him that is justified yet they justifie not all together Where by these good Works being joyned with Faith and being present in him that is justified is meant that they are essential to a Justifying Faith and must be present as antecedent qualifications or conditions without which God will not justifie us as appears from what I have discourst above concerning the nature of Justifying Faith which includes Repentance and the Love of God c. as antecedently necessary to our embracing the Promise of Pardon and Forgiveness which is not the first but the last and completing act of Faith For if these good Works be not one way or other necessary to our Justification no reason can be assigned why they should be present in him that is justified for Faith might then justifie alone without the Presence as well as without the Merit and Efficacy of our good Works And therefore when Faith is said to shut out these good Works from the office of Iustifying that though they be all present yet they do not justifie all together the design is not to deny the Necessity but the Merit of good Works This is plain from the Reason which is immediately assigned why these good Works cannot justifie because all the good Works we can do be imperfect and therefore not able to deserve our Iustification which is the constant Doctrin of the Homilies For our Church by Justification perpetually understands a meritorious and not a conditional Justification and therefore whatever justifies in this sense must by its own Virtue or Merit expiate our sins which is the reason alledged why no man can make himself righteous that is justifie himself by his own Works neither in part nor in the whole for that were the greatest Presumption in 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 SO that is by the Merit and Virtue of his own Works And Faith it self considered as our own Act hath no greater privilege upon this account than any other Grace or Virtue for in respect of Merit and Deserving we forsake altogether again Faith Works and all other Virtues Faith does not justifie as our own Act that is it does not merit our Justification as it must do if it justifie as our own Act which in the sense of our Church signifies that we do something so meritorious as to deserve Justification at Gods hands But now Iustification is the office of God only and is not a thing which we render to him that is we can offer him nothing of our own to merit our Justification but which we receive from him not which we give to him but which we take of him by his free Mercy and by the only Merits of his dearly beloved Son our only Redeemer Iustifier and Saviour Iesus Christ. But for this reason Faith only is said to justifie and to shut out our own Works and itself also considered as our own Act from the office of justifying because though it strongly enforce the Necessity of good Works yet in its own nature it excludes all opinion of Merit and Desert For Faith has a necessary respect to the Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness and whoever acknowledges that he ows his Justification to the Mercy of God who for the sake of Christ pardons his Sins and rewards his Imperfect Services as all those must do who hope to be saved by Faith in the notion of our Church does plainly confess that his Works are imperfect and cannot deserve his Justification which takes away all opinion of Merit from our selves and attributes the glory of all to the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ. I shall only observe three things from this Discourse which are very material to our present purpose First that our Church was not acquainted with that Distinction in the modern sense of it that we are justified fide solâ but not solitariâ by Faith alone but not by that Faith which is alone the meaning of which according to some Modern Divines is this That we are justified only by that particular Act of Faith which apprehends the Righteousness of Christ and relies and rolls itself on Christ for Salvation and applies his Merits and Righteousness to the Soul without any regard to Repentance and the Love of God or any other Grace or Virtue That though at the same time God infuse the habits of all Graces and Virtues into a justified person yet in the Act of justifying he hath no regard at all to Repentance or any other Grace but we are justified in order of nature before these are infused into us and without any respect to them And some men would willingly affix this Notion as absurd as it is to our Church because she only requires the presence of these Graces and Virtues in the justified person but shuts them out from the office of Justifying But I have made it appear that these words admit a better sense and that Justification by Faith only in the modern Notion of it so as to exclude the antecedent Necessity of Repentance or any other internal Grace or Virtue is contrary to the constant doctrin of our Church which requires the presence of these Graces as antecedent conditions or qualifications though it shut them out from being the meritorious Causes of Justification And to confirm this I observe secondly that our Church doth not attribute our Justification to any particular Act of Faith She frequently indeed inculcates the embracing of the Promise of Pardon and Forgiveness as essential to a justifying Faith but the reason of that is not because that particular Act justifies us but to attribute our Justification not to the Merit of our own works but to the Mercy of God But she expresly affirms that Faith doth not justifie as our own Act that Justification is not the office of Man but of God and if we be not justified by Faith as our own Act much less can any particular Act of Faith which if it be considered as an Act must be considered as our own Act justifie which overthrows that Instrumentality of Faith in Justification which these men talk of but the plain meaning of our being justified by Faith only is this that God will pardon our sins and reward us with eternal life if we repent of our sins and believe and obey the Gospel of his Son trusting wholly in the Mercies of God and in the Merits and Mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ as it is exprest at large in the Homily That the true understanding and meaning of our being justified by Faith without Works or by Faith in Christ only is this that although we hear Gods Word and believe it although we have Faith Hope Charity and do never so many good Works thereunto yet we must renounce the Merit of all the said Virtues of Faith Hope Charity and all other Virtues and good deeds which
Homily by many Scripture-Promises and Examples and therefore we must consider what our Church means by Repentance and the explication of this is reduced to four principal Points From what we must return to whom we must return by whom we may be able to convert and the manner how to turn to God First From whence or from what things we must return and that is From all our sins not only grosser vices but the filthy lusts and inward concupiscences of the Flesh. All these things must they forsake that will truly turn unto the Lord and repent aright For sith for such things the wrath of God cometh upon the Children of Disobedience no end of punishment ought to be look'd for as long as we continue in such things But this must be done by Faith for sith that God is a Spirit he can by no other means be apprehended and taken hold upon That is God being a Spirit we cannot see him with bodily Eyes nor go to him on our Legs nor take hold of him with an Arm of Flesh and therefore this Metaphor of returning to God and going to him and taking hold of him must be expounded to a spiritual sense is the work of Faith which discovers him who is invisible and unites our Souls and Spirits to him And We have need of a Mediator for to bring and reconcile us unto him who for our sins is angry with us the same is Jesus Christ who being true and natural God c. took our nature upon him that so he might be a Mediator between God and us and pacifie his wrath In the second part of the Homily we have this general Description of Repentance That it is a true Returning unto God whereby men forsaking utterly their Idolatry and Wickedness do with a lively Faith embrace love and worship the true living GOD only and give themselves to all manner of good Works which by Gods Word they know to be acceptable unto him And we are there informed That there are four Parts of Repentance the first is Contrition of the Heart For we must be earnestly sorry for our sins and unfeignedly lament and bewail that we have by them so grievously offended our most bounteous and merciful God c. The second is an unfeigned Confession and acknowledging of our sins to God The third is Faith whereby we do apprehend and take hold upon the Promises of God touching the free pardon and forgiveness of our sins which Promises are sealed up unto us with the death and blood-shedding of the Lord Jesus Christ. And the Reason of this is because Contrition and Confession will avail us nothing unless we stedfastly believe and be fully perswaded that God for his Son Jesus Christs sake will forgive us all our sins for though we be never so earnestly sorry for our sins and acknowledge and confess them yet all these things shall be but means to bring us to utter desparation except we do stedfastly believe that God our heavenly Father will for his Son Jesus Christs sake pardon and forgive us our Offences and Trespasses and utterly put them out of remembrance in his sight therefore they that teach Repentance without Christ and a lively Faith in the Mercy of God do only teach Cains or Iudas Repentance That is they teach men to be sorry for their sins without any hopes of Pardon and Forgiveness which is only to be obtained through our Lord Jesus Christ. The fourth part of Repentance is an amendment of Life in bringing forth fruits worthy of Repentance for they that do truly repent must be clean alter'd and changed they must become New Creatures they must be no more the same that they were before As appears from Iohn the Baptists Exhortation to the Scribes and Pharisees whereby we do learn that if we will have the wrath of God to be pacified we must in no wise dissemble but turn unto him again with a true and sound Repentance which may be known and declared by good Fruits as by most sure and infallible signs thereof This I think is as plain as words can make it that Repentance which consists in a hearty sorrow for all our sins and in a humble Confession of them to Almighty God and in a sincere Faith and Trust in the Mercies of God through our Lord Jesus Christ together with an actual amendment of our lives is according to the sense of our Church absolutely necessary to obtain the pardon of our sins that is Iustification by the free Grace of God This has often made me wonder that any one should affix such a Doctrine as this to the Church of England That Repentance it self is not antecedently necessary to our Iustification I am sure the Learned Bishop Davenant was of another mind in this point for he expresly asserts that there are some Works sine quibus Iustificatio nunquam fuit ab ullo mortalium obtenta nunquam obtinebitur without which Justification never was and never shall be obtained by any mortal man among which he reckons true Repentance and Faith and the love of God and of our Neighbour Haec hujusmodi opera cordis interna sunt omnibus justificatis necessaria non quod contineant in se efficaciam seu meritum Iustificationis sed quod juxta ordinationem divinam vel requiruntur ut conditiones praeviae seu concurrentes sicuti poenitere credere vel ut effecta à fide justificante necessario manantia ut amare Deum c. i. e. These and such-like internal Works of the Heart are necessary to all that are justified not that they are meritorious Causes of Justification but because according to the Divine Appointment they are required either as previous or concurring conditions such as Repentance and Faith or as effects which necessarily flow from a justifying Faith such as to love God c. Where this Learned Prelate doth expresly assert that Repentance as well as Faith is a previous Condition of our Justification and I fear will hereafter be accounted one of our Innovators And that distinction which the Bishop makes between those Works which are required as previous Conditions of Justification as to repent and believe and those Works which are necessary Effects of justifying Faith which must always be present in the justified Person as to love God c. gives a plain and easie answer to the grand Exception against the antecedent necessity of Repentance to our Justification viz. Because then it must precede Faith it self I suppose because every true Believer is actually justified in the first instant of his being a true Believer whereas all good Works and therefore Repentance and Contrition which are certainly good Works are the Effects and Fruits of Faith and so consequently must follow our Justification by Faith unless we will place the Effects before their Cause But this is absolutely false that all good Works are the effects and fruits of justifying Faith for there are some good Works which
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
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
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
and the Fear of God to be joyned with Faith in every man that is justified but it shutteth them out from the Office of Iustifying So that although they be all present together in him that is justified yet they justifie not all together So that no man must expect this great Blessing of Justification unless together with Faith he have Repentance Hope Love Dread and the Fear of God which supposes that a man must be a true Penitent and a true Lover of God before he is justified Though Repentance and Hope c. have no actual influence upon our Justification yet they are causae sine quibus non such causes without which the effect will never follow which necessarily intitles them to the nature of Conditions for a Condition which hath no natural or meritorious Efficiency is only a causa sine quâ non and though it is true that the accidental presence of one thing with another which produces any Effect will not entitle it to any degree of Efficiency yet where there is such a natural Union between two things that neither of them can act alone though the effect may more immediately belong to one than to the other yet they both concur to it though the hand does immediately apprehend any thing or lay hold on it yet the Shoulder and the Arm is naturally necessary to produce this action because the Hand cannot move of it self And if they will allow us this similitude which they themselves sometimes use that Good VVorks be the Shoulder and Arm that upholds Faith we will allow Faith to be the Hand And thus it is in Moral Causes where the presence of two things of Faith suppose and Works is necessarily required in order to the same Effect there must be a concurrence of both though it may be in different manners When our Church asserts the necessary presence of some internal Graces and Vertues together with Faith in him who is to be justified she plainly acknowledges that we shall never be justified without them though not for them which is all that any one desires who denies and rejects the Merits of Good Works And as these internal Acts of Repentance Hope c. are antecedently necessary to Justification so Good Works must necessarily follow as we are taught in the same place Nor the Faith also doth not shut out the Iustice of our Good Works necessarily to be done afterwards of Duty towards God for we are most bounden to serve God in doing Good Deeds commanded by him in his holy Scripture all the days of our Life but it excludeth them so that we may not do them to this intent to be made good by doing of them that is to be justified by them And this we are taught is so necessary that unless these Good Works follow as the necessary Fruits of Faith we shall loose our Justification again as you heard above In what sense then does our Church reject good Works and attribute our Justification to Faith alone And that we are told over and over in the most plain and express words that it is only to take away the Merit of Good Works and to attribute our Justification to the free Mercy of God and Merits of Christ not to our own Works and Deservings Hence it is that Justification by Works is so often opposed to our Justification by the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ which are inconsistent in no other sense but that of Merit for though Good Works be supposed the necessary Conditions of Justification yet if they be acknowledged so imperfect as not to merit we shall still need the Merits of Christ to expiate our sins and the Mercy of God to pardon them and to accept of our imperfect Services But the words of the Homily are very express where after alledging the concurrent Testimonies of the ancient Fathers for Justification without Works by Faith alone we have this Explication given of them Nevertheless this Sentence that we be justified by Faith only is not so meant of them that the said Justifying Faith is alone in man without true Repentance Hope Charity Dread and Fear of God at any time and season nor when they say we be justified freely they mean not that we should or might afterward be idle and that nothing should be required on our parts afterward neither they mean not so to be justified without Good Works that we should do no Good Works at all But this saying that we be justified by Faith only freely and without Works is spoken for to take away clearly all Merit of our Works as being unable to deserve our Justification at Gods hands and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of Man and the goodness of God the great infirmity of our selves and the might and power of God the imperfectness of our own Works and the most abundant Grace of our Saviour Christ and therefore wholly to ascribe the Merit and Deserving of our Justification to Christ only and his most precious blood-shedding Hence for a man to be justified by his own Works is expounded as if we should affirm That a man might by his own Works take away and purge his own sins and so justifie himself That is when they reject Justification by Works they understand by it a meritorious Justification Thus in the third part of the Sermon of Salvation we are expresly taught That the true meaning of this Proposition or Saying We be justified by Faith in Christ only according to the meaning of the old ancient Authors is this We put our Faith in Christ that we be justified by him only that we be justified by Gods free Mercy and the Merits of our Saviour Christ only and by no vertue or Good Works of our own that is in us or that we can be able to have or to do for to deserve the same Christ himself only being the Cause meritorious thereof This is so expresly the Doctrine of the Homilies that I need not multiply Testimonies for the proof of it from whence it is evident that our Church owns the necessity of Good Works to all intents and purposes excepting Merit and in this sense they reject Faith too as it is our own Work But now because our Church and all the Reformed Churches expresly reject Works in the matter of Justification under the notion of Merit and Deserving in which sense alone they are injurious to the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ from whence we argue that they own the necessity of Works upon all other Accounts and reject only the Merit of them Some tell us that we should rather argue that they put no difference between Works and the Merit of Works in the matter of Justification but equally reject them both But pray why so Truly for no Reason that I know but that it best serves their Hypothesis They acknowledge that there is a difference between Works and the Merit of Works but will by no means own that
St. Paul or any of the Reformed Churches made any which is not very honourably said of them that they should make no difference where there is one which argues either a great deal of ignorance or meer Sophistry But pray why do they think so Why because St. Paul always opposes our Justification by Works whatever they are to Justification by Grace and therefore by Works he must understand the Merit of Works because only Merit is opposed to Grace So we say too but what follows from hence That the Apostle rejects all Works though they are separated from the notion of Merit This is to make the Apostle argue very absurdly that because he rejects Works when they are inconsistent with Grace therefore he should reject Works when they are not inconsistent with Grace as by this Argument they are not when they are separated from the notion and opinion of Merit And what they add That it is plain that the Apostle excludes all sorts of Works of what kind soever from our Justification is very true but then they are all sorts of Meritorious Works that is such a perfect legal unsinning Righteousness as needs not the Grace and Mercy of God not such an Evangelical Righteousness as ows its acceptance to the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ. The only Argument they have to prove that the Church of England and all the Reformed Churches make no difference between Works and the Merit of Works is because where-ever they reject Justification by Works they expresly mention their Merit and Deserving which is the best Argument that can be that they do make a difference otherwise there had been no need of that Explication especially when they assert the necessity of Good Works upon all other accounts as our Church expresly doth In the third part of the Sermon of Salvation we find these words Truth it is that our own Works do not justifie us to speak properly of our Iustification that is to say our Works do not merit or deserve Remission of our sins and make us of unjust just before God What need had there been of this Explication to speak properly of Iustification that is to say to merit and deserve if our Church had apprehended no difference between Works and Merit between a proper and improper Justification by Works I am sure the Learned Bishop Davenant makes a great difference between the necessity of Works and the Merit of Works in the Justification of a Sinner for in answer to that Question Utrum bona Opera dici possint ad Iustificationem vel Salutem necessaria Whether Good Works may be said to be necessary to Justification or Salvation In his first Conclusion he tells us that in dispute with the Papists it is not safe to say so because they always by necessary understand necessary as Causes vera propria sua dignitate meritorias humanae salutis which by their own proper worth and dignity merit Salvation What need had there been of this Caution if the necessity of Good Works to Justification and the Merit of Works had been the same In the fourth Conclusion he tells us That no Good Works are necessary to Justification if by necessary we understand sub ratione causae meritoriae necessariae as necessary meritorious Causes And in the fifth Conclusion he expresly tells us Bona quaedam Opera sunt necessaria ad Iustificationem ut conditiones concurrentes vel praecursoriae licet non sint necessaria ut causae efficientes aut meritoriae That some Good Works are necessary to Justification as previous or concurring Causes though not as efficient or meritorious So that it seems that this distinction between the Necessity and Merit of Works was known and defended by the great Patrons of our Church and we have no reason to think that when our Church does so expresly reject Works only under the notion of Merit she understood no difference between Necessity and Merit And I find in an ancient Book intitled Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum which was composed by Archbishop Cranmer and Peter Martyr and some other Bishops and Learned Men of this Church by the Authority of King Edward the Sixth that where they give an account of those Heresies which ought to be suppressed all they say about Justification is no more but this Deinde nec illi sunt audiendi quorum impietas salutarem in sacris Scripturis fundatam Iustificationis nostrae doctrinam oppugnant in qua tenendum est non operum momentis Iustitiam hominum collocari i. e. Neither must we hearken to them who impiously oppose that saving Doctrine of Justification which is founded on the Scriptures concerning which we must believe that the Righteousness or Justification of Men does not depend on the Merits of their Works So that they only reject the Merit of Works in the matter of Justification The Confessions of Foreign Reformed Churches are as plain and express in this matter as the Homilies of our Church In the Apology for the Augustan-Confession we are told That good Works are not pretium nec propitiatio propter quam detur remissio peccatorum They are not the price nor the propitiation for our sins And the reason they assign why they oppose Justification by Works is because it detracts from the Glory of Christ and sets up our Works in competition with Christ utrum fiducia collocanda sit in Christum an in opera nostra Whether we should put our trust in Christ or in our own Works which can be understood only in that sense of the Merit of Works and is no Argument against Works when they are subordinate to the Merit and Grace of Christ. But not to trouble my Readers with many quotations I shall add but one more which is their Answer to that Objection from St. Iames who expresly says That we are justified by Works and not by Faith only Si non assuant adversarii suas opiniones de meritis operum Iacobi verba nihil habent incommodi c. If our Adversaries would not annex their own opinions concerning Merit of Works there is no inconvenience in St. Iames his words So that they were not shy of this expression of being justified by Works so men would not imagine that their Justification were owing to the Merit of Works which is no less than a demonstration that they made a distinction between VVorks and Merit in the matter of Justification But there is one very surprizing Argument to prove that there can be no difference between Works and Merit in the matter of Justification and it is this That if we be justified by Works without respect to their Merit then we may as well be justified by Works of an indifferent nature which have no intrinsick worth and goodness in them as by the most real and substantial Righteousness for take away Merit and it is all one what the nature of the Work be Now the only difficulty of framing an Answer
it seems this Righteousness is not so properly Christs Righteousness as ours he had no need to fulfil all Righteousness for himself but for us as our Mediator and Surety So that here can be no comparison between the Righteousness of Christ inherent in him and imputed to us because it is not so much his Righteousness as ours But was not Christ personally righteous with this Righteousness Did he so fulfil Righteousness for us that he himself had no interest in it Can it be inherent in him and he not righteous by it And if Christ in his private capacity as a man subject to the Law were righteous with that very Righteousness which makes us righteous then we are righteous as Christ is and not only righteous with his Righteousness which he wrought for us and that completely but righteous with the very same Righteousness that makes him righteous which excludes indeed all comparison as the Doctor well observes because we cannot so properly compare a thing with it self but it demonstrates the Identity or Sameness of this Righteousness And here unless I will prove my self an arrant Coward I must accept that Challenge the Doctor has sent me to stand to that Resolution I gave in my former Discourse to that Question What Influence the Sacrifice of Christs Death and the Righteousness of his Life have upon our Acceptance with God Which signifies no more than what is meant by our being saved by the Merits and Righteousness of Christ and the Answer I gave to it is this That all I can find in Scripture about it is that to this we ow the Covenant of Grace that God being well pleased with the Obedience of Christs Life and with the Sacrifice of his Death for his sake entred into a new Covenant with Mankind wherein he promises Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life to those who believe and obey the Gospel Now I would desire the Doctor to take notice that I stand to this and accept his Challenge let him chuse what seconds or thirds or fourths he pleases This Assertion the Doctor says cannot be reconciled to common Sense or the fundamental Principles of Christian Religion And indeed he has discovered a great many Absurdities in it which are enough to put any man out of conceit with such a Doctrin for hence it follows if we will believe him for we have only his bare word for it That God entred into a new Covenant originally only for the sake of those things whereby that Covenant was ratified and confirmed But how does this follow Did I ever affirm that the Death of Christ did only ratifie and confirm the Covenant Do I not every where assert that Christs Death did procure and purchase as well as seal the Covenant of Grace And I hope God may be said to enter into Covenant for the sake of a meritorious Cause What he means by Gods originally entring into Covenant I cannot tell unless it be that this was the first moving cause of Gods entring into Covenant but this can not be attributed to the Death of Christ upon any account but to that free Grace which first contrived the way of our Recovery and sent Christ into the world to accomplish it But however does it not follow from this Assertion That Christ was so the Mediator of the new Covenant that he died not for the Redemption of Transgressions under the first Covenant whereby the whole Consideration of his Satisfaction and of Redemption properly so called is excluded that there is no consideration to be had of his Purchase of the Inheritance of Grace and Glory with many other things of the same importance I see unless the Doctor get a very good Second there is no great danger in accepting his Challenge for is there any appearance of consequence in this that because Christ by his Death purchased and sealed the new Covenant that therefore he did not die for the Redemption of sins under the first Covenant nor to purchase the Inheritance of Grace and Glory That which purchases a Covenant purchases every thing contained in it Now the new Covenant contains the Promise of Forgiveness of sin and therefore whatever sins are pardoned in the new Covenant were expiated by the Death of Christ without which there is no Remission and consequently could be no Promise of Remission The new Covenant contains the Promises of Grace and Glory and therefore Grace and Glory are as much the purchase of Christs Death as the new Covenant is The plain account of the matter is this That Christ hath expiated our sins by his meritorious Death and Sufferings and hath purchased the Pardon of sin and eternal Life and whatever Christ hath purchased by his Death God hath promised to bestow on us in the new Covenant So that the whole virtue of Christs Death is contained in the Covenant of Grace i. e. whatever he has purchased for us by his Death is there promised and we must expect no other benefit by the Death of Christ than to be saved according to the conditions of the new Covenant which signifies the same thing with being justified and saved by the Merits of Christ and convinces us of the necessity of inherent Holiness which is the condition of the Gospel Covenant The last Absurdity the Doctor has discovered in my Assertion argues him to be a man of a very deep reach That the Gospel or the Doctrin of the Gospel is the new Covenant which is only a perspicuous Declaration of it Now suppose this were never so great an Absurdity how am I concerned in it when I expresly say that the new Covenant let it be what it will is owing to the Merits and Righteousness of Christ Though it is a mighty subtil Distinction between the new Covenant and the perspicuous Declaration of it which is like distinguishing between a Law or Contract and the Words whereby it is expressed How easie is it for such nice Metaphysical Wits to find or make Absurdities in any thing But to proceed I observe thirdly that whereas our Church attributes our Justification to such a Faith as comprehends in its notion Repentance and the Love of God and all internal Graces and Virtues and a sincere purpose and resolution to reform our Lives and external Conversation and makes all this absolutely necessary to our Justification these men on the contrary attribute our Justification to a particular Act of Faith which they call a fiducial Reliance or Recumbency on Christ for Salvation abstracted from Repentance or the Love of God or any othe Grace or Virtue And this I confess is very agreeable to their notion of Justification by the Imputation of Christs personal Righteousness to us for if we are made righteous only by being clothed with the perfect Righteousness of Christ nothing more can be required of us in order to our Justification but to apply the Righteousness of Christ to our selves which they tell us is done by coming to Christ for
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
room and place of the Righteousness of God It is most true that all the Righteousness of man cannot prevail with God to do us good there is but one mover of God the man Christ Iesus who is the only and sole Mediator If you will have your own Righteousness to be your Mediator with God to speak to God for you to prevail with God for you what is this but to put your Righteousness in the room and place of Christ Which is the very same with what Dr. Owen affirms That our Righteousness can contribute nothing to our acceptance with God And if you will have Dr. Crispes sense in fewer words It is as much as to say Our standing righteous by what Christ hath done for us concerns us in point of Iustification in point of Consolation and in the business of Salvation we have our Iustification we have our Peace we have our Salvation only by the Righteousness Christ hath done for us They are both you see agreed in attributing our Justification and Salvation entirely to the Righteousness of Christ and as for Peace and Consolation the only difference is that Dr. Owen sometimes attributes it to Christ and sometimes to Holiness but Dr. Crispe is always consistent with himself and his own Principles and yet this difference is so very small that Mr. Saltmarsh undertakes to compound it and to allow Christians of a lower form to fetch their comforts from Holiness as a mark and evidence though a very uncertain one And now they are agreed about the place of Christs Righteousness they cannot differ about the place and use of Obedience for whatever does not belong to the Righteousness of Christ may be very safely attributed to the Righteousness of man Thus for instance the Reasons assigned by Dr. Owen for the necessity of Obedience are First The Soveraign Appointment and Will of God Father Son and Holy Ghost Thus Dr. Crispe tells us That one end of our good works is a manifestation of our Obedience and Subjection to God that is our Obedience to the Soveraign will and appointment of God and therefore he professes I speak not Beloved against the doing of any Righteousness according to the will of God revealed let that mouth be forever stopped that shall be opened to blame the Law that is holy just and good or shall be a means to discourage people from walking in the Commandments of God blameless Dr. Owen's second Reason is That Holiness is one eminent and special end of the peculiar dispensation of Father Son and Spirit in the business of exalting the glory of God in our Salvation It is a peculiar end of God's Electing love the Son 's Redeeming love and it is the very work of the love of the Holy Ghost To the same purpose Dr. Crispe though not so particularly tells us that the end of good Works is The setting forth of the praise of the glory of the Grace of God That is of the Grace of God in Electing of the Grace of Christ in Redeeming and of the Grace of the Holy Ghost in Sanctifying But thirdly Dr. Owen tells us That Obedience is necessary with respect to the end of it and that whether we consider God our Selves or the World First The end of Obedience with respect to God is his glory and honour So says Dr. Crispe too That the end of good Works is the actual glorifying of God in the World that our services may glorifie God that is Father Son and Holy Ghost Secondly The ends assigned by Dr. Owen with respect to our selves are Honour Peace and Usefulness The first of these I do not find Dr. Crispe mention because I suppose he might think it a greater honour to be cloathed with the perfect Robes of Christs Righteousness than with the rags and patches of our own The second he rejects as Dr. Owen sometimes does and ought always to do if he would be true to his own Principles The third he owns but refers it to its proper head where it ought to be placed the end of holiness with respect to others in doing good in the World and being profitable to men That we may serve our Gentration according to the Apostle's charge that men study to maintain Good Works because saith he these things are profit able unto men There is this usefulness of our Righteousness that others may receive benefit by it Let your light so shine before men that they seeing your good Works may glorifie your Father which is in heaven which compriseth Dr. Owen's ends of Conviction and Conversion and the benefit of all for it must be confessed that Dr. Crispe hath not so good a faculty as Dr. Owen in making distinctions without a difference Dr. Crispe indeed will by no means allow that our own Righteousness can keep off Judgments either from our selves or from other men as Dr. Owen would have it but thinks that God can be moved only by the Righteousness of Christ and that if we must trust wholly in the Righteousness of Christ for our deliverance from future punishments we may as reasonably trust him for present deliverances But to proceed with Dr. Owen Fourthly Holiness is necessary with respect to the state and condition of justified persons for they have a new Creature in them which must be nourished and kept alive by the fruits of Holiness Now though Dr. Crispe was never guilty of talking at this absurd rate yet he says that which is more intelligible and wherein the true force of this reason if it have any must consist viz. that Holiness is necessary as it hath a necessary cause a renewed and sanctified nature infused into Believers by Christ. Thus he affirms That there is no Person is a Believer and hath recieved Christ but after he hath received Christ he is created in this Christ to good works that he should walk in them He that sprinkleth them with clean water that they become clean from all their filthiness puts also a new Spirit into them and doth cause them to walk in his Statutes and Testimonies And the Doctor honestly confesses that the only security against the evil consequences of his Doctrine is the power and efficacy of the Grace of God in bridling mens corrupt Passions That the same Christ who hath born the wrath of the Father and the effects thereof the same Christ doth take as strict an order to restrain and keep in the Spirit of a man as to save that man This is the true and clear way of arguing according to these Principles from the state of a Justified person because such a man is Sanctified too and must live holily And fifthly Dr. Owen assigns another reason of the necessity of Holiness That it is necessary with respect to the proper place of Holiness in the New Covenant as God hath appointed that Holiness shall be the means the way to Eternal life though it be neither the cause matter nor
not argue any change in God but in the Object and when the Object is changed the immutability of his love is the reason why he loves no longer As for what the Doctor adds In the mean time such a love of God towards Believers as shall always effectually preserve them meet Objects of his love and approbation is not to be baffled by such trifling impertinencies Whether what I have discoursed be a trifling impertinency let others judge but when he makes it a necessary effect of an immutable love effectually to preserve such Persons meet Objects of love and approbation he grants all that I have contended for that the immutability of Gods love in it self considered is no argument that he will always love the same Persons unless they continue meet objects of his love for if the love of God be so immutable as always to love the same Person be he what he will then such a man is a meet Object of love while he continues the same Person whatever his qualities are and there is no more required to this than that God should uphold him in being But if besides his being such a particular Person on whom God hath fixt his love there be any other qualifications required to make him and preserve him a meet Object of love then the Doctor must acknowledge that Gods immutable love requires an Object which does not change one who persists and perseveres in the practice of an Universal Righteousness which is all I contend for the immutable love of God to good men under that notion as good For supposing any change in the Object God must either continue to love an unmeet Object or else cease to love And let him chuse which side he pleases if the first he attributes such an immutability to God as is inconsistent with wisdom and holiness and savours more of the stubbornness and impotency of humane Passions than of a Divine Love If the latter then he makes the Love of God as mutable and Subject to changes as I do And as for that love of God to Believers which always preserves them meet objects of his love the Doctor mightily mistakes me if he thinks I designed to oppose it I acknowledge the perseverance of Believers to be the effect of the Divine Grace as well as their believing at first but if he designs this for a description of Gods electing love which is the immutable cause both of faith and perseverance as it is plain he does I wonder why he calls it Gods love to believers for Election in the Doctors judgment considers no qualifications in Persons and what he calls Gods love is more properly Gods Decree to Love when the Person is a fit object for it And it is necessary to distinguish between an immutable Decree to make and preserve a fit object of love and the immutability of the Divine Love The first depends upon an immutable Counsel The second upon the persevering meetness and fitness of the object to be Beloved I have already given several other instances of this way of reasoning from an acquaintance with Christs Person from his being our Surety and Mediator our Head and Husband and the like and intended to have added many more but this is sufficient to satisfie any impartial Reader what I mean by an acquaintance with Christ's Person and how far the Doctor and his Friends may be charged with it and therefore at present I shall only briefly consider this way of reasoning and put a conclusion to this Argument Now I readily agree with Mr. Ferguson that in many cases it is not only justifiable but necessary to Reason from Revelation and I must needs say that the instances he gives of it are unanswerable but whether they may be called deductions and consequences from Revelation let others judge As the application of general Precepts Promises and Comminations to single Individuals and universal directions to particular cases The application of ancient Prophesies to their Events whereby the Apostles proved Christ to be that Messias who was to come And the testimony of Miracles for the proof of a Revelation which are the principal instances Mr. Ferguson gives as will appear to any one who consults those Texts of Scripture which he alleadges in this behalf But this is nothing to our present Dispute the question is whether we may deduce any new Doctrinal Conclusions which are neither expresly taught in Scripture nor can be found out by meer Principles of Reason from their supposed connexion with some thing which is revealed And I think thus much we may safely say that we can know no more of matters of pure Revelation than what is revealed whatever wholly depends upon the free and Soveraign Will of God can be known no other way but by Revelation as no man can know the secret thoughts and counsels of a man but those who learn them from himself and by the same reason that we can know nothing of these matters without a Revelation we can know no more neither than what is revealed which consideration alone is sufficient to overthrow this way of reasoning from an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ. This Argument I have managed at large in my former Discourse and know not what I should add to it here unless it be a more particular application of it to our present case As for instance we learn from Revelation that Christ died for our sins to make Atonement and Expiation for them and to procure pardon and forgiveness for all true Penitents but because Christ died for our sins it does not hence follow that there is such a natural Vindictive Iustice in God as would not suffer him to pardon sin without a full satisfaction for Christ's Death being the effect of Gods free Counsel we can know no more of the cause and reason and motive of it than he has revealed there may be several other reasons assigned on Gods part why he should send Christ into the world to save sinners besides a natural Vindictive Justice and the Scripture has assigned several other reasons of Christ's Death but has never assigned this And indeed unless we will assert that the Death of Christ did necessarily result from the nature of God and was not the effect of his free choise and counsel this reasoning must be false For I hope they will acknowledge God to be as necessarily good as he is just for there is no reason why goodness should be thought the free act of Gods Will and Counsel and Justice the necessity of his Nature and if so then supposing the fall of man which brought sin and misery into the world the Death of Christ was as absolutely necessary as that God should be good and just The goodness of God according to this way of reasoning made it necessary to redeem Mankind from that state of misery and the Justice of God made it necessary for him to punish sin This punishment must fall either upon the
this That I deny the supernatural assistances of Grace from Christ to make men holy and therefore that Holiness and Obedience which alone I make necessary to our Union to Christ is not true Gospel-holiness as not being owing to an infused Principle derived from Iesus by the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost And that it is impossible for any Persons though compleatly and perfectly united to Christ to attain true Holiness for the future because Christ is not considered as a quickning Head and a vital root of influences to us Now though I suppose Mr. Ferguson and I shall hardly agree about the manner of the Holy Spirits working in us which he affirms to be by a real and Physical operation yet I never denied but have expresly owned the Divine Influences of Grace from Christ as will appear plainly before I conclude this Chapter But suppose for once that I had denied this and had affirmed that men might be holy without it would it hence follow that I rejected the necessity of holiness or made it impossible to Mankind because though falsely I should assert that men are and may be holy without such supernatural strength and power Yes for this is not a Gospel-Holiness which is wholly owing to the Divine Grace But does the efficient cause then constitute the nature of things Suppose two men one immediately created by God another begotten in the ordinary course of nature but both perfectly alike as to all the Essentials of Humane Nature does this make such a difference between them that one must not be called a man as well as the other because one was created and the other begotten Thus in the same manner suppose one man immediately created by God perfectly righteous and holy as Adam was Another who is renewed and sanctified by infused Principles of Grace and by the Physical operation of the Spirit And a third who by diligence and industry by reason and discourse and the wise improvement of his natural faculties hath arrived to the same temper of mind to the same Principles and Habits of Action which were immediately created in the first and Physically infused into the second If there were such a man as this I would willingly understand why he should not be accounted as truly and properly holy as either of the former by the same reason that he is as true a man who is begotten by the strength of nature as Adam was who was immediately created or as Christ was who was formed in the Virgins Womb by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost The original Holiness of God is the Pattern of all Holiness and the holiness of Creatures consists in a conformity to the Divine Image not in being produced by a Divine Power The sanctifying operation of the Holy Spirit is necessary to the Being not to the Nature of Holiness Could that which we call Holiness be produced by the strength of natural Reason and our natural Faculties it would be nevertheless Holiness for that And therefore unless Mr. Ferguson can prove that that Holiness which I make essential to our Union to Christ is defective in something which constitutes the nature of Holiness though he could prove that I attributed Holiness to the strength and power of Nature he will only make himself ridiculous by charging my Notion with destroying the necessity of Gospel-holiness But this whole charge was the effect only of a weak and contemptible revenge because I had charged them and made good my charge with placing our Union to Christ before holiness of life What defence can Mr. Ferguson make against this Truly none at all but according to his old way he denies it without attempting to answer any thing which I alleadged in the proof of it And yet which argues him to be a man of much greater courage than wit at the very same time he denies and owns it or which comes much to one professes that it is very indifferent to him whether it be so or not He tells us All that we plead for is this That as previously to our Union with Christ we are polluted and unholy so by that very act whereby he unites us to himself he infuses those Principles into us whereby our natures are cleansed and we come to be denominated holy and pure Here he expresly acknowledges that before our Union to Christ we are polluted and unholy and therefore we must be united to him while we are unholy for every minute before our Union is previous to it Well but then by the same act that he assumes us into Union with himself he transforms our natures Suppose that yet we are unholy till we are united for we are made holy by vertue of our Union and our Author tells us That it is a needless enquiry whether our Renovation in order of nature precede our Union with Christ or whether our Union go before our Renovation seeing in order of time they are not only inseparable but that which is the new Creature the Seed of God and Divine Nature in us is the very bond of our Cohaesion Say you so Sir Is this a needless enquiry Then it seems it is indifferent whether we be considered as united to Christ before or after we are holy and why then should he pretend so much to abhor the thoughts of our being united to Christ while we are unholy And yet how this agrees with making the New Creature the bond of Cohaesion I cannot understand since in order of nature we can have no notion of any Union before or without its bond But to consider this a little whether it be so indifferent to place our Union to Christ in order of nature before or after our Renovation For I never charged them with saying that those who are in Christ may continue unholy because they as well as the Antinomians do affirm That Holiness is a necessary and Physical effect of our Union to Christ though their Principles overthrow the necessary Obligations to it whoever is considered as united to Christ must be considered in a state of favour and acceptation with God as cloathed with the perfect Righteousness of Christ as pardoned through his Bloud and so an actual Heir to Eternal Life and Glory now if a man may be considered as pardoned and justified and an Heir of Glory in order of nature before he is holy before he repents of his sins or loves God or so much as resolves and purposes to obey him this I am sure overthrows the whole Christian Religion which denounces the wrath of God against every man who is wicked to the very last minute wherein he may be considered as wicked and promises Pardon and Eternal Life only to those who actually repent and love God If we may be considered in order of nature as united to Christ before we are holy then there is nothing in Sin contrary to the nature of our Union and then we may as well be united to Christ in order
great forwardness to answer Books before he understands them or great skill in affixing perverse senses on them But Mr. Ferguson has one extraordinary Argument to prove That there is nothing of ratifying the Covenant and undertaking for the performance of it intended in the term of Suretiship because this shakes God's infinite veracity which is the foundation of all Divine Faith We may sometimes question whether such a declaration come from God but admitting once that it is his there is no room left to suspect its being true and therefore Christ could not confirm the Covenant For Christ needed a testimony from God to confirm his mission but God needed none from him to establish his being true and unchangeable But he quite mistakes the state of the question for Christs confirmation of the Covenant is not his giving testimony to the truth and faithfulness of God but such a confirmation of the Covenant as is made by a purchase and by a Seal which is an evidence to us that the Covenant is confirmed past all revocation which no Covenant is till the Seal is put to it or to use the Apostles Argument from the nature of a Testament which is not in force till the death of the Testator which reason the Apostle assigns why the first Testament was dedicated with bloud and why this New Testament should be dedicated and confirmed and ratified with the bloud of Christ Heb. 9. 15 16 c. which gives a plain Answer to his other Argument That the Apostle reckoning up all the evidences of the Immutability of God's Counsel hath omitted this and thereby precluded it from the number of them Whereas in this very place the Apostle tells us that this New Testament receives its force and final confirmation from the death of Christ who is the Testator And whereas he adds Other security in order to our consolation we need not nor hath God thought fit to give any but his Promise and Oath and for this alleadges Gods Oath to Abraham Heb. 6. 16 17. though we should acknowledge that God confirmed his Covenant and Promise to Abraham only by an Oath yet it is as plain that he has confirmed his Covenant with us by the Death of his Son and indeed God ratified his Covenant with Abraham too by Sacrifice and that at Abraham's request Gen. 15. 8 9 10 c. And this Mr. Ferguson at last acknowledges that the enacting of the Covenant of Grace which I suppose includes a final ratification of it respects Christ's undertaking to be made sin and to undergo the Curse as the moral cause and condition without which there had been no overtures of mercy made to the Sons of men And that upon this account is Christ called the Surety of the Covenant This is a very dilute account of the Death of Christ to make it only the condition sine quâ non without which God would not have made overtures of mercy but he mends this in what follows that It was in consequence of Christ's susception to be our Sponsor and with respect to the obedience of his life and Sacrifice of his Death as the procuring and deserving cause that God entred into a Covenant with mankind c. Which is no more than I always affirmed excepting by Sponsor he means that Christ did act in the name and stead of any particular men Having thus got rid of Mr. Ferguson's Objections against my Notion of Christ's being the Surety of the Covenant for what he discourses of Christ's being a Mediator having nothing new in it deserves no particular consideration I come now to shew what necessity there is of rejecting that Notion of Christs being a Surety and Mediator for particular persons to do for them in their name and slead whatever was required of them by vertue of any Law and that in short is this that it is one of the first and fundamental Principles of Antinomianism from which are deduced all those pernicious Doctrines which alter the whole frame and design of Christianity and do naturally tend to debauchery and licentiousness I shall give but some short hints of this because the thing is sufficiently evident and notorious Thus from hence they argue that the very sins and iniquities of the Elect and not only the guilt and punishment of them is laid on Christ because he stands so in our stead as to become just what we were Hast thou been an Idolater Hast thou been a Blasphemer Hast thou been a Murderer an Adulterer a Thief a Liar a Drunkard c. If thou hast a part in the Lord Christ all these transgressions of thine become actually the transgressions of Christ and so cease to be thine and thou ceasest to be the transgressor from that time they were laid upon Christ to the last hour of thy life Christ himself is not so completely righteous but we are righteous as he was nor we so completely sinful but he became being made sin as completely sinful as we So that here is a direct change Christ takes our persons and condition and stands in our stead we take Christs person and condition and stand in his stead what the Lord beheld Christ to be that he beholds the Members of Christ to be what the Lord beholds the Members of Christ to be in themselves that he beholds Christ himself to be This is very true arguing from this Principle that Christ did to all intents and purposes stand in the stead and represent the persons of particular men and thus far Dr. Owen and Mr. Ferguson agree very well with Dr. Crisp. But secondly Dr. Crisp argues farther That every Transgression first and last great and small one with another are carried away at once and laid upon Christ Which is a necessary consequence of the other for if all our sins were laid on Christ and he took them away with one Sacrifice for sin then they must be taken away all together Whatever sinfulness you have committed do commit or shall commit there was one Sacrifice once offered by Christ through which he hath perfected them that are sanctified And thirdly from hence it follows that we are actually acquitted from the time of our sins being laid upon Christ For sin cannot be laid upon Christ and continue upon the sinner too and therefore from the time of sins being laid upon Christ the sinner is acquitted and justified But for the fuller explication of this Dr. Crisp distinguishes between God's laying Iniquity upon Christ by way of obligation by way of execution and by way of his own application of it to his people by way of obligation God did lay iniquity on Christ when he did tie and bind and oblige himself to it And that is from all Eternity then he did it in his own determinate Counsel when in his own Counsel he did determine it should be done But this was a secret tie and obligation upon God but God did lay the Iniquity of his people upon Christ openly