Justification Justified, Theses · Thesis 196 – Thesis 201
CXCVI.
He that runs may read the fore said passages quoted out of the three Homilies of Salvation to be directly opposite to several notions delivered by Mr. Sh. in his Book, in reference to the Doctrine of Justification. For 1. Whereas Mr. Sh. confoundeth justifying Faith and all other Graces, Faith and Gospel-Obedience, Faith and sincere good works, and maketh as if they were one, and the same thing (witness what he saith in p. 273. of his Book) the Homilies fore-quoted do manifestly distinguish betwixt Faith and other Graces, but more plainly betwixt Faith and good works. Witness that passage, Faith doth not shut out Hope, Love, Repentance, and the fear of God to be joyned with Faith in every man that is justified, but it shuts them out from the Office of justifying. Now, if Faith, and all these Graces were one, and the same Faith should shut out it self from the Office of justifying, according to them. Divers passages fore-quoted do shew that the Homilies do frequently oppose Faith and works, Ex. gr. this for one. Consider diligently these words without works by Faith only freely we receive remission of our sins: what can be spoken more plainly, than to say, that freely, without works, by Faith only we obtain remission of our sins? 2. Whereas Mr. Sh. interesseth all Evangelick Obedience, internal Holiness, and sincere good works, in justification, as truly, and as much, as Faith it self (as he must needs do who makes them the same with Faith, or to be Faith it self) divers passages alledged out of the Homilies in the fore-going Thesis do expresly deny and contradict that assertion of his; witness that terrible passage which I would wish Mr. Sh. to think of, namely, That Faith only (that is, without works concurring as to that, for that the Margent sheweth to be the thing treated of) justifieth advanceth the true glory of Christ, and beateth down the vain-glory of man: This whosoever denieth is not to be accounted for a Christian man, nor for a setter forth of Christ's glory; but for an adversary to Christ and his Gospel, and for a setter forth of man's vain-glory. 3. Whereas Mr. Sh. makes as if Faith it self, the very foreign credere, the habit, or act of believing (whatsoever he understands thereby) were the matter of our Righteousness, or our very Evangelical Righteousness before God, the Homily is plain against him in these words. The true understanding of this Doctrine we be justified freely by Faith without Works, is not that this our act to believe in Christ doth justifie us, for that were to count our selves to be justified by some act, or virtue in our selves. 4. Whereas Mr. Sh. utterly denyeth, and derideth Imputed Righteousness, witness the passages which I have quoted out of his Book in Thesis 179. to which I shall add one or two more, viz. that in p. 276. of Mr. Sh's. book, where he concludes thus. Thus you see that there is no foundation in Scripture for all this talk of personal Rigteousness of Christ inherent in him, and imputed to us Also, Sh. p. 273. Thus you see how the Apostle opposeth the Righteousness of the Law to the Righteousness of Faith, not as an inherent, and personal to an Imputed Righteousness; but as an external, and Ritual, to an inherent, real, and substantial Righteousness This is (saith Mr. Sh.) the foreign, the Foundation of all other mistakes in this matter, that by the righteousness of the Law, and the righteousness of Works, most men understand an inherent holiness, the conformity of our hearts, and lives to all moral Precepts, and Rules of good life; and then conclude that if this righteousness will not please God, nothing but an imputed righteousness can, though I should have rather concluded that nothing can: but the truth is, the righteousness of the Law, and of Works in the New Testament signifies only an external righteousness, which cannot please God; and that internal holiness which they call the righteousness of the Law, is that very righteousness of Faith which the Gospel commands, and which God approves, and rewards, and this imputed righteousness is no where to be found, that I know of, but in their own fancies. If this long Paragraph be not quite contrary to what the Homily declareth, I am much deceived. The words of the Homily are these. Man cannot make himself righteous by his own works, neither in part, nor in the whole; for that were the greatest Arrogancy, and Presumption of man, that Antichrist could set up against God, to affirm that a man might by his own works take away his own sins, and so justifie himself. But saith Mr. Sh. If internal holiness will not please God (that is, be accepted by him as that righteousness whereby a sinner is justified in his sight, for of that he was speaking) I should have concluded that nothing can. Who can reconcile that passage of hi… to … in the Homily, which followeth. Because all men be …inners, and offenders against God, therefore can no man by his own acts, words, and deeds, be justified, and made righteous before God; but every man is constrained to seek for another righteousness or justification to be received at God's own hand, &c. And again, God sent his only Son into the world to fulfil the Law for us, and by shedding his most precious blood to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, and (as it may be called) amends to his Father for our sins, &c. Which passage in the Homily plainly tells us another way how God comes to be pleased with sinners, so far forth as to justifie them: then upon their inherent righteousness, or internal holiness (which yet is very necessary for other purposes) viz. upon the account of Christ his atonement, and satisfaction, which being not theirs subjectively, and inherently if it be not imputed to them, they can have no benefit by it. The Homily saith expressly, that every man is constrained to seek another righteousness (viz. than that of his own works and deeds) to be received at God's own hand. The Homily tells you that our very Faith, or believing is far from justifying us, or being the matter of our righteousness before God, witness these words. So that our Faith in Christ (as it were) saith to us thus. It is not I that can take away your sins, but it is Christ only; I send you to him for that purpose, forsaking therein all your good virtue, thoughts, words, and works, and only putting your trust in Christ, &c. Again, The third Homily of Salvation saith, Faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of sins, and that by Faith we imbrace the promise of God's mercy (which thing no other of our virtues, or works properly doth) therefore scripture useth to say, that Faith without works doth justifie. which passage, forasmuch as it excludeth other graces, and works, besides Faith, from the justifying of a sinner upon this account; that they do not, like Faith, properly imbrace the promise of God's mercy, and remission of sin, plainly implieth, and intimateth, that Faith doth justifie only correlatively to its object Christ, and his righteousness, which can be made ours no otherwise than by imputation, or gracious accepting of us as if we were perfectly righteous with an inherent formal righteousness of our own, sith it is not ours internally. Therefore there is such a thing as imputed righteousness, and that Faith that lays hold upon it is a grace by it self, distinct from other graces, and other good works, and is the only instrument on mans part, whereby he is justified. All this I say is true if the Homilies of the Church of England may be credited. And now methinks I hear those men who find the Articles, and the Homilies of the Church of England to stand so much in their light, crying out concerning those that pen'd them, Ʋtinam nesciissent literas (as one concerning himself) would to God they had been illiterate men, that had never learnd to write: and (pretending that the Doctrine of imputed righteousness, will destroy all good Ethiks) making bold to abuse the Homilies, and that text together, foreign, 1 Cor. 15.33.
CXCVII.
The Church of England is not singular in the Doctrine declared in their Homilies (the Comment of their Articles) viz. that we are jastified by the Imputation of the righteousness of Christ apprehended by Faith: for it were easie to produce a cloud of Witnesses consenting with them in this matter, and plainly affirming the same thing in their Writings, viz. Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Brentius, Chytraeus, Hemingius, Zuinglius, Occolampadius, Grynaeus, Bullinger, Calvin, Gualter, Danaeus, Zanchy, Beza, Peter Martyr, Musculus, Pareus, Ʋrsinus, Marlorat, Junius, Tossanus, Sybrandus, Bucanus, Pezelius, Aretius, Chamier, to omit the eminent Divines of our own Nation, such as Whittaker, Perkins, Pemble, &c. who have written to the like purpose. But oh how vastly doth one Mr. Sh. outweigh all these? &c.
CXCVIII.
Whereas in my Prodromus I undertook to produce nine eminent Bishops, (eight of them of the Church of England) all setting their faces against that notion of Justification which Mr. Sherlock hath delivered to us, viz. that we are not justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, but by our own sincere obedience to the Gospel (which, saith he, is called the righteousness of Faith) having already produced two of the nine, viz. Bp. Davenant, and Bp. Dounam, in variety of instances; there remains but seven, the first whereof I shall now instance in is Bp. Hall, whom I find as opposite to Mr. Sherlock in this matter, as a man can be. His words are as follow. The Evangelical Justice (saith Bp. Hall) is not without the intervention of a Saviour; to which claim is laid in two kinds: either as imputative, or as inherent. The inherent wrought in us, the imputed wrought for us. It is the main care of our lives, and deaths, what shall give us peace, and acceptation before the dreadful Tribunal of God: What but righteousness? What righteousness, or whose? Ours, or Christ's? Ours in the inherent graces wrought in us, in the holy works wrought by us; or Christ's in his most perfect obedience, and meritorious satisfaction wrought for us, and applyed to us? The Tridentine faction is for the former (and so we may say is Mr. Sh.) we for the latter. God is as direct on our side as his word can make him; every where blazening the defects of our our own righteousness, the imperfections of our best graces, the deadly nature of our least sins, the radical sinfulness rf our habitual concupiscence, the pollution of our best works: every where extolling the perfect obedience of our Redeemer, the gracious appplication of that obedience, the sweet comfort of that application, the assurance and unfailableness of that comfort; and lastly, our happy rest in that assurance. We were to us if we were not more just in that, than sanctified in our selves. We are sanctified in part, according to the weakness of our receit, we are justified throughly according to the perfectness of thy acceptation. Were we throughly sanctified here, we should be more than men, were we not throughly justified we should be no more than sinners before thee, while we stand before thee as sinners we can have no peace. Let others trust in the Chariots and Horses of their own strength, we will remember the Lord our God. The work of thy Justice (or righteousness) shall be our Peace. Thus far that Excellent and acute Bishop.
CXCIX.
The Learned Bishop Prideaux, sometimes professor of Divinity at Oxford, in his Book called Fasciculus Controversiarum (over and above what may be met with in his other works) giveth ample testimony to the Doctrine of Believers their being justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them, and received by Faith alone. That only Faith on man's part doth justifie, he proves by this Argument, for one, p. 266. Per quod solummodo imputatur nobis Christi Justitia, &c. That by which alone, or by which only, the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us which satisfieth God's Law, and for man's lapse, by that only on our part we are justified. But we are justified only by his grace through the redemption which is Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his Blood to declare his Righteousness, Rom. 3.24. Whence Christ is made to us Wisdom, Righteousness, and Redemption, 1 Cor. 1.30. In that Argument he plainly declares his Judgment for our being justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, for by that he proves we are justified by Faith alone on our part, for that alone receiveth, or layeth hold on that Righteousness whereby God justifieth a Sinner, or whereby, ex parte Dei, or with respect unto God, a Sinner is justified. Yea, one of his Arguments to prove that we are j…stified by Faith alone, is this, viz. That Doctrine (saith he) which distinguisheth saving Ch…istianity from Judaism, Turcism, and Heathenism▪ is to be received by all Christians: But such is thi… Doctrine (saith he) of Justification by Faith alone, because Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth, Rom. 10.4. But if the Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness be over-thrown, the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, (as on Man's part) falls to the ground, as Bp. Prideaux intimates, for he builds this upon that, and consequently according to that Learned Prelate, the great thing whic… should distinguish us from Jews, Turks, and Heathens, is taken away; which assertion of his is a kind of calling them (by craft, as they say) either Jews, Turks, or Heathens, who deny the Doctrine of Christ's Imputed Righteousness, for in so doing they must needs deny the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, (ex parte hominis) for it is the Righteousness of Christ which Faith layeth hold upon, &c. Also in p. 298. having started this Objection. If the Imputed Righteousness of Christ apprehended by Faith be that which alone doth justifie us, then should we be as Righteous as Christ himself; his Answer to it is this, Juxta veritatem rei aeque sumus justi sed non aequaliter, nec eodem modo, cum isle justus sic subjective, nos imputative, ille de proprio nos illius la…gitate. It follows not (saith he) that we are Righteous equally with Christ himself, because he is righteous subjectively (or in himself) we but Imputatively (or by the acc…unting of his righteousness to us) and accepting his Righteousness for us, and on our behalf.) No more need to be said to prove that that Learned Bishop (whose Authority certainly may go as far as Mr. Sherlock's) was a hearty asserto… of the now despised Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness.
CC.
Edwinus London (as he writes himself) that is Edwin Sand…, then Bishop of London, in an Epistle of his before Luther's Commentary on the Galatians (which I know not whether I should not call his solemn License for that Book) writes thus.
This Book being brought to me to peruse, and to consider of, I thought it my part not only to allow of it to the Print, but also to commend it to the Reader, as a Treatise most comfortable to all afflicted Cons…iences exercises in the School of Christ This Author felt what he spake, and had experience of what he wrought, &c. Sathan is the Enemy; The Vict… is only by Faith in Christ. This most necessary Doctrine the Author hath most substantially cleared in this his Commentary. Which being written in Latine certain godly learned men have translated into our Language to the great benefit of all such, as with humbled hearts will read the same.
If this most Reverend Bishop had not been a hearty Friend to the Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness, he would never have given so high a Commendation of Luther's work upon the Epistle to the Galatians, which doubtless is full of that kind of Doctrine; yea, surely, had he been of Mr. Sherlock's mind, he would have been so far from Licensing that Book himself, with respect, and Honour, that by his good will, no body else should have Licensed it, but rather have told the World that it was idle talk, and meer tittle tattle.
CCI.
The Excellent Bishop of Norwich, that now is, in his Explication of the 110th. Psalm, p. 440. having in the fore-going page spoken of Christ his suffering for us, as our Head, and Surety (for so he speaks) saith, The fruit which redounds to us hereby is the Expiation of our sins, by the imputing of his Righteousness unto us. This is my Blood of the New Testament, which was shed for many for the remission of sin, Mat. 26.28. And in whom we have redemption through his Blood, the forgiveness of sins, Eph. 1.7. The manner whereby the satisfaction of Christ becomes profitable to us unto the remission of sin, and Righteousness is by Imputation, Rom. 4.3.5.8.5.19. Now, all the World is guilty before God, foreign, it lyeth in mischief, and therefore must be justified by a forreign Righteousness, and that equal to the Justice offended, which is the Righteousness of God unto us graciously imputed. As there is a Personal and individual unity whereby a man is one, in, and by himself: So there is a common unity whereby a man is one with another. And this is the ground of righteousness imputed. Ʋnitas enim praestantis est fundamentum proprietatis ad officium praestitum, i. e. Onenes with the performer is the foundation of our prospriety to the good Office performed. So then betwixt Christ and us there must be an Ʋnity, or else there can be no Imputation. It is said, that Faith is Imputed for righteousness, Rom. 4.5. not the foreign credere, or the Act of Believing as it is a work proceeding from us by grace, but because it is the bond of Ʋnion betwixt us, and Christ, and by that means makes way to the Imputation of Christs righteousness to us. 'Tis generally consented to by them that have read his Works that Dr. Reynolds, now Bishop of Norwich, useth to write sense, and nothing but what is good sense, and yet I find all the passages fore-mentioned in that book of his, which I mentioned before, nor do I know how much time it would take up to transcribe all that that Excellent Person has said concerning Imputed righteousness, in his several most worthy Writings. These that I have quoted are enough to shew that he, and Mr. Sh. are not of a judgment about that grand affair.