The Righteousness of God Revealed, Title page – Dedication 2
THE Righteouſneſs of God Revealed in the GOSPEL.
OR, An IMPARTIAL ENQUIRY into the Genuine Doctrine of St. PAƲL, In the Great, but much Controverted ARTICLE of JUSTIFICATION.
By Mr. JOHN HUMFREY.
Of making Books there is no End; and much Study is a Wearineſs to the Fleſh. Let us hear the Concluſion of the Matter, Fear God and keep his Commandments for this is the whole of Man,
Ec. 12.13, 14.
LONDON, Printed for T. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapſide, 1697.
TO THE READER.
HAVING ſeriouſly read this Treatiſe concerning the Juſtification of a Sinner, I ſound ſo clear and diſtinct an Account given of it, that, as it gave me no ſmall Satisfaction, ſo I could not but think it worthy to be peruſed by others. For though the Learned Author departs, in ſome things, from the common Opinion, yet he doth it ſo modeſtly, that candid Perſons, though contrary minded, will not blame him for it: And his Reaſons are ſuch, that it is poſſible they may be convinced by them, and perſwaded to embrace his Explication of this weighty Doctrine.
However, his Drift and Intention is ſo evidently Holy, [viz. to prevent Mens falling into the moſt dangerous Errors] that he may hope for their Pardon, who think him not to be altogether in the Right himſelf. For as to the main Buſineſs, no Man more ſtrenuouſly aſſerts the Doctrine of our Church, of Juſtification by Faith only; accorto the Explication which is made of it in our Homilies (in the Second Part of the Sermon of Salvation) in theſe Words.
This Saying, That we be juſtified by Faith only, freely and without Works, is ſpoken for to take away clearly all Merit of our Works; as being unable to deſerve our Juſtification at God's Hands: And thereby moſt plainly to expreſs the Weakneſs of Man, and the Goodneſs of God; the great Infirmity of our ſelves and the Might and Power of God; the Imperfectneſs of our own Works, and the moſt abundant Grace of our Saviour Chriſt; and therefore wholy to aſcribe the Merit and deſerving of our Juſtification, unto Christ only, and his most pretious Blood-ſhedding.
But although this Doctrine be never ſo true (as it there follows) that we be juſtified freely, without all Merit of our own Good Works (as St. Paul doth expreſs it) and freely by this lively and perfect Faith in Chriſt only (as the ancient Authors uſe to ſpeak it) yet this true Doctrine must be alſo truly underſtood, and moſt plainly declared; leſt carnal Men ſhould take unjuſtly occaſion thereby to live carnally, after the appetite and will of the World, the Fleſh and the Devil.
Now this being the very Scope of this Author, to declare the right Ʋnderſtanding of this Doctrine, ſo plainly that no Man may thereby take any Occaſion of Carnal Liberty; he hopes his Endeavour will be acceptable to all thoſe that love the Lord Jeſus in Sincerity. Amen.
Nov. 24. 1696. SY. ELIENS.
Worceſter, Apr. 7. 1697. SIR,
THE Papers you were pleaſed to ſend me I have carefully peruſed; and I am not without Hopes, that through the Bleſſing of God, they may allay thoſe unreaſonable Heats, which have made ſo great a Noiſe, about the Point of Juſtification: and yet we are told, that they all agree in the Doctrine of Chriſt's Satisfaction, and the Covenant of Grace, as founded upon it. But we find by too common Experience, that it is poſſible for Men upon their own Miſtakes to grow as warm in this Matter, as if they were diſputing with the Jews, as St. Paul did in his Epiſtle to the Romans. But if ſuch Perſons would lay aſide Prejudices, and Impartially conſider the State of the Caſe at that Time, they would far better underſtand this Controverſy, and not think ſo hardly of their Brethren.
For, nothing can be plainer to me, than that St. Paul oppoſes that which he calls, The Righteouſneſs of God by Faith, Rom. 1.17.3.21.10.3.to their own Righteouſneſs, which was by the Law: And which made the Reward not of Grace, but of Debt. And Faith is taken by him as a Term oppoſite to the Law, and importing the Grace of the Goſpel; Therefore it is of Faith that it might be of Grace. Phil. 3.5.So that Juſtification by Faith is in other Words, being juſtified by the Grace of the Goſpel,Rom. 3.27, 28.4.15. manifeſted by the Doctrine of Chriſt, and procured by his Sufferings: which are granted, both by them and us, to be the only meritorious Cauſe of our Juſtification. The remaining Diſpute then, can only be concerning thoſe Terms on which we may be made Partakers of this Grace of the Goſpel, which is communicated to Mankind, as the Effect of Chriſt's Satisfaction. Which is very different from that which St. Paul managed, againſt all ſuch as ſet up their own Works (whether according to the Law of Nature, or of Moſes) againſt the Goſpel of Chriſt, and thought there was no neceſſity of any ſuch Propitiation by Chriſt, as St. Paul aſſerted, in order to the Remiſſion of Sins and the Favour of God. For, the Jews believed, that the Righteouſneſs of the Law, as it was performed by them, was ſufficient in order to their Acceptance with God; and that there was ſuch a Proportion between their Works and the Favour of God, as made it a Debt of Juſtice. Which Opinion remains among them to this Day, as appears by this Saying of Manaſſeh Ben-Iſrael, Hinc meritis Gratiam Dei acquiri non eſt Dubitandam. By which it ſeems, that the Jews have not alter'd their Opinions ſince the Apoſtles Days; but all that underſtand Chriſtianity aright, do agree, that there is no other meritorious Cauſe of our Acceptance with God, but the Propitiation which Chriſt hath made.Coloſ. 1.14. In whom we have Redemption through his Blood, even the Forgiveneſs of Sins. Titus 3.5, 6.And not by Works of Righteouſneſs which we have done, but according to his Mercy he ſaved us; that being juſtified by his Grace, we ſhould be made Heirs according to the Hope of Eternal Life.
But here comes the material Queſtion to be reſolved; How we come to receive the Benefits of Chriſts Sufferings?
To anſwer this Diſtinctly, we muſt conſider them Two Ways:
1. As they reſpect Mankind, or thoſe in General for whom Christ died.
2. As they belong to Particular Perſons.
The former are thoſe Benefits which reſult from God's Acceptance of Chriſt's Sacrifice on behalf of Mankind; which the Apoſtle calls, God's being in Chriſt, 2 …. 5.19.reconciling the World to himſelf, not imputing their Treſpaſſes unto them: If this be meant of actual Pardon, then all the Sins of the World are not imputed upon Chriſt's Death, without any Act on their Parts; and ſo the Miniſtry of Reconciliation would be to no purpoſe; which the Apoſtle immediately adds, was committed to them. To what End, if the Sins of the World were already forgiven? But the Apoſtle ſaith, v. 20. That it was to perſwade Men to be reconciled to God: i. e. to believe and repent and obey the Goſpel. For what Reaſon? If not, that thereby they might actually partake of theſe general Benefits which ariſe from that Reconciliation Chriſt hath made by his Death? Which can ſuppoſe no Conditions in us, being the immediate Effects of Chriſt's Propitiation, and muſt be diſtinguiſhed from what follows, Reconciliation on our Parts.
But as to the Particular Effects, belonging to ſome Perſons, as diſtinguiſhed from others, the Queſtion ariſes, Whether God out of his infinite Goodneſs, do beſtow them on thoſe whom he deſigns for Happineſs without regard to any Act of theirs? Or whether by the Goſpel, be hath limited the Conveyance of them to the Performance of certain Conditions? There is no Queſtion, but that if nothing but Freeneſs of Grace be to be look'd at, that is much freer, which requires no Conditions, nor expects any: But if they be expected, whether out of Gratitude, or otherwiſe, they are real Conditions as to the End. But we are to look not only to the Freeneſs of God's Grace, (which no doubt was the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace) but to the Author, and to the Terms of it.
The Author of it is God himſelf, who out of his Infinite Goodneſs hath ſent his Son to be a Propitiation for our Sins; and we cannot ſuppoſe any Covenant made by him to be repugnant to the Perfections of the Divine Nature. Now, Holineſs and Righteouſneſs are eſſential Attributes of God; and any ſuch Covenant, which in the Conſequence of it, overthrows the Rules of Righteouſneſs and Holineſs, muſt be look's on, as contrary to the Pure and Holy Nature of God. But ſuch a Covenant as conſiſts only in abſolute Promiſes (if it can be called a Covenant) muſt ſuperſede any Obligation on Man's Part to any Duty, as a Condition of enjoying the Benefit of thoſe Promiſes; and conſequently overthrow the Rules of Righteouſneſs.Pſal. 11.7. But the Righteous Lord loveth Righteouſneſs. And he that doth Righteouſneſs is Righteous, 1 John 3.7.even as he is Righteous. How is it then poſſible to conceive, that God ſhould make ſuch a Covenant of Grace with Mankind, as ſhould have no regard to the Practiſe of real Righteouſneſs? And this Suppoſition muſt leſſen our eſteem of the Divine Nature and Perfections, overthrow the Deſign of Religion, and make God a Reſpecter of Perſons, by taking no Notice of their inward Qualities and Diſpoſitions.
Which are things of ſuch dangerous Conſequence, that I can hardly believe that any who pretend to love the Lord Jeſus Christ in Sincerity ſhould entertain ſuch Principles, from whence they do too naturally follow. For, if any Perſon ſhould make it his Buſineſs to render Chriſtianity ſuſpected, as a Deſign to Promote Libertiniſm, under a Pretence of advancing Free Grace, he could not make uſe of any Hypotheſis more effectual than this; That God requires no Conditions in order to the Benefit of his Promiſes. But to ſuppoſe that God is ſo Gracious, as to forgive the Sins of truly humble and penitent Sinners, who reſolve by the Grace of God to depart from Iniquity, and to live as becomes the Goſpel, is ſo far from any Incongruity to the Divine Nature, that it tends more to advance our Apprehenſions of God's Goodneſs joyned with his Wiſdom and Holineſs; and ſo brings Mankind to a due Love of God, and a Hatred of Sin.
As to the Terms of this Covenant, I think it not poſſible for any unprejudiced Perſon to read the New Teſtament, and not to ſee, that it ſtill ſuppoſes Conditions on our parts, to make us Partakers of the Benefit of Christ's Sufferings. But it is poſſible for Men to be ſo fond of a particular Opinion, which they have before taken up, that they may accommodate all places to that darling Notion; I mean as to the abſolute freeneſs of God's Grace. Which, if it be purſued, muſt everthrow as well the Satisfaction of Christ, as the Conditions on our Part.
But here lies the great Difficulty; How can we be juſtified without a perfect righteouſneſs? And our own Performances at the beſt make but an imperfect Righteouſneſs; and therefore the perfect Righteouſneſs of Christ muſt be imputed to us: And if a perfect Righteouſneſs to be joined for our Juſtification?
This is the Force of all the Reaſoning I have met with about this Matter, to which I ſhall give a plain and dictinct Anſwer:
1. I am far from diſowning the Righteouſneſs of Christ to have been a perfect Righteouſneſs; or that it is the only meritorious Cauſe of our Juſtification. Or, to ſpeak plainer, I do freely own the Satisfaction of Christ to be the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace, by Vertue whereof we are juſtified.
2. That to be juſtified is to be put into a State of Grace and Favour with God. I do not mean, that we are juſtified by Inherent Righteouſneſs; i. e. that God juſtifies when he gives Grace; but that upon our ſincere performance of the Conditions on our part, God receives us into a State of Favour or Grace. And ſo deals with us as with righteous Perſons; and not meerly declares us to be ſuch. For although the Word Juſtifying be often uſed as a Forenſick Word, or a Law Term, and ſo is oppoſed to Condemning; yet that Uſe is not to be preſſed too far: becauſe it will incloſe us in many Difficulties about the Tribunal, the Law, the Plea, the judicial Act, and the ſeveral Cauſes, Material and Formal, &c. all which, I think, tend more to darken than to clear this Point of Juſtification, which ought to be kept out of School Terms and Logical Niceties, as much as poſſible; ſince St. Paul did not ſpeak according to them in this Matter. For ſo Adoption is Originally a Law Term uſed likewiſe by St. Paul, and it would be hard ſtraining to bring Adoption to all the Formalities of the Roman Law.
If we look into the Deſign of St. Paul, we ſhall find it was to ſtate the true Ground of our Acceptance with God; which he ſhews could not be from any thing Mankind were able of themſelves to perform in obedience to the Law, becauſe they were under guilt, and could never clear themſelves from it. But God hath ſet forth his Son to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood,Rom. 325, 26. to declare his Righteouſneſs for the Remiſſion of Sins, &c. To declare at this time his Righteouſneſs, that he might be Juſt and the Juſtifier of him that believeth in Jeſus.
So that here we have the Foundation or Meritorious Cauſe, the Propitiation of Chriſt; the Goodneſs of God in accepting this Propitiation in order to Remiſſion and Juſtification; and the way we come to partake of it by Faith in Chriſt; as it imbraces theſe Offers, and carries along with it thoſe ſincere Endeavours obeying the Goſpel, which God accepts as our Evangelical Righteouſneſs. But to be Juſtified in St. Paul's Senſe, is to be admitted into the Grace and Favour of God on thoſe Terms; and ſo it doth not lie barely in Remiſſion of Sins, which is rather the Conſequence of this Acceptance with God.Rom. 3.28. Therefore we conclude, that a Man is juſtified by Faith, without the Deeds of the Law; i. e. A man is received into the Favour of God, not by his own Works, but according to the Grace of the Goſpel, and the Terms contained therein. And this I take to be St. Paul's meaning.
3. The Righteouſneſs of Christ may be ſaid to be imputed two ways.
1. So as it becomes our Perſonal Righteouſneſs, which is called Formal Imputation.
2. So as the Benefit of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs and Satisfaction, redounds to our Advantage.
If the former Senſe be allowed, theſe Conſequences follow:
1. That we muſt be as Righteous as Chriſt was; for, if Perſonal Righteouſneſs can be transferred, the Perſon on whom it is transferred, muſt have that very Righteouſneſs which was in Christ himſelf; and ſo must be as Holy and Innocent as he was; which I hardly think any will pretend to.
2. That there can be no Remiſſion of Sin, as to ſuch who have this perfect Righteouſneſs, no more than there could be to Christ himſelf; Imputation for Remiſſion of Sin, and of Perſonal Righteouſneſs are inconſiſtent: For the one must ſuppoſe Guilt, and the other cannot; when the Perſonal Righteouſneſs is actually imputed. There may be antecedent Guilt before the Imputation; but where there is perfect Righteouſneſs actually imputed, there can be no perſonal Guilt; for if there be, it can be no perfect Righteouſneſs as to him.
3. That there can be no Conditions required, where a perfect Righteouſneſs is imputed. For a Condition is in order to ſomething to be obtained; but here the full Benefit is already received by the Imputation of a perfect Righteouſneſs; and it is abſurd to ſuppoſe Conditions for the obtaining of what is paſt. It cannot then be denied, that thoſe ſpeak conſonantly enough to this Hypotheſis, who exclude all Conditions from the new Covenant; but very dangerouſly as to the Deſign of Charity; ſince our Saviour himſelf bids us to pray to God to forgive our Treſpaſſes, as we forgive others; which I think ſuppoſes a Condition on our Parts in order to Remiſſion. But if no more be meant by Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, but that the Sufferings of Christ were in our ſtead, and for our Advantage as to Remiſſion and Juſtification, I do moſt heartily and freely own it.
4. The Apoſtles Argument againſt Merit and Boaſting, do by no means hold againſt ſuch an Evangelical Righteouſneſs as comes from the Grace of God, and tends wholly to the Honour of it: which is ſo clear that I need not to prove it.
This is a ſhort Account of my Thoughts in this Matter; and I think we do not differ in the Subſtance, however we may in the manner of Explication. I am
Your Friend and Servant, ED. WIGORN.
Mr. Humfrey, Cheſter, Apr. 12. 1997.
I Receiv'd by Piece-meal, as it came from the Preſs all your Book entituled, Of the Righteouſneſs of God in the Matter of Juſtification (except the Title Page and the Epiſtle) which I read over, as it came to my Hands, with Pleaſure and Profit. The great Doctrine of Juſtification, is by you ſtated more agreeably to the Scriptures, than I have met with it, in any other Author. You do, I confeſs, in ſome Places expreſs your Senſe obſcurely, ſo that it may perhaps be miſtaken by unwary Readers: but if in thoſe Places I rightly apprehend your Meaning, I do not at preſent remember any thing I have to object againſt it. However, I intend the next Week to read over the whole together, and if any Objections ſhall then occur to my Thoughts, you ſhall hear further from me. It will, I doubt not, be a good Antidote againſt the Antinomian Doctrines, which ſome Perſons who decry, do implicitly and by neceſſary Conſequence aſſert, by the falſe Notion they have entertain'd of Chriſt's imputed Righteouſneſs. I am SIR,
Your Affectionate Brother, N. CESTRIENS.