1^
EXAMEN CENSUR^:
AN ANSWER TO CERTAIN STRICTURES,
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2009 witii funding from
University of Toronto
http://www.arcliive.org/details/examencensuraeanOObull
I \
EXAMEN CENSUR^:
AN ANSWER TO CERTAIN STRICTURES
BEFORE UNPÜBLISHED, ON A BOOK EXTITLED
JAEMONIA APOSTOLICA, ^BY GEORGE BULL,
PRIEST OF THE EXGLISH CHURCH. -^
TO ■WHlCn IS ADDED,
AN APOLOGY
FOR
THE HARMONY AND ITS AUTHOR, IN ANSWER TO THE DECLAMATION OF T. TULLY,.D.D.
IX A BOOK LATELY PUBLISHED BY HIM.
AND ESTtTLED
JUSTIEICATIO PAULINA.
. BY THE SAME, -j
OXFORD, JOHN HE2^RY PARKER.
MDCCCXLIV.
'Sr
oxFüUD:
PaiNTF.D EY I. SllKIMPTON.
ADVERTISEMENT.
The present translations have been made from Dr. Burtoii's edition of Bishop Bull's works, and, together with the Indices of matter and texts, are entirely new. References to such works as have been re-edited since Bishop Bull's death, are enclosed in brach ets. For a fuller account of the publication of the Examen and Apology, than appears in the Preface, the reader is referred to the Life of the Author by Nelson, whose elaborate analysis of the controversy is too long for insertion. See especially chapters 17, and 41 — 49.
The translations being from different hands, will account for some slight variations in style, and other unimportant points of difference.
Oxford, January, 1843.
TO THE READER
It is now nearly seven years, most gentle reader, since I published two Dissertations on the reconcilement of the Apostles St, Paul and St. James on the point of justifica- tion^ under the title of "Harmonia Apostolica." About a 3^ear, if I remember, after the book was published^ a copy of it was sent to me with remarks written on the margin of the book by a divine^ with whom at the time I was totally unacquaiuted; some sheets also were attached at the end, which eontained Strictures from the same band. This di\ane did not send bis remarks direct to me; hehad them first sent round to certain very reverend Prelates of our Church^ to whom he sent letters at the same time, complaining with a most tragical vehemence (as if Hannibal were at the gates) that I had asserted some new and most pernicious doctrines, thoroughly opposed to the decrees of the English and all the reformed Churches; and he urged the reverend fathers to oppose themselves at once with all their authority to so grave and so enormous an offence. One of them (the very reverend Father and Lord William Nicholson, late Bishop of Glou- cester, to whom I had dedicated my Dissertations) at last sent me the book covered with marginal notes, together with the papers added at the end.
I read through the Strictures, and, a few months after, w^rote (at spare hours, and as other business would allow) an answer to them, (which I now publish,) for the inspection of the reverend Prelate before mentioned, and others to whom he might think fit to shew it. I wrote them, as usual at first, in haste, and in characters that I could afterwards scarcely read myself without the aid of memory, and I could not immedi- ately bring myself to undertake the task of copying them morc legibly, (no sort of work is so wearisomc to me,) espe-
=> [Charles Gataker. Viel. Life, p. 91.] b2
\ail TO THE READER.
cially as the reverend Bishop by no means urged it^ often saying that lie did not think much of tlie Stiictures, and I was at the time engaged in other studies. Not long after, that holy Prelate, my beloved patron and protector, departed this life for the home of the blessed^ after whose death I gave up all thoughts of copyiug out my papers, still less did I think of Publishing them.
However, a year ago and more, a book came out by the reverend Thomas Tully, D.D., with the title '^ Justificatio Paulina/^ directed expressly against me; and on some of my friends, pious and learned men, repeatedly urging me to pubHsh some answer to it, I began at length to think afresh of copying out and finishing the neglected papers. I found, in fact, that if you take away from the Doctor^s book the declamatory part, together with a short Dissertation annexed on St. Paul's meaning in his seventh chapter to the Romans, there would be scarce any thing left that had not been already answered in the Examination of the Strictures : so I thought it better to put forth the Examen first, then to subjoin an Apology in answer to the declamation of the reverend gentleman, comprising an answer at the same time to the annexed Dissertation. That the Apology did not appear for so long, nor until after the death of Dr. Tally, against whom it is put forth, was owing partly to my long doubting whether I should give an answer at all, partly to the tediousness of copying out the Examen, which I thought it best to prefix, and partly and principally to the waste of time by the printers in bringing out the Examen. In truth, I had Httle pleasure in combating with the dead, still less in triumphing over thcir ashes ; a species of barbarity one most shrinks from. Accordingly, as soon as I heard of the death of the reverend gentleman, unwilling to be severe on the departed, I crased many personal remai'ks against him, (tliough they were true, and to some of my friends seemed absolutely necessary, yet) I had them erased from the sheets of the Apology which were not yet printed : more I would gladly have erased, could it have been done without injury (not to myself, but) to truth. That sentence of Basil, Epist. [Vol. üL 63. to the Neocsesarienses, was before me: "We must answer Kp.207!] calumnies, not that we may avenge ourselves by the contra-
TO THE READER. IX
diction, but that we may hinder a road being paved for false- hood, and extricate tliose who have been deceived from barm- ful error."
I must not omit to say that the Appendix to the Exami- nation of Stricture XVII, was written lately, or rather copied from other papers of mine, and inserted there to answer tbe objections of Mr. Truman, who published a book against me, in Enghsh, entitled, "An Attempt to correct some Opinions that are gaining ground contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England." Whoever will take the trouble to read attentively the Appendix, together with my answers to Strictures XVIII — XXIII, and compare them with Mr. Tru- man's book, will, unless I am much mistaken, see clearly that the grounds of bis book are thoroughly disproved. If, how- ever, I am given to understand that pious and learned men demand a fuUer refutation of bis objections, I have one ready, and will presently lay it before them.
As to the bulk to which my defence hath grown, I regret it, but knew not how to avoid the inconvenience, for from the number of objections which my opponents strongly urged against the truth which I am defending, I must either have observed a total silence, or said not a little in retiirn : however, of the points which I answer, if there are any wliich the more learned of my readers think comparatively of little moment, and consequently scarcely worth refuting, they may pass them by altogether, while I would wish them to remember that no small portion of my readers will perchance be those to whom the smallest points may create great difficulty, and their difficulties I would regard at the expense of my estima- tion with readers of more fastidious nicety.
While this volume was in the press the Animadversions of Mr. John Tombes of Bewdley, against the Harmony, appeared : a work, in which the self-confidence of the author seems so much to vie with bis ignorance, that it is difficult to say which is the greater. He, however, need not fear "the horns and stamping of the Bull^," (such is his wit, which foreigners will scarcely understand, Englishmen will smile at,) since the Bull has long since learnt to despise all such barking animals. But to be serious on a serious subjcct, I cannot but pity a
" P. 81. andp. 226.
TO THE READER.
msTL, who, while he is so imfortunately curious in otlier people's busiuess, has neglected, so mauy years, thoiigh often refiited by learued men, to re^iew and retract what he has written so Tvantonly against the practice of Infant baptism, every Tvhere received in the Catholic Church. I do from my heart pray that he may at length look to bis own case, and seriously reflect how gi'eatly he has promoted by his -svritings the Avicked schism and heresy of the Anabaptist party in England, and repent timely and worthily of so grievous a sin. I have ouly now to ask thee, benevolent reader, in reading and deciding on these writings, to lay aside prejudice and party feehng, and to exercise the candour that befits a Christian. Farewelh
INDEX OF
TITLES AND MATTER IN THE EXAMEN.
PREFACE OF THE CENSURER, WITH THE EXA.MINATION OF IT. (Pago 1.)
ANSWER TO STRICTURE I.
(Page 5.)
It is proved against the Censurer by many arguments, that it is far inore reason- able to Interpret St. Paul from St. James, than St. James from St. Paul.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE II.
(Page 15.)
The expression ' perfected faith,' is defended against the Censurer. — The question, Whether love is rightly said to be the form of justifying faith, is discussed at length.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE III.
(Page 23.)
The question, Whether the notion of Gospel justification necessarily includcs the Imputation of reward, or the acceptance of a man to etemal life and salva- tion, is sifted ; or, in other words, Whether the conferring a right to the kingdom of heaven is properly an act of Gospel justification,
ANSWER TO STRICTURE IV.
(Page 31.)
It is shewn that in attributing to faith the Operation causing righteousness, the Censurer teaclies a new and dangerous doctrine.
xii COXTEXTS.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE V.
(Page 32.) Onr Paraphrase of the passage Acts x. 34, 35, is defended against the Censurer.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE VI.
(Page 36.)
Our interpretation of the passage 1 Pet. i. 2, is supported hy the authority of Erasmus, Estius, and even Calvin.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE VII.
(Page 37.)
The question between the author of the Harmony and the Censurer is reduced to these four heads; Ist, "Whether there be any assignable condition, properly so called, of the Gospel covenant, which is not also a condition of Gospel justifi- cation. 2ndly, Whether, it being granted that the condition of the Gospel covenant, and of Gospel justification may be different, it is not yet certain that faith and repentance are conditions of one and the same benefit, viz. of Gospel justification. Srdl)-, AVhether forgiveness of sins comes into the very notion or definition of Gospel justification, or whether the notion of Gospel justification necessarily includes forgiveness of sins. 4tlil}-, ^Vhether, it being granted that forgiveness of sins is not necessarily included in the notion of Gospel justifica- tion, it is not yet certain that the condition of both benefits, viz. Gospel for- giveness and Gospel justification, is exactly the same. — The questions are stated in Order and discussed separately.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE VIII.
(Page 59.)
The internal works of repentance are distinguished from the externa!, and it is proved against the Censurer, that the internal works of repentance are abso- lutely necessary to the first justification.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE IX.
(Page 60.) The instriunentality of faith in the matter of justification is treated of at length.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE X.
(Page 69.)
Tlie mistake of the Censurer in interpreting my words, ' Most of our theologians,' (Harm. I, Diss. ÜL 3,) is pointed out.
CONTENTS. xm
ANSWER TO STRICTURE XI. WITH OBSERVATIONS.
(Page 71.)
The opinion of the Censurer on the Imputation of the righteousness of Christ, is shewn to he ahsurd and even dangerous. The Imputation, which he defends, Ist, Cannot agree with the forgiveness of sins on God's part. 2ndly, It is entirely incompatible with the necessary requirement of repentance on our part. 3rdly, It takes away also all necessity even of faith, for the obtaining justifica- tion : and if it he allowed, it foUows necessarily that the justification of a man is prior to his faith. 4thly, and lastly, It entirely overtums the CathoUc doctrine of the universal propitiation made hy Christ' s death for the sins of the whole World, on which the preaching of the Gospel rests. The passages of Scripture which are usually adduced for that imputation are answered. It is proved that no inherent righteousness, properly so called, is acknowledged by the Censurer.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE XII.
(Page 90.)
Our argument against the Solifidians, "Whoever is justified by God through Christ, is acquitted by the law of Christ ; but by faith alone, without works, no one is acquitted by the law of Christ," &c., is vindicated from the exceptions and cavils of the Censurer.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE XIII.
(Page 102.)
The opinion of the Censmer, asserting that the primary act or formal cause of justifjäng faith is trust, strictly so called, is fully refuted. — The true and Catholic doctrine of Christian faith and trust is set forth in four clear theses or conclusions.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE XIV.
(Page 124.)
An argument of ours is supported against the Censurer, which is drawn from that proceeding of God by which He will judge all men in the last day, which is as follows : As every man will be judged by God in the world to come, just in the same way he is justified by God in this life : but by works (not by faith only) every one will be judged by God in the world to come : therefore, &c. — It is shewn that the distinction of the Censurer between a right to a thing, and a right in a thing, as far as it is applicable to this question, is frivolous and empty.
xiv CONTENTS.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE XV.
(Page 135.)
Placaeus" and the Censurer's System of reconciling the Apostles St. James and St. Paul is examined more accui-ately, and compared with our own.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE XVI.
(Page 145.)
Our doctrine, that the faith to which justification is attributed in the Scriptures is taken in a complex sense, and embraces hope, love, and good works, is defended against the Censurer. A remarkable passage of Huldrych Zuiiiglius is adduced for this doctrine.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE XVII.
(Page 155.)
It is sliewn how absurd the Censurer's answer is to our arguments concerning a law of perfect obedience. (Harm. II. Diss. vii.)
APPENDIX TO STRICTURE XVII.
(Page 158.)
The question, Whether God has ever imposed a law of most absolute virtue on the posterity of fallen Adam, is treated at length. — The state of the question is explaiiied. — The true and Catholic doctrine on this question is set forth in seven theses.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE XVIII.
(Page 183.)
The quotation from the pseudo-Ambrose, cited by the author of the Harmony, is defended against the Censurer by testimonies from the real St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE XIX.
(Page 184.)
It is proved by many arguments, that the Apostle, when he denies that a sinner can be justified by the law of Moses, does not use this argument, that that law demands the most perfect and absolute virtue, such as no one, not even by the grace of God promised in the Gospel, can perform, as a condition of justifica- tion: but rests it quite on another ground, viz. that in that law (ander the View in which it is considered by him) no true justilication at all, or forgive- ness of sins, which looks beyond this life, is grantjed on any condition.
CONTENTS. XV
ANSWER TO STRICTURE XX.
(Page 200.)
The reasonings of the Censiirer against what is alleged in tlie Harmony, in ex- plaining another argument of tlie Apostle, drawn from the inability of the Mosaic law to deliver a man from the dominion of sin.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE XXL
(Page 204.)
The assertion of the author of the Harmony, that the law of Moses, in that it promised nothing beyond this life, could not produce in men an ardent, con- stant, unwearied pursuit of virtue, is vindicated from the Censurer's cavils. — It is shewn that the oj)inion that eternal life is promised in the Old Testament, was condemned of old hy Catholics in Pelagius.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE XXII.
(Page 211.;
The assertion of the author of the Harmony, that the law of Moses, in that it contained temporal promises and threats only, was calculated to engender in men a low and mean spirit and disposition, and one wholly foreign to true and genuine piety, is explained and defended by the authority of St. Augustine, and even the Apostie St. Paul. — An objection is met.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE XXIII.
(Page 215.)
It is proved, by the plainest argument, that the author of the Harmony acknow- ledges the true and genuine sense of the English Church in the Eleventh Article. — The sense which the Censurer affixes to the Article, is rejected as diametrically opposed not only to the Interpretation given by the Church of England herseif, but also to Holy Scripture and right reason.
EPILOGUE.
(Page 222.)
INDEX OF
TITLES AND MATTER IN THE APOLOGY.
PREFACE.
(Page 225.)
SECTION I.
ON THE TITLE OF THE BOOK.
(Page 228.)
The iiividious Charge of religion being innovated on, with which Dr. Tully in the title of his book wished to crush bis opponents, removed. Populär cbarges of Popery and Socinianism, with which he taunts those whom he calls Innovators, tbroughout his book, clearly refuted.
SECTION II.
ON THE PREFACE OF THE BOOK.
(Page 243.)
Dr. Tully's rhetoric, in the very beginning of his book, irrelevant. Dr. Tully undeservedly blames those who thought they ought to abstain from the contro- versy which he himself is carrying on with such zeal against the author of the Harmony. The great things of Divine truth, for which Dr. Tully considers persons should so earnestly contend, are partly niere trivial distinctions, and partly peniicious doctrines, dreadful to Christian ears. Tragic discourse of Dr. Tully, which he thunders against the Harmonist and the rest of his adver- Baries, refuted. Dr. Tully declares in vain that he has entered the lists of this controversy unwillingly. He does not observe the law that he himself lays down for his adversaries.
CONTENTS. XVll
SECTION III.
(ON THE FIRST CHAPTER.)
STATE OF THE QUESTION.
(Page 275.)
State of the question badly defined by the Doctor. True State of the question clearly explained.
SECTION IV.
(ON THE SECOND CHAPTER.)
ON THE OPINION OF THE FATHERS.
(Page 263.)
Dr. Tully falsely attributes to the author of the Harmony, that he had written that most of the Fathers before Augustine, went on his side for the righteous- ness of works. The author of the Harmony willingly appeals to the tribunal of the Fathers. This to be stated generally, concerning the Fathers, namely, that in all those places where they teach that a man is justified by faith only, they are not speaking of faith as a single virtue, but of faith in its complex sense, or oi fides formata, as it is opposed (1.) to extemal works, or to the actual righteousness of works ; or (2.) to works of the natural law, done before and without the knowledge, faith, and grace of the Gospel ; or (3.) to works of the Mosaic law; or lastly, to ^meritorjous works of whatever kind. The testimo- nies of Irenseus, Origen, Cyprian, Hilary, Basil the Great, Ambrose, Chrysos- tom, Augustine, severally answered.
SECTION V.
(ON THE THIRD CHAPTER.)
ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCJI OF ENGLAND. (Page 248.)
Threefold dishonesty of Dr. Tully noted ; namely, his not quoting the decree of the Church of England in the Eleventh Article, as it Stands ; his being wholly silent on that more difiuse explanation of the Article, contaLned in the Homily on Salvation, to which the Church, in the Article itself, refers her sons : lastly, his referring the reader to certain scraps of the Homily, and those not faithfuUy translated by him, and wretchedly distorted by his interpretations. Passages adduced from the Homily on Salvation answered. Our own explanation of the Article confirmed by an illustrious testimony of the very illustrious divine, Richard Field.
jinn coxTEXTs.
SECTION VI.
(ON THE FOURTH CHAPTER.)
ON THE JUDGMENT OF FOREIGN CHURCHES, CALLED REFORMED.
(Page 291.)
The assertion of the author of the Harmony that all the Confessions of the re- fornied Churches, or at least of the first and best of them, are on his side, de- fended against Dr. Tully. Dr. Tully in vain blames the author of the Har- mony, for saying that the Confession of Augsburg was the most celebrated of all the reformed Confessions, and that the first authors of our Reformation had followed or imitated that Confession. It is proved against Dr. Tully, that the divines of Augsburg taught that true repentance is altogether necessary for a man's justification. The passage quoted by the author of the Harmony, from the Confession of Wurtembiirg, explained. The words of the noble Confession of Strasburg vindicated from Dr. TuUy's untrue interpretation of them.
SECTION VII. BEING AN APPENDIX TO THE PRECEDING SECTIONS.
(Page 301.)
Aecusation of heterodoxy retorted on the Doctor. It is shewn that Dr. Tully in certain very important points of Christian doctrine, is altogether at variance with the clear definitions of the English, and other of the better reformed, and so of the Catholic Church. Four of his uncatholic dogmas are specially noted : namely, (1.) That repentance or true contrition for sin is in no degree neces- sary for obtaining the first justification. (2.) That the continuation or pre- servation of our justification already obtained by faith only, does not at all depend upon the condition of good works to be hereafter performed by us. (3.) That a man who has been once imbued with justifying faith, cannot pos- sibly wholly fall away from the same, and perish everlastingly. (4.) That Christ has made satisfaction, and ofTered Himself on the cross, for the sins of the elect alonc.
SECTION VIII.
ON THE REMAINING CHAPTERS.
(Page Mi.) Certain wonderful sophisms of the Doctor are noted. It is falsely asserted by Dr. Tully against the Harmonist and liis friends, that on their view, the Fathers, the Church of England, and all the reformed are Solifidians. Dr. Tully, however, is fairly convicted of Solifidianism. The charge hc brings against the Harmonist, that he is playing a part in Opposition to the truth, clcarly refutcd. A certain argument of the author of the Harmony defended against Dr. Tully, which runs thus. In whatcvcr degree St. Paul rcjects ritual
CONTENTS, XIX
and external works as unnecessary, in the same does he admit spiritual as ne- cessary; but he rejects ritual works as unnecessary for justification, &c. The honest confession of the Harmonist, tliat the Ilarniony was written when lie was very young, very dishonestly bandied about by Dr. Tully. Certain passagcs from tlie Harmony quoted unfairly by Dr. Tully, noted. The whole aim of the eleventh Chapter of the Jus/ificado Paulina, in whicli Dr. Tully en- deavours to prove that our doctrine of justification is quite in accordance with the papistical, shortly answered. Charge retorted on the Doctor, and it is shewn that Dr. Tully's opinion on justification agrees very nicely with that of the Papists in the point where they are inost papistical. Argument of the Har- monist vindicated, in which he had proved that St. James does not deny the sole Office ofjustifying to a false, but to a true faith also, which was, that 'that faith which was in Abraham, was certainly a true faith, and not the shadow of faith : ' but the faith itself of Abraham did not avail to justify him without works, &c. Contradiction falsely attributed to the Harmonist. An egregious cahunny of the Doctor joined with remarkable dishonesty, noted. Bellarmine's opinion of the merit of good works, compared with tliat of the Harmonist.
SECTION IX.
ON THE DISSERTATION CONCERNING ST. PAUL'S MEANING IN ROM. vii. FROM VERSE Ik
(Page 360.) Dr. Tully prctends in vain, 1. That the author of the Harmony has not many of the ancients agreeing with him in bis interjiretation of this chapter. 2. That nearly if not actually all the Fathers after Pelagius are opposed to the Har- monist. 3. That only one or two modern divines favour our opinion. It is shcwn how plainly false all these assertions are. Besides IrenuL'us, Tertullian, Cyprian, Macarius, Basil, Maximus, Cyril, Origen, Chrysostom, Tlieodoret, pseiulo-Anibrose, Theopliylact, Qicumenius, Paulinus, Damascene, Scdulius, other remarkable testimonies are adduced for our opinion, not as yet observed by others, namely, six ancient doctors, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Marcus Ertmita, St. Dorotheus, St. Pacian, and Ennodius. It is shewn that the Interpretation of theologians of the day, with whom Dr. Tully agrees, is very far from the meaning and intenlion of Augustine. The Greek doctors, even after Augustine, constantly adhered to the primitively received and ap- provcd interpretation in the Catholic Church. Nor did all the Latin Fathers, after Augustinc, receive his exposition. Amongst the Roman Catholics, Faber Stapulcnsis, Erasnuis, Isidore Clarius, Zeger, Toledo : on our side, Cas- tellio, Musculus, Bucer, Grotius, Vossius, Amyraldus : amongst our country- men, Jackson, Hammond, Taylor, Farindon and others, favour our Interpreta- tion. Dr. Tully in vain objects that our interpretation is opposed to the opinion of the Church of England. Reasons for our exposition taken from the very chapter, and our answcrs to Ihe arguments of the opposite side, vindi- cated.
EXAMEN CENSURJ:.
PREFACE OF THE CENSURER.
The specious title of tliis book filled me with desire to pro- P R E F. eure it ; the desire and hope of finding the truth urged me, as soon as I liad procured it, eagerly to dcvoiir it. But at the first opening of its pages I was displeased witli what met m}'' sight ; scareely did I believe my own eyes. I was deterrnined at once to examine the whole accurately. The newness of the doctrine itself took me by siirprise ; but the bold Opposition to the Apostle, worked up with such a mass of argument, astounded me. I could not help noting, as I read the Dis- sertatious from beginning to end, what appeared at variance with Scripture, and reason guided by its Hght. With your leave, most leamed Sir, I wall speak my mind freely; and these Strictures, my brother, I humbly submit to your con- sideration, and the judgment of my superiors.
ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
§ 1. It was not for you, my Censurer, to reproach me with the specious title of my book, when you have lately published a little tract on the same subject (few certainly are its pages, and narrow enough its iimits, so small that scareely have you room to touch on all the cliief difficulties of the question, far less to explain them as the subject deserves) which you have embellished with nearly the same title. Which of us has played upon the reader with a specious title, I would willingly refer to an impartial judge.
§ 2. I cannot but wonder what caused you at the first outset of your Strictures to make so much noise about a harmless writing. At the first opening of its pages you say you found something that displeased you; you scareely believed your own eyes : when you had read the book through attentively,
RIII.I.. B
2 Ohject of the Harmonia Apostolica.
p R E F. Tou were astounded. Heavens ! what have I done ? wliat have I taught? what monstrosity does the book bear witli it ? The aim, the object of the book, was to shew that good works proceeding from and in union Avith faith, are a con- dition (for I would not dare, with you, to speak at all more highly of any A-irtue of ours — you who attribute to faith in the work of justificatiou an eßicient causality) necessary to be fulfilled in order that a man may be justified by the Gospel covenant, procured and established by the Blood of Christ his Mediator. This, I contend, is the doctrine of St. James, and I maintain that St. Paul doth no where contradict it. Every where do I so openty renounce any merit in our works, that I scarcely acknowledge him to be a Christian, who con- tends for merit properly so called. In the work of justification and snlvation I most willingly attribntc every principal effect to the meritorious obedienee of Jesus Christ, which was com- pleted by His death. This alone hath satisfied Di\dne Justice. Tliis alone hath rendered the most holy, most just God pro- pitious to US sinners. This only hath been the cause that God on this best and most favourable condition hath pro- mised us salvation, and that in heaven and for ever, which by no other means could v:e have obtained. Lastly, I have ever taught, that without the effectual grace and aid of the Holy Spirit, flowing from the side of our crucified Saviour, no man can perfonn this condition of the Gospel covenant. No anathema do I think can be too hard upon the heresy of Pelagius. But what mean you, when I recur to the praises of God's assisting grace in St. Paul's teaching, tili I almost weary you ? who would have expected, that for such teaching, I should have been tlius shamefully handled, by a Christian, by a Catholic ? who Avould call a man for so thinking, " most shameless, mad, impious, blasphemer," which are the titles you every where bestow upon me ? Surely, no sober-minded man will deny, that in this question of justification, the main part of my teaching, at least, is Catholic ; but if I have erred in any of the appendages or consequences, (so to speak,) — (which, however, you have not 3'et proved) — tliose who fcel themselves to be but men, and are not insensible to human infirmities, will, I am sure, forgive me.
§ 3. But I now answer the charge of novelty in doctrine
Charge of novelty refuted. 3
wliich 3^ou allege against me, not only in tbe Preface, but P R E F. repeatedly throughout yonr Strictures. I have no hesitation in appealing to those wlio are lovers of antiquity, who alone can be fair judges of wbat is oldj wbat new doctrine, wbether there is aught in tbe l)ook tbat you bave set yourself to tear piecemeal witb accusations^ tbat is at variance witb tbe doc- trines of tbe ancient Catbobc Cburcb, wbose judgment and consent we are bound by an express canon of our Engbsb Cburcb^ scrupiüously to follow in tbe interpretation of Scripture, and tbe deduction from tbence of doctrines. But all is stränge and new to you wbicb agrees not witb tbe arbitrary definitions of tbe systematizers, from wbose stores you seem to ba^e derived all your tbeology. Hence tbe wbolesome doctrines of tbe ancients you reject and tbrow from you as new, wbile you embrace new doctrines as old. Would tbat you would learn from tbe advice of Jobn Fell, tbat most pious and learned doctor, and one of tbe cliief Ornaments of tbe University of Oxford; wbo at tbe end of tbe Preface to bis edition of Clemens Romanus seriously exborts students of Tbeology " to keep far — (if, indeed, tbe saying^ id verum quod primum, ^ wbat was first is true/ is wortby tbe credit and estimation of an oracle) — to keep far away from tbe sluggisb and muddy pools of tbose wbo would be called ' modern Divines/ and seek tbe everlasting and clear fountains, boly and füll of grace, beyond tbe credit of gentile tbeology/' Tbe boly man continues : " One may, indeed, expect Innovators to follow novelties ; but tbe}^ wbo love tbe nntainted doctrines of tbe primitive Cburcb will not as soon give ear to writers of a later age. For^ by tbis most certain sign^ and by tbis most cbaracteristic mark, will tbey prove tbemselves tbe Cbiu'cb's genuine sons, in tbat tbey look up witb a Singular reverence to ber most boly Fatbers." But wby do I confine myself to tbe ancients ? I appeal also to our later Divines. How many names can I recount, ' sbining ligbts' in tbis our Engbsb land, wbo, before me, fearlessly and witbout cbarge of beterodoxy bave banded down in tbeir writings tbe doctrine you impugn, and bave openly defended it, against tbe cries and barkiugs only of Innovators and scbismatics ? Take beed you drive me not to recount tbem,
" Collect. Canon. Can. Elizab. de Concionator. p. 19.
b2
4 FutUity of tlie Charge that St. Paul is contradicted.
p R E F. which I fancy you -svoulcl be little pleased with, and reflect at length^ how many and ho^r great men you scatlie in attack- in g nie.
§ 4. jNIost ridiculous certainly is your charge as to my bold contradiction of St. Paul. For I do not contradict liim more tlian St. James himself, tliat is, not at all. I grant that I have endeavoured (and God knows with the best intention) to recoueile the apparent discrepancy, and that one of greatest monient, in the two Apostles' writings; and if in my endeavour to do this I shall have met \nth the entire disapprobatiou of leanied and pious men, (which many things prevent me from believing, though you so often assert it,) I am not the first, as you are aware, "svho have failed in the attempt. I am glad, however, that whatever in my Dissertation seems to you to disagree with the Scriptures and reason, you noted in the course of reading ; for hence I may fairly conclude that nothing remains, after Aristarchus' judgment, that is opposed to Scriptiu'e or reason. Certainly, the objections you bring forward in your animadversions either miss the point altogether, or are supported by the most trifling or no arguments at all. Not to mention the number of paragraphs, and even entire chapters, in the Dissertations, in which the whole force and strength of my argument lies, which you either pass by in the most profound silence, or touch upon as slightly as possible. That these things are not bravado, but truth, they knoAv who have compared my Dissertation s with your Animadversions on the same.
§ 5. You have fi\ll permission then, my Censurer, to use your plainness of speech, and say freely what you think, though, as becomes an honest man and a gentleman, without abuse and slander, from which, if you had abstained in writing, you woidd have more nearly (even in the judgment of your own conscicnce) performed the duty, which you profess, of brotherly love. To your Strictures, however, which you have put before me for my considcration, I have paid serious attention ; and I find notliing noted by you in your animad- versions that I need regret haA-ing said. However, you must not expect rae in my answer to follow you step for step ; I would not so abuse tlie patience of my reader, or lay out good hours so badlv. For how mauv of your censures are but
Stricture upon the method of proceeding . 5
mere calumnies ! how many bare assertious do tliey contain p R e F. without an)' proof ! how frequently is the reader wearied out with the tii-esome repetitiou of the same thiugs ! aud, there- fore, whaterer is to the point iu any way, and that only, have I brought once for all under examination. Lastly, whatever I may have written, either iu this or other books, most humbly and most willingly do I submit it to the judg- ment of our holy mother the English Chiu'ch ; her to whom I have hitherto devoted myself iu all filial obedience, and to whom, while I live, by God's help I will devote myself.
STRICTURE I.
ON INTRODUCTION.
In the introduction of my book, the method I proposed to myself, of treating the subject which I had undertaken to explain, as most convenient, was this : — Ist. Taking the con- clusion of the second chapter of St. James, briefly to explain its meaning, and then support the truth of it by some argu- ments. 2ndly. To take St. Paul's Epistles, and shew clearly that he agrees with St. James on the subject of justification. Here, at the margin of the book, you "v\Tite as foUows ; " I do not see the reason of this method. It is unfair that one passage of St. James should be made the measiu'e of the many lengthened discussions on which St. Paul has entered, in which he uses vaiious, and those powerful arguments, to shew that a sinner is justified by faith without works, opposing faith to works in the obtaining of justification. It is unfair that that text should be held up as a light and a torch to the writings of St. Paul, as though to shew light upon what was more obscure. Tertullian says, ' Things which are rare ought adv. Prax. to be explained by things of oftener occurrence."^
ANSWER TO STRICTURE I. *
§ 1. In the opening of your attack you give me endeuce euough, my Ceusurer, how unfair an adversary you are likely to prove in the course of the confiict; } ou ol^ject even to my very
6 Ueasonableness of the Interpretation pursued.
s T R I C plan of proceeding. How unreasonable is tliis lust for objec- ^- tion ! for if I riglitly and fairly explain tlie teaching of the two Apostles, AA-liat have you to complain of in my plan ? What matters it^ wlietlier I begin my Dissertations with St. James or St. Paul, proAided I do no wi-ong to either ? But you say, " It is unfair that one passage of St. James should be made tlie measure of the many lengthened discussions on which St. Paul has entered.'' Be it so. What matters it, if I first, by many and clear arguments drawn from Scripture, esta- blish the conclusion of St. James, and then passing on to St. Paul, shew bis agreement with St. James, by solid arguments drawn (if I may so speak) from the veiy heai't of his Epistles. I confess, indeed, that I think that St. Paulis meaning may be clearly enough drawn from the single dis- Haim. coui'se of St. James in his second chapter ; and it was on Apost. II. ^i^^g aecount that in another part of my writiugs I said it
Diss. IV. 2. . . *■ .
p. 57. was far more reasonable in this controversy to interpret St. Paul from St. James, tlian St. James from St. Paul. I see, indeed, that you are greatly oiFended with this ; you ought, however, to have attended to the grounds on which I Support my opinion ; and these I have determined to repeat here for the sake of the read er, and vindicate them from your cavils.
§ 2. My fii'st argument then is, that St. James's discourse is clear and perspicuous, and his words so express, that he who doubts their meaning ma}^ be deservedly said to be seeking difficulties Avliere there ai'e none ; on the other band, the argument of St. Paul is obscure, involved and intricate. In the Interpretation of Scripture it is a well known rule, that the obsciu'er passages miist be explained by the clearer. Here, either from ignorance or spitefulness, you carp at what I said about the perspicuity of St. James, asking, " Had all the learned and pious men, who have doubted of the meaning of St. James's words, nothing eise to do but look for diffi- culties, whcre there were none ? " I answer : that the rcason that thosc pious and learned men doubted of the meaning of St. James's words was a preconceivcd opinion about justifi- cation by faith only, as a single virtue, which they had drawn from a misunderstanding of St. Paul's words, (it being no dillicult thiug, from the obscurity of his writiugs, to mistake
Plainness of St. James' s language. 7
that Apostle's meaning, unless tlie drift of his argument be STRIC. carefully attended to). In order to maintain this opinion,
and at the same time to reconcile tlie two Apostles, there was no stone they did not turn : and con^dnced that tliey had hit the meaning of St. Paul's argument, they laboui'ed by every invention to do away the seeming Opposition of St. James. Now, barring the unpopularity which great names cast upon a truth other^vise most evident, I appeal to the con- science of any pious and learned reader, who is free from prejudice, whether St. James's language be not clear, perspi- cuous and express ? Certainly, in the Apostle's conclusion, that " a man is justified by works, and not by faith only," there is not a word, not a term, (to use the barbarous lan- guage of the schoolmen,) the meaning of which is not most evident from the context in the Apostle's discourse. Do you ask of what justification St. James speaks ? It is piain that he is not speaking of the declaration only of a man's right- eousness before men, but of his justification also in the sight of God. For he speaks plainly of that justification by which a man is made "the friend of God/' (ver. 23,) and by which righteousness is imputed to him by God, (in the same verse,) and lastly, by which a right to salvation is given him, (ver. 14). Have you any doubt of what faith the Apostle is speaking? Vid.Harm. He means true faith, perfect of its kind, such as was Abra- Jj-g'^^i'^ j^ ham's, (vv. 21, 22) ; and he says, that according to the Gospel p- 45, 4ö. coveuant it is not sufficient without works for our obtaining that justification. Of what works St. James is to be under- stood, there can be no question ; he speaks expressly of works procecding from faith and the grace of the Gospel, or works co-operating -odth faith and perfecting it, (ver. 22) ; and thus I have with reason afiirraed that St. James's language is clear and perspicuous : and this is plainly confessed by those of our opponents who (with bold and impious presumption) ventured to tlirust out St. James's Epistle from the canon of Scripture. Why did they do so? Because, not weighing the arguments of St. Paul with the care that they require, they were led to think that a man is justified by faith alone ; meaning by that expression the single virtue of faith, as distinct from the other virtuos of the Gospel. Fully aware that St. James's rcasoning was diametrically opposed to this
8 Obscurity of St. Paul, noted by the Fathers,
s T R I C. their rashly conceived opinion, and seeiug thnt bis doctrine
- — could by no ingenuity be recouciled with the opinion they
had formed : nnable to untie tbis Gordian knot, as it seemed to tbem, they assayed to ciit it, by calling in question or openly rejecting the autliority of that Epistle whieb bears the name of St. James, as I have observed in the Intro- duction of my book. Tbus much, then, of St. James's per- sjiicuity.
6 3. "VVith my remarks as to St. PauFs obscurity you are
Tvell uigh driven to madness. Thus you write at p. 57 of my
book : " It is impiety to try to prove St. Paul to be obscui'e,
and to raise and spread clouds, because you must have them.
This Dissertation is but too Hke the smoke which arose out
Rtv. 9. 2. of ' the bottomless pit, and darkened the sun and the
air.'" Who does not rather here perceive you breathing out
the smoke of your anger and indignation, (look you to it
from what pit it has arisen) — but stay ! beware, lest while
you are falsely accusing nie of impiety, you comnct yoiu'self
of real impiety. If he must be an impious mau who has
called St. PauFs discourse obscure, then were Origen, Basil
tlie Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Jerome,
Augustine, and veiy mauy other most illustrious doctors in
the ancieut Churcli, all impious men ; for they hesitated not
Piiilocai. to say the veiy same thing. A passage of Origen is quoted
'*''■ ■ in whieli he remarks that " sonie pai'ts of the Scriptures
UV «x«'" seem not to have regulär comjmsition and consequence, nor to
i^^sl "Iko- foHow one from the other, and this is most observable in the
\uv9iav. prophetical and apostolical writings, and among the latter in
the Epistle to the Romans especially :" in which he says,
" lohat is Said of the law is said in different ways, and in re-
ference to different points ; so that it seems as thoiigh St. Paul
in that Epistle did not attain the object he proposed to himsetf."
Tliis saying of Origen's has been approved by tlie holy Fathers
Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen, inasmuch as they
made the collection of passages from Origen, called the Philo-
calia, " being selections of use to the studious," as Gregory
Kpist. 87. himself says in his Epistle to Theodoret bishop of TH'ana.
[Honixiii. Chrysostom on the seventh chapter to the Romans, says,
• P- J « You see imless we trace his words with the care and caution
they require, and kcep our eye on the drift of the Apostlc, tcu
and especially bij St. Peter. 9
thousand absurdities will ensue." St. Jerome in bis reply STRIC.
to the eiglith question of Algasias, which comes out of tlie :
same chapter, says in round terms, "The whole of this passage [Epist. of the Apostle, both in what precedes and in what follows, nay p g'-Q/]' ^' the -whole of his Epistle to the Romans, is involved in extreme oljscurities : and if I wished to explain every thing, I should have to write not one book, but a number of large volumes." And the like of this von may find eonstantly in the same answer to the questions of Algasias. Lastly, this obscurity deterred even St. Augustine from finishing the exposition of Lib.i . the Epistle to the Romans which he had begun, as he himself ^^^]^25. bears witness.
§ 4. Farther, if it be an impious proceeding to say that St. Paul's Epistles are obseure, (I shudder at stating the blasphemy,) it was an impious proceeding in the Apostle St. Peter, who says plainly that there are " some things hard 2 Pet. to be understood " in those Epistles. That St. Peter refers here principally to St. Paulis argumeut on justification by faith, as opposed to the works of the Law, has been the judgment of most learned men ; and very satisfactory grounds for this opinion I have given in II. Diss. iv. 2. p. 57. To those remarks may be added the foUowing. The best interpre- ters agi'ee that the Epistle which is called the second of St. Peter was written against certain impious heretics of that age, who came out of the school of Simon Magus; and this is sufläciently evident from the number of marks and hints that discover themselves in the Epistle. Now every one is aware that among other doctrines horrifying to Christian ears which the followers of Simon contended for, was this heretical doctrine, that good works are in no way necessary for a man's justification or salvation, On this point I will put before you two very remarkable passages of Ireufeus. One, Avhere recounting Siraon's impious heresies Lib.i. c.20. he says that that first-born of the devil taught that "they ^'2ij\ who trusted in him and his Helena, were free to do as they pleased: for that men were saved accordiug to her favour, not by works of righteousuess ;" whence by the way you will observe that they who taught that men were justified or saved (for there certainly was no diff'crcuce acknowledged Ijetweeu the two terms, at Icast by the aucients) othcrwise thuu by
T€A.6ta.
10 Valentinian het^esy as to the necessity qf good ivorks.
s T R I c. good works were held in the primitive Churcli to be lieretics. ^- The second passage is where he thus describes Valentinus'
p.'26.'edit'. opinion on man's justification : (Valeutinus was one who
Feuardent j^erelv gave a new dress to the Simonian heresy). "Carnal -P- -1 ^g^ \i^ye carnal training, and by means of works and mere faith they are strengthened^ but have not perfect knowledge : and such they say are we who are of the Church ; and hence it is they declare good works are necessary for us^ since otherwise we cannot be saved; but they teach that they will be entu'ely and without doubt saved, not by means of works, but because they are spiritual by nature." In these words of Irenseus every thing is piain, except one doubt of
Kia-Kianoos tlic meauing of the words " by mere faith :" but the diflBculty
"^'^''^' is easily got rid of ; for "mere faith ^' is not opposed to works, (for the Yalcntiuians derided the Catholics for saying they were strengthened by this faith in conjunction with works,)
yvüKTii but to "perfect knowledge," to which those most shame- less heretics pretended. They boasted (as is piain from the words just preceding the quotation in Irenseus) that they were already perfected, and that not by a slender faith, but by an immediate and certain knowledge they liad attained to all the Divine mysteries. However, it is evident from this passage that Chi'istians of that age, Avho adhered to the doctrines of
ßfßaiov- the Church, held that a man was strengthened not by faith ouly, but by works and faith together : (what Catholics understood by these words a thoughtful reader will readily guess :) that heretics on the contrary taught that a man could be justified and saved if not by a bare faith, without doubt by a perfect knowledge without good works. No one can doubt that the defence for this heresy of theirs was souglit from the discourses of St. Paul; particulai'ly as in other cases, without any colour of pretence, as is evident from Ircnajus, they brought forward the testimony of St. Paul to Support their raviugs. If this were so, no one will doubt that St. Peter referred primarily to these men, when he Said that there were some things hard to be understood in St. Paulis Epistles, "which men that were unleai'ned and unstablc did wrest to their own destruction."
§ 5. From all these things it is most evident that it is not an impious proceeding to attributc obscurity to St. Paul,
ffOai.
Causes of St. PavJ's obscurity. 11
especially in the arguments he lias entered into on the sub- STRIC.
ject of justification. But to be brief: some causes of tbis ^
obscurity bave been stated by very learned interpreters. The first is the frequent abruptness in St. Paul's style, frequent parentheses, not so much flowing on in a pre- meditated order, as borne on by a sort of divine impulse. Thus Irenseus of old observed ; " that the Apostle introduces iü. 7. many hyperbata, on account of the rapidity of bis style, and the impetuousness of the spii'it which is in him, is discoverable from many things," The second cause is, that opinions of the Hebre^Y doctors, ancient and modern, are ratlier referred to, as being well known among those to whom he was writing, than fully given out. To which may be added, that lie does not unravel the objections of Jews, which he was answering, but strikes through them with a blow — as known to those to whom he was writing. Many other causes of obscurity might be added, had I room for them. As you, however, have better eyes than all other men, and think you see so clearly through St. Paul's discourses, allow me to address you in the words of Origen to Celsus. " First Lib. iü. make piain St. PauFs Epistle to the Romans, and having ^^^j J " carefully considered the meaning of each expression therein, Cantab. shew that you understand his words." MTien you have done this, all learned men, I think, will willingly concede you the palm among the interpreters of Holy Scripture. And so much for our first argument, in which it is proved clearly that it is more reasonable to interpret St. Paul from St. James, than St. James from St. Paul.
§ 6. My next argument, by which I aimed at establishing the same, is drawn from tradition and the opinion of the ancients; they thought that St. James's Epistle (where he speaks of justification) was written expressly against men who had misinterpreted St. Paul's Epistles, and asserted that faith alone without good works was sufficient for a raan's justification or salvation. The truth of this tradition, indeed, is sufficiently attested and evidenced by the fact, apart from the authority of the ancients. Otherwise, I ask, whence could that error of justification by faith, as a single virtue, without works, have arisen among the Christiaus against whom St. James argues, exccpt from the misundcr-
12 Argument from tradition. Trifling ofthe Censurer.
S T R I C. Standing of St. Paul's arguments ? You conld not even ^- imagiue a more probable origin of tlie error. Notbing how- evei- can be fairer, nothing better, than to interpret St. Paul's Epistles by comparison with a discourse of St. James, wbich he wrote with the design of putting an end to false interpre- tations of the same Epistles. Here you snrely have nothiug [II. Diss. to object to in the argument itself. Only because I said, rv. 2. p. (( ^yiiat adds a farther degree of probability is, tliat St. James uses the same example of Abraham to prove Svorks are neces- ßoni. 4. saiy for justification,' from which St. Paul deduces that ' man is justified by faith without works'" — in reference to these words, I say, you address me thus ; " What do you mean ? do you think that St. James wrote with the Intention of contradicting St. Paul ? to what purpose do you raise this suspicion?" But, Sir, in return, let me ask Avhat do you mean by promising your reader censures on my book, and then setting before him this trifling, this sheer riff-raff? Teil me, do you really seriously think that by those words I meant that St. James wrote with the Intention of contradicting St. Paul ? that / meant this, I who wrote the whole of my second Dissertation, not a sliort one, with a design of shewing that in the controversy of justifica- tion neither St. James contradicted St. Paul nor St. Paul St. James one whit ? I who have shewn that the example of Abraham was rightly and appositely brought forward by both ir. Diss. the Apostles? Consider again my words, where, after much ijy'^'^^ Said in exposition of St. Paul's discourse on Abraham in Romans, cliapter the fourth, among other things I subjoin the foUowing conclusion : " In addition to this, the agreement of St. Paul with St. James is clearly seen from this, namely, that from the same example of Abraham, the former concludes 'a man to be justified without works,' the latter 'by works:' for St. Paul spcaks of Abraham ' according to the flesh,' such as he Mas before the call ; St. James, wlien blessed by grace and the Divine call. The former denies justification to his works donc before faith, while the latter attributes it to works pro- cecding from faith. Here, then, is no contradictiou between the Apostles.'^
Thiidv again over these words, and be ashamed that such a remark, shall I call it so futilc or so malicious, sliould have
Tertnllian's rnle examined. 13
fallen from your pen. I will only aclcl that my Observation STRIC.
whicli you object to is borrowecl from St. Angustine, wlio
tlius speaks : " Since the Apostle Paul, saying that a man is Lib. de 83 iustified by faith without works, has been misunderstood by Q"*^*^''-
J J ' _ » nil)us, qu.
men, wlio were led to snppose that if tliey once believed in 76. [vol.
Christ, although they still did e^dl and lived in iniqnity and^'" ^' -'
lewdness, they could be saved through faith : this passage of
this Epistle (meaning St. James chapter the secoud) explains
the meaning of St. Paul and shews how it is to be uuderstood,
and it is on this account that he rather chooses the example of
Abraham, saying that ^ faith which worketh not nghteousness
is vain,^ as St. Paul liad used the same example of Abraham
to prove that ' a man is justified by faith without the works
of the law.' " The rest that St. Augustine says is well worth
reading.
§ 7. And these were the arguments by which I thought it snfficiently proved that it was more agreeable to reason to Interpret St. Paul from St. James, than St. James from St. Paul. But to all these argiiments you oppose the well known rule of Tertullian, that thiugs which are rare ought to be explained by things of oftener occurrence, and you re- mind me again of the same rule in your remarks on chap. iv. of second Dissertation, p. 57. Under this rule you seem to assume that there is one passage only of St. James, and that confined within a veiy few verses ; whereas St. Paul's discussions on the same argument are both many and lengthened, and hence you would draw your conclusion, in Opposition to mine, that therefore it is more reasonable to interpret St. James from St. Paul, than St. Paul from St. James. But here you impose a gross fallacy upon yourself and your reader, and mistake much in your calculations, for the passage of St. James, which you call sin gl e, Stands sup- ported, so to speak, by the whole army of the Scriptures : to wit, that there is need not of faith only, but of repentance also, (which includes the whole duty, as prescribed in the Gospel, of a sinner returuing to God,) that a sinner may be accounted and dealt with as righteous through the sacrifice of the Mediator, with the remission of all his sins, and the bestowal of the right to salvation and eternal life, (which only is the doctrine of St. James,) the writings both of the
14 St. James is supported by the lohole of Scripiure.
s T R I c. Old and New Testament openly and constautly declare. This
L is Tvliat I remarked in tlie Harmony, at tlie beginning of the
argument, where I endeavoiu'ed to establisli St. James's State- ment by other testimonies from Scripture. My words are I. Diss.ii. as follows : "For it is not to be supposed tliat St. James liath ^' P' ^^' advaneed any parodox or opinion pecuüar to himself. What he says are the words of the Holy Spirit^ which are every where consistent. The Prophets, the Apostles, Christ Him- self, all give the same eWdence. This doctrine oceupies almost every page of Holy Scripture ; and I will venture to say that scarce any other can be produced out of those holy volumes which is so distinctly laid down or so often tauglit." What if St. Paul himself constautly and clearly asserts and defends the same doctrine^ and that in the very Dissertations out of which you and many others endeavour to build up the Harm. II. coutrary^ as I have shewn largely and plainly? All your 5-ül'o!^ boasting of the many and long dissertations of St. Paul to the contrary is just nothing. That the sober and truth- loving reader may convince himself of this, I ■svish him to weigh attentively these two points : First, that a man is justified by faith without works, is taught in so many terms by no inspired wi'iter but St. Paul : to be convinced of the truth of this remark, the reader need only consult a Concord- ance, when liis own eyes will assui'e him of the fact. Secondly, that a man is justified by faith without works is no where taught, even by St. Paul, except in the Avay of controversy and in the dispute in which he was engaged against the enemies of the Gospel, who contended that a man was justi- fied otherwise than by the Gospel covenant, or at least not by Acts 13. that ahne; viz., in his Epistles to the Chm*ches of Rome and ' Galatia, where he is speakiug too to Jews, and trying to
drive them from their trust in the Mosaic covenant. The truth of this remark also, may be shewn by the means which I pointed out above. To tliis Observation I would add, as consequent on it, that St. Paul does not oppose faith to the other virtues of the Gospel, (nothing would be farther from his purpose,) but by the word faith he means the whole condition of the Gospel covenant, opposed to those grounds and conditions by which his adversaries taught that man is justified whethcr without the Performance of the Gospel
Stricture on the expression " perfeded faith." 15
covenant^ or in connection with it. But tliis is by the way ; s T R I c.
we have explained it fully in the Harmony, and we will repeat ^'
it again in this Examen in a more convenient place. ]Mean- while, from these two obsen ations compai'ed with those which Ave mentioned on the constant tenor of Scripture, it is most evident that Tertullian's rule, that " the fewer passages of Scripture ought to be explained by those of more frequent occurrence/^ makes for our side ; and hence it would neces- sarily follow^ (if other arguments "^ere ■«"anting,) that it is more reasonable to intei-pret St. Paul from St. James^ than St. James from St. Paul : q. e. d.
STRICTURE II.
ON I. DISS. i 4. p. 7.
Here in the exposition of the remarkable passage, Acts xiü. 38, 39, you carp at my explaining ' believers in Christ^ by ' those endowed with a perfected faith.' Your "vrords rwa. thus : " I most willingly faU in with this explanation of St. Paulis meaning, but do not like the phrase ' perfected faitli.^ After- fides for- wardsj speaking with the schoolmen who treated the work of "^^^' justification confusedly, and shamefully corrupted the Gospel doctrine, you assert that faith is perfected by love : neither logicaUy nor theologically. Faith is, in the judgment of the Apostle, distinct from love. Love is no more the form of faith than of hope, or the fear of God, or repentance."
ANSWER TO STRICTURE II.
You go on as you began. You here again betray your miserable habit of objecting, even going out of your way to pull to pieces a most innocent expression. The phrase, how- ever, ' pei'fected faith,' which suits not your taste, was not dis- approved by the worthy Bucer, the chief divine among the first refonners. He commended to others the phrase 'we are fide for- justified by perfected faith' as at once agreeable to truth, and [^g^''^"^" most fitted to preser^e peace : and rebuked those Protest- ants who in this question wcrc offended with the truth, as
16 Love thefunn of justifyiny faith .
STRI c. we observed in II. Diss. ii. 8. p. 53, where also I firmly esta- ^^- blished tliis phrase from the very words of St. James. I here repeat them, because as usual you pass tliem over iu silence, thinking you have done euough, if you croak your usual (non placet) " it does not please me/' thougli against ever so great autbority and plain reason. But listen — ^if you cannot bear tbe plirase ' perfected faith/ why do you so often use in your o^vn remarks tbe pbrase ' ÜAdng faith/ for betweeu these phrases there is little or no difference. It is childish (to say no worse) to object to a phrase used by another, wliile you are constantly yourself using a phrase very similar, and which comes to exactly the same thing.
§ 2. What most of all seems to have displeased you, is fidem that I afterwards assert that ' faith is perfected by love.' Now charitate ^ trucc to all sku'mishings — allow nie to put this question
lormatam ° ^ '■^
esse. before you, to be deliberately and fi'eely discussed, Whether love is rightly said to be the form'' of justifying faith? I say it is, you deny it. To understand, however, the state of the question, we must first of all observe that love is not said to be the ' form' of ' faith/ as though it had any thing to do with its ' essence,' or properly speaking formed it, since one habit of the soul is not the subject of another, but because an act of faith is so far perfected and formed through love, as to be accepted by God according to the Gospel covenant, and be available for man's justification and salvation. I had re- marked this in I. Diss. iv. 5. p. 25. " I do not at all doubt but that love may be rightly called the form of justifying faith; I say expressly of justifying faith, because it is allowed that faith considered by itself has its own form ; but that faith which and as far as it justifies, must necessarily be ren- dered complete by true love." It is useless then to remind US that faith by the Apostle's decision is a virtue distinct from love, as though any man in bis senses had ever denied that. But as regards myself you know what I think : viz., that faith and love are vartues distinct even in the subject, so that you may find faitli, and that perfect in its kind, in a man who has no love. Still, if an}^ man in the above sense said that ' love was the form of faith,' or that ' faith was in- formed l)y love,' he would speak qiütc logically, as well as
'' i. e. that v/liioh niakes it wlmt it is.— Ed.
Meaning of the word ivepyeta-öat. 17
theologically — logically, because as the form is the cause by s t R i c. which a thing is wbat it is, so justifying faith becomes justi- '- —
f\äng tlirough love, according to the Gospel covenant ; otber- wise according to that coveuant it would justify no man, nor would he talk un-theologically or inconformably witli Scrip- ture ; for what eise does St. Paul say in tbe well known pas- sage in Gal. v. 6, " in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision a.x\a availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which äyc{7,^,,y worketh (or is actuated or "«Tought) bv love." ifepyov-
§ 3. I have often quoted the passage in my Dissertations, but I may perhaps be allowed nevertheless to tlirow some fresh and fuller light upon it. The participle ivep'yov/jievr}, though it is of the middle voice, I said must be here taken I. Diss. iv. in a passive sense, and consequently irian'i hC dyd7rr}<i epep- ' ^' 'yovfjbivrj must be translated ''faith which is perfected or brought to its effect through love.' In fact, you scarce find the word ivepyeia-ßai elsewhere in an active sense, even in the classicsj it almost always means what we should trans- late in Latin by agi, agitari, exercein, effici, perfici, or some- thing of the sort in a passive sense. Whence those possessed by a devil, driven, harassed, and as it were 'informed,' (or receiving a character,) are called energumeni. lustauces of eVep7ov- the passive siguification occur frequently in St. Paid's Epis- '^^*'°'' tles. Rom. \i\. 5, "the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work {ivijpyelro, were brought or perfected) in our members." So Tertullian renders the passage, and the de Resur- meaning is piain — " The motions of sins, i. e. the motives, carni"^ appetites, and desires to sin, which exist and are roused by the law, were exercised and actively completed in our mem- bers." So 2 Cor. i. 6, " for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring," where the sense does not admit an active siguification; whence Chrysostom re- marks expressly that St. Paul said not ivepyova-Tj'i, 'which worketh,' but ivepyovfievi]^, ^ which is Avorked,' (or wrought). So 2 Cor. iv. 12, "death ivepyelraL in us, but life in you," where I marvel that our Interpreters have rendered 'death worketh in us.' For what is the meaning of the words here? It is evident from the context, that the real meaning of the Apostle is the following : By the preaching of the Gospel, death is wrought in us, (i. e. we die daily for the Gospel,)
BULL. (j
18 The expression "faith perfected by love,"
s T R I C. while by the same preaching of the Gospel, in you, wlio have
^L — no troubles on its account, life is wrotiglit, spiritual and
etemal. In these passages it is piain tliat tlie verb ivepyel- aOai, cannot be suitably taken in any other than a passive sense ; and moreover in all the otber places, -vrliere some bave thought an active signification absolutely necessary, a passive signification suits best. In Eph. iii. 20, Kara rrjv Bvva/Mcv rr)v ivepyov/xevrjv ev tj/mv, "according to tbe power tbat worketh in us/' or ' is wrougbt or perfected in us •/ for he is speaking of the grace of God that the faithful had already experienced, and brings that fonvard as an ai'gument, on which the faithful might rely for security as to the grace of God for the futnre. So Coloss. i. last verse, Karä rrjv ivepyeiav avrov rrjv ivepyovfjLevTjv iv e'/xol ev hwafiei, " according to His work- ing which worketh in me mightily/^ or 'which is wrought (or exercised, or perfected) in me in power/ So 1 Thess. ii. 13, Xoyov 0eov, o? ivepyeirai iv vfuv rot? iriaTevoDcn, the "word of God which effectually worketh also (or 'which is perfected^) in you that believe." The word of God is then Said ivepyeto-Oai,, or to be 'perfected^ in a man, when it attains the end (and eflfect) appointed to it, \dz. the obedience of faith. Similarly also 2 Thess. ii. 7, " The mystery of iniquity,'' 7]Br) ivepyelrai, " doth already work,^' or 'is already being wrought,^ or 'begins to be wrought;' so that there is no necessity here for the active voice. Lastly, James v. 16, "The efFectual fervent prayer of a righteous man {ivepyov- ßxevrj, or the prayer 'actuated and impelled by a heavenly warmth and force') availeth much."
§ 4. And so to return to the passage before us, Trla-rc; 8l'
dyd7rrj<i ivepyovp.€vr) is 'faith wrought upon, moved, animatcd,
contra perfcctcd by love,' and this is no new interpretation. Tcr-
Marc. 5. 4. tullian thus quotes the passage, " faith which is perfected l)y
lovc." He is supported by the Syriac Interpreter, whose
authority has always been high aniong the learned. This
being estabhshed, I ask how St. PauFs phrase, Tr/o-rt? Si'
aydirr]^ ivepyovfievq, differs from the phrase which yon so
fides much objcct to, ' faith perfected by love.' Sm-ely the diflfer-
charitate ^j^gg |g ^q sHsrht, that ouc might pass for a very fair versiqn
forinata. o-» ox*
of the other. But we do not rest on the phrase alonc; the aim and meaning of the passage prove what we are maintain-
supported from ancient testimony. 19
ing, tliat faith is perfected and formed (receives its character) s T R i c. through love thus far, ^iz. : — that without love it is of no ^^' avail or profit to a man^s justificatiou aud salvatiorij which is all we mean uhen we say that faith is ' perfected by love/ chrritate as I have before told vou. But how piain is tbis from St. f°™^tain. PauVs words ! The old interpreters, Greek as -nell as Latin, reniarked on tbis passage, (and tbe remark is ob-^-ious enougbj) tbat as St. Paul restricts tbe faitb in Cbrist Jesus tbat is of any avail, by adding, '-svbicb is perfected by love/ be plainly intimates tbat tbere is no faitb wbicb, witbout love in Cbrist Jesus, tbat is, according to tbe Gospel covenant, is of any avail to a man's justificatiou and salvation; but tbat 'faitb perfected by love^ (as tbe great Apostle speaks) is every tbing in Cbristianity, or is all tbat tbe Gospel demands. Tbe famous passage of Ignatius, a disciple of tbe Apostles, adEph.i4. and a partaker of tbeir mysteries, wbicb I bave prefixed to ^' ^' my Harmony, wonld supply tbe place of a commentary (were tbere need of one) on tbese words of tbe Apostle. " Ye miss of notbing if ye bave perfectly toward Cbrist Jesus faitb and love, wbicb are tbe beginning and end of life; faitb tbe beginning, love tbe end. But tbe two being in union are of God, and every tbing eise toward good li^ing follows tbem.^^ Tbe meaning of tbese words, wbicb briefly and clearly ex- press tbe wbole of tbe doctrine wbicb I defend, is piain : Tbe beginning of Gospel rigbteousness is faitb : tbe completion of it is love : tbese two united render a man in Clirist Jesus, i. e. according to tbe Gospel covenant, reXeiov, ' perfect,^ i. e. accepted by God unto eternal salvation. Every tbing eise, wbicb any way appertains to a boly life and tbe practice of good works, necessarily follows and depends upon aud flows from tbese. Tbis is taugbt elsewbere most clearly by tbe same Apostle. " Tbougb I bave all faitb and bave not iCor.i3.2. cbarity, I am notbing ;" to wit, as tbe form gives tbe being in natural tbings, so love gives faitb a being in its acceptance witb God ; and accordingly a man, wbatever be bis faitb, if be be witbout love, is as tbougb be existed not as regards justi- ficatiou and salvation. We bave vindicated tbe passage from some frivolous objections at great lengtb II. Diss. iv. 6. p. 59. § 5. Your last assertion, tbat love is no more tbe form of 'faitb' tban of 'bope,' or 'tbe fear of God,' or ' repentancc,'
c 2
20 Love the 'form' of every virtue,
s T R I c. is, for oncCj a true one. Doubtless love is the form of all the other virtues in the same wav as it is of faith ; inasmuch as
there is no virtue which is not perfected and iuformed by love,
so far as that thus it becomes accepted by God, and available
I. Diss. vi. towards a man^s salvation. Hence in my Dissertations I
■ ^' ■ Said, " If there be any universal virtue, which fills, as it were,
all the rest with goodness, and gives them their value and
importance, that certainly is charity, the true love of God
and our neighbour, from which whatever arises, will at last
il.Diss.ii.be grateful and pleasing to God/^ Elsewhere I say "that
love is that wtue, which in the matter of salvation, God
chiefly regards, and which ouly, according to the gracious
covenant of God, attracts salvation by a necessary connection."
At this you raise a monstrous cry, you declare " your mind was
hon-ified, as you read this new doctrine/^ But as I have
already remarked, any thing is new to you which you have
not met with in your systematizers. The doctrine which
you call ' new,' and at which you are so dreadfully horrified,
is St. Augustine's and Prosper's opinion. In the book of
inter Op. Seutences, extracted from the works of St. Augustine by
vol^x! Prosper, the seventh is this : " The love of God and our
Append. neighbom' is the peculiar and special virtue of pious and holy
meu, siuce all the other virtues may be sharcd by bad as
well as good men," If there is no virtue but love, in which
bad men have share with holy men, it is piain that love is
that virtue, which God especially regards in the matter of
salvation &c. IMoreover, if faith itself be imperfect by itself,
and is of no a\ail to man's salvation unless Si' ayaTr?/? Ivep-
yov/jievr] perfected by love, (which has been already clearly
proved,) it is evident how much more this may be affirmed of
all the other virtues; and therefore what St. Paul says of
1 Cor. 13. 3. faith, that ' without love it profiteth nothing,' he extends to
the other virtues also, not only to knowledge and prophecy,
but also to alms-giving and even martyrdom. That the
Apostle had this in view, when, after the enumeration of
(TivStafiov various virtuos, he bids the Colossians " above all thiugs to
Itvtos. ^' P^^ 0^ love or chai'ity which is the bond of perfectness," has
Coi. ,s. M. been well observed by Isidorus Clarius, who writes thus on
the passagc: " Love," says he, "is nothing eise tlian that which
collcctcth all good things into one ; for it is that mIucIi makes
the form of hope, and the fear of God. 21
every thing eise to be good." How plainly does the Apostle s T R i C say tliis in Rom. xiii. 10, and Gal. v. 14, where lie calls ' love
— j — j j .1
the fulfilling of the law ! ' Hence it is most evident that love ^roT^i^i^ov. is (as we have said) an universal wtue which answers to every Divine commandment, and without which no command- ment of God can be rightly observed. The Apostle speaks indeed directly in those passages of love to one^s neighbour ; but the love of God is included in the love of one's neigh- bour, as cause in the effect : and as the love of one's neigh- bour fulfils all the commands relative to our neighbour; so the love of God fulfils all the commands relative to God Himself. Lastly, Christ Himself has most clearly determined the point of this controversy, (and would that poor miserable men could give us leave to hear His voice, and abide by His decisiou!) when He said in express words, that "on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets," viz. : " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Mat. 22. heart &c.," and, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." f^f^ius^^
If, however, any one after so clear arguments have any doubt on the subject, may I ask him seriously and thought- fuUy to follow me through each Airtue mentioned by you, 'hope, the fear of God, and repentance,^ and he will see that there is not one of these which does not stand in need of love, for its perfection and form, so far as it is to be accepted with God. Let us begin with 'hope.^ This virtue, as dis- tinguished from faith, involves in its very idea the notion of love; its diflPerence from faith consisting in this, that the form er is carried on by desire towards the object, which the latter apprehends by a bare assent; and this desire is charity or love. This may be more fuUy sliewn thus : As we hope for uothing which we do not know and believe, and knowledge therefore and faith (or belief) must precede hope ; so we hope for nothing which we do not love, as St. Augustine Enchir. testifies and our own reason confirms. Whence it similarly ^oj '^1. p, follows that love precedes hope, and a love by which God is 198. preferred before all things. For as hope is not Avithout love, so the hope of the highest good, as such, (which alone avails to salvation, and of which alone we are now speaking,) cannot be without love of the highest good, as such, i. e. above all things ; and this is Christian love. As regards ' the fear of
22 Love the 'form' of repentance.
s T 11 1 c. God/ it is evident the fear of God without the love of Hirn
: — is the fear of a ' servant' not of a ' son -' but fiKal fear, which
alone is available to salvation, and which is called by the
aniicalis. schoolmen by other names, ' holy, chaste, ingenuous, friend- hke, reverential/ is that from which a man fears to olFend God, and thi'ough the offence to be separated from God, as his greatest Good. This fear makes a man abstain from sin, not from the fear of hell only, but also from the love of vii'tue and justice. This fear not only keeps a restraint upon the band, but is lord also of the heart. On the other hand, ser\41e fear keeps the hand indeed from the perpetration of the evil, but in no way corrects the desire to sin. Lastly, of the third virtue you mentioned, ' repentance,' it is equally evident. Repentance strictly taken as here, and distinct from all other virtues, is grief for the commission of sins. But this grief without love is only ' attrition,' {attritio, as the schoolmen say,) not ^ contrition,' (contritio,) and so does not avail to salvation. ' Contrition,' or true sorrow for sins, is that from which a man grieves for his sin, not only because of the punishment due to him on account thereof, but also because it is an offence against God, (God, I say, the highest Good.) And therefore a sincere hatred of sin accom- panies this grief, as also a true love of God and righteous-
Serm. 7. ucss : wheucc St. Angustine saith "nothing but the hatred of sin and the love of God makes a sure repentance."
§ 7. From all these tliings, you will at length, I hope, understand, that I have not used the phrase fides formata, * perfected faith,' or said that ' faith was perfected by love,' without good reason. If, however, you still object to these phrases, we will for the future, in argument with you, use only St. Paul's phrase, iriari'; hC dyaTrrji; ivepjovfievrj, or St. James's iriari'i e| ep'yav re\ei(odetaa, for I take no delight in empty disputes about Avords.
STRICTURE III.
ON I. DISS. i. 5. p. 8.
I here contend, in Opposition to Grotius' opinion, for the true meaning of the word SiKatovv as it is used in the Scrip- turcs in this question, using this argument : " The word
de Tem- pore.
Force qf the word ' justification.' 23
'justify/ both in St. Paul and St. James^ lias exactly theSTRiC.
same force as, ' to reckon a reward/ ' to impnte rigliteons- J
ness/ and ' to impute for righteousness.' Now it is well ^^^^^ ' _ nnderstood tliat Imputation denotes tlie act of God re- ylC^crdai, garding a man as just, not making bim just ; and tbis J^^^^^yl Grotius neitber can nor wül deny." Your remarks upon Ceo^e^i, ds tbese words are as foUows. " Tbe learned man bas well ;,,,;, ^07^- laid down, and proved satisfaetorily, tbat justification is tbe ^«°'öat. accounting of a man rigbteous wbo is rigbteous otberwise tban hy tbe mere decision of tbe judge ; God justifies bim rhv aaeßrj. wbo is unrigbteous, but yet wbo is partaker of Cbrist^s rigbteousness tbrougb faitb. He makes, however, a stränge Rom. 4. 5. mistake in confoundiug justification witb reward ; neitber does be weigb St. Paul's words very accurately wben be says tbat jjbLcrOov Xoyi^eadat and BtKatoavvqv Xoyi^eadat bave tbe same force in bis Epistles. St. Paul says tbat 'to bim tbat worketb, tbe reward is not reckoned of grace but of debt : but to bim tbat worketb not, but believetb, bis faitb is Rom. 4. counted for rigbteousness.^ Examine well and see if St. Paul ' any wbere says tbat reward is reckoned to bim tbat believetb, and Avbetber tbe passage of David can allow tbat reward is reckoned to bim wbose faitb is counted for rigbteousness ver. 6. witbout works."
ANS WER TO STRICTURE III.
Wbat you mean in tbe first part of your remark, I do not exactly understand, nor does it mucb matter wbetber I understand it or not ; for wbatever it is tbat you tbere say, you express your agreement witb and approval of wbat I bave asserted, and tberefore the only tbing tbat I tbouglit required consideration was your remark tbat follows, "tbat I bave made a stränge mistake in confounding justification witb reward. ^' Surely you are bere yourself making a mistake. I am not confounding justification witb 'reward,^ but witb ' tbe Imputation or adjudgment of reward,' on the piain authority of St. Paul. But neitber do you agree to this ; more tban tcn timcs in othcr parts of your animadver- sions you complaiu of my not liaving sufiicicntly distinguishcd
24 Statement of the question.
s T R I c. tlie reckoninff of tlie reward, or tlie admission of a man to
in . . . '- — salvation and eternal life from justification. For, in page 10
of my first Dissertation, i. 6, where with almost all tlie re- fonned Divines I thus describe the justification of a sinner according to the Gospel covenant, " It is the act of God as a judge, according to the merciful law of Christ, acquitting the accused, pronouncing him righteous, and admitting him to the reward of righteousness, that is_, eternal Wie," you remark thus : " This is an uncalled for Interpolation about reward, and an explanation of justification founded on no passage of Scripture. Eternal life follows upon righteousness, but in an acquittal from all the guilt of sin and the deserved punish- ment of death there is no place for reward," &c. In another place, page 8, because I affirm that ' to be justified,' and ' to be accepted with God into salvation' have the sanie force, you say that it is my leading error, " which I take for granted, without proving, and that the whole mass of my building supported by this weak pillar is tottering and ready to fall." In another place you say, " that I am often strik- iug my foot against this stoue;" and therefore it concerns me much to establish this doctrine on firm grounds, and to vindicate it once for all from your charges, which are scattered all over your animadversions. To do this more conveniently, I put the question to be dehberately discussed as follows, " Whether the notion of Gospel justification ne- cessarily includes the reckoning of a reward, or the admis- sion of a man to life and eternal salvation," or "whether conferring a right to the kingdom of heaven is properly the act of Gospel justification." I affirm that it is; you deny it, and you declare the line between justification and the reckoning of a reward to be so broad that " in the acquittal from all guilt of sin (which alone, according to j'ou, is justi- fication) there is no place for reward ;" and you confidently State at page 30, that "the adjudgment of reward is quite a difi'crent thing from justification," and so in j^our remarks on page 12, you call it an act "extraneous to justification."
§ 2. To have a right understanding of the state of the question, we must first remark that we do not assert that the Word justification implies of itself the reckoning of a reward. ^Vc arc not such loggerheads or so stupid, as not to be well
The ' extenV of jnstification varies. 25
aware that there may be jiistification wliere reward does not s T R I C. come in. In a liuman court, if a man is accused of theft, murder, or any other crime, and he be innocent, he is acquitted by the judge's sentence, i. e. he is justified; yet he has no reward for not being a thief or murderer. It is folly then that you ask me at page 25 of my book, " whether it is one and the same aet of a judge, to acquit a man of a Charge, and to be pleased with him, and count him worthy of reward." Who in his senses ever affirmed this ? In this question, however, we are speaking (as you are aware) of justification as a term applied to the ' Divine court/ and the law or covenant of the Gospel. And that justification before God, which is required according to the law of the Gospel covenant, involves not only acquittal fi'om sin, but also a reckoning of reward, there can be no doubt. 'To justify^ means of itself ' to declare a man to be just^ and ' to treat liim as such.^ Now whomsoever God pronounces just, and treats as such, to him God not only remits the debt of sin, but He also praises, loves him, and counts him worthy of reward, as Grotius has here rightly laid down. To sum up Discuss. the whole in few words : The ' extent' (so to speak) of justi- P' ' fication must be calculated by the law, according to the rule of which it is imparted. Hence, in a human court, a man is acquitted by the judge of a charge, in other Avords he is justified, but no reward is adjudged to him ; because the law adjudges no such reward to innocence. But in God's court, when a man, guilty indeed of sin, yet possessed of faith perfected by love, is justified according to the Gospel Si' ayä-Kr)s covenant, not only are his sins remitted, but a right to ^"fP^"^' a heavenly reward is adjudged him. Why? Because the law of the Gospel appoints such reward to the believer, and therefore, in this court, though it is not the same thing to acquit the prisoner of a charge, and to hold him worthy of reward, yet most certain it is that both acts come under one and the same benefit of Gospel justification, which is all we have asserted. After this statemcnt of the question, the truth of my opinion is sufficiently evident, so that I scarcely need dwell on the discussion any longer. But, as this objec- tion is nearly the stcm and stern of your censure on my book, as you repcat it tili ono is almost sick, as you bring it forward
26 Prooff rom Sa'ipture that justification
s T R I c. as an engine, by tlie force of wliicli you boast that the — ^— — -n-hole of my building is falling to the ground ; on these accounts I have determined to prove the point at greater length, both by testimonies of Scriptiu-e^ aud arguments and deductions drawn from Scnpture; at the same time answering yonr objections, as they occur from time to time, in their several places.
§ 3. I will first bring forward the testimonies of Scripture I. Diss. V. whieh establish my doctrine. I will begin from the passage 3« p- 30. yf\^\Q\^ I }iave already adduced in my Dissertations, "viz. Rom. iv. 3, compared with verse 4, where I remarked that the Apostle, talking of justification, expresses iXoy[a6i] ek hiKaLoavvrjv, of the former verse, immediately after by the phrase, fxia-66<i Xoyi^eTai. Hence I infer, that 'to impute something to any one for righteousness,' and 'to impiite a reward to any one for something,' are equivalent. To this yon say, " that I err in my exposition of the Apostle, since he denies the impntation of reward, whilst he asserts the impntation of faith, verse 5/' Also in the Stricture which we have before us, you say that St. Paul declares that "to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of errace but of debt, but to him that believeth and worketh not, his faith is counted for righteousness." But you are making an egregious mistake. St. Paul does not absolutely deny, that reward is reckoned to the believer, but he says it is not reckoned to him of debt. To each of them, both to him that believeth and to him that worketh, he acknowledges that a reward is reckoned, but on different grounds : to the one of debt, to the other of grace. This is the piain meaning of St. Paul ; he is plainly making a dis- tinction between the reward of grace and the reward of debt. Now to what purpose would he make the distinction, if he meant, as you suppose, that there was no reckoning of rewai'd but to him that worketh, i. e. of debt ? Why then, you will say, does not the Apostle repeat in the antithesis that foUows, what he denied, verse 4, concerning him that worketh, viz. that to him (i. e. that worketh), reward is reckoned of grace, and affirm expressly of him that believeth, " but to him that believeth a reward is reckoned of grace;" whcreas he nscs cvidcntly anothcr cxpression, "to him that believeth his faith
includes the imputation ofreioard. 27
is counted for righteousness." I answer, tliat by the very s T R i c.
fact that the faith of the believer is reekoned to him for '. — .
righteousness, it is quite CAddent that reward is reekoned to him not of debt but of grace^ and consequently that his justification is merely one of grace, since ' faith ^ in its very term expresses grace, and entirely excludes all debt and desert. See the copions remarks \ve have made on this point II. Diss. xii. 22, 23, &c. p. 155, wliere, although the passage almost compels you, you do not utter one syllable to the point. But when the Apostle says that "to him that believeth his faith is counted for righteousness" he implies that 'a re'^rard is reekoned to him that believeth/ For wherever in the Scriptures any thing or deed is said to be imputed to any one for righteousness, it is certain that by that phrase is signified God's approbation, or that He holds that deed to be praise- worthy, or such that He determines of His infinite goodness that it shall be recompensed. Thvis, the vengeance which Phineas took on the idolaters in the ardour of his zeal for God is said 'to be counted (or imputed) to him for righteous- Ps.i06.3i. ness,^ i. e. was esteemed by God praiseworthy, and worthy of recompense. This is clear from history, Num. xxv. 12, wliere we read in piain terms, that God on account of Phineas' zeal adjudged him and his posterity great revrard, See the learned Hammond on the passage in the Psalms. Hence however, by the way, we gather a new and very streng argu- ment for the support of our opinion. It is certain that when it is said that ' a man is justified by faith,' or that ' faith is counted to a man for righteousness,' the two expressions are equivalent in Scripture. This I have proved by comparing many passages of Scripture together in Opposition to Grotius. Yet here you would rather join with Grotius, i. Diss. i. whom eise you hate worse than a dog or a viper, (and ^' !'• ^" that against almost all the reformed divines,) than yield to the most evident truth, and therefore you say (and only say) that the two things differ really in meaning. Shew, then, their discrepancy fi'om Scripture, and answer, if you can, all the passages I have pointed out and compared together. Meantime I pass on. It is equally certain that in the phrase by which any tliing is said to be imputed to a man for righteousness, the adjudgment of a reward is the chief
28 Just'ificatlon is unto life and salvation ;
STRIC. thing implied. What follows froiu this, but that the justi-
'- — fication, Avliich is spoken of in tlie New Testament^ comprises
the reckoniug of a reward or the admission of a man to salvation and life eternal; q. e. d. I now pass on to other passages.
§ 4. A most remarkable passage — one which you will not
be able to evade by any artifice — occurs Rom. v. 18. "There-
fore as by tbe offence of one judgment came upon all men to
condemnatiou ; even so by the rigliteousuess of one the free
eij hiKai- gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Here
w(7iv ^cvris. j^jg^ißgf^tion, which is imparted to the faithful through Chi'ist,
SiKaiü!(Tis. is not simply calied ^justification/ or ^justification from death/
SiKalua-tj or the punishment of sin ; but ^justification of life/ i. e. living
rov. or life-giving justification^ as that wliich woiild not only
deHver a man from death, but also bestow upon him heavenly
life and eternal happiness. We must not forget especially
that the Apostle^ in the preceding verse, meant expressly to
tV Trepiff- shew forth 'the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteous-
vaTiToT'* ness/ or of the justification by Christ; to shew forsooth, that
Koi TTJs tiie gift of justification does not consist or subsist in the mere
TTjs SiKat- deliverance from death^ which we have deserved by sin, but
o(TvyT]s. gQgg further and gives us ut in vitd regnemus, 'to reign in
life' by Christ Jesus. What can be spoken more clearly?
§ 5. A streng argument also for om' doctrine may be drawu from those passages of Scriptui'e where 'to be made heir/ viz. of a heavenly kingdom, and 'to be justified' are used as equivalent expressions, as in Rom. iv. 13, 14; Gal. iii. verse 18, comparcd with verse 21 ; Col. iii. 24. To these may be added all the texts in which 'justification/ 'life/ and Viel. Rom. ' salvation/ are used promiscuously. What other reason can 3 8 9 2V ^^ assigned for this promiscuous usage, but that in justifica- tion a right to salvation and eternal life is given us ? One Gal. 3. 11. passage I must add, " But that no mau is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident : for, the just shall live by faith." Where the Apostle proves that a man is justified not by the law, but by faith, ou this testimony, that a man ' lives by faith.^ The argument of the Apostle would entii'ely lose its connexion, were not our supposition true, that 'to be justified/ and 'to have a right to life,' viz. eternal, were equivalent terms. So much from the testimony of Scripture.
which is supported by two arguments. 29
§ 6. To tliese express testimonies from Scripture I ayü! s t r l C subjoin two arguments, wliich also have their grounds in '—
Scripture, and are deducible from tlience by manifest in- ference.
Ist. He who is justified by tbe Gospel Covenant, by that A^ery fact has a right to all tbe benefits contained in that Covenant. Now among the benefits contained in tbe Gospel Covenant the cliief and cousummation of all the rest is sal- vation and eternal life ; therefore he who is justified by the Gospel Covenant, by that very fact has a right to salvation and eternal life. Here the minor proposition is beyond ques- tion, the major is supported by these arguments. 1. If in the Gospel justification we have not a right to all the benefits con- tained in the Gospel covenant, then the Gospel justification is something imperfect, which Christians Avill at once shrink from admitting. 2ndly. Whoever is justified by the Gospel covenant, must, according to the position in which he has been placed, have performed all the conditions of the Gospel covenant. But he who has performed all the conditions of the Gospel cove- nant, must of necessity have a right to all the benefits con- tained in that covenant ; since they depend on that condition. I say here, (which must be observed,) that every justified person has performed all the conditions of the Gospel cove- nant, according to 'the position in which he has been placed.* By which words I mean, whoever is endued with faith in Christ perfected by love, has at once performed all the con- ditions of the Gospel covenant which, in the position in wliich he has been placed, are required from him, although he yet may not have gone on in continued pious w^orkiug ; conse- quently he is justified by that covenant, and has a right to all the benefits of that covenant. But from that man, if time be granted him, there is demanded a continued pious work- ing or a series of visible deeds, (which the Greek Fathers called TToXtre/a,) as T have remarked elsewhere in my Dis- sertations, and therefore this condition of continued working is not absolutely demanded in the Gospel covenant, but on supposition, \\z. of continued life. Lastly, St. Paul himself Rom. 4. declares from David the blessedness, the perfect ' blessedness ^' ^* of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness,' i. e. whom ti.6v. God justifies. Of course a man, justified by God, would not
30 Conclusion of the argument. — The novelty
s T R I c. be perfectly blessed if he were deprived of any benefit of tlie
EL Gospel covenaut, much less if be bad no rigbt to tbe cbief
blessing of tbe Gospel, ^-iz. eternal bfe, iu ^bicb tbe wbole blessedness of mau cousists.
§ 7. Tbe second argument, wbicb coufinus tbe first, is tbis ; All meu allowtbat if a justified personwere to die iu tbevery momeut in wbicb be was justified, be "would be beyond all doubt saved, i. e. be wonld gain eternal life. Now it is plaiu to every one tbat tbis position Avould not bold good unless our own supposition be allowed also, viz. tbat in justification a man bas tbe rigbt conferred on bim to salvation and eternal life.
§ 8. By all tbis I bave sbewn, I tbink clearly, tbat tbe justification of a sinner, wbicb is promised in tbe Gospel, comprebends not only bis deliveranee fi'om sins, but also tbe reckoniug of a reward, or bis being accepted to salvation and life eternal. I will add tbe following by way of make- weigbt : — If it were true according to your opinion, (as it is most utterly false,) tbat justification in tbe Kew Testament is distinct from acceptauce to salvation, tbe cause I am plead- ing in my book would receive no injury, provided only tbat it be granted, wbicb you willingly allow, tbat tbe two tbings are so mutually and inseparably connected tbat be wbo is justified always bas a rigbt also to salvation. Tbis being granted, all tbe arguments by wbicb I prove tbat faitb, as a Single virtue, is not sufficient for justification, stand good, on tbe ground tbat faitb is not sufficient to make a man accepted witb God unto salvation. To fix diöferent conditions of tbings so intimately connected would be very absiu'd, and tbus all tbis discussion of yours must fall uecessaiily into a useless dispute about words.
STRICTURE lY.
ON I. ÜISS. i. 8. p. 10.
il «070)1/ I say, wben St. James declares tbat a man 'is justified by SifcaioC- works,^ tbat tbe particle 'by' expresses only "'the preccding causa sine condition,' which is generally callcd'the indispensable cause,' quanoii. yg^ -^ scarcely deserves tlic name of a cause." I then add.
of the Censurer's notion offaith. 31
"Wlien a man is said 'to be justified by faith/ tbe particle STRTC.
' by' is used in tbe sarae sense, since no one can be said to - -^
, be justified by faith itself as a principal cause^ nor even as ^^Ja^ol-"^ a cause at all, unless inaccurately speaking." Your remark <^^"'- upon this is, " Wlien we are said to be justified ' by faith' e« TriVre-
s. 5ii
cause of the righteousness, which we obtain through Christ." eVf'pveia;'.
we clearly mean to say that the ' Operation' of faith is the Xlareas.
AXSWER TO STRICTüRE lY.
Had I written as much of any other of our virtues, how quickly would you have exclaimed, as is your wont, " My mind is horrified as I read this new doctrine." Here you attribute to faith, an Operation which is the cause of righteousness, ivepyua. distinct from that which belongs to it as a condition of the Gospel covenant, for this latter I acknowledge ; but, as I said, the condition is only 'the indispensable cause,' which scarcely deserves the name of a cause. You, however, take a higher tone, and ascribe to faith another Operation beyond this, as really causing righteousness. Surely this doctrine of yours is new indeed ! For what confession of the reformed Churches attributes to faith an Operation which is the cause (in your sense) of righteousness ? at least our Chnrch is very far from agreeing with this doctrine, as I shewed clearly II. Diss. last chapter. Even those systematizers of yours, who have attri- buted some sort of instrumentality to faith in the work of justification, disagree with you here. They, indeed, teach that faith is the instrument of justification, but 'passively' only or passivum. ' receptively,' as they love to speak; yet they have not dared recepti- with you to ascribe to faith an Operation {ivepyetav) whicli is ^^"^' the cause of righteousness, and have even shewn a dislike to the expression. How consistently they have written on the subject, I am at no pains to say ; I neither sow nor reap in such fields. Suffice it to say, that not even they approve of this your way of speaking. Of the ' instnimentahty' of faitli, which you assert, we will speak more at length in its proper place ; meanwhile bear in mind, that you have attributed more to human agency in the work of justification, than I dare ascribe to it.
STRIC. V.
32 Righteousness the condition ofjustification.
STRICTURE V.
ON I. DISS. ii. 5. p. 14. (p. 19.)
Among otlier testimonies from Scripture, to prove St. James's hypothesis, I bring forward the words of St. Peter, Acts 10. the chief of the Apostles, " God is no respecter of persons, ' ■ but in every nation he that feareth Hirn, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Hirn :" which words I para- phrase thus ; * God respects the persou of none ; every one, and such only, are accepted by Hirn to salvation, who works righteousness.' I subjoin, "Can any thing be more e\ddent?" Youi' remai'k upon these words is couched in these terms : "In truth, what St. Peter, to whom St. Paul is equal, has Said, is quite clear, but nothing to the purpose. He who worketh righteousness is accepted with God. You add of your own, 'to salvation,^ which St. Peter said not. Surely CorneHus, who was accepted with God on account of his righteousness, was not fully instructed unto salvation, until he believed in Christ. Neither the pious centurion, nor any other worker of righteousness, is in that sense righteous before God, and free from all blame on account of his inherent righteousness. Take heed you prate not against the Holy Spirit."
ANSWER TO STEICTURE V.
§ 1. You scem to object to my calliug St. Peter, by the way, the chief of the Apostles; although I said it on the authority of the most ancient and approved doctors in tlie Church. They however, as do I also, most fully allow, in Opposition to the Roman Catholics, that St. Paul, or any other of the Apostles, as regards the office of an Apostle, or the government of the Church, was equal with St. Peter. Let it suffice, however, to have thus briefiy touched upon this point. You say, that what St. Peter says is clear enougl», but nothing to the purpose. I say, however, tliat it is very much to my purpose. For if no one is accepted with God unto salvation, except he who fears Hirn and works righteous- ness, it follows that no one, who is not such, is justified; sincc
Case of Cornelius considered. 33
' being accepted with God unto salvation' and ' being justified s T R l c.
by God' are equivalent terms, which I liave just sliewn clearly '.
and fully. But you say I liave added 'to salvation' of my own; I confess it, but it is an addition recommended both by tlie text and the nature of tlie tliing. Has any one any doubt, that the man who fears God and works righteousness, is also accepted hy Hirn unto salvation ?
§ 2. Next you say tliat Cornelius (on occasion of whom St. Peter uttered those words) was not fuUy instructed unto salvation until he believed in Christ. This requires consider- ation. That this ceuturion was a proselyte of the Jewish religion, of that class who were called 'proselytes of the gate/ i. e. men who had forsaken idolatrous worship and given themselves vip to the true God of the Israelites, but had not submitted to circumcision and all the other rites and ceremonies of the INIosaic law, (although I am aware that there are learned men now-a-days who call this in question,) there seems to me to be no doubt. For, besides that the centurion is called by St. Luke {evaeßr]<; koI (f)oßov- fievo^ Tov Oeov), " a devout man, and one that feared God/' Acts 10. 2. and {fj,apTvpov/jL€vo<i viro Ö\ov tov eOvois tmv ^lovSaicov), '^ofver. 22. good report among all the nation of the Jews/' which words clearly shew that he was decidedly imbued with the Jewish religion, — besides this, it deserses our especial attention that St. Peter, in his discoui'se to Cornelius and his house- hold, proved Jesus to be the Messiah from the books of the ver. 43. Prophets, which he surely would not have done had not the writings of the Prophets been both well known and of autho- rity with the centurion and those who were with him.
§ 3. Cornelius then was a proselyte to the Jewish religion, but of the lower order, i. e. ' a proselyte of the gate,' one not "ij;Ei> "ij properly called proselyte, ' a proselyte of righteousness or the pnv "ij covenant,' inasmuch as he was not circuracised, as we learn °^ ^^""^ Acts xi. 3. As to the salvation of proselytes of this order the Jews diflFered in opinion. Some denied them hope of salvation altogether, as appears from Acts xv. 1 ; most how- ever, inclined to the milder opinion, and gladly believed that these pious men from among the Gentiles will share the blessings of a future life. The strongest argument for this opinion was, that cii'cumcision was not cujoined on any
34 Good works of the GentUes acceptable to God.
s T R I c. except the descendauts of Abraham, nor the law of Moses
Y.
except on the Israelites. Hence in the well-known story of
10, 11, 12. Izates, king of the Adiabeni, \shich is told in Josephus, we
Antlq. 20. read that Izates, havdng turned from the worship of idols to
völ i ^^^^ °^ ^^^ ^^® True God, was not content with this, but
p. 939. wished to go farther, and submit to circinncision, {vo/xi^ovra
fi7) av elvac ßeßaico<; ^lovhalov, el fxi] TrepirefMOiTO,) ' thinking
that he was not a Jew to anv pm'pose tili he was circum-
cised j' but this design pleased not his teacher Ananias, who
reminded the king {Swa/j-epov avrov koI j^coph irepnofiri'i to
Qelov aeßeiv) 'that he could serve God ^ithout being cir-
cumcised.' "What however the Jews thought on this point,
matters not much; all Christiaus have allowed that pious
men of the Gentiles, who were really pious, pleased God
unto salvation without circumcision ; aud that Cornelius was
such a man, is clear from the testimony of the Holy Spirit,
who has passed upon him, as I observed before, this elogium,
that he was " a devout man and one that feared God." More-
over his prayers and his alms are said to have ascended up to
Acts 10.4. Heaven (et9 fimjfjböavvov ivcoTriov rov &eov) "for a memorial
before God." In these words, (as learned interpreters have
observed,) a similitude is drawn from the incense of the law,
Lev. 2. called in Hebrew m3?X, in Greek fivq/jiöavvov. Doubtless the
et ahbi. "o-ords moau, that the prayers and alms of Cornelius were
most pleasaut and acceptable before God, wlüch could not
be said of the works of a maii who was out of the pale of
favour and salvation ; and therefore had Cornelius died in
this State, without doubt he would have attained lifo and
salvation ; and yet he had not an explicit faith in Christ, for
he had not heard the Gospel of Christ fully and clearly ex-
plained. But afterwards, when this was done by St. Peter,
his pious soul most eagerly and heartily embraced the faith
of Jesus Christ.
§ 4. When after this you say that ncither the pious ccntu- rion nor any other worker of righteousness was ever righteous in God's sight, and free from all blame, on account of his inherent righteousness, if you mean by the words "on ac- count of his inherent righteoiisness," 'on account of the merit of his inherent righteousness/ you are beating the air ; who says the contrary ? I surely do not, who evcry where
AU notiom of merit disdaimed. 35
disclaim all merit of all human righteousness, and teil all s T R l c.
men openly that I trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ^ my ;
dearest SaAdour, as the sole meritorious cause of my justifica- tion and salvation. If you do not believe a professiou I have niade so often, I call God the searcher of liearts to witness that it is from my heart I have Tnritten these words. In your remarks^ however, you are continually charging me with teaching that man is justified in God's sight on account of his inherent righteousnesSj or on account of his works, (i. e. on account of the merit of his Tvorks) . This yoii repeat tili you are hoarse, when you have nothing eise to say. Surely this does not become a Christian, not to say a divine. Had I a mind to repay you in your own coin, how easily could I retort this calumny on your head ? ^vitll how great appearance of truth, how great speciousness could I do so? you teach continually that "a man is justified 'for' or 'on account of his faith/' that ''an Operation wliich is the cause of our righteousness ought to be attributed to faith," that " our justification is ' founded' on our faith." Shoiüd I hence conclude that you attribute a merit to faith in the work of justification ? God forbid ! I believe that you do mean some- thing eise, though what that is, I am totally Ignorant.
§ 5. Lastly, you advise me "take heed that I prate not against the Holy Spirit/' But, my good Sir, "what is it that you mean? that he who does not receive your statements, forth-with prates against the Holy Ghost ? Take heed you offer not -wrong to His Supreme INIajesty, by appealing to Hirn as the Patron and even the Author of your own dreamings. I can do no more than beseech that Most Holy Spirit, the Com- forter, the only Teacher of Tiiith, that He may be pleased by His heavenly Illumination to guide both me and you into all truth necessary or useful to us.
STRICTURE VI.
ON I. DISS. ii. 5. p. 13.
Bringing forward by the way a passage of St. Peter, i Pet. 1.2. I remark that the order of mau^s salvation is well described therein. First comes "the sanctification of the Spirit to obedience," {ayia(7fi6<; 7rv€VfiaTo<; et? viraKorjv :) then follows
D 2
36 Order of salvation described, i Pet. i. 2.
S T R I C. " the sprinkling of tlie blood of Jesus Christ^ {pavTiafio<i
'■ — OLfiaTo^ ^Irjaov Xpiarov,) i. e. to justificatiou/^ Upon this
Vid.Tit.2. you remark, " How absurdly do you Interpret St. Peter, in 9*14^^^' Order that he may support your owu hypothesis ! I beg to Rev. 1. 5. ask wbether our sanctification, just as mucb as our justifi-
cation, must not be referred to the sprinkling of the blood
of Christ ?"
ANSWER TO STRICTURE VI.
How childishly do you here take my explanation to pieces, merely to indulge your insatiable appetite of finding fault. I am aware that our sanctification just as much as our justi- fication is owing to the blood of Christ; Christ by His blood, i. e. by His death, obtained for us the grace not only of justi- fication, but also of sanctification. Still, he 'svho has not observed that our sanctification is attributed specially by the Scriptures to the Spii'it of Christ, Avhile the remission of our sins (vvhieh is not the least part of our justification) is attributed to His blood and the sprinkling thereof, surely cannot have read the Sacred Volumes with the care and diligence that they require. I have no time just now to investigate the reasons of this phraseology of Scripture, but if all, who suppose the words in this passage "by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" to mean justification or remission of sins, are fools, then truly were those great Interpreters Erasmus and Estius fools — nay (horrible to say ! !) your own Calvin was a fool. Erasmus on the pas- sage speaks thus : " He means that they are indebted to God for having been chosen to the grace of faith, which he here calls obedience, that through this, by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus, they might be cleansed from their sins." In like manner Estius : " The remission of sins is called ' the sjDrinkling of the blood of Christ,^ because no one is cleansed from his sins unless he be sprinkled with it, i. e. unless the merit of Christ's suffering be applied to him : and this sprinkling or application is made by the obedience of faith." Here you have (if I mistake not) the true meaniug of the passage. Lastly, Calvin, " By the word ' obedience' he seems to mean newness of life, but by ' the sprinkling of the blood of Christ' remission of sins."
Repentance, a condition ofjustification. 37
STRICTURE VII.
ON I. DISS. ii. 6. p. 14. Here I brinsr forward testimonies of Scriptui'e^ " which S T R l C.
. VII
specify some particular works as entirely necessary to salva '- —
tion/^ and I insist on tliose passages especially, "which require ' repentance^ as a precedent condition "without which sine qua no sinner can obtain pardon from God." Among snch a crowd of testimonies I confine myself to two, viz. Acts ii. 38, and iii. 19. I say, that in these passages, besides faith, re- pentance also and turning to God are reqnired of us as necessary for the reraission of our sins, or justification. Your answer to this is, "Christ has joined repentance with faith Markl.15. as the two conditions of the Gospel, and woe be to him who separates them. Bvit produce a passage, if you can, which attribntes justification to repentance. Justification is not the same thing as remission of sins. Wisdom is justified, God is justified, Christ was justified ; where is no place for reraission of sins. Job was justified from the calumny of the de^dl, and the unjust reproofs of bis friends : and yet not by remission of sins, but by proof of his integrity. God par- doned the Israehtes, wliom He did not justify." Ps. 78. 38.
ANSWER TO STRICTURE VII.
§ 1. I have no doubt the learned read er, who is not ac- quainted with you and your ways of proceeding, will wonder what you mean in this Stricture. I am by this tirae too well acquainted with you. Now, on this point, nearly the whole strength of your position rests ; and if you are A'icto- rious here, your triumph will be coraplete; but if these forces (as I expect will be the case) be routed and dispersed without difficulty, you can have but little hope of renewing the conflict. I intreat the reader, therefore, to weigh most attentively the arguments on both sides. That repentance is a condition necessarily required in the Gospel covenant, you allow, but you deny that it is a condition ofjustification. You do not deny that repentance is absolutely required for
38 No condition enjoined in the Gospel
STRIC. the forgiveness of sins; but tou deny that it is required for
^ — justification^ for you say that remission of sins is a totally
different thing from justification.
The whole of this controversy, theu^ may be reduced to foiir heads. 1. Whether there be any condition (properly so called) of the Gospel covenant which is not also a condition of Gospel justification? 2. Whether, granted that the con- dition of the Gospel covenant may be distinct fi-om the con- dition of Gospel justification, it is not still certain that faith and repentance are conditions of one and the same benefit, A'iz. of Gospel justification? 3. Whether remission of sins comes into the notion or definition of Gospel justification ? or whether the notion of Gospel justification necessarily in- cludes remission of sins? 4. Whether it being gi-anted that remission of sins is not necessarily included in the notion of Gospel justification, it is not still certain that the condition of both benefits, viz. Gospel forgiveness and justification, is exactly the same ? Let us discuss these questions separately, and in the order proposed.
§ 2. The first question is, whether there be a condition (properly so called) in the Gospel covenant which is not also a condition of Gospel justification? You say that there is, in that you assert that repentance is a condition of the Mark!. 15. Gospel, joiued by Christ with faith, yet impugn my saying that repentance is a condition of justification. Elsewhere, however, you explain yourself more fully, viz. in yoiu' notes to page 21 of my book, where I quotc your own words. " I am often compelled to reiterate, that a condition of the covenant must be distinguished from the foundation of justi- fication. There are many conditions of the Gospel covenant ; there is one only foundation of justification on our part, which is, on the authority of St. Paul, faith.^' Here, by " the foundation of our justification on our part," if you speak properly, you mean the condition required on oui' pait for justification ; inasmuch as all ' right' is fonnded in the title, and the title is 'the foundation of om' right.' This title or foundation of right, is called by divines in this question, the ' condition ;' which is a Word used by lawyers, and is thus defincd by them : " A condition is the Suspension of a dis- positiou on an event as yet uncertain annexed to it." You
ivhich is not a condition ofjicstification also. 39
sav then, that thouerh there are rnanv conditions of tlie Gospel S T R l C.
* ^ \ .... VIT
covenant, there is but one condition of justification, i. e.
faith. To this statement of yours I oppose the foUowing assertion as anti-statement ; " there is one and the same condition (properly so called) of the Gospel covenaut and of Gospel justification."
§ 3. Here, however, some things mnst be premised, in Order to define the state of the question. First, we must observe, that by the 'condition^ of the Gospel is here meant, not whatever is enjoined in the Gospel, but that only which is required at the peril of the soul; i. e. the condition on which the eterual life and salvation of a man so depends, that if performed, a man Avill attain salvation, if not, he will have no hope of attaining it ; and accordingly, that is properly by lawyers called a condition (as I remarked just now) on which the disposition depends. We are enjoined in the Gospel to abstain as far as possible frora all sin ; but this is not required of us at the peril of our souls, or under the irrevocable penalty of death, (as the schoolmen say,) for then very few indeed, or rather none "would obtain salvation. Yet, that ni this question such a condition must be uuder- stood is evident, since the question regards 'faith and re- pentauce;' both of which, all allow, 'are required at the peril of our souls.' 2udly. It is to be remarked that a thing can be required as necessary to salvation in two ways, ' absolutely,' or ' hypothetically.' Faith and repeutance are required absolute!}", with whatever appertains necessarilj' to their essence, i. e. all Christian virtues, in which consists the 'di^dne nature,' or heavenly truth, together with all which is ^ öeTa comprehended under these two names in Scripture. With- t"p^^l' j 4 out these, no one ever has attained, no one ever will attain salvation. But worthy fruits of faith and repentance (all which are usually implied in the words, ' good life' or ' holy conversation') are required hypothetically, \dz. if God grant life and opportunity. Thus much premised, I put for^ard two propositions (which contain as many arguments in my favour, and those of the strengest kiud) to be proved.
§ 4. The first proposition is : Nothing is absolutely re- quired in the Gospel covenaut at the peril of the soul, Avhich is not required for justificatiou. Tliat this proposition is one
40 Repentance and faith
S T R I C. of most tmdeniable tmth, I prove by this argtiment : If any
^— thing in tlie Gospel covenant were absolut ely reqiiired at
the peril of the soul wbich is not also required in tlie same covenant for justification, then it were possible for a man to perform all things requisite for justificatiou, and be justified accordingly^ who yet may not have performed all that is ab- solutely reqnired in the Gospel covenant at tlie peril of bis soid. Wbence it would follow, tliat a man tliougb justified, and even wbile justified, migbt be deprived of eternal salva- tion, and accordingly damned eterually. But wbat Christian does not utterly abbor such a conclusion ? Sui*ely the thing is clear and evident without need of further explanation.
§ 5. The second proposition is : Nothing is requh-ed hy- pothetically in the Gospel covenant at peril of our souls, which is not also so far required for justification. That course and conversation (TroXtVeta) of good works, of which I have often spoken, is required at peril of the soul hypotheti- cally, viz. if God gi'ant life and opportunity : and on the same supposition it is required also for justification. He, who after having once obtained the grace of God in Christ by meaus of faith and repentance^ does not thenceforth go ou in a continued course of well-doing, but poUutes himself by sins destroying bis conscience, that man falls from bis right to salvation, and in consequence from bis justification : unless indeed you affirm that a man wbile still abiding in a State of justification can fall from bis right to salvation, which I have just now proved to be absiu'd, as is indeed self- evident. See our remarks II. Diss. xii. 29, p. 162. and our quotations from the most learned Davenant, II. Diss. x^^ii. 10. p. 214. The foundation, however, of these two propositions lies in this third : In a man's justification God gives him a i'ight to salvation; which proposition I have proved at length in answer to Stricture III. Hence the conclusion is as clear as day-light, that nothing can be required in the Gospel either to gain or retain a right to the kingdom of heaven, which is not equally required either to gain or retain one's justification; and thus much then for the first question.
§ 6. The second question is ; whether, granted that the condition of the Gospel covenant may bc distinct from the
conditions of the same henefit. 41
condition of Gospel justificatiorij it is not still certain that s T R i c. faith and repentance are conditions of one and the same •
benefit, viz. of Gospel justification. I will here speak biit briefly. You allow that faith is of necessity required to a man's justification; moreover you acknowledge that repent- ance is required of necessity in the Gospel covenant ; but you say it is not required for justification. I prove, how- ever, that repentance is of necessity required in the Gospel covenant, and that too to man^s justification, by these argumeuts. First, repentance is enjoined in the law of the Gospel on a sinner, who is as yet a stranger to grace and salvation, as a duty to be performed by him in the first place; in order that he may propitiate God, whom he has angered and set against himself by bis sins, or (in your words) that he may be reconciled to God. This is the constant and perpetual teaching of the Scriptures, a laborious proof of which would be superfluous among Christians, who are not quite strangers to God's word ; and to the same effect you yourself expressly allow in your notes to page 8. of my book, that "repentance is requisite for reconcihation ^vith God." Hence tlien I argue thus : Whatever is required for man^s reconcihation witli God, is required for man's justification : repentance is required for man's reconcihation with God : Therefore, &c. The truth of the minor you yourself allow in terms; the major premiss is proved easily; if whatever is required for man's reconcihation with God, were not required for man's justification, then it were possible, that he who has done all things requisite for justification, and is really justi- fied accordingly, may not, however, have done what is requi- site for his reconcihation with God, consequently may not yet have been reconciled to God. But the conclusion is most false; therefore also the premiss. That a justified person, from the very fact of his being justified, is reconciled with God, no one in his senses will deny. Hence you absurdly enough deny that a man who is justified, from the very fact of his being justified, is accepted by God unto salvation — yet you allow that a man who is justified, from the very fact of his being justified, is acquitted of the guilt of all his sins, and pronounced rightcous by God ; and consequently no longer liable to tlie wrath of God due to his sins.
42 Remission ofsins implied in justification.
s T R I c. § 7. !My other argnunent, somewhat akin to the former,
: is of this nature : Repentance is either required for man's
justification, er not required at all. You allow that it is required. But, if it is required, it is required either from a man "who is to be justified, or from a man ^vlio is already justified. That repentance is not required from a man already justified is shewn by our Lord's Avords, speaking of Luke 1-5. 7. just men, — [ort ■)(p€iav ovk c^oimtl fjt^eravoia^) — "they need no repentance" — viz. tliat entire repentance, by which tbe wbole kind of life is cbanged, and a man leaves a state of sin and deatb, for a state of grace and salvation : and of tbis repent- ance alone we are bere speaking. Therefore tbis repentance is required from a man wbo is to be justified, and in order to bis justification; it goes before justification, and disposes a man to receive tbe free grace of justification. " For Divine mercy," as Davenant says, " does not justify Stocks, i. e. tbose wbo do notbing ; nor yet borses and mules, i. e. tbose wbo kick against Hirn, and stick obstinately to tbeir own lustsj but men, and tbose pricked in beart and contrite, and follow- ing tbe leading of tbe "Word and Spirit of God.^' Certainly one cannot but look on it as a prodigy, tbat learned and sensible men sbould be blind in so piain a matter. I pass to tbe tbird question.
§ 8. Tbe tbird question is — Wbetber remission of sins comes into tbe notion or definition of Gospel justification? or vbetber tbe notion of Gospel justification includes remis- sion of sins. I ans wer in tbe afl&rmatire, you in tbe nega- tive. Your opinion on tbis point you borrowed (as I learnt from tbe unfinisbed -vrork wbicb no long time back you pubbsbed after your fatber's deatb, "vntb little consideration for bis good name) from your very leamed fatber T. G., wbose praises I sbould bare bad great pleasure in recounting, had you been süent tbereupon. Xerertbeless with your leare, cbanging tbe names, I will use your o\m ■vrords in tbe notes on page 7. of my book on Hammond, a man of tbe bigbest reputation, and at least equal to your fatber. " Tbe most leamed and pious T. G., wbose memory I esteem and bonour, was not infalbble, and bas often stumbled in tbis argument." I saw by cbance a MS. in wbicb two great di\ines are described as entering into a friendly con-
Remissian not the whole of justification. 43
troversy on the subject of justification. Here was a System STRIC.
of justification, with yoiir father^s name attached to it, very '- —
ingenious, like its author, and drawn out with no small labour ; but such as in matter of fact was not approved of by either of these divines. Certainly the ideas of the leamed gentleman on this point, which you have undertaken to defend, are stränge and novel, and opposed to the sentiments of nearly all the reformed divines. But to our purpose. In sifting this question, I will first endeavour to establish my own Statement, and then refute your father^s and your own opinion. I will accomplish my first task thus. First, I will explaiu the state of the question ; then I will bring forward the arguments for my opinion : lastly, I will answer your father's and your own objections,
§ 9. First as regards the state of the question — Ist, it must be remarked that we do not assert that remission of sins is the whole of justification, or that it fills up the whole length and breadth of the idea of Gospel justification. ' To justify' (as the word is iised in the N. T. on this point) is more than 'to remit sins,^ inasmuch as justification contains also the Imputation of reward, as I have shewn at some length above, and therefore all that we maintain is, that re- mission of sins is included and comprehended in the notion of justification, or is one act of Gospel justification. You, on the contrary, assert plainly that " remission of sins is an act entirely extraneous to justification," in your notes at page 16. of my book. 2ndly, it must be observed that we do not assert that the word justification, of itself, imphes the remission of sins ; we are aware and allow that there may be cases of justification where there is no place for remission. In a human court, if an innocent man is brought to trial, he is acquitted according to the law by the declaration of a just judge, i. e. he is justified; but nothing is remitted to him, because he is not guilty of any crime ; and therefore you toil in vain to prove that which no man in his senses has ever yet denied. You must remember, my good Sir, that this is a question touching Gospel justification, or the justification of a sinner by the law of the Gospel. Here we confidently and without any hesitation declare, that Gospel justification necessarilv includes remission of sins, and accordiuclv that a
44 Gospel jmtification explained from Scripture.
STRic. sinner can be justified by the Gospel covenant in no other way than by the remission of sin. Grotius, as usualj com- Lib. de pi'ises the whole in few words : " Justification," he says, " as Satisfact. jg ^gji known every where in Holy Scripture, more especially cap. 1. in St. Paul's Epistles, signifies acqnittal, which (sin being ^' * presupposed) consists in the remission of sins, as St, Paul himself plainly declares, especially Rom. iv. 2, 6." I would that this great man had not afterwards tui'ned from this most genuine notion of justification to another. 3rdly, it must be particularly remarked, that when we assert that remission of sins is iucluded and comprehended in the notion of justifi- cation, MC do not mean a bare and simple remission of sins, but a remission of such a kind as is granted on satisfaction having been made according to some covenant, or law, and on certain conditions. For we are talking (as I am obliged often to repeat) of Gospel justification, consequeatly of that remission of sins which is granted in accordance with the Gospel covenant ratified by Christ's blood, and under certain conditions prescribed and required in that same covenant. He who attends to these three things will easily perceive the truth of my Statement, and vriW be able of himself, without other aids, to solve the objections which you and yoiu' father have brought against it. Nevertheless I will proceed in sifting the question according to the plan I proposed.
§ 10. And so, in the second place, the arguments for my
Statement must be brought forward. Here, howerer, I will
contend on the sole testimony of Scripture ; for what Gospel
justification is, may be gathered, by the best and surest
reasoning, from those passages of the New Testament in
which it is described, and, as it were, professedl}^ explained.
I will begin with a well known passage quoted in the
Acts 13. Harmony; " Be it known unto you, therefore, raen and
' ■ brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the
forgiveness of sins : and by Hirn all that believe are justified
näs 6 from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the
m^T^icy 1j^^ of Moses." I Said that Hammond had well determined
otKaiovrai.
SiKaiow. that from this passage the true meaning of the word ' justify,' in St. Paulis Epistles, could be best infcrred. You do not agrce, however, with this opinion of Ilammond, and you ac- cordingly ask, "Why, I pray, ought the meaning of the word
The same as forgiveness ofsins. 45
to be gatliered from this text ratlier tlian from the long dis- s T R l c.
course of St. Paul himself, the veiy purpose of wliicli is to
elucidate the sum of the Gospel, as consisting chiefl}^ in the righteousness which is by faith?" But in truth, whether from having been carried away with the too eager desire of impugning Hammond with or without reason, or of defending your own rashly preconceived opinion^ you have failed to remai'k that you have rejeeted even your great Calvin's opiniou, not to mention the lesser lights^ the di\-iues who followed Calvin. His words on the passage are as follows : "This passage shews plainly wliat the force of the word 'justify' is in other places." And this indeed is quite piain; for there is scarcely another passage in which the idea of Gospel justification is explained more fully. Your question is futile, sinee the idea of justification put forth in that passage is St. Paulis owu, and excellently well agrees with his long argument of which you speak. Let us, however, (apart from authorities, either Hammond or CaMn,) examine the passage itself freely and fully. JNIy words are : " whence it is extremely clear, that the justification Avliich is preached in the Gospel of Christ^ is nothing eise than the gracious act of God, by which for Christas sake He acquits those who truly believe, viz. those endowed with a perfected faith, and frees them from the guilt and punishment of all sins^ even the greatest/' &c. ; and what^ I ask^ can be cleai'er than l. Diss. i. tliis ? you will say perhaps, (what you do say afterwards, and ' P" ^' nothing eise have you to say,) that 'justification from sins^in this passage means acquittal not only from guilt and punish- ment, but from the härm also and fault of sin, and so is a very different thing from remission of sins. By this answer, (besides that you are defending a manifest absurdity, \iz. that a man, who has been once involved in sin, can be freed from the very fault of sin ; of which we will speak more at length presently,) you contradict in the most piain terms the text itself, in which ' the justifying,' ver. 39, is expressly ex- SiKaicoa-is. plained by 'the forgiveness of sins,^ ver. 38; for not only do &<pf<ris^ interpreters (with the single exception of Grotius) agree, but "■^"■P'^^'^^- it is clear of itself, that the same benefit of remission which the Apostle had briefly mentioned ver. 38, he explains more fully ver. 39, by shewing both its condition, viz. faith in
46 This held by Calvin, Musculus, Parcms, ^r.
STRIC. Christ,, and its superiority to that remission which tlie law of
'- — ]Moses gi'anted : and this I have ah'eady remarked in the
Harraouv^ p. 8.
§ 11. From this passage I pass to another equally clear:
Rom. 4. " Even as Da^dd also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, say- ing, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impnte sin." By these words St. Paul proves ' that righteousness is imputed to a man/ or that a man is justified ^without works/ from the testimony of David asserting the blessedness of the man to wliom God forgives sins. And what force is there in the Apostle's argumenta unless you hold that a man's justification consists, at least partly, in the forgiveness of sins? If ^justification' and 'forgiveness of sins' are so separate from^ and unconnected withj each other, as you maintain, surely the Apostle would have been arguing in this passage (as they say) round corners ; and accordingly if I am convieted byyou of unsound reasoning herein, I have my consolation : — I prefer being wrong with the blessed Apostle to thinking rightly with you. But see how much more widely still you differ from the greatest interpreters (among the refonners) in the exposition of this passage. Calvin writcs thus on the passage : " By these words we learn that 'righteousness' with St. Paul is uothing eise than the ' forgiveness of sins.' " Here Calvin's statement, that righteousness is nothing eise than forgiveness of sins, must be explained fi'om otlier passages of his writings, in which he confesses plainly, that besides forgiveness of sins, " the imputation of righteousness" also is contained in the notion of justification. Musculus writes thus on the passage : " The third argument is a declaration Jind confirmation of the second; justification is the forgiveness of sins; thercfore we are not justified on account of our worthiness and desert."
dub. 5. Lastly Parasus, in explanation of the chapter : " That the Apostle places justification solely in the forgiveness of sins is evident from ver. 6 ; for ' to pronouuce blessed/ ' to impnte righteousness/ ' to forgive sins/ ' to cover iniquities/ ' not to impute sins/ are used by the Apostle as cquivalent terms." If one is here ofiFended by the word 'solely/ we may re-
St. Luke xviii. 13, 14, and Acts xxvi. 17, I8, prove the same. 47
member that it may be explained in the same way as Cal- STRIC. vin's Avords above mentioned. '- —
§ 12. A third passage, whicli is clear and plain, occurs Luke xräi. 13, 14, wbere tbese two expressions are taken as equivalent, '^iz. 'to be merciful to a sinner/ (wLicb is nothing eise than 'to forgive a sinner his sins/) and 'to justify a sinner/ For when Christ mentioned the words of the publican praying God " Be merciful to me a sinner," He goes on to remind us what was the eflect of that prayer ; " I teil you, this man went down to his house justified," &c. Hear what Cahäu says on this passage : " This passage," he says, "teaches plainly what it is 'to be justified' in the proper sense of the word, viz. to stand before God as though we were righteous. For the publican is not said to be justified because he had acquired any new quality, but because, his guilt ha^dng been cancelled, and his sins done away, he obtained favour." Whence it follows that ' righteousness consists in the remis- sion of sins/
§ 13. There is also a well known passage, Acts xxvi. 17, 18, where St. Paul is said to be sent by Christ to the Gentiles, " to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the poAver of Satan unto God, that they may re- ceive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Him." For who doubts but that ' to receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among the sanctified by faith in Christ' means the same as when it is elsewhere said, 'to be justified by faith in Christ?^ Therefore he who is justified, by the very fact of his being justified, receives these two benefits from God through Christ, "forgiveness of sins," {äcpeaiv ä/xapTiojv,) " and an inheritance among them that are sanctified," («X?}- pov iv TOL<i rjyiacr/jievoi^) i. e. 'a right to a heavenly inheritance with all other saints,^ as I shewed above by many arguments. These two benefits fill up the whole nature and idea of Gospel justification, in the füll extent of its signification.
§ 14. A fifth argument may be drawn from some parallel passages, ^dz. " In whom we have redemption through His Epli. l. 7. blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace." " In whom we have redemption through His blood, Col. 1.14. even the forgiveness of sins." " For all have sinned," &c. Rom. 3.
23, 24.
48 The whole Gospel comp-isedunder repentance andforgiveness.
s T R I c. " Being justified freely by His grace througli the redemption
^^^' that is in Christ Jesus." " Being justified by His blood, we
shall be saved from "wrath." "\Miat is said in the two last
Rom. 5. 9. passages, ' tlie being justified tbrougb tbe redemption that is in Christ Jesus/ and ^the being justified by the blood of Christ/ is called in the former passages 'the ha^dng re- demption through the blood of Christ.' But this St. Paul expressly explains in the same passages by ' the having for- giveness of sins' (e%eti/ äc^eaiv TrapaTTTcofidrcov), or {dfiapTtcov). For the words '' forgiveness of sins'^ are put in apposition with the former in this way: "in whom we have redemption, i. e. forgiveness of sins." And in this all intei-preters agi'ee. Now from all the passages here collated it is clearer than the day, that ' to have redemption in Christ Jesus/ or ' to be justified by the redemption which is in Christ Jesus/ and ' to have forgiveness in Christ Jesus^ are equivalent.
§ 15. Lastly, our opinion is confirmed by those passages where the whole of the Gospel is comprised under these tAvo heads, riz. ^repentance and forgiveness of sins.^ In Luke xxiv. 47, our Lord says that 'repentance andremission of sins' were to be preached in His name ' among all nations.' In Acts V. 31, " Him, (Christ,) hath God exalted with His right band to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repent- ance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." In these passages the announcement of the Gospel is made in two parts, 'a demand, and a promise.' Repentance is demanded, under which the whole of obedience is comprised; forgiveness of sins is promised, in which is contained justification, and the acceptance of a man to eternal salvation. Yet these would not be contained thercin, if, as you thiuk, forgiveness of sins were an act wholly extraneous to justification. But under the Word 'repentance' obedience is comprised, because repentance is the chief part of that obedience : so in the word ' forgive- ness' the whole of justification is implied, because forgiveness of sins is no small part of our justification. Hence it is that in the well known passage, Heb. riii. 12, all that is simply promiscd by God in the New Covenant, (it is true, our sanctification also is there promiscd, or the writiug of God's law in our heart; but that is not simply promised, but is even exacted in some degree as a duty of ours, and has reference
Objedion from the shHct meaning ofthe word. 49
to a condition required on our part,) is contained in these S T R l C. words : '^ I will be merciful to tlieir unrighteousness, and '- —
tlieir sins and tlieir iniquities will I remember no more." To wliom God grants forgiveness of sins, to liim He even tliereby grants all tliings. By all tliis, I think I have proved sufficiently tliat Gospel justification includes in its idea for- giveness of sins, which was wliat I liad to prove.
§ 16. I will now, in the tliird place, answer tlie objections brouglit by you and your learned fatlier on tlie opposite side. Here I will follow, step by step, the footmarks of your father, weighing thoroughly and accurately the argumenta adduced in his posthumous writings against the common sentiments of the reformed divines. With your leave I will adopt this plan, especially as you have brought no objection that you have not borrowed from your father, and some things are adduced by him, which you have omitted.
§ 17. Objection I. The first argument of the learned man is di-awn from the strict and most proper meaning of the word 'justification/ as it is received in the Old or New Testament. Never, he says, is the word there used in the sense of ' forgiveness of sins.' Tliis he proves by a sort of induction of passages in which the word justification or its inflexions are found. In all these, he says, Substitute in the place of ' to justify,' ' to forgive sins •' in the place of the word ' justification,^ ' forgiveness of sins ;' in the place of 'justified,' 'he whose sins are forgiven/ and see if the sense be quite suited to the passage where the word occurs ; or rather, whether the meaning be not only discordant (with the sense of the passage), but also evidently absurd. He brings forward many passages of Scripture by way of examplcs. " Read,'^ says he, " the words of Judah to Joseph : ' How shall Gen. 44. we clear ourselves.' Read the words of Moses respecting ' the judges : 'They sliall justify the righteous, and condemn Deut.25.l. the wicked.^ Read David's words to God : ' That Thou Ps. 51. 4. mightest be justified when Thou speakest.' Job's words to his friends : ' God forbid that I should justify you.' Christ's Job 27. 5. of the sons of wisdom : ' Wisdom is justified of her children.' Mat. 11. The Apostle's words concerning hiraself : ' For I know j q^^ ^ ^ nothing by mysclf, yet am I not hereby justified V or con- cerning our Saviour : ' Justified in the Spirit.' Read," he i Tim. 3.
BULL. j; "•
50 Used differently under the Gospel.
STRIC. saySj ^'tliese passages in tliis way, (not to mention all the
'■ — others), aud you will affix a sense to the words whGlly un-
suitable, nay, thoroughly repugnant to the meauing of those by whoin the words were iittered." I aiiswer — A specious objection enough ; but one which is easilj' refuted by what we laid down in determining the state of the question. For, first, we have granted that the word justification does not necessarily or of itself mean forgiveness of sins ; but we say that such is the use of the word, that when applied to the law and tribunal of the Gospel, it includes in its meaning forgiveness of sins; to wit, ^to justify^ is 'to pronounce righteous.' Now, this is properly said of him who is truly just and free from fault. In this war no sinner can be justified. For it is impossible without a piain contradiction, that he who has once been eutangled in sin should be pro- nounced by God truly righteous and free from fault, i. e. as thougli he had never committed sin. Therefore the word justification, transferred to the law aud tribunal of the Gospel, and used of the acquittal of a sinner, cannot be taken in its original sense. He is justified in this coiirt and by this law, of whom God declares that, on the most just grounds, his guilt hanng been cancelled and bis sins done away, it has seemed good to His wisdom, justice, and goodness, to treat such an one as righteous. Secondly, no passage is brought forward by the learned gentleman, where mention is made of the general justification of a sinner according to the Gospel covenant, (the only matter in dis- pute,) to which his own rule cannot most fitly, and without altering the real meaning of the passage, be applied. And so his induction is lame and imperfect. In all the passages where mention is made of the general justification of a sinner, according to the Gospel covenant, if instead of the word 'justification' or its inflcxions you Substitute 'forgiveness of sins' or its inflexions, you will get a very good aud consistent meaning. Thus all the places where man is said to be jus- tified by faith, can be explained most suitably, and accord- ingly ought to be explained in this way ; by faith a man's sins are forgiven, and a right to eternal life and salvation is granted him by the Gospel covenant : and that this is the füll meaning of Gospel justification, I have already shcwn
Ansiver to the second ohjection. 51
by many arguments. Nay, I liave brought forward manysTRic.
passages of Scripture where Gospel justification is expressly ' —
explaiued by forgiveness of sins ; all wbich it is unfair to set aside for any man's grammatical subtleties, be he never so learned.
§ 18. Objection II. It is e^ddent that forgiveness of sins and justification are different things. For it is an un- questioned axiom, that things which differ in subject, dift'er from each other. And that forgiveness of sins and justifica- tion differ in subject is equally e^ddent. For there may be justification where there is no place for forgiveness of sins, and, vice versa, there may be forgiveness of sins Avhere there can be no justification. The learned man proves both by examples taken from Scripture. If any one, he says, does me an injury, I can forgive him the fault, while yet in my judgment and thinking I do not justify him; vice versa, he 2Sam. li). who is falsely accused of doing a wrong to another, may be ^'ß-'^xin^s justified ; yet nothing is forgiven him, inasmuch as he is free 2. 8, 9. from fault' P'^f ^^-
1, &c.
I answer, first, we allow at once, that many examples may be found which shew that there may be forgiveness where there is no place for justification, and vice versa, But we must not forget that the question is solely in reference to Gospel forgiveness and justification ; and surely these two do not differ in subject. God forgives no one his sins, according to the Gospel, whom He does not justify; and reciprocally, He justifies no one whose sins He does not forgive. The example, which the learned gentleman afterwards adduces, of the rebellious Israelites, whose sins God is said to have for- given, while it is certain that they were not justified by God, Ps. 78. 37, I should not have expected from a man of his candour and '^^' good sense ; it being evident that a füll remission is not meant there, of which alone we are speaking; and accordingly he corrects him seif, and allows in terms that, as regards the general state (to use his own expression) and condition of man, God forgives no man his sins whom He does not justify ; so that this argument, even by his own decision, does not bear on the point. Secondly, since the controversy turns on Gos- pel forgiveness, it is piain that not a ' bare' and ' simple' for- nudam et giveness is meant, (such as is that when a man simply forgives ^""^ ^'^^™'
E 2
52 Answer to the third objection,
s T R I c. another, who has injured liira, liis offence,) but a forgiveness,
— —-^ — if I may so call it, 'legitimate' or (conditional), \yliicli is ' graüted according to a certain law and on certain conditions ; a bare forgiveness is not only not always, but never the same as j^^stification. He wliose sins are simply forgiven^ can in no sense be said to be justified; since it is evident that justification is a term of law. On tlie otlier band, a legiti- mate forgiveness, or tbat Avhicli is granted according to a certain law and on certain conditions, is rightly called justi- fication, and is always tbe same as the justification of a person wbo is forgiven according to a law. A good example of this occurs in human matters : a king who has subjects in rebellion, and guilty of high treason, offers them pardon for what they have done, under certain conditions; for instance, that within a stated day they lay down their arms, surrender themselves to him, and bind themselves by an oath of fidelity for the future. Here the rebel subject, if he perform the condition, obtains the pardon of bis crimes according to the law of the prince, or is acquitted of the Charge of treason by the same law, i. e. he is justified. Such is the justification of a sinner by the law of grace promulgated
See espe- in the Gospel.
1^3^38^39^ § 19. Objection III., and last. Forgiveness in itself, viewed in its bare and simple notion, is an act of pure grace and mercy; but justification, proper ly speaking, is an act of
Deut.25.1; justice. Therefore, &c. . . . The first part of the antecedent • ^^* ^' the learned man fairly takes for granted ; the latter part he proves by many arguments, and shews at length that justi- fication is an act of justice, and not of pure grace and mercy, from the actual proper application of the word ' to justify/ which in every language, and in the common and constant use of men, is taken in the sense of justice.
I answer, first, I graut both parts of the antecedent, viz. that forgiveness, considered by itself, is an act of free mercy and grace, and, that justification, beyond all doubt, is an act of justice. What füllows from this ? This only legitimately ; viz. that a man's justification does not consist in a bare and simple forgiveness ; and I grant this : especially as I have alrcady shewn, that wliere there is a bare and simple for- giveness, there is there no place for justification ; and surely,
that justification is an act of justice. 53
this has never been denied by the reformed divines^ who have s TRI c. taugbt that a man's justification consists in tlie forgiveness of '- —
sins : so that the learned man is here fighting with his own shadow. The question is not, whether a man's justification in the Gospel covenant consists in a mere and bare forgive- ness, (such a question woiüd iraply a contradiction,) but "whether a man's justification in the Gospel covenant consists in that forgiveness which is granted by tlie same covenant ? This question Av^e constantly answer in the aflii'mative, nor does the learned gentleman, in the whole course of his long argument, bring forward any thing to the contrary. For, secondly, the state and condition of Gospel forgiveness are the same as of Gospel justification. As far as Gospel justifi- cation is an act of justice, so far Gospel forgiveness is an act of justice. Again : as far as Gospel justification is an act of grace and mercy, so far Gospel forgiveness is an act of grace and mercy. As to the former, that Gospel justification is an act of justice, this may be proved by two arguments : first, that it is founded in Christ's satisfaction ; secondly, that it is transacted by law, and according to law. But who does not see that by the same arguments it is as evident that Gospel forgiveness is also an act of justice ? For, is it not Gospel forgiveness founded in Christ's satisfaction just as much as Gospel justification ? Is not the Gospel forgiveness bestowed See Rom. by law, and according to law ? Assuredly it is ; for it is pare/wUh therefore called Gospel forgiveness, because it is granted by Mat. 2(i. the law of the Gospel ; and under certain conditions pre- i. 7 . col. scribed by the same law. Hence God, in granting a penitent ^- ^*- forgiveness of his sins, is called 'just' and 'faithfuL' Again: iJoh. 1.9. that Gospel justification is also, and that peculiarly, an act of gi'ace and mercy, (although the learned gentleman here speaks in a way that is by no means safe, and seems to separate every notion of grace and mercy from the idea of justification — of which I will speak more presently,) the Holy Scriptures bear piain testimony. We are said ' to be justified freely by His (i. e. God's) grace' {8iKatova-6at Swpeäv rfj avrov Rom.3.21'. '^dpiTt). Where the Apostle uses a remarkable pleonasm to Compare shew that the justification of a siuner must be attributed to ^^" ' the grace and mercy of God. Of the forgiveness of sins Holy Scripturc speaks in likc manner: "In whom (Christ) Epli. 1.7.
54 Refutation of absurdities and contradictiom
s T R I c. we have redemption througli His blood, the forgiveness of
'- — sins according to the riclies of His grace" {Kara top ttXovtov
T^9 X«/3iT09 avTov). Thercfore, let tlie learned gentleman turn whicli way he will, he will find nothing that may not be as equally said of justification as of forgiveness.
§ 20. Thus, then, I have supported my own judgment on this question ; it reraains, that I refute your and your father's opinioTi. For although, ou the statement of the eoramon doctrine, 3'our opiniou falls to the ground of itself, yet I thought it might benefit the reader, were I briefly to explain it as it Stands, and take it to pieces. Your opinion, then, (if I understand you rightlj^,) is something of this kind : — you hold, that a man is first made righteous by Christ's satis- faction, and freed, not ouly from the punishment ef sin, but also the fault of it, i. e. from the 'desert^ of punishment; that after this, all his sins are in consequence forgiven.
p. 6. Your words, in the sheets annexed to the end of my book,
are these : — " God in the justification of a sinner acts faith- fully as a just judge, when He acquits the faithful, whom
Rom. 5.19. Christ has made righteous by His obedience, of all the guilt of his sins. Since the true forgiveness of sins inseparably accompanies justification, the Apostle proves from the Psalms that a man is justified by faith without vrorks, because man's
Rom. 4. sins are forgiven without works. For on this account God ~^' does not impute sin to a Christian, because He had imputed to Christ the sins of a world reconciled to Himself, and iraputes the righteousness of Christ to the faithful, as the Apostle says plaiuly, 2 Cor. v. 19, 21." Afterwards, in the same sheets, you say, " to justif}^ is to acquit of the very desert of punish- ment, and make free from all blame;" and again, in the
p. 7- same sheets, you say : " He Avho is accountcd righteous and
innocent on account of Christ's propitiation and expiation of sin, must necessarily be forgiven all his sins, by the mere force of natural consequence."
§ 21. It were hard to say in how many and how great absurdities this opiniou of yours is involved : let it suffice to mention tliree things ouly.
Firstly, this opinion necessarily determines the Imputation of Christ's righteousness to be such as uo reason can dcfend : nay, it is diametrically opposcd to Scripturc and right reason.
contained in the Cemurer's opinion. 55
All Catliolics confess that it is by Christ's righteousness s T R I C.
alone, or the obedience performed by Christ, that God is .:
willing to forgive a repentant sinner his sins, and not im- puting his guilt treat him as a righteous person. by giving him a right to salvation and life eternal. But not contented with this, you say that Christ's righteousness is so imputed to' US, that by it we are accounted by God really righteous ourselves, innocent, and free not only from all punishment, but also fi'om all fault. God's judgraent is true according to truth, and therefore no man, who has once been entangled in sin, can be accounted by God really righteous, innocent, and free from sin, Of the imputation of Christ's righteous- ness we will speak (D. Y.) more at length presently.
Secondly, This opinion labours under a manifest contradic- tion; it holds that a man who is already made righteous, and freed from all fault, is afterwards forgiven his sins and pardoned. Who can avoid hitting on so gross and palpable a contradiction ? Surely where there is no fault, it is piain there can be no room for forgiveness. And so
§ 23. Thirdly, This opinion entirely takes away and over- turus all forgiveness of sins in that economy of God by which He justifies a man. This argument is closely connected Avith the preceding. If you acknowledge any forgiveness of sins, you must hold that that forgiveness is granted either before justification, or in the act of justification, or after justifica- ■ tion. But in accordance with your opinion you can agree to none of these three. Before justification no one, I suppose, in his senses will say that a man's sins are forgiven ; that they are forgiven in the act of justification you openly deny ; that they cannot be forgiven after justification I have already shewn; therefore according to your opinion all forgiveness of sins is entirely done away. But I have no need to speak here of inferences, for although you talk of forgiveness of sins constantly, it is CAident you do not mean forgiveness in its true sense. Your words in the sheets added at the end of my book are piain : "He who is justified from a chargc p. ö. has nothing forgiven liim. Forgiveness of sins has no agree- ment with justification." I say the truth, I shudder as I read this new and dangerous doctrine. You are here digging up the very foundations of Gospel doctrine, which every
56 This teaching closely alUed to Socinianism.
s T R I c. where proclaims, and ^vith tlie greatest praises exalts and
YII
extols tliat free gracious benefit of God, whicli is called {ä(j)ecn^ äfiapTtSv) ' forgiveness of sins.' Xow may the im- pious heretics of Socinus' school quote tlie Tvords of a di^ine ■who glories in tlie title of orthodoxy in proof of tlieir detest- able Position, viz. " tliat Christ's satisfaction being granted, forgiveness of sins is not a free gracious act ;" for you hold, that Christas satisfaction being granted, tlie forgiveness of sins is not only not a free gracious act, but tliat there is no forgiveness. I perceive at last with what judgment the most learned of inen said not long ago, " It is a true and Catholic doctnne tliat Christ made satisfaction for the sins of men; but it bas been fearfuUy coiTupted by Calvin's disciples ; so much so that in this respect their error is more dangerous than that of Socinus/' If any one wishes for an antidote to de Satis- this poisonous doctrine, let him read Grotius' book, (approved Christi^ by all learned and Catholic men, and deservedly taken for cap. 6. a shield against the blows and all the Aveapons of Socinus,) 124. where that great man shews at length and clearly, that for-
giveness is so far from being opposed to foregoing satisfac- tion, that on the contraiy "the sole object of satisfaction (which is a payment of debt such as may be refused) being admitted is to make room for forgiveness.^^ In the same p. 128. chapter he proves against Socinus "the granting a free favour is not opposed at all to any sort of satisfaction ; it is not opposed to that (satisfaction) which is both freely ad- mitted, whereas it miglit have been rejected, and to Avhich the benefited person contributes nothiug : both which are the case with the satisfaction of Christ for us.^' And a little p. 129. after, " A tliiiig is riglitly said to be pardoned as also to be forgiven, even when a payment is annexed, but such a pay- ment as cannot but by an act of God's will procure our deliverance. For even princes, when they pardon ciiminals capital crimes, usually appoiut them some fine as well as some public deprecation of their fault ; and they are not said the less on that account to forgive the crimcs. How much more justly then will this word be used, when the required satisfaction does not proceed from us, but we obtain deUver- ance gratuitous as respects ourselves, although not absolutely gratuitous ? and Scripture marks this when it speaks of our
Testimony of St. Clement of Rome. 57
lö2.
being justified freely, but adds directly, ' by tbe redemption s T R i c. wliich is in Christ Jesus.' " '- —
§ 24. To these words I will add by way of seal the well- °™" * known testimony of Clement of Rome, an apostolic Father c. 7. p and all but inspired, in bis Epistle to the Corinthiaus^ whicb by all learned men is accounted genuine. ^Arevl^cofMeu et? TO alfia Tov Xpiarov, Koi thw^ev o)^ ecrrc rifiiov tw 0ea> alfxa avTOv, o, TL hia tyjv rj/xerepav a(OT7]piav iK)(y6ev Travrt tö) KÖa-fKp /xeravola'? %«/3iy VTrrjvejKev. " Let us gaze stedfastly on the blood of Christ, and see how precious His blood is in God's sight^ which, shed for our salvation, confeiTed the grace of repentance on the whole world.'' These words I have ever thought worthy of being engraved in letters of gold, and by all who wish to study true theology, committed to memory for ever ; inasmuch as they contain the genuine explanation of the satisfaction of Christ as given by a com- panion of the Apostles. I have no time at present to shew, how the testimony of this apostolic Father puts an end in these few words to all question as to the satisfaction of Christ, in Opposition both to Socinians and others, who in shunning the Charybdis of Socinus have Struck upon a no less dangerous Scylla. The intelligent reader will be able to understand this of itself. I infer two things only, which bear especially on our point ; 1. that the satisfaction of Christ delivers no one ipso facto, biit only efFects this, that any one may be delivered from the guilt of sin under the condition and law of repentance ; 2. that notwithstanding the satisfaction of Christ, it must be accounted the free grace and mercy of God that Ple allows a sinner to repent, or (as Clement afterwards explains himself) grants us a place of repentance, i. e. that He is willing to bloss the penitent believer with the forgiveness of his sins. He spoke of the free grace of repentance to express the free act of God in this work. But this is our very positiou, that the satisfaction of Christ being granted, the forgiveness of sins is a free gracious act.
And thus far then as to the third question, whethcr the idea of Gospcl justification includes the forgiveness of sins ? on the determining of which we have dwelt the longer, as well because the question in itself is one of great momcnt, as also
58 Solution of the last question proposed.
ST RI C. and most of all because every where in your remarks you are
^^^- reproacliing me with tlic falsc idea I liavo of Gospcl justifica-
tion, and state it as my great mi stake, the fountain and
source of various errors. But whicli of us has tlie truer idea
of Gospel justification, tlie impartial readcr may now decide.
§ 25. There rcmains the fourth and last question, viz. whcthcr, it bcing granted that forgiveness of sins is not necessarily included in the idea of Gospcl justification, it is not still certain that the condition of both benefits, \iz. Gospcl forgiveness and justification, is exactly the same ? This question I will solve in one word. You allow yoursclf that forgiveness of sins proceeds from justification by the force of natural consequencc, (as you call it) . But whatever is required for that which is the neeessary consequence of justification, must also be required for justification itself. I entreat you, do you seriously think that any thiug is neees- sary for the forgiveness of sins, which is not also neeessary for justification ? You yovu-self remark (as we saw just now) that forgiveness of sins necessarily accompanies justification j and therefore that the Apostle St. Paiü rightly proved that a man is justified by fiiith without works, because a man's sins
Rom. 4. are for^iven without works. Might I not then on the autho- ' rity of the Apostle argue thus — A man's sins are not forgiven
without repentance ; therefore a man is not justified without repentance ? for you yoursclf bring the reason of the con- sequence in these words : " Forgiveness of sins inseparably accompanies justification." Therefore, if I granted you that forgiveness of sins is not eontained in the idea itself of Gospel justification, (which I have shewn to be uttei'ly falsc,) it Avould neither help your cause at all, nor injure mine ; so that you have plainly spent all your labour in vain.
STRICTURE VIII.
ON I. DISS. ii. 8. p. Iß.
I here press those, who teach that faith is the sole instru- ment of justification, with a dilcmma ; in the elucidation of the first part of which I ask them, " IIow can the works of repentance be neeessary to him who hath been already justi- fied by faith alone ?" You answer, "Shew one passagc, ifyou
Faith not the sole instrument. 59
carij where the Holy Spirit determines works of repeutance s TR l c.
to be requisite for justification. I know tliat tliis is im '—
possiljle ; nay, tlie contrary can be shewn — meanwliile I am aware, and allow that God exacts works of repentance from US on divers other accounts ; but a man may obtain tlie righteousness of faitli, who is cut off by death fi'om tbe opportunity of bringiug forth fruits of repeutance/^
ANSWER TO STRICTURE VIII.
I have in tbat place brougbt forward some piain enough passages, in whicli the Holy Spirit determines that works of repentance are of necessity required for the remission of sins, to which I might have easily added numberless others ; and that remission of sins and justification are equivalent termSj I have just made most evident. ^Mien you say it is possible for a man to obtain the righteousness of faith, who is cut off by death from an opportunity of bringing forth fruits of repentance, what is this but egregious sophistiy ? The works of repentance are twofold ; either internal, which are performcd within, in a man's inmost heart; such as sorrovring for sin, hating sin, humbly submitting oneself to God, flying to God's mercy, loving God in Christ, and seek- ing Ilim before all things, the purposing a new life, and the like ; or external, such as are completed in external act ; of which kind are restitution, alms, &c. Only the works of re- pentance of the former kind are absolutely necessary to obtain the first justification, while the latter are necessary for its continuation when obtained, if God give man the opportunity of practising them. Yet these latter ought to be pcrformed, in wish at least, by every man who is to be justified, which wish is to be comprehended under the purpose of a new life. All this I do not state in the passage to which you object, Avhere I was talkiug of works of both kinds promiscuously, but had you a particle of candour you Avould acknowledge that I have stated this distiuctly in other parts of my Dissertations. At the cnd of the second Dissertation (chap. xviii.,) I avowedly admonish the reader of what I would have thoroughly fixcd in his mind, lest he ghould eitlicr misunderstand my Dissertations, or, in this
3—5.
60 No righteousness without repentance,
STRIC. most important point, sliotild at the hazard of liis salvation ^^^^' err from the truth ; wliere read these words of mine : " It
§ 8. p. 209. myg|. ijg understood^ that oiily tlie internal works of faith, repentance, hope, charity, &c., are absolutely necessary to the first justification ; but the other external works, which appear in outward actions or in the actual exercise of the above-uamed virtues, are only the signs and fruits of internal piety, being subsequent to justification, and to be performed
See also providcd opportunity be given." But he who says it is pos-
li.Diss.ii. sibie for a man to obtain the righteousness of faith who is prevented by death from performing these internal works of repentance, flatly contradicts our Lord, who openly de-
Lu. 13. nounces eternal and inevitable destructiou against all who do not repent.
STRICTURE IX.
ON I. DISS. ii. 9. p. 17.
Here I say, "What they advance respecting the instrumen- tality of faith in the matter of justification is a trifling piece of sophistry," &c. On this you remark in the margin, " Without any vaunting, we think and say, with the Holy Spirit in Sacred Scripture, that a sinner through mere mercy in Christ is justified by faith, of faith, and through faith, by God who looks upon the obedience which Christ has wrought for US, and that faith in the blood of Christ performs a special office towards our obtaining the righteousness of God; which Scripture, so far from assigning to good works expressly denies to them. Whether this influence (of faith) in obtain- ing righteousness according to God's appointment is to be called instrumentality, is a mere dispute of words. The question is, whether good works have the same rank, and equal honour and efficacy with faith, so that God justifies us through and on account of them, just as through and on account of faith. This I deny with the Apostle, who proves Ins Statement ; while you afl&rm without proving it.''
ANSWER TO STRICTURE IX.
§ 1. They who assert the pcculiar instrumentality of faith in the Avork of justification, do not speak with the Holy Spirit in the Sacred Scripturcs. I call on you to shew a single
therefore none by faith only. 61
passage, if you can, where tlie Holy Spirit says that faith is STRIC.
'the one' instrument of justification^ whicli mode of speaking — —
alone I liere object to. But you say, Although the Holy Spirit does not exactly say this, yet He says as much, since He declares every where that a man is justified in, by, and througli faitli ; while on the other hand, He no where assigns justification to works, but expressly denies it to them, and hence it is clear enough that faith has a special office in obtaining the righteousuess of God; which is all that was meant by those who have said that faith is ' the one^ instru- ment of justification. Here I fancied I saw an Achilles — but on Coming closer I discovered it was only a ghost. The whole of your assumptiou, viz. that justification in Sacred Scripture is every where attributed to faith, no where to works, is false. On the contrary, I affirm that justification is not attributed to faith 'alone/ but to other virtues also; and oftener to other virtues than to faith.
§ 2. In Order to make this piain, (and at the same time to put a stop for the future to this constant bm'den of yours,) I wish the reader to weigh with me very carefully the foUowing observations. Ist. Let him remember that two things have been already proved; 1. that no inspired writer, but St. Paul, has taught in so many words, that a man is justified by faith without M' orks ; 2. that not even St. Paul himself has taught in so many words that a man is justified by faith without works, except in argument, and in a controversy, wherein he was engaged with Jews and other enemies of the Gospel. 2ndly. Let the studious reader observe, that among the other writers of the Xew Testament, the justification of a sinner is very rarely spoken of under the name or word 'justification/ but if I remember right, only in three places, Luke xviii. 13, 14, Matt. xii. 37, and St. James, chap. ii., add to which Acts xiii. 39, where he is professedly speaking against those who mis- understood St. Paul's doctriue. 3rdly. It must be remarked, that what St. Paul calls 'justification,' by other sacred writers is geuerally spoken of as ' forgiveness of sins.' This is clear enough from what has been said in the Answer to the Seventh Stricture (Sect. 8, 9, 10, &c.), and will be abund- antly clear to any one who examines the Sacred Scriptures. 4thly. It must be remarked that wherever you find the justi-
62 Justification attribuied to many virtiies.
STRI C. fication of a sinner expressed by the very word 'justification'
'— — in the Scriptures, with the exception of St. Paul's Epistles,
and that saying of St. Paul_, Acts xiii. 39, it is attributed not to faith, at any rate not to faith alone, but to other virtues also. Thus in Luke x^dii. 13, 14, it is attributed to the humble confession of a penitent and supplicating sinner : thus in ]\Iatt. xii. 37, it is attributed to men's words, \iz. as marks of their internal piety and purity. By St. James it is constantly ascribed not to faith only, but to works pro- eeeding froni and conjoiued with faith, and his (St. James's) testimony ought to be equivalent to all the rest, since he wrote his Epistle Avith the design of answering those who abused St. PauFs Epistles ; of which I have often reminded you, so that I am surprised at your confident assertion that justification is no where in Scripture attributed to works. 5thly. Lastly, it must be especially remarked that in those passages of Scripture where man's justification is expressed by 'forgiveness of sins,' (which are almost Avithout uumber both in the Old and in the New Testament,) it is almost always attributed to repentance, either directly or by some circumlocution, and that descriptive of repentance. Repent- ance and forgiveness of sins are a pair, as every one knows, constantly occurring together in the Scriptures. Nay in these two words is contained the whole of the Gospel, or what God in the Gospel either promises to us or demands from US, as is e\ident from Luke üi. 3 ; xxiv. 47, and Acts v. 31. I cannot but pity your voluntary bhndness, (to retort your own words on yourself,) who will not see things which are so piain. From these observations one natiu'ally concludes that St. Paul had a peculiar reason as well for almost always calling man's absolution in his arguments by the term 'justification,' while the other sacred writers usually speak of the same ander the expression ' forgiveness of sins ;' as also preferring to use the word ' faitV to dcnote the condition of this same abso- lution, while other inspü'ed writers have more fully expressed it by the term ' repentance.^ As to the latter, why St. Paul usually expresses the one condition of the Gospel by the Avord 'faith,^ I have already adduced satisfactory reasous in the Harmony, IL Diss. eh. v. To those add the following argu- ment. St. Paul is opposing the encmies of the Gospel, the Jews
Reasonsfor St. Paul's mode qf argument. 63
especially, wlio, clinging pertinaciously to the Mosaic law, STRIC. refuscd tlieir faith to the doctrine of the Gospel. On these, '- —
therefore, he every where inculcates faith as a first and necessary work to be performed, and accordingly if this were See Joh. done every thing eise that the Gospel requires, would, by God's grace, easily follow. Thus he says that ' righteousness Rom.4.24'. will be iraputed to those wlio beheve on Hirn that raised up Jesus from the dead/ i. e. to those who believe in the doctrine of the Gospel, confirmed by the resurrection of Christ from the deadj not that this belief is suflß.cient of itself (for the very de\nls believe that the doctrine of Christ is true, and tremble), for obtaining righteousness, but because those with whom St. Paul argued, had need most especially of this faith, and, this faith granted, all the rest (as we said) by God's grace would follow. This reason is closely allied to Compare the Observation of Clement of Alexaudria on the usual saying ^^tss. 37. of our Saviour to the Jews whom He healed, TJty faith hath saved thee : " For those who were righteous under the law Strom, ö. had need of faith ; wherefore, when our Lord healed tliem ^' "■ He said, Thi/ faith hath saved thee. But those Avho were righteous in philosophy had need not only to believe in the Lord, but to depart also from idolatry. And immediately on the revelation of the truth they too repented of their former deeds." Afterwards in the same book, " So that when we p. 794. hear, Thy faith hath saved thee, we do not receive that He said absolutely, that they should be saved who beheved in any way, unless works also followed. To the Jews only He said thus, who were under the law and lived blamelessly therein, who were only deficient in faith in the Lord." As far as regards the first question, viz. why St. Paul in his discussions so constantly speaks of a sinner's absolution by the term 'justification,' this I think must be gathered from the scope of the Apostle. For since the opponents of St. Paul contended for some sort of justification more properly so called, (i. e. as I suppose, oue which rested on the accm-ate observance of the letter of the Mosaic law, though more See Mat. especially of the sacrifices and rites prescribed therein,) he pjjjj g' Avas obliged to use the term 'justification' in argument, and ■*— ö- accordingly to repeat the same several times on common ground with tlicm, and what hc took away from the righte-
64 Inconsistency of the Cenmrer.
S T R r c. ousness of the law^ under the sarae name to attribute to
'— — faith ; otherwise the Avord ' forgiveness,' (which all the other
sacred wiiters prefer^) used for the acquittal of a siuner, "would have shewn his purpose better^ to express the grace and mercy of God in this matter.
§ 4. Your next Observation, that the question "Whether the iufluence of faith in obtaining righteousuess according to God's appointment ought to be called instrumentality/' is a mere dispute about words I have no concern with. Let them see to it who have undertakeu to defend this iustru- mentality, (who they are you Avell know,) and have tlirust on others that mode of speaking by which man is said to be justified by faith alone as the one instrument of justification; for such men in the place, vThereon you inflict this censure, I alone am opposing. But what do I hear? are you not yourself defendiug this dispute about words? are you not putting the authority of the Holy Spirit on this form of speaking? I could scarcely have believed you had so soon forgotten the words you wrote in the notes of the page just preceding in my book, in which you seriously warn me to beware " lest I make a mock of Holy Scriptnre, w'hich says that faith is the one instrument which embraces the precious blood of Christ, the one ransom of the soul." Nay, but in the following page you again defend the same mode of speak- ing ; your words are, " I indeed am so dull that I see no reason why faith should not be called the instrumental cause." What links shall bind me to such a changing Proteus ? This inconsistency is a piain mark of a bad cause, of a man in great extremities, and quite at his wit's end. I beseech you to take a position somewhere, and stand firm, that I may know where to be able to find you. Is faith the one instrument, on our part, of justification ? If you deny it, I obtain what I contended for in that part of my Disserta- tions ; if you allow it, I again ask you, what sort of instru- ment you mean? a physical, i. e. a properly called instru- mental cause ? But the physical efficacy of faith, in the work of justification, I dcstroy by so piain an argumeut, (in the page of my Disscrtatious "svhich your censure refers to,) that even you at length are ashamed of so senseless a fancy. Reflect on vour own words : " We are not reallv such fools
Whether good works are to be ranked with faith. 65
as to sav that the act of a creatui'e has a physical efiBcacv in STR iC
IX producing an act of Gocl." Do you merely mean, tlien, tliat '- —
faith is the one coudition prescribed in the Göspel covenant, which is iisually called a moral instrument ? You mnst either say this or nothing; for in this Avork, besides an in- strument physical or moral, no other can be supposed; so you do at length take up your position here. Your words in the notes at p. 17 of my book are these : " We assert that faith, which is the gift of God, has by God's appointment a real cfficacy in obtaining the righteousness of Christ, so that by the sentence of God we are coimted righteous, and ac- quitted of all crime. This suffices for its instrumentality." These words find their fellows in the notes of p. 18 : " In a moral matter the instrument Avhich is requii'ed is one of the same kind as the matter." You say the same also in this rery Stricture, when you explain the instrumentality of faith by "the influence in obtaining righteousness according to God^s appointment." You say, then, that faith is the one moral instrument of justification, or the one condition, ne- cessarily required for a man's justification, according to Dinne institution and appointment, as set forth in the Gös- pel covenant. But that repentauce, or the turning from sins to God, out of a true love of and afl'ection for God, is also a condition, and a primary one, necessarily required for the absolution of a sinner, according to Divine appointment as set forth in the Gospel ; this truth, if I have not yet either in my Dissertations, or in this Examination at least, clearly proved, truly for the future I shall utterly despair of being able to prove any thing.
§ 5. "\Ve come at length, under your guidance, to the real and genuine position of the questiou. You close yom* cen- sure thus : " The questiou is ' whether good works have the same rank and equal honour and efiicacy with faith, so that God justifies us through and on account of them, just as through and on account of faith?' This I deny, with the Apostle, who proves bis statement; whüe you affirm with- out proving it. I do not beheve that any, or at least if any, very few of those whose cause you have taken on your- seLf to defend at such length, would stand by your explana- tion of the question. Usually they professedly deny that
66 True vieiv of the efficacy offaith, ivorks, t^c.
s T R I c. the proposition " -we are justified bv or through faith" is to
IJ — be understood as tbougb God justified mau on account of
faitb, or the worthiness of tbat \Trtue. In like manner we also altogether deny tbat man is justified on account of works, or the worthiness of works. It may, however, be Said in a rery true sense, tbat a man is justified on account of faith^ or on account of works^ if it be said in reference to the gracious covenant of the Gospel estabhshed by the blood of Christ, in which justification and salvation are freely promised both to faith and other good works. And thus any wtue of ours is rightly said to have honour and efficacy with God, if we regard the more considerate (if I may so speak) estimation and judgment of God according to the same most gracious covenant. Thus " a meek and quiet spirit'^ is said by St. Peter to be in " the sight of God of great 1 Pet. 3.4. price/^ {ivcoTTiov Tov Oeov TroXureX?;?) . I have no doubt that you mean tliis; but if your words may be thus explained, you have not given the true state of the question. For the question is not, whether faith or love is valued most highly by God, or which has the greatest influence in the matter of justification ? (although that question may be easily solved, as we shall see presently,) but the question is, Whether faith alone is sufficient for a man's justification ? or whether repentance also and a tui'niug from sins to God, proceeding from the true love of God, is not required for a man^s justi- fication ? He who attributes the principal part in this matter to the Single i-irtue, faith, is without doubt grossly self-deceived by bis judgment. Yet no sober-minded peace-loving man would think he need therefore take much pains to oppose him or pull the saw of controversy with him, pro^dded he acknow- ledge the entire necessity of repentance to a man's justification. If he but agree on this point, he is at liberty to differ as to all other blessings in which tliere is no risk of bis own, or others' salvation. One of our own divines has beautifully illustrated this by the following similc. " Suppose,'' says he, " a goöd many physicians, summoned to consult on restoring a sick man to health, should at length all agree that three medi- cincs were indispensably nccessary for the restoration of bis health ; this ought to be enough for the sick man, although the physicians totally diffcrcd as to the pcculiar and specific
Love the first and most excellent of virtues. 67
efficacy of tliese medicines, and each mau had his own S T R i c.
■ • • TIC
oiHuion : even so exactly^ when it is allowed tliat faitli, hope.
and cliarity are so absolutely necessary to a man's justifica- tion, and eternal salvation^ that witliout any one of them he must altogether perisli; but he who has these thi'ee, while he has them, is not in hazard of his eternal salvation : this is sufficient/' &c.
§ 6. However, since you so wish it, let us discuss the ques- tion as you have put it, (very unwisely and without consider- ation for your friends). Certainly, whatever virtue of ours is of greatest priee and honour with God, to it {if to any virtue of ours) our justification must be chiefly attributed ; since we cannot have a surer mark or plainer sign of any Adrtue of ours being most valued by God, than this, that it has seemed good to His great Goodness to confer on that virtue the greatest benefit, viz. justification. Tlierefore you may bring the question at length to this, Which virtue is in greatest estimation and honour with God, faith, or love which pro- duces all other good works? Hear the Apostle St. Paul on iCor.i.3.2. this : " Though I have all faith .... and have not charity, I am nothing /^ and in the last verse of the same chapter, " and now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three, but the greatest of these is charity." Vain therefore is your remark at page 21 of my book : " We contend not for the superiority of faith, which we allow to be inferior to charity ; we speak only of the use and efficacy of faith in order to justification." For, Ist, you contradict yourself ; you just now Said that no good work had equal honour and efficacy with God as faith ; now you allow that faith is inferior to charity. Again, you said just now that the question is, Whether good works have equal honour and efficacy with faith, so that God justifies us on account of them, just as on account of faith. Now, on the contrary, you say that you are not arguing for the superiority of faith. 2ndly, It is veiy absurd, and carries with it the same contradiction, to deny faith to be the chiefest virtue, and yet allow it a pecuhar use and efficacy in obtaining justification. Certainly that virtue is fairly accounted (as we said just now) to be the most excellent which has a peculiar use and efficacy in obtaining God's most excellent benefit, viz. justification. And what,
f2
68 Tendency in reformed divines to Lnitheranism.
s T R T c. tlien^ is tlie excellence which you concede to love, if you
; — take a\ray from it all tise and efficacy in order to justifica-
tion ? Lastlv, yon flatly contradict the Apostle St. Paul. He teaches plainly enougli that faith by itself and without love avails not with God; but you say, tbat faith of itself has all power with God, i. e. has a peculiar efficacy in ob- taining that benefit of God, Tvbich comprises every thing eise. See our observations in the examination of your Second Strictui'e. But I am now, and (I sliould tbink) the sober reader is tired of these subtilties.
STRICTURE X.
ON I. DISS. iii. 3. p. 21.
I had Said that the 'royal law/ 'the law of Christ the king/ was no other than the moral law itself«, according as Christ Himself set it forth, perfected it, and imposed it on His disciples to be necessarih- observed as His law. To these words I subjoin the following. " This must be parti- cularly observed, that we fall not into the same error as Luther, and most of our own divines after his time : who in disputing with the Roman Catholics concerning justification, and carried away in the heat of controversy, have iutroduced the following error into the Reformed Churches, greatly to their disadvantage. They taught that the Gospel consisted of promises only ; that Christ gave to the world no law, but only explained the law already given ; and freed it from the faulty coraments of the Scribes and Pharisees ; that the only use of the moral law at present, is to bring men to the faith of Christ, or at least, that there may be some determinate laws of conduct, recommended indeed to us by Christ, and which we are bound out of gratitude to obey ; but not im- posed upon US on pain of damnation, nor as a condition of the New Covenant necessarily to be observed to salvation. From these principles uuguardedly laid down by them, and eagerly adopted by the generality of theologians, arose by strict and regulär deduction, the execrable tenets of the Antinomians, Libertines, and Familists ; which those good men by no means expected." You remark, " You are fasten - ing a mere calumny on our divines : for where do Whittaker,
This proved to be but too true. 69
Perkins, Prideaux, Abbot, Davenant, White, &c., teach. that s T R l C
the Gospel consists of mere absolute promises, that Christ : —
our only lawgiver gave no law : where do they preach this medley of vain doctrine ? Surely for an eminent man and one above the generality of theologians, you speak very unguardedly."
ANSWER TO STRICTURE X.
§1.1 have not here fastened a calumny on any one, nor have I spoken unguardedly, but advisedly ; but you have totally misuuderstood my words. By ' our di\ines' I by no means meant the divines of oiu' own or the Anglican Church, but more generally the divines on oiu' side, i. e. Protestants as distinguished from Roman Catholics, who were opposed^ as I afterwards say exphcitly, by our divines with an excessive zeal. And here I have not used bad Latin to express my- self j for Cicero speaks of 'our' philosophers, [nostrates phi- losophos,) for philosophers of our school, and of ' our words/ {nostratia verba,) for words which are used by those of our profession. This is remarked by Laurentius Yalla, Elegant, ii. 3, in these words: " Nostras, Vestras, and Cujas not only mean one's country and nation, but also party, and, as it were, school : as, Vestrates philosophi non sunt ita populäres et favorabiles ut nostrates, qid ab Epicuri schola prodierunt, and ciijates philosophi vos estis ? Stoicine ? an Academici 7 an Peripatetici? an nostrates Epicurei? Cicer. Putaresne un- quam accidere posse, ut mihi verba deessent, non solum illa vestratia oratoria, sed hac etiam levia nostratia ?" "Would, however, that it were but an idle tale that many of our re- formed divines, who have written against Roman Catholics on the question of justification, have in their writings handed down to US that medley of absurd doctrines (as you call them, whereas you ought ratlier to have called them most perni- cious) . Alas ! too many of their doctrines, stiU more fearful (if possible) than these, have long since been exposed to all the Christian world by om- common adversaries the Roman Catholics, so that it would be to little purpose to cover the sore. Surely piety bids us, zeal for God's glory demands of US, to join the Roman Catholics in openly aud frcely con-
70 Teaching qf English divines on the whole Catholic.
s T R I c. demning such dogmas, as often as there is opportunity, ^' altliougli they spring of our own party : both that tliey (tlie Roman Catholics) may not seem to liave good reason in lay- ing a Charge^ as is tlieir way, against tlie wliole reformed religion, wliicli is in reality an error only of individual teacliers ; and more especially that our candidates for the sacred ministry may not to their own great hazard and that of the flock hereafter to be intrusted to them, incautiously embrace so pestilent a divinity^ which is concealed every where hke a snake in the grass, in certain books, which obtain too much in our schools. I am not conscious of haviug stirred up this dunghill with any other motive.
§ 2. As far as regards the divines of the English Church, they would not be really such if they defended this medley of dogmas : since our seventh article, in the latter part, avowedly it would seem, condemns these doctrines. Besides, our divines always have been for the most part so well versed in the writings of the old and Catholic doctors (as being nursed in a Church which after the sacred Scriptures reveres most highly all that is left to us of the Fathers) that they could not but be disgusted at doctrines so uncatholic (if I may so speak) . In other places too, foreign divines, who hare handed down those dangerous doctrines in their writings, have generally erred grievously against the confessions of their own Churches, which on this point are almost all sound and orthodox.
§ 3. But listen ! what if I shew plainly that you yourself in these notes have taught doctrines from which all this medley of vain doctrine may be deduced by ^necessary inference ? Certainly this is no difficult task ; let us see. — I am speaking throughout the whole of the chapter, of the moral law given by Christ, tempered by the grace of the Gospel, and accompanied by the aid of the Holy Spirit. Let the reader now hear what you commend to me, asterisked as most Avorthy to be observed and rcmarkcd concerning this law, in the Stricture just preceding. " Mark^well," you say, " that the moral law is a law of works : but remcraber that boasting is not excludcd by the law of works, but by the Rom. 3. law of faith ; and on this account we are justified by faith 27, 28. without works, that boasting may be excludcd." It cannot
Not so that ofthe Censurer. 71
easily be said liow füll of absurdities this Stricture is : but STRIC.
I wiU mention only what bears on the point. If the moral ~ —
law, as far as it is cousidered by us in this chapter, be in truth sucb a law of works as is meant by the Apostle in the passage you quoted, and from which boasting is not excluded, it follows necessarily that no Chi'istian, no believer is under the Obligation of the moral law, as far as we see ; since no believer has any thing to do -«"ith the law of works, which affords a handle for boasting. But this conclusion embraees that whole medley of vain doctrine.
Moreover, also, those dogmas follow from your doctrine of imputed righteousness as also from this, viz. that you ex- pressly deny that the moral law is put before us by Christ as the nde of our justification, which we shall clearly prove in the examination of the Strictures immediately foUowiug.
STRICTURE XI.
OX THE SAME CHAPTER AND SECTION, p. 21.
I say, that "it must be ever observed, as an undeniable truth. that Christ, in His sermon, not only explained the SeeMat.5. moral law, but also laid it down as His own, and reqiiii'ed its observance, assisted by the grace of the Gospel, fi-om all Christians, as a condition of His covenant, indispensably necessary." Upon this (after other things which we have examined above) you remark : " No one denies that there is a twofold righteousness necessary for a Christian ; the one of Christ, imputed to the faithful ; the other performed by him- self : the former is obtained by faith; the latter is exercised Mat. 5.16. and shewn by works.^^
ANSWER TO STRICTURE XI.
§ 1. Eveiy one sees that this Stricture, if you consider the passage it refers to, is wholly irrelevant. But as you are always putting forwards this distinction between two riglitc- ousnesses, as a Gorgon's head, against me, and generally iise it to elude the force of almost all my arguments, I determined here, once for all, (especially as amid so confused a mass as that of your Strictures I could not find a more suitable place
72 Ofimpiited and inherent righteousness.
S T R IC. for doiug so), to speak more at length of this distinction, and ■ — '-^ — to shew that you both hold an untrue impnted rigliteousness, and entirely take auay all inherent righteousness.
§ 2. We niust first treat of the righteousness of Christ impnted to us, and first of the phrase in Tvhich Christ's righteousness is said to be iraputed to us. 1. It is certain that that phrase no where occurs in Scriptiu'e. 2. It is equally piain that in most, and those the most notable Con- fessions of the refonned Churches, it is altogether omitted. Of the imputation of Christ's righteousness you vrill not find a syllable either in our own Confession, or that of Augsburg, Strasburg, "Wirtembui'g, Bohemia, Flanders, &c. ]S'o one, therefore, who lives in one or other of these Churches, is bound by his subscription to embrace a phrase of this sort ; but it is open to all such to enquire how far that phrase agi'ees or disagrees with Scriptiu'e and right reason. 3. It must be observed, that that phrase ill agrees with the well- knoTvn words of Scripture, in which ^faitli' is said to be Rom, 4. 3, impnted to man for righteousness. Those words can be 23 öl ' taken in no other sense than this, ^-iz. that God in the Gospel 8i' dyoTTTjy counts oui' faitli (viz. which is 'perfected by love,' as St. Paul fj.4vT)v. explains himself) for our righteousness, and determines it to be rewarded. Therefore, not the righteousness of Christ, but our faith, is imputed to us for righteousness. Wherefore ? for the worthiness of the thing itself ? God forbid : but on account of the meritorious satisfaction of Jesus Christ alone, by which He obtained of God, that under this condition M-e might be made partakers of righteousness and salvation. Therefore, according to the Scriptui'es, the righteousness of Christ is not properly that (N. B.) which is imputed, but that on account of which our faith is imputed for righteous- ness. 4. Lastly, it must be especially remarked, (which a man of great learning has long since observed), that the phrase in which Christ's righteousness is said to be imputed to US, if it be taken rigidly, cannot agree with that which expresscs the proper and genuine doctrine of the reformed Churches, in which righteousness is said to be imputed to us on account of the merit and obedience of Christ. For if we ■will havc both to be truc to the letter, we must say that * the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us on account of
Catholic doctrine qf the former. 73
the righteousness of Christ/ which expression bears witli it STRic.
a manifest waiit of exactness. But enough of the expression : : —
we will now examine the thing itself.
§ 3. The Catholic doctrine is, that faith, repentance, hope, love, and all other virtues and good works of ours, by no means of themselves or by their own desert avail to any one's being justified, i. e. so that he is acquitted of his sins before committed, is held by God to be righteous, and is pleasing to and accepted by Hirn to salvation and life eternal; but that this is alone and entirely owing to the meritorious satis- faction of Jesus Christ, by which alone the gracious covenant (called the Gospel) Avas obtained and ratified, in accordance with which we are made partakers, under those most favour- able conditions, of justification and salvation. So our Church, Article XI. ; " We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and not for our own works and deservings/' &c. So all the Confes- sions before mentioned. Nor is any thing eise meant by the Confessions (which are very few) in which the phrase " the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us" is found in so many words. Hear the words cf the Gallican Confession, Article XVIII. "We believe that all our righteousness consists in the forgiveness of sins, which is, as David bears witness, our only happiness. And therefore all other methods by which raen think that they can be justified before God, we utterly reject : and throwing away all opinions of our virtues and deservings, we entirely rest in the obedience of Jesus Christ alone; Avhich indeed is imputed to us as well that all our sins may be covered, as also that we may obtain favour before God :" where they srj that the righteous- ness of Christ is so far imputed to us, that on its account we obtain forgiveness of our sins and are accepted by God unto salvation. And whosocA^er will avow that by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ he means this only, has my leave to use this way of speaking frcely himself, as long as he does not thrust it on other people.
§ 4. But it is evident that by the expression in which you say that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, you mean soraething very different. You hold that the righte- ousness of Christ is imputed to us so that it 'really' becomes
74 The Censurefs teaching Antinomian.
S T R I c. oiirs, and we ai'e accounted by God to have performed it in
-^^' Christ ; Tvlience it foUows tliat We may be said to be perfectly
rigliteous by that rigbteousness^ i. e. properly free not only from all punisbment, but even from all fault of sin. That this is your genuine opinion I have snfficiently she^rn from your own words quoted in the examination of Stricture YII. § 20, 23. Moreover in otlier places besides you speak to the same effect. Thus in a snfficiently lengthy Strictui-e, annexed to the end of my first Dissertation, you say that " God has conferred the obedience of Christ on the faithful, that being partakers of this, and being enriched with the riches of their Surety, they might be justified." In like manner in the notes at p. 16-1 of my book you write thus : — " The righteous- ness of Christ, which we obtain by His satisfaction conferred by God upon us and imputed to ns, and accepted as though it were om- fulfilment of the law, is communicated to us, so
2Cor.5.2l. that we are 'the righteousness of God in Christ;' and there- fore this righteousness is no less truly said to be in us than holiness itself is said to be in us. But there are diflferent ways
inest of things being in us ; quality is in us in one way, relation in another." A doctriae could not be stated perhaps more harmful or more dangerous. Truly you here lay the very foundations of the most pestüent heresy of Antinomianism : this is that source of error from which the extreme Libertines derive their fearful doctrines by a necessary consequence. Read the writings of those wlio in the late anarchy of our Chiu'ch (never to be thought of without tears) openly defended Antinomianism : especially the sermons of Tobias Crisp, styled a D.D. to the disgrace of that sacred title. It shames me to teil my foreign readers how many deductions, loathsome to Christian ears, this Ciisp draws from vom* assertion, and that with so piain an inference, that I confess I cannot rcfute his writings on your hypothesis j what you may be able to do, I kuow not. But leaAing these mon- strosities, it is not difficult to prove that the Imputation of the nghteousness of Christ which you maintain, plucks up by necessary consequence the very foundations of the Gospel, and overturns the whole of God's economy as revealed in the New Testament.
§ 5. First, this imputation cannot stand with the forgive-
Contradidions in his view of imjmtation. 75
ness of sins on God's part. This I liave shewn fullv (in the s T R l c. course of discussing another question) in the examination of — '—^ — Strictm-e YII. § 22, 23. NeverthelesSj perliaps it -will be worth while to recollect what we said tliere, and adapt it specially to tlie present question. If you acknowledge any forgiveness of sins, you must hold that that forgiveness is granted either before the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or in the act of imputation, or after it : but neither of these can be held consistently Avith your opinion. That before the imputation of the righteousness of Christ the sins of man are forgiven, no one in his senses would affirm ; since all orthodox teachers agree that sins are