Justification Justified, Theses · Thesis 207
CCVII.
The opposers of Christ's Imputed righteousness, and of Justification by Faith alone, on Man's part, are found Fighters not only against the Writings of the Generality of the most eminent Divines of the Reformed Churches (as I have instanced in above thirty) but also against many Renowned Bishops of the Church of England, whose Names and sayings have been mentioned; and not against them only, but also against the Homilies, as hath been made appear by several passages alledged from thence, which are point blank against them; yea, over and above all that, they will appear to fight against the eleventh Article of the Church of England, stiled; Of the justification of man. For that Article runs thus; We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Faith, and not for our own Works, or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only is most wholsom Doctrine, and full of comfort. Those are the very words of the Article. By the merits of Christ doubtless are meant his Active, and Passive Obedience, or what he did and suffered for Believers, in order to meriting and purchasing Eternal Life for them, which Obedience of our Saviour we call his righteousness. Now, saith the Article, we are accounted Righteous before God (that is, we are justified only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. But, saith Mr. Sh. (and as many as are of his mind) we are accounted Righteous before God for our sincere Obedience to the Gospel, or for our internal Holiness. For, saith he, p. 273. having spoken just before of Internal Holiness, and the conformity of our hearts and Lives to all moral Precepts. If this righteousness will not please God, I should have concluded that nothing can. He goes on, and saith, 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 but in their own fancies. From those words of his I Argue thus against him. A man is counted Righteous before God (or justified, which is the same thing) for that which is his Righteousness, especially his only Righteousness in the sight of God. But according to Mr. Sh. our only Evangelical Righteousness in the sight of God is our internal Holiness, and conformity of our hearts and lives to all moral Principles, and Rules of a good life. Ergo. By our internal Holiness we are counted righteous (savingly) or justified in the sight of God. Imputed Righteousness being no where to be found that Mr. Sh. knows of, but in mens own fancies, men must necessarily be justified by inherent Righteousness, according to Mr. Sh. or without any righteousness at all. The latter cannot be, that a man should be righteous without any righteousness; therefore he is so in the sight of God, and to salvation (for that we are speaking of) by, and for his inherent holiness, or Gospel obedience. And if so, Then Believers are not accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of Jesus Christ (as the Article saith) yea so far from that, that they are not counted righteous before God, so much as partly, or in part, for the merit of Christ, because their only righteousness (according to Mr. Sh.) is their internal holiness, and conformity to moral Precepts. Again, If we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of Jesus Christ, as the Article saith, then we are so accounted by, and for, an imputed righteousness; yea by, and for an imputed righteousness only. For there are but two ways whereby any righteousness can be ours: viz. either by Inherency, or by Imputation. But the merits of Jesus Christ are not inherent in us; therefore if they be our righteousness in the sight of God, they must be imputed to us. Nothing can be more plain than that, if we are justified by the righteousness of another, viz. of Christ, we are justified by a righteousness imputed, and not inherent; and consequently that there is such a thing as imputed righteousness, elsewhere than in the fancies of men. Sure I am, The merits of Christ can avail us nothing, unless they be imputed, or reckoned to us; or unless God, upon the account thereof (and not of our own internal holiness) do deal with us, as if we in, and of our selves had been worthy of eternal life, Christ's meriting had signified nothing to us, unless he had merited for us, or with an intention that his merits should be put to our account; as Christ's giving up himself to death, had been of no use to us, unless he had loved us, and given himself for us. If Christ's merit be not imputed to us, for the accepting of us righteous before God, we have no advantage by it any more than a man can have had by a plaister that was never applyed. Now they that say we are justified only for the merit of Christ (or for the righteousness of Christ imputed, which hath been prov'd to come all to one,) as saith the Article of our Church, do vastly differ from Mr. Sh. that saith we are not justified, no not partly, by Imputed Righteousness; yea indeed, that there is no such thing. If his evasion should be that Christ hath merited that our sincere obedience, and God's acceptance thereof, instead of that which is compleat and perfect, should be the matter, and form of our justification, or righteousness before God (which is like the Papists notion, viz. that works dyed in the blood of Christ do justifie) I say, such a notion as that is very unsound and unsafe. For that were to make as if Christ did give away the glory of Justification, and Salvation to another, viz. to our Gospel obedience; and died not to save us himself, but make us Saviours to our selves: or had said to Faith, and Good Works, as Joab did to David, 2 Sam. 12.27. I have fought against Rabbab, and have taken the City of Waters. Now therefore encamp thou against the City and take it, lest I take the City, and it be called after my name. i. e. he had as good as done the work, but he would have David have the honor of it. To say that Christ merited that we might merit; (or be counted worthy of eternal life upon account of our own inherent righteousness, which is all one) is to say that Christ who merited that we should be saved by his Grace, merited that we should be saved by our own works, which is a contradiction to reason, and a turning the Covenant of Grace into a Covenant of Works. To say that Christ hath merited that our sincere, though imperfect obedience to the Gospel should be the righteousness whereby we are counted savingly righteous before God; is, 1. To attribute the Pardon of our sins to our own good works, (for by what we are justified, by that we are pardoned; or by that righteousness our sins are covered) now that cannot be, for our less than due obedience cannot satisfie God for our disobedience. Or, 2. It were to make as if the imputing, or imputation of Christ's righteousness to Believers, would not have been sufficient for their Justification, unless that imputed Righteousness were caked out for that purpose by our good works, as our good works had not been sufficient if they had not been taked out with the righteousness of Christ. Now who dares to think that for God to have reckoned what Christ had done and suffered, as Mediator, to have been done and suffered for us, and in our behalf, had not been sufficient to have freed us from hell, and entitled us to eternal life? And if that alone be sufficient, why should we think that God hath added Gospel Obedience as a Partner with Christ in the justification of a sinner; or that we are justified partly by Christ's passive, and partly by our own active obedience? They that shall venture between those two stools will fall to the ground. Far be it from us to think that Christ hath died to make a Saviour of any thing, or of any body but himself. If God need do no more than reckon to us the satisfaction made to his Law, and Justice, by Christ our Surety, as if we had made it our selves, in order to his making us happy (with consistence to all his Attributes) why should we think that God doth call in the assistance of Inherent Righteousness, for, and towards the justifying of a sinner? Frustra fit per plura. He that saith, If there had been a Law that could have given Righteousness, verily Righteousness should have been by that Law. Would he not say that the Righteousness of Christ imputed being alone sufficient for the Justification of a sinner, verily he shall be justified by that righteousness alone. Internal Righteousness is good for many other excellent purposes, though not to be the matter of our Justifying righteousness before God; as Gold and Silver are good for many things, though not to eat. Upon the whole matter I find Mr. Sh. (and as many more as are of his mind) highly peccant against the 11th Article of our Church, as to the first Proposition the ein contained; viz. that only for the merit of our Lord, and Saviour Christ, we are accepted righteous before God. Concerning which Mr. Rogers (the then Arch Bishops Chaplain, and explainer of the Articles by Allowance) addeth, And this is the Faith, and Confession of all the Churches Reformed The 2d Proposition contained in the 11th Article, according to Mr. Rogers his division of it, is this, Only by Faith are we accounted righteous before God. This branch of the Article seems to hold forth how, and by what means we become interessed in the merit of Christ, for which alone we are counted righteous before God, viz by Faith. But Mr. Sh. contradicteth that first Assertion two ways: 1. By saying in effect that we are justified as truly, and as much, by Repentance, Love, and every other Grace, as by Faith. For he makes Faith to be the Sum, and Substance of all Graces, as if every grace were Faith, and Faith were all graces in one. 2. By saying that we are justified or accounted righteous before God not only by Faith, but also by Good Works, which he calls Faith, or the Righteousness of Faith, witness, Sh. p. 273. where he saith, That internal Holiness, which they call the Righteousness of the Law, is that very righteousness of Faith which the Gospel commands. Now that Internal Holiness, he calls a conformity of heart and life to the Moral Precepts, which making to be the same thing with Faith, he strongly confounds Faith and Good Works, and makes them both one. In so doing he contradicteth the third Proposition contained in the Article which I am speaking of; viz. that we are counted righteous before God not for our own works, or deservings. In which words there is a manifest opposition made betwixt Faith, and Good Works, which Mr. Sh would have us take for one and the same thing. He makes as if Faith, and Good Works are all one, and so brings in Works into Justification; whereas the Article not only distinguisheth, but opposeth them, and so excludes Works from Justification. He that with reference to what hath been objected, can reconcile Mr. Sh's. Tenets of Justification to the 11th Article of our Church, erit mihi Magnus Apollo. Now that the World may be sure that I have not mistaken the sense and meaning of the Church in this their 11th Article, I appeal to the Homilies before cited; and who knows not that the Homilies are the most genuine, and authentick Comment upon the Articles? (as the Prophets of the Old Testament were upon the five Books of Moses.) and doubtless as the Homilies have stated the Doctrine of Justification; so the Article intended it. And therefore whosoever contradicts the Homilies in the point of Justification (as Mr. Sh. has done abundantly) must contradict the Articles also. After all this, I can hardly forbear to put forth such a Quegion to Mr. Sh. as Dalilah did to Sampson, Now tell me, I pray thee, wherewith thou mightest be bound? Judg. 15.10. If neither the general current of Orthodox, and Famous Divines of the Reformed Churches; nor the unanimous consent of many renowned Bishops of the Church of England; nor the Homilies; nor the Articles of our Church; nor all together, can hold you; tell me, I pray thee, wherewith thou mayst be bound, and wherein thy great strength lieth.