The doctrine of justification by faith through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, explained, confirmed, & vindicated by John Owen ...

Phil. 3.8, 9.

Yea doubtless, and I account all things but loss for the excel∣lency of the knowledg of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung that I may win Christ, and be found in him not having mine own Righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith.

This is the last Testimony which I shall insist upon, and al∣though it be of great importance, I shall be the more brief in the consideration of it, because it hath been lately pleaded and vindicated by another, whereunto I do not expect any tolerable reply. For what hath since been attempted by one, it is of no weight. He is in this matter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And the things that I would observe from and concerning this Testimony, may be reduced into the ensuing heads.

1. That which the Apostle designs from the beginning of this Chapter, and in these Verses, in an especial manner to declare what it is on the account whereof we are ac∣cepted with God, and have thereon cause to rejoyce. This he fixeth in general in an interest in and participa∣tion of Christ by Faith in opposition unto all Legal Privi∣ledges and advantages, wherein the Jews whom he reflected upon did boast and rejoyce, Rejoyce in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, Vers. 3.

2. He supposeth that unto that Acceptance before God wherein we are to Rejoyce, there is a Righteousness necessary; And to whatever it be is the sole ground of that acceptance. And to give evidence hereunto,

3. He declares that there is a twofold Righteousness that may be pleaded and trusted unto to this purpose. (1.) Our own Righteousness which is of the Law. (2.) That which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith. These he asserts to be opposite and inconsistent as unto the end of our Justification and acceptance with God; Not having mine own Righteousness, but that which is, &c. And an intermediate Righteousness between these he acknowledg∣eth not.

4. Placing the instance in himself, he declares emphatically (so as there is scarce a greater 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or vehemency of Speech, in all his Writings,) which of those it was that he adhered unto, and placed his confidence in. And in the handling of this Subject, there were some things which engaged his holy mind into an earnestness of expression in the exaltation of one of these, namely of the Righteousness which is of God by Faith, and the depression of the other, or his own Righte∣ousness. As,

1. This was the turning point, whereon he and others had forsaken their Judaism and betaken themselves unto the Gospel. This therefore was to be secured as the main instance, wherein the greatest controversie that ever was in the world was debated. So he expresseth it, Gal. 2.15.16. We who are Jews by nature and not Sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the Works of the Law, but by the Faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ, and not by the Works of the Law. (2.) Hereon there was great opposition made un∣to this Doctrine by the Jews in all places and in many of them the minds of multitudes were turned off from the Truth (which the most are generally prone unto in this case) and perver∣ted from the simplicity of the Gospel. This greatly affected his holy Soul, and he takes notice of it in most of his Epi∣stles. (3.) The weight of the Doctrine it self, with that unwil∣lingness

which is in the minds of men by nature to embrace it, as that which lays the axe to the root of all Spiritual Pride, elation of Mind, and Self-pleasing whatever, whence innu∣merable Subterfuges have been, and are sought out to avoid the efficacy of it, and to keep the Souls of men from that universal resignation of themselves unto sovereign Grace in Christ, which they have naturally such an aversation unto, did also affect him. (4.) He had himself been a great Sinner in the days of his ignorance by a peculiar opposition unto Christ and the Gospel; This he was deeply sensible of; and there∣withal of the excellency of the Grace of God and the Righ∣teousness of Christ, whereby he was delivered. And men must have some experience of what he felt in himself as unto Sin and Grace, before they can well understand his expressions about them.

5. Hence it was, that in many other places of his Writings, but in this especially, he treats of these things with a greater earnestness and vehemency of Spirit than ordinary. Thus (1.) On the part of Christ whom he would exalt he mention∣eth not only the knowledg of him, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The excellency of the knowledg of Christ Jesus my Lord, with an Emphasis in every word; And those other redoubled ex∣pressions, all loss for him, that I may win him, that I may be found in him, that I may know him, all argue the working of his affections under the Conduct of Faith and Truth unto an acquiescency in Christ alone, as all and in all. Somewhat of this frame of mind is necessary unto them that would believe his Doctrine. Those who are utter strangers unto the one, will never receive the other. (2.) In his expression of all other other things that are our own, that are not Christ, whether Priviledges or Duties, however good, useful, excel∣lent, they may be in themselves, yet in Comparison of Christ and his Righteousness, and with respect unto the end of our standing before God, and acceptance with him, with the

same vehemency of Spirit he casts contempt upon, calling them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Dogs meat to be left for them whom he calleth Dogs, that is, evil Workers, of the Concision; or the wicked Jews who adhered pertinaciously unto the Righteousness of the Law, v. 2. This account of the earnestness of the Apo∣stle in this Argument, and the warmth of his Expressions, I thought meet to give as that which gives light into the whole of his design.

6. The question being thus stated, the enquiry is what any person who desires acceptance with God, or a Righteousness whereon he may be justified before him, ought to betake him∣self unto. One of the ways proposed he must close with all. Either he must comply with the Apostle in his Resolution to re∣ject all his own Righteousness, and to betake himself unto the Righteousness of God, which is by Faith in Christ Jesus alone, or find out for himself, or get some to find out for him, some exceptions unto the Apostles conclusion, or some distinctions that may prepare a reserve for his own works, one way or other in his justification before God. Here every one must chuse for himself. In the mean time, we thus argue. If our own Righteousness, and the Righteousness which is of God by Faith; or that which is through the Faith of Christ Jesus (namely, the Righteousness which God imputeth unto us, Rom. 4.6. Or the abundance of Grace and the gift of Righ∣teousness thereby, which we receive, Rom. 5.17.) are oppo∣site, and inconsistent in the Work of Justification before God, then are we justified by Faith alone through the Imputati∣on of the Righteousness of Christ unto us. The conse∣quence is plain from the removal of all other ways, causes, means, and conditions of it, as inconsistent with it. But the antecedent is expresly the Apostles; Not my own, but that of God. Again,

That whereby, and wherewith we are found in Christ, is that whereby alone we are justified before God; for to be

found in Christ, expresseth the state of the person that is to be justified before God: Whereunto is opposed to be found in our selves. And according unto these different states doth the judgment of God pass concerning us. And as for those who are found in themselves, we know what will be their portion. But in Christ we are found by Faith alone.

All manner of evasions are made use of by some, to escape the force of this Testimony. It is said in general, That no sober minded Man can imagine the Apostle did not desire to be found in Gospel Righteousness, or, That by his own Righteousness he meant that. For it is that alone can intitle us un∣to the Benefits of Christs Righteousness. Nollem Dictum. (1.) The censure is too severe to be cast on all Protestant Writers without exception, who have expounded this place of the Apostle; and all others, except some few of late, influenced by the heat of the Controversie wherein they are ingaged. (2.) If the Gospel Righteousness intended be his own Personal Righteousness and Obedience, there is some want of conside∣ration in affirming, That he did not desire to be found in it. That wherein we are found, thereon are we to be judged; to be found in our own Evangelical Righteousness before God, is to enter into judgment with God thereon, which those who understand any thing aright of God and themselves, will not be free unto. And to make this to be the meaning of his words, I desire not to be found in my own Righteous∣ness which is after the Law, but I desire to be found in mine own Righteousness which is according to the Gospel; whereas, as they are his own inherent Righteousness, they are both the same, doth not seem a proper interpretation of his words, and it shall be immediately disproved. (3.) That our Personal Gospel Righteousness, doth intitle us unto the Benefits of Christs Righteousness, that is, as unto our Justification be∣fore God, is gratis dictum, not one Testimony of Scripture can be produced that gives the least countenance unto such

an assertion. That it is contrary unto many express Testi∣monies, and inconsistent with the freedom of the Grace of God in our Justification, as proposed in the Scripture, hath been proved before. Nor do any of the places which assert the necessity of obedience and good Works in Believers, that is, Justified Persons unto Salvation, any way belong unto the Proof of this Assertion; or, in the least express, or intimate any such thing. And in particular, the Assertion of it is ex∣presly contradictory unto that of the Apostle, Tit. 3.4, 5. But I forbear, and proceed to the consideration of the special answers, that are given unto this testimony, especially those of Bellarmine, whereunto I have as yet, seen nothing added with any pretence of Reason in it.

1. Some say, that by his own Righteousness which the A∣postle rejects, he intends only his Righteousness 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or by the Works of the Law. But this was only an outward exter∣nal Righteousness, consisting in the observation of Rites and Ceremonies, without respect unto the inward frame or obe∣dience of the heart. But this is an impious imagination. The Righteousness which is by the Law, is the Righteousness which the Law requires, and those works of it, which if a Man do, he shall live in them; for the doers of the Law shall be justified, Rom. 2.16. Neither did God ever give any Law of Obedience unto Man, but what obliged him to love the Lord his God with all his heart, and all his soul. And it is so far from being true, That God by the Law required an ex∣ternal Righteousness only, that he frequently condemns it as an abomination to him, where it is alone.

2. Others say, that it is the Righteousness whatever it be, which he had during his Pharisaism. And although he should be allowed in that state, to have lived in all good Conscience, instantly to have served God day and night, and to have had respect as well unto the internal, as the external Works of the Law; yet all these Works being before Faith, before

Conversion to God, may be, and are to be rejected as unto any concurrence unto our Justification. But Works wrought in Faith, by the aid of Grace, Evangelical Works are of an∣other consideration, and together with Faith, are the condi∣tion of Justification.

Answ. 1. That in the matter of our Justification the Apostle opposeth Evangelical Works, not only unto the Grace of God, but also unto the Faith of Believers, was proved in the consideration of the foregoing Testimony.

2. He makes no such distinction, as that pretended, name∣ly, That Works are of two sorts; whereof one is to be exclu∣ded from any interest in our Justification, but not the other; neither doth he any where else, treating of the same subject, intimate any such distinction; but on the contrary, declares that use of all Works of Obedience in them that believe, which is exclusive of the supposition of any such distinction▪ but he directly expresseth, in this rejection, his own Righte∣ousness, that is, his Personal Inherent Righteousness whatever it be, and however it be wrought.

3. He makes a plain distinction of his own twofold estate, namely, that of his Judaism which he was in before his Con∣version, and that which he had by Faith in Christ Jesus. In the first state, he considers the priviledges of it, and declares what judgment he made concerning them upon the Revela∣tion of Jesus Christ unto him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, referring unto the time past, namely, at his first conversion. I considered them with all the advantages, gain, and reputation, which I had by them, but rejected them all for Christ, because the esteem of them and continuance in them as priviledges, was inconsistent with Faith in Christ Jesus. Secondly, he pro∣ceeds to give an account of himself and his thoughts, as un∣to his present condition. For it might be supposed, that al∣though he had parted with all his legal priviledges for Christ; yet now being united unto him by Faith, he had something

of his own, wherein he might rejoyce, and on the account whereof he might be accepted with God (the thing inquired after) or else he had parted with all for nothing. Wherefore he who had no design to make any reserves of what he might glory in, plainly declares what his judgment is concerning all his present Righteousness, and the ways of obedience which he was now ingaged in, with respect unto the ends inquired after,Ver. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The bringing over of what was affirmed before concerning his Judaical priviledges into this Verse, is an effect of a very superficiary considera∣tion of the context. For (1.) there is a plain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He could not more plainly express the heightning of what he had affirmed by a Proceed unto other things, or the consideration of himself in another state. But moreover, beyond what I have already asserted. (2.) The change of the time expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 respects what was past, into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wherein he hath respect only unto what was present, not what he had before rejected and forsaken, makes evident his progress unto the consideration of things of another nature. Wherefore unto the rejection of all his former Judaical priviledges, he adds his judgment concern∣ing his own present Personal Righteousness. But whereas it might be objected, That rejecting all both before and after conversion, he had nothing left to rejoyce in, to glory in, to give him acceptance with God; he assures us of the con∣trary, namely, that he found all these things in Christ, and the Righteousness of God which is by Faith. He is therefore in these words, Not having mine own Righteousness, which is by the Law; so far from intending only the Righteousness which he had before his Conversion, as that he intends it not at all.

The words of Davenant on this passage of the Apostle, being in my judgment not only sober, but weighty also, I shall transcribe them. Hic docet Apostolus quaenam illa justitia

sit qua nitendum coram Deo, nimirum quae per fidem apprehen∣ditur, at haec imputata est: Causam etiam ostendit cur jure nostra fiat, nimirum quia nos Christi sumus & in Christo com∣perimur; quia igitur insiti sumus in corpus ejus & coalescimus cum illo in unam personam, ideo ejus justitia nostra reputatur. De Justif. Habit. cap. 38. For whereas some begin to inter∣pret our being in Christ, and being found in him, so as to in∣tend no more but our profession of the Faith of the Gospel, The Faith of the Catholick Church in all ages concerning the Mystical Union of Christ and Believers, is not to be blown away with a few empty words and unproved Assertions.

The Answer therefore is full and clear unto the general Exception, namely, that the Apostle rejects our Legal, but not our Evangelical Righteousness. For (1.) the Apostle rejects, disclaims, disowns nothing at all, not the one, nor the other absolutely, but in comparison of Christ, and with respect unto the especial end of Justification before God, or a Righteousness in his sight▪ (2.) In that sense he rejects all our own Righteousness, but our Evangelical Righteousness, in the sense pleaded for, is our own, inherent in us, performed by us. (3.) Our Legal Righteousness, and our Evangelical, so far as an Inherent Righteousness is intended, are the same, and the different ends and use of the same Righteousness, is alone intended in that distinction, so far as it hath sense in it. That which in respect of Motives unto it, the ends of it, with the especial causes of its acceptance with God. is Evangelical, in respect of its original Prescription, Rule, and Measure, is Legal. When any can instance in any Act or Duty, in any habit or effect of it, which are not required by that Law which injoyns us to love the Lord our God, with all our heart, soul, and mind, and our neighbor as our selves; they shall be attended unto. (4.) The Apostle in this case rejects all the Works of Righteousness which we have done, Tit. 3.5. But our Evangelical Righteousness consisteth in

the Works of Righteousness which we do. (5.) He dis∣claims all that is our own. And if the Evangelical Righteous∣ness intended be our own, he sets up another in opposition unto it; and which therefore is not our own, but as it is im∣puted unto us. And I shall yet add some other reasons which render this pretence useless, or shew the falsness of it.

1. Where the Apostle doth not distinguish or limit what he speaks of, what ground have we to distinguish or limit his Assertions. Not by Works, saith he, sometimes absolutely, sometimes the Works of Righteousness which we have done; that is, not by some sort of Works say those who plead the con∣trary: But by what warrant? (2.) The Works which they pretend to be excluded, as wherein our own Righteousness that is rejected doth consist, are Works wrought without Faith, without the aid of Grace: But these are not good Works, nor can any be denominated righteous from them, nor is it any Righteousness that consists in them alone. For without Faith it is impossible to please God: And to what purpose should the Apostle exclude evil works and hypocriti∣cal, from our Justification? Who ever imagined, that any could be justified with respect unto them. There might have been some pretence for this gloss, had the Apostle said his own Works; but whereas he rejects his own Righteousness, to restrain it unto such Works as are not righteous, as will denominate none righteous, as are no Righteousness at all, is most absurd. (3.) Works wrought in Faith, if applied unto our Justification, do give occasion unto, or include boasting, more then any others, as being better and more praise wor∣thy then they. (4.) The Apostle elswhere excludes from Justification the Works that Abraham had done when he had been a Believer many years; and the Works of David when he described the Blessedness of a Man by the forgive∣ness of sins. (5.) The state of the Question which he

handles in his Epistle unto the Galatians, was expresly about the Works of them that did believe. For he doth not dis∣spute against the Jews, who would not be pressed in the least with his Arguments, namely, that if the inheritance were by the Law, then the promise was of none effect; and if Righteousness were by the Law, then did Christ die in vain: For these things they would readily grant. But he speaks unto them that were Believers, with respect unto those Works which they would have joyned with Christ and the Gospel, in order unto Justification. (6.) If this were the mind of the Apostle, that he would exclude one sort of Works, and assert the necessity of another unto the same end, why did he not once say so, especially considering how necessary it was that so he should do, to answer those objections against his doctrine which he himself takes notice of, and returns answer unto on other grounds, without the least intimation of any such distinction.

Bellarmine considereth this Testimony in three places, Lib. 1. cap. 18. Lib. 1. cap. 19. Lib. 5. cap. 5. De Justificat. And he returns three answers unto it, which contain the substance of all that is pleaded by others unto the same purpose. 1. He saith, That the Righteousness which is by the Law, and which is opposed unto the Righteousness which is by Faith, is not the Righ∣teousness written in the Law, or which the Law requires, but a Righteousness wrought without the aid of Grace, by the know∣ledge of the Law alone. 2. That the Righteousness which is by the Faith of Christ, are opera nostra justa facta ex fide, our own righteous Works wrought in Faith, which others call our Evangelical Works. (3.) That it is blasphemous to call the Duties of Inherent Righteousnes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 loss and dung. But he labors in the fire with all his sophistry. For as to the first, (1.) That by the Righteousness which is by the Law, the Righteousness which the Law requires, is not intended, is a bold assertion, and expresly contradictory unto the

Apostle, Rom. 9.31. Chap. 10.5. In both places he declares the Righteousness of the Law to be the Righteousnes that the Law requires. (2.) The Works which he excludes, he calls the Works of Righteousness that we have done, Tit. 3.5. which are the Works that the Law requires. Unto the se∣cond, I say (1.) That the substance of it, is, That the A∣postle should profess that I desire to be found in Christ, not having my own Righteousness, but having my own Righteous∣ness; for Evangelical Inherent Righteousness was properly his own. And I am sorry that some should apprehend that the Apostle in these words did desire to be found in his own Righteousness in the presence of God, in order un∣to his Justification. For nothing can be more contrary, not only unto the perpetual tenor and design of all his discourses, on this subject, but also unto the Testimony of all other holy Men in the Scripture, to the same purpose, as we have proved before. And I suppose there are very few true Believers at present, whom they will find to comply and joyn with, them in this desire of being found in their own Personal Evangelical Righteousness, or the Works of Righteousness which they have done, in their tryal before God, as unto their Justification. We should do well to read our own hearts, as well as the Books of others in this matter. (2.) The Righteousness which is of God by Faith, is not our own Obedience or Righteousness, but that which is opposed unto it: That which God imputes unto us, Rom. 4.6. That which we receive by way of gift, Rom. 5.17. (3.) That by the Righteousness which is by the Faith of Christ Jesus our own Inherent Righteousness is not intended, is evident from hence, That the Apostle excludes all his own Righte∣ousness, as, and when he was found in Christ, that is, what ever he had done as a Believer. And if there be not an opposition in these words, between a Righteousness that is our own, and that which is not our own, I know not in

what words it can be expressed. Unto the third I say, (1.) The Apostle doth not, nor do we say, that he doth, call our Inherent Righteousness dung, but only that he accounts it so. (2.) He doth not account it so absolutely, which he is most remote from, but only in comparison with Christ. (3.) He doth not esteem it so in it self, but only as unto his trust in it, with respect unto one especial end, namely, our Justification before God. (4.) The Prophet Isaiah in the same respect, terms all our Righteousness filthy rags, Chap. 64.6. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is an expression of as much contempt, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

5. Some say all Works are excluded as meritorious of Grace, Life, and Salvation, but not as the condition of our Justification before God. But (1.) what ever the Apostle excludes, he doth it absolutely, and with all re∣spects, because he sets up something else in opposition unto it. (2.) There is no ground left for any such distinction in this place: For all that the Apostle requires unto our Justification is, (1.) That we be found in Christ, not in our selves. (2.) That we have the Righteousness of God, not our own. (3.) That we be made partakers of this Righteousness by Faith, which is the substance of what we plead for.