Selected quad for the lemma: work_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A23656
|
Animadversions on that part of Mr. Robert Ferguson's book entituled The interest of reason in religion which treats of justification in a letter to a friend.
|
Allen, William, d. 1686.
|
1676
(1676)
|
Wing A1054; ESTC R5034
|
44,339
|
112
|
Holiness of God to justifie us upon an imperfect obedience the Law which requireth a perfect remaining still in force and denouncing wrath in case of every failure By all which you will perceive I suppose that Mr. F. holds that the Law remains still in force requiring a perfect obedience unto justification and for want thereof and in case of every failure denounceth wrath And that therefore unles the satisfaction of Christ's death and the righteousness of his life were formally imputed to us ie as I suppose he meanes so as that we may be said to have made satisfaction in and by him and perfectly kept the Law in and by him by having his obedience and satisfaction imputed to us it would be repugnant to the immutability and essentiall Holiness of God to justifie upon an imperfect Obedience In which assertions of his there seem to me to be two grand mistakes besides that of a formal imputation he speaks of The first is in holding the law to be still in force not only in requiring obedience to it self by way of Duty which is true but in requiring perfection of Obedience as a Condition of Justification and in its Rigor and severity in denouncing wrath in case of every failure Secondly In that he holds that though we should answer all that the Gospel requires both in respect of a righteousness of inherent Grace and of a personal sincere obedience yet we could not be justified without the formal imputation of a perfect legal righteousness as aforesaid and that these two are grand mistakes indeed I shall endeavor to demonstrate to you In opposition to the first of them I conceive the Scripture will warrant me to affirm That God by founding a new Covenant a Covenant of Grace with the world in his Son Jesus Christ and his Mediatory undertaking hath Rescinded or Superseded the Rigour and severity of the original Law in two things First as a legal perfection of obedience was by it required as the Condition of Justification and life And Secondly as it did denounce wrath and Condemnation in case of every failure Although the original Law of nature the moral Law be eternal and unchangeable in requiring obedience by way of Duty yet it is not so in the foresaid Rigour and severity of its Sanction To establish the Law again in this sense after the Covenant of Promise is made would be according to the Apostle's reasoning to make faith void and the Promise of none effect Rom. 4.14 Gal. 3.18 For the old and new terms of Justification cannot consist together without the one evacuating the other If by Grace saith the Apostle then is it no more of works otherwise Grace would be no more Grace But if of works then it is no more Grace otherwise work is no more work Ro. 11.6 And again whosoever of you are justified by the law ye are fallen from Grace Gal. 5.4 By the interposition of Christ we are redeemed from the Sanction or Curse of the Law which curseth every one that continueth not in all things which it requireth and that for this very end that the blessing of Abraham viz. of being Justified by faith according to the terms of the new Covenant might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ Gal. 3.13 14. Intimating that this blessing of the new Covenant could not have taken place if the Curse of the old had still remained When St. Paul saith that the Ministration of Death written engraven in stones is done away 2 Cor. 3 7. Compared with v. 11. I pray you what of this was done away by the Introduction of the Evangelical ministration if not the Rigour of the Condition of escaping the Curse of it For from that it is that it is denominated the Ministration of Death and Condemnation and it is done away as such a Ministration For otherwise the Law engraven in stones as it is a Rule of and obligation to Duty is not done away In this sense indeed Christ did not come to destroy the Law Mat. 5.17 This benefit by Christ in God's making a new Covenant and granting new terms upon account of his undertaking is not limited to some men only but extended to all In this sense Christ died for all men without exception And it is not unlikely but that one reason at least why God in his wisdome and goodness thought it meet to vouchsafe unto the whole race of Adam these new and gracious terms of recovery after the fall when no such thing is granted the lapsed Angels was this because the Condemnation into which the Angels fell was by their own personal actuall rebellion without Temptation from another whereas the Condemnation into which all the posterity of Adam fell proceeded originally from his and his wives transgression and that from the temptation of the Devil and not from the personal act of their Progeny And that the benefit of freeing men from the Rigorous Sanction of the Law by the active and passive obedience of Christ in which the new Covenant is founded is as extensive as ever the effect of Adam's disobedience was in subjecting all men to condemnation according to the Rigorous terms of the Law is I conceive plainly asserted by the Apostle when he saith in Rom. 5.18 as by the Offence of One Judgement came upon all men to Condemnation even so by the Righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto Justification of life By the free gift which comes by the Righteousnes of Christ upon all men unto Justification of life I understand the New Covenant For this free gift can neither be the righteousness of the One here spoken of but that which is procured by it Nor yet justification it self for that is the effect of it So that we cannot in reason understand it otherwise than of some middle thing and that in all probability can be none other than the Grace contained in the New Covenant which Covenant God by a most gracious graunt and free gift hath vouchsafed to all men for the Righteousness sake of Christ here spoken of in which remission of Sin and eternal life are promised upon condition of faith And this exactly agrees with what the same Apostle saith Eph. 2.8 when he saith that by Grace we are saved through faith and that not of our selves it is the gift of God that is it is the Grace and gift of God that now we may be saved by faith a favour which the Law never afforded for the Law is not of faith but the man that doth them shall live in them And when the Apostle saith this free gift came upon all men unto justification of life we are not to understand it I conceive as if Justification in act came upon all men universally by the righteousness of Christ and this free gift but that for the sake of the one and in the other such gracious terms are granted and offered to all men without exception as by which they may attain
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