A Medium Betwixt Two Extremes, Postscript
A POSTSCRIPT, containing a few Reflections upon ſome Paſſages in Mr. Clark's new Book, intituled Scripture-Juſtification.
NEver more need for all that are Orthodox (I mean who are eſtabliſhed in the Doctrine of Juſtification by the imputed Righteouſneſs of Jeſus Chriſt, or by his active and paſſive Obedience alone, according to the Scripture, and as maintained by moſt of the Antient Fathers, and all our worthy modern Proteſtant Divines) to cement together in Love and Union, and to paſs by ſmall matters of Difference, conſidering what a grand deſign is carrying on by the great Enemies of the true Chriſtian Religion, for Satan never appeared in his Inſtruments more bold and bare-fac'd againſt this grand Fundamental of Chriſtianity, viz. that of Juſtification, ſince bleſſed Luther's days, who as an Inſtrument (with others) gave him ſuch a Wound, than at this preſent time.
Reader, we had need beſtir our ſelves, and rouſe up with holy Zeal for God; for all, even the Foundation,Called Scripture-Juſtification. is ſtruck at.— Juſt as this precedent Sermon was going to the Preſs, a Book came to my hand wrote by Mr. Samuel Clark, a Man of great Learning; and who indeed writes without much ſeeming Gall or Invectives▪ againſt any Man's Perſon (the better to vent his Indignation againſt the Doctrine he oppoſes) ſtriving to revive and maintain the Baxterian Error, with ſuch Confidence and barefacedneſs, that if ſome able Pen do not anſwer him, it may do much harm to weak and unwary Chriſtians.
He ſays,In his Introduction, Pag. 1, 5. He would not for a World lift up the leaſt thought, much leſs a Finger, or Pen, or utter the leaſt word derogatory to the free Grace of God, or caſt the leaſt blemiſh or ſpeck upon the Reformation, or the worthy Perſons that were Inſtruments in it.
Yet he hath been ſo unhappy as to attempt the razing and utter overthrowing of that grand Truth, in which mainly the Reformation conſiſted, viz. Juſtification by the imputation of Chriſt's active and paſſive Obedience, through the free Grace of God, apprehended and received by Faith alone, without any thing wrought in us, or done by us; not by imputing Faith or any other act of Evangelical Obedience, but the imputing of Chriſt's Obedience and Satisfaction excluſively of all things elſe whatſoever. And that Faith is only ſaid to juſtify us objectively, or in reſpect had to the Object Jeſus Chriſt, which it taketh hold of.
To this purpoſe Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Zanchy, Perkins, Ames, Dr. Ʋſher, Dr. Goodwin, Dr. Owen, Dr. Sibs, Dr. Preſton, Norton, Burroughs, Caryl, Pemble, the Aſſembly, and indeed all other Antient and Modern Writers generally.
But contrary to this Doctrine ſee what Mr. Clark ſaith,Pag. 62. viz. That juſtifying Faith is the ſame thing in ſubſtance with effectual Calling, Repentance, Regeneration, Converſion, Sanctification, Renovation, forming of Chriſt in the Soul, &c.
Anſ. What now is the Purport of this Notion? Why that Faith in a large or comprehenſive Senſe, i.e. Faith with all other Graces and inherent Righteouſneſs, God hath inſtituted and ordained to be our juſtifying Righteouſneſs in his Sight, as in other places in his Book he doth aſſert without mincing the matter.
Again, he ſaith,Pag. 85. I would avoid many figurative Expoſitions of Scripture, which others are feign to make uſe of to ſalve their Phaenomena, as when we are ſaid to be juſtified by Faith, they take it Metonymically for the Object of Faith, viz. the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt; which what is it elſe than to make the Scripture a meer Noſe of Wax, and a Leaden Rule, and to comply with our Fancies? &c.
Anſw. This is much like Bellarmine in another caſe: it appears the Doctrine we are eſtabliſhed in, and upon which we build all our Hopes of Juſtification and eternal Life, is but a Fancy; What is now become of that Doctrine Paul preached, and all our worthy Reformers? How will this make the Papiſts and Quakers *Phraſis hac, ſide juſtificamur, metonymica eſt, & aquipollet huic: merito Chriſti ſide apprehenſio juſtificamur. Welleb. Compend. pag. 163. Can. viii.ſmile. 'Tis not, according to Mr. Clark, the Object of Faith, not Jeſus Chriſt that Faith apprehends, and we alone truſt in, but it is Faith that juſtifieth us comprehenſively taken; that is, Faith, Love, Charity, good Works, and ſincere Obedience that is imputed to us, to our Juſtification in the ſight of God: And that ſo far as you act in Faith, Holineſs, and in ſincere Obedience, ſo far you are juſtified. For he poſitively affirms, viz. That our Juſtification at preſent,Pag. 18. while we are in this World, is but partial, imperfect, and incompleat. Theſe are his Words.
Anſw. Now if we are not perfectly juſtified, it follows then we are not perfectly delivered from Condemnation, nor acquitted from the Guilt of all Sin,Joh. 8.36. Cant. 4.7. and ſo not in a ſtate of Life, nor made free indeed by the Son of God; and then alſo Chriſt's Dove is not without ſpot, Chap. 5.2.nor undefiled in reſpect to Juſtification: And then alſo it follows (as the Papiſts ſay) there is no aſſurance can be had or attained in this Life, or until Death, nor can we be ſaid to be compleat in Chriſt; beſides, it confounds Juſtification with Sanctification, nay it makes them but one and the ſame thing:Gal. 2.21. Nay more, that by a Law Righteouſneſs is to be obtained, and ſo Chriſt is dead in vain.
Now I profeſs, I can ſee but little difference between this Doctrine and that of Bellarmin's and other Papiſts. If famous Luther and other worthy Reformers, had wrought no better Reformation than this, the Church of God would have received but little benefit from them, nor would the Papiſts have been ſo angry with them; but the Notion of Mr. Clark and his Abettors certainly tends to raze and root out that antient Doctrine which the Apoſtles preached, and thoſe worthy Men laboured to reſtore about Juſtification. Did Bellarmine ever deny, that their good Works and inherent Holineſs, which they made the matter of their Juſtification before God, were performed by the Grace of God, and the Aſſiſtance of the Holy Spirit? This Man only excludes legal Works from having any thing to do in our Juſtific…on, but includes all Goſpel-Works and ſincere O…edience: he aſſerts theſe kind of Works and free …ace are conſiſtent; and becauſe not derogatory in point of Salvation, therefore not in Juſtification. He ſays that we muſt allow of Goſpel-Works or Holineſs to concur to Juſtification, and this Doctrine will appear, &c.
Anſw. Yet he would feign inſinuate that this Doctrine of his is in effect the ſame with that of the old received Doctrine of our Divines *But certainly all may ſee it is in effect the ſame with the Papiſts.: who teach, ſaith he, That the ſola fides ſolum, yet not fides ſola, i.e. ſolitaria juſtificat; tho Faith alone, yet not that Faith which is alone does juſtify. What's the Purport of this? Why becauſe the Faith of God's Elect, by which alone we apprehend or receive the Object, Jeſus Chriſt, by whom we are juſtified, is attended with good Fruits, as Sanctification and Holineſs, by which it is known from a falſe and dead Faith; therefore Faith, good Works, and Holineſs is (the matter, or) that which doth juſtify us before God: or becauſe Faith in reſpect of its own excellent Nature doth purify and ſanctify us; therefore God hath inſtituted and ordained Faith and inherent Holineſs to juſtify us; and becauſe inherent Holineſs and Sanctification tends to make us meet for Heaven, therefore it is our only Title for Heaven. Is it not ſaid that God imputes Righteouſneſs without Works, and juſtifies him that works not? How then do Works concur with, or are included, or joined with that Righteouſneſs that is our Juſtification before God?
Take a Paſſage of Reverend Perkins, 2 Vol. on Gal. pag. 210.viz. It is objected that true Faith is never alone; I anſwer, ſaith he, thus Faith is never alone in the Perſon juſtified, nor in Godly Converſation, but is joined with all other Vertues, yet in the act and office of Juſtification it is alone; the Eye in the Body is not alone, being joined with all other Parts, Hand, Foot, &c. nevertheleſs the Eye in ſeeing is alone, for no part of the Body ſeeth but the Eye.— He ſhews that Faith alone is the Eye which ſees the Object Jeſus Chriſt, and apprehends him and his Righteouſneſs, whoſe Righteouſneſs only is the material cauſe of our Juſtification before God. See the Aſſembly's Confeſſion, &c. All whom God effectually calleth, he freely juſtifieth, not by infuſing Righteouſneſs into them, but by pardoning their Sins, and by accounting and accepting their Perſons as righteous, not for any thing wrought in them or done by them, but for Chriſt's ſake alone; not by imputing Faith it ſelf, the act of believing, nor any other Evangelical Obedience as their Righteouſneſs, but by imputing the Obedience and Satisfaction of Chriſt unto them; they receiving and reſting on him, and his Righteouſneſs by Faith: which Faith they have not of themſelves, it is the Gift of God.
This agrees with that Doctrine Paul preached to the Romans and Galatians, &c. But from this Doctrine Mr. Clark (and many more) are departed; what ſaith the Apoſtle?Gal. 1.8. If we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Goſpel unto you than what you have received, let him be accurſed. Paul, as Mr. Perkins notes, ſaw the Galatians to be corrupted in the point of Juſtification; falſe Teachers being got among them, who preached Juſtification by Chriſt, and by the works of the Law: they did not exclude Chriſt's Merits, but brought in the works of the Law with Chriſt, in Juſtification before God; as ſome now do the works of a new Law, i.e. Goſpel Law: But let them tremble. Where's Paul's Doctrine?Rom. 3.27. for it is palpable this new Doctrine excludes not boaſting, or ground of boaſting. I argue thus, viz. That Law doth not exclude boaſting that commands works of Obedience, as the Condition of Acceptance and Juſtification: But this new Law theſe Men ſpeak of, commands works of Obedience, as the Condition of our Acceptance and Juſtification. Ergo, It doth not exclude boaſting.Pag. 43. But Mr. Clark intimates, That works of the Law, performed by our own Strength, or without ſpecial aſſiſtance only, admit of boaſting.
Anſw. The Papiſts ſay, that all their Works and inherent Righteouſneſs, are performed by God's Grace or ſpecial Aſſiſtance; yet how do they boaſt? Let the Creature perform good Works, &c. by what Aſſiſtance he will, yet the Works are his Works; and if ſuch by which he is juſtified, they admit of boaſting.
Reader, The Righteouſneſs this Man contends for, by which we are juſtified, is not the Righteouſneſs of one, but the Righteouſneſs of many, i.e. every Man's own Faith and ſincere Obedience, contrary to what Paul affirms, Rom. 5.17, 18, 19.
Chriſt did not, ſaith Mr. Clark, Pag. 100.obey the Law in Man's ſtead.
Anſw. Then ſay I, he hath not fulfilled all Righteouſneſs for us, nor anſwered all the demands of the Law; nor doth God's Holy Nature and Juſtice require a perfect Righteouſneſs to our Juſtification in his ſight: Was not perfect Righteouſneſs part of that Debt we owed to God? If ſo, who pays the Debt for us? the Penalty was but one part of our Debt. Then alſo it ſeems, the Law of perfect Righteouſneſs doth not reſult from the Purity and Holineſs of God, but only from the Sovereignty of his Will, not from the rectitude of his Nature. Moreover, why then did not God give this mild Law of Faith and ſincere Obedience at firſt, and ſo have ſaved himſelf of buying it ſo dear, i.e. with the Price of the Blood of his own Son?
Chriſt's active Obedience, he affirms,Pag. 96. is not imputed to us; nay he ſays, that imputing Chriſt's Righteouſneſs to us, is not a Scripture Expreſſion,Pag. 97. 'tis not found in any place of Scripture; tho he ſays he denies not the thing.
Anſw. Righteouſneſs was imputed to Abraham, and he was the Father of all Elect Gentiles, That Righteouſneſs might be imputed to them alſo. Rom. 4.11.Now it muſt be Abraham's own Righteouſneſs, and ſo our own Righteouſneſs, that is imputed, or elſe the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt.
Again, He may as well ſay Adam's active Diſobedience was not imputed to us;Rom. 5.19. For as by one Man's Diſobedience many were made Sinners, ſo by the Obedience of one ſhall many be made righteous. As Adam's Diſobedience in his firſt Sin was imputed to all his Seed, ſo is the Obedience of Chriſt imputed to all his, or to all in him. This Text I find he knows not how to anſwer, ſee pag. 97, 98. but boggles with it.
Obj. They object, if the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt be made ours, we may be ſaid to be the Saviours of the World as he was, or to ſave others as he did, &c.
Anſ. Take Dr. Owen's as to this,Dr. Owen on Juſtification, p. 307. viz. The Apoſtle declares, that as Adam's actual Sin is imputed unto us to Condemnation, ſo is the Obedience of Chriſt imputed unto us to the Juſtification of Life; but Adam's Sin is not ſo imputed unto any Perſon, as that he ſhould then and thereby be the cauſe of Sin and Condemnation unto all other Perſons in the World, but only that he himſelf ſhould become guilty before God thereon. And ſo is it on the other ſide: and as we are made guilty of Adam's actual Sin, which is not inherent in us, but only imputed unto us; ſo are we made righteous by the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, which is not inherent in us, but only imputed unto us; and with it, not for himſelf but for us.
Object. The Effects of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, &c. are imputed to us.
Anſw. Saith the Doctor, In this Imputation the thing is firſt imputed unto us, and not any of the Effects of it; but they are ours by virtue of that Imputation. To ſay that the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, that is his Obedience and Sufferings, are imputed to us only in their Effects, is to ſay that we have the benefit of them and no more, but Imputation it ſelf is denied; ſo ſay (ſaith he) the Socinians.
Again he ſaith, The Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is imputed unto us, as unto its Effects, hath this ſound Senſe in it, viz. that the Effects of it are made ours, by reaſon of that Imputation; it is ſo imputed, ſo reckoned unto us of God, as that he readily communicates all the Effects of it unto us; but to ſay the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is not imputed unto us, but the Effects only, is really to overthrow all Imputation.
But Mr. Clark ſays, 'Tis the Righteouſneſs of God by which we are juſtified,Pag. 105. not the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt.
He will not have it be the Righteouſneſs of him that was God, or take it in that Senſe; but that Righteouſneſs that God hath ordained and inſtituted for our Juſtification, viz. our Faith and ſincere Obedience.
Anſw. We do not only ſay it was the Righteouſneſs of him that was God as well as Man, but alſo that Righteouſneſs which God hath found out, and approves of, as agreeing with his Holy Nature and infinite Juſtice, and Purity of his Law, That he might be juſt: not the eſſential Righteouſneſs of God, but the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt as Mediator, Who of God is made to us Wiſdom and Righteouſneſs, &c. Where pray hath God made our imperfect Righteouſneſs a Righteouſneſs to juſtify us at his Bar? I am perſwaded this Man would not willingly be found in his own Righteouſneſs at Death, let it be never ſo ſincere. Ay, but we muſt take the Scripture in the plain literal Senſe about Juſtification; this he much harps at, tho his Notion by thus doing brings in Juſtification by Works, which the Apoſtle ſhews is inconſiſtent, and directly contrary to Grace, Rom. 11.6. Works are Works, whether Law-Works, or Goſpel-Works. He argues much as the Papiſts in another caſe, and upon as grand a Point; Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church: I will appeal to all, whether the Words in the Letter do not ſeem to run ſmoother for the Papiſts, i.e. for the Church to be built upon Peter, than upon Chriſt that Peter confeſſed?Pag. 85. And ſo this is my Body, &c. Mr. Clark cries out againſt puzling perplexing Diſtinctions, and taking Faith Metonymically, i. e. for the Object of Faith, tho it is clearly imply'd, and that way only it beareth a true Analogy of Faith.
Pag. 46.I infer (ſaith he) that we are not juſtified by the active Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, or his Obedience to the Law of Works imputed to us; for then a Man would be juſtified by the Law, and by the Deeds and Works thereof, as much to be reckon'd his own, as if they were done perſonally by himſelf, (for that is their Senſe of Juſtification) then we are juſtified by the Law or Covenant of Works, in a Legal and in an Evangelical way; for then the Law is fully ſatisfied by Chriſt our Surety, and we ſtand recti curiâ, and the Law has nothing to ſay to us, or charge us withal; as if a Surety in Bond pay the full Debt, the Creditor has no Action againſt the principal Debtor, and there's no Favour at all ſhow'd him in his Diſcharge.
Anſw. In all Places where in the New Teſtament it is ſaid, a Man is not, cannot be juſtified by the Works of the Law, or by the Deeds of the Law, 'tis evident that the Apoſtle ſpeaks of that Obedience to the Law, that frail, depraved and impotent Man is able to yield thereunto; and the Reaſon why no Man can be juſtified hereby, is,
1. Becauſe he hath both originally, and actually broken it; and as it admits of no pardon for what is paſt, ſo alſo it affords no ſtrength to keep it for time to come: Hence,Rom. 8.3. what the Law could not do, God ſent his own Son: What for? Was it only to make God amends for our Breach of it, and ſo to purchaſe a new, a milder and better Law of Works, &c? No ſure: Where is there the leaſt ſhadow of proof for this? See what this Gentleman's Reverend Father ſaith,Mr. Sam. Clark, Paſtor of the Church at Bennetfink, his Medulla Theologiae, or the Marrow of Divinity, Pag. 280. ſpeaking of Chriſt's fulfilling the Law for us; he ſaith,
That it was not meerly Obedience, but a meriting Obedience; there was an intrinſick Worth and Excellency in Chriſt's Obedience, anſwering to our Salvation: Hence, tho we have Juſtification of meer Grace, yet in reſpect of Chriſt, it was Juſtice and Debt; ſo that in Chriſt the Covenant of Works was fulfilled, tho in us the Covenant of Grace: This Work Chriſt finiſhed and compleated;
Firſt, In that he did it wholly and univerſally; there was not one Tittle of the Law which he did not fulfil.
Secondly, He finiſhed it univerſally for Parts, and not only ſo, but fully for Degrees: He did not only love God, but loved him as much as the Law requires; all that he did, was ſo fully done, that there wanted not the leaſt Degree of Grace in any Duty.
Thirdly, Becauſe he had not only an Objective Perfection in Parts and Degrees, but alſo a Subjective; all within was throughly and perfectly holy: So that as we are originally and actually polluted, he was originally and actually holy; ſo that the Law had no fault to find with him.
Fourthly, He finiſhed it in reſpect of Duration, the Law requiring continuance, tho there were Perfection of Parts and Degrees, and ſubjective Perfection alſo: Yet curſed is he that continueth not therein. Again he ſaith, For to obey the Law of God, and to ſuffer all the Wrath that was due to our Sins, was a bitter Cup to drink.
Thus Chriſt fulfilled the Law for us as our Surety, and in him it was fulfilled in us, there being a Legal or Law-Union between him and us.
Now ſince this perfect, this compleat and conſtant Obedience to the Law, was our Duty, and that Debt we owed to God, Dare you deny Chriſt as our Surety, paid it? Certainly had he not fulfilled the Preceptory part of the Law (as well as born the Penal part) for us, we could not be juſtified from the Charge and Curſe thereof: But why muſt we (becauſe we ſay Surety hath done this) be juſtified by the Law or Covenant of Works? Are we Saviours or Mediators, becauſe we have his Righteouſneſs imputed to us of meer Grace? Is the Debtor the Surety, becauſe the Surety's Payment is accepted for him? The old Covenant-Righteouſneſs was an inherent Righteouſneſs, a Righteouſneſs in a Man's ſelf, i. e. Adam's own Righteouſneſs, not a Righteouſneſs imputed, but inherent: the Righteouſneſs of your new Law, is a Legal or Law-Righteouſneſs, and looks more like an old Covenant-Righteouſneſs, becauſe 'tis inherent, or infuſed into you, not put upon you, or imputed to you, as being wrought out for you without you. And, Sir, is there no favour ſhewed to us, becauſe our Surety has paid this Debt? Was it not great Love, great Grace and Favour for God to accept of a Surety? nay, to ſubſtitute his own Son in our ſtead to ſatisfy all the Demands of the Law and Juſtice? True, we are not ſimply dealt with in a way of Mercy, (I mean pardoned only) but in a way of Juſtice and Righteouſneſs alſo: Juſtification has more than Pardon in it (as your Notion allows;) we found not the Surety, but God found him; therefore all is of God's free Grace, tho alſo all is by the Obedience of Chriſt, i. e. by his keeping Law for us, and dying in our ſtead. To plead for a Righteouſneſs by Obedience to any mild Law, is no other than to plead for a Legal Righteouſneſs in our ſelves to juſtify us; and that is as oppoſite to the Righteouſneſs of God, as the truſting in the Moral and Ceremonial Law, it being oppoſite to Grace: the Righteouſneſs therefore of the Law, by which no Fleſh can be juſtified, is a Righteouſneſs reſted in, or truſted to, that is inherent in us, whatſoever Thoughts a Perſon may have of it, i. e. as perfectly, or only ſincerely kept.
But to proceed: Did not God ſend his Son, Rom. 8.3.that the Righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in us, &c? that is, in our Nature, in our Head. Chriſt and Believers (as I ſaid before) are one in a Law-ſenſe; and evident it is, that the Righteouſneſs of the Law is not fulfilled in us in Sanctification, becauſe that is imperfect, that is far from fulfilling it; and there is no other way it can be ſaid to be fulfilled in us, but by imputation.
Moreover, by Chriſt's coming to keep the Law in our Nature, God hath magnified the Law, Rom. 3.31.and made it honourable; and hereby we do not make void the Law through Faith, but eſtabliſh the Law, in that the Son of God, in Man's Nature, yielded perfect Obedience thereto, and died for our breach of it, whoſe Obedience is ours by imputation to our Juſtification at his Bar.
Pray obſerve that through Faith we attain a perfect Righteouſneſs, i. e. are intereſted in the moſt compleat Obedience of Chriſt to the Moral Law; but now if Chriſt only ſatisfied for our breach of the Law by his Death, and his perfect active Obedience has no hand in, or is not the material Cauſe of our Juſtification before God, how do we by believing in him eſtabliſh the Law?
I ſay the Righteouſneſs of the Law (which is ſo called) which the Apoſtle decries as unable to juſtify us, is a reſting in or truſting to our inperfect Conformity to it, or to any other Law tho never ſo ſincerely performed; for this ſort of Righteouſneſs is always oppoſed to the Righteouſneſs of Faith or of Grace,Rom. 11.6. If it be of Works (of any Works whatſoever) it is not of Grace: all works of ſincere Obedience to any Law of God, are alike materially good. But God has not ordained any Law of ſincere Obedience to juſtify us, becauſe Grace excludeth all Works done by us in point of Juſtification in God's Sight. We can no more be juſtified by the Law of the Goſpel, i.e. the New Law, than by the Old.
Mr. Clark ſays,Pag. 71. The Juſtification Paul ſpeaks of in the Romans, and that which James ſpeaks of is the ſame. And further he ſays, to be juſtified by Faith according to Paul, and by Works according to James, is all one; Juſtification by Works ſpringing from Faith, is Juſtification by Faith in this Senſe.
Anſw. Now we and the Orthodox ſay, that Paul ſpeaks of our Juſtification before God, or of the Perſon; James of the Juſtification of our Faith, good Works demonſtrating our Faith to be of the right kind, or do declare to Men, and to our own Conſciences, that we are juſtified Perſons. Paul ſpeaks of the Juſtification of a Sinner, James of the Juſtification of a Believer (as it is ſaid, the People juſtified God, that is, declared he was juſt); ſo our Goſpel-Works ſpringing from Faith, declare that our Faith is true, and we ſincere Believers.
Yet he would have his Reader believe he is no Heterodox Perſon in this Point.
Paul ſpeaks of Juſtification and Abſolution of a Sinner at God's Bar, through the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs.
James ſpeaks of the Manifeſtation or Declaration of that Juſtification to the Conſcience.
Paul ſpeaks of the cauſe of our Juſtification before God.
James of the ſigns of it before Men.
Paul ſpeaks of the Imputation of Righteouſneſs.
James of the Declaration of Righteouſneſs.
Paul ſpeaks of the Office of Faith by God's Ordination, as it apprehends Chriſt, &c.
James of the quality of Faith, or of its own excellent Virtue.
Paul ſpeaks of the Juſtification of a Perſon.
James of the Juſtification of the Faith of that Perſon.
Paul ſpeaks of Abraham how juſtified.
James of Abraham's good Works, as already juſtified, and as declaring him ſo to be.
Paul ſpeaks of Juſtification in a proper Senſe, as God's gracious act, through Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, whereby a Man is imputed or counted Juſt and Righteous in God's Sight.
James ſpeaks of Juſtification whereby we are not made Juſt before God, but declared to be juſtified, being ſincere Believers, and free from Hypocriſy.
Paul had to do with Legal and Judaizing Chriſtians, ſuch who either brought in a Law, or a ſelf-Righteouſneſs, inſtead of God's Grace in imputing Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, or elſe ſetting up an inherent Righteouſneſs with it (as theſe Men do now.)
And James had to do with ſuch, who might be juſtly called Antinomians, i.e. ſuch that abuſed the Grace of God, or Doctrine of free Grace, to encourage themſelves in Sin, boaſting of a falſe and preſumptuous Faith, a dead Faith. Now James's work is to ſhew the effects and nature of true Faith; therefore he ſpeaks not of Juſtification in a proper Senſe, when he ſays Abraham was juſtified by Works, but declaratively only. Faith wrought not with Abraham's Works,See Pool's Annot. in the Juſtification of his Perſon at God's Bar, but in declaring and evincing that his Faith was true and ſaving, not a dead Faith; good Works being the Fruits of ſaving Faith▪ If this was not ſo, how could he ſay, in verſ. 23. that The Scripture was fulfilled, Jam. 2.23.which ſaith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteouſneſs? (not his Act of Faith, but the Object his Faith believed in, or took hold of.) The Juſtification of a Sinner in a proper Senſe is one thing, and the Juſtification of a Believer, as ſuch a one, is another thing. How then can Mr. Clark ſay, the Juſtification Paul ſpeaks of, and that which James ſpeaks of, is all one and the ſame thing?
This Man contends for a mild Law; certainly the Moral Law remains a perpetual Rule of perfect Obedience: let this Man ſhew us where and how he can prove that God in the Goſpel only commands ſincere imperfect Obedience to the Moral Law: the Law ſurely loſes no part of its ſanction by the Goſpel; that is as holy, juſt and good as ever:Mat. 5.48. Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect. We are ſtill to love the Lord our God with all our Hearts, with all our Souls, and with all our Strength. Our Faith, Love, Patience, &c. ought to be perfect; the Law or Commands of the Goſpel know no bounds or limits: tho the Law is abrogated as a Covenant of Works, yet not as a rule of perfect Obedience. See what Reverend Mr. Croſs ſays,Serm. on Rom. 4.5. i.e. Either the Goſpel Law, or Law of Faith muſt require perfection in thoſe Duties, or ſome other Divine Law, or elſe God would become an indulger of Sin by Law; if it be by another Law, viz. the Moral, that requires perfect Obedience, and this ſincere only: then theſe Laws differ but in degree, not in Specie or Kind; becauſe both require the ſame Duties or Works: and ſo this Goſpel Law would be no diſtinct Law, but only the meaſure of ſincere Obedience, would receive a new Uſe of its giving right, &c. which we own it has, to wit, to be an index or mark of our Juſtification, tho we can't own that uſe of giving right, &c.—a diſtinct Law they muſt hold, or quit their Cauſe, or this Foundation of it; for the Text ſets the Law of Faith down as an oppoſite Law to that of Works, and that they hold: then if it be a perfect Law requiring perfect Obedience, there is no poſſibility of Juſtification in this Life — but this is not all the difficulty, for it's the adding a load to a burden: Is this Goſpel to a Man that is not able to perform the leaſt part of the Moral Law, to tell him that God or the Mediator requires perfect Obedience to it for the future, and another too? Or is this Goſpel, to ſay you ſhall periſh eternally, and have the Fire of Hell ſeven times heated, if you obey not the Goſpel! it's indeed a conditional Hell, but it is more dreadful than the Fire of Hell; and the condition is more impoſſible, becauſe we have leſs Power to ſhun this difficulty of two perfect Laws: Mr. Bull owns no other perfect Law but the Goſpel, ſince Man fell; but by ſhunning one difficulty he falls into as great. (1) Then the Moral Law is abrogated, beſides the falſeneſs of the Doctrine it ſelf; for it is impoſſible that ſhould ceaſe to be our duty to love God with all our Hearts and Souls. What advantage brings in Chriſt's Death, to abrogate one perfecting Law, and eſtabliſh another? here is little Goſpel. A ſecond difficulty, i. e. we muſt either ſay Chriſt has purchaſed to us pardon for Sins againſt the Goſpel Law, or none at all but that one Sin of Adam's, if the Moral Law be abrogated; after the fall we never ſinned againſt any Law but the Goſpel, for we were under no other Law according to him, &c. Thus Mr. Croſs ▪ Is not much of our Obedience under the Goſpel, Obedience to the Moral Law? Nay, is not the Moral Law the Rule of all our Obedience to God in all poſitive Goſpel-precepts?
Reader, This mild Law of theirs they ſay requires ſincere Obedience as the condition of Juſtification; now there is no ſincere Obedience without it be univerſal, &c. how then may this fill a poor Chriſtian with terror, and ſlaviſh Fear? I do all I hope ſincerely, but I may not obey univerſally, ſome Precept through ignorance I may lie ſhort of; I can't tell when my Obedience is full: Alſo according to them I can be but partially juſtified in this Life, and therefore I am partially condemned: and thus the Creature hangs till Death, between Heaven and Hell.
Ah poor England, poor Church of God, where are thy brave old Heroes, that ſtood up to maintain the Truths of Chriſt? What Apoſtacy is here from the Orthodox Faith? what decay of doctrinal and practical Chriſtianity? what dark Clouds ſpread over our Heavens? How are many fallen from the Faith? But I muſt leave Mr. Clark to an abler Pen, I deſign'd no more than to make a few Remarks to provoke ſome others to reply to the Argumentative part of his Book, which I ſee no great difficulty to anſwer. Now that the Lord would ſcatter this Cloud, and all other dangerous Errors, let it be all our Prayers both Day and Night. Yet I doubt not but the preſent oppoſition againſt this Fundamental Point of Faith will cauſe the Truth in the end to ſhine more clear and bright, which the Lord grant in his Infinite Mercy, to the praiſe of his own Glory. Amen.
FINIS.
End of the text · Benjamin Keach, A Medium Betwixt Two Extremes (1698)