X. Perkins, Prideaux, Abbot, Davenant, White, &c., teach that STRIC. the Gospel consists of mere absolute promises, that Christ our only lawgiver gave no law: where do they preach this medley of vain doctrine? Surely for an eminent man and one above the generality of theologians, you speak very unguardedly." ANSWER TO STRICTURE X. § 1. I have not here fastened a calumny on any one, nor have I spoken unguardedly, but advisedly; but you have totally misunderstood my words. By 'our divines' I by no means meant the divines of our own or the Anglican Church, but more generally the divines on our side, i. e. Protestants as distinguished from Roman Catholics, who were opposed, as I afterwards say explicitly, by our divines with an excessive zeal. And here I have not used bad Latin to express myself; for Cicero speaks of 'our' philosophers, (nostrates philosophos,) for philosophers of our school, and of our words,' (nostratia verba,) for words which are used by those of our profession. This is remarked by Laurentius Valla, Elegant. ii. 3, in these words: "Nostras, Vestras, and Cujas not only mean one's country and nation, but also party, and, as it were, school: as, Vestrates philosophi non sunt ita populares et favorabiles ut nostrates, qui ab Epicuri schola prodierunt, and cujates philosophi vos estis? Stoicine? an Academici? an Peripatetici? an nostrates Epicurei? Cicer. Putaresne unquam accidere posse, ut mihi verba deessent, non solum illa vestratia oratoria, sed hæc etiam levia nostratia ?" Would, however, that it were but an idle tale that many of our reformed divines, who have written against Roman Catholics on the question of justification, have in their writings handed down to us that medley of absurd doctrines (as you call them, whereas you ought rather to have called them most pernicious). Alas! too many of their doctrines, still more fearful (if possible) than these, have long since been exposed to all the Christian world by our common adversaries the Roman Catholics, so that it would be to little purpose to cover the sore. Surely piety bids us, zeal for God's glory demands of us, to join the Roman Catholics in openly and freely con 70 Teaching of English divines on the whole Catholic. STRIC. demning such dogmas, as often as there is opportunity, X. although they spring of our own party: both that they (the Rom. 3. 27, 28. Roman Catholics) may not seem to have good reason in laying a charge, as is their way, against the whole reformed religion, which is in reality an error only of individual teachers; and more especially that our candidates for the sacred ministry may not to their own great hazard and that of the flock hereafter to be intrusted to them, incautiously embrace so pestilent a divinity, which is concealed every where like a snake in the grass, in certain books, which obtain too much in our schools. I am not conscious of having stirred up this dunghill with any other motive. § 2. As far as regards the divines of the English Church, they would not be really such if they defended this medley of dogmas: since our seventh article, in the latter part, avowedly it would seem, condemns these doctrines. Besides, our divines always have been for the most part so well versed in the writings of the old and Catholic doctors (as being nursed in a Church which after the sacred Scriptures reveres most highly all that is left to us of the Fathers) that they could not but be disgusted at doctrines so uncatholic (if I may so speak). In other places too, foreign divines, who have handed down those dangerous doctrines in their writings, have generally erred grievously against the confessions of their own Churches, which on this point are almost all sound and orthodox. § 3. But listen! what if I shew plainly that you yourself in these notes have taught doctrines from which all this medley of vain doctrine may be deduced by necessary inference? Certainly this is no difficult task; let us see.— I am speaking throughout the whole of the chapter, of the moral law given by Christ, tempered by the grace of the Gospel, and accompanied by the aid of the Holy Spirit. Let the reader now hear what you commend to me, asterisked as most worthy to be observed and remarked concerning this law, in the Stricture just preceding. "Mark well," you say, "that the moral law is a law of works: but remember that boasting is not excluded by the law of works, but by the law of faith; and on this account we are justified by faith without works, that boasting may be excluded." It cannot X. easily be said how full of absurdities this Stricture is: but STRIC. I will mention only what bears on the point. If the moral law, as far as it is considered by us in this chapter, be in truth such a law of works as is meant by the Apostle in the passage you quoted, and from which boasting is not excluded, it follows necessarily that no Christian, no believer is under the obligation of the moral law, as far as we see; since no believer has any thing to do with the law of works, which affords a handle for boasting. But this conclusion embraces that whole medley of vain doctrine. Moreover, also, those dogmas follow from your doctrine of imputed righteousness as also from this, viz. that you expressly deny that the moral law is put before us by Christ as the rule of our justification, which we shall clearly prove in the examination of the Strictures immediately following. STRICTURE XI. ON THE SAME CHAPTER AND SECTION, p. 21. I say, that "it must be ever observed, as an undeniable truth, that Christ, in His sermon, not only explained the See Mat. 5. moral law, but also laid it down as His own, and required its observance, assisted by the grace of the Gospel, from all Christians, as a condition of His covenant, indispensably necessary." Upon this (after other things which we have examined above) you remark: “No one denies that there is a twofold righteousness necessary for a Christian; the one of Christ, imputed to the faithful; the other performed by himself: the former is obtained by faith; the latter is exercised Mat. 5. 16. and shewn by works." ANSWER TO STRICTURE XI. § 1. Every one sees that this Stricture, if you consider the passage it refers to, is wholly irrelevant. But as you are always putting forwards this distinction between two righteousnesses, as a Gorgon's head, against me, and generally use it to elude the force of almost all my arguments, I determined here, once for all, (especially as amid so confused a mass as that of your Strictures I could not find a more suitable place XI. 72 Of imputed and inherent righteousness. STRIC. for doing so), to speak more at length of this distinction, and to shew that you both hold an untrue imputed righteousness, and entirely take away all inherent righteousness. 6, 9, 22, 28, 24. § 2. We must first treat of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and first of the phrase in which Christ's righteousness is said to be imputed to us. 1. It is certain that that phrase no where occurs in Scripture. 2. It is equally plain that in most, and those the most notable Confessions of the reformed Churches, it is altogether omitted. Of the imputation of Christ's righteousness you will not find a syllable either in our own Confession, or that of Augsburg, Strasburg, Wirtemburg, Bohemia, Flanders, &c. No one, therefore, who lives in one or other of these Churches, is bound by his subscription to embrace a phrase of this sort; but it is open to all such to enquire how far that phrase agrees or disagrees with Scripture and right reason. 3. It must be observed, that that phrase ill agrees with the wellknown words of Scripture, in which 'faith' is said to be Rom. 4. 3, imputed to man for righteousness. Those words can be taken in no other sense than this, viz. that God in the Gospel bbydwns counts our faith (viz. which is 'perfected by love,' as St. Paul ἐνεργους μένην. explains himself) for our righteousness, and determines it to be rewarded. Therefore, not the righteousness of Christ, but our faith, is imputed to us for righteousness. Wherefore? for the worthiness of the thing itself? God forbid: but on account of the meritorious satisfaction of Jesus Christ alone, by which He obtained of God, that under this condition we might be made partakers of righteousness and salvation. Therefore, according to the Scriptures, the righteousness of Christ is not properly that (N. B.) which is imputed, but that on account of which our faith is imputed for righteousness. 4. Lastly, it must be especially remarked, (which a man of great learning has long since observed), that the phrase in which Christ's righteousness is said to be imputed to us, if it be taken rigidly, cannot agree with that which expresses the proper and genuine doctrine of the reformed Churches, in which righteousness is said to be imputed to us on account of the merit and obedience of Christ. For if we will have both to be true to the letter, we must say that 'the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us on account of Catholic doctrine of the former. 73 the righteousness of Christ;' which expression bears with it STRIC. a manifest want of exactness. But enough of the expression: we will now examine the thing itself. § 3. The Catholic doctrine is, that faith, repentance, hope, love, and all other virtues and good works of ours, by no means of themselves or by their own desert avail to any one's being justified, i. e. so that he is acquitted of his sins before committed, is held by God to be righteous, and is pleasing to and accepted by Him to salvation and life eternal; but that this is alone and entirely owing to the meritorious satisfaction of Jesus Christ, by which alone the gracious covenant (called the Gospel) was obtained and ratified, in accordance with which we are made partakers, under those most favourable conditions, of justification and salvation. So our Church, Article XI.; "We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and not for our own works and deservings," &c. So all the Confessions before mentioned. Nor is any thing else meant by the Confessions (which are very few) in which the phrase "the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us" is found in so many words. Hear the words of the Gallican Confession, Article XVIII. "We believe that all our righteousness consists in the forgiveness of sins, which is, as David bears witness, our only happiness. And therefore all other methods by which men think that they can be justified before God, we utterly reject: and throwing away all opinions of our virtues and deservings, we entirely rest in the obedience of Jesus Christ alone; which indeed is imputed to us as well that all our sins may be covered, as also that we may obtain favour before God:" where they say that the righteousness of Christ is so far imputed to us, that on its account we obtain forgiveness of our sins and are accepted by God unto salvation. And whosoever will avow that by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ he means this only, has my leave to use this way of speaking freely himself, as long as he does not thrust it on other people. § 4. But it is evident that by the expression in which you say that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, you mean something very different. You hold that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us so that it 'really' becomes XI. |