Peaceable Disquisitions, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Of Dr. Owen's Book of Juſtification, and of the reconciliation of St. Paul. and St. James, and the Imputation of Chriſt's righteouſneſs upon his account.
HAving ſaid this for the Doctor, I have a little now alſo to ſay to him. I was reading his later Book of Juſtification, when this Author came to my hands, and I had thought of making ſome remarks upon it. I am not ſatisfied with what he hath offered for the reconciliation of St. James and Paul on that ſubject. This is the reaſon I ſuppoſe (that is the moſt ſolid) why ſo many do chooſe here of late to go with the mediocrian, or ſteer the middle way, in that point. I perceive that Dr. Tully with our firſt Reformed Divines, and this excellent Doctor, are for diſtinguiſhing of Faith, and Juſtification, but will not let us, by no means, diſtinguiſh of Works for the reconciliation of the Apoſtles. I do wonder at this. The Apoſtle James and the Apoſtle Paul do both agree, that we are juſtified by Faith. The one ſaies, we conclude that a man is juſtified by Faith; and the other ſaies alſo, it is by Faith: Their ſeeming difference is only about works, when one ſaies by Faith without Works, and the other, by Faith and Works alſo. And how then comes it to paſs that we muſt not diſtinguiſh of Works, but of Juſtification and Faith, to compoſe the difficulty? I will offer the Doctor therefore here one Argument, under his favour, which ſhall be but one, and that not as others have, (ſo far as I know) for then it were like he had already weighed it. It is this. That Juſtification which St. Paul ſpeaks of, is that Juſtification which we have in that Text of Geneſis, where it is ſaid, And Abraham believed, and it was accounted to him for Righteouſneſs. Or, That Juſlification Paul ſpeaks of, is that Imputation of Faith for righteouſneſs which is ſpoken of in that Text in Geneſis. That Juſtification which St. James ſpeaks of, is that Juſtification which we have in that Text in Geneſis, Or, is that Imputation of Faith for Righteouſneſs, as is ſpoken of in that Text in Geneſis. Therefore St. Pauls juſtification, and St. James juſtification are the ſame Juſtification. Again, That Faith which St. Paul ſpeaks of, is the Faith that is ſpoken of in that Text in Geneſis, or the ſame Faith as was imputed to Abraham for righteouſneſs in that place. That Faith which St. James ſpeaks of is the ſame Faith which is ſpoken of in that Text in Geneſis, Or the ſame Faith that was imputed to Abraham for righteouſneſs in that place. Therefore the faith that St. Paul ſpeaks of, and the faith which St. James ſpeaks of, is the ſame faith alſo. And when the Faith is the ſame, and the Juſtification the ſame, we muſt diſtinguiſh of Works then out of queſtion, to reconcile theſe Scriptures. Of Works then let us diſtinguiſh; and the diſtinction is this. There are Works which are inconſiſtent with Grace and Pardon, ſo that if we had them, we ſhould have no need of Chriſt's righteouſneſs or ſacrifice, but the doing of them would make the reward to be of debt, or make life to be due out of diſtrict juſtice, (He that doeth them ſhall live in them), That is, Works which the Law requires unto Juſtification. And theſe are the Works St. Paul ſpeaks of, and the reaſons which he alleadges why we are not juſtified by theſe Works is, becauſe no man hath them. This is that which he apparently urges (for he aſcends in his diſpute from the Law of Moſes, to the Law of Nature, which concerns both Jew and Gentile) in his three firſt Chapters to the Romans, ſo that if any man be juſtified, it muſt be without them. Therefore we conclude (ſaies he) that by faith without them (that is without having them) a man is juſtified. There are then Works alſo which are conſiſtent with Pardon and Mercy though we have them, ſo that when we have done theſe, we do need the righteouſneſs and ſatisfaction of our Redeemer to cover their imperfection, and for acceptation of our perſons, no leſs than if we had Faith alone without any, and theſe are Works of ſincerity required of us in the Goſpel. It is no wayes derogatory, I ſay, to Gods Grace and Chriſts Merits, for a man to be juſtified by theſe works, any more than to be juſtified by Faith alone, in regard to Debt or Merit, upon which account St. Paul excludes works in his Diſputation. It is of theſe Works I muſt ſay, (as the Apoſtle ſaies it is of Faith) that it may be of Grace. And theſe are the Works St. James ſpeaks of, when he ſaies, By Faith and Works alſo; that is all one as by a Faith working by Love in Pauls words otherwhere. And the being juſtified by Faith working by Love, or by a Faith productive of Works, or by theſe Works and Faith alſo (which being ſuch Works as fall ſhort of the Law, and do need grace and forgiveneſs for their acceptation with God) is all one with St Pauls by Faith without works of the Law, or without ſuch as the Law requires unto juſtification. Thus are Paul and James reconciled. I will advance hence then my former argument. That juſtification by Faith without works which St. Paul ſpeaks of, is that Juſtification, or that Imputation of Abrahams Faith for righteouſneſs, which is ſpoken of in that Text in Geneſis. That juſtification by Works and Faith alſo, which St. James ſpeaks of, is that Juſtification or that Imputation of Abrahams faith for righteouſneſs, which is ſpoken of in that Text in Geneſis. Therefore St. Pauls juſtification by faith without works, and St. James juſtification by faith and works alſo, or by works and not by faith only, is the ſame in the two Apoſtles. The medium upon which all three Syllogiſms depend, is the Apoſtles citing the ſame Text, both of them, for that which either of them aſſert, while one ſaies by faith without works, and the other by works and not by faith only. The major and minor therefore in all three are undeniable; and in the concluſion of the laſt, I am ſure the Doctor and I ſhall agree together.
I have another thing to offer to the thoughts of the Dr. that whereas he tells us of a Commutation between Chriſt and us in his taking upon him our ſins, and our partaking of his righteouſneſs, I do apprehend this expreſſion and doctrine to be Chriſtian, holy and good, according to the ſenſe of that Text, He was made ſin for us, that we might be made the righteouſneſs of God in him; and the like places: But only there is a difference to be put between the uſe of the notion againſt the Socinians in the point of Satisfaction, and the uſe of it againſt the Mediocreans in the point of Juſtification. I do believe ſuch a Commutation as the Dr. ſpeaks of, is neceſſary to that great work which Chriſt undertook for Mankind, as it concerns the whole world in the procuring Reconciliation and Life for all upon the terms of the Redeemer; for if he had not taken on him our ſins, to ſuffer in our behalf (which is his being made ſin for us) and fulfilled the whole Law alſo for us, that God might without diſhonour to him as Rector, diſpenſe with it, ſo as to impute to us our faith and imperfect obedience for righteouſneſs (which is our being made the righteouſneſs of God in him) there would have been no ſatisfaction offered, and conſequently no Reconciliation or Redemption: But as for ſuch a Commutation in the point of Juſtification, which concerns particular Believers, I am yet to learn what to make of it from this Reverend perſon. To enquire then to the bottom, the foundation of this Commutation, is laid (I ſee) by him in the Myſtical Union between Chriſt and his Members, which muſt pertain therefore only to ſuch, and that as a fruit or effect of the Spirit of Chriſt given to them (if it be ſo) to that end: When this indeed is a thing that does not belong at all to the operation of the Third perſon of the Trinity, but to the work of the Son, and the arbitrary ordination of the Father. Whatſoever influence Chriſt hath upon the ſoul as our Head by the operation of the Holy Ghoſt; or whatſoever is an effect of the Spirit when once given for uniting us to him, it muſt have this Union for its ground or foundation: But whatſoever ariſes to us from Chriſt another way, and is no effect of the Spirit, it may not be aſcribed without contradiction to that ſpring from whence it comes not. The Dr. judges right, that ſuch a Communication with Chriſt cannot indeed be rationally thought on, but we muſt conceive of ſome Ʋnion preſently which is the ground of it: But there is a double Union between Chriſt and us. The one is by taking upon him our Nature, and the other by giving us his Spirit. The bleſſed Commutation the Dr. ſpeaks of, does not depend upon that Union which we have with him by the Communication of his Spirit; for this indeed is no waies any effect thereof: But it does depend on the Union which he hath with us in taking upon him our Fleſh. Foraſmuch then as the children are partakers of fleſh and blood, he alſo took part of the ſame. Again, He took not on him the nature of Angels, but he took on him the ſeed of Abraham, and in that ſeed our Nature; and as he took our nature, he took on him our ſins; for he took our nature only to this end, that he might redeem Man, when the Angels whoſe nature he took not, were not redeemed. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he ſaith, ſacrifice and offering thou wouldſt not, but a body haſt thou prepared me. A body is prepar'd for Chriſt, that he may be a ſacrifice to anſwer thoſe Types under the Law, which without him could ſignifie nothing, The Beaſt for the Propitiatory Sacrifice had the ſins of Iſrael laid on him; and this is exhibited in that ſaying of John, Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the ſins of the world: And of that in Peter, Who his own ſelf bare our ſins in his own body on the Tree. It is manifeſt then that this Commutation which conſiſts in Chriſt's taking upon him our ſins, that he might be a ſacrifice for them, and fulfilling the duty of the whole Law (which we were bound unto, but broke) to procure new terms, in the performance whereof we might be righteous, and ſo accepted upon the account of his merits (which is his becoming ſin for us, that we might become the righteouſneſs of God in him, as I have ſaid before, and have need to ſay again) does belong to that Union which Chriſt hath with Mankind, according to that Text in the Hebrews, He that ſanctifieth, and they that are ſanctified are of one; that is, of one fleſh, as appears by what follows; and not to that Union which he hath with his Members only, according to that Text in the Corinths, He that is joyned to the Lord is one ſpirit; that is, it belongs to that Union which is Hypoſtatical in Chriſt's taking our nature with the Divine Nature into one perſon, and not to that Union which is Myſtical, according to the ſuppoſition of the Dr. There is a diſtinction then to be remembred, which we have often in Scripture, and that is of Chriſt in the Fleſh, and Chriſt in the Spirit. We muſt make a difference accordingly between what he did for us, as he was in the fleſh, and what he does for us in the Spirit, or by it. That which he did for us in the Fleſh (I ſpeak it indefinitely) muſt belong to All, for the fleſh he took, was the fleſh of All; and hence is he ſaid to die for All, to taſte Death for every man, to be a propitiation, not for our ſins only, but for the ſins of the world. That which he does for us in the Spirit, is peculiar to his Members, and the Elect to whom he gives it. I ſpeak of the Spirit as a principle of Union and Life in Chriſt, and not as Author of common giſts. I argue now. It is certain that the Righteouſneſs Chriſt performed, and the Sacrifice he made for us, was performed and made in the Fleſh. It is certain that in this Righteouſneſs and Sacrifice is contained all that he undertook in our behalf, as he ſuſtained our part in the work of his Mediation for Man's Redemption. It is certain that the Commutation the Dr. ſpeaks of, muſt be ſuppoſed unto Chriſt's ſuſtaining our part in this work. It is certain conſequently that this Commutation, and the part Chriſt ſuſtained in the performing this Righteouſneſs, and offering this Sacrifice, does belong to Chriſt in the Fleſh, and ſo muſt be univerſal for all the world, and does not belong to Chriſt in the Spirit, to be appropriated to his Church or Members only, which is this Learned Drs. apprehenſion throughout his Book. Let us diſtinguiſh then now at laſt between the Impetration of our Redemption, and all thoſe benefits we have by Chriſt, and the Application of them. The Impetration belongs to Chriſt in the Fleſh, and the Application to Chriſt in the Spirit. (I mean by Impetration, obtaining by Sacrifice and Merit, and diſtinguiſh it from Interceſſion). Chriſt took our Fleſh to procure our Redemption; he gives us his Spirit to apply it. Now I have this notion to offer the Dr. under his correction if I be out, and under his candour to receive it, if it be light; that this bleſſed Commutation he ſpeaks of, and rightly magnifies, does go to the Impetration of our Redemption, and the benefits we have by Chriſt, and not to the Application. If this Commutation between Chriſt and us, of his Righteouſneſs for our ſins, did go to (or was made in) the Application, I ſee not how any more than one man could have it. If Chriſt makes the Commutation with Peter, and ſo takes his ſins, and gives him his Righteouſneſs in exchange, this Righteouſneſs of Chriſt muſt now be Peter's, and ſo Paul and James and John cannot have it. It muſt not be therefore conceived ſure, that this Commutation is made with particular perſons, or that it does go into the Application, but that it goes into the Impetration of thoſe benefits we have by Chriſt, which being procured for all upon condition, there is no particular perſon but by the performing that condition alike may (and by that means only can) enjoy them, one with another. To make this quite clear, there is but one cloud to be removed, which does (as I ſuppoſe) hang on the mind of moſt, in thinking ſomething more of the Spirit's Application of what Chriſt hath done for us, or of his Merits and Righteouſneſs to the ſoul, than there is. But this is all that I am able to underſtand of this Application; to wit, that the Spirit by his grace enables us to perform the conditions upon which theſe benefits are procured for us; and ſo they become ours, and the Merits and Righteouſneſs of Chriſt are ſaid to be ſo in regard to thoſe effects. They are ours for the Impetration of theſe benefits, but they cannot be ours in themſelves, that is, not ours in regard to the Application. What. Chriſt did for us in the Fleſh, was to reconcile our ſalvation to God's glory, and the ends of Government: What Chriſt does in the Spirit is to reconcile our ſpirits to what God requires of us, and ſo to qualifie us for our poſſeſſion of the benefits which he hath purchaſed in the fleſh. The benefits are ours, and we enjoy them as being impetrated for us upon that condition, which through the Spirit (given for the Application) we perform, and Chriſt's Righteouſneſs and Merits being ours in regard to theſe effects it may be ſaid to be imputed to us if our Divines pleaſe. If there be conceived any Commutation with Chriſt of his Righteouſneſs for our ſins, or any imputation of it unto us any otherwiſe than thus in regard to the effects, I underſtand it not. The principal effect of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs and Sacrifice (which both together making up ſatisfaction to God for man's ſin, God is reconciled, and comes to new terms) is the obtaining the Law of Grace for us, according to which we may be righteous, or made the Righteouſneſs of God in Chriſt, in the Scripture phraſe (See my Middle Paper of the Covenants in the ſix firſt leaves), and upon this Righteouſneſs, as the condition performed, all other of the effects or benefits depend. In the Application it is true, that we have the benefits, but from whence do they come? It is not from any act of ours, we are not our own Benefactors; nor from any work of the Spirit. That we do, is the performing the condition, and that the Spirit does, is the ſupplying us with grace to do it: But the condition is not the cauſe of the benefits, only cauſa ſine qua non, which being put, the benefits flow to us by vertue of the Impetration, from the merit of what Chriſt hath done. Many (ſaies Mr. Truman) make this their ſtrong hold, that faith alone is the receptive grace, and not repentance and ſincere obedience: but there is no ſuch thing as receiving Righteouſneſs, Juſtification, Pardon. Juſtification, right to Heaven, Righteouſneſs, cometh on men. The free gift came upon all to Juſtification. By the offence of one, judgment came upon all to condemnation. As condemnation cometh upon men without any act of receiving it, it is a reſultancy from the Law upon diſobedience: So Juſtification, right to Heaven, is a reſultancy from a Law-promiſe, the condition being performed. This I look on not only as pretty, but in regard to what I apply it very ſolid. It is from the Covenant-promiſe, or through the Law of grace immediately, and ſo from the Impetration of Chriſt and his Merits at laſt (or ultimately) that the benefits come on us, and all that we do towards it, is only our performing the condition. Cometh this bleſſedneſs then on the Circumciſion only, or on the Ʋncircumciſion alſo? It is to be obſerved a little farther, that when the Scripture ſpeaks any thing of this Commutation, we find it attributed only to God and Chriſt, and that as a thing paſt and done, and never to the work of the Spirit, which is ſtill a doing. It is ſaid therefore that the Lord hath laid the iniquities of us all, or made all our ſins to meet on Chriſt, in the perſon of the Father, and that Chriſt took them, bare our ſins, with the like expreſſions: But I read nor a word of ſuch a work as is ſtill to be done, which the Holy Ghoſt's were, if it belonged to him. It muſt be conceived therefore that God and Chriſt in their everlaſting tranſactions between them, about the redemption of Man, agreed upon this matter of Commutation, which (however the Dr. expreſſes it) in the root, is Chriſt's undertaking to ſtand in our ſtead according to the Law of his Mediation; which Law he performing, this buſineſs actually was accompliſhed, and we have the It is finiſhed, declared on the Croſs: So that be it whatſoever it will, it does go, or did go into the Impetration, it cannot go into the Application of our Repemplion. To come home then quite to the Dr. How Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is imputed to us in regard to the Impetration of the benefits we have from him, or how it is made ours in regard to the Effects impetrated, as thoſe effects are purchaſed by it upon condition, I underſtand; but how it is imputed to us, or made ours in the Application by the Spirit in any effect, or in the effect of Juſtification, any otherwiſe than other effects, I have had my eyes opened ſo long about this point, as I begin to ſee at laſt with much adoe, nothing of it. Adoption, Salvation, and other benefits, as well as Juſtification, are effects of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, or of Chriſt's purchaſe, and when we believe and perform the condition, we receive Adoption, and have a right to Salvation as well as to be Juſtified. Adoption is by faith, Salvation by faith, Juſtification by faith. As faith concurs to the one, it does to the other. Here only is the deceit. Juſtification is Gods accounting a perſon righteous, and this being upon the account of Chriſts righteouſneſs, the underſtanding is entangled, as if we were made righteous by his righteouſneſs in ſome way, as muſt render us to be juſtified otherwiſe by it, than ſaved. There never was any diſpute about the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſs to our Adoption and Salvation, and yet it is a certain truth, that it is imputed to us in regard to theſe effects, as in regard to Juſtification. The righteouſneſs of Chriſt then does concur to our Adoption, Salvation, ſub genere cauſae efficientis, as the meritorious procuring cauſe of them: if it concur any otherwiſe unto Juſtification, that is ſub genere cauſae formalis alſo, as the formal reaſon no leſs than the procuring cauſe of it, it is a matter (I muſt confeſs) of my Admiration; and I muſt crave of the Doctor farther inſtruction, or the ingenuity to accept this ſlender endeavour of mine for his own ſatisfaction. And the third Captain of fifty went up, and came and bowed before Elijah and beſought him, and ſaid unto him, O man of God, I pray thee — And he aroſe and went down with him.
I have many other thoughts in my mind to offer the Doctor, or this Author, which I will forbear, for I remember that the Gentleman hath a ſecond part to come out, that he intends more particularly againſt the Doctor. I will therefore ſtay a while upon ſuch matters that are already propoſed, and ſee if he performs his intention; and it will be then time enough (if it be like alſo to do good, and be fit) to confer a few more notions with him. For I like my man much for his Natural parts, and Free-Divinity: as I muſt note him a little for deficient in his Ethicks and Civility, ſo long as he hath to do with ſuch an Adverſary. I cannot commend him for this uſage of the Doctor; who is one I muſt confeſs for my own part, that I value for his Worth, I love for his Courteſie, I am pleaſed with for his Candour, and I think my ſelf happy, if at any time I get but a little of his Company.
THE END.