F. undertakes to defend therefore Mr. F. insinuates to his Reader that Mr. S's Notion doth imply unless he will allow that we are Justified by being made righteous by the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us such a Justification as cannot be properly so called nor maintained to be such without perverting the Scriptures from their plain and proper sense to that which is but so Metaphorically And to this end he takes it for granted that Justification in Mr. S's Notion of it contains in it remission of Sins and then argues that remission of Sin is not Justification in a proper sense and consequently that Mr. S's Notion of justification cannot be made good from the Scriptures without understanding them in an improper sense But if Mr. F. would have done this designed business indeed against Mr. S. he should have done one of these two things which yet he hath not done Either first shewed that Mr. S. hath defined justification by pardon of sin or Secondly that according to his Notion of it it must be so defined neither of which he hath done that I finde And therefore he doth but beat the air while he would have his Reader think he is beating Mr. S. That pardon of sin is promised in the Covenant of Grace to those that believe and obey the Gospel Mr. S. doth indeed assert and that according to the Scriptures and this pardon when vouchsafed doth discharge us from whatever lay against us either from Law or Gospel and is called in Scripture a not mentioning our sins unto us Ezek. 33.16 the remembring them no more Heb. 10.17 a not imputing of them Rom. 4.8 2. Cor. 5.19 but then these are two distinct things to justifie a person against an accusation of not believing and obeying the Gospel and the conferring upon him the benefits promised to those that have If they be not different but one and the same thing then the giving of eternal life it self is an assentiall part of our justification as well as the forgiveness of our sins for that as well as the forgiveness of sins is promised to those who believe and obey the Gospel And I think no man yet ever asserted that the giving of eternal life was justification it self but a benefit promised to those who are justified according to St. Paul Rom. 8.30 Whom he Justified them he also glorified Justification is God's imputing righteousness to men or their faith to them for righteousness and thus Abraham was justified by having his faith imputed to him for righteousness But pardon of sin is his not imputing to them their Trespasses and I must needs say I cannot apprehend how the imputation of faith for righteousness and the non-imputation of sin can be all one God in justifing men avoucheth and pronounceth them to be such as to whome he hath promised pardon that is true believers such as have performed the condition of the promise But then the counting of this performance of the condition for righteousness unto them is one thing and the conferring on them the benefit promised on that condition is another as I said If God had promised pardon only upon account of what Christ hath done and suffered for Sinners without any condition to be performed on their part then they would have had title to pardon without the justification I speak of But since it is otherwise a man's title to pardon is not cleared without being justified in order thereto as a performer of the condition Moreover the clearing the equity of God's proceeding in pardoning some and not other some depends upon this viz. That he can justifie one sort to be such as have repented and performed the condition on which he promised pardon whereas he cannot do so concerning the other Ezek. 18. And when I consider this I cannot see but that we have as much reason to think it meet and necessary that there should be such a difference between justification and pardon as hath been intimated as there is to believe that its fit and necessary that the reason and equity of god's proceedings should be cleared before Angels and men in pardoning some and not others And if this be found agreeable to reason then you have an evidence from the reason and nature of the thing why it should be so as well as from the Scriptures to shew that it is so Yet it s very true also that there is so very close and inseparable a connexion between Justification and Remission of Sin as that the Scripture which does not alwayes nicely difference things which yet are distinguishable but sometimes terms things by the same name which differ only but in some respect and sometimes denotes things of the same nature by different phrases and forms of speech I say the connexion between Justification and Remission is so close and inseparable as that the Scripture sometimes speakes of them promiscuously scarcely leaving any difference to be discerned between them which I conceive hath led so many to place Justification in Remission of Sin as are of that Judgement Such is Rom. 4.6 7. for one where the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth Righteousness without works is thus described by David as St. Paul saith reciting his words saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered Where you will hardly perceive any difference made between the imputation of Righteousnes and forgiveness of Sins unless we distinguish between righteousness imputed and the blessedness of haveing sin pardoned as consecuent upon it which I think may very well be done For the Apostle doth not say that David describes the Justification of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness withont works when he saith Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven but the blessedness of such a person who is so justified or to whom righteousness is imputed Which blessedness he placeth in the forgiveness of sins and being restored to the Divine favour So that these words of David as I said are not a description of Justification but of the blessedness a man comes to be possessed of by being justified The reason and design of the Apostle in reciting these words of David I shall shew afterwards Again Acts 13.39 is another such Scripture where it 's said that by him all that believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses Where to be justified and to be delivered from the desert of sin seem to be the same Unless you will distinguish as well you may between that from which we are delivered to wit the obligation to Punishment and that by meanes whereof we come so to be delivered to wit our being justified and then to be justified from those things signifies no more here than by justification to come to be pardoned and so delivered from condemnation But if you will understand Justification in a large sense as comprehending and taking in with it its effects in which sense faith
one in conjunction with Faith in Christ to be sufficient to that end Now whether Mr. F. himself doth deny inherent Grace to be at all imputed for Righteousness in our Justification or whether that it only is so I confess I cannot say But certain it is that he denies it to be sufficient without the imputation of Christ's Righteousness in the sense of imputation wherein he is opposed One while he grants that in reference to the mere demands of the Gospel we may in a proper sense be said to be justified p. 416. At another turn he saith 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 unto the immutability and essential Holiness of God to justifie us upon an imperfect obedience such as he accounts Evangelical obedience to be the Law which requireth a perfect remaining still in force and denouncing wrath in case of every failure By which he seems to hold how consistently with what I before recited do you judge that it is inconsistent with the Holiness of God to justifie us upon an Evangelical Righteousness because imperfect But whether Mr. F. joyns the imputation of Christ's Righteousness and the imputation of inherent Grace together in the business of Justification or whether he wholly denies the imputation of the latter and affirms only the imputation of the former I shall not further enquire But it 's well known that those who are wont to plead the same cause with Mr. F. touching the necessity of the imputation of Christ's Righteousness unto Justification and in that sense wherein he is opposed are wont also to exclude inherent Grace as being neither imputed for Righteousness in Justification nor as necessary thereunto antecedently Mr. E. Polhill a Gentleman doubtless of a good Spirit another of Mr. S's Antagonists in his answer to him saith in p. 75. In Justification no other Righteousness can take place but the active and passive one of Christ which answers the pure and righteous Law in every thing And in p. 321. he saith Obedience to God's commands is indeed the way to Heaven but it s no where made an ingredient into our Justification And p. 365. speaking of Phil. 3.9 saith that the Apostle in this place doth not only exclude external Pharisaical righteousness but even inherent Graces in the matter of Justification And the common opinion of those that have gone that way hath been That Sanctification is subsequent to Justification and not so much as in order of Nature going before it or to be any ingredient in it and consequently not essentially necessary to it Now then that which I say is this that if I can make it appear that the denying the necessity of internal righteousness unto Justification was one part of the grievous errour of the Judaising Christians it will be enough to spoil the reputation of the same opinion though found in better men than they were And whether I shall not make it evidently to appear so to be I shall leave you to judge after you have weighed what I shall now lay before you Their Crime was I conceive a partial revolt or turning unto the worst of Judaism saving their retaining a profession of Faith in Christ to think that an external righteousness without an internal was available to justification and salvation The unbelieving Jews to whom they turned in part were quite degenerated from their worthy Ancestors and all that remained faithful among them who all held the internal Grace of Love to God fear of him uprightness of heart towards him truth in the inward parts necessary to interest them in his favour and the blessing of the everlasting Covenant But the degenerate Jews thought an external Righteousness such as Paul had while a Pharisee and such as would justifie them in the sight of men according to the terms of the political Covenant by which they were externally governed by God as they were his Commonwealth would justifie them as to their eternal estate Of which grand mistake our Saviour Matth. 5. laboured to convince them by shewing that no less was required by God in order to that than an inward purity and upbraided them with their making clean the outside of the Cup and Platter when within they were full of extortion and excess of ravening and wickedness with their appearing outwardly Righteous unto men when within they were full of Hypocrisie and iniquity and told his hearers that except their Righteousness exceeded theirs they should never enter into the Kingdom of Heaven that except they were born again they could not see the Kingdom of God Now it was to this monstrously corrupt part of Judaism to which the Judaising Christians did revolt or turn rather for many of them were Gentiles because without this their errour in adhering to the Law of Moses as necessary to be observed would not have been so damnable as the Scripture represents it to be calling it a perverting the Gospel of Christ a being removed to another Gospel a falling from Grace a making of Christ to become of none effect to them Gal. 1.7 and 5.2 4. which it would not have been if there had been nothing else in it than a perswasion that they were under an obligation of observing the Law of Moses as well as the Law of Christ For there were many thousands of the Jews which believed who were yet zealous of the Law of Moses and thought themselves still under the obligation of it Acts 21. who yet could never be said upon that account to be fallen from Grace or to be removed from the Gospel of Christ to another Gospel so long as they were really for an internal Righteousness as necessary to Justification and Salvation as well as an external For all the faithful Jews under the Law before the Law and after the Law yea and all the Gentiles too that had this internal Righteousness as well as an external were all justified through the Grace of God exhibited in the universal Covenant made in Christ and granted for his sake whether they had any explicite or distinct knowledge of that Covenant or not or of Christ in whom it was confirmed In every Nation he that feareth God and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him and if the Uncircumcision did but keep the righteousness of the Law the internal Righteousness designed by it their Uncircumcision was counted for Circumcision When on the other hand he was not a Jew at any time in the sense there spoken of who was one outwardly in the flesh only but he was a Jew which was so inwardly and Circumcision was that of the heart in the Spirit of the Law and not in the Letter only whose praise or approbation was from God whether it were from men or no Rom. 2. St. Paul would never have become as a Jew to the Jews to gain the Jews as he did in observing
armed with authority from Heaven as by that means it does and when the Laws and Statutes of that Kingdom shall be produced laid open and urged to make it good and enforce it The Scriptures themselves will be found of more authority in the Consciences of men than the best words men can speak though never so rational and true In a word as Apollos was a man mighty in the Scriptures so he mightily convinced his hearers by the Scriptures Acts 18.24 28. I need not mention unto you how much it was St. Paul's manner to reason out of the Scriptures of the old Testament before those of the New were in being when he had to do with those that owned them Acts 17.2 and 28.23 Nor how our Lord Christ himself collected and brought together the things concerning himself which were scattered up and down in Moses and the Prophets and expounded them to his Disciples and thereby opened their understandings and caused their hearts to burn within them and that I think is not unlike the operation of the Motives of the Gospel I have been speaking of Luke 24.27 32 45 46. There is one thing more which I must add to obviate an objection and another to explain and confirm something I have asserted I know some and perhaps your self will be ready to object That the tenour of my reasoning touching God's imputing Faith it self and other inherent Grace for Righteousness in justifying men tends to confound Justification and Sanctification and to make them all one But that follows not at all For Sanctification is the constituting or making men Evangelically righteous or holy by the joint operation of God's Holy Spirit and the Evangelical Doctrine but Justification is God's pronouncing or declaring them as he doth in the Gospel to be righteous according to the terms of the Gospel as having performed the condition upon which forgiveness of Sin and eternal Life are therein promised Justification is a Juridical act of God as Judge which doth not make a man righteous as sanctification doth but upon tryal pronounceth him to be so and by it the person tried is acquited and discharged from the accusation of unbelief impenitency and wilful disobedience to the Gospel and so also from Condemnation it self So that Justification is not Sanctification but supposeth it as antecedent thereunto at least in order of nature Whom he called them he also justified saith St. Paul and whom he justified them he also glorified Rom. 8.30 He doth not say whom he justified them he also sanctified but them also he glorified Sanctification is not brought in between Justification and Glorification in that golden Chain but is placed in order as going before both in effectual calling The other thing I would add for explanation and confirmation is this Whereas I have said that the Faith which is imputed for Righteousness is comprehensive of Repentance and Obedience to the Gospel Now least you should not be satisfied therewith I shall give you this plain account why we cannot reasonably understand otherwise For the Scripture doth exclude such from sharing in the saving benefits of the Covenant as are impenitent unregenerate and disobedient to the Gospel Luke 13.3 Joh. 3.3 Rom. 2.8 And if so then no man can share in those saving benefits whereof Justification is one until his Faith doth produce Repentance Regeneration and Obedience unless you will suppose that which no man does that these are no efffects of Faith For he that believes is born of God is to a degree renewed to his likeness 1 John 5.1 And when I say thus I am not of opinion that men cannot be justified until they have fulfilled some time in a course of holy living and new obedience internal and external But when a man so believes as that such a real change is thereby wrought in the heart as is the beginning of a new life for the present and the foundation of a holy life for the future then undoubtedly he passeth out of an unjustified into a justified state This change in the mind and will by means of Faith doth first constitute a man a good man and when this change first takes place then God's Laws are first put into the mind and written in the heart upon which God promiseth in the New Covenant to be our God and that we shall be his People and that he will be merciful to our unrighteousness and our sins and iniquities to remember no more Hebr. 8.10 12. and 10.16 17. And it is observable that the qualification upon which God in the New Covenant here mentioned promiseth to be our God and to forgive our sins is not mentioned under the Name or Notion of Faith or Believing but of having the Divine Laws put into the mind and written in the heart Which would be somewhat strange if this writing the Law in the heart were no part of the Condition without which God will not vouchsafe unto any man that great benefit of the Covenant Justification There is no doubt indeed but that though Faith be not here mentioned yet it is supposed and implyed in as much as without it the Law cannot be written in the heart in the sense we speak of it now But then when at other times Faith only is mentioned as that which qualifies men for Justification and as the Condition of the promise of Pardon and Salvation yet then this writing of the Law in the heart is also to be understood For it is not to be imagined that the putting of the Law into the mind and writing it in the heart would be mentioned in a description of the tenour of the New Covenant as that qualification upon which God will be our God take us for his people and forgive our sins which imply Justification if any Faith or Faith in any respect short of producing this effect would be available and sufficient unto Justification It 's true the Scripture in some places tells us that Faith is imputed for Righteousness without telling us what or what manner of Faith this is But then in other places it is plainly described to us by the nature of its operation as that it purifieth the heart Acts 15.9 worketh by love Gal. 5.6 overcometh the world 1 John 5.4 and sanctifieth the whole man Acts 26.18 We see then that the inseparable effects of Faith as here the writing of the Law in the heart are sometimes mentioned as those things which qualifie us for the blessing of the Covenant and sometimes Faith it self only But if we will take the whole testimony of the Scriptures together we shall find that both are intended And why then should we contend as some do about dividing these in qualifying us for Justification as parts of that Evangelical Righteousness which will be imputed to us for Righteousness After all this let me tell you Sir That there is a sense in which it is not disagreeable to the Scripture to say that a man is justified by such acts of
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 believing and obeying the Gospel with any such absurdity or inconvenience as that it is not maintainable without perverting innumerable texts from their plain and natural sense to a Metaphorick Only let me premise this that it would alwayes be remembred that whatever benefits do accrue to us by vertue of the new Covenant are owing unto Christ and truly attributable unto him in whom for whose sake and upon account of whose undertaking the Covenant it self and all the benefits of it are vouchsafed unto men And accordingly this Covenant in Scripture is said to be confirmed of God in Christ Gal. 3.17 to be the new-Testament in his blood Mat. 26.28 and his blood to be the blood of the everlasting Covenant Heb. 13.20 And he himself given for a Covenant of the People Is 42.6 and all the promises of God are in him yea and in him amen 2. Cor. 1.22 What ever then depends upon this Covenant depends upon Christ and accordingly the benefits promised in it Remission of sin and eternal life are in Scripture ascribed unto him And although Faith as comprehending repentance and sincere obedience be imputed for righteousness yet it is not for its own sake that it is so but for Christ's sake and all by vertue of the divine will which hath of mere Grace and favour appointed that so it shall be This being premised I proceed now to shew that we are justified by God upon our believing and obeying the Gospel and that in a proper sense and that our believing and obeying the Gospel is our Evangelical righteousness upon the taking place whereof in men God accounts and by the doctrine in the Scriptures declares them just and deals with them accordingly which is his justifying of them To this end let it be considered that this Covenant as founded by God in the righteousness of Christ's life and Sacrifice of his death doth consist of two parts of Conditions required by God and to be performed by men and of promise of benefits made by God and to be performed by him but to be received and enjoyed by men The Condition upon which promise of benefits is made by God is that which Mr. S. rightly calls a believing and obeying the Gospel And the benefits promised upon the aforesaid condition Mr. S. truly saith are pardon of Sin and eternal life That such promises are made and upon such conditions appears every where in Scripture where things of this nature are spoken of as every one knows that knows the Scripture and Mr. F. himself stands declared no enemy to the Doctrine of the conditionality of the promises Things then being thus setled between God and all men in this Covenant the enquiry upon every man's tryall will be whether he hath performed the condition required on his part in believing repenting and sincerely obeying If it be found that he hath he is thereupon as truly and in a proper Sense justified that is accounted and by the Gospel declared and pronounced Evangelically just and righteous i. e. in the sense of this Evangelicall Law as he would have been in the sense of the Original Law in case he had observed the terms of that And had I been to have written to Mr F. I would have enquired of him which of these things now mentioned he would or could deny being all so perfectly agreeable as they are to the tenour and very letter of the Scripture Will he or can he deny belief in the Gospel and obedience to it to be the Condition upon which God in the Gospel or new Covenant hath promised pardon of Sin and eternal life or which is the same that he hath promised these benefits to such and to no other This I take for granted he will not deny Next I would demand whether Faith Repentance and sincere obdience be not all that is required of men themselves by God in the Gospel to make them Evangelically righteous and capable of the saving benefits promised in the Gospel If they be and I believe Mr. F. will not deny them to be so from one of his own assertions p. 414. then I further query whether these do not denominate a man Evangelically righteous or righteous in the gospel sense as well as the doing all that the Law required would have denominated a man legally righteous or righteous in the sense of the Law And further whether men from those qualifications aforesaid are not in Scripture so denominated As for instance Faith which is as I have said comprehensive of repentance and sincere obedience when saveing this as the Scripture tells us expresly was counted to Abraham for righteousness Rom. 4.3 Gal. 3.6 And we are told also that the Scripture speaking of this in reference to Abraham was not written for his sake only but for us also to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead vers 23.24 And then for Evangelical or sincere obedience that comes in also for a share in denominating a man righteous in a gospel sense He that doth righteousness is righteous saith St. John 1 Ep. 3.7 and he speaks it of that righteousness which men themselves do in a course of sincere obedience and not of the righteousness of another imputed to them In the righteousness which he hath done shall he live saith the Phophet speaking of a man that shall turn from all the sins which he hath committed and shall observe all God's Statutes and do all that which is lawfull and right Ezek. 18.22 If then Faith Repentance and sincere obedience be all that the gospel requires to denominate a man righteous in a gospel sense and to make him capable of the promised benefits Then all those in whom these are found are by God in the Gospel declared and pronounced righteous men which Declaration is their Justification For what is done in this kind by the gospel on Earth is done also by God in Heaven No man sure that understands and considers what he saith will deny this to be Justification in a proper sense nor assert it not maintainable without perverting the scriptures from their plain and natural meaning to a Metaphorick sense whereas its most evident it stands back't with the Scriptures understood in their plain proper and genuine sense But because Mr. Ferguson was somwhat sensible that he could not duly infer any thing from Mr. S's own words touching his apprehensions about Justification but what was agreeable to the Notion of justification in a proper sense in reference to the demands of the gospel as you may perceive by what he saith towards the beginning of the page 416. And because he had a great mind to fasten somthing by way of retortion upon Mr. S's Notion of Justification as if it had not been maintainable to be Justification properly so called without wresting the Scriptures from their plain and proper sense which was the the thing Mr. S. charged on them whose opinion Mr.
it selfe is oft to be understood then indeed it includes pardon of sin and then in this sense to be pardoned is to be justified and to be justified is to be pardoned In which sense or respect it may be it is that many renowned both Persons and Churches have made little or no difference between Justification and remission of sin And now Sir if what I have suggested have any weight in it which I submit to tryal then you may see that there is a Justification of believers properly so called plainly and without figure asserted in Scripture and yet not consisting in that imputation of Righteousness neither which Mr. F. so much contends for nor yet in Remission of Sin neither the necessity of which he would inferr in case the other be denyed but in the imputation of that believing and obeying the Gospel for Righteousness to which Mr. S. saith pardon is promised And if so then Mr. F. hath only shewed us what he had a mind to do but not at all performed what he undertook But when Mr. F. asserts That unless we are justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in his sense of Imputation we cannot be said to be justified properly but only to be pardoned and that to be pardoned is not to be justified properly he proceeds therein upon a mistaken ground and confounds the terms and conditions of the original Law and Gospel Covenant together For he supposeth that in order to our Justification in a proper sense we must one way or other have such a Righteousness as will answer the demands of the Law in point of perfect obedience and of the Gospel otherwise and which will justifie us against all accusations to the contrary And that therefore we having no such Righteousness of our own we cannot be justified but by having the Righteousness of Christ made ours by Imputation that we may therewith answer the demands and accusations of the Law Or in case we should not be justified by the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to answer the demands of the Law yet that then we must be justified by being pardoned and Pardon is not Justification properly so called But while he argues at this rate he overlooks what God hath done to supersede and relax the rigorous terms of the primitive Law by a new Law of Grace established in Christ with all Mankind and according to which he will now proceed with us and not according to the rigorous demands of the primitive Law By reason of this to wit God's relaxing the old and introducing new terms of Justification and Life it follows that neither a perfect Legal Righteousness is now necessary to Justification nor yet that Justification must consist only in pardon of Sin though we have no such Righteousness inherent or imputed in Mr. F's sense of Imputation as will answer the demands of the Law in point of perfection Such a Righteousness is not now necessary to Justification First because that which once made it necessary to that end is now relaxed by a new Law this I have shewed before * This new Law doth not relax the duty due by the old hut alter the condition onwhich the divine favour was at first enjoyable and hath now made sincere obedience to it and to the Gospel the condition of it instead of sinless perfection And it grants pardon of all past offences against both to such as are justified against the accusation of not having performed the Condition and of all after-offences also that are consistent with godly sincerity By reason whereof an answering the old demands of the Law absolute perfection is not now necessary to justification neither as inherent in us nor as imputed to us otherwise than as Christ's perfect righteousness is imputed to us in the fruits and benefits of it which is quite another thing than the imputation of his righteousness it self to us differing as much as the ects of his mediation differ from the benefits received thereby Secondly because by this new Law the Righteousness which consisteth in a penetential regenerating obediential Faith is made the condition upon which Pardon and Life are promised And because likewise the performance of this Condition is by God counted to us for Righteousness like as a fulfilling of the Legal Condition would have been counted our Legal Righteousness had we never sinned Although the Righteousness of Christ's Active and Passive Obedience is that Righteousness by which the Covenant it self and the benefits of it were conditionally obtained for us and granted to us And although it is of God's mercy and by vertue of Christ's Merits and the Promise and Ordination of God that we come to have any title to Pardon and Life when we have performed the Condition and not by vertue of any merit or desert in the performance it self yet this Righteousness of Christ does not entitle us to Pardon and Life until we have performed the Condition on our part required thereto which is such a believing as aforesaid And in the last issue we are accounted by God Righteous or Unrighteous according as we have or have not perform'd the Condition God's design towards us is to restore us to happiness and in order thereto to recover and bring again into our Nature those Vertues in which our likeness to God at first did consist by the loss of which we became miserable and without a recovery of which we cannot be happy And as most suitable to this design God hath made such a Faith the Condition of Pardon and Life as by which the renovation of our Nature is gradually wrought and without which we have no ground to expect those benefits how desirable soever they are to us and notwithstanding all that Christ hath done and suffered to obtain them for us To suppose that God accounts us Righteous and so confers a title to Pardon and Life only by the Righteousness of Christ imputed without respect to our being renewed in the Spirit of our minds and sanctified by Faith is to suppose him acting disagreably to his own design and method of Grace in recovering us from our undone condition To think we are made Righteous only by what our Saviour hath done without us without being renewed by a work of Faith within us To suppose we are by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness delivered from the danger of the Hell without us without being at all freed from the Hell within us which consists in unnatural Lusts and the uneasie effects of them To imagine that God should restore us to a participation of the priviledges of his Children by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness without restoring us at all to a participation in the Divine and New Nature of his Children is absurd and that which is opposed by the constant tenour of Divine Doctrine in the holy Scriptures And yet these are but the natural consequences of the Doctrine of being justified by the imputation of Christ's Righteousness alone and of
unto justification of life actually if they do not wilfully neglect and reject them And less than this I see not how the Apostle's words can signifie if you consider the nature of the Comparison he makes between the effects of the first Adam's disobedience and the second Adam's obedience in reference unto all men without exception of any As by the disobedience of the former all men were brought under an utter incapacity of being justified and saved so long as the original Covenant in the Rigour of its Sanction remained in force So by the obedience of the latter all men are put into a capacity of being justified and saved by vertue of new terms in the new Covenant which are obtained thereby and by which the old terms are Cancelled or Superseded These things being so I leave you to judge whether there be any need of or any occasion for such a formal imputation of Christ's righteousness unto our justification to answer the Law in its demands of perfect legal obedience as a condition of it and the accusations thereof for want of it as Mr. F. contends for and Mr. S. opposeth For this demand and this accusation was taken off so soon as the new Covenant founded by God in Christ's active and passive obedience took place And this benefit of having new terms of life granted which accrues to the world by Christ's Mediatory undertaking does not at all depend upon our believing in Christ but is absolutely free and that wherein he hath been aforehand with us and with all men which have been born into the world since the Covenant of Grace did first commence and remains made good to them whether they beleive it or no. So that from thence forth no man shall be condemned for want of a perfect legal Righteousness but only for want of an Evangelical righteousness And because this is a matter of weight I will add yet somthing further to prove that this new Covenant by which the terms of the old are cancel'd is made and establisht in Christ not only with some part of mankind viz. Such as shall be saved as some would restrain it who think it in the nature of it absolute and not conditonal no not in reference to particular persons which yet it must needs be if made to all unless all were eventually to be saved but it 's made with all men universally And to this purpose I pray you consider the declaration of God's grace and favour to all mankind in those words of his to Abraham Isaac and Jacob mentioned no less than five times in the book of Genesis viz. In thee and in thy Seed shall all families all Nations of the earth be blessed Chap. 12.3 and 18.18 and 22.18 and 26.4 and 28.14 By which the unbelieving Jews indeed understood that in time all Nations should become proselytes to Judaism and their Nation become the head of all Nations and the Messias a glorious visible head over them But in opposition hereto and to their expectations of Justification by the Law St. Paul interprets it to be meant of the Covenant of Grace established in Christ with all Nations and Families of the Earth who are all so far blessed hereby as to have new-terms of Salvation granted them Gal. 3. For whereas they understood by seed the whole posterity of Abraham in Jacob's line as if all Nations should be blessed in them St. Paul restrains it only to Christ as all Nations were to be blest in him as head of the Covenant vers 16. He saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ And then that the blessing promised to all Nations in this Seed was the Covenant appeares by the next words in vers 17. And this I say that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430 years after cannot disanull that it should make the promise of none effect This Covenant we see was then confirmed of God in Christ not then first made for it was extant in the world before And to the same sense St. Paul had said before in vers 8. The Scriptures foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through Faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying in thee shall all Nations be blessed And when he saith that God in those words preached the Gospel unto Abraham it is all one as to have said he declared to him the Covenant for Gospel here and Covenant in vers 17. are two words indeed but signifie the same thing as frequently they do elsewhere And St. Peter expresly calls that promise to Abraham the Covenant Acts 3.25 And besides St. Paul declares what the nature and substance of that Covenant or Gospel was which is extended to all Nations in that promise and that he sayes was that God would justifie the heathen through Faith which is a breif description of the Covenant of Grace These things then being so that God hath established a new Covenant with all men and thereby cancelled the Rigorous Sanction of the Primitive Law as that required perfection of Obedience as the Condition of Justification I now leave you to judge whether Mr. F. doth not build the necessity of the imputation of Christ's Righteousness unto Justification in the sense he asserts it necessary upon an imaginary foundation and groundless Supposition and if he do that foundation being removed that which he builds thereon must needs fall Having I hope Sir by this time satisfied you and clearly evinced that I have not without cause charged Mr. F. with the former of the two grand mistakes above mentioned I shall now proceed to endeavour to do the like touching the Second which Second as you may remember was in that he holds that although we should answer all that the Gospel requires both in respect of a righteousnes of inherent Grace and of personal sincere obedience yet we could not be justified without such a perfect righteousness imputed to us and derived upon us as would adequately answer the demands and accusations of the Law That thus he holds is evident by what he sayes in p. 414. and in other passages in the same Section I shall not need here to do again what I have done already that is to prove the non-necessity of the imputation of such a righteousness unto us for our Justification as every way answers the demands of the Law as considered in its originall Rigour and severity That which remains for me to do is to demonstrate to you that M. Ferguson is under a mistake in denying that our answering all that the Gospel requires in a righteousness both of inherent Grace and personal sincere obedience is a vailable to justification without the imputation of Christ's righteousness in Mr. F's sense and withall to shew that we are said in a proper sense to be justified by believing and obeying the Gospel and that Mr. F. had neither ground nor fair pretence to charge Mr. S's sentiment of
Principle of Sincerity and of the Divine Nature and Life is made the Condition of Pardon And now if what hath been said amounts to any fair account of the Apostle's scope and design in those forementioned verses and of the sense of the several Phrases by which it is exprest and I leave you to judg whether it doth or no then I can see no reason why by Righteousness imputed without Works we should understand the Righteousness of Christ but rather the Righteousness of Faith properly understood which Faith the Apostle there expresly affirms to be imputed for Righteousness but doth not so much as mention Christ in those verses much less the imputation of his Righteousness unto Justification as exclusive of all manner of Works It is not the Righteousness of Christ but Grace and Faith that are in this contexture of Scripture opposed to Works Nor are Works opposed to Faith neither but under the notion of Merit as they make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace And when I say this I do for all that with all thankfulness acknowledge and profess That the Righteousness or Obedience of Christ's Life and Death doth with a high hand operate to our Justification and so as neither our Faith nor any thing in us or done by us can do but in a way altogether transcending it though not in Mr. F's way of Imputation nor is it in this Scripture set forth as it is in others It 's true indeed the Righteousness the Apostle treats of in this place is stiled Righteousness imputed But the reason is not because it is not inherent in the persons themselves to whom it is imputed but in Christ and made theirs only by imputation for it is the Faith of the Person himself that is here said to be counted or imputed to him for Righteousness And the reason why it is called a Righteousness imputed may be because it is not naturally and of it self or in its own nature a Righteousness that would justifie a man as Adam's was before his fall but it is only by Divine Institution Grace and Favour that it is so God justifies us freely by his Grace Rom. 3.24 It is of Faith that it might be by Grace as it follows Rom. 4.16 As it is by the Justification or Ordinance of a King that such a piece of Coin passeth currant for so much whether it be of the intrinsick value or no even so by vertue of God's institution and for Christ's sake Faith is made to pass for and to be reckoned and accounted to us for Righteousness and to entitle us to those benefits which in its own Nature it doth not merit If it were a perfect Righteousness in its own Nature as Adam's was it would need no Pardon to accompany it as it does and would secure us as well from temporal as eternal death which yet it doth not But it being a Righteousness by Institution and Grace how far it shall be beneficial to us and to what ends and purposes it shall serve depend wholly upon the good will and pleasure of God and are knowable only so far to us as he hath been pleased to put them into promise by vertue of which promise made upon condition of such Righteousness and not by merit of the Righteousness it self we come to have a title to the promised benefits such as are remission of Sin and eternal Life But Mr. F. cannot understand but that it is repugnant to the immutability and essential Holiness of God to justifie us upon an imperfect obedience the Law commanding that which is perfect and thinks for him to do so would be to pronounce an unjust person just But he should consider That God in justifying us doth not pronounce us just as not having sinned for that 's impossible for him indeed to do but as having performed the Condition on which he in his Gospel-Covenant hath promised to pardon our Sin And in doing this he doth not prouounce unjust persons just for they are just with an Evangelical Righteousness just in the Gospel sense and so stiled from place to place in the Scripture as I have shew'd And although the Evangelical Righteousness and Obedience upon which God is pleased to justifie us be imperfect if measured by the Law yet it is perfect as to its end appointed by God when measured by the Gospel by which we are to be tryed whether we be righteous or unrighteous And whosoever being adult is not righteous in this sense shall not inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 69. but those that are thus righteous shall go into life eternal Matth. 25.46 But supposing Evangelical Righteousness or Obedience to be Comparatively imperfect whether compared with what man in innocency had and was capable to perform or whether compared with a gradual perfection of Righteousness and Obedience of the same kind and supposing it to be only sincere obedience according to the present circumstances a man is in Let us weigh and consider whether or no it be not consistent with the Holiness of God to justifie men upon such Righteousness and Obedience when found in them when withal we take in what hath been done by Christ the Mediatour to make way for it I conceive Mr. F. doth not suppose that God by the Holiness of his Nature is naturally and necessarily restrained from shewing favour to men after once they have been guilty of Sin and have made themselves obnoxious to the effects of his high displeasure for if he were we were all still in an ill case and there would be then no such thing as Grace extant in the World which yet is so illustrious and glorious as that it is the very subject matter of the Gospel Grace and mercy are as essentially in God as Holiness And therefore we must take heed of framing such notions of his Holiness as to leave no place for the exercise of his Grace and Mercy God no doubt is at liberty to recede from his own right as well as men are in remitting debts and pardoning offences to what degree and upon what terms he pleaseth only he as Rector of the World hath respect therein unto good order and government Supposing all this we must suppose again that such acts of Grace and Favour towards offending Sinners as do not in the least encourage them to continue in Sin nor any other Creature in the whole Creation that is innocent to fall into a state of like Rebellion as man hath done but are of a quite contrary tendency will very well consist with the end of his Government as he is Rector of the World and with the Righteousness and Justice of the Governour himself Now the reason and end of executing Justice upon Delinquents is either to recover them themselves to good order and behaviour or to deterr others from falling into like Rebellion against God For otherwise God delighteth not in the death as such of him that dies Ezek. 18. Provided then that
God in the same sense in which the Christian life is called the life of God Ephes 4.18 not the life which he himself lives but the life which he commands and the life which by his Grace he enables men to live As the Sacrament is called the Supper of the Lord because it is of his institution so is this inherent Righteousness and Justification by it said to be the Righteousness of God for the same reason To restore fallen man to this Righteousness and to acceptation with God and Justification thereby and to render him capable of the happiness designed him in another World was the reason of sending Christ into the World and of his suffering for us and of all the rest of his Mediatory undertaking For that I take to be the plain meaning of 2 Cor. 5.21 * When I compare the foregoing verses therewith noting God's design of reconciling us to himself by Christ which is done by an inward change of mind and will He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him that is by means of him Parallel to which is 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God This inherent Righteousness is called the Righteousness which is of God by Faith because it proceeds from God by the means of Faith and not without it Rom. 3.22 Phil. 3.9 by believing that God will justifie and save men by Jesus Christ in this way and upon these terms of becoming inherently righteous and not otherwise men come to be so that they may be justified and saved I have the rather given this brief Gloss upon these Scriptures because I find Mr. Polhill still as others have done before him will needs understand that this Righteousuess is meant of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us and that it is called the Righteousness of God because it is the Righteousness of Christ which is God But methinks he and they should consider that because the Righteousness of Christ is the Righteousness of him that is God as well as Man that therefore it is nowise likely it should ever be imputed to us any otherwise than in its blessed effects and consequently that which they surmise cannot be the sense of the Scriptures aforementioned For as such it is a mediatorial righteousness a Righteousness resulting from his conformity to the Law of his Mediation which was a Law peculiar to himself alone And it seems very rational to think this righteousness no more communicable to us otherwise than in its happy effects than the acts and office of his Mediation are And although upon the account of its being so transcendent and glorious a righteousness it is a very great ground of consolation and of confidence to us that for the sake of it our Evangelical righteousness will be accepted with God and all our defects so far as consistent with sincerity freely pardoned yet it is a great question whether it will agree with Christian modesty to presume our selves invested therewith any otherwise than in the beneficial effects of it unless there were more ground for it than we can find in Scripture We may well bethink our selves whether it be not a Garment too rich and glorious for us to wear and proper only for the person of the Mediatour the Son of God himself If it shall yet be demanded that if this be true that we are justified upon account of all other inherent Grace as well as that of Faith then how comes it to pass that in Scripture Faith is still said to be imputed for righteousness and not love or humility or the like If there should be no other reason but this yet this might well satisfie us in this enquiry viz. in that this Grace of Faith above any other is in the nature of it adopted and fitted to subserve God's design in recovering us from the state of sin and misery into which we were sunk unto a state of holiness and happiness from which we were fallen God's design was to restore us to happiness by holiness and to make his own Grace glorious in the eyes of his Creatures in doing of it And when you have well considered it I think you will find that there is no one Grace or Vertue that could be so serviceable to God in this design as Faith Nay which is more that those Divine Vertues themselves which constitute the New Creature or Divine Nature without which we are not capable of being made happy could not have been introduced and brought again into the nature of fallen man but by Faith I will suppose that you cannot imagine how God should restore us to happiness without reconciling us to himself and being reconciled to us Nor how he should reconcile us to himself without making some Overtures of Grace to us Nor how he should be reconciled to us without our submitting to his terms of Grace And if not I can easily shew you that we cannot be affected and wrought upon by God's overture and offer of Grace so as to answer his end in making it nor submit to or comply with his terms of Grace without believing and consequently that the execution of God's design in restoring us to happiness and of glorifying the riches of his Grace therein depends very much upon Faith and more on that than on any other Grace or Vertue whatsoever First We cannot be affected and wrought upon with God's offer of Grace so as to give him the glory of it in thankful acceptance due acknowledgments and sutable returns in loving him that shewed such love to us without this Grace of Faith For the sense of God's Grace in offering to sinners through Christ pardon restauration to his favour and salvation at last upon condition of repentance cannot enter into the heart of man but by Faith And the reason hereof is because the offer of Grace and the things offered by Grace are matter of supernatural revelation which do not further affect than they are believed as I shall farther shew in the next particular But by believing that God of mere Grace in and by Christ hath promised pardon acceptance into favour the assistance of his Spirit and eternal life unto Sinners otherwise under condemnation upon condition of repentance and a sincere returning unto God I say by this belief we come to trust in and rely upon that Grace and on Christ as an All-sufficient Saviour for those promised benefits even in the performance of that Condition and that in opposition to all opinion of meriting them by that performance or by any thing we can do And it is by this belief and affiance that God receives from us the glory of his Grace and Christ the honour of his performance for us which answers one of the great ends designed by our recovery for which cause it may very well be one reason why this Faith rather than
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
guilt of Sin that hath not been accessary to the fault For guilt implyes two things a fault committed by him that is guilty of it and the being under an obligation thereby to suffer the punishment due to it and this obligation of a guilty person to suffer proceeds from the demerit of his fault or crime And will Mr. F. say that Christ was guilty of our Sins by being in the fault Or that he came under an obligation to suffer by being in the fault and from the demerit of the fault God sorbid Christ was no otherwise obliged to suffer for our Sins than by his own voluntary consent in concurrence with the will of God his Father in offering himself as a Sacrifice to make an Atonement by his own Blood And after this manner indeed by being a Sacrifice the Beasts in time of the Law that were offered in Sacrifice for Sin did bear the Sins of those for whom they were offered But I should think he were little better than a Beast in his understanding that should say those Beasts were guilty of the Sins of those for whom they were offered in Sacrisice But it 's true as one truth leads to another so it 's too commonly seen men are tempted to commit one errour tō defend another which I think is the Case now before us Otherwise Mr. F. would hardly have ventured to say Christ was brought under the guilt of our Sins and had the guilt of them derived upon him but only the better as he thought no doubt to accommodate his Notion of our being in the Innocency and Righteousness of Christ by having it imputed to us and derived upon us But this is not the only inconvenience that attends this Notion of having the Righteousness of Christ it self imputed to us for our justification and not only in its happy effects for it seems to me to oppose the doctrine of forgiveness of Sin Nay I pray you consider whether it doth not evacuate it and leave no place for such a thing For if we in Mr. F's Law sense have by Christ paid all the Debt the Law could any wayes demand of us both in point of obedience and of suffering for our disobedience by having his obedience and sufferings themselves imputed to us and not only in the beneficial effects of them How then I pray you can we be said to be forgiven by God to whom the Debt thus paid was due Does that man forgive a Debt to me which I have paid him by another though not by my self A Legal Discharge I may have in such a case from the Creditour but no man will say he hath for given me my Debt I think it will best become us to say as the Scripture doth That God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us and not to say we have paid him what in the rigour of Justice he could demand of us if not more to wit perfect obedience and suffering too which the Law in its utmost rigour never demanded nor required We may well and thankfully take up with this That God in consideration of what Christ hath become done and suffered for our sakes for our benefit hath past an Act of Oblivion to remember our Sins and Iniquities no more provided and on condition that we repent of our rebellion against God and return to our Loyalty and Duty in obeying him truly sincerely and heartily as every one doth that so believes as thereby to become capable of being justified pardoned and saved Furthermore consider I pray you That if Christ's fulfilling of the Law be so imputed to us as that we are looked upon as having fulfilled it in him how could it then be necessary that Christ should dye for our Sins If we by the imputation of Christ's fulfilling the Law have paid the whole debt of Obedience which was owing to it we should then owe no debt of Suffering for the breach of it and consequently Christ would not have needed by suffering to have paid any such Debt for us no more than for himself who had no Sin to suffer for Again consider yet further That if Christ hath paid our whole debt of Obedience to the Law by fulfilling it for us and then imputing it to us is there not by this Notion if admitted a way paved and prepared for Libertines to think that then they need not pay it too to think that God is no such austeer Creditour as to exact the same debt twice first of the Surery and then of the Principal too And let me tell you this Sir that I have very great reason from my observation formerly to be confident that it was from this Opinion which Mr. F. now defends touching the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us otherwise than in its blessed effects that Antinomianism took its first rise among us in this Nation and Ranterism also out of that For how else could it be possible that men should fancy themselves pure and perfect and free from all Sin in the midst of those abominations some of them gave themselves up to but only that they thought themselves to be so by having another's righteousness imputed to them so as they to become formally righteous by it as he himself was save only in the point of imputation I must confess I cannot think that any Doctrine that is of the Gospel indeed which is a Doctrine according to Godliness in the whole and every part of it can be so liable as this is to natural inferences tending to ungodliness or to weaken that which is in the Doctrine of Justification rightly understood against Ungodliness But on the other hand when the promise of the great benefits of remission of Sin and eternal Life is suspended upon our being righteous by a righteousness inherent in us such as consists in Repentance Faith c. this becomes the greatest motive to Godliness imaginable and so comports directly with that which is God's great design by the Gospel which is to recover man again to Happiness by Holiness from which he first fell by transgression But that you may have down weight in this Argument and more if more can be I will offer one thing more to your consideration which perhaps may deserve it and that is Whether those that deny the inherent Grace of Faith and Sanctification by Faith to be imputed for Righteousness in Justification as they usually do who hold that Christ's Righteousness it self is so imputed do not thereby make themselves guilty in some respect and to a degree of the pernicious errour of the false Apostles and Judaising Christians for which in the gross they were charged with falling from Grace with making Christ to become of none effect to them and with perverting the Gospel of Christ For I think I shall make it evident that their errour lay in two things unless you will add thereto their opinion of meriting the one in denying the necessity of Internal Righteousness unto Justification the other in holding an external
Evangelical Righteousness or Obedience as do not take place till long after he first believes and believes to Justification And thus Abraham's believing mentioned Gen. 15.6 which was not until some years after he first believed is said to be imputed to him for Righteousness And many years after that again he was justified by yielding obedience to God's Command about offering his Son James 2.21 And somewhat of like nature is also said of Noah Heb. 11.7 compared with Gen. 6.9 22. But these things are said I conceive in reference to the continuance of their Justification and not to their Justification at first For as those acts of believing repenting c. which do first constitute a man a new Creature are at first imputed to him for Righteousness so all after-acts of Evangelical Obedience and of Faith it self are still imputed to him for Righteousness to the continuance of his Justification To which agrees that reading of Revel 22.11 which runs thus let him that is righteous be justified still and the Righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith Rom. 1.17 But otherwise if the righteous turneth away from his Righteousness and committeth iniquity and doth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doth all the Righteousness which he hath done shall not be mentioned In his trespass which he hath trespassed and in his sin that he hath sinned in them shall he die Ezek. 18.24 Again when I say to the righteous he shall surely live if he trust to his own Righteousness i. e. his former Righteousness and commit iniquity all his Righteousness shall not be remembred Ezek. 33.13 Now the just shall live by faith but if he draw back my soul shall have no pleasure in him Hebr. 10.38 If then you do but consider upon what terms men are at first justified and upon what terms they continue to be so afterwards you will easily perceive it to be a great and most important truth to say That we are justified by believing and obeying the Gospel These things Sir which I have thus done by way of Essay without regard to method I submit to your consideration I know right-well it 's in vain if I had a mind to it which yet I am far from to impose upon you or to perswade you to receive any thing for truth farther than it brings it's evidence to be so along with it And it were to wished that every one were able to discern when it doth so But that 's a thing rather to be desired than expected in this our present state in this World But it 's Argument enough to treat one another so almost as if we did if we have not apparent reason to think we are but insincere and dissembling friends to Truth and love it not for it self nor any further than it will accommodate us in some secular or carnal respect or other and it is not easie to determine when we have apparent reason so to think And therefore I conclude it safest for our selves rather to err in treating one another in our differences better than we deserve than worse And so to do is better for them also that differ from us so far as they differ from Truth yea and better for the Truth it self too For it is often seen that when a prejudice is taken up against the persons of men be the Cause never so just the Truth it self is the less esteemed if not shrewdly suspected because held by them especially when its evidence is not written as with a Sun beam So that when we by an undue behaviour in pleading the Cause of Truth draw upon our selves disrespect from them whom we would draw from Errour we prevaricate in the matter and act cross to our own design A thing which some engaged in Controversies have been to blame in However it will be our wisdom in reading of Books of this nature to mind the Argument and to take little notice of any unbecoming girds or reflections unless it be to bewail them and to endeavour to follow as indeed there is need that saying of our Saviour let him that readeth understand Mark 13.14 Thus desiring that you and I and all other Christians may speak the truth in love in love both to it and men and receive it in the love of it that we may be benefitted by it I take my leave and remain as ever Your most affectionately to serve you in all offices of Christian love and respect c. April 22. 1675. FINIS Books printed for and sold by Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's-head in St Paul's Church-yard H. Mori Opera Theologica Folio Price 1 l. 10 s. Dr. More 's Reply to a late Answer to his Antidote against Idolatry with the Appendix Octavo Price 4 s. Spencer dissertatio de Urim Thummim Octavo Price 3 s. 6 d. Frederici Lossi Observationes Medici Octavo Price 2 s. 6 d. Epigrammata Juvenilia in quatuor partes divisa Encomia Seria Satyras Jocosa per Guilielmum Speed Price bound 9 d. Dr. Smyth's unjust man's doom as examined by the several kinds of Justice and their obligation with a particular representation of Injustice and danger of partial Conformity Octavo Price 1 s. Dr. Smyth's two Sermons at the Assizes in Suffolk Octavo Price 1 s. Mr. Hallywell's Discourse of the Excellency of Christianity Octavo Price 6 d. Account of Familism as it is revived and propagated by the Quakers Octavo Price 1 s. Some Opinions of Mr. Hobbes considered in a second Dialogue between Philautus and Timothy Octavo Price 2 s. 6 d. Breerwood's Enquiries into the Diversities of Languages Octav. Price 2 s. 6 d. A Stop to the Course of Separation or the Separation of the new Separatists condemned c. Octavo Price 1 s. Libertas Ecclesiastica by Will. Falkner Octavo Price 5 s. The Mystery of Iniquity unfolded or the false Apostles and the Authors of Popery compared in their Secular Design and means of accomplishing it by corrupting the Christian Religion under pretence of promoting it Octavo Price 1 s. Mr. Sherlock's Discourse of the Knowledge of Jesus Christ and our Union and Communion with him c. Octavo Price 2 s. 6 d. Mr. Sherlock's Defence and Continuation of the Discourse concerning the knowledge of Jesus Christ and our Union and Communion with him with a particular respect to the Doctrine of the Church of England and the Charge of Socinianism and Pelagianism Oct. Price 5 s. Dr. Webster's History of Metals wherein is declared the signs of Ores and Minerals both before and after digging c. Quarto Price 5 s. The great Duty of Self Resignation to the Divine Will By the late Pious and Learned John Worthington D.D. Octavo Price 2 s. A Discourse concerning the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us and our Sins to him with many useful questions thereunto pertaining Resolved Together with Reflections more at large upon what hath been published concerning that Subject by Mr. Robert Ferguson in his Interest of Reason in Religion and by Dr. John Owen in his Book stiled Communion with God By Tho. Hotchkis Oct. Price 2 s. An Account of Mr. Ferguson's Common-place book in 2 Letters Quart Price 6 d. The Comparative Anatomy of Trunks together with an account of their Vegitation grounded thereupon In 2 Parts The former read before the R. Society Feb. 25. 1674 5. the latter June 17. 1675. the whole explicated by several Figures in 19 Copper-plates presented to the R. S. in the years 1673. and 1674. by Nehemiah Grew M. D. and Fellow of the R. S. in Octavo Price 4 s. 6 d.