to Christ for Righteousness with all our sins and impurities about us to be cloathed with his perfect and personal Righteousness but to repent of our sins and to believe and obey the Gospel and then we shall be pardoned and rewarded for Christs sake Thus Christ is our
Christ and to this I will stand Let us hear then what Mr. Ferguson has to object against it And first he can by no means understand how the Righteousness of Christs Life and Death can be the meritorious cause of Gods forgiving our sins and follies he should have said of that Covenant wherein God promises to forgive our sins upon certain Conditions for asmuch as according to what I express elsewhere his Essential Goodness obliged him to it The words which he cites to this purpose are these That the natural notions which men have of God assure them that he is very good and that it is not possible to understand what Goodness is without pardoning Grace Now I would know of Mr. Ferguson which of these three he will reject whether he will deny that the natural notion of a Deity includes infinite Goodness or that the notion of infinite Goodness includes Pardoning Grace when there is a just and honourable occasion for it or that the Merits of Christs Life and Death have purchas'd the Grace and Mercy of the Gospel If he believe all these he is as much concerned to answer this Objection as I am if he deny them he must either turn Atheist or Socinian But pray who told him that the Goodness of God did immediately oblige him to pardon Sinners or that the Goodness of God confers an antecedent title on Sinners to Grace and Pardon May not a good God consult the Reputation of his Holiness and of his Authority and Government and dispence his Pardons in such prudent Methods as his own Infinite Wisdom shall direct And may he not then require the intervention of a Sacrifice and of a very meritorious one too to purchase and seal his Pardon to Sincers The Essential Goodness of God only proves That he may pardon Sin without a Sacrifice but it does not prove that either he will or must The next Exception is very surprizing That because I elsewhere assert That the whole Mystery of the Recovery of Mankind consists only in repairing the Divine Image which was defaced by Sin that is in making all men truly good and vertuous c. He cannot imagine how the Covenant of Grace can be so much as necessary to the promising of Remession of Sins much less that the Death of Christ was needful to procure it to that end But pray why so Is not the Promise of Pardon purchas'd and sealed with the Blood of Christ absolutely necessary to encourage men to be good Does not the Gospel represent this to be the last and ultimate end of what Christ hath done and suffered to rescue Mankind from the Power of the Devil and Dominion of their Lusts and to renew them after the Image of God If Mr. Ferguson be ignorant in these matters I can direct him to a very good Book which will better instruct him But suppose he know no other end of Christs Death but to satisfie a natural vindictive inexorable Iustice yet if this must be done before any thing else can be done is it not absolutely necessary to the last and ultimate end which is to transform men into the Image of God and to bring them to the fruition of him For the satisfaction of Justice in what sense soever he pleases to understand it can only be a means in order to the Recovery of lost Man not the Recovery it self In the next place he tells us That it seems inconsistent with the Wisdom and Sapience of God to introduce a perfect Righteousness such as that of his Son was meerly to make way for his justifying us upon an imperfect Righteousness such as that of our Obedience is What force there may be in that phrase of introducing a perfect Righteousness I cannot tell but I can discover no inconsistency with the Wisdom of God to accept reward those who are sincerely but not perfectly righteous for the sake of one who is If God bestowed so many Blessings on the Posterity of Abraham for the sake of their Father who was not perfectly righteous I wonder our Author should think it any derogation to the Divine Wisdom to accept and reward our imperfect Obedience for the sake of the perfect Righteousness Obedience of Christ. Nay though we should suppose that God had sent Christ into the world upon no other design but to set a most perfect Example of Holiness Obedience to the Divine Will and to give a plain Demonstration how highly he is pleased with Obedience to his Laws should not only greatly reward him in his own Person but should promise for his sake to pardon and reward all those who imitate though imperfectly his Example which in our Authors Phrase is to introduce a perfect Righteousness meerly that he may justifie us upon an imperfect one this would be no greater blemish to the Wisdom of God than it is to chuse fit and proper ways of expressing his love to Holiness and encouraging the Obedience of his Creatures But our Author proceeds very Rhetorically Nor shall I â—â—gue how that the Righteousness of Christs Life and Sacrifice of his Death must be imputed to us for Iustification in proportion to our Sins having been imputed to him in order to his Expiatory Sufferings He may argue thus if he pleases and I shall perfectly agree with him in it Let us then consider how he manages this Argument Christs Sufferings must not be attributed meerly to Gods Dominion without any respect to Sin This I grant therefore our sins were imputed to him not only in the effects of them but in the guilt This I so far grant that the Sufferings of Christ had respect to the guilt of our Sins otherwise he could not have been a Sacrifice for Sin but whereas he adds That it is a thing utterly unintelligible I hope Mr. Ferguson thinks it never the less true for that how Christ could be made sin for us and have our punishment transferred to him without a previous imputation of sin and the derivation of its guilt upon him I am so far of another mind that I think it unintelligible how it should be so for besides that guilt cannot be transferred upon an innocent Person though punishment may I cannot understand how Christ should suffer for our sins if the guilt of our sins were transferred upon himself if he died for our sins it is plain that the guilt is accounted ours still though the punishment be transferred on him And this is essential to the nature of a Sacrifice that it dies not for it self but for another and therefore not for its own but for anothers guilt continuing anothers Christ was no Sinner in any sense but a Sacrifice for Sin which differ just as much as bearing the guilt and bearing the punishment of sin Were our sins transferred on Christ in Mr. Ferguson's way so that our sins become his and that he may be called a Sinner nay the greatest of Sinners the necessary consequence of this
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.
lived and came to Heaven but without Faith never any man had Life the Thief that was hanged when Christ suffered did believe only and the most merciful God justified him though as Bishop Davenant observes his Faith produced a great many good Works in a very short time but then it follows If he had lived and not regarded Faith and the Works thereof he should have lost his Salvation again but this is the effect that I say that Faith by it self saved him but Works by themselves never justified any man Where he prefers Faith above Works because Faith being a Universal Principle of Obedience is accepted by God without Works when there wants time or opportunity to act them though in no other case but no Works can be pleasing and acceptable to God unless they proceed from a true and hearty Faith Neither Faith is without Works having opportunity thereto nor Works can avail to everlasting Life without Faith The third thing noted of Faith is What manner of Good Works Faith produces and the Good Works of Faith are not some external Acts of Hypocrisie or some worthless and flattering Devotions not some Arbitrary Superstitions c. but are the substantial Duties of Religion which consist in the love of God and of Men which make us like to God and useful to the World as is excellently discoursed in the Second and Third parts of the Homily of Good Works So that according to the sense of our Church Justifying Faith is not an idle and unactive Principle but is fruitful in Good Works and no other Faith can justifie us but such a lively Faith as abounds in all the Fruits of Righteousness according as it hath occasion and opportunity of doing good But to make this still more evident I observe farther that whereas our Church seems to lay the greatest stress upon one particular Act of Faith in the matter of Justification viz. our trust in the Mercy of God and our apprehending the Promise of Forgiveness through the Merits of our Lord Jesus Christ she also makes a good Life or at least a firm and stedfast Resolution of a good Life antecedently necessary to this Justifying Act of Faith or to our Trust and Affiance in the Mercy of God through the Merits of our Lord and Saviour This is evident from that Reason which is assigned why no wicked men can have a sure Trust and Confidence in Gods Mercy For how can any man have this true Faith this sure confidence in God that by the Merits of Christ his sins be forgiven and be reconciled to the favour of God and to be partaker of the Kingdom of Heaven by Christ when he liveth ungodly and denieth Christ in his Deeds Surely no such ungodly man can have this Faith and trust in God For as they know Christ to be the only Saviour of the World so they know also that wicked men shall not enjoy the Kingdom of God They know that God hateth Unrighteousness that he will destroy all those that speak untruly that those who have done good Works which cannot be done without a lively Faith in Christ shall come forth into the Resurrection of Life and those that have done evil shall come unto the Resurrection of Iudgment Very well they know also that to them that be contentious and to them that will not be obedient unto the Truth but will obey Unrighteousness shall come indignation wrath and affliction c. The plain meaning of which words is this that no wicked man can have a true Faith in Gods Mercy because the Promise of forgiveness is made upon the Conditions of Repentance and a New Life whereas God hath threatned eternal damnation against all wicked Livers and therefore for any man while he lives in wickedness to hope to be pardoned by God for Christs sake is an express contradiction to the Promises and Threatnings of the Gospel and surely no man shall be justified for believing a lie Thus in the first part of the Sermon of Faith the design of which is to prove that a true lively justifying Faith is fruitful in Good Works we are expresly taught That he that believeth that all that is spoken of God in the Bible is true and yet liveth so ungodly that he cannot look to enjoy the Promises and Benefits of God although it may be said that such a man hath a Faith and Belief to the Words of God yet it is not properly said that he believeth in God or hath such a Faith and Trust in God whereby he may surely look for Grace Mercy and everlasting Life at Gods hands but rather for indignation and punishment according to the merits of his wicked Life This contains the very same Doctrine which was expressed in the former Paragraph farther gives us an account what distinction our Church makes between Credere Deo Credere in Deum to believe God and to believe in God the first signifies to believe whatever is contained in the Word of God to be true the second is to yield such Obedience to the Revelations of the Divine Will as may encourage us to trust in God for the Accomplishment of all those gracious Promises of Pardon and Eternal Life This is all the fiducial Reliance which our Church teacheth to trust to the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ for Pardon and Eternal Life upon our faithful discharge of all Gospel-Obedience The same Doctrine is more expresly taught if it be possible in the Second Part of the Sermon of Faith Verily verily I say unto you He that believeth in me hath everlasting Life Now forasmuch as he that believeth in Christ hath everlasting Life it must needs consequently follow that he that hath this Faith must have also Good Works and be studious to observe Gods Commandments obediently For to them that have evil Works and lead their Life in Disobedience and Transgression or breaking Gods Commandments without Repentance pertaineth not everlasting Life but everlasting Death as Christ himself saith They that do well shall go into Life eternal but they that do evil shall go into everlasting fire c. What can be more expresly said to prove the inseparable Union of Good Works with Faith in the Act of Justification In the Homily of Repentance this Doctrine is so plainly taught that there can be no possible evasion We are there told That the true Preachers of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven and of the glad and joyful tidings of Salvation have always in their godly Sermons and Preachings unto the People joyned these two together Repentance and Forgiveness of sins even as our Saviour Jesus Christ did appoint himself saying So it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise again the third day and that Repentance and Forgiveness of Sins should be preached in his Name among all Nations Forgiveness of sins as I observed before is Evangelical Justification and the necessary condition of Forgiveness is Repentance This is proved in that
Homily by many Scripture-Promises and Examples and therefore we must consider what our Church means by Repentance and the explication of this is reduced to four principal Points From what we must return to whom we must return by whom we may be able to convert and the manner how to turn to God First From whence or from what things we must return and that is From all our sins not only grosser vices but the filthy lusts and inward concupiscences of the Flesh. All these things must they forsake that will truly turn unto the Lord and repent aright For sith for such things the wrath of God cometh upon the Children of Disobedience no end of punishment ought to be look'd for as long as we continue in such things But this must be done by Faith for sith that God is a Spirit he can by no other means be apprehended and taken hold upon That is God being a Spirit we cannot see him with bodily Eyes nor go to him on our Legs nor take hold of him with an Arm of Flesh and therefore this Metaphor of returning to God and going to him and taking hold of him must be expounded to a spiritual sense is the work of Faith which discovers him who is invisible and unites our Souls and Spirits to him And We have need of a Mediator for to bring and reconcile us unto him who for our sins is angry with us the same is Jesus Christ who being true and natural God c. took our nature upon him that so he might be a Mediator between God and us and pacifie his wrath In the second part of the Homily we have this general Description of Repentance That it is a true Returning unto God whereby men forsaking utterly their Idolatry and Wickedness do with a lively Faith embrace love and worship the true living GOD only and give themselves to all manner of good Works which by Gods Word they know to be acceptable unto him And we are there informed That there are four Parts of Repentance the first is Contrition of the Heart For we must be earnestly sorry for our sins and unfeignedly lament and bewail that we have by them so grievously offended our most bounteous and merciful God c. The second is an unfeigned Confession and acknowledging of our sins to God The third is Faith whereby we do apprehend and take hold upon the Promises of God touching the free pardon and forgiveness of our sins which Promises are sealed up unto us with the death and blood-shedding of the Lord Jesus Christ. And the Reason of this is because Contrition and Confession will avail us nothing unless we stedfastly believe and be fully perswaded that God for his Son Jesus Christs sake will forgive us all our sins for though we be never so earnestly sorry for our sins and acknowledge and confess them yet all these things shall be but means to bring us to utter desparation except we do stedfastly believe that God our heavenly Father will for his Son Jesus Christs sake pardon and forgive us our Offences and Trespasses and utterly put them out of remembrance in his sight therefore they that teach Repentance without Christ and a lively Faith in the Mercy of God do only teach Cains or Iudas Repentance That is they teach men to be sorry for their sins without any hopes of Pardon and Forgiveness which is only to be obtained through our Lord Jesus Christ. The fourth part of Repentance is an amendment of Life in bringing forth fruits worthy of Repentance for they that do truly repent must be clean alter'd and changed they must become New Creatures they must be no more the same that they were before As appears from Iohn the Baptists Exhortation to the Scribes and Pharisees whereby we do learn that if we will have the wrath of God to be pacified we must in no wise dissemble but turn unto him again with a true and sound Repentance which may be known and declared by good Fruits as by most sure and infallible signs thereof This I think is as plain as words can make it that Repentance which consists in a hearty sorrow for all our sins and in a humble Confession of them to Almighty God and in a sincere Faith and Trust in the Mercies of God through our Lord Jesus Christ together with an actual amendment of our lives is according to the sense of our Church absolutely necessary to obtain the pardon of our sins that is Iustification by the free Grace of God This has often made me wonder that any one should affix such a Doctrine as this to the Church of England That Repentance it self is not antecedently necessary to our Iustification I am sure the Learned Bishop Davenant was of another mind in this point for he expresly asserts that there are some Works sine quibus Iustificatio nunquam fuit ab ullo mortalium obtenta nunquam obtinebitur without which Justification never was and never shall be obtained by any mortal man among which he reckons true Repentance and Faith and the love of God and of our Neighbour Haec hujusmodi opera cordis interna sunt omnibus justificatis necessaria non quod contineant in se efficaciam seu meritum Iustificationis sed quod juxta ordinationem divinam vel requiruntur ut conditiones praeviae seu concurrentes sicuti poenitere credere vel ut effecta à fide justificante necessario manantia ut amare Deum c. i. e. These and such-like internal Works of the Heart are necessary to all that are justified not that they are meritorious Causes of Justification but because according to the Divine Appointment they are required either as previous or concurring conditions such as Repentance and Faith or as effects which necessarily flow from a justifying Faith such as to love God c. Where this Learned Prelate doth expresly assert that Repentance as well as Faith is a previous Condition of our Justification and I fear will hereafter be accounted one of our Innovators And that distinction which the Bishop makes between those Works which are required as previous Conditions of Justification as to repent and believe and those Works which are necessary Effects of justifying Faith which must always be present in the justified Person as to love God c. gives a plain and easie answer to the grand Exception against the antecedent necessity of Repentance to our Justification viz. Because then it must precede Faith it self I suppose because every true Believer is actually justified in the first instant of his being a true Believer whereas all good Works and therefore Repentance and Contrition which are certainly good Works are the Effects and Fruits of Faith and so consequently must follow our Justification by Faith unless we will place the Effects before their Cause But this is absolutely false that all good Works are the effects and fruits of justifying Faith for there are some good Works which
and the free choise of the Divine Will and therefore though we may conclude from the Divine Nature that God will be gracious and compassionate to sinners yet we cannot certainly know in what measures and proportions God will exercise this Grace and Mercy without an express declaration of his Will and when God has declared his Will as he has now done in the Gospel it is then at best to no purpose to argue from his Nature unless we have a mind to encourage Sinners to expect more Grace from the Divine Nature than God hath promised in the Revelation of the Gospel So that though we should suppose that he did not consider this boundless Grace in Christ as Mediator but considered it as in him who is Mediator which by the way spoils all the comfort sinners might take from the boundless mercy of the Divine Nature in Christ if this be not in him as our Mediator unless we may expect more Grace from Christ upon his Personal account than from his Mediation that is more from the Person than from the Gospel of Christ which contains the terms of his Mediation which he so vehemently disowns yet I say this Argument were weak and fallacious because we cannot reason thus from the Divine Nature it self for though the Divine Nature be the Fountain of Grace and Mercy yet the Divine Will regulates the exercise of it and assigns its measures much less can we reason thus from the Divine Nature considered in Christ as our Mediator for a Mediator as Mediator though he be God-man is not the Fountain but Minister of Grace as Christ witnesses That he came not to do his own will but the will of him that sent him And thus he is considered in Scripture even where he is said to be the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and truth which seems not primarily to refer to the inherent glory and perfection of his Nature though that may be proved from it but to the glory of his Ministry which was the only glory the Apostles could then discover when his Essential Majesty was hid under a vail of flesh and therefore I think still the Doctor would do well to make God the Father the Fountain of Grace for though when we consider the three Persons in the Sacred Trinity in the Unity of the Divine Essence what is attributed to one is supposed to be attributed to the other yet when we consider them under different capacities and relations it is not so Christ as God essentially one with the Father and Holy Spirit is the Fountain of Grace as Mediator he is the Minister of it the Father sends and Christ is sent the Father prescribes his work and he finishes it And therefore to make Christ as Mediator the Fountain of Grace is a derogation from God the Father whom the Scripture makes the first mover and supreme Agent in the work of our Redemption I observed in the same place another instance of this way of reasoning from the Divine Nature in Christ to prove that Eternity Unchangeableness and Fruitfulness of his Love Now this I say is a way of proving the Eternity Unchangeableness and Fruitfulness of Christ's love which the Scripture no where teaches but is wholly owing to an acquaintance with Christ And I wonder that the Doctor should be at a loss to know what it is I except against whether it be that the love of Christ as he is God is Eternal Or that it is Unchangeable Or that it is Fruitful or Effective of good things unto the Persons Beloved It is neither of these in themselves considered for I own all as he very well knows but I except partly against his way of stating these things and partly against his way of proving them or rather against both together What he means by this Eternal Unchangeable and Fruitful Love he tells us himself The love which I intend and whereunto I ascribe those properties is the especial love of God in Christ unto the Elect. This is such a love as is Eternal without beginning and without end as does not change with the changes of the object as the love of men does and is so fruitful and effectual as to love Life Grace holiness into us to love us into Covenant to love us into heaven Now my business is not to dispute the case whether God have elected some particular Persons whom he will infallibly bring to glory which I never denied yet and I think never shall But the question is Whether the Eternity and Unchangeableness and fruitfulness of this Electing Love can be proved from the Eternity and Immutability c. of the Divine Nature The inconvenience I then urged it with was this If this love be so Eternal and Unchangeable c. because the Divine Nature is so then it was always so for God always was what he is and that which is Eternal could never be other than it is now and why could not this Eternal and Unchangeable and Fruitful love as well preserve us from falling into Sin and Misery and Death as love Life and Holiness into us all To this the Doctor answers That Gods love is in Scripture represented Unchangeable because he himself is so but it doth not hence follow that God loveth any one naturally or necessarily His love is a free act of his Will and therefore though it be like himself such as becomes his nature yet it is not necessarily determined on any object nor limited as to the Nature Degrees Effects of it which he proves from the different dispensations of the Grace and Mercy of God under the Law and Gospel and adds God is always the same that he was love in God is always the same that it was but the Objects Acts and Effects of this Love with the measures and degrees of them are the issues of the counsel or free purpose of his Will Now this Answer is what I would have and plainly discovers the Sophistry of this way of reasoning For if this electing Love be not the immediate and necessary effect of the Divine Nature but the free choise and purpose of his Will then we cannot learn either that it is or what it is from the bare contemplation of the Divine Nature but from the declarations of the Divine Will for we can prove nothing from the Divine Nature but what has a necessary and inseparable connexion with some attribute and perfection in God but where a free choice and counsel intervenes we must be contented to be ignorant or to learn from Revelation We may certainly conclude from the holiness and goodness of God that God will love good men and hate the wicked because holiness includes in the very notion of it a necessary love to goodness and hatred of evil and from the immutability of God we may conclude his unchangeable love to goodness and hatred of evil as the Psalmist expresseth it Psal. 103. 17 18. But the mercy
justified in time as soon as they are capable of it that is as soon they are in being In his Book of Communion p. 204. he has ten Propositions much to the same purpose He there tells us That Christ in his undertaking of the work of our Redemption with God was constituted and considered as a common publick person in the stead of them for whose reconciliation to God he suffered And that being thus a common Person upon his undertaking as to merit and efficacy and upon his actual performance as to solemn declaration this is what Dr. Crisp calls Gods laying iniquity upon Christ by way of Obligation and by way of Execution was as such as a common person acquitted absolved justified and freed from all and every thing that on the behalf of the Elect as due to them was charged upon him or could so be So that he was from all Eternity upon his undertaking and in time upon his actual performance as a common Person that is in the name and as representing the persons of the Elect acquitted absolved and justified and therefore as it follows Christ received the general acquittance for them all and they are all acquitted in the Covenant of the Mediator whence they are said to be crucified with him to die with him to rise with him to sit with him in heavenly places namely in the Covenant of the Mediator This is what Dr. Crisp calls a secret application of Gods laying iniquity upon Christ to particular persons which is done before they know it and the only difference between him and Dr. Owen is that Dr. Owen will not allow this to be a discharge of the Elect in their own persons but only in the Person of the Mediator and Dr. Crisp thinks it more proper to say that this is a personal discharge of them since it is done in their names and persons but it is no great matter who speaks most properly when the thing is the same In another Discourse of the Death of Christ in answer to Mr. Baxter's Objections against his Treatise of Redemption p. 72. he asserts that the Elect have an actual right to all that was purchased by Christ's Death before believing and that is equivalent to their having a right from Eternity or from the first moment of their being And he offers it as his one opinion Whether absolution from the guilt of sin and obligation unto death though not as terminated in the conscience that is though it be not known to the Person which is Dr. Crisp's secret application for complete Iustification do not precede our actual believing and expounds the Justification of the ungodly Rom. 4. to this sense as Dr. Crisp expresly does And though he dare not assert complete Iustification to be before believing yet he affirms that absolution is as it is considered as the act of the Will of God that is secret and known only to God for a discharge from the effects of anger naturally precedes all collation of any fruits of love such as faith is And the difference between this absolution and complete Justification is no more but this That absolution wants that act of pardoning mercy which is to be terminated and completed in the conscience of a sinner That is though such a man be pardoned before believing yet he can have no sense of his Pardon before believing which is exactly Dr. Crisp's notion And absolution wants the hearts perswasion of the truth and goodness of the Promise and the mercy held out in the Promise And it wants the Souls rolling it self on Christ and receiving Christ as the Author and Finisher of that mercy an All-sufficient Saviour to them that believe All which signifies no more than that Absolution is before and without Faith for this apprehending the truth and goodness of the Promise and rolling it self on Christ according to the Doctors notion constitute the justifying Act of Faith And therefore when the Doctor elsewhere tells us that the Elect till the full time of their actual deliverance determined and appointed to them in their several Generations be accomplished are personally under the Curse of the Law and on that account are legally obnoxious to the wrath of God He only chuses to contradict himself to avoid the imputation of Antinomianism For by their actual deliverance I presume he must understand the time of their actual believing and if they are absolved before they actually believe how can they be under the Law or legally obnoxious to the wrath of God And therefore he immediately qualifies this that though they are obnoxious to the Law and the Curse thereof yet not at all with its primitive intention of execution upon them which is as much as to say that they are obnoxious to the Curse of the Law but not obnoxious to the execution of that Curse which I take to be non-sense How then are they obnoxious to the Curse of the Law Why as it is a means appointed to help forward their acquaintance with Christ and acceptance with God on his account By which I suppose he means that their Absolution being at present secret and not terminated and completed in the Conscience they are terrified and scared with the threatnings of the Law as fancying themselves to be under it when they are not and this makes them fly to Christ for refuge and sanctuary And though Dr. Crisp indeed do not like this way of affrighting men to Christ by the Law yet the difference is not great and makes no material alteration in the Scheme of their Religion And therefore when Dr. Owen adds That it was determined by Father Son and Holy Ghost that the way of the actual personal deliverance of the Elect from the Sentence and Curse of the Law should be in and by such a way and dispensation as might lead to the praise of the glorious grace of God and to glorifie the whole Trinity by ascending to the Fathers love through the works of the Spirit and Bloud of the Son All that he means by it is this that we shall have no sense of our Absolution by the Bloud of Christ till we actually believe nor be actually possessed of Eternal Life till we be renewed and sanctified all which Dr. Crisp will own and is consistent enough with our Justification or Absolution from Eternity since Faith and all other blessings are the effect of our antecedent Absolution in Christ as the Doctor confesses And this is all Mr. Ferguson means when he tells us That Christ's own discharge was an immediate consequent of his sufferings and they for whom he suffered had also immediately a fundamental right of being acquitted but their actual deliverance was to be in the way and order that he who had substituted himself in our room and he who had both admitted and been the Author of the substitution thought fit to appoint This is the necessary consequence of this Doctrine that if Christ acted as a Surety in the name
and satisfaction he attributes to Christ Nay he is so far from attributing any merit and satisfaction to what Christ did that he affirms that the will of God is not moved thereby nor changed into any other respect towards those for whom Christ died than what it had before which I take to be complying with those who assert that God was not moved by the death of Christ to forgive sin and who those are I presume the Doctor knows since he has so often told me of them As for what he insinuates that I deny the necessity of satisfaction to be made unto divine Iustice I own the charge and have as good company in it as heart can wish for not to take notice of our modern Writers who whatever the Doctor may think of it have writ at a better rate against the Socinians than the necessity men Vossius gives us a particular account of the concurring judgment of the ancient Fathers in this point The Author of that Book de Cardinalibus Christi operibus Athanasius St. Austin Leo M. Gregorius M. together with several eminent Divines of the Reformed Churches and particularly a great man of our own the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield who in his Letter to Grotius gives an account of the sense of this Church in this point of the necessity of satisfaction Nos in sententia Augustini acquiescimus non defuisse Deo pro sua omnipotentia sapientia alios modos possibiles sed hunc convenientissimum esse visum We rest satisfied in St. Austin ' s opinion that God who is infinitely wise and powerful did not want other possible ways for the Redemption of Mankind but judged this the most convenient of all And here I must once more take notice of that account the Doctor gives of the necessity of Satisfaction which he resolves into a natural vindictive Iustice which makes it impossible that Gods anger should be diverted from sinners without the interposing of a Propitiation Upon which account he tells us that whatever discoveries were made of the patience and lenity of God unto us yet if it were not withal revealed that the other Properties of God as his Iustice and Revenge for sin had their actings also assigned them to the full there could be little consolation gathered from the former This account as I then thought and think so still makes a very unworthy Representation of Almighty God as if he were so just that he is cruel and savage and irreconcilable till he has taken his fill of Revenge and represents the whole design of Christs Death to be only a satisfaction of Revenge without which God could not be appeased as if Divine Vengeance as I then expressed it out of a just indignation to such a horrid Doctrin did glut and satiate itself with the bloud of Christ instead of the bloud of the sinner This Dr. Owen makes very severe Reflexions on as blasphemous and prophane and I will not deny upon second thoughts but that it might have been more inoffensively expressed for there is an Euphemia due from us when we speak of sacred things and it is not fit always to represent such Doctrins in their true and proper colors But every one might easily perceive that I did not intend it as any disparagement to the satisfaction of our Saviour to which we owe all our present Mercies and future hopes but as the natural Interpretation and Language of the Doctors Argument I deny not that Anger and Fury and Vengeance are in Scripture attributed to God when it speaks after the manner of men to signifie the severity of those judgments which God will inflict upon obstinate sinners but to think that the Death of Christ who was his only and his beloved Son was a satisfaction of his natural and unappeasable Vengeance and Fury is such an account as the Scripture no where gives us of the Death of Christ as is incredible in it self and irreconcileable with the other Perfections of the Divine Nature But let us hear what the Doctor has to say for himself and he tells us That all he intended by that which he asserted is no more but this that such is the essential Holiness and Righteousness of the Nature of God that considering him as the supreme Governour and Ruler of Mankind it was inconsistent with the holiness and rectitude of his Rule and the glory of his Government to pass by Sin absolutely or to pardon it without Satisfaction Propitiation or Atonement That God being infinitely holy does perfectly hate all wickedness and that as he is the supreme Governour of the world he justly may and in some cases cannot consistently with his Holiness and Wisdom and the ends of his Government do any other than punish sin is denied by no body that I know But the Doctor proceeds farther that God as a holy and just Governour is under a necessity of Nature to punish every sin that is committed that though the sinner repent of his sins and humbly confess and bewail them and sincerely reform yet Justice must be satisfied either with the punishment of the sinner or some other in his stead Thus he states it in his Diatriba de Iustitiâ p. 2. Iustitiam peccati vindicatricem Deo esse naturalem contendo in exercitio necessariam i. e. I contend and earnestly assert that that Iustice which takes vengeance on sin is natural to God and necessary in the exercise of it Now this is a very different thing from the Justice of Government which allows the most just and righteous Judges to pardon Offences when the ends of Government may as well be attained by Indulgence as by Punishment And therefore the Doctor distinguishes between Ius Regiminis positivum naturale between a positive and natural Right of Government The Positive Right is such as Magistrates have over their Subjects and this he asserts they may recede from in some extraordinary cases when it is for the Publick Good and Benefit not to punish because the Safety of the People and the Publick Benefit is the supreme Law to such Governours But the Natural Right of Government is that which God has over his Creatures and this is immutable and therefore God cannot recede from it which as it is said without any reason for whether the Right be Positive or Natural it does not alter the Nature nor the prudent Rules and Methods of Government so it gives a plain account what the Doctor means by Gods Right of punishing as Governour which answers to what we call Revenge in private persons which immediately respects himself and not the publick ends of Government which is the true difference between private Revenge and publick Justice and though this be all the Doctor intends yet that all is enough in all reason and is the very all which I charged him with Well but I say as much as this comes to when I assert that God is an irreconcilable enemy to
Man with the Mystery of the Love Grace and Truth of God therein as revealed and declared in the Scripture This comprehends all those Revelations which immediately concern the Person of Christ as his Nature Offices Mediation and all the benefits which flow from them the Mystery of the Love Grace and Truth of God therein And then he adds That without such a knowledge of the Person of Christ as this which contains all we can know and all that is revealed in the Gospel concerning Christ There is no true useful saving knowledge of any other Mysteries of the Gospel to be attained This indeed is very warily said and like a right Sophister set aside all the saving Mysteries of the Gospel which concern the Person and Offices and Mediation of Christ and then there are no other saving Mysteries to be discovered or at least no saving knowledge of any other Mysteries because he knew very well that no Christian could own any saving knowledge when he had laid aside the knowledge of Christ And yet in this saying he craftily insinuates too that there are some other saving Mysteries which are to be discovered when we are first acquainted with Christ and he should have done well to have told me what they are and how they may be discovered since my Living or my Christianity lay at stake and I am not very good at guessing but since he has here concealed this secret we must learn what it is from his former Writings and then whatever danger there be in it I must needs say that this acquaintance with the Person of Christ is a very ill way of expounding Scripture or of learning Gospel-Mysteries as being that which different men may use to different purposes as I shewed in my former Discourse and from whence some men draw such Conclusions as do quite evacuate the ends and design of the Gospel This is sufficient to vindicate my self from those imputations of Falshood and Calumny which occur almost in every Page of the Doctors Answer but I shall not dismiss this subject thus but shall first shew you that there is such a way of reasoning from the knowledge of Christ's Person now in great vogue among some late Writers and what Arguments I reject upon that score as weak or fallacious And secondly discourse something more particularly concerning this way of reasoning As for the first I have given instances enough of this nature in my former Discourse which were so plain and evident that I thought the bare mentioning of them was sufficient to convince any man from what Principles such Arguments and Conclusions were deduced But because I find that my Adversaries are willing to take no notice of the chief design for which those passages were alleadged but to fall into some collateral Disputes I must be forced more expresly to state the matter in debate and reduce it to another form and method The Question then between us is plainly this Whether any Persons pretend to learn or prove the great Principles of their Religion from an Acquaintance with the Nature Person Offices of Christ distinct from the Revelations of the Gospel In my former Discourse I asserted that they deduced such Doctrines from the knowledge of Christ as are no where expresly contained in Scripture and I doubt not but that will appear true upon a particular examination of such Doctrines as they have or shall fall in my way but let the Doctrines be true or false the present dispute is whether they make the knowledge of Christs Person a new medium of saving knowledge from whence we may learn the greater deeper and more saving Mysteries of Religion distinct from the Revelations of the Gospel And that they do so is plain from this that most of the Arguments from whence they deduce and by which they prove their most darling and mysterious Notions are wholly owing to an acquaintance with Christs Person and are no where exprest in Scripture I have already given two instances of this in his way of proving the naturalness of vindictive justice to God and the desert and demerit of sin and shall now add some more The Doctor proves from the Deity of Christ as I observed in my former Discourse the endless bottomless boundless grace and compassion that is in him mercy enough for the greatest the eldest the slubbornest transgressor the infiniteness of Grace with respect to the Spring or Fountain the Deity of Christ will answer all our Objections What is our finite guilt before it How comes this guilt to be finite now When we are so often told that the demerit of every sin is infinite as being committed against an infinite God and requiring an infinite satisfaction for its Atonement Shew me the Sinner that can spread his iniquity to the dimensions if I may so say of this Grace I am glad to hear the Doctor put so fair a sense on these words and to declare to the World that he designed no more in it than to invite all sorts of sinners though under the most discouraging qualifications to come unto Christ for Grace and Mercy by Faith and Repentance Though any man who reads that long Discourse about an endless bottomless boundless Grace and Compassion in Christ such an infinite Grace as makes nothing of our finite guilt as all the sins in the world cannot equal its dimensions without one word of Faith or Repentance or a new life to qualifie us for this mercy especially if withal he understood what a great Patron the Doctor is of the necessity of holiness and obedience to qualifie us for Gods mercy as appears from what I have already discoursed above would not easily have guessed this to have been his meaning And whoever writes a Book which cannot be understood without a Commentary ought not to complain that he is mistaken nor charge his Readers upon that account with ignorance falshood or calumny Though for my part I shall be very well contented he should write another Book consisting of little else than those mild and gentle imputations of falshood and calumny so he will but recant or at least handsomly palliate those doctrines which otherwise may encourage bad men continuing so to lay claim to such a boundless and bottomless mercy But my present business is to observe how the Doctor proves that there is such a boundless bottomless Grace in Christ and his Argument is taken from his Divine Nature which is infinite For when the Conduit of his humanity is inseparably united to the infinite inexhausted fonntain of the Deity who can look into the depths thereof if now there be Grace enough for sinners in an all sufficient God it is in Christ. This is a plain instance of this way of reasoning from an acquaintance with Christ with his Divine nature which the Scripture no where teaches and which is weak and fallacious For though the Divine Nature be infinite yet the exercise of mercy and compassion is regulated by wisdom