Homily by many Scripture-Promises and Examples and therefore we must consider what our Church means by Repentance and the explication of this is reduced to four principal Points From what we must return to whom we must return by whom we may be able to convert and the manner how to turn to God First From whence or from what things we must return and that is From all our sins not only grosser vices but the filthy lusts and inward concupiscences of the Flesh. All these things must they forsake that will truly turn unto the Lord and repent aright For sith for such things the wrath of God cometh upon the Children of Disobedience no end of punishment ought to be look'd for as long as we continue in such things But this must be done by Faith for sith that God is a Spirit he can by no other means be apprehended and taken hold upon That is God being a Spirit we cannot see him with bodily Eyes nor go to him on our Legs nor take hold of him with an Arm of Flesh and therefore this Metaphor of returning to God and going to him and taking hold of him must be expounded to a spiritual sense is the work of Faith which discovers him who is invisible and unites our Souls and Spirits to him And We have need of a Mediator for to bring and reconcile us unto him who for our sins is angry with us the same is Jesus Christ who being true and natural God c. took our nature upon him that so he might be a Mediator between God and us and pacifie his wrath In the second part of the Homily we have this general Description of Repentance That it is a true Returning unto God whereby men forsaking utterly their Idolatry and Wickedness do with a lively Faith embrace love and worship the true living GOD only and give themselves to all manner of good Works which by Gods Word they know to be acceptable unto him And we are there informed That there are four Parts of Repentance the first is Contrition of the Heart For we must be earnestly sorry for our sins and unfeignedly lament and bewail that we have by them so grievously offended our most bounteous and merciful God c. The second is an unfeigned Confession and acknowledging of our sins to God The third is Faith whereby we do apprehend and take hold upon the Promises of God touching the free pardon and forgiveness of our sins which Promises are sealed up unto us with the death and blood-shedding of the Lord Jesus Christ. And the Reason of this is because Contrition and Confession will avail us nothing unless we stedfastly believe and be fully perswaded that God for his Son Jesus Christs sake will forgive us all our sins for though we be never so earnestly sorry for our sins and acknowledge and confess them yet all these things shall be but means to bring us to utter desparation except we do stedfastly believe that God our heavenly Father will for his Son Jesus Christs sake pardon and forgive us our Offences and Trespasses and utterly put them out of remembrance in his sight therefore they that teach Repentance without Christ and a lively Faith in the Mercy of God do only teach Cains or Iudas Repentance That is they teach men to be sorry for their sins without any hopes of Pardon and Forgiveness which is only to be obtained through our Lord Jesus Christ. The fourth part of Repentance is an amendment of Life in bringing forth fruits worthy of Repentance for they that do truly repent must be clean alter'd and changed they must become New Creatures they must be no more the same that they were before As appears from Iohn the Baptists Exhortation to the Scribes and Pharisees whereby we do learn that if we will have the wrath of God to be pacified we must in no wise dissemble but turn unto him again with a true and sound Repentance which may be known and declared by good Fruits as by most sure and infallible signs thereof This I think is as plain as words can make it that Repentance which consists in a hearty sorrow for all our sins and in a humble Confession of them to Almighty God and in a sincere Faith and Trust in the Mercies of God through our Lord Jesus Christ together with an actual amendment of our lives is according to the sense of our Church absolutely necessary to obtain the pardon of our sins that is Iustification by the free Grace of God This has often made me wonder that any one should affix such a Doctrine as this to the Church of England That Repentance it self is not antecedently necessary to our Iustification I am sure the Learned Bishop Davenant was of another mind in this point for he expresly asserts that there are some Works sine quibus Iustificatio nunquam fuit ab ullo mortalium obtenta nunquam obtinebitur without which Justification never was and never shall be obtained by any mortal man among which he reckons true Repentance and Faith and the love of God and of our Neighbour Haec hujusmodi opera cordis interna sunt omnibus justificatis necessaria non quod contineant in se efficaciam seu meritum Iustificationis sed quod juxta ordinationem divinam vel requiruntur ut conditiones praeviae seu concurrentes sicuti poenitere credere vel ut effecta à fide justificante necessario manantia ut amare Deum c. i. e. These and such-like internal Works of the Heart are necessary to all that are justified not that they are meritorious Causes of Justification but because according to the Divine Appointment they are required either as previous or concurring conditions such as Repentance and Faith or as effects which necessarily flow from a justifying Faith such as to love God c. Where this Learned Prelate doth expresly assert that Repentance as well as Faith is a previous Condition of our Justification and I fear will hereafter be accounted one of our Innovators And that distinction which the Bishop makes between those Works which are required as previous Conditions of Justification as to repent and believe and those Works which are necessary Effects of justifying Faith which must always be present in the justified Person as to love God c. gives a plain and easie answer to the grand Exception against the antecedent necessity of Repentance to our Justification viz. Because then it must precede Faith it self I suppose because every true Believer is actually justified in the first instant of his being a true Believer whereas all good Works and therefore Repentance and Contrition which are certainly good Works are the Effects and Fruits of Faith and so consequently must follow our Justification by Faith unless we will place the Effects before their Cause But this is absolutely false that all good Works are the effects and fruits of justifying Faith for there are some good Works which
and the 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
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
we either have done shall do or can do as things that be far too weak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve Remission of our Sins and our Iustification and therefore we must trust only in Gods Mercy and that Sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Iesus Christ the Son of God once offered for us upon the Cross to obtain thereby Gods Grace and Remission as well of our Original Sin in Baptism as of all actual Sins committed by us after Baptism if we truly repent and unfeignedly turn to him All this is called being justified by Faith only which includes a renouncing the Merits and Deserts of our own Works but first requires that we should do good Works before we renounce the Merit of them and an affiance in the Mercy of God for Pardon and Forgiveness upon the conditions of Repentance and a new Life This is all I contend for which is the Antient Catholick Doctrin of our Church against those modern notions of Reliance and Recumbency or the virtue of any particular Act of Faith in the Justification of a Sinner Thirdly I observe that should any man affirm in express words that we are justified by Works as well as by Faith meaning no more by it than that good Works are the necessary Conditions not the meritorious Causes of our Justification though he would differ in the manner of expression yet he would agree with our Church in the true notion of Justification whereas those who use the same phrase of being justified by Faith only and by Faith without Works thereby excluding the antecedent necessity of Repentance and Holiness to our Justification though they retain the same form of words yet renounce the constant Doctrin of our Church and are the only Apostates and Innovators Which may satisfie any man how unjustly I am charged with corrupting the Doctrin of our Church when I have only expressed the true sense and meaning of it in such words as are less liable to be mistaken and how vainly my Adversaries pretend to be such Obedient Sons of the Church of England when under an Orthodox Form of Words they have introduced such Doctrins as are diametrically opposite to the declared sense of this Church After this large and particular Account of the Doctrin of the Church of England concerning the Justification of a Sinner it is time in the second place to consider how the state of the Controversie is altered at this day and how those men whom I oppose have corrupted the Doctrin as well as rejected the Authority of our Church And though I have already given sufficient Intimations of this yet it may be of great use more particularly to shew how directly opposite these new and fantastick Notions are to the establisht Doctrin contained in our Articles and Homilies which though it would admit of a very large Discourse I shall comprize in as few words as may be And first whereas our Church expresly asserts that in the Justification of a Sinner on Gods part is required Mercy and Grace Justification consisting in the free Pardon of all our sins Mr. Ferguson very agreeably indeed to his own Principles expresly asserts that Justification does not consist in the Pardon of sin nor is it the result of Mercy but the off-spring of Justice Remission as he acknowledges is the result of Mercy and the act of one exercising Favour but Iustification is the off spring of Iustice and imports one transacting with us in a juridical way without the infringement of Law or Equity This Notion I have examined already and shall add nothing further for the Confutation of it It is directly contrary to the Doctrin of our Homilies and I hope that is Argument enough with these men who pretend such a mighty veneration for the Antient and Catholick Doctrin of our Church But then if any man should wonder as well he may how a Sinner should be justified in this Law-notion according to the strict Rules of Justice that is that a Sinner is justified not by being pardoned but by being acquitted and absolved as an innocent man who has never offended the account of this will farther discover what Friends they are to the Doctrin of our Church For secondly whereas the Church of England requires no more on Christs part but Iustice or the Satisfaction of Gods Iustice or the Price of our Redemption which makes him the meritorious Cause of our Iustification that God for Christs sake forgives the sins of true Penitents these men place our Justification in the Imputation of Christs personal Righteousness to us They tell us that Christ as our Surety and Mediator hath fulfilled all Righteousness for us and in our stead and that by being clothed with his perfect Righteousness we are accounted perfectly righteous and so are justified not as Malefactors when they are pardoned but as righteous and innocent men who are acquitted and absolved And I have already informed Mr. Ferguson how effectually this Notion undermines the necessity of an inherent Righteousness To be justified by the Merits of Christ signifies no more than to be justified by the gracious Terms and Conditions of the Gospel which is founded on the Merits of Christ which was purchased and sealed with his meritorious Bloud For the Merits of Christ do not immediately justifie any man but whereas strict Justice will not admit of Repentance nor accept of an imperfect though sincere Obedience God has for the sake of Christ who hath expiated our sins by his Death entered into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy wherein he promises Pardon to true Penitents and this necessarily requires an inherent Holiness not to merit but to qualifie us for the Grace of God But if we be made righteous by a perfect Righteousness imputed to us if this will answer all the demands of Law and Justice what need is there of an imperfect Righteousness of our own The Righteousness of Christ imputed to us makes us righteous as Christ is and what need is there then of any Righteousness of our own which would be according to the Proverb to burn day and to light up Candles in the Sun Dr. Owen takes notice of this Objection and pretends to give an Answer to it which must be a little considered for a little will serve the turn And first he observes that here is a great difference if it were no more than that this Righteousness was inherent in Christ and properly his own it is only reckoned and imputed to us or freely bestowed on us But does not this Imputation make it ours How then can we answer the demands of the Law with it Is any thing the less ours because it is not originally ours but so by Gift And the Doctor was sensible that this Answer would not do and therefore secondly he tells us the Truth is that Christ was not righteous with that Righteousness for himself but for us How plain are things when men will speak out So that now
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
St. Paul or any of the Reformed Churches made any which is not very honourably said of them that they should make no difference where there is one which argues either a great deal of ignorance or meer Sophistry But pray why do they think so Why because St. Paul always opposes our Justification by Works whatever they are to Justification by Grace and therefore by Works he must understand the Merit of Works because only Merit is opposed to Grace So we say too but what follows from hence That the Apostle rejects all Works though they are separated from the notion of Merit This is to make the Apostle argue very absurdly that because he rejects Works when they are inconsistent with Grace therefore he should reject Works when they are not inconsistent with Grace as by this Argument they are not when they are separated from the notion and opinion of Merit And what they add That it is plain that the Apostle excludes all sorts of Works of what kind soever from our Justification is very true but then they are all sorts of Meritorious Works that is such a perfect legal unsinning Righteousness as needs not the Grace and Mercy of God not such an Evangelical Righteousness as ows its acceptance to the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ. The only Argument they have to prove that the Church of England and all the Reformed Churches make no difference between Works and the Merit of Works is because where-ever they reject Justification by Works they expresly mention their Merit and Deserving which is the best Argument that can be that they do make a difference otherwise there had been no need of that Explication especially when they assert the necessity of Good Works upon all other accounts as our Church expresly doth In the third part of the Sermon of Salvation we find these words Truth it is that our own Works do not justifie us to speak properly of our Iustification that is to say our Works do not merit or deserve Remission of our sins and make us of unjust just before God What need had there been of this Explication to speak properly of Iustification that is to say to merit and deserve if our Church had apprehended no difference between Works and Merit between a proper and improper Justification by Works I am sure the Learned Bishop Davenant makes a great difference between the necessity of Works and the Merit of Works in the Justification of a Sinner for in answer to that Question Utrum bona Opera dici possint ad Iustificationem vel Salutem necessaria Whether Good Works may be said to be necessary to Justification or Salvation In his first Conclusion he tells us that in dispute with the Papists it is not safe to say so because they always by necessary understand necessary as Causes vera propria sua dignitate meritorias humanae salutis which by their own proper worth and dignity merit Salvation What need had there been of this Caution if the necessity of Good Works to Justification and the Merit of Works had been the same In the fourth Conclusion he tells us That no Good Works are necessary to Justification if by necessary we understand sub ratione causae meritoriae necessariae as necessary meritorious Causes And in the fifth Conclusion he expresly tells us Bona quaedam Opera sunt necessaria ad Iustificationem ut conditiones concurrentes vel praecursoriae licet non sint necessaria ut causae efficientes aut meritoriae That some Good Works are necessary to Justification as previous or concurring Causes though not as efficient or meritorious So that it seems that this distinction between the Necessity and Merit of Works was known and defended by the great Patrons of our Church and we have no reason to think that when our Church does so expresly reject Works only under the notion of Merit she understood no difference between Necessity and Merit And I find in an ancient Book intitled Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum which was composed by Archbishop Cranmer and Peter Martyr and some other Bishops and Learned Men of this Church by the Authority of King Edward the Sixth that where they give an account of those Heresies which ought to be suppressed all they say about Justification is no more but this Deinde nec illi sunt audiendi quorum impietas salutarem in sacris Scripturis fundatam Iustificationis nostrae doctrinam oppugnant in qua tenendum est non operum momentis Iustitiam hominum collocari i. e. Neither must we hearken to them who impiously oppose that saving Doctrine of Justification which is founded on the Scriptures concerning which we must believe that the Righteousness or Justification of Men does not depend on the Merits of their Works So that they only reject the Merit of Works in the matter of Justification The Confessions of Foreign Reformed Churches are as plain and express in this matter as the Homilies of our Church In the Apology for the Augustan-Confession we are told That good Works are not pretium nec propitiatio propter quam detur remissio peccatorum They are not the price nor the propitiation for our sins And the reason they assign why they oppose Justification by Works is because it detracts from the Glory of Christ and sets up our Works in competition with Christ utrum fiducia collocanda sit in Christum an in opera nostra Whether we should put our trust in Christ or in our own Works which can be understood only in that sense of the Merit of Works and is no Argument against Works when they are subordinate to the Merit and Grace of Christ. But not to trouble my Readers with many quotations I shall add but one more which is their Answer to that Objection from St. Iames who expresly says That we are justified by Works and not by Faith only Si non assuant adversarii suas opiniones de meritis operum Iacobi verba nihil habent incommodi c. If our Adversaries would not annex their own opinions concerning Merit of Works there is no inconvenience in St. Iames his words So that they were not shy of this expression of being justified by Works so men would not imagine that their Justification were owing to the Merit of Works which is no less than a demonstration that they made a distinction between VVorks and Merit in the matter of Justification But there is one very surprizing Argument to prove that there can be no difference between Works and Merit in the matter of Justification and it is this That if we be justified by Works without respect to their Merit then we may as well be justified by Works of an indifferent nature which have no intrinsick worth and goodness in them as by the most real and substantial Righteousness for take away Merit and it is all one what the nature of the Work be Now the only difficulty of framing an Answer
room and place of the Righteousness of God It is most true that all the Righteousness of man cannot prevail with God to do us good there is but one mover of God the man Christ Iesus who is the only and sole Mediator If you will have your own Righteousness to be your Mediator with God to speak to God for you to prevail with God for you what is this but to put your Righteousness in the room and place of Christ Which is the very same with what Dr. Owen affirms That our Righteousness can contribute nothing to our acceptance with God And if you will have Dr. Crispes sense in fewer words It is as much as to say Our standing righteous by what Christ hath done for us concerns us in point of Iustification in point of Consolation and in the business of Salvation we have our Iustification we have our Peace we have our Salvation only by the Righteousness Christ hath done for us They are both you see agreed in attributing our Justification and Salvation entirely to the Righteousness of Christ and as for Peace and Consolation the only difference is that Dr. Owen sometimes attributes it to Christ and sometimes to Holiness but Dr. Crispe is always consistent with himself and his own Principles and yet this difference is so very small that Mr. Saltmarsh undertakes to compound it and to allow Christians of a lower form to fetch their comforts from Holiness as a mark and evidence though a very uncertain one And now they are agreed about the place of Christs Righteousness they cannot differ about the place and use of Obedience for whatever does not belong to the Righteousness of Christ may be very safely attributed to the Righteousness of man Thus for instance the Reasons assigned by Dr. Owen for the necessity of Obedience are First The Soveraign Appointment and Will of God Father Son and Holy Ghost Thus Dr. Crispe tells us That one end of our good works is a manifestation of our Obedience and Subjection to God that is our Obedience to the Soveraign will and appointment of God and therefore he professes I speak not Beloved against the doing of any Righteousness according to the will of God revealed let that mouth be forever stopped that shall be opened to blame the Law that is holy just and good or shall be a means to discourage people from walking in the Commandments of God blameless Dr. Owen's second Reason is That Holiness is one eminent and special end of the peculiar dispensation of Father Son and Spirit in the business of exalting the glory of God in our Salvation It is a peculiar end of God's Electing love the Son 's Redeeming love and it is the very work of the love of the Holy Ghost To the same purpose Dr. Crispe though not so particularly tells us that the end of good Works is The setting forth of the praise of the glory of the Grace of God That is of the Grace of God in Electing of the Grace of Christ in Redeeming and of the Grace of the Holy Ghost in Sanctifying But thirdly Dr. Owen tells us That Obedience is necessary with respect to the end of it and that whether we consider God our Selves or the World First The end of Obedience with respect to God is his glory and honour So says Dr. Crispe too That the end of good Works is the actual glorifying of God in the World that our services may glorifie God that is Father Son and Holy Ghost Secondly The ends assigned by Dr. Owen with respect to our selves are Honour Peace and Usefulness The first of these I do not find Dr. Crispe mention because I suppose he might think it a greater honour to be cloathed with the perfect Robes of Christs Righteousness than with the rags and patches of our own The second he rejects as Dr. Owen sometimes does and ought always to do if he would be true to his own Principles The third he owns but refers it to its proper head where it ought to be placed the end of holiness with respect to others in doing good in the World and being profitable to men That we may serve our Gentration according to the Apostle's charge that men study to maintain Good Works because saith he these things are profit able unto men There is this usefulness of our Righteousness that others may receive benefit by it Let your light so shine before men that they seeing your good Works may glorifie your Father which is in heaven which compriseth Dr. Owen's ends of Conviction and Conversion and the benefit of all for it must be confessed that Dr. Crispe hath not so good a faculty as Dr. Owen in making distinctions without a difference Dr. Crispe indeed will by no means allow that our own Righteousness can keep off Judgments either from our selves or from other men as Dr. Owen would have it but thinks that God can be moved only by the Righteousness of Christ and that if we must trust wholly in the Righteousness of Christ for our deliverance from future punishments we may as reasonably trust him for present deliverances But to proceed with Dr. Owen Fourthly Holiness is necessary with respect to the state and condition of justified persons for they have a new Creature in them which must be nourished and kept alive by the fruits of Holiness Now though Dr. Crispe was never guilty of talking at this absurd rate yet he says that which is more intelligible and wherein the true force of this reason if it have any must consist viz. that Holiness is necessary as it hath a necessary cause a renewed and sanctified nature infused into Believers by Christ. Thus he affirms That there is no Person is a Believer and hath recieved Christ but after he hath received Christ he is created in this Christ to good works that he should walk in them He that sprinkleth them with clean water that they become clean from all their filthiness puts also a new Spirit into them and doth cause them to walk in his Statutes and Testimonies And the Doctor honestly confesses that the only security against the evil consequences of his Doctrine is the power and efficacy of the Grace of God in bridling mens corrupt Passions That the same Christ who hath born the wrath of the Father and the effects thereof the same Christ doth take as strict an order to restrain and keep in the Spirit of a man as to save that man This is the true and clear way of arguing according to these Principles from the state of a Justified person because such a man is Sanctified too and must live holily And fifthly Dr. Owen assigns another reason of the necessity of Holiness That it is necessary with respect to the proper place of Holiness in the New Covenant as God hath appointed that Holiness shall be the means the way to Eternal life though it be neither the cause matter nor
not argue any change in God but in the Object and when the Object is changed the immutability of his love is the reason why he loves no longer As for what the Doctor adds In the mean time such a love of God towards Believers as shall always effectually preserve them meet Objects of his love and approbation is not to be baffled by such trifling impertinencies Whether what I have discoursed be a trifling impertinency let others judge but when he makes it a necessary effect of an immutable love effectually to preserve such Persons meet Objects of love and approbation he grants all that I have contended for that the immutability of Gods love in it self considered is no argument that he will always love the same Persons unless they continue meet objects of his love for if the love of God be so immutable as always to love the same Person be he what he will then such a man is a meet Object of love while he continues the same Person whatever his qualities are and there is no more required to this than that God should uphold him in being But if besides his being such a particular Person on whom God hath fixt his love there be any other qualifications required to make him and preserve him a meet Object of love then the Doctor must acknowledge that Gods immutable love requires an Object which does not change one who persists and perseveres in the practice of an Universal Righteousness which is all I contend for the immutable love of God to good men under that notion as good For supposing any change in the Object God must either continue to love an unmeet Object or else cease to love And let him chuse which side he pleases if the first he attributes such an immutability to God as is inconsistent with wisdom and holiness and savours more of the stubbornness and impotency of humane Passions than of a Divine Love If the latter then he makes the Love of God as mutable and Subject to changes as I do And as for that love of God to Believers which always preserves them meet objects of his love the Doctor mightily mistakes me if he thinks I designed to oppose it I acknowledge the perseverance of Believers to be the effect of the Divine Grace as well as their believing at first but if he designs this for a description of Gods electing love which is the immutable cause both of faith and perseverance as it is plain he does I wonder why he calls it Gods love to believers for Election in the Doctors judgment considers no qualifications in Persons and what he calls Gods love is more properly Gods Decree to Love when the Person is a fit object for it And it is necessary to distinguish between an immutable Decree to make and preserve a fit object of love and the immutability of the Divine Love The first depends upon an immutable Counsel The second upon the persevering meetness and fitness of the object to be Beloved I have already given several other instances of this way of reasoning from an acquaintance with Christs Person from his being our Surety and Mediator our Head and Husband and the like and intended to have added many more but this is sufficient to satisfie any impartial Reader what I mean by an acquaintance with Christ's Person and how far the Doctor and his Friends may be charged with it and therefore at present I shall only briefly consider this way of reasoning and put a conclusion to this Argument Now I readily agree with Mr. Ferguson that in many cases it is not only justifiable but necessary to Reason from Revelation and I must needs say that the instances he gives of it are unanswerable but whether they may be called deductions and consequences from Revelation let others judge As the application of general Precepts Promises and Comminations to single Individuals and universal directions to particular cases The application of ancient Prophesies to their Events whereby the Apostles proved Christ to be that Messias who was to come And the testimony of Miracles for the proof of a Revelation which are the principal instances Mr. Ferguson gives as will appear to any one who consults those Texts of Scripture which he alleadges in this behalf But this is nothing to our present Dispute the question is whether we may deduce any new Doctrinal Conclusions which are neither expresly taught in Scripture nor can be found out by meer Principles of Reason from their supposed connexion with some thing which is revealed And I think thus much we may safely say that we can know no more of matters of pure Revelation than what is revealed whatever wholly depends upon the free and Soveraign Will of God can be known no other way but by Revelation as no man can know the secret thoughts and counsels of a man but those who learn them from himself and by the same reason that we can know nothing of these matters without a Revelation we can know no more neither than what is revealed which consideration alone is sufficient to overthrow this way of reasoning from an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ. This Argument I have managed at large in my former Discourse and know not what I should add to it here unless it be a more particular application of it to our present case As for instance we learn from Revelation that Christ died for our sins to make Atonement and Expiation for them and to procure pardon and forgiveness for all true Penitents but because Christ died for our sins it does not hence follow that there is such a natural Vindictive Iustice in God as would not suffer him to pardon sin without a full satisfaction for Christ's Death being the effect of Gods free Counsel we can know no more of the cause and reason and motive of it than he has revealed there may be several other reasons assigned on Gods part why he should send Christ into the world to save sinners besides a natural Vindictive Justice and the Scripture has assigned several other reasons of Christ's Death but has never assigned this And indeed unless we will assert that the Death of Christ did necessarily result from the nature of God and was not the effect of his free choise and counsel this reasoning must be false For I hope they will acknowledge God to be as necessarily good as he is just for there is no reason why goodness should be thought the free act of Gods Will and Counsel and Justice the necessity of his Nature and if so then supposing the fall of man which brought sin and misery into the world the Death of Christ was as absolutely necessary as that God should be good and just The goodness of God according to this way of reasoning made it necessary to redeem Mankind from that state of misery and the Justice of God made it necessary for him to punish sin This punishment must fall either upon the
thing required on our part and in this sense though I deny not particular Election yet I disown our immediate Union to the Person of Christ. Christ is the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant who having with his own bloud made a general Atonement and Propitiation for the sins of the whole world purchased and sealed the Covenant of Grace wherein he promises pardon of sin and Eternal Life to all those who repent and believe the Gospel Such a faith in Christ as makes us members of his Body which is his Church alone entitles us to all the benefits of his Death and Passion and therefore he is said to redeem his Church with his own bloud for though his Sacrifice was general and universal yet none have an actual interest in it but his Church and the particular Members of it This unites us to Christ and applies his Universal grace and mercy particularly to our selves But to imagine that Christ was appointed by God to be a Surety only for particular Persons and to act in their name and stead necessarily precipitates men into the very dregs of Antinomianism which in this loose phantastical and degenerate Age is the only popular and taking frenzy It is time now to proceed to the vindication of my third and fourth Propositions in my Chapter of Union from the misrepresentations of Mr. Ferguson for this is all the skill he has shewn here to pervert my sense and to affix such Doctrines to me as I never dreamt of The third Proposition is this That the Union between Christ and Christians is not a Natural but Political Union that is such an Union as there is between a Prince and his Subjects The fourth is this That Fellowship and Communion with God according to the Scripture notion signifies what we call a Political Union that is that to be in Fellowship with God and Christ signifies to be of that Society which puts us into a peculiar relation to God that God is our Father and we his Children that Christ is our Head and Husband our Lord and Master we his Disciples and Followers his Spouse and his Body These two Propositions our Author tells us are according to the best understanding of enunciations he has coincident and equipollent which is a plain demonstration how little his understanding is in these matters when the third Proposition concerns the nature of our Union and the fourth the explication of a Scripture term which had been perverted to a very different if not contrary sense But to let pass this and a great many other things of this nature as any man must do who would not undertake such a trifling task as to prove that our Author neither understands Logick nor Philosophy nor any other part of good learning of which there are abundant evidences in this very Treatise where he makes a great shew and flourish with that little undigested knowledge he has his great Artifice in what follows is to conceal and misrepresent my notion of Political Union and then to scuffle learnedly and valiantly with his own shadow and dreams Sometimes he represents this Political Union to be only such an External Relation as is between a Prince and his Subjects and ever denies that I own any influences of Grace from Christ as an influential head as he is pleased to call him And therefore all his reasonings proceeding upon such an ignorant or wilful mistake all I have to do is to clear my own notion and to give an account of the reason why I stated it in this manner As for the first By a Political Union I understand such a Union between Christ and Christians as there is between a Prince and his Subjects which consists in our belief of his Revelations obedience to his Laws and subjection to his Authority and that this is the true notion of it I gave sufficient evidence in my former Discourse to which I must refer my Reader But then I observed that this Political Union between Christ and his Church may be either only external and visible and so hypocritical Professors may be said to be united to Christ by the Ligaments of an external Profession or true and real which imports the truth and sincerity of our obedience to our Lord and Master that we really are what we profess to be And herein consists a material difference between that External Union which is between a temporal Prince and his Subjects and the Union between Christ who is a spiritual Head and King and the true Church or true and sincere Christians who are spiritual Subjects For as the Authority of Earthly Princes can reach only the External man because they cannot know our thoughts any other ways than as they are expressed in our outward actions so the Union consists in an external Government and an external Subjection But Christ being a spiritual Prince governs hearts and thoughts too and therefore our subjection to Christ and consequently our Union to him must not be only external and visible but internal and spiritual which consists in the subjection of our hearts and minds of our thoughts and passions to his Government And this real and spiritual Union I explained in four particulars First as I have already observed it consists in the subjection of our minds and spirits to Christ as our spiritual King And secondly this is represented in Scripture by a participation of the same nature which is the necessary effect of the subjection of our minds to him Upon which account I observed that our Union to Christ is described by having the Spirit of Christ Rom. 89. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his Which as it respects the cause whereby we are transformed into a Divine Nature so it signifies the Holy Spirits dwelling in us as it signifies the effect or that Divine Nature New Creature which Mr. Ferguson himself acknowledges to be the very bond of our cohesion to Christ so it is that same temper and disposition of mind which Christ had which as I expresly observed is called having the Spirit of Christ by an ordinary figure of the cause for the effect for all those vertues and graces wherein our conformity to Christ consists are called the fruits of the Spirit And in the Page before that it is called being born of the Spirit because all Christian Graces and Vertues are in Scripture attributed to the Spirit of God as the Author of them And now I dare trust any man of common ingenuity to judge whether I make our Union to Christ a meer external thing or leave out the consideration of the Spirit of God in our Union to Christ when I assert that that new nature all those Christian graces wherein our conformity and internal Union to Christ consists are owing to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit And whereas Mr. Ferguson is so critical that it will not satisfie him that the Spirit is present in the hearts of Believers in
are essential to justifying Faith and it is not justifying Faith without them such as Repentance and Contrition without which no Faith is a true justifying Faith and therefore we may observe in our Homilies that sometimes Faith is made an essential part of Repentance sometimes Repentance is made essential to a justifying Faith as appears from what I have discoursed above The reason of the mistake is this That these men do not distinguish between the general notion of Faith and Iustifying Faith Faith in general as it signifies a belief of the Being and Providence of God and the Truth of the Scriptures c. is necessary to produce any good Actions for without Faith it is impossible to please God but this bare Assent of the Understanding is not justifying Faith till it excite in us a hearty sorrow for our sins and sincere purposes of a New Life and a great Trust and Affiance in the Mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ So that Repentance and the Purpose of a New Life are at least essential to justifying Faith and not the fruits and effects of it but the actual performance of these Vows and Promises and the faithful discharge of our Duty to God and Men in a holy and blameless Life may be called the effects of justifying Faith not that they are not as necessary to a justifying Faith as Repentance is but because our Justification is begun without them God in infinite Grace and Mercy receiving us into favour upon our first return to him though these good Works must necessarily follow to compleat and perfect our Justification as it is expresly observed from St. Chrysostom in the Homily of Good Works concerning the Thief upon the Cross that if he had lived and not regarded Faith and the Works thereof he should have lost his Salvation again And in this sense we are told in the Homily of Salvation That Faith doth not shut out the justice of our Good Works necessarily to be done afterwards that is after our Justification of Duty towards God And upon the same account our Church in her XII Article teaches us That Good Works are the Fruits of Faith and follow those who are Iustified And this gives an easie and plain account of the XIII Article of our Church which rejects those Works which are done before Justification that is before a Iustifying Faith as is plain from the Article Works done before the Grace of Christ and the Inspiration of his Spirit are not pleasant to God forasmuch as they spring not of Faith in Iesus Christ neither do they make men meet to receive Grace or as the School-Authors say deserve Grace of Congruity yea rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done we doubt not but that they have the nature of Sin The plain meaning of which is this That Works done before Justifying Faith are not pleasing to God that is whatever Works we do before we repent of our sins and purpose to live a New Life and trust in the Mercy of God and Merits of our Saviour for Pardon and Acceptance cannot please God because such are not Good Works for when we reject Works done before Justification we must not reject Justifying Faith it self nor any thing which is necessary and essential to it for then we run our selves into such a Labyrinth out of which we shall never find a way And indeed I find that some men are very sensible what weight our Church lays upon the necessity of Repentance in order to our Justification and use some little Arts to avoid it for that Description of Faith which is given us in the first part of the Sermon of Faith concluding thus We do trust that our offences be continually washed and purged whensoever we repenting truly do return to him with our whole heart stedfastly determining with our selves through his Grace to obey and serve him in keeping his Commandments and never to turn back again to sin Which maks Repentance of our sins and a sincere and stedfast purpose of a new life antecedently necessary to the justfying Act of Faith they use this evasion that the Homily adds Whensoever we repenting return to him either with respect to future sins to the forgiveness of which we all acknowledge Repentance to be necessary or else to distinguish a saving from a counterfeit and sudden Faith not as if true Evangelical Repentance had any influence upon the very Act of Iustification as Faith has The first account is the strangest that ever I met with for there can be no imaginable reason assigned why Repentance should be necessary to obtain the Pardon of those sins which we commit after Justification and not necessary to our first Justification I am sure neither the Scripture nor the Articles and Homilies of our Church nor the Confessions of any Reformed Churches which I ever yet saw ever made such a distinction The Commission which our Saviour gave to his Apostles was to preach Repentance and Forgiveness of sins in his Name to the unconverted and unjustified Jews and Heathens and both the Homilies of our Church and the Augustan-Confession do in express words found the Doctrine of Repentance upon that first Commission given to the Apostles and do thence conclude the necessity of Repentance in order to Forgiveness for since Justification consists in the forgiveness of our sins a repeated Forgiveness is but a repeated Justification of a Sinner and why that should be necessary to the after-acts of Justification which was not necessary to the first is beyond my Understanding The second account is much better that it is to distinguish between a saving and a counterfeit Faith but then this very distinction confirms the antecedent necessity of Repentance to Justification for the difference between a saving and counterfeit Faith according to this Account is that a saving Faith supposes Repentance or includes it in its very nature but a counterfeit Faith does not as for what they add that Evangelical Repentance hath not such an influence upon our Justification as Faith has is none of our present dispute if it be but acknowledged to be antecedently necessary we will consider the rest hereafter And now it is time to proceed to the last thing I proposed to consider what our Church attributes to Faith in the matter of our Justification And to state this matter plainly I shall first enquire in what sense our Church rejects Works from the Office of Justifying and attributes it to Faith alone And secondly what the Office of Faith is in the Justification of a Sinner First In what sense our Church rejects Works from the Office of Justifying and attributes it to Faith alone And it is easily observed that our Church acknowledges the antecedent necessity of some Works to our Justification as we are expresly taught in the first part of the Sermon of Salvation And yet that Faith doth not shut out Repentance Hope Love Dread