this Comfort here tho' none else in the World for this alone is worth a World that we may must ought to trust lean cast our selves upon the Satisfaction and Merit of Christ for pardoning all our Failings and accepting our poor Mite and if the Soul remains in doubt it must quiet itself upon him If with the Pharisee I justifie myself God may condemn me If I condemn myself with the Publican he may acquit me And what must I do in this Case Behold O Lord I am at thy Bar and I commit my Cause unto my Judge Thy Bar is a Bar or Throne of Grace I cast myself on thy Grace And the Lord send me a good Deliverance at the Great Day As for Actual Pardon and Life that follows Justification the Merit is to be attributed to that which procured Justification on that Condition There is nothing of Merit but Christ's throughout It is Christ's Satisfaction runs through all I must still say as the Meritorious Cause when Performance of the Condition becomes thereby the Formal Cause of our Justification I know how hardly this is like to be received by many when Dr. Owen will allow nothing of any Personal Righteousness or any Works Legal or Evangelical but excludes them all from our Justification supposing that if it be of Works any way it is not of Grace at all when it is therefore of Faith or upon the Evangelick Condition that it may be of Grace Dr. Owen is a Person whose Name I honour for his Worth Learning Comprehensive Parts and one in whom was more of a Gentleman as to his Deportment than in any Divine I knew ever among us Yet is he more Authorative sometimes in his Book than he needs which being liable to hurt the humbly Inquisitive I will speak the more positively in this matter that the Doctor is out as I believe and never came to the plain true knowledge of what Paul means by the Works he opposes to Faith in this Point of Justification Which Works are such as would justifie a Man in the Apostles Account if he had them but that no Man is justified by Works because he has them not This I am past doubt is Paul's meaning and in this particular the Learned and Honoured Sir Charles Wolesley before quoted is rather to be attended A Man says Sir Charles that has not a Legal Sinless Perfection is that Paul means by the Ungodly Rom. 4.5 In my first Papers I wrote I had this Sence of the place and I have it before and in my Pacification I say the like of that Text * For solving this Matter Austin and from him the Schools distinguish of Opera Naturae and Opera Gratiae We are not saved by Works or according to Works done in our own Strength but by Works done by Grace But is this the Apostle's meaning No I have shewn in my Book of Just that One Thing of Three wherein Austin was out and hath misled the Schools is this Notion of Grace By Grace he understands still this inherent Grace or Operation of God's Spirit in us when Paul understands it of that without his Favour or Condescension to us Not of Works but of Grace is all one as not of Desert but of Favour only Grace is Mercy without or contrary to Merit Now when the Papist receives the Solution mentioned the Protestants generally will have all Works tho of the Regenerate to be but Rags and Christ's Righteousness alone to save us But they are both out for Paul's meaning it plainer than they think Not by Works of Righteousness we have done The Righteousness which the Jew hath done is living according to the Law of Moses The Righteousness which the Gentile hath done is his living according to the Law of Nature There is neither one or the other that fulfil that Righteousness which answers God's Law so as it should be able to save him and therefore it is of Grace or Mercy that Any are saved Pacif. p. 29. Not by the Works of Righteousness we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us Which Words have put so many to the inventing Distinctions when the right understanding is to make none the meaning being only Not by the Works of Righteousness we have done because we have not done them and it must be of Mercy therefore and in another way we are saved or not at all See the Quotation above The Works then I have said there and here and must still say which Paul means are such as would justifie us such as would make the Reward of Debt if we had them that is perfect Works Such says the Judicious Le Blanc as the Law requires to Justification And as for that the Doctor hath in answer to this that it is a wild Imagination that the perfect Works of the Law will not justifie us but imperfect Works which answer not the Law will do so it does confirm what I judge of the Doctor 's Conceptions that certainly he never understood the Apostle as to this Matter who I say excludes not Works of the Law from Justification as if they would not justifie us if we had them but because none have them to be justified by them It is therefore the Righteousness of God the Righteousness of the Evangelick Condition that he in his Mercy through Christ's Merits hath instituted in the room of Works to justifie the Christian And as for the Doctor 's quoting Socinus saying this to prejudice the Reader against it I must needs say I like this excellent Doctor 's Judgment the meaner and seeing I took the Notion from Scripture and am sure I am no Socinian myself Socinus was a Man of Reason and it is to be lik'd the better for that It is a thing whether so proposed or not more worth the Thoughts of a serious Man how the Doctrine of Justification as formerly it hath been taught and is maintained by the Doctor can be made to lodge with the Doctrine of Sanctification or Regeneration in the same Scripture or be preached together in the same Gospel The Papists are so careful to have these agree that they make them one The Protestants are so careful to keep them asunder that they will not have any Works of ours not Faith itself as a Work or the Fruits of it Repentance and a Good Life to be brought into our Justification least by going to establish our own Righteousness we submit not to the Righteousness of God and perish Let the Works be wrought in us says the Doctor Of Just p. 524. if they be also wrought by us I fear their Introduction into our Justification doth include beasting This he adds is a dangerous Point even like to make us lose all the Benefit we might otherwise expect by the Grace of God I cannot but remember since I was young holy Mr. Shepherd's Book The Sincere Convert and do reflect sometimes on that Terror the Reading that and the like Books hath wrought in
THE Righteousness of God Revealed in the GOSPEL OR An IMPARTIAL ENQUIRY into the Genuine Doctrine of St. PAVL In the Great but much Controverted ARTICLE of JUSTIFICATION By Mr. JOHN HUMFREY Of making Books there is no End and much Study is a Weariness to the Flesh Let us hear the Conclusion of the Matter Fear God and keep his Commandments for this is the whole of Man Ec. 12.13 14. LONDON Printed for T. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside 1697. TO THE READER HAVING seriously read this Treatise concerning the Justification of a Sinner I sound so clear and distinct an Account given of it that as it gave me no small Satisfaction so I could not but think it worthy to be perused by others For though the Learned Author departs in some things from the common Opinion yet he doth it so modestly that candid Persons though contrary minded will not blame him for it And his Reasons are such that it is possible they may be convinced by them and perswaded to embrace his Explication of this weighty Doctrine However his Drift and Intention is so evidently Holy viz. to prevent Mens falling into the most dangerous Errors that he may hope for their Pardon who think him not to be altogether in the Right himself For as to the main Business no Man more strenuously asserts the Doctrine of our Church of Justification by Faith only accorto the Explication which is made of it in our Homilies in the Second Part of the Sermon of Salvation in these Words 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 God's 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 wholy to ascribe the Merit and deserving of our Justification unto Christ only and his most pretious Blood-shedding But although this Doctrine be never so true as it there follows that we be justified freely without all Merit of our own Good Works as St. Paul doth express it and freely by this lively and perfect Faith in Christ only as the ancient Authors use to speak it yet this true Doctrine must be also truly understood and most plainly declared lest carnal Men should take unjustly occasion thereby to live carnally after the appetite and will of the World the Flesh and the Devil Now this being the very Scope of this Author to declare the right Vnderstanding of this Doctrine so plainly that no Man may thereby take any Occasion of Carnal Liberty he hopes his Endeavour will be acceptable to all those that love the Lord Jesus in Sincerity Amen Nov. 24. 1696. SY ELIENS Worcester Apr. 7. 1697. SIR THE Papers you were pleased to send me I have carefully perused and I am not without Hopes that through the Blessing of God they may allay those unreasonable Heats which have made so great a Noise about the Point of Justification and yet we are told that they all agree in the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and the Covenant of Grace as founded upon it But we find by too common Experience that it is possible for Men upon their own Mistakes to grow as warm in this Matter as if they were disputing with the Jews as St. Paul did in his Epistle to the Romans But if such Persons would lay aside Prejudices and Impartially consider the State of the Case at that Time they would far better understand this Controversy and not think so hardly of their Brethren For nothing can be plainer to me than that St. Paul opposes that which he calls The Righteousness of God by Faith Rom. 1.17.3.21.10.3 to their own Righteousness which was by the Law And which made the Reward not of Grace but of Debt And Faith is taken by him as a Term opposite to the Law and importing the Grace of the Gospel Therefore it is of Faith that it might be of Grace Phil. 3.5 So that Justification by Faith is in other Words being justified by the Grace of the Gospel Rom. 3.27 28.4.15 manifested by the Doctrine of Christ and procured by his Sufferings which are granted both by them and us to be the only meritorious Cause of our Justification The remaining Dispute then can only be concerning those Terms on which we may be made Partakers of this Grace of the Gospel which is communicated to Mankind as the Effect of Christ's Satisfaction Which is very different from that which St. Paul managed against all such as set up their own Works whether according to the Law of Nature or of Moses against the Gospel of Christ and thought there was no necessity of any such Propitiation by Christ as St. Paul asserted in order to the Remission of Sins and the Favour of God For the Jews believed that the Righteousness of the Law as it was performed by them was sufficient in order to their Acceptance with God and that there was such a Proportion between their Works and the Favour of God as made it a Debt of Justice Which Opinion remains among them to this Day as appears by this Saying of Manasseh Ben-Israel Hinc meritis Gratiam Dei acquiri non est Dubitandam By which it seems that the Jews have not alter'd their Opinions since the Apostles Days but all that understand Christianity aright do agree that there is no other meritorious Cause of our Acceptance with God but the Propitiation which Christ hath made Colos 1.14 In whom we have Redemption through his Blood even the Forgiveness of Sins Titus 3.5 6. And not by Works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us that being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the Hope of Eternal Life But here comes the material Question to be resolved How we come to receive the Benefits of Christs Sufferings To answer this Distinctly we must consider them Two Ways 1. As they respect Mankind or those in General for whom Christ died 2. As they belong to Particular Persons The former are those Benefits which result from God's Acceptance of Christ's Sacrifice on behalf of Mankind which the Apostle calls God's being in Christ 2 〈◊〉 5.19 reconciling the World to himself not imputing their Trespasses unto them If this be meant of actual Pardon then all the Sins of the World are not imputed upon Christ's Death without any Act on their Parts and so the Ministry of Reconciliation would be to no purpose which the Apostle immediately adds was committed to them To what End if the Sins of the World were already forgiven But the Apostle saith v. 20. That it was to perswade Men to be reconciled to God i. e. to believe and repent and
does concur to our Justification only Sub genere sub ratione or Per modum causae efficientis Meritoriae and not Per modam causae formalis it is but understanding that the Meritorious Cause in our Justification it preferred before or valued above the Formal which without the Virtue of that were none by such Expressions and if any be in the Mire they may come out Mr. Gibbons for explaining himself supposes us as if we stood at a double Bar the Bar of the Law and the Bar of the Gospel At the one it is Ratione Objecti that Faith justifies At the other it justifies Formaliter As to the one Faith says he lays hold on Christ's Satisfaction which is our Legal Righteousness As to the other Faith itself is keeping Covenant understand Quoad faederis Conditionem or fulfilling the Gospel Very fine I must profess all if Faith indeed made Christ's Legal Righteousness to be Formaliter Ours as it is Formaliter our Evangelical itself which formerly our great Divines apprehended but were exceedingly out and wounded our Cause It cannot be that this Righteousness should any otherwise be ours than Per modum Meriti that is only in the Effects And in this Sence Non formaliter but Effective must that Expression be understood The Lord our Righteousness if by the Lord Christ personally be intended If not Hominis Justitia est Dei indulgentia does give the true and full Sence of it I must confess I am at a stand about this Gentleman 's two Bars That all Men who hear the Gospel shall be judged by it I hold for certain upon the Account if we had no more for it that Christ sent out his Apostles to declare to the World in his Name That He that believes shall be saved and He that believes not shall be damned The Believer is one freed from the Law and cannot be brought therefore to its Bar. He that believes shall not come into Judgment If we walk after the Spirit we are not under the Law There is no Condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus We are not under the Law but under Grace These are plain Texts as to the Believer and as for the Unbeliever we know he is condemned already and there needs no bringing him afresh to the same Bar. One Bar will serve both where the Grand Inquest will be this only whether or no we have performed the Condition of the Gospel They that have are acquitted they that have not are left under that Condemnation To wave this therefore any farther than it is of Concern let me recur to the Legal Righteonsness Mr. Gibbons speaks of and Mr. Williams accordingly which he counts we must have together with our Evangelical to justifie us and therefore I will shew that if he mean it in the common Sence and Sence of others that he is out and that he is in a mistake I will shew that those that speak thus according to the common Apprehensions of the Protestants that they are first out and then I will shew their Mistake and set them right That they are out I shew first By this Legal Righteousness what they understand we sufficiently know that is the Righteousness of Christ made theirs in a Legal Sence to wit though the Righteousness of one cannot become another's Naturally or Morally yet Legally the common Opinion is that Christ's Righteousness is every true Believers Here then let us distinguish of this Legal Righteousness in respect to the Preceptive or Retributive part of the Law As to the Preceptive part of it I do avouch with Mr. Baxter that no Man or Woman is or ever hath except Christ himself been justified by the Performance thereof either by himself or by another in his Civil Person as fully representing him For if we are reputed such says Mr. Baxter as have fulfilled the Law there is no room for Christ's Sufferings for Repentance for Faith in his Blood for Pardon or Prayer for it or for any Duty which supposeth Sin as Sacraments and other Ordinances and so the Gospel is subverted as he still tells us And as for the Retributive part of the Law I must say no less that if we are reputed in Christ to have born the Penalty or his bearing it be indeed our Legal Righteousness then must our Evangelical be made needless for when we are free from all Guilt both of Omission and Commission so that we are as righteous as we can be made already there is no more to be imposed or can be in order to our being justified or saved and so the Gospel is subverted also Not that Mr. Baxter or I deny the Righteousness of Christ as to the Retributive part of the Law to be imputed no nor that of his as to the Perceptive part seeing his Satisfaction consists in both but that neither are otherways imputed than as I say before Per modum meriti as to the Effects and to give it in Mr. Baxter's own Words Imputed so as that we have it in the relation of a Meritorious Cause to the End or Use which God accepts it for and hath assigned in the Gospel That they mistake and how they mistake to make it out and make it up I must shew next That Christ obeyed the Law and suffered the Penalty for us so as what he did and suffered was in our behalf in our stead room or place is by us all acknowledged What is done or suffered in another's stead we are then to understand is done or suffered to free the other from doing or suffering the same which else he should as I have stood upon it in my other Sheets Thus the Beast died instead of the Sacrificer of it Whereas then this Legal Righteousness which the common Opinion supposes must be Ours to justifie us was performed by Christ in our room or stead that we might not our selves perform it how manifestly are they of that Opinion mistaken in that Supposition Christ did perfectly fulfil the Precept of the Law that such a perfect fulfilling of it might not be required of us as the Condition of Life as by the Law it was Christ did undergo the Penalty that we might not our selves suffer it and be damned The Satisfaction then of Christ which contains both cannot In se be imputed to us or reputed as Our Satisfaction because then it must not be in our room or place that he satisfied nor God accounted that he did God does impute to us his Sufferings that we might not suffer and therefore does not look on us as having suffered He does impute to us his fulfilling the Law that we might not be put to it to fulfil it our selves and yet have the Reward as much as if we had where is Imputation still we see only Quoad fructus effectus and therefore looks not on us as if we had performed it Here is the Mercy of God and happy Mistake of these Men. A Legal Righteousness is imposed on his