him that is justified yet they justifie not all together Where by these good Works being joyned with Faith and being present in him that is justified is meant that they are essential to a Justifying Faith and must be present as antecedent qualifications or conditions without which God will not justifie us as appears from what I have discourst above concerning the nature of Justifying Faith which includes Repentance and the Love of God c. as antecedently necessary to our embracing the Promise of Pardon and Forgiveness which is not the first but the last and completing act of Faith For if these good Works be not one way or other necessary to our Justification no reason can be assigned why they should be present in him that is justified for Faith might then justifie alone without the Presence as well as without the Merit and Efficacy of our good Works And therefore when Faith is said to shut out these good Works from the office of Iustifying that though they be all present yet they do not justifie all together the design is not to deny the Necessity but the Merit of good Works This is plain from the Reason which is immediately assigned why these good Works cannot justifie because all the good Works we can do be imperfect and therefore not able to deserve our Iustification which is the constant Doctrin of the Homilies For our Church by Justification perpetually understands a meritorious and not a conditional Justification and therefore whatever justifies in this sense must by its own Virtue or Merit expiate our sins which is the reason alledged why no man can make himself righteous that is justifie himself by his own Works neither in part nor in the whole for that were the greatest Presumption in Man that Antichrist could set up against God to affirm that a man might by his own Works take away and purge his own sins and so justifie himself SO that is by the Merit and Virtue of his own Works And Faith it self considered as our own Act hath no greater privilege upon this account than any other Grace or Virtue for in respect of Merit and Deserving we forsake altogether again Faith Works and all other Virtues Faith does not justifie as our own Act that is it does not merit our Justification as it must do if it justifie as our own Act which in the sense of our Church signifies that we do something so meritorious as to deserve Justification at Gods hands But now Iustification is the office of God only and is not a thing which we render to him that is we can offer him nothing of our own to merit our Justification but which we receive from him not which we give to him but which we take of him by his free Mercy and by the only Merits of his dearly beloved Son our only Redeemer Iustifier and Saviour Iesus Christ. But for this reason Faith only is said to justifie and to shut out our own Works and itself also considered as our own Act from the office of justifying because though it strongly enforce the Necessity of good Works yet in its own nature it excludes all opinion of Merit and Desert For Faith has a necessary respect to the Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness and whoever acknowledges that he ows his Justification to the Mercy of God who for the sake of Christ pardons his Sins and rewards his Imperfect Services as all those must do who hope to be saved by Faith in the notion of our Church does plainly confess that his Works are imperfect and cannot deserve his Justification which takes away all opinion of Merit from our selves and attributes the glory of all to the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ. I shall only observe three things from this Discourse which are very material to our present purpose First that our Church was not acquainted with that Distinction in the modern sense of it that we are justified fide solâ but not solitariâ by Faith alone but not by that Faith which is alone the meaning of which according to some Modern Divines is this That we are justified only by that particular Act of Faith which apprehends the Righteousness of Christ and relies and rolls itself on Christ for Salvation and applies his Merits and Righteousness to the Soul without any regard to Repentance and the Love of God or any other Grace or Virtue That though at the same time God infuse the habits of all Graces and Virtues into a justified person yet in the Act of justifying he hath no regard at all to Repentance or any other Grace but we are justified in order of nature before these are infused into us and without any respect to them And some men would willingly affix this Notion as absurd as it is to our Church because she only requires the presence of these Graces and Virtues in the justified person but shuts them out from the office of Justifying But I have made it appear that these words admit a better sense and that Justification by Faith only in the modern Notion of it so as to exclude the antecedent Necessity of Repentance or any other internal Grace or Virtue is contrary to the constant doctrin of our Church which requires the presence of these Graces as antecedent conditions or qualifications though it shut them out from being the meritorious Causes of Justification And to confirm this I observe secondly that our Church doth not attribute our Justification to any particular Act of Faith She frequently indeed inculcates the embracing of the Promise of Pardon and Forgiveness as essential to a justifying Faith but the reason of that is not because that particular Act justifies us but to attribute our Justification not to the Merit of our own works but to the Mercy of God But she expresly affirms that Faith doth not justifie as our own Act that Justification is not the office of Man but of God and if we be not justified by Faith as our own Act much less can any particular Act of Faith which if it be considered as an Act must be considered as our own Act justifie which overthrows that Instrumentality of Faith in Justification which these men talk of but the plain meaning of our being justified by Faith only is this that God will pardon our sins and reward us with eternal life if we repent of our sins and believe and obey the Gospel of his Son trusting wholly in the Mercies of God and in the Merits and Mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ as it is exprest at large in the Homily That the true understanding and meaning of our being justified by Faith without Works or by Faith in Christ only is this that although we hear Gods Word and believe it although we have Faith Hope Charity and do never so many good Works thereunto yet we must renounce the Merit of all the said Virtues of Faith Hope Charity and all other Virtues and good deeds which
Peace-maker so all this Peace depends upon Christ alone Beloved if you will fetch your Peace from any thing in the world but Christ you will fetch it from where it is not Dr. Owen's second Reason is That if all former Debts should be blotted out yet they are no way able for the future to fulfil the Law they can as well move the earth with a finger as answer the perfection thereof Thus Dr. Crispe in the very same manner Men forsake that peace which is to be had in Christ when they would have Peace out of Righteousness of their own These are broken Cisterns and what Peace is there in them Who can say I have washed my hands If there be sinfulness in them where then is their Peace c. Fetch Peace where it is to be had let subduing of Sin alone for Peace let Christ have that which is his due it is he alone that speaks Peace To the same purpose I produced another passage out of the Doctor 's Book of Communion where he asserts That all our wisdom of walking with God consists in our acquaintance with Christ which is not very reconcilable with what he says in this place that Holiness is necessary to our Peace and Communion and walking with God upon which account I had before charged him with making Christ a medium of Communion and Agreement between God and bad men while they continue so to which he only answers according to his huffing way that it is flagitiously false Let the indifferent Reader then be judge between us He describes the distance between God and Men in a state of nature and how impossible it is they should walk together For God is light and in him is no darkness at all we are darkness and in us there is no light at all He is Life a living God we are dead dead sinners dead in trespasses and sins He is Holiness and glorious in it we wholly defiled an abominable thing He is Love we full of hatred hating and being hated surely this is no foundation of agreement or upon that of walking together What course then must we take to come to an agreement with God that we may walk with him Must we reform our Lives and lay aside our Opposition to God and return to our Duty and Allegeance Not a word of this The Doctor only directs us to Dr. Crispe's near way wherein there is but one step from the lowest degree of sinfulness to the highest of being the Sons of God For he immediately adds The foundation then of this agreement is laid in Christ hid in Christ He saith the Apostle is our peace he hath made peace for us he slew the enmity in his own body on the Cross So that there is nothing but Christ comes between men in a sinful natural state and a holy God to make up the difference and therefore they are in Communion with God and in a state of agreement with him by the interposition and mediation of Christ while they are wicked And if the Doctor reply That Christ who takes away the distance between God and Sinners and makes peace between them does at the same time make those who were wicked holy Dr. Crispe himself asserts as much and yet this does not alter the case for according to this way in order of nature they are in a state of agreement with God before they are holy and Holiness in its own nature contributes nothing to this Agreement but is only the Effect of it And by the same reason that God can be reconciled to wicked men continuing so for one moment he may be so for ever But to proceed The Doctor proves the necessity of Holiness with respect to Sanctification we have in us a New Creature 2 Cor. 5. 17. This New Creature is fed cherished nourished and kept alive by the fruits of Holiness To what end hath God given us new hearts and new natures Is it that we should kill them stifle the Creature that is formed in us in the Womb That we should give him to the old man to be devoured To this I answered The Phrase of this is admirable and the reasoning unanswerable for if men be new Creatures they will certainly live new Lives and this makes Holiness absolutely necessary by the same reason that every thing necessarily is what is when it is but still we enquire after a necessary Obligation to the practice of Holiness and that we cannot yet discover To this the Doctor replies That the new Creature whatever I may fancy is not a new conversation nor a living holily but it is the Principle and spiritual ability produced in Believers by the power and grace of the Holy Ghost enabling them to walk in newness of Life and holiness of Conversation And this Principle being bestowed on us wrought in us for that very end it is necessary for us unless we will neglect and despise the Grace which we have received that we walk in Holiness and abound in the fruits of righteousness whereunto it leads and tends Let him answer this if he can and when he hath done so answer the Apostle in like manner or scoff not only at me but at him also What Apostle the Doctor means I cannot tell unless it be some Gnostick Apostle and Teacher of Holiness and I can as little guess what he would have me answer in all this I agree with him about the nature of the New Creature if he only mean that a New Creature is not made up only of External Acts of Holiness but is a new Principle of spiritual life the Internal Habits of Grace and Vertue wrought in us by the concurring assistances of the Grace of God but how does this make Holiness necessary Yes says the Doctor it is necessary we should live holily unless we will neglect or despise the grace of God which was bestowed on us for this very end that is unless we will live wickedly which I confess is a demonstration we must live holily unless we live wickedly which is the whole force of this answer if it have any For suppose we should neglect and despise the grace of God What then Why truly nothing the necessity of Holiness ceaseth unless you can shew some very great danger in doing so that we shall lose our Justification and Salvation by it and then the necessity of Holiness does not result from the nature of the new Creature but from the great danger of living wickedly because Holiness is Antecedently necessary to obtain the Pardon of our Sins and Eternal Life which the Doctor dares not own But I would fain know what he means by neglecting or despising the Grace of God is it to resist the grace of God and to make it ineffectual And can the grace of God be resisted Can it fail of its Effect This is to assert a moral a Pelagian grace as the Doctor often tells me If this new Creature this new Principle
it seems this Righteousness is not so properly Christs Righteousness as ours he had no need to fulfil all Righteousness for himself but for us as our Mediator and Surety So that here can be no comparison between the Righteousness of Christ inherent in him and imputed to us because it is not so much his Righteousness as ours But was not Christ personally righteous with this Righteousness Did he so fulfil Righteousness for us that he himself had no interest in it Can it be inherent in him and he not righteous by it And if Christ in his private capacity as a man subject to the Law were righteous with that very Righteousness which makes us righteous then we are righteous as Christ is and not only righteous with his Righteousness which he wrought for us and that completely but righteous with the very same Righteousness that makes him righteous which excludes indeed all comparison as the Doctor well observes because we cannot so properly compare a thing with it self but it demonstrates the Identity or Sameness of this Righteousness And here unless I will prove my self an arrant Coward I must accept that Challenge the Doctor has sent me to stand to that Resolution I gave in my former Discourse to that Question What Influence the Sacrifice of Christs Death and the Righteousness of his Life have upon our Acceptance with God Which signifies no more than what is meant by our being saved by the Merits and Righteousness of Christ and the Answer I gave to it is this That all I can find in Scripture about it is that to this we ow the Covenant of Grace that God being well pleased with the Obedience of Christs Life and with the Sacrifice of his Death for his sake entred into a new Covenant with Mankind wherein he promises Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life to those who believe and obey the Gospel Now I would desire the Doctor to take notice that I stand to this and accept his Challenge let him chuse what seconds or thirds or fourths he pleases This Assertion the Doctor says cannot be reconciled to common Sense or the fundamental Principles of Christian Religion And indeed he has discovered a great many Absurdities in it which are enough to put any man out of conceit with such a Doctrin for hence it follows if we will believe him for we have only his bare word for it That God entred into a new Covenant originally only for the sake of those things whereby that Covenant was ratified and confirmed But how does this follow Did I ever affirm that the Death of Christ did only ratifie and confirm the Covenant Do I not every where assert that Christs Death did procure and purchase as well as seal the Covenant of Grace And I hope God may be said to enter into Covenant for the sake of a meritorious Cause What he means by Gods originally entring into Covenant I cannot tell unless it be that this was the first moving cause of Gods entring into Covenant but this can not be attributed to the Death of Christ upon any account but to that free Grace which first contrived the way of our Recovery and sent Christ into the world to accomplish it But however does it not follow from this Assertion That Christ was so the Mediator of the new Covenant that he died not for the Redemption of Transgressions under the first Covenant whereby the whole Consideration of his Satisfaction and of Redemption properly so called is excluded that there is no consideration to be had of his Purchase of the Inheritance of Grace and Glory with many other things of the same importance I see unless the Doctor get a very good Second there is no great danger in accepting his Challenge for is there any appearance of consequence in this that because Christ by his Death purchased and sealed the new Covenant that therefore he did not die for the Redemption of sins under the first Covenant nor to purchase the Inheritance of Grace and Glory That which purchases a Covenant purchases every thing contained in it Now the new Covenant contains the Promise of Forgiveness of sin and therefore whatever sins are pardoned in the new Covenant were expiated by the Death of Christ without which there is no Remission and consequently could be no Promise of Remission The new Covenant contains the Promises of Grace and Glory and therefore Grace and Glory are as much the purchase of Christs Death as the new Covenant is The plain account of the matter is this That Christ hath expiated our sins by his meritorious Death and Sufferings and hath purchased the Pardon of sin and eternal Life and whatever Christ hath purchased by his Death God hath promised to bestow on us in the new Covenant So that the whole virtue of Christs Death is contained in the Covenant of Grace i. e. whatever he has purchased for us by his Death is there promised and we must expect no other benefit by the Death of Christ than to be saved according to the conditions of the new Covenant which signifies the same thing with being justified and saved by the Merits of Christ and convinces us of the necessity of inherent Holiness which is the condition of the Gospel Covenant The last Absurdity the Doctor has discovered in my Assertion argues him to be a man of a very deep reach That the Gospel or the Doctrin of the Gospel is the new Covenant which is only a perspicuous Declaration of it Now suppose this were never so great an Absurdity how am I concerned in it when I expresly say that the new Covenant let it be what it will is owing to the Merits and Righteousness of Christ Though it is a mighty subtil Distinction between the new Covenant and the perspicuous Declaration of it which is like distinguishing between a Law or Contract and the Words whereby it is expressed How easie is it for such nice Metaphysical Wits to find or make Absurdities in any thing But to proceed I observe thirdly that whereas our Church attributes our Justification to such a Faith as comprehends in its notion Repentance and the Love of God and all internal Graces and Virtues and a sincere purpose and resolution to reform our Lives and external Conversation and makes all this absolutely necessary to our Justification these men on the contrary attribute our Justification to a particular Act of Faith which they call a fiducial Reliance or Recumbency on Christ for Salvation abstracted from Repentance or the Love of God or any othe Grace or Virtue And this I confess is very agreeable to their notion of Justification by the Imputation of Christs personal Righteousness to us for if we are made righteous only by being clothed with the perfect Righteousness of Christ nothing more can be required of us in order to our Justification but to apply the Righteousness of Christ to our selves which they tell us is done by coming to Christ for
effect the Salvation of Mankind But this troubles him too that I say they are the different administrations of this Mediatory Kingdom for says our Author Is an Office an Administration No by no means therefore I say they ought not to be look'd on as different Offices but as different Administrations of the same Supreme Office which comprehends them all But then he would fain know what kind of Totum a Mediatory Kingdom is to the Offices of Prophet Priest and King Why Sir just such a Totum as consists of three parts His mistake which occasions this wondering humour is that he thought a Mediatory Kingdom and the Office of a King to be of equal extent and therefore that the Office of a King could not be contained under a Mediatory Kingdom as a part is contained in the whole Whereas every Puny in Divinity knows that a Mediatory Kingdom is of a larger extent than the meer Office of a King and contains the Prophetical and Priestly Offices under it Which is like another of his mistakes that because as he observes from Doctor Iackson and Doctor Hammond Christ was consecrated to his Priestly Office by his Sufferings and Death therefore he was not consecrated to his Mediatory Office as I assert by being anointed with the Holy Ghost and with Power as if Christ might not have a general Consecration to his Mediatory Office and a particular Consecration to the particular parts of it though Doctor Hammond only says That the Death of Christ was his Consecration to his Melchisedechi an Priesthood but was it self an act of his Aaronical Priesthood But I see the most innocent expressions shall not escape the severest Censures when we have to deal with men who can understand nothing which is out of their common road of phrases Mr. Ferguson draws up a very severe Charge against me upon this score as if I confounded the Offices of Christ and denied his Priesthood and his Expiation and Sacrifice and yet would have the World believe that if he had not been in a very good humour he could have handled me after another rate Truly what his humour is I cannot tell but I am sure that either his Understanding or his Conscience is not very good He takes a great deal of laudable pains to prove that the Offices of Prophet Priest and King though they be not separated in their Subject the Person of Christ yet they are in their Natures Objects Acts and Effects distinguished one from the other But do I any where deny this Because I say that they are several Parts and different Administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom does it hence follow that they are not several Parts and different Administrations That they do not differ in their Natures Acts and Effects As for instance the Paternal Government consists of very different parts as the Education of Children providing Food and Raiment for them correcting them when they do amiss and incouraging their Vertues placing them with prudent Masters and Governours and providing for their future subsistence and the like Now will any man say that there is no difference between feeding Children and correcting them and sending them to School and putting them out to serve an apprentiship to a Trade whereby they may get their Livings because all these do equally belong to a Fathers care and are contained under the general notion of Paternal Government Thus when we say that Christ is a Saviour or which is the same thing a Mediatory King and that the Offices of Prophet Priest and King are but the several Parts and different Administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom that is they are all essential to the Office of a Saviour and included in the notion of it and necessary to the same end the Salvation of Mankind can any man hence reasonably infer that they do not differ in their particular Natures Acts Objects and Effects But Mr. Ferguson proves that I make no difference between Christs Priestly and Kingly Office because I say that Christs offering himself a Sacrifice for Sin was an Act of Kingship But I say no such thing My words are these When he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin he acted like a King Now can our Author perceive no difference between these two expressions that Christs offering himself a Sacrifice for Sin was an Act of Kingship and When he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin he acted like a King The first signifies that the nature of his Sacrifice and Oblation consists in the exercise of a Regal Power which indeed confounds his Priestly and Kingly Offices the other only signifies that at the very same time and in that very Act when he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin he exercised the Power of a King too that is as I explained it that his Life was not taken from him by external force and power but his laying down his Life was an Act of Authority He had power to lay it down and he had power to take it again And I wonder Mr. Ferguson should think it any derogation from our Saviours Power and Authority that he adds This Command have I received from my Father for I would fain know of him what Authority and Power that is which Christ as Mediator has not received from his Father and does not exercise by his Command and in subordination to him A Mediatory Kingdom is a received and subordinate Power it is Obedience with respect to God and Authority and Power with respect to Men. And had this Author been so honest as to have considered what I immediately subjoyn he could not have suspected me of Socinianizing or of confounding the Priestly and Kingly Office viz. Herein Christ differs from other Kings that he laid the Foundation of his Kingdom in his own Blood that he purchas'd and redeem'd his Subjects with the Sacrifice of himself Such another mistake one may observe in our Author when he makes me to say That the Sacerdotal Office is only a part and different Administration of the Regal Whereas I never thought that the Sacerdotal Office was part of the Regal Office but that the Priestly and Kingly and Prophetical Offices were several Parts and different Administrations of the Mediatory Kingdom And when I affirm that they were several parts of the Mediatory Kingdom I had not so little wit in the same breath to affirm that they were parts of each other which is a down-right contradiction but I see our Author with all his Learning cannot distinguish between a Kingly Office and a Mediatory Kingdom In the like manner he arraigns me for a Socinian for asserting that Intercession signifies the Administration of Christs Mediatory Kingdom the Power of a Regal Priest to expiate and forgive sins Though either our Author is very ignorant or cannot but know that what I there assert has no affinity with the Socinian Notion for I expresly attribute the Virtue and Efficacy of his Intercession to the Expiation and Sacrifice of
most precious Iewels of Christs Body and Blood whereby our Ransome might be fully paid the Law fulfilled and his Iustice satisfied There is no Controversie between us about this matter that it was an expression of the undeserved Goodness of God to send Christ into the World to save Sinners And secondly The Mercy of God is seen in the very Act of Justifying us in accepting this Atonement and in forgiving our sins Thus we are informed in the second part of that Sermon of Salvation Justification is not the Office of Man but of God for Man cannot make himself righteous by his own Works neither in part nor in the whole for that were the greatest arrogancy and presumption of Man that Antichrist could set up against God to affirm that a man might by his own Works take away and purge his own Sins and so Justifie himself But Justification is the Office of God only and is not a thing which we render to him but which we receive of him not which we give to him but which we take of him by his free Mercy and by the only Merits of his most dearly beloved Son our only Redeemer Saviour and Justifier Jesus Christ. Bywhich words it is very plain what is understood by Justification being Gods Act and not Mans that is that it is an Act of Favour and Grace not of Merit and Desert Though God may be said to Justifie an Innocent Man when he pronounces him Just and Righteous according to Law which is the proper office of a Judge i. e. to acquit an Innocent Man when he is arraigned yet in this case an Innocent Man may be said to Justifie himself because he is Justified by his own Actions and God only like a Just and Righteous Judge pronounces the Sentence of Justification that is acquits and absolves him as his actions deserve which strict Justice requires But in the Justification of a Sinner who dares not stand the trial of strict Justice but appeals to the Grace and Mercy of God Justification is properly Gods Act and not Mans is owing to the Divine Grace and Mercy not to Mans Merit and Desert Upon the same account we are told in the same place that not our own Act to believe in Christ or that this our Faith in Christ which is within us doth not justifie us for that were to count our selves to be justified by some Act or Vertue that is within our selves Which I confess sounds very like what some men say That Faith doth not justifie us as our own Act but as it apprehends the Righteousness of Christ and applies it to us by which Righteousness thus apprehended by Faith we are justified but there is nothing less meant in this place as will appear from considering the whole Sentence which is this So that the true understanding of this Doctrine We be justified freely by Faith without Works or that we be justified by Faith in Christ only is not that this our own Act to believe in Christ or this our Faith in Christ which is within us doth justifie us and deserve our Justification unto us for that were to count our selves to be justified by some Act or Vertue that is within our selves but the true understanding and meaning thereof is that although we hear Gods Word and believe it and do never so many Works thereunto yet we must renounce the Merit of all our said Vertues of Faith Hope Charity and all other Vertues and good Deeds which we have done shall do or can do as things that be far too weak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve Remission of our Sins and our Justification and therefore we must trust only in Gods Mercy and that Sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Christ Jesus the Son of God once offered for us upon the Cross to obtain thereby Gods Grace and Remission as well of Original Sin in Baptism as of all Actual Sin committed by us after Baptism if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to him again The meaning of which is plain that we are not justified by Faith as our own act as we are not justified by Hope and Charity as our own acts that is that they cannot merit our Justification or the Forgiveness of our sins When we have done the best we can we must still fly to the Mercy of God through the Merits of our Lord Jesus Christ that distinction of Faiths justifying not as our own Act but as it apprehends the Righteousness of Christ and cloaths us with the perfect Robes of his Righteousness for which God accounts us perfectly Righteous is of a later date than these Homilies and very inconsistent with the Doctrine contained in them Thus you see what Gods part is in the Justification of a Sinner viz. To provide a Ransom and to forgive sins in vertue of that Ransom that is to justifie those who according to the strictness and rigor of the Law are not Just and Righteous Persons Thus to conclude this in the words of the Homily You have heard the Office of God in our Iustification and how we receive it of him freely by his Mercy without our Deserts Let us now consider what is Christs part in our Justification and that is expressed by Iustice that is the satisfaction of Iustice or the Price of our Redemption by the offering of his Body and shedding of his Blood with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly The plain meaning of which is that we are justified for the sake of Christs Merits that his Obedience in doing and suffering the Will of God in dying for our sins and in fulfilling the Law is the meritorious cause of our Justification that is did deserve at Gods hands that for Christs sake he should pardon all humble penitent and believing Sinners This is all the Imputation of Christs Righteousness which our Church acknowledges that the Righteousness of Christ is the meritorious Cause of our Justification Thus we are told That Infants being baptized and dying in their Infancy are by this Sacrifice washed from their sins brought to Gods favour and made his Children and Inheritors of his Kingdom of Heaven And they which in act or deed do sin after their Baptism when they turn again to God unfeignedly they are likewise washed by this Sacrifice from their sins in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be imputed to their damnation Which is to the same sense with that of St. Iohn that if we walk in the light as he is in the light if we are holy as God is we have fellowship one with another and the Blood of Iesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin 1 Iohn i. 7. And to this sense our Church expounds those Texts Rom. iii. All have offended and have need of the Glory of God but are justified freely by his Grace by Redemption which is in Iesus Christ whom God hath set forth to us for a Reconciler and Peace-maker through
this That I deny the supernatural assistances of Grace from Christ to make men holy and therefore that Holiness and Obedience which alone I make necessary to our Union to Christ is not true Gospel-holiness as not being owing to an infused Principle derived from Iesus by the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost And that it is impossible for any Persons though compleatly and perfectly united to Christ to attain true Holiness for the future because Christ is not considered as a quickning Head and a vital root of influences to us Now though I suppose Mr. Ferguson and I shall hardly agree about the manner of the Holy Spirits working in us which he affirms to be by a real and Physical operation yet I never denied but have expresly owned the Divine Influences of Grace from Christ as will appear plainly before I conclude this Chapter But suppose for once that I had denied this and had affirmed that men might be holy without it would it hence follow that I rejected the necessity of holiness or made it impossible to Mankind because though falsely I should assert that men are and may be holy without such supernatural strength and power Yes for this is not a Gospel-Holiness which is wholly owing to the Divine Grace But does the efficient cause then constitute the nature of things Suppose two men one immediately created by God another begotten in the ordinary course of nature but both perfectly alike as to all the Essentials of Humane Nature does this make such a difference between them that one must not be called a man as well as the other because one was created and the other begotten Thus in the same manner suppose one man immediately created by God perfectly righteous and holy as Adam was Another who is renewed and sanctified by infused Principles of Grace and by the Physical operation of the Spirit And a third who by diligence and industry by reason and discourse and the wise improvement of his natural faculties hath arrived to the same temper of mind to the same Principles and Habits of Action which were immediately created in the first and Physically infused into the second If there were such a man as this I would willingly understand why he should not be accounted as truly and properly holy as either of the former by the same reason that he is as true a man who is begotten by the strength of nature as Adam was who was immediately created or as Christ was who was formed in the Virgins Womb by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost The original Holiness of God is the Pattern of all Holiness and the holiness of Creatures consists in a conformity to the Divine Image not in being produced by a Divine Power The sanctifying operation of the Holy Spirit is necessary to the Being not to the Nature of Holiness Could that which we call Holiness be produced by the strength of natural Reason and our natural Faculties it would be nevertheless Holiness for that And therefore unless Mr. Ferguson can prove that that Holiness which I make essential to our Union to Christ is defective in something which constitutes the nature of Holiness though he could prove that I attributed Holiness to the strength and power of Nature he will only make himself ridiculous by charging my Notion with destroying the necessity of Gospel-holiness But this whole charge was the effect only of a weak and contemptible revenge because I had charged them and made good my charge with placing our Union to Christ before holiness of life What defence can Mr. Ferguson make against this Truly none at all but according to his old way he denies it without attempting to answer any thing which I alleadged in the proof of it And yet which argues him to be a man of much greater courage than wit at the very same time he denies and owns it or which comes much to one professes that it is very indifferent to him whether it be so or not He tells us All that we plead for is this That as previously to our Union with Christ we are polluted and unholy so by that very act whereby he unites us to himself he infuses those Principles into us whereby our natures are cleansed and we come to be denominated holy and pure Here he expresly acknowledges that before our Union to Christ we are polluted and unholy and therefore we must be united to him while we are unholy for every minute before our Union is previous to it Well but then by the same act that he assumes us into Union with himself he transforms our natures Suppose that yet we are unholy till we are united for we are made holy by vertue of our Union and our Author tells us That it is a needless enquiry whether our Renovation in order of nature precede our Union with Christ or whether our Union go before our Renovation seeing in order of time they are not only inseparable but that which is the new Creature the Seed of God and Divine Nature in us is the very bond of our Cohaesion Say you so Sir Is this a needless enquiry Then it seems it is indifferent whether we be considered as united to Christ before or after we are holy and why then should he pretend so much to abhor the thoughts of our being united to Christ while we are unholy And yet how this agrees with making the New Creature the bond of Cohaesion I cannot understand since in order of nature we can have no notion of any Union before or without its bond But to consider this a little whether it be so indifferent to place our Union to Christ in order of nature before or after our Renovation For I never charged them with saying that those who are in Christ may continue unholy because they as well as the Antinomians do affirm That Holiness is a necessary and Physical effect of our Union to Christ though their Principles overthrow the necessary Obligations to it whoever is considered as united to Christ must be considered in a state of favour and acceptation with God as cloathed with the perfect Righteousness of Christ as pardoned through his Bloud and so an actual Heir to Eternal Life and Glory now if a man may be considered as pardoned and justified and an Heir of Glory in order of nature before he is holy before he repents of his sins or loves God or so much as resolves and purposes to obey him this I am sure overthrows the whole Christian Religion which denounces the wrath of God against every man who is wicked to the very last minute wherein he may be considered as wicked and promises Pardon and Eternal Life only to those who actually repent and love God If we may be considered in order of nature as united to Christ before we are holy then there is nothing in Sin contrary to the nature of our Union and then we may as well be united to Christ in order