and the Fear of God to be joyned with Faith in every man that is justified but it shutteth them out from the Office of Iustifying So that although they be all present together in him that is justified yet they justifie not all together So that no man must expect this great Blessing of Justification unless together with Faith he have Repentance Hope Love Dread and the Fear of God which supposes that a man must be a true Penitent and a true Lover of God before he is justified Though Repentance and Hope c. have no actual influence upon our Justification yet they are causae sine quibus non such causes without which the effect will never follow which necessarily intitles them to the nature of Conditions for a Condition which hath no natural or meritorious Efficiency is only a causa sine quâ non and though it is true that the accidental presence of one thing with another which produces any Effect will not entitle it to any degree of Efficiency yet where there is such a natural Union between two things that neither of them can act alone though the effect may more immediately belong to one than to the other yet they both concur to it though the hand does immediately apprehend any thing or lay hold on it yet the Shoulder and the Arm is naturally necessary to produce this action because the Hand cannot move of it self And if they will allow us this similitude which they themselves sometimes use that Good VVorks be the Shoulder and Arm that upholds Faith we will allow Faith to be the Hand And thus it is in Moral Causes where the presence of two things of Faith suppose and Works is necessarily required in order to the same Effect there must be a concurrence of both though it may be in different manners When our Church asserts the necessary presence of some internal Graces and Vertues together with Faith in him who is to be justified she plainly acknowledges that we shall never be justified without them though not for them which is all that any one desires who denies and rejects the Merits of Good Works And as these internal Acts of Repentance Hope c. are antecedently necessary to Justification so Good Works must necessarily follow as we are taught in the same place Nor the Faith also doth not shut out the Iustice of our Good Works necessarily to be done afterwards of Duty towards God for we are most bounden to serve God in doing Good Deeds commanded by him in his holy Scripture all the days of our Life but it excludeth them so that we may not do them to this intent to be made good by doing of them that is to be justified by them And this we are taught is so necessary that unless these Good Works follow as the necessary Fruits of Faith we shall loose our Justification again as you heard above In what sense then does our Church reject good Works and attribute our Justification to Faith alone And that we are told over and over in the most plain and express words that it is only to take away the Merit of Good Works and to attribute our Justification to the free Mercy of God and Merits of Christ not to our own Works and Deservings Hence it is that Justification by Works is so often opposed to our Justification by the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ which are inconsistent in no other sense but that of Merit for though Good Works be supposed the necessary Conditions of Justification yet if they be acknowledged so imperfect as not to merit we shall still need the Merits of Christ to expiate our sins and the Mercy of God to pardon them and to accept of our imperfect Services But the words of the Homily are very express where after alledging the concurrent Testimonies of the ancient Fathers for Justification without Works by Faith alone we have this Explication given of them Nevertheless this Sentence that we be justified by Faith only is not so meant of them that the said Justifying Faith is alone in man without true Repentance Hope Charity Dread and Fear of God at any time and season nor when they say we be justified freely they mean not that we should or might afterward be idle and that nothing should be required on our parts afterward neither they mean not so to be justified without Good Works that we should do no Good Works at all But this saying that we be justified by Faith only freely and without Works is spoken for to take away clearly all Merit of our Works as being unable to deserve our Justification at Gods hands and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of Man and the goodness of God the great infirmity of our selves and the might and power of God the imperfectness of our own Works and the most abundant Grace of our Saviour Christ and therefore wholly to ascribe the Merit and Deserving of our Justification to Christ only and his most precious blood-shedding Hence for a man to be justified by his own Works is expounded as if we should affirm That a man might by his own Works take away and purge his own sins and so justifie himself That is when they reject Justification by Works they understand by it a meritorious Justification Thus in the third part of the Sermon of Salvation we are expresly taught That the true meaning of this Proposition or Saying We be justified by Faith in Christ only according to the meaning of the old ancient Authors is this We put our Faith in Christ that we be justified by him only that we be justified by Gods free Mercy and the Merits of our Saviour Christ only and by no vertue or Good Works of our own that is in us or that we can be able to have or to do for to deserve the same Christ himself only being the Cause meritorious thereof This is so expresly the Doctrine of the Homilies that I need not multiply Testimonies for the proof of it from whence it is evident that our Church owns the necessity of Good Works to all intents and purposes excepting Merit and in this sense they reject Faith too as it is our own Work But now because our Church and all the Reformed Churches expresly reject Works in the matter of Justification under the notion of Merit and Deserving in which sense alone they are injurious to the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ from whence we argue that they own the necessity of Works upon all other Accounts and reject only the Merit of them Some tell us that we should rather argue that they put no difference between Works and the Merit of Works in the matter of Justification but equally reject them both But pray why so Truly for no Reason that I know but that it best serves their Hypothesis They acknowledge that there is a difference between Works and the Merit of Works but will by no means own that
of grace in us produce the fruits of Holiness by a free and voluntary choice from Principles of reason and moral perswasion together with the supernatural assistances of grace then it cannot it self be an argument of the necessity of Holiness but does it self stand in need of such Arguments from the necessity and advantages of Holiness as shall effectually incline and determine it to a constant and vigorous practice of Holiness And if this new Creature produce the fruits of Holiness by a necessity of nature meerly by the natural or rather supernatural force and energy of Grace then indeed it makes Holiness necessary as a necessary cause makes a necessary Effect and the Doctor need not fear that this new Creature should be starved for want of being fed and cherished with the fruits of Holiness And indeed this is a kind of Pelagian fear too that the new Creature should perish for want of being kept alive by the fruits of Righteousness for all Orthodox Divines use to assure us that the new Creature can never die that the least spark of grace will live in the midst of a whole Sea and Ocean of corruption However upon the consideration of the whole it appears to be an excellent Argument to prove the necessity of Holiness that we must abound in the fruits of Holiness to keep the new Creature alive in us whereas the life of the new Creature is necessary to produce these fruits of Holiness A Tree must be alive to bring forth fruit and its bringing forth fruit is a sign that it is alive but the fruit it self contributes nothing to the life of the Tree Acquired Habits are owing to exercise but an infused Principle of life in the Doctors way can neither owe its being continuance nor increase to External Acts I am sure in other cases the Doctor is very much against working for life And I can imagine no reason why he should be for it now but that it is absurd and senseless And to make the most of this Argument that may be the whole result of it is this that we must live holily that we may be holy we must abound in the External fruits of Holiness that we may preserve an inward Principle of Holiness for a new Creature in the Doctors account is no more But if the question be proposed what need there is of this new Creature as well as of the fruits of it which ought to be taken into consideration when we enquire after the necessity of Holiness unless he thinks Holiness a meer External thing I doubt in his way he can find no good reason for it unless he will say that a new Creature is necessary to produce the fruits of Holiness and the fruits of Holiness are necessary to feed and cherish the new Creature and so they may be necessary for each other but for ought yet appears might both be spared I know not whether the Doctor will think all this an answer but I am pretty confident as young men are apt to be that other men will This is all our Author returns to those Objections I made against his reasons for the necessity of Holiness the rest he passes over as unanswerable scoffing that they are unanswerable I am verily perswaded whether they be scoffing let others judge however whether they be scoffing or not any one will perceive that in this Argument I may securely scoff at the Doctor without any danger of scoffing at any true Apostle But though the Doctor have done with me I have not thus done with him since at all turns he can talk of nothing less than Apostles I shall acquaint the World to what Apostles he is nearest related such as Dr. Crispe Saltmarsh and other Antinomian Apostles who are to the full as Orthodox in this Point as our Author and assign the same reasons for the necessity of Holiness and take the same method to secure the Prerogative of Christ and of Free Grace which I shall make appear by particular instances Dr. Owen pretends to be a great Friend to Holiness and so does Dr. Crispe He tells us That he does not speak against Holiness and Righteousness that becomes a people to whom Christ is a way for holy and righteous they shall be Christ will make them holy and pnt his Spirit into them to change their hearts and work upon their Spirits And therefore as Dr. Owen takes care to assign the Righteousness of Christ its proper place and Gospel Obedience its place so does Dr. Crispe Thus Dr. Owen tells us We do by no means assign the same place condition state and use to the obedience of Christ imputed to us and our Obedience performed to God if we did they were really inconsistent And thus Dr. Crispe assures us that the consequence of his Doctrine is not to take men off from Obedience but to take them off from those ends which they aim at in Obedience namely the end for which Christs Obedience serves It doth take men off from performing duties to corrupt ends and from the bad use they are apt to make of Idolizing their own Righteousness Our own Righteousness is good in its kind and for its own proper uses but then it proves a fruit of sin ignorance and a dangerous stumbling block when we go about to establish this Righteousness of ours so as to bring it into the room and stead and place of Gods Righteousness So far all is well on both sides let us consider then what those ends are for which the Righteousness of Christ must serve and which must not be attributed to our Righteousness Dr. Owen in the same place enforms us That those who affirm that our Obedience is the condition or cause of our Iustification do all of them deny the imputation of the Obedience of Christ unto us in his Notion he should have said for otherwise it is not true The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us as that on the account whereof we are accepted and esteemed righteous before God and are really so though not inherently Our own Obedience is not the Righteousness whereupon we are accepted and justified before God although it be acceptable to God that we abound therein There is a necessity of good Works notwithstanding we are not saved by them and that is that God has ordained that we shall walk in them And Dr. Crispe speaks the very same thing It will be worth the while to consider when our Righteousness is said truly to be established in the room and stead of the Righteousness of God viz. When men make their own Righteousness the Sanctuary and Refuge that Gods righteousness only should be As when men have such imaginations as these as long as men do not mend there is no hope that God will mend They that put deliverance from sin and wrath upon the spiritual performance of that Righteousness which the Law doth command of them they do put that Righteousness in the
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.
Human Nature was fitted for Glory might have exempted him from the Obligation of any outward Law whatever What he means by outward Laws I cannot tell for the Laws of Creation are intrinsick and essential to human Nature and if the Hypostatical Union do not destroy the Human Nature it cannot exempt it from those natural and necessary Obligations He might as well say that the Hypostatical Union exempts the Human Nature of Christ from the Laws of Reasoning as from the Rules of Life both which are equally the Glory and Perfection of a Reasonable Nature And though we should suppose the Human Nature in Christ in the very first instant of its Union to the Divine Nature to be fitted for Glory yet I cannot see how this exempts the Human Nature from the Obligation of those Laws which are essential to Human Nature unless he thinks that Human Nature in Glory is under no Obligations Had Christ been immediately translated to Heaven he had not been obliged to those particular instances of Obedience which are proper to an earthly state for glorified Saints themselves are not but while Christ is a perfect Man as well as God it will always become him in whatever state he be to live agreeably to Human Nature For though he be advanced to the Right Hand of God he is still as man inferiour to his Father and therefore can never as man be exempted from the necessary Laws of Human Nature But to proceed to the Ceremonial Law The Doctor proves that Christ as an innocent man under the Covenant of Works could not be obliged by this Law which came upon us by reason of Sin especially not to such institutions as signified the washing away of sin and repentance from sin as the Baptism of Iohn did and therefore he fulfilled this Righteousness for us To this I answered in my former Discourse That though it were granted that these Laws at first were commanded upon occasion of sin yet an innocent man may observe them to good and wise purposes as publick and solemn acts of Worship or external and visible expressions of Devotion as a publick Profession of Righteousness and a vertuous Life to which purposes among others the Sacrifices and Ceremonies of the Law and the Baptism of Iohn served c. To which the Doctor returns no answer but makes me say what I never thought and abuses his credulous Readers with an apprehension that I had talked like himself at such a rate of Nonsense as any one in his Wits must needs despise to borrow some of his own Elegancies For thus he reports my sense or words or both as he would perswade his Readers that I say that an Innocent Person such as Christ was absolutely may be obliged for his own sake to the observation of such Laws and Institutions as were introduced by the occasion of sin and respected all of them the personal sins of them that were obliged by them And now he desires to be left to his liberty nay to the necessity of his mind not to believe Contradictions I wish he had been under this necessity a little sooner or were yet under a necessity of not making contradictions for what he believes no man can tell I plainly acknowledged that Christ being an Innocent Person could not observe any of these Judaical Ceremonies with respect to personal sins but I say as they had other significations so he might observe them to other purposes Circumcision in its first Institution was a seal of that Covenant which God made with Abraham and therefore did very well become him who was not only of the Seed and Posterity of Abraham but that very Seed which was promised in the Covenant whereof Circumcision was the Seal The Baptism of Iohn was a publick Profession of a vertuous Life which becomes the most innocent man but it was a profession of Repentance and signified the washing away of sin only when the baptized Person had been a Sinner and yet the Baptism of our Saviour was designed for a nobler purpose as a Publick Inauguration of him to his Prophetical Office The Passover was an Eucharistical Sacrifice in commemoration of the Deliverance of their Fore-fathers out of Aegypt and therefore might be observed by the most innocent man but I challenge the Doctor or any of his Friends to prove that Christ offered any Sin or Trespass-Offering which respect only personal Offences or that he observed any Ceremony which could signifie nothing else but personal guilt and till he can prove this his Argument is worth nothing His second Argument to prove that what Christ did as Mediator that is the actual Obedience of his Life he did for us and in our stead I represented thus That there can be no other reason assigned of Christs Obedience to the Law but only this that he did it in our stead Here the Doctor according to his usual way charges me with mis-representing his Argument for his words are That the end of the active Obedience of Christ cannot be assigned to be that he might be fit for his Death and Oblation These I acknowledge to be his words but not his Argument for the force of his Argument consists in the dis-junction as I expresly observed that either Christ fulfilled all Righteousness to fit him for his Death and Oblation or he did it for us and in our stead because otherwise as he himself expresses it if the Obedience Christ performed be not reckoned to us and done upon our account there is no just cause to be assigned why he should live here in the World so long as he did in perfect Obedience to all the Laws of God and therefore in answer to this I made it appear that though the Righteousness of Christ were supposed not necessary to qualifie him for his Death which he can never prove yet there were other great and necessary Reasons why he should live so long in the World in a perfect Obedience to the Divine Will His third Argument to prove that Christ performed all Righteousness for us is the absolute necessity of it for this is the term of the Covenant Do this and live so that we being unable to yield that compleat perfect Obedience which the Law requires as the condition of Life and Happiness it is necessary that Christ our Mediator and Surety should fulfil the Law for us The sum of which Argument as I told him before is this That there never was nor ever can be a Covenant of Grace that God still exacts the rigorous perfection of the Law from us and that we must not appear before him without a compleat and perfect Righteousness of our own or of another Now this is the thing in question whether we must be made righteous with the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us or whether God will for the sake of Christ dispense with the rigor of the Law and accept a sincere and Evangelical Obedience instead of a
Fears The Hope of Heaven and the Fear of Hell are the great Motives of the Gospel but are of no use in this new Religion since a justified Person who yet may be very wicked is in no danger of Hell and is secure of his Inheritance in Heaven For if a justified person may miss of Heaven and fall into Hell his Justification is worth nothing a man had as good be Unjustified as to perish with his Justification And therefore though God if he pleases may sanctifie whom he first justifies yet there is no Argument left to perswade a justified person to be holy if he may be justified without it This I particularly shewed in my former Discourse where I examined Dr. Owens Reasons for the necessity of Holiness which either prove nothing or prove only the necessity of Event that God will necessarily make men holy not such a necessity of Duty as will make every considering man who hath any value for his Soul freely chuse Holiness But instead of answering what I there urged the Doctor in his Vindication transcribes a long Paragraph concerning the necessity of Holiness and leaves it to the judgment of his Readers which I must needs say was very boldly done if he thought his Readers had any judgment though it argued more craft to give me a fresh challenge as if I had yet said nothing to him The Doctor only takes notice of two or three things which I answered to his Reasons for the necessaty of Holiness and passes over all the rest as unanswerable scoffing which is his way to call that scoffing which he cannot answer As first he proved the necessity of Holiness from the command of God which had been a good Argument had it been used by another man but the Doctors Notion of Justification by the imputed Righteousness of Christ only evacuates this command and therefore I enquired where is the Sanction of this Law will he damn those who do not obey for their disobedience And will he save and reward those who do obey for their obedience Not a word of this for this destroys our Iustification by the Righteousness of Christ only And if after all these Commands God hath left it indifferent whether we obey or not I hope such Commands cannot make Obedience necessary This last Clause the Doctor recites and cries out Wonderful Divinity A man must needs be well acquainted with God and himself who can suppose that any of his Commands shall leave it indifferent whether we will obey them or no. This I confess is wonderful Divinity but I know no reason the Doctor should wonder at it because it is his own For such indifferent things he makes all the Divine Commands while he makes them unnecessary to our Justification which quite destroys their Authority and Sanction For a Law if it may be so called without Rewards and Punishments is left at the liberty of the Subject to obey it or not and such a Command cannot make Obedience necessary But the Doctor proceeds But may we not notwithstanding this Command be justified and saved without this Holiness Wherein he designs to represent my Sense though he have changed the words and answers false and impertinent we are neither justified nor saved without them though we are not justified by them nor saved for them This is warily expressed but will not serve his purpose for by our not being justified without Holiness he means no more than that God at the same time when he justifies infuses the Habits of Grace and Holiness renews and sanctifies us too and therefore we cannot be said to be justified without Holiness because we are justified and sanctified at the same instant though in order of nature we are Justified before we are Sanctified and therefore in our Justification God had no respect to any sly Antecedent Holiness which as to the present Dispute is the same thing as to be Justified without Holiness The Doctor professes it as his avowed Doctrine That Holiness and Obedience is neither the Cause Matter nor Condition of our Iustification and therefore not Antecedently necessary And expresly tells us That the Passive Righteousness of Christ only is imputed to us in the non-imputation of Sin and that on the condition of our Faith and new Obedience so exalting them into the room of the Righteousness of Christ is a thing which in Communion with the Lord Iesus I have as yet no acquaintance withal And a little before Are we then freed from this Obedience Yes But how far From doing it in our own strength from doing it for this end That we may obtain Life Everlasting It is vain that some say confidently that we must yet work for Life it is all one as to say That we are yet under the Old Covenant Hoc fac vives we are not freed from Obedience as a way of walking with God but we are as a way of working to come to him So that Holiness contributes nothing to our Justification and Eternal life and therefore we may as well be justified and saved without them which destroys the Necessity and Sanction of the Divine Laws and leaves it at every mans liberty to Obey or not to Obey were they not over-ruled like spiritual Machines and Engines by an irresistible Power In the next place the Doctor proves the necessity of Holiness from the Ends of God in Election and Redemption God Elected us and Christ Redeemed us that we might be holy This is a very good Argument too if it be rightly managed but that it can never be upon the Doctors Principles that is if we deny the Antecedent necessity of Holiness to our Justification For if God have absolutely Elected us to Eternal Life without any condition required on our part only purposing to make those holy by an irresistible Power whom he hath Elected this only proves the necessity of the Event that those who are Elected shall be holy but can be no Argument to engage any man to press after Holiness For this Election to Holiness doth not make Holiness necessary on our part with the necessity of Duty or of a Condition without which we shall not be saved but only makes it necessary on Gods part as to the regular execution of his Decree of Salvation And the same may be said of Redemption if we are so absolutely Redeemed by the Death of Christ as to have a right to all the benefits of it as Justification and Eternal Life without any condition required on our part If we are justified freely by the Grace of God through the Redemption which is in Christ Iesus without any regard to Repentance or New Obedience to qualifie us for this Grace then our Redemption by Christ cannot make it a necessary Duty in us to be holy though Holiness may follow as a necessary Effect This I expressed in fewer words but to the same sense in my former Discourse Will the Father Elect and the