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
Doctrine would be that we are not delivered from the guilt and punishment of our sins by the Death of Christ which the Scripture every where asserts but by the translation of our sins on him When our sins are transferred on Christ we are ipso facto innocent and his Death cannot deliver us who are freed already but must be only to deliver himself from this assumed guilt we are freed by the transferring of our guilt on Christ and Christ is freed by undergoing the punishment of sin As if any man should be so kind as to take my Debt absolutely upon himself if the Creditor accept of this exchange I am finally discharged and am not liable to any farther Arrest or Action at Law and whenever he pays the Debt he does not free me but himself from the Obligation So that now his Argument from Proportion falls to the ground That if our sins were imputed to Christ otherwise than meerly in the Effects of them so must likewise the Righteousness of his Life and the Sacrifice of his Death be otherwise imputed to us than meerly in the Benefits of them For as Christ was not accounted a Sinner by the imputation of our sins to him so neither shall we be accounted formally righteous by the imputation of his Personal Righteousness to us His next Argument is That seeluding not only the Righteousness of Christs Life but the Satisfaction of his Death as the matter and the imputation of it as the formal cause of Iustification it seems repugnant to the Immutability and Essential Holiness of God to justifie us upon an imperfect Obedience the Law which requireth a perfect remaining still in force and denouncing wrath in case of every failure The sum of which Argument is this That it is unjust for God to forgive us our sins though Christ hath died to make Atonement for them unless we be made formally righteous by the imputation of his Righteousness to us which in plain terms overthrows the Gospel of Christ and makes the Sacrifice of his Death of no value for if Christ have expiated our sins by his Death why may not God accept and reward our imperfect Services without being unjust in doing so But that Law which requireth perfect Obedience remains still in force and denounceth wrath against every failure But is there any Law which forbids God to pardon sin though his own Son make atonement for it by his Death Where is this Law And where is the Sanction of it And who gave it this Sanction Will nothing satisfie the Law but perfect and unsinning Obedience Then there can be no Gospel then God never can forgive sin and it is a vain thing to talk of it We may be Righteous by an imputed Righteousness were it possible for God to judge otherwise of things than they are but our sins can never be forgiven which is a direct contradiction to the whole Gospel A Law in force which will not admit of Pardon and Forgiveness upon any terms is inconsistent with Gospel-Grace and therefore had not Mr. Ferguson told us that the Socinians assert the abrogation of the Sanction of the Law upon the confirmation of the Gospel-Covenant I should have been inclined to have thought so too for I cannot understand how it is possible to reconcile a Law which requires unsinning Obedience under the pain of Damnation with the Gospel which promises Pardon of sin and eternal Life upon the condition of sincere Obedience which are at as great a distance as a necessity of Pardon and a necessity of Innocency And now I think of it there is no danger of Socinianism if we do but attribute such an abrogation of the Law if it may be so called as well as the Sanction of the Gospel to the Merits of Christs Death and Sufferings and therefore I boldly assert That there is no such Law now in force as requires unsinning Obedience under the penalty of Damnation Not that Christ hath in a proper sense abrogated the Law by his Death if by the Law we mean those Eternal Rules of Righteousness which necessarily result from the nature of things and their mutual relations and respects that is that he has not made that to be no sin which according to the Eternal Rules of Righteousness was a sin as Mr. Ferguson childishly argues That then it would follow that by being Believers we wholly cease to be Sinners and that the Gospel instead of only making provision for the remission of sins against the Law hath prevented the breaches of it from being so But the only abrogation of the Law is That we shall not be judged or condemned according to the Rules of a perfect and unsinning Obedience that Christ having made Atonement and Expiation for our sins God will now for the sake of Christ pardon the sins of true Penitents and reward their sincere though imperfect Obedience This is the Gospel-Covenant which was purchased and sealed with the blood of Christ which does not make that to be no sin which before was a sin but only absolves us from the condemnation due to sin and entitles us to those Rewards which an imperfect Obedience cannot merit Perfect Obedience is the Attainment at which we must aim but not the Rule by which we shall be judged There is no other Law now in force to Christians but the Gospel of our Saviour which is the Christian Law and is the Perfection and Advancement both of the Law of Nature and the Law of Moses and this Law requires a perfect but accepts and rewards a sincere Obedience it does not come short of any Law in the perfection of its Rules and it excells all other Laws as it is a Dispensation of Grace For though the Gospel requires both a perfect and sincere Obedience yet it requires them under very different Sanctions at least if Promises may be called the Sanction of a Law The Sanction of Sincerity is the Promise of Eternal Life nothing less than this will deliver us from the wrath of God or procure our admission into Heaven by this Rule we shall be judged as to our final state of Happiness or Misery But the Sanction of Perfection consists in the greater degrees of Glory He who is sincere though imperfect shall be saved according to the terms of the Gospel but our Reward shall be proportion'd to our different Attainments and the greatest Glory is reserved for the most perfect Saint And now I hope Mr. Ferguson will be satisfied that it is not repugnant to the Immutability and Essential Holiness of God to accept and reward a sincere though imperfect Obedience since he does not absolve his Creatures from any essential part of their Duty but is so merciful as for the sake of Christ to pardon and accept sincere Penitents and so holy as to encourage the most perfect Vertue with the promise of proportionable Rewards As for what Mr. Ferguson adds concerning Christs Surrogation in our room and stead
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
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
that Homily which seem to favour that notion of our Justification by the Imputation of Christs Personal Righteousness though that phrase of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness is nowhere used throughout the whole Homily but if we will take that Explication which the Homily it self gives of them it will evidently appear that there was no such thing intended by them I shall produce these expressions in their proper places and in the management of this Argument shall First explain the sense of our Church concerning the Doctrine of Justification out of the Homilies of Salvation Faith Good Works and Repentance And Secondly Show you how the state of the Controversie is altered at this day and what a just reason this is for a more particular explication of those Expressions which occasioned the corruption of the wholsom Doctrine of our Church First I shall enquire what is the true sense of the Church of England concerning the Doctrine of Justification And first I observe that our Church places the nature and essence of Justification in the forgiveness of sins This is evident from the very first words of the Homily Because all men be Sinners and Offenders against God and Breakers of his Law Commandments therefore can no man by his own Acts Words and Deeds seem they never so good be justified and made righteous before God but every man of necessity is constrained to seek for another Righteousness or Iustification to be received at Gods own hands that is to say the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in such things as he hath offended And this Iustification or Righteousness the forgiveness of sins which we so receive of Gods Mercy and Christs Merits embraced by Faith is taken accepted and allowed of God for our perfect and full Iustification So that our full and perfect Justification consists in the forgiveness of our sins whereby God over-looking what we have done amiss deals with us as with Righteous Persons that is bestows Eternal Life on us The Homily takes notice of two ways of Justification The first is by our own Works when we live so innocently and vertuously as to be acquitted and absolved by God according to the strict Rules of Law and Justice But in this way no Sinner can be justified for the Law justifies no man who is a Transgressor of the Law and therefore since we are all Sinners and can neither expiate our past sins nor perfectly keep the Law for the future it is impossible that we should be justified by our own Acts and Deeds It remains therefore that no Sinner can be justified or accounted Just and Righteous before God without the pardon and forgiveness of his Sins this is the Justification and Righteousness of a Sinner that God forgives his wilful sins and covers all the defects of his good Actions for when the sin is pardoned and covered the man is innocent and righteous Now this Account I am sure cannot please Dr. Owen and his Friends who look upon the forgiveness of sin but as one part of our Justification and that the most inconsiderable too which only makes us innocent and delivers us from the condemnation of the Law but cannot entitle us to future Happiness besides Innocency as they tell us there is required a perfect Righteousness the first is owing to the Death of Christ which expiates our sins the second to the Imputation of Christs perfect Righteousness to us which makes us perfectly just and righteous this is a down-right contradiction to the Doctrine of our Church which teaches us that God accepts and allows of this forgiveness of sin for our full and perfect Iustification And indeed forgiveness of sins is a true Evangelical way of Justification in opposition to a Legal Justification which consists in perfect and unsinning Obedience the first our Church requires but the Doctor and his Friends exact the latter a perfect Righteousness of Works for as the Doctor observes Life is not to be obtained unless all be done that the Law requires that is still true If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments they must be kept by us or by our Surety All the difference the Doctor knows between the Law and the Gospel is only this that the Law required a perfect Righteousness from every man in his own Person the Gospel accepts of a perfect Righteousness in the Person of our Mediator but still we are justified by a Legal not Evangelical Righteousness that is by a Righteousness of Works not by pardon and forgiveness And it has been before observed by some learned men that to place our Justification in the forgiveness of our sins as our Church doth and in the Imputation of Christs Personal Righteousness to us as others do are not very consistent For by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us we are Legally Righteous or have a perfect Righteousness of Works and Forgiveness of sins and a perfect Righteousness destroy each other for if we are perfectly Righteous whether in our own Persons or by Imputation we need no Forgiveness and if we need Forgiveness it is plain that God does not so much as impute a perfect Righteousness to us So that when our Church places the whole nature of our Justification in the Forgiveness of sins it is a good Argument that she never thought of a Legal Righteousness of Works of the Imputation of Christs perfect Righteousness and Obedience to make us righteous before God But for a fuller Explication of this Doctrine of Justification we are taught in that Homily that there are especially three things which must go together in our Iustification upon Gods part his great Mercy and Grace upon Christs part Iustice that is the Satisfaction of Gods Iustice or the price of our Redemption by the offering of his Body and sheddidg his Blood with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly and upon our part true and lively Faith in the Merits of Iesus Christ which yet is not ours but by Gods working in us This is a much more intelligible way of explaining the Doctrine of Justification than by the Material Formal Efficient Instrumental Causes and such-like terms of Art which need more explication than the Doctrine it self and therefore I shall follow this method and reduce the Doctrine of the Homilies under these three Heads What is Gods part what is Christs part and what is required on Mans part in the business of Justification First Let us consider what is Gods part in the Justification of a Sinner and that is the Mercy and Grace of God which expresses it self first in providing a Ransom for us as it is expressed in the Homily That our Iustification doth come freely by the meer Mercy of God and of so great and free mercy that whereas all the World was not able of themselves to pay any part towards their Ransom it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy without any our Desert or Deserving to prepare for us the
most precious Iewels of Christs Body and Blood whereby our Ransome might be fully paid the Law fulfilled and his Iustice satisfied There is no Controversie between us about this matter that it was an expression of the undeserved Goodness of God to send Christ into the World to save Sinners And secondly The Mercy of God is seen in the very Act of Justifying us in accepting this Atonement and in forgiving our sins Thus we are informed in the second part of that Sermon of Salvation Justification is not the Office of Man but of God for Man cannot make himself righteous by his own Works neither in part nor in the whole for that were the greatest arrogancy and presumption of Man that Antichrist could set up against God to affirm that a man might by his own Works take away and purge his own Sins and so Justifie himself But Justification is the Office of God only and is not a thing which we render to him but which we receive of him not which we give to him but which we take of him by his free Mercy and by the only Merits of his most dearly beloved Son our only Redeemer Saviour and Justifier Jesus Christ. Bywhich words it is very plain what is understood by Justification being Gods Act and not Mans that is that it is an Act of Favour and Grace not of Merit and Desert Though God may be said to Justifie an Innocent Man when he pronounces him Just and Righteous according to Law which is the proper office of a Judge i. e. to acquit an Innocent Man when he is arraigned yet in this case an Innocent Man may be said to Justifie himself because he is Justified by his own Actions and God only like a Just and Righteous Judge pronounces the Sentence of Justification that is acquits and absolves him as his actions deserve which strict Justice requires But in the Justification of a Sinner who dares not stand the trial of strict Justice but appeals to the Grace and Mercy of God Justification is properly Gods Act and not Mans is owing to the Divine Grace and Mercy not to Mans Merit and Desert Upon the same account we are told in the same place that not our own Act to believe in Christ or that this our Faith in Christ which is within us doth not justifie us for that were to count our selves to be justified by some Act or Vertue that is within our selves Which I confess sounds very like what some men say That Faith doth not justifie us as our own Act but as it apprehends the Righteousness of Christ and applies it to us by which Righteousness thus apprehended by Faith we are justified but there is nothing less meant in this place as will appear from considering the whole Sentence which is this So that the true understanding of this Doctrine We be justified freely by Faith without Works or that we be justified by Faith in Christ only is not that this our own Act to believe in Christ or this our Faith in Christ which is within us doth justifie us and deserve our Justification unto us for that were to count our selves to be justified by some Act or Vertue that is within our selves but the true understanding and meaning thereof is that although we hear Gods Word and believe it and do never so many Works thereunto yet we must renounce the Merit of all our said Vertues of Faith Hope Charity and all other Vertues and good Deeds which we 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 Justification and therefore we must trust only in Gods Mercy and that Sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Christ Jesus the Son of God once offered for us upon the Cross to obtain thereby Gods Grace and Remission as well of Original Sin in Baptism as of all Actual Sin committed by us after Baptism if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to him again The meaning of which is plain that we are not justified by Faith as our own act as we are not justified by Hope and Charity as our own acts that is that they cannot merit our Justification or the Forgiveness of our sins When we have done the best we can we must still fly to the Mercy of God through the Merits of our Lord Jesus Christ that distinction of Faiths justifying not as our own Act but as it apprehends the Righteousness of Christ and cloaths us with the perfect Robes of his Righteousness for which God accounts us perfectly Righteous is of a later date than these Homilies and very inconsistent with the Doctrine contained in them Thus you see what Gods part is in the Justification of a Sinner viz. To provide a Ransom and to forgive sins in vertue of that Ransom that is to justifie those who according to the strictness and rigor of the Law are not Just and Righteous Persons Thus to conclude this in the words of the Homily You have heard the Office of God in our Iustification and how we receive it of him freely by his Mercy without our Deserts Let us now consider what is Christs part in our Justification and that is expressed by Iustice that is the satisfaction of Iustice or the Price of our Redemption by the offering of his Body and shedding of his Blood with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly The plain meaning of which is that we are justified for the sake of Christs Merits that his Obedience in doing and suffering the Will of God in dying for our sins and in fulfilling the Law is the meritorious cause of our Justification that is did deserve at Gods hands that for Christs sake he should pardon all humble penitent and believing Sinners This is all the Imputation of Christs Righteousness which our Church acknowledges that the Righteousness of Christ is the meritorious Cause of our Justification Thus we are told That Infants being baptized and dying in their Infancy are by this Sacrifice washed from their sins brought to Gods favour and made his Children and Inheritors of his Kingdom of Heaven And they which in act or deed do sin after their Baptism when they turn again to God unfeignedly they are likewise washed by this Sacrifice from their sins in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be imputed to their damnation Which is to the same sense with that of St. Iohn that if we walk in the light as he is in the light if we are holy as God is we have fellowship one with another and the Blood of Iesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin 1 Iohn i. 7. And to this sense our Church expounds those Texts Rom. iii. All have offended and have need of the Glory of God but are justified freely by his Grace by Redemption which is in Iesus Christ whom God hath set forth to us for a Reconciler and Peace-maker through
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
Fears The Hope of Heaven and the Fear of Hell are the great Motives of the Gospel but are of no use in this new Religion since a justified Person who yet may be very wicked is in no danger of Hell and is secure of his Inheritance in Heaven For if a justified person may miss of Heaven and fall into Hell his Justification is worth nothing a man had as good be Unjustified as to perish with his Justification And therefore though God if he pleases may sanctifie whom he first justifies yet there is no Argument left to perswade a justified person to be holy if he may be justified without it This I particularly shewed in my former Discourse where I examined Dr. Owens Reasons for the necessity of Holiness which either prove nothing or prove only the necessity of Event that God will necessarily make men holy not such a necessity of Duty as will make every considering man who hath any value for his Soul freely chuse Holiness But instead of answering what I there urged the Doctor in his Vindication transcribes a long Paragraph concerning the necessity of Holiness and leaves it to the judgment of his Readers which I must needs say was very boldly done if he thought his Readers had any judgment though it argued more craft to give me a fresh challenge as if I had yet said nothing to him The Doctor only takes notice of two or three things which I answered to his Reasons for the necessaty of Holiness and passes over all the rest as unanswerable scoffing which is his way to call that scoffing which he cannot answer As first he proved the necessity of Holiness from the command of God which had been a good Argument had it been used by another man but the Doctors Notion of Justification by the imputed Righteousness of Christ only evacuates this command and therefore I enquired where is the Sanction of this Law will he damn those who do not obey for their disobedience And will he save and reward those who do obey for their obedience Not a word of this for this destroys our Iustification by the Righteousness of Christ only And if after all these Commands God hath left it indifferent whether we obey or not I hope such Commands cannot make Obedience necessary This last Clause the Doctor recites and cries out Wonderful Divinity A man must needs be well acquainted with God and himself who can suppose that any of his Commands shall leave it indifferent whether we will obey them or no. This I confess is wonderful Divinity but I know no reason the Doctor should wonder at it because it is his own For such indifferent things he makes all the Divine Commands while he makes them unnecessary to our Justification which quite destroys their Authority and Sanction For a Law if it may be so called without Rewards and Punishments is left at the liberty of the Subject to obey it or not and such a Command cannot make Obedience necessary But the Doctor proceeds But may we not notwithstanding this Command be justified and saved without this Holiness Wherein he designs to represent my Sense though he have changed the words and answers false and impertinent we are neither justified nor saved without them though we are not justified by them nor saved for them This is warily expressed but will not serve his purpose for by our not being justified without Holiness he means no more than that God at the same time when he justifies infuses the Habits of Grace and Holiness renews and sanctifies us too and therefore we cannot be said to be justified without Holiness because we are justified and sanctified at the same instant though in order of nature we are Justified before we are Sanctified and therefore in our Justification God had no respect to any sly Antecedent Holiness which as to the present Dispute is the same thing as to be Justified without Holiness The Doctor professes it as his avowed Doctrine That Holiness and Obedience is neither the Cause Matter nor Condition of our Iustification and therefore not Antecedently necessary And expresly tells us That the Passive Righteousness of Christ only is imputed to us in the non-imputation of Sin and that on the condition of our Faith and new Obedience so exalting them into the room of the Righteousness of Christ is a thing which in Communion with the Lord Iesus I have as yet no acquaintance withal And a little before Are we then freed from this Obedience Yes But how far From doing it in our own strength from doing it for this end That we may obtain Life Everlasting It is vain that some say confidently that we must yet work for Life it is all one as to say That we are yet under the Old Covenant Hoc fac vives we are not freed from Obedience as a way of walking with God but we are as a way of working to come to him So that Holiness contributes nothing to our Justification and Eternal life and therefore we may as well be justified and saved without them which destroys the Necessity and Sanction of the Divine Laws and leaves it at every mans liberty to Obey or not to Obey were they not over-ruled like spiritual Machines and Engines by an irresistible Power In the next place the Doctor proves the necessity of Holiness from the Ends of God in Election and Redemption God Elected us and Christ Redeemed us that we might be holy This is a very good Argument too if it be rightly managed but that it can never be upon the Doctors Principles that is if we deny the Antecedent necessity of Holiness to our Justification For if God have absolutely Elected us to Eternal Life without any condition required on our part only purposing to make those holy by an irresistible Power whom he hath Elected this only proves the necessity of the Event that those who are Elected shall be holy but can be no Argument to engage any man to press after Holiness For this Election to Holiness doth not make Holiness necessary on our part with the necessity of Duty or of a Condition without which we shall not be saved but only makes it necessary on Gods part as to the regular execution of his Decree of Salvation And the same may be said of Redemption if we are so absolutely Redeemed by the Death of Christ as to have a right to all the benefits of it as Justification and Eternal Life without any condition required on our part If we are justified freely by the Grace of God through the Redemption which is in Christ Iesus without any regard to Repentance or New Obedience to qualifie us for this Grace then our Redemption by Christ cannot make it a necessary Duty in us to be holy though Holiness may follow as a necessary Effect This I expressed in fewer words but to the same sense in my former Discourse Will the Father Elect and the
of grace in us produce the fruits of Holiness by a free and voluntary choice from Principles of reason and moral perswasion together with the supernatural assistances of grace then it cannot it self be an argument of the necessity of Holiness but does it self stand in need of such Arguments from the necessity and advantages of Holiness as shall effectually incline and determine it to a constant and vigorous practice of Holiness And if this new Creature produce the fruits of Holiness by a necessity of nature meerly by the natural or rather supernatural force and energy of Grace then indeed it makes Holiness necessary as a necessary cause makes a necessary Effect and the Doctor need not fear that this new Creature should be starved for want of being fed and cherished with the fruits of Holiness And indeed this is a kind of Pelagian fear too that the new Creature should perish for want of being kept alive by the fruits of Righteousness for all Orthodox Divines use to assure us that the new Creature can never die that the least spark of grace will live in the midst of a whole Sea and Ocean of corruption However upon the consideration of the whole it appears to be an excellent Argument to prove the necessity of Holiness that we must abound in the fruits of Holiness to keep the new Creature alive in us whereas the life of the new Creature is necessary to produce these fruits of Holiness A Tree must be alive to bring forth fruit and its bringing forth fruit is a sign that it is alive but the fruit it self contributes nothing to the life of the Tree Acquired Habits are owing to exercise but an infused Principle of life in the Doctors way can neither owe its being continuance nor increase to External Acts I am sure in other cases the Doctor is very much against working for life And I can imagine no reason why he should be for it now but that it is absurd and senseless And to make the most of this Argument that may be the whole result of it is this that we must live holily that we may be holy we must abound in the External fruits of Holiness that we may preserve an inward Principle of Holiness for a new Creature in the Doctors account is no more But if the question be proposed what need there is of this new Creature as well as of the fruits of it which ought to be taken into consideration when we enquire after the necessity of Holiness unless he thinks Holiness a meer External thing I doubt in his way he can find no good reason for it unless he will say that a new Creature is necessary to produce the fruits of Holiness and the fruits of Holiness are necessary to feed and cherish the new Creature and so they may be necessary for each other but for ought yet appears might both be spared I know not whether the Doctor will think all this an answer but I am pretty confident as young men are apt to be that other men will This is all our Author returns to those Objections I made against his reasons for the necessity of Holiness the rest he passes over as unanswerable scoffing that they are unanswerable I am verily perswaded whether they be scoffing let others judge however whether they be scoffing or not any one will perceive that in this Argument I may securely scoff at the Doctor without any danger of scoffing at any true Apostle But though the Doctor have done with me I have not thus done with him since at all turns he can talk of nothing less than Apostles I shall acquaint the World to what Apostles he is nearest related such as Dr. Crispe Saltmarsh and other Antinomian Apostles who are to the full as Orthodox in this Point as our Author and assign the same reasons for the necessity of Holiness and take the same method to secure the Prerogative of Christ and of Free Grace which I shall make appear by particular instances Dr. Owen pretends to be a great Friend to Holiness and so does Dr. Crispe He tells us That he does not speak against Holiness and Righteousness that becomes a people to whom Christ is a way for holy and righteous they shall be Christ will make them holy and pnt his Spirit into them to change their hearts and work upon their Spirits And therefore as Dr. Owen takes care to assign the Righteousness of Christ its proper place and Gospel Obedience its place so does Dr. Crispe Thus Dr. Owen tells us We do by no means assign the same place condition state and use to the obedience of Christ imputed to us and our Obedience performed to God if we did they were really inconsistent And thus Dr. Crispe assures us that the consequence of his Doctrine is not to take men off from Obedience but to take them off from those ends which they aim at in Obedience namely the end for which Christs Obedience serves It doth take men off from performing duties to corrupt ends and from the bad use they are apt to make of Idolizing their own Righteousness Our own Righteousness is good in its kind and for its own proper uses but then it proves a fruit of sin ignorance and a dangerous stumbling block when we go about to establish this Righteousness of ours so as to bring it into the room and stead and place of Gods Righteousness So far all is well on both sides let us consider then what those ends are for which the Righteousness of Christ must serve and which must not be attributed to our Righteousness Dr. Owen in the same place enforms us That those who affirm that our Obedience is the condition or cause of our Iustification do all of them deny the imputation of the Obedience of Christ unto us in his Notion he should have said for otherwise it is not true The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us as that on the account whereof we are accepted and esteemed righteous before God and are really so though not inherently Our own Obedience is not the Righteousness whereupon we are accepted and justified before God although it be acceptable to God that we abound therein There is a necessity of good Works notwithstanding we are not saved by them and that is that God has ordained that we shall walk in them And Dr. Crispe speaks the very same thing It will be worth the while to consider when our Righteousness is said truly to be established in the room and stead of the Righteousness of God viz. When men make their own Righteousness the Sanctuary and Refuge that Gods righteousness only should be As when men have such imaginations as these as long as men do not mend there is no hope that God will mend They that put deliverance from sin and wrath upon the spiritual performance of that Righteousness which the Law doth command of them they do put that Righteousness in the
endeavoured to misrepresent the Doctrine and Design of my Book and by affixing ill names to it deter their followers from looking on the inside or once considering what it is they are afraid of I shall here give a short Abstract of the whole Doctrine and do earnestly beg that favour of every man if he will not be at the trouble to read and consider the Discourse it self at least to peruse this short Account of it before he allow himself the liberty of reviling Only I must observe by the way how the state of things is already altered since the appearing of my Discourse before the great noise and clamour was against Moral and Legal Preachers who preach'd up Holiness but left out Christ and the Grace of God now when they are charg'd on the other hand with as much undervaluing a holy Life and with advancing the Person of Christ to the prejudice of his Laws and Religion they change their note and would perswade the world that there is no real difference between us but that I force their Expressions to a sense which they never intended they are now grown great Patrons of Holiness and whatever they talk of the Excellency of Christs Person or of his boundless and bottomless compassion and of such an infinite mercy which all the sins in the world cannot equal and of such a Patience as will save us notwithstanding our sins they mean no more than what we believe as heartily as they that Christ is able and willing to save all those who repent and believe and reform their lives and that he will save none but upon these terms I am glad with all my heart to hear this for I designed no more than to establish this Doctrine but what account can they give after this of their general out-cry against Legal and Moral Preachers Were there any men who taught the People that Holiness would save them without the Merits of Christ I know no such they were none of my Companions and Complices at whom the Doctor so often flurts And if there be no real difference between us but only a different phrase and manner of expression I wonder why they should be so angry with those men who speak that so plainly that the People cannot mistake them which they affect to obscure in uncouth and mystical phrases There can be no account given of this but that they are willing at least that the People should believe there is a difference and are not so faithful to Mens Souls as to prevent such dangerous mistakes Were these phrases of coming to Christ and closing with Christ and leaning and resting and rolling our Souls on Christ for Salvation and such like generally understood not only by some cunning Sophisters when they are forc'd by reason and argument to put a sober sense on them but by the common people to signifie no more than expecting to be saved by Christ according to Gospel-terms that is upon the conditions of Faith and Repentance and a new Life I should think him very ill imployed who should disturb the peace of the Church for the sake of any modes of speaking but when it is so evident that the Preachers themselves when they have no adversary expound these phrases to a very different if not contrary purpose and that the generality of Hearers never suspect that coming to Christ and closing with Christ include Obedience and a holy Life but that this is rather a hinderance to their closing with Christ as their Preachers tell them This makes it necessary to oppose those forms of speech which are generally abused to evil purposes and it is an argument of no great honesty to be fond of words and phrases to the prejudice of mens souls And yet after all this the Doctor cannot forget his old grudge against these Preachers of holiness He tells us I know there are not a few who in the course of a vain worldly conversation whilst there is scarce a back or belly of a Disciple of Christ that blesseth God upon account of their bounty or charity the footsteps of levity vanity scurrility and prophaness being moreover left upon all the paths of their haunt are wont to declaim about holiness good works and justification by them which is a ready way to instruct men to Atheism or the scorn of every thing that is professed in Religion No doubt but there is a great mixture of truth and modesty in this censure I thank God I know no such persons and if I did I should abhor them as much as he can but the Doctors quarrel seems to be not so much at the vanity and prophaness c. of their Conversation for it is a known Maxim among them The worse the better as at their preaching Holiness c. Good Sir if such men are permitted to preach what would you have them preach Should they cry down holiness and preach up debauchery Is this the way to cure the world of Atheism Or should they teach men to trust wholly in the righteousness of Christ without any righteousness of their own I confess this would much more become them and I wonder all bad men are not of this perswasion though I hope the Doctor and his Friends have some better reason for their Zeal For the same cause these men persecute my Discourse the whole design of which is no more than to convince men of the absolute necessity of a universal Righteousness in order to please God and to save their souls that no man must expect to be saved by Christ without obeying the Gospel and imitating the example of his Lord and that this is the meaning of all those phrases of Scripture of believing in Christ and coming to him and receiving him and being united to him and ingrafted in him and the like which are expounded by some men to the prejudice of obedience and to encourage sinners to expect justification by Christ and those who are justified are actually in a state of salvation while they are in their filth and impurities I cannot but think it very glorious to suffer in such a cause this was the very reason why the Pharisees persecuted our Saviour himself because he rejected all their external and ceremonial righteousness and exacted from them a sincere and internal obedience to the divine Laws and plainly told them That nothing would carry them to Heaven but such a renovation of their minds and spirits as transformed them into the likeness and image of God This is the great fault of my Book and the true reason of all this noise and clamour as will appear by taking a summary account of the whole Design and Doctrine of it CHAP. I. Containing a short Account of the Design and Doctrine of the Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Christ c. THe Design I proposed to my self in that Discourse was to reconcile that Love and Honour and Adoration Trust and Affiance which all Christians owe to their Lord and
hath made to the World which includes whatever he hath revealed to us concerning his own Person Natures Mediation and the whole Will of God concerning our Salvation which must be learnt from the express Declarations of the Gospel not from some fanciful and imaginary consequences which is a very unsafe way in matters of pure Revelation Doctor Owen hath advanced an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ as the only Medium of saving knowledge that is when we have from the Gospel learnt who Christ is what he hath done and suffered for us when we have learnt those things which concern his Person Offices and Work we may then give free scope to our fancies and draw such conclusions as are no where expresly contained in Scripture or could not possibly have been learnt from Scripture at least not clearly and savingly without such an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ that is without reasoning and drawing conclusions from what Christ hath done suffered These conclusions must be formed into artificial Theories and Schemes of Religion and then these are the great Gospel-Mysteries and the only saving knowledge of Christ and those men only preach Christ who fill peoples heads with such choice Speculations as they have learnt from this Acquaintance with Christ. I thought there was very great reason to oppose this Principle which gave such boundless scope to mens fancies and allowed every man to frame and mold a Religion according to his own humour and was the more confirmed in this when I observed what strange Mysteries the Doctor himself had learn'd from this Acquaintance with Christ which I am sure without this he could never have learnt either from Scripture or Reason I gave several instances of this nature out of his own Writings which shall be made good in due time at present I must observe what Doctrines I there reject and in what sence I rejected such a notion of Gods Justice as represents him as fierce and savage as the worst of beings such a notion of Justice as disparages the Satisfaction of Christ as if the whole design of it were to gratifie Revenge and to appease a furious and merciless Deity which notion at first frighted Socinus out of his Wits and made him rather chuse to deny the satisfaction of Christ than to believe any thing so unworthy of God though thanks be to God that we need do neither I reject such a notion of Justice as disparages the Wisdom of God in the contrivance of our Redemption by Jesus Christ for if it were absolutely necessary for God to punish sin and there were no other Person in the World fit or able to bear the punishment of sin and to make expiation for it but only Christ there was required no great Wisdom to make the choice I reject such a notion of the Mercy and Patience of God as represents it to be the effect only of the satisfaction of Revenge which is like the tameness of an angry man when his passion is over which is an unworthy conceit of the infinite Love and Goodness of the Divine Nature I reject such a notion of Mercy as represents God to be fond easie to Sinners while they continue so and I think such a notion of Justice and Mercy very unworthy of God which represents him more concerned to punish Sin than to reform it And is it not hard that a man must be scandalized with denying the satisfaction of Christ and blaspheming God meerly for rejecting such Doctrines as are injurious to the Satisfaction of Christ and when they are pursued to their just and natural consequences are down right blasphemy against God this is a certain way to prevent the confutation of such Doctrines for you cannot confute them without discovering their blasphemy and whoever does so shall himself be charged as a Blasphemer But to proceed I reject such a notion of our Union to the Person of Christ as is unintelligible such as the Great Patrons of it cannot explain nor any one else understand for since all our hopes of Salvation depends upon our Union to Christ I can by no means think that this is such a Mystery as surpasses humane knowledge for that on which the happiness of all men depends ought in reason to be so plain that it may be understood by all I reject such a notion of our Union to the Person of Christ as intitles us to all the Personal Excellencies Fulness Beauty and to the Personal Righteousness of Christ as much as Marriage intitles a Woman to her Husbands Estate that whatever Christ hath done and suffered is as much reckoned ours when we are united to him as if we had done and suffered the same things our selves and that upon this account we are justified only by the Righteousness of Christ without respect to any inherent Righteousness in our selves Now I reject this because no Union can thus intitle us to Christs personal Excellencies and Righteousness but such a natural Union as makes Christ and Believers One Person that they are Christed with Christ which is an absurd and dangerous Heresie but neither our Marriage to Christ nor his being our Surety or Mediator can effect this for whatever Union there may be between the Person of Christ and the Persons of Believers while their Persons remain distinct their Properties and Qualifications and Righteousness must be considered as distinct too and though we may receive great advantage by what Christ hath done and suffered yet it cannot be reckoned ours in that strict notion as if it had been done by us and there is a vast difference between these two notions for the first only makes the Righteousness of Christ the meritorious cause of our Pardon and Reward which makes it necessary to have a Righteousness of our own to entitle us to these Blessings but the second makes the Righteousness of Christ our Personal Righteousness which destroys the necessity of any inherent Righteousness in our selves but of this more hereafter I reject such a notion of our Union to Christ whereby bad men may be nay must be united to Christ while they continue in their sins for if it once be granted as it must be granted if we believe the Gospel that our Union to Christ gives us an actual interest in all his Promises such as Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life it is easie to observe how this overthrows the whole Design of the Gospel if a bad man while he continues so may be united to Christ for then he is a Son of God and an Heir of Everlasting Life and what becomes then of all those Gospel-Threatnings which denounce the wrath of God against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men When Christ tells us That he who breaks the least of his Commandments shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven that except our righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees we shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and when St.
the Laws of earthly Marriages and Suretiship c. the only answer I can get from Dr. Owen and his Friends is That Christ is not such a Husband and Surety and Mediator as men are but is all this in an eminent manner that there is something peculiar in him which cannot be affirmed of any other Now this is the answer I desired but could not hope that they had so little wit as to give it for this is plainly to acknowledge that all their Arguments are fallacious for if there be such a vast difference between the Notion of a Husband and Surety and Mediator and the several Duties and Offices of these Relations as applied to men and as applied to Christ then we cannot argue from one to the other this is plainly to give away the best Arguments they have for the Imputation of Christs Personal Righteousness in their sense and with them to yield up the Cause For now before they argue from Christs being our Husband that therefore we have a title to his Personal Righteousness as a Wife has to her Husbands Estate they must prove from express Texts of Scripture that this is the Law of our spiritual Marriage before they argue from Christs being our Surety that therefore we are but one Person with him and that whatever he did as our Surety is accounted as much ours as if we had done it our selves they must prove that this is the Scripture-notion of Christs Suretiship and had they taken this course I dare say I might have looked long enough for an Answer before it had come And here as not finding a fitter place for it I shall briefly take notice of that Defence which Dr. Owen has made for his way of Reasoning from Christs being our Mediator to prove the Imputation of his Personal Righteousness to us Though I must recal that word Defence for indeed he has made none but appeals to the ingenuity of his Readers and leaves his Book to defend it self which it may be supposed to be very well able to do at the age of twenty years especially against a young Adversary And first he would willingly insinuate that I had not truly or fairly related his words but then on a sudden he takes courage and roundly asserts whatever I had charged him with That the Lord Christ fulfilled all Righteousness as Mediator and that what he did as Mediator he did it for them whose Mediator he was or in whose stead and for whose good he executed the Office of a Mediator before God And here he first very nicely distinguishes between these two Propositions Christ as Mediator fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead and Christ being Mediator in our stead fulfilled all Righteousness for us and very truly observes that I do not understand the difference between them and it would have been charitably done of him to have shown the difference for I am still so dull as not to perceive it If Christ as Mediator in our stead fulfilled all Righteousness for us then he must fulfil it in our stead for he is therefore supposed to fulfil Righteousness for us because he acted in our stead which can be no reason unless he acted in our stead in fulfilling Righteousness which I think is much the same with fulfilling Righteousness in our stead And indeed the Doctor himself does expresly assert this in so many words That this Obedience was performed by Christ not for himself but for us and in our stead So that it seems He himself did not understand the difference of these expressions then and I am sure can show no difference now Though I cannot blame the Doctor for being willing to shift off this expression That Christ fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead as fore-seeing the consequence of it that this must needs discharge us from the Obligations of a Personal Righteousness For if Christ have fulfilled the Righteousness of the Law in our stead the Law can no more exact Obedience from us than it can inflict Punishment on us a perfect Righteousness is all the Law can require of us and since we have perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ our Mediator it can make no farther Demands of us Which is to set up the personal Righteousness of Christ in opposition to his Laws and Religion Now as bad a consequence as this is if Dr. Owen would speak consistently with his own Principles he can never avoid it for the foundation of all his Arguments to prove that Christs Righteousness is made ours in a Law-sense is that Christ as our Surety and Mediator fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead for take away this and there is no more reason why the Righteousness of Christ should in his sense be reckoned ours than why the Righteousness of Abraham or Moses or St. Paul should be imputed to us And yet supposing this true That Christ fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead it necessarily overthrows their fundamental Notion of our Justification by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us for if he did it in our stead it becomes ours without an Imputation It would be necessary indeed that God should accept of Christ as our Surety and Mediator to act in our stead which may be reckoned an act of favour and accordingly that Christ should fulfil all Righteousness in our stead but when this is done there needs no imputation to make it ours Whatever is done in our stead by a Proxy or Substitute appointed and allowed to act for us becomes ours according to strict Law and Justice and needs not the acceptation of Grace and Mercy which is the Scripture-notion of Imputation to make it so Christs Righteousness would become ours by his acting in our stead without any consequent Imputation And yet to see how Absurdities multiply suppose we take it in Dr. Owen's sense that Christ is only a Mediator in our stead this is a manifest contradiction for it supposes that the Middle may stand in the place of either of the Extreams for a Mediator is a middle Person between two contending Parties and therefore his Office is to act between them both and not in the stead of either And to say that Christ is a Mediator in our stead supposes that we ought to have been Mediators that is middle Persons between God and our selves nay indeed that we are so in the Person of Christ for otherwise though he may be a Mediator on our behalf and for our good yet he cannot mediate in our stead In the next place I made it appear that we cannot argue from the general notion of a Mediator that his Personal Righteousness shall be imputed to those for whom he is Mediator for a Mediator is one who interposes between two differing Parties to accommodate the difference but it was never heard of yet that it was the Office of a Mediator to perform the terms and conditions himself which I shewed particularly in the example of Moses And here the
Human Nature was fitted for Glory might have exempted him from the Obligation of any outward Law whatever What he means by outward Laws I cannot tell for the Laws of Creation are intrinsick and essential to human Nature and if the Hypostatical Union do not destroy the Human Nature it cannot exempt it from those natural and necessary Obligations He might as well say that the Hypostatical Union exempts the Human Nature of Christ from the Laws of Reasoning as from the Rules of Life both which are equally the Glory and Perfection of a Reasonable Nature And though we should suppose the Human Nature in Christ in the very first instant of its Union to the Divine Nature to be fitted for Glory yet I cannot see how this exempts the Human Nature from the Obligation of those Laws which are essential to Human Nature unless he thinks that Human Nature in Glory is under no Obligations Had Christ been immediately translated to Heaven he had not been obliged to those particular instances of Obedience which are proper to an earthly state for glorified Saints themselves are not but while Christ is a perfect Man as well as God it will always become him in whatever state he be to live agreeably to Human Nature For though he be advanced to the Right Hand of God he is still as man inferiour to his Father and therefore can never as man be exempted from the necessary Laws of Human Nature But to proceed to the Ceremonial Law The Doctor proves that Christ as an innocent man under the Covenant of Works could not be obliged by this Law which came upon us by reason of Sin especially not to such institutions as signified the washing away of sin and repentance from sin as the Baptism of Iohn did and therefore he fulfilled this Righteousness for us To this I answered in my former Discourse That though it were granted that these Laws at first were commanded upon occasion of sin yet an innocent man may observe them to good and wise purposes as publick and solemn acts of Worship or external and visible expressions of Devotion as a publick Profession of Righteousness and a vertuous Life to which purposes among others the Sacrifices and Ceremonies of the Law and the Baptism of Iohn served c. To which the Doctor returns no answer but makes me say what I never thought and abuses his credulous Readers with an apprehension that I had talked like himself at such a rate of Nonsense as any one in his Wits must needs despise to borrow some of his own Elegancies For thus he reports my sense or words or both as he would perswade his Readers that I say that an Innocent Person such as Christ was absolutely may be obliged for his own sake to the observation of such Laws and Institutions as were introduced by the occasion of sin and respected all of them the personal sins of them that were obliged by them And now he desires to be left to his liberty nay to the necessity of his mind not to believe Contradictions I wish he had been under this necessity a little sooner or were yet under a necessity of not making contradictions for what he believes no man can tell I plainly acknowledged that Christ being an Innocent Person could not observe any of these Judaical Ceremonies with respect to personal sins but I say as they had other significations so he might observe them to other purposes Circumcision in its first Institution was a seal of that Covenant which God made with Abraham and therefore did very well become him who was not only of the Seed and Posterity of Abraham but that very Seed which was promised in the Covenant whereof Circumcision was the Seal The Baptism of Iohn was a publick Profession of a vertuous Life which becomes the most innocent man but it was a profession of Repentance and signified the washing away of sin only when the baptized Person had been a Sinner and yet the Baptism of our Saviour was designed for a nobler purpose as a Publick Inauguration of him to his Prophetical Office The Passover was an Eucharistical Sacrifice in commemoration of the Deliverance of their Fore-fathers out of Aegypt and therefore might be observed by the most innocent man but I challenge the Doctor or any of his Friends to prove that Christ offered any Sin or Trespass-Offering which respect only personal Offences or that he observed any Ceremony which could signifie nothing else but personal guilt and till he can prove this his Argument is worth nothing His second Argument to prove that what Christ did as Mediator that is the actual Obedience of his Life he did for us and in our stead I represented thus That there can be no other reason assigned of Christs Obedience to the Law but only this that he did it in our stead Here the Doctor according to his usual way charges me with mis-representing his Argument for his words are That the end of the active Obedience of Christ cannot be assigned to be that he might be fit for his Death and Oblation These I acknowledge to be his words but not his Argument for the force of his Argument consists in the dis-junction as I expresly observed that either Christ fulfilled all Righteousness to fit him for his Death and Oblation or he did it for us and in our stead because otherwise as he himself expresses it if the Obedience Christ performed be not reckoned to us and done upon our account there is no just cause to be assigned why he should live here in the World so long as he did in perfect Obedience to all the Laws of God and therefore in answer to this I made it appear that though the Righteousness of Christ were supposed not necessary to qualifie him for his Death which he can never prove yet there were other great and necessary Reasons why he should live so long in the World in a perfect Obedience to the Divine Will His third Argument to prove that Christ performed all Righteousness for us is the absolute necessity of it for this is the term of the Covenant Do this and live so that we being unable to yield that compleat perfect Obedience which the Law requires as the condition of Life and Happiness it is necessary that Christ our Mediator and Surety should fulfil the Law for us The sum of which Argument as I told him before is this That there never was nor ever can be a Covenant of Grace that God still exacts the rigorous perfection of the Law from us and that we must not appear before him without a compleat and perfect Righteousness of our own or of another Now this is the thing in question whether we must be made righteous with the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us or whether God will for the sake of Christ dispense with the rigor of the Law and accept a sincere and Evangelical Obedience instead of a
the Merits of Christ are imputed to us we understand the same thing of his Holiness and active Righteousness for since his Purity and Holiness gave worth and dignity to his Merits in the same sense wherein his Merits are said to be imputed to us his active Righteousness and Obedience is imputed also So that the Bishop never thought that the Obedience and Righteousness of Christ is so made ours that we are accounted by God to have done the same things to have performed all that Righteousness which Christ performed which is the modern notion of Imputation but it is so imputed to us that upon account of the Merits of Christs Life and Death God forgives the Sins and accepts the Persons of those who heartily believe in him as the same Learned and Reverend Person excellently explains it soon after Where he tells us that we are delivered from the Law by Faith in Christ Whosoever believes in him shall not perish and shall not come into condemnation or into Iudgment as he reads it Iohn v. 24. and adds What Iudgment is this from which Believers are delivered by Christ Proculdubio strictum illud ubi juxta normam legis aliquis examinatur prout deprehenditur huic norme respondere justus aut injustus pronunciatur c. No doubt that strict Judgment where men are examined according to the Rule of the Law and are pronounced just or unjust as they are found to agree with that Rule Iustificatio igitur salus credentium non ex eo dependet quod habent in se qualitatem nova justitiae quam audent legali examini stricto Dei judicio subjicere sed quod per propter Merita Redemptoris non subituri sunt tale judicium sed perinde cum illis agetur ac si haberent in seipsis exactam justitiam legalem Therefore the Justification and Salvation of Believers does not depend on this that they have such an internal Righteousness as they dare submit to a legal Tryal and to the strict and rigorous Judgment of God but that by and for the Merits of their Redeemer hey shall never undergo such a Judgment but shall be dealt with as if they had an exact legal Righteousness of their own And this he tells us hemeans by the Merits of Christ being the formal cause of our Iustification and in this sense I heartily own it though the abuse of that Phrase is a sufficient Reason to alter it Let us now consider in the third place what is required on our part in order to our Justification by Gods Mercy and by Christs Merits and that is plainly expressed in the Homily And upon our part true and lively Faith in the Merits of Iesus Christ which yet is not ours but by Gods working in us That we may the better understand this we must enquire What is meant by this Faith in the Merits of Christ And what is meant by a true and lively Faith in Christs Merits And what our Church attributes to this Faith in the Work of Justification First What is meant by Faith in the Merits of Christ Now the general Notion of Faith is that it is a perswasion and belief in mans heart whereby he knoweth that there is a God and agreeth unto all Truth of Gods most holy Word contained in the holy Scripture This is such a Faith as Devils and wicked Men may have But then a Faith in Christs Merits or a true justifying Faith such as no wicked men can have is not only the common belief of the Articles of Faith but it is also a true trust and confidence of the Mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ and a sted fast hope of all good things to be received at Gods hand and that although we through infirmity or temptation of our ghostly Enemy do fall from him by sin yet if we return again to him by true Repentance that he will forgive and forget our offences for his Sons sake our Saviour Jesus Christ and will make us Inheritors with him of his everlasting Kingdom and that in the mean time till that Kingdom come he will be our Protector and Defender in all perils and dangers whatsoever do chance and that though sometimes he doth send us sharp adversity yet that evermore he will be a loving Father unto us if we trust in him and commit our selves wholly unto him hang only upon him and call upon him ready to obey and serve him That is a Faith in the Merits of Christ is a sure Hope and Confidence in God a certain Expectation of all temporal and spiritual good things from God for the Merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ upon the condition of Repentance and a new Life or as it is excellently expressed a little after in the same Homily For the very sure and lively Christian Faith is not only to believe all things of God contained in holy Scripture but also is an earnest trust and confidence in God that he doth regard us and that he is careful over us as the Father is over the Child whom he doth love and that he will be merciful to us for his only Sons sake and that we have our Saviour Christ our perpetual Advocate and Priest in whose only Merits Oblation and Suffering we do trust that our Offences be continually washed and purged whensoever we repenting truly do return to him with our whole heart sted fastly determining with our selves through his Grace to obey and serve him in keeping his Commandments and never to turn back again to sin So that Justifying Faith according to the sense of our Church is not a perswasion that our sins are actually pardoned or that God for Christs sake will forgive our sins without requiring any more of us than to believe that he will forgive them But it is a firm perswasion that God will forgive our sins for Christs sake if we repent of our sins and forsake them and determine through his gracious assistance never to return to them again But we shall understand this the better if we consider secondly what is meant by a true lively Faith in Christs Merits for our Church distinguishes between a dead and a lively Faith A dead Faith is by the holy Apostle St. James compared to the faith of Devils which believe God to be true and just and tremble for fear yet they do nothing well but all evil And such a manner of Faith have the wicked and naughty Christian People which confess God as St. Paul saith in their mouth but deny him in their deeds being abominable and without the right faith and to all good works reprovable And Forasmuch as Faith without Works is dead it is not now Faith as a dead Man is not a Man This dead Faith therefore is not the sure and substantial Faith which saveth Sinners Let us now consider what a lively Faith is and the description of that follows in these words Another Faith there is in
Salvation by receiving Christ by resting and relying and rolling on Christ There is no use of Repentance or Charity or the Love of God in this affair for they cannot apply the Righteousness of Christ to us If we come to Christ for Righteousness we must come without any Righteousness of our own And yet it is hard to understand how this fiducial Reliance on Christ can apply his Righteousness to us a confident Persuasion that Christ is ours may make a fanciful application of his Righteousness to us but a mere Reliance on Christ makes no application but only signifies a Hope that it shall be applied And if they will be true to their Principles that we are justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us which is God's act whereby he applies the Righteousness of Christ I cannot understand how we can be justified by applying his Righteousness to our selves by Faith which if it have any sense must signifie our imputing the Righteousness of Christ to our selves for the Righteousness of Christ can be applied to us only by Imputation which makes our Justification our own Act and not Gods For it is as absurd to the full to say that Faith is an Instrument in doing that which is intirely Gods act or that our Imputation of Christs Righteousness to our selves is an Instrument of Gods imputing his Righteousness to us And then it is worth considering which of these two Imputations must go first if we apply that is impute the Righteousness of Christ to our selves before God has imputed it this is a false Confidence and Presumption if God imputes it first then we are actually justified and there needs no Imputation or Application of Faith to make this Righteousness ours all that can be said in this case is what the Antinomians affirm that we are first justified before we believe and that Faith is only a Sign or Evidence not an Instrument of our Justification But to let pass the Absurdities of this Doctrin every one may perceive how different this notion is from the sense of the Church of England which does not attribute our Justification to Faith as our own Act much less to any particular Act of Faith but by Justification by Faith only intends no more than that God will pardon our sins if we repent of them and reform our Lives and trust in the Mercies of God through the Merits and Mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the sense of our Church the sole object of our trust is the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ and therefore the proper Act of Faith is to embrace the Promise of Pardon upon the conditions of Repentance and a new Life we must first repent of our sins and reform our Lives and then rely on the Mercy of God for our Pardon and Reward But according to this new Divinity the sole object of our trust and reliance is the perfect and personal Righteousness of Christ which shuts out the Mercy of God and the meritorious Death and Sacrifice of Christ and the Promises of Pardon and the necessity of an inherent and personal Righteousness as abundantly appears from what I have discourst above But fourthly whereas our Church makes Christ only the meritorious cause of our Justification but still requires on our part Faith and Repentance and the Love of God as antecedent conditions of our Justification these men found all our hopes of Justification immediately on the Person of Christ. Every good Christian hopes to be justified and saved by Christ but not to be immediately saved by Christ i. e. by a bare Union to his Person but by believing his Gospel and obeying his Laws which are necessarily required on our part to give us an Interest in his Merits and Righteousness but to assert that nothing is necessary to our Justification but to apply Christ and his Righteousness to our selves by a fiducial Reliance and Recumbency is to place our hopes immediately in the Person of Christ which is the foundation of Antinomianism For this reason among others I charged them in my former Discourse with setting up the Person of Christ in opposition to his Gospel and making a new Religion of the Person of Christ distinct from and contrary to the Religion of his Gospel For the Gospel requires a great many previous conditions to entitle us to the Merits and Righteousness of Christ as that we must repent of our sins and reform our Lives and become new Creatures and then God will pardon and reward us for the sake of Christ but if an immediate Application of the Righteousness of Christ to our selves by a fanciful and Enthusiastick Faith will make all Christ ours this makes all the conditions of the Gospel void and useless and sets up the Person of Christ and his Personal Righteousness instead of his Laws and Religion The Gospel attributes the Pardon of our sins and the Acceptance of our imperfect Services to the virtue and efficacy of Christs Sacrifice and Righteousness and thus we are made righteous by Christ as by a meritorious Cause But in this way the Righteousness of Christ must serve instead of a personal and inherent Righteousness which makes us so innocent that we need no Pardon and so perfectly righteous that we merit a Reward This I take to be the grand Miscarriage in these mens Divinity which indeed is the foundation of Antinomianism though the mistake be very taking and popular which makes an opposition to it very odious that whereas Christ is our Life and our Righteousness our Wisdom and Power and the Author of all spiritual Blessings but does not dispense these Blessings immediately to us but in such ways and methods and upon such terms and conditions as are prescribed and declared in the Gospel these men send us immediately to the Person of Christ for Life and Righteousness for Beauty and Comliness for Grace and Wisdom and for the supply of all our spiritual wants which shuts out his Gospel and Religion or makes it wholly useless and let but Dr. Owen stand to what he asserts in his Vindication We do not imagin but believe from the Scripture and with the whole Church of God that we receive Grace and Salvation from the Person of Christ in those distinct ways wherein they are capable of being received if by that he means such ways as are prescribed in the Gospel and I declare I have no controversie with him about this matter Thus for instance Christ is our Righteousness as he is the meritorious cause of the Pardon of our sins and the Acceptance of our sincere but imperfect services but the way to be made righteous by Christ is not immediately to go to Christ for Righteousness with all our sins and impurities about us to be cloathed with his perfect and personal Righteousness but to repent of our sins and to believe and obey the Gospel and then we shall be pardoned and rewarded for Christs sake Thus Christ is our