Animadversions On that part of Mr. ROBERT FERGVSON'S BOOK Entituled The INTEREST of REASON IN RELIGION Which Treats of JUSTIFICATION In a LETTER to a Friend LONDON Printed by T. R. for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's head in St. Paul's Church-yard 1676. SIR I Return you with Mr. Ferguson's Book my hearty thanks for the Loan of it I have read it and find many things well said in it And where I find anything otherwise I impute it not to his want of ability if the Cause would bear it but the Cause it self in those particular Instances which I suspect him to be defective in For neither he nor any other of what ability soever he be can as Solomon sayes make that streight which God hath made crooked Eccles. 7.13 And therefore the greater the parts be of any man who yet cannot make work of a Cause he undertakes it doth but make me so much the more doubtfull of the goodness of that Cause if it were any whit doubtfull to me before I will give you one instance of this nature out of Mr. Ferguson's book Chap. 2 Sect 10. Where he asserts that Mr. Sherlock's Notion as he calls it of Justification is not any wayes maintainable but by perverting innumerable texts from their plain and naturall Sense to a Metaphorick and that it is accompanied with this fatall unhappiness of turning agreat part of the Bible into mere insignificant and empty Metaphors P. 402. 403. And then represents Mr. Sherlock's notion thus That we are only justified by believing and obeying the Gospel of Christ That the Sacrifice of Christ's death and the Righteousness of his life have no other influence upon our acceptance with God but that to them we owe the Covenant of Grace That is God being well pleased with the obedience of Christ's life and the Sacrifice of his death entered into a new Covenant with mankind wherein he promiseth pardon of Sin and eternal life to those who believe and obey the Gospel So that the Righteousness of Christ is not the formal cause of our Justification but the Righteousness of his life and death is the Meritorious Cause whereby we are declared Righteous and rewarded as Righteous persons The Covenant of Grace which God for Christs sake hath made pardoning our past sins and follies and rewarding a sincere though imperfect Obedience The Gospel by its great arguments and motives and powerfull assistances forms our minds to the love and practice of Holiness and so makes us inherently righteous and the Grace of the Gospel accepts and rewards that sincere Obedience which according to the Rigor and Severity of the Law could deserve no reward P. 404. Mr. Ferguson having made this recital out of Mr. Sherlock's book knew not how as it seems to make good his charge there-from unless Mr. S. would be so kind as to grant what Mr. F. doth affirm but Mr. S. himself no where asserts And therefore although he grants in P. 416. That in reserence to the mere demands of the Gospel we may in a proper sense be said to be justified Yet he saith that in reference to the Law which is that alone which accuseth us we cannot in any prepriety of speech be said to be justified but that justification wheresoever it regards our discharge from the accusation of the Law must be taken Metaphorically he meanes I suppose unless we are discharged from that accusation by having the righteousness of Christ imputed to us Whether this be true or no I shall put to the Tryal afterwards But in the mean time pray you consider how little reason Mr. F. had to go about to charge Mr. S. with holding Justification in a Metaphorick sense unless he had first shewed us that according to M. S's sentiment of Justification before represented he had made somthing else necessary to it than that which is an answering of the demands of the Gospel which yet he hath not done that I can see But indeed M. F. is so far from doing that as that he hath done the quite contrary as you cannot but perceive when you compare Mr. F's concession and Mr. S 's notion touching Justification together for Mr. F. acknowledgeth as I said before that in reference to the mere demands of the Gospel we may in a proper sense be said to be Justified and M. S. saith no more as M. F. recites him but that we are only Justified by believing and obeying the Gospel And if to believe and obey the Gospel be not to answer the demands of the Gospel and no more pray you get Mr. F. to tell us what is But if it be then Mr. F. instead of making good his charge against M. S. hath himself even fairly acquitted and discharged him from it and might well have taken himself off here and saved himself the labour of further prosecution But however though M. S. doth not yet it seems Mr. F. doth hold that we must be Justified if Justified at all by answering the demands of the Law as well as of the Gospel although the Scipture tells us that he that abideth in the Doctrine of Christ which is the Gospel he hath both the Father and the Son Rep. Jo. 9. And because Mr. F. is of opinion that the demands of the Law must be answered or else we cannot be Justified therefore he thinks Mr. S. ought to be so too which if he can perswade him to be then he doubts not but that he shall be able to make good his charge against him And therefore to lay a foundation for a necessity of a perfect legal Righteousness unto Justification though not inherent in our selves yet by derivation of it from our Saviour in whom it was he does in effect assert the Original Legal Covenant to remain still in force notwithstanding the establishing with men the Evangelical and that in order to our Justification it is not enough to have an Evangelical Righteousness to answer the demands of the Gospel but that we must also have a perfect legal Righteousness to answer the demands of the Law though not in our selves but by derivation from another as was said before Whether this be not so judge I pray you by his own words comparing what he sayes in P. 411. and P. 414. which are these Now as the introduction of the law of faith hath not abrogated the law of perfect obedience but this as well as that doth remain in force each of them requiring a conformity to its own demands So supposing us to answer all that the Gospel requires yet the other law abiding uncancelled and we being all guilty of the violation of its terms there lies accordingly a charge against us from which by Justification we are to be acquitted p. 414. And again p. 411. That secluding not only the righteousness of Christ's life but the satisfaction of his death as the Matter and the imputation of it as the formal Cause of justification it seems repugnant to the immutability and essentiall
being justified by Faith alone as abstracted from it's effect of renewing us And if either of these Doctrines were true we might have an immediate title to Pardon and Salvation without Repentance and without being born again unless we will suppose that Justification does not immediately entitle us to these which to suppose is as absurd as any of the rest For what I pray you would such a Justification signisie And then as concerning the other thing viz. That if we have not by the Imputation of Christ's perfect Righteousness a Rightteousness to answer the demands of the Law that then as Mr. F. infers we can have no Justification but what consists in the remission of Sins I answer That for the same reason that we are accounted Righteous upon our performing the Condition of the promise pardon cannot be our Justification but a benefit consequent upon it For if God's owning or avouching the Condition to be performed on our part as he does when it is performed on which he hath promised Pardon and Salvation be his justifying of us or his accounting us righteous according to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace as indeed it is then Pardon is not our Justification it self but one of the benefits unto which our Justification by vertue of the New Covenant doth entitle us for the one is promised but on condition of the other And as the thing promised and the Condition on which it is promised are not the same so neither is the reckoning or accounting us righteous as having performed the Condition of the Promise of Pardon and the actual Pardon it self the same but so much as these differ so much does Justification and Pardon differ But yet for all that I do not deny but that in a large sense as Justification is opposed to Condemnation it may comprehend remission of Sins That is if by Condemnation you understand both conviction of impenitency which is the opposite to Justification properly and the obligation or obnoxiousness thereby to suffer the pains of the second Death And by Justification both a vindication from impenitency and unbelief which is Justification properly and also a discharge thereby from obnoxiousness to eternal punishment then as I said Justification thus opposed to condemnation does indeed include in it remission of Sin though when strictly and most properly considered Justification seems to be one thing and Pardon of Sin another It is wont to be alledged That when St. Paul saith in Rom. 4.6 that God imputeth Righteousness without Works the meaning is That he imputeth the Righteousness of Christ to us without any Works of ours at all Legal or Evangelical External or Internal And because great stress is laid on it by some I will briefly shew how the Context directs us to another sense of those words The Scope of the Apostle in this and the former Chapter is to prove that Justification proceeds from God of Grace and favour and not of Debt To make this good he shews here that it must needs be so because it is vouchsafed not unto such who have been alwayes righteous for he had proved before Chap. 3. that there are none such but that all both Jews and Gentiles have sinned but to such as have been ungodly when once they believe and therefore cease to be so and become sincerely righteous And the Apostle's reason depends upon this manifest truth That such as have once sinned can never by any after-works which they can do merit the Divine favour as a Debt due to them by desert of their Works nor are capable of that favour upon any other terms than what God of his mere Grace is pleased to appoint as the Condition of it as he hath done that of Faith For to him that worketh not saith he but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted to him for righteousness ver 5. And to prove as well as to assert that God justifieth none upon account of their having been alwayes righteous and in his favour as some Jews fancied themselves to have been upon account of their observing the Law of Moses as he in the Gospel who said All these have I kept from my youth up he shew's out of the Psalms of David how that the ancient godly Jews did alwayes esteem their happiness of being in God's favour not to proceed from the merit of their Works in observing the Law of Moses but from the Grace and Mercy of God in forgiving their Sins and accepting their sincere endeavours to please him Even as David saith he describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousnes without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered ver 6 7. And you may easily discern if you observe it that what is said in this sixth and seventh verses is to back and make good what he had said in vers 5. touching God's justifying men upon their believing notwithstanding they had been in a state of ungodliness before And to shew that if he justifie such men upon such terms Justification must needs proceed of Grace and not of Debt or merit of Works of which he had spoken vers 4. saying Now to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of Grace but of Debt So that in making a Judgment of what Works St. Paul speaks when he saith Righteousness is imputed without Works vers 6. if you do but take your rise from what 's said in vers 4. touching such Works the reward of which is reckoned not of Grace but of Debt and so follow the discourse and the design of it to vers 6. you will find that you cannot fairly turn aside to another but must needs understand him to this sense to wit That the Righteousness which is by Faith of which he had spoken in vers 5. is imputed without such Works as make the reward to be not of Grace but of Debt mentioned v. 4. His Argument runs thus in other words They to whom God imputed Righteousness heretofore were such as stood in need of forgiveness from God therefore they could not possibly merit his favour And although St. Paul doth not improve the words of the Psalmist further than to prove that no man is restored to the Divine favour and the blessedness consequent upon it without forgiveness of Sins and that therefore it must needs be of Grace and not of Debt and Merit that any man attains it by being justified this being his end in alledging them Yet it 's also evident by the words immediately following those the Apostle here recites That Godly sincerity is the conditional qualification required of such to whom the favour of forgiveness is vouchsafed For it 's there said Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity and in whose Spirit there is no guile No guile notes the Sincerity I speak of Psal 32.2 And it 's to the same sense when in the writings of the New Testament Faith as the
these ends of Government be secured in shewing favour the stighteousness and Justice of God will never suffer any disparagement how great soever the Grace and Favour be that is shewed to Offenders But now that God in justifying men upon account of sincere obedience and inherent righteousness considering what hath been done by our Lord Christ to make way for it and to bring things to that issue does not in the least countenance Sin past or encourage to the committing of it for time to come but that which is altogether contrary thereunto will sufficiently appear if you consider these two things First That notwithstanding God is so good and gracious so merciful and ready to forgive as he is yet he would not grant any terms at all of receiving us into favour again having once sinned except his own dear Son himself would take upon him our Nature and become a Sacrifice to make an Atonement for our Sin nor spare him when he had undertaken so to be notwithstanding that great love wherewith he loved him but delivered him up to death for us all when he undertook to become a propitiation for our Sins rather than we should have no terms of pardon granted God's granting terms of pardon and restauration to his favour upon no cheaper terms did clearly demonstrate him to be an enemy and hater of Sin in the highest and so irreconcilable to it as that no Sinner could have any ground to hope to escape the punishment due to it but upon observing that Condition of escaping it the obtaining of which cost so dear In that Christ thus suffered in the flesh he condemned Sin in the flesh as the phrase is Rom. 8.3 and that effectually and with a witness Hereby he condemned it in the sight of Heaven and Earth yea and of Hell too as a thing most abominable to God and contrary to his Nature and to the goodness and equity of his Laws and Government when deliverance from the desert of it could be obtained at no cheaper rate or easier terms than the Son of God his suffering in the Sinners stead no not upon repentance it self without this In that God hath thus set forth his Son to be a propitiation for Sin through Faith in his Blood it is to declare his Righteousness in the remission of Sins that are past that he is righteous although he forgive and that he might be just even when he is the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus Rom. 3.25 26. Secondly When God for Christ's sake and for what he hath done and suffered did grant terms of Grace by which we Sinners might come to be justified pardoned and saved yet they were such and none other but what tend to reclaim us from Sin and Rebellion and to reduce us to obedience and of Rebels to make us to become good Subjects And in doing this God is far from countenancing Sin or doing any thing disagreeable to the righteousness wisdom and goodness of his Government indeed so far from it that it highly commends and sets these off The terms of favour granted for Christ's sake are such as these That believing and being perswaded in our own minds that God is good and ready to forgive for his Son's sake we heartily repent that ever we rebell'd against him and that we desist from continuing in our Rebellion any longer and that we return to our duty and sincerely endeavour to please him in all things for the future It 's true indeed God knows that by reason of the wounds and disease we got by our fall and while we were in rebellion we have brought so great debility upon our selves as that though we do return to him yet we cannot do him such service now as man was capable of performing before the fall and his running into rebellion and therefore he is content for his Son's sake to accept of such service as we in this state of weakness and frailty are capable of performing provided we do the best we well can and make use of all helps and means afforded us whereby we may gather strength and grow better and do better and are heartily sorry that ever we have made our selves so uncapable as we have done of doing him better service These and such like are the terms granted us for Christ's sake But without some such Change as this God hath not promised to receive any man into favour Now then if it be not inconsistent with the righteousness and wisdom of his Government for God to offer and promise to receive Sinners into favour again upon these terms and conditions and I cannot think Mr. F. will say it is Then it cannot be inconsistent therewith for him to own that they have performed these conditions when indeed they have and so to own them now for his true and faithful Servants and Subjects to their power and according to the term set in his act of Grace which is his justifying of them or the imputing to them for righteousness such their faithful service as they are capable of performing These things considered I dare appeal to Mr. F's better and more impartial Judgment whether it be not consistent with the Holiness of God to justifie men upon the terms aforesaid I confess I cannot possibly understand why it should not as well consist with the Holiness of God to justifie us upon our believing and upon our obeying the Gospel too as it is to do it upon our believing alone And Mr. F. does not think that God doth justifie us at all or impute righteousness to us at all in one sense or another without our believing So that the imputation of righteousness to us for our justification in which sense soever we take it depends upon our own act in believing and so likewise is the application of what Christ hath done and suffered for our justification suspended upon our believing In what Notion soever you understand the application of the righteousness of Christ's life and satisfaction of his death to be made as whether by being imputed to us in it self or vertually by having our Faith for the sake thereof imputed to us for Righteousness yet still this application depends upon our believing because God hath made that the condition of it without which Christ shall profit us nothing I take notice further how Mr. F. by his Notion of having the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us otherwise than in its effects is led to think and say that our Sins also were otherwise imputed to Christ than in the effects of them To say saith he that our Sins were imputed to Christ in the effects of them but not in the guilt is to contradict all principles of Reason For guilt and obnoxiousness to punishment being equipollent phrases he cannot be supposed to be made liable to the last upon the account of our Sins without having been brought under the first p. 410. Nor is it imaginable let me say how any person should come under the