put to it when they are forc'd to take Sanctuary in the Authority of that Church which they so much reproach and vilifie when they dare not trust to any other Weapon to defend their Cause but the despised name of the Church of England Those I am sure must be very blind who cannot see through so transparent a Cheat. The meaning then of all this noise about the Church of England is no more but this They are conscious to themselves of a bad Cause which they can no longer defend by plain Scripture and Reason and therefore shelter themselves in the Authority of the Church and would fain perswade the Bishops and the Church of England to defend them since they cannot defend themselves and having little else to say they make long Harangues about Articles and Homilies and pretend a mighty Zeal for the True Ancient and Catholick Doctrine of the Church of England And now methinks the Church of England and the Reverend Bishops are very much beholden to me for they have not had so many good words from these men in many years before and must never expect the like again but upon such another occasion and I hope the People will begin to consider what a Church they have forsaken whose Authority is much greater than all other Arguments with their own Teachers But I see it is very dangerous to be too much in love with any thing for this great zeal and passion for the Doctrine of the Church of England has betrayed the Doctor and his good Friend the Author of the Speculum to some hasty Sayings of which it may be they may see cause to repent when they are better advised They are great Friends you must know to Liberty and Indulgence and take it very ill if they may not only think and act as they please in matters of Religion but make Parties and Factions too and controul the Commands of Secular Powers and yet these very men who so much extol and magnifie an Indulgence and so much need it give plain intimations how far they would be from granting that Liberty to others which they challenge to themselves The Doctor tells me There is great reason to pity the People committed to my Charge what regard soever ought to be had unto my self i. e. though I should starve for want of my Rectorship as he expresses himself elsewhere Had this man in their days treated this Doctrine with his present scoffing petulancy he had scarce been Rector of St. George Buttolph-Lane c. Nor should I be so now could he hinder it But what becomes of Liberty and Indulgence then in matters of Religion Must the Conscience be set free in matters of External Order and Government but tied up in Doctrines and Opinions This indeed is the Doctors avowed Principle as great a Friend as he is to Liberty He would be excused himself from subscribing Three of the XXXIX Articles but as for the other XXXVI he would have no man suffered to live in England who will not subscribe them and the Doctor can remember when he proposed this very unseasonably The Author of the Speculum desires his Friend to bid me consider whether if the Parliament should meet they might not find leisure enough to censure my Discourse as they did Mr. Mountague ' s who in vain pleaded for himself that he had writ against the Puritans and was left alone to suffer though others had instigated him to write The Commons of England will scarce endure to find the Doctrine of the Church of England struck at though it be through the sides of Dr. Owen and Dr. Jacomb But now suppose the Commons of England should think it as reasonable to secure the Government and Discipline as the Doctrine of the Church what would become then of Indulgence Would not our Author then change his Note and repent of such Intimations as these Or if the Commons of England should happen to have other thoughts of that Discourse than our Author has and should think it necessary to prevent the Debauching of Mens Minds by such corrupt Doctrines as are there opposed what would become of most of the Conventicles in England Could he with any Confidence then cry out of Persecution when he himself hath sounded the Alarm to it This it is to fence with a two-edged Sword which cuts both ways and may wound a Friend as soon as an Enemy This is sufficient in answer to my Adversaries who are well skill'd at drawing up a Charge but have no faculty at proving it But I think my self upon this occasion concerned to vindicate the Doctrine of the Church of England from the mis-representations of these men as if it favoured such uncouth and absurd notions as besides the ill consequences of them have no foundation in Scripture or Reason which I doubt may represent the best Church in the World to great disadvantage with many I mean with all wife and considering men The principal thing which these Men object against me is the Doctrine of Justification as it is explained in the Articles and Homilies of our Church And I am contented the Controversie should be put upon this issue whether they or I speak most consonantly to the Doctrine of the Church of England in this matter The Doctrine of Justification is contained in Article XI which is this We are accounted Righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ by Faith and not for our own Merits and Deservings Wherefore that we are Iustified by Faith only is a most wholsom Doctrine and very full of comfort as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Iustification The Article is plain and expressed in a few words without any Scholastical Subtilties we are not clogged here with the several Modes of Causality with the Efficient Formal Material Instrumental Causes of Justification which fill up every Page in the Books of Modern Divines All that our Church requires us to profess is only this that we are accounted Righteous before God only by Faith and for the Merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that neither Faith nor Works are the Meritorious Cause of our Justification but that all the Merit of it is to be attributed to Christ who died for our sins and fulfilled the Law so that whoever acknowledges the Merits of Christ and denies the Merits of Good Works answers the end and design of this Article For this was the great Controversie of those days between the Papists and Protestants whether we were Justified freely by the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ or by the Merits of our own Works and the principal design of this Article was to oppose the Popish Doctrine of the Merit of Good Works But we are referred to the Homily of Justification for a larger Account of this Doctrine and thither I willingly appeal And to proceed with all possible ingenuity I readily acknowledge that there are several Expressions in
Paul tells us The works of the flesh are manifest which are these Adultery Fornication Uncleanness Lasciviousness Idolatry Witchcraft Hatred Variance Emulations Wrath Strife Seditions Heresies Envyings Murders Drunkenness Revellings and such-like of the which I tell you before as I have also told you in time past that they which do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Gal. v. 19 20 21. I say must these and such-like places which so expresly denounce the wrath of God against all wickedness and impieties be expounded with this limitation that this shall be the portion of such men unless they be united to Christ and thereby sheltered from the wrath of God as a Wife under covert is secured from all Arrests at Law But as soon as any man hath got into Christ let him be what he will he is redeem'd from the curse of the Law and made an Heir of Eternal Life And does not this effectually evacuate all the Threatnings of the Gospel and set up the Person of Christ as a Refuge and Sanctuary for the Ungodly and make the Grace of Christs Person a Dispensation from his own Laws and Threatnings I am sure the Apostle understood not this limitation as is plain from what he adds vers 24. And they that are Christs have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts And in Rom. viii 1. There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Iesus and that we might not mistake him he expresly tells us whom he means who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit This is essential to our Union to Christ and to entitle us to the Grace of the Gospel And it is not enough to say that Christ will save none but those who do live very holy lives because there is no reason for this saying for if men are united to Christ before they are holy their very Union to Christ gives them a title to eternal Life and this can never be reconciled with the antecedent necessity of Holiness which the Gospel inculcates not only to qualifie us for actual Salvation but to give us a right to it and therefore I had good reason to reject this notion of Union unless I would renounce the whole Gospel I reject such a notion of Union as makes it impossible for any man to â—â—ow either how to get into Christ or whether he be in Christ or not and I think every man who values the salvation of his soul or the peace and comfort of his own mind hath reason to reject this too I reject such a notion of Sanctification as makes it impossible to distinguish a sanctified from an unsanctified state I reject such a notion of Christs love to us as represents it too like a fond and foolish passion as respects the very Person without regard to any Qualifications in him whether he be a fit object of love or not which is so great an imperfection in humane love that I cannot imagine it to be the perfection of a Divine Love And I reject such a notion of the immutability of Christs love as sin it self cannot alter which is contrary to all the Declarations of his Gospel and inconsistent with the Holiness and Purity of his Nature I reject such a notion of our love to Christ as excludes all respect to the infinite love of Christ and those numerous Benefits we receive by him which the Scripture assigns as the true reason of our love to Christ. I reject such a notion of love to Christ as excludes all regard to our own Happiness and Salvation by him and must make us contented to be damned and eternally separated from him which is not only impossible to humane Nature but contrary to the Principles of Christianity I reject such a notion of our love to Christ as opposes our Love to Christ to our Duty and Obedience to him which is the most proper and natural expression of our love of him such a love as consists only in some flights of fancy and imagination in admiring and valuing the Person of Iesus Christ and in preferring him above all Legal Righteousness and blamelesness of Conversation and Duties upon Conviction and in using all Duties and Ordinances only to have us over to Christ for Righteousness and Salvation and whatever we need for this is no better than to set up the Person of Christ in opposition to his Laws and Religion This is a short and plain account of the whole Doctrine and Design of my late Discourse and the more I consider it the less reason I see to repent of my Undertaking The Doctrines I have professedly taught are the most necessary and useful Doctrines of Christianity and so plain and evident that a younger man than my self may defend them against the oldest Sophister And the Doctrines that I have opposed are as certainly false as the other are true That such Doctrines have been taught I have made it sufficiently evident already by the express Testimonies of some late Writers and because Doctor Owen is unwilling to own the Charge as far as he is concerned in it I must be forced to make it good in vindication of my own Honesty and that is all the trouble which he has given me Only I would desire the Reader to observe that since the Doctor disowns the Charge he renounces such Doctrines too and that was all I designed I have no personal quarrel with any man and should be glad to find them more Orthodox than their express words would ever suffer me yet to believe they are though I fear much that upon Examination it will appear that I understood them too well and that the Doctor is not willing to recant those Doctrines which he would seem to disown There is some reason to suspect this because he is not willing to declare his sense in plain words but endeavours to avoid the blow by jugling and sophistical Arts as will appear in what follows CHAP. II. Containing an ANSWER to some Popular Exceptions NExt to no Adversary the most desirable thing is to have a fair and ingenuous one but this must never be expected where men serve a Faction which makes them try all ways not to discover what is true but how they may palliate their mistakes and maintain their Authority and Reputation It is my unhappiness to fall into such mens hands who wanting better Weapons to defend their Cause return to their old childish tricks of flinging stones and dirt I am not so well skilled at this sport as to venture to engage with them nor shall I envy them such a Victory which will cost them some time and trouble to make themselves clean again There are several familiar Topicks of Reproach which such men use when they dare not directly engage in the Dispute They have a peculiar Gift of discerning thoughts and intentions and there never was any Book writ which they could not answer but it was writ with a very ill design Thus the Doctor would
whatever becomes of this Exposition of which more hereafter did ever any man before Mr. Ferguson imagine that the Fulness of Christ of which we receive Grace for Grace was a proper Expression without the least Trope or Figure Fulness properly belongs only to space as filled with matter and is a metaphorical Expression when applied to Spirits or spiritual things and therefore I thought that instead of turning a proper Expression into Tropes and Figures I had expounded a figurative Expression to the most proper sense when by the Fulness which is in Christ I understood the most perfect Knowledge of the Divine Will and by this Fulness communicated to us the most perfect Declarations of the Divine Will in the Gospel which is a Dispensation of Grace and Truth But let us consider what proper work Mr. Ferguson makes of it By that Fulness in Christ of which we all receive Grace for Grace he understands a participation of renewing sanctifying Grace according to the plain and proper import of the words So that Christ is in a proper sense full of renewing and sanctifying Grace that is according to Mr. Ferguson's notion of it of infused habits of Grace and we receive this renewing Grace out of Christ's Fulness as Water flows out of a Fountain And thus either Grace passes from one Subject to another which the Philosopher would have told him no Habit or Quality can do or the very Substance of Christ is communicated to Christians together with these infused Habits of Grace which is a more ridiculous conceit than the Popish Transubstantiation or the Lutheran Consubstantiation The inherent Grace of Christ according to this notion is of the same identical nature with the infused Habits of Grace in Christians and the Essential Holiness of Christ is separable from his Person and may be transmitted into another Subject and may there be capable of increase and diminution Mr. Ferguson must necessarily allow all this if he take these words in a proper sense for it is not sufficient to say that Christ is endowed with power to renew and sanctifie us to deliver this Expression from Tropes and Figures but the very same Grace which is in Christ must be infused into Believers which is an excellent way of expounding Scriptures to a proper sense by turning them into Nonsense But these are but some slight Skirmishes in pag. 387. he draws forth his whole strength and force to make good this Charge against me That I pervert the Scripture by turning Plain and Proper Expressions into a Metaphorical Sense Of this he gives two instances the first is concerning the Priestly Office of Christ which he says I confound with his Regal Office and consequently make Christ only a metaphorical Priest and then he tells us That there is not one Text in the Bible where Christ is called a Priest which can be understood in a proper sense but they must all of necessity be interpreted in a metaphorick as the Socinians expound them Now though I doubt it would puzzle Mr. Ferguson to give an intelligible account what he means by a proper and a a metaphorical Priest yet at least one might reasonably expect from him that in order to make good this Charge he should produce some express place where I make Christ a metaphorical Priest or some express Texts which I expound to such a metaphorical sense but he can do neither of these and therefore he first perverts my words as well as sense and then argues by consequence that I make Christ only a metaphorical Priest and then by as good consequence I must expound those Texts which concern the Priesthood of Christ in a metaphorick sense and thus by consequence our Author loses his labour For I have already made it sufficiently appear how childishly he has mistaken or maliciously perverted my words and sense whereon this Charge is grounded only I am very glad to find upon this occasion that he has so much alter'd his Judgment of Dr. Stillingfleet and his Discourse concerning the Reason of the Sufferings of Christ for time was when he charged that Learned Person with betraying the Cause for the same Reasons for which I am now charged with Socinianism But our Author never commends any one unless it be to insinuate some commendation of himself or to reflect some disparagement and odium upon his Adversary His next instance concerns that account which I give of the nature of Justification And here he first lays down my sense of it and then makes some few cavilling exceptions against it then admirably proves that I pervert plain and proper expressions of Scripture to a metaphorical sense As for the first I own my words but dislike that blundering method into which he has cast them and therefore I shall beg leave to represent my own Conceptions in such order and method as may more easily and naturally express my sense I assert That our Justification and Acceptance with God depends wholly upon the Gospel-Covenant which does not exact from us a perfect and sinless Obedience but promises Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life upon the Conditions of Faith and Repentance and new Obedience that this Gospel-Covenant is wholly owing to the Merits of Christ who by the Sacrifice of his Death hath expiated our Sins and both in his Life and Death hath given a Noble Demonstration of his entire Obedience and Submission to the Divine Will for God being well pleased with the Obedience of Christs Life and with the Sacrifice and Expiation of his Death entered into a New Covenant of Grace and Mercy with Mankind that the only way to partake of the blessings of this New Covenant is by believing and obeying the Gospel of Christ that is in other words by acknowledging the Divine Authority of our Saviour believing his Revelations obeying his Laws trusting to the Merits of his Sacrifice and the Power of his Intercession and depending on the supplies and influences of his Grace So that the Righteousness of Christ is not the formal cause of our Righteousness or Justification but the Righteousness of his Life and Death is the meritorious cause of that Covenant whereby we are declared righteous and rewarded as righteous Persons our Righteousness is wholly owing to the Righteousness of Christ which in this sense may be said to be imputed to us because without this Covenant of Grace which is founded on the Righteousness of Christ the best man living could lay no claim to Righteousness or future Glory The Righteousness of Christ is our Righteousness when we speak of the Foundation of the Covenant by which we are accepted but if we speak of the Terms of the Covenant i. e. What it is that will intitle us to all the Blessings of the Covenant then we must have a Righteousness of our own for the Righteousness of Christ will not serve the turn This is a plain and easie Account of my sense concerning the Doctrine of Justification by Faith in
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
perfect and unsinning Righteousness so that he only confidently affirms what was in dispute and this goes for an Argument This Argument he silently passes over only he transcribes the last clause without taking any notice of the reason of it and huffs it off with an Appeal to his Reader Any man may easily guess by the management of this whole Discourse that the Doctor had no mind his Readers should know what was in dispute or what Arguments were alledged on either side and I do readily believe what he says That he is weary of every word he is forced to add for it is enough to tire any mans heart out to be forced to say something and not to have one wise word to say But to return from this long Digression it were very easie to give several other instances of this way of arguing from Metaphors as when they prove that we are wholly passive in our first Conversion because we are said to be dead in trespasses and sins from whence they infer that we can contribute no more to our own Conversion than a dead man can to the quickning of himself and that we are born again and are made new Creatures and created to good Works and the like but to discourse this fully would take up too much time and possibly may fall under consideration in a proper place What I have already discours'd is sufficient to acquaint Mr. Ferguson that I am no Enemy to a sober use of Metaphors and that he and his Friends do very much corrupt Religion and perplex and entangle the plainest notions of it by the abuse of Scripture-Metaphors CHAP. III. Concerning the DOCTRINE of the CHURCH of ENGLAND THose Objections if they may be so called of which I have taken notice in the former Chapter are but some slight Skirmishes but the main Battel is still behind the great out-cry is That I have contradicted the Doctrine of the Church of England contained in her Articles and Homilies This I confess were a very great fault if it were true and if it be not it is a very great calumny And yet whether it be true or false every one may believe as he pleases for the Doctor is not at leisure to make good the Charge this he leaves to the Bishops and Governours of our Church to consider which is very wisely done of him But all that he takes leave to say is That the Doctrine here published and licens'd so to be either is the Doctrine of the present Church of England or it is not If it be so what then Why then the Doctor shall be forced to declare That he neither has nor will have any Communion therein But I thought there had been no need of declaring this now If this be all the hurt my Book has done to force the Doctor to renounce the Communion of our Church after so many years actual separation from it the matter is not great But why so much haste of declaring Why as for other Reasons at which you may guess so in particular because he will not renounce or depart from that which he knows to be the true ancient Catholick Doctrine of this Church What a mighty Reverence has the Doctor for the Church of England That he will rather separate from the present Church of England than renounce the Ancient Catholick Doctrine of the former Church of England That he will not renounce any thing which he knows to have been the True Ancient Catholick Doctrine of this Church But does he indeed speak as he means Does he account the Authority of the Church of England so sacred as to make it the Foundation of his Faith and a sufficient Reason to renounce any Doctrines which she condemns and to own what she owns If he does not I would desire him to explain the force of this reason and if he does I would beg of him for the sake of his Reason to renounce his Schism though upon second thoughts I fear this is no good Argument with the Doctor Well but if it be not so that is if the doctrine here published be not the Doctrine of the present Church of England as he is assured with respect unto many Bishops and other learned men that it is not What then What account will he now give of Renouncing the Communion of this Church Nay not a word of that but he has a little Advice to the Bishops and Governours of it It is certainly the Concernment of them who preside therein to take care that such Discourses be not countenanced with the Stamp of their Publick Authority lest they and the Church be represented unto a great disadvantage with many What a blessed change has my Book wrought in the Doctor He is now mightily concerned for the Honour and Reputation of the Bishops and Church and fears lest they should be disadvantagiously represented to the World Who could ever have hoped for this who had known the Doctor in the blessed times of Reformation And yet I vehemently suspect that after all his Courtship to the Church and Bishops the Doctor designs a little kindness to himself and his Friends in it to perswade the Reverend Bishops not to suffer any Books to be Printed against them which they cannot answer which may represent them to a great disadvantage with many The Looking-Glass-Maker transcribes several passages out of the Homilies to what end he himself knows best for I should not readily have guessed my self concerned in them had it not been for that ingenious Reflection How ill Mr. Sherlock hath fitted his Cloth to this Pattern he that is not very blind may see So that now every one must acknowledge for the credit of his eye-sight that I have contradicted the Homilies by which artifice as I have heard some waggish Fellows have perswaded silly People to confess that they have seen some strange Prodigies which they did not see and which indeed were not to be seen But to gratifie the ill nature of these men let us for once suppose that which they cannot prove that I have contradicted the Doctrine of the Church of England what then Why then I have contradicted the Doctrine to which I have subscribed if I have done so it is very ill done of me but what then Why then this is a sufficient Answer to my Book But I pray why so Do they believe the Church of England to be infallible Do they think it a sufficient proof of the Truth of any Doctrine that it is the Doctrine of the Church of England Why then do they reject any of the Articles of our Church Why do they renounce Communion with us If they attribute so much to the Judgment and Authority of our Church is it not as good in one case as it is in another Every one I suppose knows what Obedient Sons they are of the Church of England how they reverence the Authority of their Mother and is it not a plain Argument how hard they are
faith in his Blood to shew his Righteousness And in the Tenth Chapter Christ is the end of the Law unto Righteousness to every man that believeth And in the Eighth Chapter That which was impossible by the Law in as much as it was weak by the flesh God sending his own Son in the similitude of sinful flesh by sin damned sin in the flesh that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us which walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit Which Texts are alledged by our Modern Divines to prove the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us as the formal cause of our Justification but our Church expresly tells us that she understands these Texts to signifie no more on Christs part but Iustice or the Satisfaction of Gods Iustice. And whereas these new Divines make such a difference between the Active and Passive Righteousness of Christ that by his Death and Sufferings he expiated our Sins and by his Active Obedience makes us righteous Our Church knows no difference in this matter but assures us that they both concur to the same effect to make satisfaction for our sins He made satisfaction to Gods Iustice by the offering of his Body and shedding his Blood with fulfilling the Law perfectly and throughly Which account I expresly gave of it in my former Discourse p. 330. Edit 2. p. 231. In this sense we are taught that Christ is now the Righteousness of all them that truly believe in him he for them paid their Ransom by his Death he for them fulfilled the Law in his Life So that now in him and by him every true Christian Man may be called a fulfiller of the Law for asmuch as that which their infirmity lacked Christs Iustice hath supplied Which last clause the Looking-Glass-Maker thought fit to leave out for he had so much wit in his anger as to see that it did not make to his purpose for the meaning of it is this that Christs active and passive Righteousness is imputed to us to procure the pardon of our sins thereby to supply the defects of our Righteousness not to make us formally righteous though our Righteousness be imperfect and defective yet Christ by his Righteousness having obtained the pardon of our sins we may be said in him to fulfil the Law in as much as that which our Infirmity lacked Christs Iustice his Merit and Satisfaction as it is before explained hath supplied And once for all our Church tells us what she means by being justified by Christ only We put our Faith in Christ that we be justified by him only that we be justified by Gods Mercy and the Merits of our Saviour Christ only and by no vertue and good works of our own that is in us or that we can be able to have or to do to deserve the same Christ himself being the only cause meritorious thereof So that the plain sense of our Church is that Christs part in our Justification is only to be the meritorious cause of it to merit Pardon and Justification for all those who heartily believe in him And who-ever of our Communion have affirmed any more they have in so doing plainly deserted the Doctrine of our Church And therefore Doctor Prideaux himself does expresly disown the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ in any other sense than that of Merit Iustificamur per justitiam Christi non personae quâ ipse vestitus est sed meriti quâ suos vestit nobis imputatam that is We are justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us not by his Personal Righteousness as Dr. Owen affirms with which he is cloathed himself but with the Righteousness of Merit with which he cloaths those who belong to him And in answer to a passage out of Bellarmine he adds Quis unquam è nostris nos per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justificari asseruit that is Who among us ever affirmed that we were formally justified by the imputed Righteousness of Christ. And as the learned Forbs observes it sounds very like a contradiction to assert that the Righteousness of Christ is both the meritorious and the formal cause of our Justification Nequit enim fieri ut eadem res simul fit causa efficiens ad quam meritum reducitur formalis ejusdem effecti quia sic simul de essentia effecti foret non foret cùm causa formalis interna sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 efficiens autem externa tantum ut constat that is It cannot be that the same thing should be both the efficient as Merit is and the formal cause of the same effect for so it must both be of the essence and not of the essence of the effect for a formal cause is internal and belongs to the nature and essence of the thing but an efficient is an external cause as every one knows And therefore when the Learned Bishop Davenant asserts the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us to be the formal cause of our Justification and explains it by our being justified ex intuitu meritorum Christi propter Christum with respect to the Merits of Christ and for Christs sake though he uses a different phrase which too many since have abused to bad purposes yet he seems to mean no more by it than we do who say that the Righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification for that must be explained by the same phrases of being justified for Christs sake and with respect to the Merits of Christ and indeed the only difference the Bishop makes between the Righteousness of Christ being the meritorious and the formal cause of our Justification is no more but this that in the first case he considers the Merits of Christ absolutely as the price of our Redemption in the second he considers those same Merits of Christ applied to particular persons for the pardon of their particular sins which still makes it no more than a meritorious cause His words are these Eadem unica justitia Christi in se suo valore considerata est meritoria causa humanae justificationis considerata autem quatenus imputatur donatur applicatur tanquam sua singulis credentibus in Christum insitis subit vicem causae formalis And that he intends no more by a formal cause than what others express by a meritorious cause is plain in this that he acknowledges the imputation even of Christs active Righteousness only in the sense of Merit He expresses his agreement with Vasques in this matter who acknowledges the imputation of the Merit of Christs active Obedience Cùm dicimus Merita Christi nobis imputari idem de justitia sanctitate illius existimamus nam cùm Merita Christi ex sanctitate ejus dignitatem accipiant eodem sensu quo Merita nobis dicuntur imputari ipsa etiam Iustitia Christi imputari dicitur that is When we say that