The
Doctrine
of
Justification by
Faith,
through
the Imputation of the
Righteousness of Christ;
explained, confirmed,
and vindicated
Search the Scriptures — John
v. 29
Prefatory note
There is a
pregnant and striking passage in one of the charges of Bishop Horsley, which may be said to embody the substance
and intimate the scope of the following work on justification, — a work
which has been esteemed one of the best productions of Dr Owen. “That man
is justified,” says Horsley, “by faith,
without the works of the law, was the uniform doctrine of our first
Reformers. It is a far more ancient doctrine, — it was the doctrine of the
whole college of apostles; it is more ancient still, — it was the doctrine
of the prophets; it is older than the prophets, — it was the religion of
the patriarchs; and no one who has the least acquaintance with the writings
of the first Reformers will impute to them, more than to the patriarchs,
the prophets, or apostles, the absurd opinion, that any man leading an
impenitent, wicked life, will finally, upon the mere pretence of faith (and
faith connected with an impenitent life must always be a mere pretence),
obtain admission into heaven.”
Dr Owen, in the “general considerations” with which he
opens the discussion of this momentous subject, shows that the doctrine of
justification by faith was clearly declared in the teaching of the ancient
church. Among other testimonies, he adduces the remarkable extract from
the epistle to Diognetus, which, though
commonly printed among the works of Justin
Martyr, has been attributed by Tillemont to some author in the first century.
Augustine, in his contest with Pelagian
error, powerfully advocated the doctrines of grace. That he clearly
apprehended the nature of justification by grace appears from the principle
so tersely enunciated by him, “Opera bona non faciunt
justum, sed justificatus facit bona opera.” The controversy,
however in which he was the great champion of orthodox opinions, turned
mainly upon the renovation of the heart by a divine and supernatural
influence; not so directly on the change of state effected by
justifying grace. It was the clear apprehension and firm grasp of this
doctrine which ultimately emancipated Luther
from the thraldom of Romish error, and he clung to it with a zeal
proportioned to his conviction of the benefit which his own soul had
derived from it. He restored it to its true place and bearings in the
Christian system, and, in emphatic expression of its importance, pronounced
it “Articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiæ.” It
had to encounter, accordingly, strong opposition from all who were hostile
to the theology of the Reformation. Both Socinus and Bellarmine
wrote against it, — the former discussing the question in connection with
his general argument against orthodox views on the subject of the person
and work of Christ; the latter devoting a separate treatise expressly to
the refutation of the doctrine of the Reformed churches regarding
justification. Several Roman Catholic authors followed in his wake, to
whom Dr Owen alludes in different parts of his work. The ability with
which Bellarmine conducted his argument
cannot be questioned; though sometimes, in meeting difficulties and
disposing of objections to his views from Scripture, he evinces an
unscrupulous audacity of statement. His work still continues, perhaps the
ablest and most systematic attempt to overthrow the doctrine of
justification by faith. In supplying an antidote to the subtle
disquisitions of the Romish divine, Dr Owen is in reality vindicating that
doctrine at all the points where the acumen of his antagonist had conceived
it liable to be assailed with any hope of success.
To counteract the tendency of the religious mind when it
proceeded in the direction of Arminianism, Calvinistic divines, naturally
engrossed with the points in dispute, dwelt greatly on the workings of
efficacious grace in election, regeneration, and conversion, if not to the
exclusion of the free offer of the gospel, at least so as to cast somewhat
into the shade the free justification offered in it. The Antinomianism
which arose during the time of the Commonwealth has been accounted the
reaction from this defect. Under these circumstances, the attention of
theologians was again drawn to the doctrine of justification.
Dissent could not, in those times, afford to be weakened by divisions; and
partly under the influence of his own pacific dispositions, and partly to
accomplish a public service to the cause of religion, Baxter made an attempt to reconcile the parties at
variance, and to soothe into unity the British churches. Rightly
conceiving that the essence of the question lay in the nature of
justification, he published in 1649 his “Aphorisms on Justification,” in
opposition to the Antinomian tendencies of the day, and yet designed to
accommodate the prevailing differences; on terms, however, that were held
to compromise the gratuitous character of justification. He had
unconsciously, by a recoil common in every attempt to reconcile essentially
antagonistic principles, made a transition from the ground of justification
by faith, to views clearly opposed to it. Though his mind was the victim
of a false theory, his heart was practically right; and he subsequently
modified and amended his views. But to his “Aphorisms” Bishop Barlow traces the first departure from the received
doctrine of the Reformed churches on the subject of justification. In
1669, Bishop Bull published his “Apostolical
Harmony,” with the view of reconciling the apostles Paul and James. There
is no ambiguity in regard to his views as to the ground of a sinner’s
acceptance with God. According to Bull “faith
denotes the whole condition of the gospel covenant; that is, comprehends in
one word all the works of Christian piety.” It is the just remark of Bickersteth, that “under the cover of
justification by faith, this is in reality justification by works.”
A host of opponents sprung up in reply to Baxter and Bull; but they were not left without help
in maintaining their position. In support of Baxter, Sir Charles Wolsley, a baronet of some reputation, who had been
a member of Cromwell’s Council of State, and who sat in several parliaments
after the Restoration, published, in 1667, his “Justification Evangelical.”
In a letter to Mr Humfrey, author of the
“Peaceable Disquisition,” published subsequently to Owen’s work and partly
in refutation of it, Sir Charles, referring to Dr Owen, remarks, “I suppose
you know his book of Justification was written particularly against mine.”
There is reason to believe that Owen had a wider object in view than the
refutation of any particular treatise. In the preface to his great work,
which appeared in 1677, he assures the reader that, whatever contests
prevailed on the subject of justification, it was his design to mingle in
no personal controversy with any author of the day. Not that his
reasonings had no bearing on the pending disputes, for, from the brief
review we have submitted of the history of this discussion, it is clear
that, with all its other excellencies, the work was eminently seasonable
and much needed; but he seems to have been under a conviction, that in
refuting specially Socinus and Bellarmine, he was in effect disposing of the
most formidable objections ever urged against the doctrine of justification
by grace, while he avoided the unpleasantness of personal collision with
the Christian men of his own times whose views might seem to him deeply
erroneous on the point; and the very coincidence of these views, both in
principle and tendency, with Socinian and Popish heresies, would suggest to
his readers, if not a conclusive argument against them, at least a good
reason why they should be carefully examined before they were embraced.
His work, therefore, is not a meagre and ephemeral contribution to the
controversy as it prevailed in his day, and under an aspect in which it may
never again be revived. It is a formal review of the whole amount of truth
revealed to us in regard to the justification of the sinner before God;
and, if the scope of the treatise is considered, the author cannot be
blamed for prolixity in the treatment of a theme so wide. On his own side
of the question, it is still the most complete discussion in one language
of the important doctrine to which it relates. Exception has been taken to
the abstruse definitions and distinctions which he introduces. He had
obviously no intention to offend in this way; for, at the close of chap. XIV, he makes a quaint protest
against the admission of “exotic learning,” “philosophical notions,” and
“arbitrary distinctions,” into the exposition of spiritual truth. In the
refutation of complicated error, there is sometimes a necessity to track it
through various sinuosities; but, in the main, the treatise is written in a
spirit which proves how directly the author was resting on divine truth as
the basis of his own faith and hope, and how warily he strove and watched
that his mind might not “be corrupted from the simplicity that is in
Christ.”
“A curious fact,” says Mr Orme, “respecting this book, is mentioned in the Life
of Mr Joseph Williams, of Kidderminster:— ‘At last, the time of his (Mr
Grimshawe’s, an active clergyman of the
Church of England) deliverance came. At the house of one of his friends he
lays his hand on a book, and opens it, with his face towards a pewter
shelf. Instantly his face is saluted with an uncommon flash of heat. He
turns to the title-page, and finds it to be Dr Owen on Justification.
Immediately he is surprised with such another flash. He borrows the book,
studies it, is led into God’s method of justifying the ungodly, has a new
heart given unto him; and now, behold, he prays!’ Whether these flashes
were electrical or galvanic, as Southey in his
Life of Wesley supposes, it
deserves to be noticed, that it was not the flash but the book which
converted Grimshawe. The occurrence which
turned his attention to it, is of importance merely as the second cause,
which, under the mysterious direction of Providence, led to a blessed
result.”
Analysis. —
The causes, object, nature, and use of faith are successively
considered, chap. I–III. The
nature of justification is next discussed; — first, under an inquiry into
the meaning of the different terms commonly employed regarding it; and,
secondly, by a statement of the juridical and forensic aspect under which
it is represented in Scripture, IV. The theory of a twofold justification,
as asserted by the Church of Rome, and another error which ascribes the
initial justification of the sinner to faith, but the continuance of his
state as justified to his own personal righteousness, are examined, and
proved untenable, V. Several arguments are urged in disproof of a third
erroneous theory, broached and supported by Socinians, that justification
depends upon evangelical righteousness as the condition on which the
righteousness of Christ is imputed, VI. A general statement follows of the
nature of imputation, and of the grounds on which imputation proceeds, VII.
A full discussion ensues of the doctrine that sin is imputed to Christ,
grounded upon the mystical union between Christ and the church, the
suretiship of the former in behalf of the church, and the provisions of the
new covenant, VIII. The chief controversies in regard to justification are
arranged and classified, and the author fixes on the point relating to the
formal cause of justification as the main theme of the subsequent
reasonings, IX.
At this stage, the second division of the treatise may be
held to begin, — the previous disquisitions being more of a preliminary
character. The scope of what follows is to prove that the sinner is
justified, through faith, by the imputed righteousness of Christ. This
part of the work embraces four divisions; — general arguments for the
doctrine affirmed; testimonies from Scripture in support of it; the
refutation of objections to it; and the reconciliation of the passages in
the Epistles of Paul and James which have appeared to some to be
inconsistent.
Under the head of general arguments, he rebuts
briefly the general objections to imputation, and contends for the
imputation of Christ’s righteousness as the ground of justification; —
first, from the insufficiency of our own righteousness, or, in other words,
from the condition of guilt in which all men are by nature involved, X.;
secondly, from the nature of the obedience required unto justification,
according to the eternal obligation of the divine law, XI.; and, as a
subsidiary and collateral consideration, from the necessity which existed
that the precept of the law should be fulfilled as well as that atonement
should be rendered for the violation of it, — in short, from the active as
well as the passive righteousness of Christ; and here the three objections
of Socinus, that such an imputation
of Christ’s obedience is impossible, useless, and pernicious, receive a
detailed confutation, XII.; thirdly, from the difference between the two
covenants, XIII.; and fourthly, from the express terms in which all works
see excluded from justification in Scripture, XIV.; while faith is
exhibited in the gospel as the sole instrument by which we are interested
in the righteousness of Christ, XV. The testimony of Scripture is
then adduced at great length, — passages being quoted and commented on from
the prophets, XVI.; from the evangelists, XVII.; and from the epistles of
Paul, XVIII. The objections to the doctrine of justification are
reviewed, and the chief objection, — namely, that the doctrine overthrows
the necessity of holiness and subverts moral obligation, — is repelled by a
variety of arguments, XIX. Lastly, the concluding chapter is
devoted to an explanation of the passages in Paul and James which are
alleged to be at variance but which are proved to be in perfect harmony,
XX. — Ed.
To the reader
I shall not
need to detain the reader with an account of the nature and moment of that
doctrine which is the entire subject of the ensuing discourse; for although
sundry persons, even among ourselves, have various apprehensions concerning
it, yet that the knowledge of the truth therein is of the highest
importance unto the souls of men is on all hands agreed unto. Nor, indeed,
is it possible that any man who knows himself to be a sinner, and obnoxious
thereon to the judgment of God, but he must desire to have some knowledge
of it, as that alone whereby the way of delivery from the evil state and
condition wherein he finds himself is revealed. There are, I confess,
multitudes in the world who, although they cannot avoid some general
convictions of sin, as also of the consequents of it, yet do fortify their
minds against a practical admission of such conclusions as, in a just
consideration of things, do necessarily and unavoidably ensue thereon.
Such persons, wilfully deluding themselves with vain hopes and
imaginations, do never once seriously inquire by what way or means they may
obtain peace with God and acceptance before him, which, in comparison of
the present enjoyment of the pleasures of sin, they value not at all. And
it is in vain to recommend the doctrine of justification unto them who
neither desire nor endeavour to be justified. But where any persons are
really made sensible of their apostasy from God, of the evil of their
natures and lives, with the dreadful consequences that attend thereon, in
the wrath of God and eternal punishment due unto sin, they cannot well
judge themselves more concerned in any thing than in the knowledge of that
divine way whereby they may be delivered from this condition. And the
minds of such persons stand in no need of arguments to satisfy them in the
importance of this doctrine; their own concernment in it is sufficient to
that purpose. And I shall assure them that, in the handling of it, from
first to last, I have had no other design but only to inquire diligently
into the divine revelation of that way, and those means, with the causes of
them, whereby the conscience of a distressed sinner may attain assured
peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. I lay more weight on the
steady direction of one soul in this inquiry, than on disappointing the
objections of twenty wrangling or fiery disputers. The question,
therefore, unto this purpose being stated, as the reader will find in the
beginning of our discourse, although it were necessary to spend some time
in the explication of the doctrine itself, and terms wherein it is usually
taught, yet the main weight of the whole lies in the interpretation of
scripture testimonies, with the application of them unto the experience of
them who do believe, and the state of them who seek after salvation by
Jesus Christ. There are, therefore, some few things that I would desire
the reader to take notice of, that he may receive benefit by the ensuing
discourse; at least, if it be not his own fault, be freed from prejudices
against it, or a vain opposition unto it.
1. Although there are at present various contests about
the doctrine of justification, and many books published in the way of
controversy about it, yet this discourse was written with no design to
contend with or contradict any, of what sort or opinion soever.
Some few passages which seem of that tendency are, indeed, occasionally
inserted; but they are such as every candid reader will judge to have been
necessary. I have ascribed no opinion unto any particular person, — much
less wrested the words of any, reflected on their persons, censured their
abilities, taken advantage of presumed prejudices against them, represented
their opinions in the deformed reflections of strained consequences,
fancied intended notions, which their words do not express, nor, candidly
interpreted, give any countenance unto, — or endeavoured the vain pleasure
of seeming success in opposition unto them; which, with the like effects of
weakness of mind and disorder of affections, are the animating principles
of many late controversial writings. To declare and vindicate the truth,
unto the instruction and edification of such as love it in sincerity, to
extricate their minds from those difficulties (in this particular instance)
which some endeavour to cast on all gospel mysteries, to direct the
consciences of them that inquire after abiding peace with God, and to
establish the minds of them that do believe, are the things I have aimed
at; and an endeavour unto this end, considering all circumstances, that
station which God has been pleased graciously to give me in the church, has
made necessary unto me.
2. I have written nothing but what I believe to be true,
and useful unto the promotion of gospel obedience. The reader may not here
expect an extraction of other men’s notions, or a collection and
improvement of their arguments, either by artificial reasonings or ornament
of style and language; but a naked inquiry into the nature of the things
treated on, as revealed in the Scripture, and as evidencing themselves in
their power and efficacy on the minds of them that do believe. It is the
practical direction of the consciences of men, in their application unto
God by Jesus Christ for deliverance from the curse due unto the apostate
state, and peace with him, with the influence of the way thereof unto
universal gospel obedience, that is alone to be designed in the handling of
this doctrine. And, therefore, unto him that would treat of it in a due
manner, it is required that he weigh every thing he asserts in his own mind
and experience, and not dare to propose that unto others which he does not
abide by himself, in the most intimate recesses of his mind, under his
nearest approaches unto God, in his surprisals with dangers, in deep
afflictions, in his preparations for death, and most humble contemplations
of the infinite distance between God and him. Other notions and
disputations about the doctrine of justification, not seasoned with these
ingredients, however condited unto the palate of some by skill and
language, are insipid and useless, immediately degenerating into an
unprofitable strife of words.
3. I know that the doctrine here pleaded for is charged by
many with an unfriendly aspect towards the necessity of personal holiness,
good works, and all gospel obedience in general, yea, utterly to take it
away. So it was at the first clear revelation of it by the apostle Paul,
as he frequently declares. But it is sufficiently evinced by him to be the
chief principle of, and motive unto, all that obedience which is accepted
with God through Jesus Christ, as we shall manifest afterwards. However,
it is acknowledged that the objective grace of the gospel, in the doctrine
of it, is liable to abuse, where there is nothing of the subjective grace
of it in the hearts of men; and the ways of its influence into the life of
God are uncouth unto the reasonings of carnal minds. So was it charged by
the Papists, at the first Reformation, and continues yet so to be. Yet, as
it gave the first occasion unto the Reformation itself, so was it that
whereby the souls of men, being set at liberty from their bondage unto
innumerable superstitious fears and observances, utterly inconsistent with
true gospel obedience, and directed into the ways of peace with God through
Jesus Christ, were made fruitful in real holiness, and to abound in all
those blessed effects of the life of God which were never found among their
adversaries. The same charge as afterwards renewed by the Socinians, and
continues still to be managed by them. But I suppose wise and
impartial men will not lay much weight on their accusations, until they
have manifested the efficacy of their contrary persuasion by better effects
and fruits than yet they have done. What sort of men they were who first
coined that system of religion which they adhere unto, one who knew them
well enough, and sufficiently inclined unto their Antitrinitarian opinions,
declares in one of the queries that he proposed unto Socinus himself and his followers. “If this,” says he, “be
the truth which you contend for, whence comes it to pass that it is
declared only by persons ‘nulla pietatis commendatione,
nullo laudato prioris vitæ exemplo commendatos; imo ut plerumque videmus,
per vagabundos, et contentionum zeli carnalis plenos homines, alios ex
castris, aulis, ganeis, prolatam esse. Scrupuli ab excellenti viro
propositi, inter oper. Socin.’ ” The fiercest charges of such
men against any doctrines they oppose as inconsistent with the necessary
motives unto godliness, are a recommendation of it unto the minds of
considerative men. And there cannot be a more effectual engine plied for
the ruin of religion, than for men to declaim against the doctrine of
justification by faith alone, and other truths concerning the grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ, as those which overthrow the necessity of moral duties,
good works, and gospel obedience; whilst, under the conduct of the opinions
which they embrace in opposition unto them, they give not the least
evidence of the power of the truth or grace of the gospel upon their own
hearts, or in their lives. Whereas, therefore, the whole gospel is the
truth which is after godliness, declaring and exhibiting that grace of God
which teaches us “to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and that we
should live soberly, and righteously, and godly in this world;” we being
fallen into those times wherein, under great and fierce contests about
notions, opinions, and practices in religion, there is a horrible decay in
true gospel purity and holiness of life amongst the generality of men, I
shall readily grant that, keeping a due regard unto the only standard of
truth, a secondary trial of doctrines proposed and contended for may and
ought to be made, by the ways, lives, walkings, and conversations of them
by whom they are received and professed. And although it is acknowledged
that the doctrine pleaded in the ensuing discourse be liable to be abused,
yea, turned into licentiousness, by men of corrupt minds, through the
prevalence of vicious habits in them (as is the whole doctrine of the grace
of God by Jesus Christ); and although the way and means of its efficacy and
influence into universal obedience unto God, in righteousness and true
holiness, be not discernible without some beam of spiritual light, nor will
give an experience of their power unto the minds of men utterly destitute
of a principle of spiritual life; yet, if it cannot preserve its station in
the church by this rule, of its useful tendency unto the promotion of
godliness, and its necessity thereunto, in all them by whom it is really
believed and received in its proper light and power, and that in the
experience of former and present times, I shall be content that it be
exploded.
4. Finding that not a few have esteemed it compliant with
their interest to publish exceptions against some few leaves which, in the
handling of a subject of another nature, I occasionally wrote many years
ago on this subject, I am not without apprehensions, that either the same
persons or others of a like temper and principles, may attempt an
opposition unto what is here expressly tendered thereon. On supposition of
such an attempt, I shall, in one word, let the authors of it know wherein
alone I shall be concerned. For, if they shall make it their business to
cavil at expressions, to wrest my words, wire-draw inferences and
conclusions from them not expressly owned by me, — to revile my person, to
catch at advantages in any occasional passages, or other unessential parts
of the discourse, — labouring for an appearance of success and reputation
to themselves thereby, without a due attendance unto Christian moderation,
candour, and ingenuity, — I shall take no more notice of what
they say or write than I would do of the greatest impertinencies that can
be reported in this world. The same I say concerning oppositions of the
like nature unto any other writings of mine, — a work which, as I hear,
some are at present engaged in. I have somewhat else to do than to cast
away any part of the small remainder of my life in that kind of
controversial writings which good men bewail, and wise men deride.
Whereas, therefore, the principal design of this discourse is to state the
doctrine of justification from the Scripture, and to confirm it by the
testimonies thereof, I shall not esteem it spoken against, unless our
exposition of Scripture testimonies, and the application of them unto the
present argument, be disproved by just rules of interpretation, and another
sense of them be evinced. All other things which I conceive necessary to
be spoken unto, in order unto the right understanding and due improvement
of the truth pleaded for, are comprised and declared in the ensuing general
discourses to that purpose. These few things I thought meet to mind the
reader of.
J. O.
From my study, May the 30th, 1677.
General considerations previously necessary unto the explanation of the
doctrine of justification
First, The general nature of justification — State of the person
to be justified antecedently thereunto, Rom. iv. 5; iii. 19; i.
32; Gal. iii. 10; John iii. 18, 36;
Gal. iii. 22 — The sole inquiry on that
state — Whether it be any thing that is our own inherently, or what is only
imputed unto us, that we are to trust unto for our acceptance with God —
The sum of this inquiry — The proper ends of teaching and learning the
doctrine of justification — Things to be avoided therein
That we may
treat of the doctrine of justification usefully unto its proper ends, which
are the glory of God in Christ, with the peace and furtherance of the
obedience of believers, some things are previously to be considered, which
we must have respect unto in the whole process of our discourse. And,
among others that might be insisted on to the same purpose, these that
ensue are not to be omitted:—
1. The first inquiry in this matter, in a way of duty, is
after the proper relief of the conscience of a sinner pressed and
perplexed with a sense of the guilt of sin. For justification is the way
and means whereby such a person does obtain acceptance before God, with a
right and title unto a heavenly inheritance. And nothing is pleadable in
this cause but what a man would speak unto his own conscience in that
state, or unto the conscience of another, when he is anxious under that
inquiry. Wherefore, the person under consideration (that is, who is to be
justified) is one who, in himself, is ἀσεβής,
Rom. iv. 5, — “ungodly;” and thereon ὑπόδικος τῷ Θεῷ, chap. iii. 19, —
“guilty before God;” that is, obnoxious, subject, liable, τῷ δικαιώματι τοῦ Θεοῦ, chap. i. 32, —
to the righteous sentential judgment of God, that “he who committeth sin,”
who is any way guilty of it, is “worthy of death.” Hereupon such a person
finds himself ὑπὸ κατάραν, Gal. iii.
10, — under “the curse,” and “the wrath of God” therein abiding
on him,” John iii. 18,
36. In this condition he is ἀναπολόγητος, — without plea, without excuse, by any thing
in and from himself, for his own relief; his “mouth is stopped,” Rom.
iii. 19. For he is, in the judgment of God, declared in the
Scripture, συγκεκλεισμένος ὑφ’ ἁμαρτίαν, Gal. iii. 22, —
every way “shut up under sin” and all the consequents of it. Many evils in
this condition are men subject unto, which may be reduced unto those two of
our first parents, wherein they were represented. For, first, they thought
foolishly to hide themselves from God; and then, more foolishly, would have
charged him as the cause of their sin. And such, naturally, are the
thoughts of men under their convictions. But whoever is the subject of the
justification inquired after, is, by various means, brought into his
apprehensions who cried, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
2. With respect unto this state and condition of men, or
men in this state and condition, the inquiry is, What that is upon the
account whereof God pardons all their sins, receives them into his favour,
declares or pronounces them righteous and acquitted from all guilt, removes
the curse, and turns away all his wrath from them, giving them right and
title unto a blessed, immortality or life eternal? This is that alone
wherein the consciences of sinners in this estate are concerned. Nor do
they inquire after any thing, but what they may have to oppose unto or
answer the justice of God in the commands and curse of the law, and what
they may betake themselves unto for the obtaining of acceptance with him
unto life and salvation.
That the apostle does thus, and no otherwise, state this
whole matter, and, in an answer unto this inquiry, declare the nature of
justification and all the causes of it, in the third and fourth chapters of
the Epistle to the Romans, and elsewhere, shall be afterwards declared and
proved. And we shall also manifest, that the apostle James, in the second
chapter of his epistle, does not speak unto this inquiry, nor give an
answer unto it; but it is of justification in another sense, and to another
purpose, whereof he treats. And whereas we cannot either safely or
usefully treat of this doctrine, but with respect unto the same ends for
which it is declared, and whereunto it is applied in the Scripture, we
should not, by any pretences, be turned aside from attending unto this case
and its resolution, in all our discourses on this subject; for it is the
direction, satisfaction, and peace of the consciences of men, and not the
curiosity of notions or subtlety of disputations, which it is our duty to
design. And, therefore, I shall, as much as I possibly may, avoid all
these philosophical terms and distinctions wherewith this
evangelical doctrine has been perplexed rather than illustrated; for
more weight is to be put on the steady guidance of the mind and conscience
of one believer, really exercised about the foundation of his peace and
acceptance with God, than on the confutation of ten wrangling
disputers.
3. Now the inquiry, on what account, or for what cause and
reason, a man may be so acquitted or discharged of sin, and
accepted with God, as before declared, does necessarily issue in this:—
Whether it be any thing in ourselves, as our faith and repentance, the
renovation of our natures, inherent habits of grace, and actual works of
righteousness which we have done, or may do? Or whether it be the
obedience, righteousness, satisfaction, and merit of the Son of God our
mediator, and surety of the covenant, imputed unto us? One of these it
must be, — namely, something that is our own, which, whatever may be the
influence of the grace of God unto it, or causality of it, because wrought
in and by us, is inherently our own in a proper sense; or something
which, being not our own, nor inherent in us, nor wrought by us, is
yet imputed unto us, for the pardon of our sins and the acceptation of our
persons as righteous, or the making of us righteous in the sight of God.
Neither are these things capable of mixture or composition, Rom.
xi. 6. Which of these it is the duty, wisdom, and safety of a
convinced sinner to rely upon and trust unto, in his appearance before God,
is the sum of our present inquiry.
4. The way whereby sinners do or ought to betake
themselves unto this relief, on supposition that it is the righteousness
of Christ, and how they come to be partakers of, or interested in, that
which is not inherently their own, unto as good benefit and as much
advantage as if it were their own, is of a distinct consideration. And as
this also is clearly determined in the Scripture, so it is acknowledged in
the experience of all them that do truly believe. Neither are we in this
matter much to regard the senses or arguing of men who were never
thoroughly convinced of sin, nor have ever in their own persons “fled for
refuge unto the hope set before them.”
5. These things, I say, are always to be attended unto, in
our whole disquisition into the nature of evangelical justification;
for, without a constant respect unto them, we shall quickly wander into
curious and perplexed questions, wherein the consciences of guilty sinners
are not concerned; and which, therefore, really belong not unto the
substance or truth of this doctrine, nor are to be immixed therewith. It
is alone the relief of those who are in themselves ὑπόδικοι
τῷ Θεῷ, — guilty before, or obnoxious and liable to, the judgment of
God, — that we inquire after. That this is not any thing in or of
themselves, nor can so be, — that it is a provision without them, made in
infinite wisdom and grace by the mediation of Christ, his obedience and
death therein, — is secured in the Scripture against all contradiction; and
it is the fundamental principle of the gospel, Matt. xi.
28.
6. It is confessed that many things, for the declaration
of the truth, and the order of the dispensation of God’s grace herein, are
necessary to be insisted on, — such are the nature of justifying
faith, the place and use of it in justification, and the
causes of the new covenant, the true notion of the
mediation and suretiship of Christ, and the like; which shall all of
them be inquired into. But, beyond what tends directly unto the guidance
of the minds and satisfaction of the souls of men, who seek after a stable
and abiding foundation of acceptance with God, we are not easily to be
drawn unless we are free to lose the benefit and comfort of this most
important evangelical truth in needless and unprofitable contentions. And
amongst many other miscarriages which men are subject unto, whilst they are
conversant about these things, this, in an especial manner, is to be
avoided.
7. For the doctrine of justification is directive of
Christian practice, and in no other evangelical truth is the whole of our
obedience more concerned; for the foundation, reasons, and motives of all
our duty towards God are contained therein. Wherefore, in order unto the
due improvement of them ought it to be taught, and not otherwise. That
which alone we aim (or ought so to do) to learn in it and by it, is how we
may get and maintain peace with God, and so to live unto him as to be
accepted with him in what we do. To satisfy the minds and consciences of
men in these things, is this doctrine to be taught. Wherefore, to carry it
out of the understandings of ordinary Christians, by speculative notions
and distinctions, is disserviceable unto the faith of the church; yea, the
mixing of evangelical revelations with philosophical notions has been, in
sundry ages, the poison of religion. Pretence of accuracy, and artificial
skill in teaching, is that which gives countenance unto such a way of
handling sacred things. But the spiritual amplitude of divine truths is
restrained hereby, whilst low, mean, philosophical senses are imposed on
them. And not only so, but endless divisions and contentions are
occasioned and perpetuated. Hence, when any difference in religion is, in
the pursuit of controversies about it, brought into the old of metaphysical
respects and philosophical terms, whereof there is πολὺς
νόμος ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα — sufficient provision for the supply of the
combatants on both sides, — the truth for the most part, as unto any
concernment of the souls of men therein, is utterly lost and buried in the
rubbish of senseless and unprofitable words. And thus, in particular,
those who seem to be well enough agreed in the whole doctrine of
justification, so far as the Scripture goes before them, and the experience
of believers keeps them company, when once they engage into their
philosophical definitions and distinctions, are at such an irreconcilable
variance among themselves, as if they were agreed on no one thing that does
concern it. For as men have various apprehensions in coining such
definitions as may be defensible against objections, which most men aim at
therein; so no proposition can be so plain, (at least in “materia probabili,”) but that a man ordinarily versed
in pedagogical terms and metaphysical notions,
may multiply distinctions on every word of it.
8. Hence, there has been a pretence and appearance of
twenty several opinions among Protestants about justification, as Bellarmine and Vasquez, and others of the
Papists, charge it against them out of Osiander, when the faith of
them all was one and the same, Bellar., lib v. cap.
1; Vasq. in 1, 2, quest. 113, disp. 202; whereof
we shall speak elsewhere. When men are once advanced into that field of
disputation, which is all overgrown with thorns of subtleties, perplexed
notions, and futilous terms of art, they consider principally how they may
entangle others in it, scarce at all how they may get out of it themselves.
And in this posture they oftentimes utterly forget the business which they
are about, especially in this matter of justification, — namely, how a
guilty sinner may come to obtain favour and acceptance with God. And not
only so, but I doubt they oftentimes dispute themselves beyond what they
can well abide by, when they return home unto a sedate meditation of the
state of things between God and their souls. And I cannot much value their
notions and sentiments of this matter, who object and answer themselves out
of a sense of their own appearance before God; much less theirs who
evidence an open inconformity unto the grace and truth of this doctrine in
their hearts and lives.
9. Wherefore, we do but trouble the faith of Christians,
and the peace of the true church of God, whilst we dispute about
expressions, terms, and notions, when the substance of the doctrine
intended may be declared and believed, without the knowledge,
understanding, or use of any of them. Such are all those in whose subtle
management the captious art of wrangling does principally consist. A
diligent attendance unto the revelation made hereof in the
Scripture, and an examination of our own experience thereby, is the sum of
what is required of us for the right understanding of the truth herein.
And every true believer, who is taught of God, knows how to put his
whole trust in Christ alone, and the grace of God by him, for mercy,
righteousness, and glory, and not at all concern himself with those loads
of thorns and briers, which, under the names of definitions, distinctions,
accurate notions, in a number of exotic pedagogical and philosophical
terms, some pretend to accommodate them withal.
10. The Holy Ghost, in expressing the most eminent acts in
our justification, especially as unto our believing, or the acting of that
faith whereby we are justified, is pleased to make use of many
metaphorical expressions. For any to use them now in the same way,
and to the same purpose, is esteemed rude, undisciplinary, and even
ridiculous; but on what grounds? He that shall deny that there is more
spiritual sense and experience conveyed by them into the hearts and minds
of believers (which is the life and soul of teaching things practical),
than in the most accurate philosophical expressions, is himself really
ignorant of the whole truth in this matter. The propriety of such
expressions belongs and is confined unto natural science; but spiritual
truths are to be taught, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but
which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
God is wiser than man; and the Holy Ghost knows better what are the most
expedient ways for the illumination of our minds with that knowledge of
evangelical truths which it is our duty to have and attain, than the wisest
of us all. And other knowledge of or skill in these things, than what is
required of us in a way of duty, is not to be valued.
It is, therefore, to no purpose to handle the mysteries of
the gospel as if Hilcot and Bricot, Thomas and Gabriel, with all the Sententiarists, Summists, and
Quodlibetarians of the old Roman peripatetical school, were to be raked out
of their graves to be our guides. Especially will they be of no use unto
us in this doctrine of justification. For whereas they pertinaciously
adhered unto the philosophy of Aristotle, who knew nothing of any
righteousness but what is a habit inherent in ourselves, and the acts of
it, they wrested the whole doctrine of justification unto a compliance
wherewithal. So Pighius himself complained of
them, Controv. 2, “Dissimulare non possumus, hanc
vel primam doctrinæ Christianæ partem (de justificatione) obscuratam
magis quam illustratam a scholasticis,
spinosis plerisque quæstionibus, et definitionibus, secundum quas nonnulli
magno supercilio primam in omnibus autoritatem arrogantes,” etc.
Secondly, A due consideration of God, the Judge of all, necessary
unto the right stating and apprehension of the doctrine of justification,
Rom. viii. 33; Isa. xliii. 25; xlv. 25;
Ps. cxliii. 2; Rom. iii.
20 — What thoughts will be ingenerated hereby in the minds of
men, Isa. xxxiii. 14; Micah vi. 6, 7; Isa. vi. 5
— The plea of Job against his friends, and before God, not the same,
Job xl. 3–5, xliii. 4–6 —
Directions for visiting the sick given of old — Testimonies of Jerome and Ambrose —
Sense of men in their prayers, Dan. ix. 7, 18; Ps. cxliii.
2, cxxx. 3, 4 — Paraphrase of Austin on that place — Prayer of Pelagius — Public liturgies
Secondly, A due consideration of him with whom in this
matter we have to do, and that immediately, is necessary unto a right
stating of our thoughts about it. The Scripture expresses it emphatically,
that it is “God that justifieth,” Rom. viii. 33;
and he assumes it unto himself as his prerogative to do what belongs
thereunto. “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine
own sake, and will not remember thy sins,” Isa. xliii.
25. And it is hard, in my apprehension, to suggest unto him any
other reason or consideration of the pardon of our sins, seeing he has
taken it on him to do it for his own sake; that is, “for the Lord’s sake,”
Dan. ix. 17, in whom “all the seed of
Israel are justified,” Isa. xlv. 25.
In his sight, before his tribunal, it is that men are justified or
condemned. Ps. cxliii. 2, “Enter not into judgment
with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.” And
the whole work of justification, with all that belongs thereunto, is
represented after the manner of a juridical proceeding before God’s
tribunal; as we shall see afterwards. “Therefore,” says the apostle, “by
the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight,” Rom.
iii. 20. However any man be justified in the sight of men or
angels by his own obedience, or deeds of the law, yet in his sight none can
be so.
Necessary it is unto any man who is to come unto a trial,
in the sentence whereof he is greatly concerned, duly to consider the judge
before whom he is to appear, and by whom his cause is finally to be
determined. And if we manage our disputes about justification without
continual regard unto him by whom we must be cast or acquitted, we shall
not rightly apprehend what our plea ought to be. Wherefore the greatness,
the majesty, the holiness, and sovereign authority of God, are always to be
present with us in a due sense of them, when we inquire how we may be
justified before him. Yet is it hard to discern how the minds of some men
are influenced by the consideration of these things, in their fierce
contests for the interest of their own works in their justification: “Precibus aut pretio ut in aliquâ parte hæreant.” But the
Scripture does represent unto us what thoughts of him and of themselves,
not only sinners, but saints also, have had, and cannot but have, upon near
discoveries and effectual conceptions of God and his greatness. Thoughts
hereof ensuing on a sense of the guilt of sin, filled our first parents
with fear and shame, and put them on that foolish attempt of hiding
themselves from him. Nor is the wisdom of their posterity one jot better
under their convictions, without a discovery of the promise. That alone
makes sinners wise which tenders them relief. At present, the generality of men are secure, and do not much question but that
they shall come off well enough, one way or other, in the trial they are to
undergo. And as such persons are altogether indifferent what doctrine
concerning justification is taught and received; so for the most part, for
themselves, they incline unto that declaration of it which best suits their
own reason, as influenced with self-conceit and corrupt affections. The
sum whereof is, that what they cannot do themselves, what is wanting that
they may be saved, be it more or less, shall one way or other be made up by
Christ; either the use or the abuse of which persuasion is the greatest
fountain of sin in the world, next unto the depravation of our nature. And
whatever be, or may be, pretended unto the contrary, persons not convinced
of sin, not humbled for it, are in all their ratiocinations about spiritual
things, under the conduct of principles so vitiated and corrupted. See
Matt. xviii. 3, 4. But when God is
pleased by any means to manifest his glory unto sinners, all their
prefidences and contrivances do issue in dreadful horror and distress. An
account of their temper is given us, Isa. xxxiii.
14, “The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness has surprised
the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who
among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?” Nor is it thus only with
some peculiar sort of sinners. The same will be the thoughts of all guilty
persons at some time or other. For those who, through sensuality,
security, or superstition, do hide themselves from the vexation of them in
this world, will not fail to meet with them when their terror shall be
increased, and become remediless. Our “God is a consuming fire;” and men
will one day find how vain it is to set their briers and thorns against him
in battle array. And we may see what extravagant contrivances convinced
sinners will put themselves upon, under any real view of the majesty and
holiness of God, Mic. vi. 6,
7, “Wherewith,” says one of them, “shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high
God? shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year
old? will the Lord be pleased
with thousand of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I
give my first born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin
of my soul?” Neither shall I ever think them meet to be contended withal
about the doctrine of justification who take no notice of these things, but
rather despise them.
This is the proper effect of the conviction of sin,
strengthened and sharpened with the consideration of the terror of the
Lord, who is to judge concerning it. And this is that which, in the
Papacy, meeting with an ignorance of the righteousness of God, has
produced innumerable superstitious inventions for the appeasing of the
consciences of men who by any means fall under the disquietments of such convictions. For they quickly see that nothing of the
obedience which God requires of them, as it is performed by them, will
justify them before this high and holy God. Wherefore they seek for
shelter in contrivances about things that he has not commanded, to try if
they can put a cheat upon their consciences, and find relief in
diversions.
Nor is it thus only with profligate sinners upon
their convictions; but the best of men, when they have had near and
efficacious representations of the greatness, holiness, and glory of God,
have been cast into the deepest self-abasement, and most serious
renunciation of all trust or confidence in themselves. So the prophet
Isaiah, upon his vision of the glory of the Holy One, cried out, “Woe is
me! For I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips,” chap.
vi. 5; — nor was he relieved but by an evidence of the free
pardon of sin, verse 7. So holy Job, in all his contests
with his friends, who charged him with hypocrisy, and his being a
sinner guilty in a peculiar manner above other men, with assured confidence
and perseverance therein, justified his sincerity, his faith and trust in
God, against their whole charge, and every parcel of it. And this he does
with such a full satisfaction of his own integrity, as that not only he
insists at large on his vindication, but frequently appeals unto God
himself as unto the truth of his plea; for he directly pursues that
counsel, with great assurance, which the apostle James so long after gives
unto all believers. Nor is the doctrine of that apostle more eminently
exemplified in any one instance throughout the whole Scripture than in him;
for he shows his faith by his works, and pleads his justification
thereby. As Job justified himself, and was justified by his works, so we
allow it the duty of every believer to be. His plea for justification by
works, in the sense wherein it is so, was the most noble that ever was in
the world, nor was ever any controversy managed upon a greater
occasion.
At length this Job is called into the immediate presence of
God, to plead his own cause; not now, as stated between him and his
friends, whether he were a hypocrite or no, or whether his faith or
trust in God was sincere; but as it was stated between God and him, wherein
he seemed to have made some undue assumptions on his own behalf. The
question was now reduced unto this, — on what grounds he might or could be
justified in the sight of God? To prepare his mind unto a right judgment
in this case, God manifests his glory unto him, and instructs him in the
greatness of his majesty and power. And this he does by a multiplication
of instances, because under our temptations we are very slow in admitting
right conceptions of God. Here the holy man quickly acknowledged that the
state of the case was utterly altered. All his former pleas of faith, hope, and trust in God, of sincerity in obedience, which
with so much earnestness he before insisted on, are now quite laid aside.
He saw well enough that they were not pleadable at the tribunal before
which he now appeared, so that God should enter into judgment with him
thereon, with respect unto his justification. Wherefore, in the deepest
self-abasement and abhorrence, he betakes himself unto sovereign grace and
mercy. For “then Job answered the Lord, and said, Behold, I am vile;
what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. Once have I
spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no farther,”
Job xl. 3–5. And again, “Hear, I
beseech thee, and I will speak; I will demand of thee, and declare thou
unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye
seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself; and repent in dust and ashes,”
chap. xlii. 4–6. Let any men place
themselves in the condition wherein now Job was, — in the immediate
presence of God; let them attend unto what he really speaks unto them in
his word, — namely, what they will answer unto the charge that he has
against them, and what will be their best plea before his tribunal, that
they may be justified. I do not believe that any man living has more
encouraging grounds to plead for an interest in his own faith and
obedience, in his justification before God, than Job had; although I
suppose he had not so much skill to manage a plea to that purpose, with
scholastic notions and distinctions, as the Jesuits have; but however
we may be harnessed with subtle arguments and solutions, I fear it will not
be safe for us to adventure farther upon God than he durst to do.
There was of old a direction for the visitation of the
sick, composed, as they say, by Anselm, and published
by Casparus Ulenbergius, which expresses a
better sense of these things than some seem to be convinced of:— “Credisne te non posse salvari nisi per mortem Christi? Respondet
infirmus, ‘Etiam.’ Tum dicit illi, Age ergo dum superest in te anima, in
hâc solâ morte fiduciam tuam constitue; in nullâ aliâ re fiduciam habe,
huic morti te totum committe, hâc solâ te totum contege totum immisce te in
hac morte, in hac morte totum te involve. Et si Dominus te voluerit
judicare, dic, ‘Domine, mortem Domini nostri Jesu Christi objicio inter me
et tuum judicium, aliter tecum non contendo.’ Et si tibi dixerit quia
peccator es, dic, ‘Mortem Domini nostri Jesu Christi pono inter me et
peccata mea.’ Si dixerit tibi quod
meruisti damnationem; dic, ‘Domine, mortem Domini nostri Jesu Christi
obtendo inter te et mala merita mea, ipsiusque merita offero pro merito
quod ego debuissem habere nec habeo.’ Si dixerit quod tibi est iratus,
dic, ‘Domine, mortem Domini Jesu Christi oppono inter me et iram
tuam;’ ” — that is, “Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved
but by the death of Christ? The sick man answers, ‘Yes;’ then let it be
said unto him, Go to, then, and whilst thy soul abideth in thee, put all
thy confidence in this death alone, place thy trust in no other thing;
commit thyself wholly to this death, cover thyself wholly with this alone,
cast thyself wholly on this death, wrap thyself wholly in this death. And
if God would judge thee, say, ‘Lord, I place the death of our Lord Jesus
Christ between me and thy judgment; and otherwise I will not contend or
enter into judgment with thee.’ And if he shall say unto thee that thou
art a sinner, say, ‘I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me
and my sins.’ If he shall say unto thee that thou hast deserved damnation,
say, ‘Lord, I put the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between thee and all
my sins; and I offer his merits for my own, which I should have, and have
not.’ If he say that he is angry with thee, say, ‘Lord, I place the death
of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and thy anger.’ ” Those who gave these
directions seem to have been sensible of what it is to appear before the
tribunal of God, and how unsafe it will be for us there to insist on any
thing in ourselves. Hence are the words of the same Anselm in his Meditations: “Conscientia mea meruit
damnationem, et pœnitentia mea non sufficit ad satisfactionem; set certum
est quod misericordia tua superat omnem offensionem;” — “My
conscience has deserved damnation, and my repentance is not sufficient for
satisfaction; but most certain it is that thy mercy aboundeth above all
offence.” And this seems to me a better direction than those more lately
given by some of the Roman church; — such as the prayer suggested unto a
sick man by Johan. Polandus, lib. Methodus in
adjuvandis morientibus: “Domine Jesu, conjunge,
obsecro, obsequium meum cum omnibus quæ tu egisti, et passus es ex tam
perfecta charitate et obedientia. Et cum divitiis satisfactionum et
meritorum dilectionis, patri æterno, illud offere digneris.” Or
that of a greater author, Antidot. Animæ, fol.
17, “Tu hinc o rosea martyrum turba offer pro me,
nunc et in hora mortis meæ, merita, fidelitatum, constantiæ, et pretiosi
sanguinis, cum sanguine agni immaculati, pro omnium salute effusi.”
Jerome, long before Anselm, spake to the same purpose: “Cum dies judicii aut dormitionis advenerit, omnes manus
dissolventur; quibus dicitur in alio loco, confortamini manus dissolutæ;
dissolventur autem manus, quia nullum opus dignum Dei justitia reperiatur,
et non justificabitur in conspectu ejus omnis vivens, unde propheta dicit
in psalmo, ‘Si iniquitates attendas
Domine, quis sustinebit,’ ” lib. 6 in
Isa. xiii. 6, 7; — “When the day of judgment or of death shall come,
all hands will be dissolved” (that is, faint or fall down); “unto which it
is said in another place, ‘Be strengthened, ye hands that hang down.’ But
all hands shall be melted down” (that is, all men’s strength and confidence
shall fail them), “because no works shall be found which can answer the
righteousness of God; for no flesh shall be justified in his sight. Whence
the prophet says in the psalm, ‘If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquity, who
should stand?’ ” “And Ambrose, to the same
purpose: “Nemo ergo sibi arroget, nemo de meritis
glorietur, nemo de potestate se jactet, omnes speremus per Dominum Jesum
misericordiam invenire, quoniam omnes ante tribunal ejus stabimus. De illo
veniam, de illo indulgentiam postulabo. Quænam spes alia
peccatoribus?” in Ps. cxix.
Resh, — “Let no man arrogate any thing unto himself, let no man
glory in his own merits or good deeds, let no man boast of his power: let
us all hope to find mercy by our Lord Jesus; for we shall all stand before
his judgment-seat. Of him will I beg pardon, of him will I desire
indulgence; what other hope is there for sinners?”
Wherefore, if men will be turned off from a continual
regard unto the greatness, holiness, and majesty of God, by their
inventions in the heat of disputation; if they do forget a reverential
consideration of what will become them, and what they may betake themselves
unto when they stand before his tribunal; they may engage into such
apprehensions as they dare not abide by in their own personal trial. For
“how shall man be just with God?” Hence it has been observed, that the
schoolmen themselves, in their meditations and devotional writings, wherein
they had immediate thoughts of God, with whom they had to do, did speak
quite another language as to justification before God than they do in their
wrangling, philosophical, fiery disputes about it. And I had rather learn
what some men really judge about their own justification from their
prayers than their writings. Nor do I remember that I did
ever hear any good man in his prayers use any expressions about
justification, pardon of sin, and righteousness before God, wherein any
plea from any thing in ourselves was introduced or made use of. The prayer
of Daniel has, in this matter, been the substance of their supplications:
“O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces.
We do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses,
but for thy great mercies. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; for thine own
sake, O my God,” Dan. ix. 7, 18, 19. Or
that of the psalmist, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord,
for in thy sight shall no man living be justified,” Ps. cxliii.
2. Or, “If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O
Lord, who shall stand? But
there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared,”
Ps. cxxx. 3, 4. On which words the
exposition of Austin is remarkable, speaking
of David, and applying it unto himself: “Ecce clamat sub
molibus iniquitatum suarum. Circumspexit se, circumspexit vitam suam,
vidit illam undique flagitiis coopertam; quacunque respexit, nihil in se
boni invenit: et cum tanta et tam multa peccata undique videret, tanquam
expavescens, exclamavit, ‘Si iniquitates observaris Domine, quis
sustinebit?’ Vidit enim prope totam vitam humanam circumlatrari peccatis;
accusari omnes conscientias cogitationius suis; non inveniri cor castum
præsumens de justitia; quod quia inveniri non potest, præsumat ergo omnium
cor de misericordi Domini Dei sui, et dicat Deo, ‘Si iniquitates observaris
Domine, Domine quis sustinebit?’ Quæ autem est spes? quoniam apud te
propitiatio est.” And whereas we may and ought to represent unto
God, in our supplications, our faith, or what it is that we believe herein,
I much question whether some men can find in their hearts to pray over and
plead before him all the arguments and distinctions they make use of to
prove the interest of our works and obedience in our justification before
him, or “enter into judgment” with him upon the conclusions which they make
from them. Nor will many be satisfied to make use of that prayer which
Pelagius taught the widow, as it was objected
to him in the Diospolitan Synod: “Tu nosti, Domine, quam
sanctæ, quam innocentes, quam puræ ab omni fraude et rapina quas ad te
expando manus; quam justa, quam immaculata labia et ab omni mendacio
libera, quibus tibi ut mihi miserearis preces fundo;” — “Thou
knowest, O Lord, how holy, how innocent, how pure from all deceit and
rapine, are the hands which I stretch forth unto thee; how just, how
unspotted with evil, how free from lying, are those lips wherewith I pour
forth prayers unto thee, that thou wouldst have mercy on me.” And yet,
although he taught her so to plead her own purity, innocency, and
righteousness before God, he does it not as those whereon she might be
absolutely justified, but only as the condition of her obtaining mercy.
Nor have I observed that any public liturgies (the mass-book only excepted,
wherein there is a frequent recourse unto the merits and intercession of
saints) do guide men in their prayers before God to plead any thing for
their acceptance with him, or as the means or condition thereof, but grace,
mercy, — the righteousness and blood of Christ alone.
Wherefore I cannot but judge it best (others may think of
it as they please), for those who would teach or learn the doctrine of
justification in a due manner, to place their consciences in the presence
of God, and their persons before his tribunal, and then, upon a due
consideration of his greatness, power, majesty, righteousness, holiness, —
of the terror of his glory and sovereign authority, to inquire what the Scripture and a sense of their own condition direct them unto
as their relief and refuge, and what plea it becomes them to make for
themselves. Secret thoughts of God and ourselves, retired meditations, the
conduct of the spirit in humble supplications, deathbed preparations for an
immediate appearance before God, faith and love in exercise on Christ,
speak other things, for the most part, than many contend for.
Thirdly, A due sense of our apostasy from God, the depravation of
our nature thereby, with the power and guilt of sin, the holiness of the
law, necessary unto a right understanding of the doctrine of justification
— Method of the apostle to this purpose, Rom. i., ii.,
iii. — Grounds of the ancient and present Pelagianism, in the
denial of these things — Instances thereof — Boasting of perfection from
the same ground — Knowledge of sin and grace mutually promote each
other
Thirdly. A clear apprehension and due sense of the
greatness of our apostasy from God, of the depravation of our natures
thereby, of the power and guilt of sin, of the holiness and severity of the
law, are necessary unto a right apprehension of the doctrine of
justification. Therefore, unto the declaration of it does the apostle
premise a large discourse, thoroughly to convince the minds of all that
seek to be justified with a sense of these things, Rom. i., ii.,
iii. The rules which he has given us, the method which he
prescribes, and the ends which he designs, are those which we shall choose
to follow. And he lays it down in general, “That the righteousness of God
is revealed from faith to faith;” and that “the just shall live by faith,”
chap. i. 17. But he declares not in
particular the causes, nature, and way of our justification, until he has
fully evinced that all men are shut up under the state of sin, and
manifested how deplorable their condition is thereby; and in the ignorance
of these things, in the denying or palliating of them, he lays the
foundation of all misbelief about the grace of God. Pelagianism, in its
first root, and all its present branches, is resolved whereinto. For, not
apprehending the dread of our original apostasy from God, nor the
consequence of it in the universal depravation of our nature, they disown
any necessity either of the satisfaction of Christ or the efficacy of
divine grace for our recovery or restoration. So upon the matter the
principal ends of the mission both of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit
are renounced; which issues in the denial of the deity of the one and the
personality of the other. The fall which we had being not great, and the
disease contracted thereby being easily curable, and there being little or
no evil in those things which are now unavoidable unto our nature,
it is no great matter to he freed or justified from all by a mere act of
favour on our own endeavours; nor is the efficacious grace of God
any way needful unto our sanctification and obedience; as these men
suppose.
When these or the like conceits are admitted, and the minds
of men by them kept off from a due apprehension of the state and guilt of
sin, and their consciences from being affected with the terror of the Lord,
and curse of the law thereon, justification is a notion to be dealt withal
pleasantly or subtlety, as men see occasion. And hence arise the
differences about it at present, — I mean those which are
really such, and not merely the different ways whereby learned men express
their thoughts and apprehensions concerning it.
By some the imputation of the actual apostasy and
transgression of Adam, the head of our nature, whereby his sin became the
sin of the world, is utterly denied. Hereby both the grounds the apostle
proceeds on in evincing the necessity of our justification, or our being
made righteous by the obedience of another, and all the arguments
brought in the confirmation of the doctrine of it, in the fifth chapter of his
Epistle to the Romans, are evaded and overthrown. Socinus, de Servator. par. iv. cap. 6, confesses that
place to give great countenance unto the doctrine of justification by the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ; and therefore he sets himself to
oppose, with sundry artifices, the imputation of the sin of Adam unto his
natural posterity. For he perceived well enough that, upon the admission
thereof, the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto his spiritual
seed would unavoidably follow, according unto the tenor of the apostle’s
discourse.
Some deny the depravation and corruption of our
nature, which ensued on our apostasy from God, and the loss of his image;
or, if they do not absolutely deny it, yet they so extenuate it as to
render it a matter of no great concern unto us. Some disease and
distemper of the soul they will acknowledge, arising from the
disorder of our affections, whereby we are apt to receive in such vicious
habits and customs as are in practice in the world; and, as the guilt
hereof is not much, so the danger of it is not great. And as for any
spiritual filth or stain of our nature that is in it, it is clean washed
away from all by baptism. That deformity of soul which came upon us
in the loss of the image of God, wherein the beauty and harmony of all our
faculties, in all their acting in order unto their utmost end, did consist;
that enmity unto God, even in the mind, which ensued thereon; that
darkness which our understandings were clouded, yea, blinded withal,
— the spiritual death which passed on the whole soul, and total
alienation from the life of God; that impotency unto good, that
inclination unto evil, that deceitfulness of sin, that power and
efficacy of corrupt lusts, which the Scriptures and experience so fully
charge on the state of lost nature, are rejected as empty notions or
fables. No wonder if such persons look upon imputed righteousness
as the shadow of a dream, who esteem those things which evidence its
necessity to be but fond imaginations. And small hope is there to bring
such men to value the righteousness of Christ, as imputed to them,
who are so unacquainted with their own unrighteousness inherent in
them. Until men know themselves better, they will care very little to know
Christ at all.
Against such as these the doctrine of justification may be
defended, as we are obliged to contend for the faith once
delivered unto the saints, and as the mouths of gainsayers are to be
stopped; but to endeavour their satisfaction in it, whilst they are under
the power of such apprehensions, is a vain attempt. As our Saviour said
unto them unto whom he had declared the necessity of regeneration, “If I
have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I
tell you heavenly things?” so may we say, If men will not believe those
things, whereof it would be marvellous, but that the reason of it is known,
that they have not an undeniable evidence and experience in themselves, how
can they believe those heavenly mysteries which respect a supposition of
that within themselves which they will not acknowledge?
Hence some are so far from any concernment in a perfect
righteousness to be imputed unto them, as that they boast of a
perfection in themselves. So did the Pelagians of old glory in a
sinless perfection in the sight of God, even when they were convinced of
sinful miscarriages in the sight of men; as they are charged by Jerome, lib. ii. Dialog.; and by Austin, lib. 2 contra Julian., cap. 8. Such persons are not “subjecta capacia auditionis evangelicæ.” Whilst men have
no sense in their own hearts and consciences of the spiritual disorder of
their souls, of the secret continual acting of sin with deceit and
violence, obstructing all that is good, promoting all that is evil,
defiling all that is done by them through the lusting of the flesh against
the Spirit, as contrary unto it, though no outward perpetration of
sin or actual omission of duty do ensue thereon, who are not engaged in
a constant watchful conflict against the first motions of sin, — unto whom
they are not the greatest burden and sorrow in this life, causing them to
cry out for deliverance from them, — who can despise those who make
acknowledgments in their confession unto God of their sense of these
things, with the guilt wherewith they are accompanied, — [they] will, with
an assured confidence, reject and condemn what is offered about
justification through the obedience and righteousness of Christ imputed to
us. For no man will be so fond as to be solicitous of a righteousness that
is not his own, who has at home in a readiness that which is his own, which
will serve his turn. It is, therefore, the ignorance of these things alone
that can delude men into an apprehension of their justification before God
by their own personal righteousness. For if they were acquainted with
them, they would quickly discern such an imperfection in the best of their
duties, such a frequency of sinful irregularities in their minds and
disorders in their affections, such an unsuitableness in all that they are
and do, from the inward frames of their hearts unto all their outward
actions, unto the greatness and holiness of God, as would abate their
confidence in placing any trust in their own righteousness for their
justification.
By means of these and the like presumptuous
conceptions of unenlightened minds, the consciences of men are kept off
from being affected with a due sense of sin, and a serious consideration
how they may obtain acceptance before God. Neither the consideration of
the holiness or terror of the Lord, nor the severity of the law, as it
indispensably requires a righteousness in compliance with its commands; nor
the promise of the gospel, declaring and tendering a righteousness, the
righteousness of God, in answer whereunto; nor the uncertainty of their own
minds upon trials and surprisals, as having no stable ground of
peace to anchor on; nor the constant secret disquietment of their
consciences, if not seared or hardened through the deceitfulness of sin,
can prevail with them whose thought are prepossessed with such slight
conceptions of the state and art of sin to fly for refuge unto the only
hope that is set before them, or really and distinctly to comport with the
only way of deliverance and salvation.
Wherefore, if we would either teach or learn the doctrine
of justification in a due manner, a clear apprehension of the greatness of
our apostasy from God, a due sense of the guilt of sin, a deep experience
of its power, all with respect unto the holiness and law of God, are
necessary unto us. We have nothing to do in this matter with men, who,
through the fever of pride, have lost the understanding of their own
miserable condition. For, “Natura sic apparet vitiata, ut
hoc majoris vitii sit non videre,” Austin. The whole need not the physician, but the
sick. Those who are pricked unto the heart for sin, and cry out, “What
shall we do to be saved?” will understand what we have to say. Against
others we must defend the truth, as God shall enable. And it may be made
good by all sorts of instances, that as men rise in their notions
about the extenuation of sin, so they fall in their regard unto the
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. And it is no less true also, on the other
hand, as unbelief works in men a disesteem of the person and righteousness
of Christ, they are cast inevitably to seek for countenance unto their own
consciences in the extenuation of sin. So insensibly are the minds of men
diverted from Christ, and seduced to place their confidence in themselves.
Some confused respect they have unto him, as a relief they know not how nor
wherein; but they live in that pretended height of human wisdom, to
trust to themselves. So they are instructed to do by the best of the
philosophers: “Unum bonum est, quod beatæ vitæ causa et
firmamentum est, sibi fidere,” Senec. Epist. xxxi. Hence, also, is the internal
sanctifying grace of God, among many, equally despised with the imputation
of the righteousness of Christ. The sum of their faith, and of their
arguments in the confirmation of it, is given by the learned Roman orator
and philosopher. “Virtutem,” says he, “nemo unquam Deo acceptam retulit; nimirum rectè. Propter virtutem enim jure landamur, et
in virtute rectè gloriamur, quod non contingeret, si donum a Deo, non a
nobis haberemus,” Tull. de
Nat. Deor.
Fourthly, Opposition between works and grace, as unto
justification — Method of the apostle, in the Epistle to the Romans, to
manifest this opposition — A scheme of others contrary thereunto —
Testimonies witnessing this opposition — Judgment to be made on them —
Distinctions whereby they are evaded — The uselessness of them — Resolution
of the case in hand by Bellarmine,
Dan. ix. 18; Luke xvii.
10
Fourthly. The opposition that the Scripture makes
between grace and works in general, with the exclusion of the one and the
assertion of the other in our justification, deserves a previous
consideration. The opposition intended is not made between grace and
works, or our own obedience, as unto their essence, nature, and
consistency, in the order and method of our salvation; but only with
respect unto our justification. I do not design herein to plead any
particular testimonies of Scripture, as unto their especial sense, or
declaration of the mind of the Holy Ghost in them, which will afterward be
with some diligence inquired into; but only to take a view which way the
eye of the Scripture guides our apprehensions, and what compliance
there is in our own experience with that guidance.
The principal seat of this doctrine, as will be confessed
by all, is in the Epistles of Paul unto the Romans and Galatians, whereunto
that also to the Hebrews may be added: but in that unto the Romans it is
most eminently declared; for therein is it handled by the apostle ex professo at large, and that both doctrinally and
in the way of controversy with them by whom the truth was opposed.
And it is worth our consideration what process he makes towards the
decoration of it, and what principles he proceeds upon therein.
He lays it down as the fundamental maxim which he would
proceed upon, or as a general thesis, including the substance of what he
designed to explain and prove, that in the gospel the “righteousness of God
is revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by
faith,” Rom. i. 17. All sorts of men who had any
knowledge of God and themselves, were then, as they must be always,
inquiring, and in one degree or other labouring, after righteousness. For
this they looked on, and that justly, as the only means of an advantageous
relation between God and themselves. Neither had the generality of men any
other thoughts, but that this righteousness must be their own, —
inherent in them, and performed by them; as Rom. x. 3. For
as this is the language of a natural conscience and of the
law, and suited unto all philosophical notions concerning the
nature of righteousness; so whatever testimony was given of another kind in
the law and the prophets (as such a testimony is given unto a
“righteousness of God without the law,” chap. iii. 21),
there was a vail upon it, as to the understanding of all sorts of
men. As, therefore, righteousness is that which all men seek after, and
cannot but seek after, who design or desire acceptance with God; so it is
in vain to inquire of the law, of natural conscience, of philosophical
reason, after any righteousness but what consists in inherent habits and
acts of our own. Neither law, nor natural conscience, nor
reason, do know any other. But in opposition unto this righteousness of
our own, and the necessity thereof, testified unto by the law in its
primitive constitution, by the natural light of conscience, and the
apprehension of the nature of things by reason, the apostle declares, that
in the gospel there is revealed another righteousness, which is also the
righteousness of another, the righteousness of God, and that from faith to
faith. For not only is the righteousness itself reveals alien from those
other principles, but also the manner of our participation of it, or its
communication unto us, “from faith to faith” (the faith of God in the
revelation, and our faith in the acceptation of it, being only here
concerned), is an eminent revelation. Righteousness, of all things, should
rather seem to be from works unto works, — from the work of grace in
us to the works of obedience done by us, as the Papists affirm. “No,” says
the apostle, “it is ‘from faith to faith;’ ” whereof afterward.
This is the general thesis the apostle proposes unto
confirmation; and he seems therein to exclude from justification every
thing but the righteousness of God and the faith of believers. And to this
purpose he considers all persons that did or might pretend unto
righteousness, or seek after it, and all ways and means whereby they hoped
to attain unto it, or whereby it might most probably be obtained, declaring
the failing of all persons, and the insufficiency of all means as unto
them, for the obtaining a righteousness of our own before God. And as unto
persons, —
1. He considers the Gentiles, with all their
notions of God, their practice in religious worship, with their
conversation thereon: and from the whole of what might be observed amongst
them, he concludes, that they neither were nor could be justified before
God; but that they were all, and most deservedly, obnoxious unto the
sentence of death. And whatever men may discourse concerning the
justification and salvation of any without the revelation of the
righteousness of God by the gospel, “from faith to faith,” it is expressly
contradictory to his whole discourse, chap. i., from verse 19 to the end.
2. He considers the Jews, who enjoyed the
written law, and the privileges wherewith it was accompanied,
especially that of circumcision, which was the outward seal of God’s
covenant: and on many considerations, with many arguments, he excludes them
also from any possibility of attaining justification before God, by any of
the privileges they enjoyed, or their own compliance wherewithal, chap.
ii. And both sorts he excludes distinctly from this privilege
of righteousness before God, with this one argument, that both of them
sinned openly against that which they took for the rule of their
righteousness, — namely, the Gentiles against the light of nature, and the
Jews against the law; whence it inevitably follows, that none
of them could attain unto the righteousness of their own rule. But he
proceeds farther, unto that which is common to them all; and, —
3. He proves the same against all sorts of persons,
whether Jews or gentiles, from the consideration of the universal
depravation of nature in them all, and the horrible effects that
necessarily ensue thereon in the hearts and lives of men, chap.
iii; so evidencing that as they all were, so it could not fall
out but that all must be shut up under sin, and come short of
righteousness. So, from persons he proceeds to things, or means of
righteousness. And, —
4. Because the law was given of God immediately, as
the whole and only rule of our obedience unto him, and the works of the law
are therefore all that is required of us, these may be pleaded with some
pretence, as those whereby we may be justified. Wherefore, in particular,
he considers the nature, use, and end of the law, manifesting its utter
insufficiency to be a means of our justification before God, chap. iii. 19, 20.
5. It may be yet objected, that the law and its
works may be thus insufficient, as it is obeyed by unbelievers
in the state of nature, without the aids of grace administered in the
promise; but with respect unto them who are regenerate and do believe,
whose faith and works are accepted with God, it may be otherwise. To
obviate this objection, he gives an instance in two of the most eminent
believers under the Old Testament, — namely, Abraham and David, declaring
that all works whatever were excluded in and from their justification,
chap. iv.
On these principles, and by this gradation, he peremptorily
concludes that all and every one of the sons of men, as unto any thing that
is in themselves, or can be done by them, or be wrought in them, are guilty
before God, obnoxious unto death, shut up under sin, and have their mouths
so stopped as to be deprived of all pleas in their own excuse; that they
had no righteousness wherewith to appear before God; and that all the ways
and means whence they expected it were insufficient unto that purpose.
Hereon he proceeds with his inquiry, how men may be
delivered from this condition, and come to be justified in the sight of
God. And in the resolution hereof he makes no mention of any thing in
themselves, but only faith, whereby we receive the atonement. That
whereby we are justified, he says, is “the righteousness of God which is by
the faith of Christ Jesus;” or, that we are justified “freely by grace
through the redemption that is in him,” chap. iii.
22–24. And not content here with this answer unto the inquiry
how lost convinced sinners may come to be justified before God, — namely,
that it is by the “righteousness of God, revealed from faith to faith, by
grace, by the blood of Christ,” as he is set forth for a
propitiation, — he immediately proceeds unto a positive exclusion of every
thing in and of ourselves that might pretend unto an interest herein, as
that which is inconsistent with the righteousness of God as revealed in the
gospel, and witnessed unto by the law and the prophets. How contrary their
scheme of divinity is unto this design of the apostle, and his management
of it, who affirm, that before the law, men were justified by obedience
unto the light of nature, and some particular revelations made unto them in
things of their own especial private concernment; and that after the giving
of the law, they were so by obedience unto God according to the directions
thereof! as also, that the heathen might obtain the same benefit in
compliance with the dictates of reason, — cannot be contradicted by any who
have not a mind to be contentious.
Answerable unto this declaration of the mind of the Holy
Ghost herein by the apostle, is the constant tenor of the Scripture
speaking to the same purpose. The grace of God, the promise of mercy,
the free pardon of sin, the blood of Christ, his obedience, and the
righteousness of God in him, rested in and received by faith, are
everywhere asserted as the causes and means of our justification, in
opposition unto any thing in ourselves, so expressed as it uses to express
the best of our obedience, and the utmost of our personal righteousness.
Wherever mention is made of the duties, obedience, and personal
righteousness of the best of men, with respect unto their justification,
they are all renounced by them, and they betake themselves unto sovereign
grace and mercy alone. Some places to this purpose may be recounted.
The foundation of the whole is laid in the first promise;
wherein the destruction of the work of the devil by the suffering of the
seed of the woman is proposed as the only relief for sinners, and only
means of the recovery of the favour of God. “It shall bruise thy head, and
thou shalt bruise his heel,” Gen. iii. 15.
“Abraham believed in the Lord;
and he counted it to him for righteousness,” Gen. xv. 6.
“And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and
confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all
their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the
goat; and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not
inhabited,” Lev. xvi. 21,
22. “I will go in the strength of the Lord God: I will make mention of thy
righteousness, even of thine only,” Ps. lxxi. 16.
“If thou, Lord, shouldest mark
iniquities, O Lord, who shall
stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared,”
Ps. cxxx. 3, 4. “Enter not into
judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be
justified,” Ps. cxliii. 2. “Behold, he put no trust
in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: how much less in
them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the
dust?” Job iv. 18,
19. “Fury is not in me: who would set the briers and thorns
against me in battle? I would go through them, I would burn them together.
Or let him take hold of my strength, that he may make peace with me; and
he shall make peace with me,” Isa. xxvii. 4,
5. “Surely, shall one say, In the Lord have I righteousness and
strength: in the Lord shall
all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory,” chap. xlv. 24, 25. “All we like sheep
have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of
us all. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he
shall bear their iniquities,” chap. liii. 6, 11. “This
is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness,” Jer. xxiii. 6. “But ye are all as an
unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags,” Isa.
lxiv. 6. “He shall finish the transgression, and make an end of
sins, and make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting
righteousness,” Dan. ix. 24. “As many as received him,
to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe
on his name,” John i. 12. “As Moses lifted up the
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life,”
chap. iii. 14, 15. “Be it known unto
you, therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto
you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from
all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses,”
Acts xiii. 38, 39. “That they may
receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are
sanctified by faith that is in me,” chap. xxvi.
18. “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption
that is in Christ Jesus; whom God has set forth to be a propitiation
through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission
of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare at this
time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him
which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By
what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude
that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” Rom. iii. 24–28. “For if Abraham were
justified by works, he has whereof to glory; but not before God. For what
saith the Scriptures Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for
righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of
grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as
David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth
righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are
forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord
will not impute sin,” chap. iv.
2–8. “But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if
through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and
the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded unto
many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the
judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences
unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much
more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness
shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the offence of
one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the
righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of
life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the
obedience of one shall many be made righteous,” chap. v.
15–19. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which
are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the
law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law
might be fulfilled in us,” chap. viii.
1–4. “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to
every one that believeth,” chap. x. 4.
“And if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more
grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace; otherwise work is
no more work,” chap. xi. 6. “But of him are ye in
Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and
sanctification, and redemption,” 1 Cor. i. 30.
“For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him,” 2 Cor. v. 21.
“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: for
by the works of the law shall no flesh he justified,” Gal.
ii. 16. “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight
of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is
not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ has
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,”
chap. iii. 11–13. “For by grace are ye
saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not
of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created
in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we
should walk in them,” Eph. ii.
8–10. “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the
excellency of the knowledge 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,” Phil. iii. 8,
9. “Who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not
according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which
was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” 2 Tim. i.
9. “That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs
according to the hope of eternal life,” Tit. iii. 7.
“Once in the end of the world has he appeared, to put away sin,” Heb. ix. 26, 28. “Having
by himself purged our sins,” chap. i. 3. “For
by one offering he has perfected forever them that are sanctified,”
chap. x. 14. “The blood of Jesus Christ
God’s Son cleanseth us from all sin,” 1 John i. 7.
Wherefore, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own
blood, and has made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be
glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen,” Rev. i. 5,
6.
These are some of the places which at present occur to
remembrance, wherein the Scripture represents unto us the grounds, causes,
and reasons, of our acceptation with God. The especial import of many of
them, and the evidence of truth that is in them, will be afterwards
considered. Here we take only a general view of them. And every thing in
and of ourselves, under any consideration whatever, seems to be excluded
from our justification before God, faith alone excepted, whereby we receive
his grace and the atonement. And, on the other side, the whole of our
acceptation with him seems to be assigned unto grace, mercy, the obedience
and blood of Christ; in opposition unto our own worth and righteousness, or
our own works and obedience. And I cannot but suppose that the soul of a
convinced sinner, if not prepossessed with prejudice, will, in general, not
judge amiss whether of these things, that are set in opposition one to the
other, he should betake himself unto, that he may be justified.
But it is replied, — These things are not to be understood
absolutely, and without limitations. Sundry distinctions are
necessary, that we may come to understand the mind of the Holy Ghost and
sense of the Scripture in these ascriptions unto grace, and
exclusions of the law, our own works and righteousness from
our justification. For, — 1. The law is either the moral or the
ceremonial law. The latter, indeed, is excluded from any place in
our justification, but not the former. 2. Works required by the law are
either wrought before faith, without the aid of grace; or after
believing, by the help of the Holy Ghost. The former are excluded from our
justification, but not the latter. 3. Works of obedience wrought after
grace received may be considered either as sincere only, or
absolutely perfect, according to what was originally required in the
covenant of works. Those of the latter sort are excluded from
any place in our justification, but not those of the former. 4. There is a
twofold justification before God in this life, — a first and a
second; and we must diligently consider with respect unto whether of these
justifications any thing is spoken in the Scripture. 5. Justification may
be considered either as to its beginning or as unto its
continuation; — and so it has divers causes under these diverse
respects. 6. Works may be considered either as meritorious ex condigno, so as their merit should arise from
their own intrinsic worth; or ex congruo
only, with respect unto the covenant and promise of God. Those of the
first sort are excluded, at least from the first justification: the latter
may have place both in the first and second. 7. Moral causes may be
of many sorts: preparatory, dispository, meritorious, conditionally
efficient, or only sine quibus non. And
we must diligently inquire in what sense, under the notion of what cause or
causes, our works are excluded from our justification, and under what
notions they are necessary thereunto. And there is no one of these
distinctions but it needs many more to explain it; which, accordingly, are
made use of by learned men. And so specious a colour may be put on these
things, when warily managed by the art of disputation, that very few are
able to discern the ground of them, or what there is of substance in that
which is pleaded for; and fewer yet, on whether side the truth does lie.
But he who is really convinced of sin, and, being also sensible of
what it is to enter into judgment with the holy God, inquires for himself,
and not for others, how he may come to be accepted with him, will be apt,
upon the consideration of all these distinctions and sub-distinctions
wherewith they are attended, to say to their authors, “Fecistis probè, incertior sum multo, quam dudum.” My
inquiry is, How shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the
high God? How shall I escape the wrath to come? What shall I plead in
judgment before God, that I may be absolved, acquitted, justified? Where
shall I have a righteousness that will endure a trial in his presence? If
I should be harnessed with a thousand of these distinctions, I am afraid
they would prove thorns and briers, which he would pass through and
consume.
The inquiry, therefore is, upon the consideration of the
state of the person to be justified, before mentioned and described,
and the proposal of the reliefs in our justification as now expressed,
whether it be the wisest and safest course for such a person seeking to be
justified before God, to betake himself absolutely, his whole trust and
confidence, unto sovereign grace, and the mediation of
Christ, or to have some reserve for, or to place some confidence in,
his own graces, duties, works, and obedience? In putting this great
difference unto umpirage, that we may not be thought to fix on a partial
arbitrator we shall refer it to one of our greatest and most
learned adversaries in this cause. And he positively gives us in his
determination and resolution in those known words, in this case: “Propter incertitudinem propriæ justitiæ, et periculum inanis
gloriæ, tutissimum est fiduciam totam in solâ misericordiâ Dei et
benignitate reponere,” Bellar. de
Justificat., lib. v. cap. 7, prop. 3; — “By reason of the
uncertainty of our own righteousness, and the danger of vain glory, it is
the safest course to repose our whole trust in the mercy and kindness or
grace of God alone.”
And this determination of this important inquiry he
confirms with two testimonies of Scripture, as he might have done it with
many more. But those which he thought meet to mention are not impertinent.
The first is Dan. ix. 18, “We do not present our
supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great
mercies;” and the other is that of our Saviour, Luke xvii.
10, “When ye shall have done all those things which are
commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants.” And after he has
confirmed his resolution with sundry testimonies of the fathers, he closes
his discourse with this dilemma: “Either a man has true merits, or he has
not. If he has not, he is perniciously deceived when he trusts in any
thing but the mercy of God alone, and seduces himself, trusting in false
merits; if he has them, he loses nothing whilst he looks not to them, but
trusts in God alone. So that whether a man have any good works or no, as
to his justification before God, it is best and safest for him not to have
any regard unto them, or put any trust in them.” And if this be so, he
might have spared all his pains he took in writing his sophistical books
about justification, whose principal design is to seduce the minds of men
into a contrary opinion. And so, for aught I know, they may spare their
labour also, without any disadvantage unto the church of God or their own
souls, who so earnestly contend for some kind of interest or other for our
own duties and obedience in our justification before God; seeing it will be
found that they place their own whole trust and confidence in the grace of
God by Jesus Christ alone. For to what purpose do we labour and strive
with endless disputations, arguments, and distinctions, to prefer our
duties and obedience unto some office in our justification before God, if;
when we have done all, we find it the safest course in our own persons to
abhor ourselves with Job in the presence of God, to betake ourselves unto
sovereign grace and mercy with the publican, and to place all our
confidence in them through the obedience and blood of Christ?
So died that great emperor, Charles V, as Thuanus gives the account of
his Novissima. So he reasoned with himself: “Se quidem
indignum esse, qui propriis meritis
regnum cœlorum obtineret; set Dominum Deum suum qui illud duplici jure
obtineat, et Patris hæreditate, et passionis merito, altero contentum esse,
alterum sibi donare; ex cujus dono illud sibi merito vendicet, hacque
fiducia fretus minime confundatur; neque enim oleum misericordiæ nisi in
vase fiduciæ poni; hanc hominis fiduciam esse a se deficientis et
innitentis domino suo; alioquin propriis meritis fidere, non fidei esse sed
perfidiæ; peccata deleri per Dei indulgentiam, ideoque credere nos debere
peccata deleri non posse nisi ab eo cui soli peccavimus, et in quem
peccatum non cadit, per quem solum nobis peccata condonentur;” —
“That in himself he was altogether unworthy to obtain the kingdom of heaven
by his own works or merits; but that his Lord God, who enjoyed it on a
double right or title, by inheritance of the Father, and the merit of his
own passion, was contented with the one himself, and freely granted unto
him the other; on whose free grant he laid claim thereunto, and in
confidence thereof he should not be confounded; for the oil of mercy is
poured only into the vessel of faith or trust: that this is the trust of a
man despairing in himself, and resting in his Lord; otherwise, to trust
unto his own works or merits, is not faith, but treachery: that sins are
blotted out by the mercy of God; and therefore we ought to believe that our
sins can be pardoned by him alone, against whom alone we have sinned, with
whom there is no sin, and by whom alone sins are forgiven.”
This is the faith of men when they come to die, and those
who are exercised with temptations whilst they live. Some are hardened in
sin, and endeavour to leave this world without thoughts of another; some
are stupidly ignorant, who neither know nor consider what it is to appear
in the presence of God, and to be judged by him; some are seduced to place
their confidence in merits, pardons, indulgences, and future suffrages for
the dead: but such as are acquainted with God and themselves in any
spiritual manner, who take a view of the time that is past, and approaching
eternity, into which they must enter by the judgment-seat of God, however
they may have thought, talked, and disputed about their own works and
obedience, looking on Christ and his righteousness only to make up some
small defects in themselves, will come at last unto a universal
renunciation of what they have been, and are, and betake themselves unto
Christ alone for righteousness or salvation. And in the whole ensuing
discourse I shall as little as is possible immix myself in any curious
scholastical disputes. This is the substance of what is pleaded for, —
that men should renounce all confidence in themselves, and every thing that
may give countenance whereunto; betaking themselves unto the grace of God
by Christ alone for righteousness and salvation. This God designs in the
gospel, 1 Cor. i.
29–31; and herein, whatever difficulties we may meet
withal in the explication of some propositions and terms that belong unto
the doctrine of justification, about which men have various conceptions, I
doubt not of the internal concurrent suffrage of them who know any thing as
they ought of God and themselves.
Fifthly, A commutation as unto sin and righteousness, by
imputation, between Christ and believers, represented in the Scripture —
The ordinance of the scapegoat, Lev. xvi. 21,
22 — The nature of expiatory sacrifices, Lev. iv.
29, etc. — Expiation of an uncertain murder, Deut. xxi. 1–9 — The commutation
intended proved and vindicated, Isa. liii. 5,
6; 2 Cor. v. 21; Rom.
viii. 3, 4; Gal. iii. 13,
14; 1 Pet. ii. 24; Deut. xxi.
23 — Testimonies of Justin
Martyr, Gregory Nyssen, Augustine, Chrysostom, Bernard,
Taulerus, Pighius, to that purpose — The proper actings of
faith with respect thereunto, Rom. v. 11;
Matt. xi. 28; Ps. xxxviii.
4; Gen. iv. 13; Isa. liii.
11; Gal. iii. 1; Isa. xlv.
22; John iii. 14,
15 — A bold calumny answered
Fifthly. There is in the Scripture represented unto us a
commutation between Christ and believers, as unto sin and righteousness;
that is, in the imputation of their sins unto him, and of his righteousness
unto them. In the improvement and application hereof unto our own souls,
no small part of the life and exercise of faith does consist.
This was taught the church of God in the offering of the
scapegoat: “And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live
goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel,
and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head
of the goat. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities,”
Lev. xvi. 21, 22. Whether this goat
sent away with this burden upon him did live, and so was a type of the life
of Christ in his resurrection after his death; or whether he perished in
the wilderness, being cast down the precipice of a rock by him that
conveyed him away, as the Jews suppose; it is generally acknowledged, that
what was done to him and with him was only a representation of what was
done really in the person of Jesus Christ. And Aaron did not only confess
the sins of the people over the goat, but he also put them all on his head,
וְנָתַן אֹתָם עַל־רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר, — “And he shall
give them all to be on the head of the goat.” In answer whereunto it is
said, that he bare them all upon him. This he did by virtue of the divine
institution, wherein was a ratification of what was done. He did not
transfuse sin from one subject into another, but transferred the guilt of
it from one to another; and to evidence this translation of sin from the
people unto the sacrifice, in his confession, “he put and fixed both his
hands on his head.” Thence the Jews say, “that all Israel was made as
innocent on the day of expiation as they were on the day of creation;” from
verse 30. Wherein they came short of
perfection or consummation thereby the apostle declares, Heb.
x. But this is the language of every expiatory sacrifice,
“Quod in ejus caput sit;” — “Let the guilt be on
him.” Hence the sacrifice itself was called חַטָּאת
and אָשָׁם, — “sin” and “guilt,” Lev.
iv. 29; vii. 2; x. 17. And therefore, where there was an
uncertain murder, and none could be found that was liable to punishment
thereon, that guilt might not come upon the land, nor the sin be imputed
unto the whole people, a heifer was to be slain by the elders of the city
that was next unto the place where the murder was committed, to take away
the guilt of it, Deut. xxi.
1–9. But whereas this was only a moral representation of the
punishment due to guilt, and no sacrifice, the guilty person being not
known, those who slew the heifer did not put their hands on him, so as to transfer their own guilt to him, but washed their hands
over him, to declare their personal innocence. By these means, as in all
other expiatory sacrifices, did God instruct the church in the transferring
of the guilt of sin unto Him who was to bear all their iniquities, with
their discharge and justification thereby.
So “God laid on Christ the iniquities of us all,” that “by
his stripes we might be healed,” Isa. liii. 5,
6. Our iniquity was laid on him, and he bare it, verse
11; and through his bearing of it we are freed from it. His
stripes are our healing. Our sin was his, imputed unto him; his merit is
ours, imputed unto us. “He was made sin for us, who knew no sin; that we
might become the righteousness of God in him,” 2 Cor. v.
21. This is that commutation I mentioned: he was made sin for
us; we are made the righteousness of God in him. God not imputing sin unto
us, verse 19, but imputing righteousness
unto us, does it on this ground alone that “he was made sin for us.” And
if by his being made sin, only his being made a sacrifice for sin is
intended, it is to the same purpose; for the formal reason of any thing
being made an expiatory sacrifice, was the imputation of sin unto it by
divine institution. The same is expressed by the same apostle, Rom. viii. 3, 4, “God sending his own Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh;
that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.” The sin was
made his, he answered for it; and the righteousness which God requires by
the law is made ours: the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us, not
by our doing it, but by his. This is that blessed change and commutation
wherein alone the soul of a convinced sinner can find rest and peace. So
he “has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,
that the blessing of Abraham might come on us,” Gal.
iii. 13, 14. The curse of the law contained all that was due to
sin. This belonged unto us; but it was transferred on him. He was made a
curse; whereof his hanging on a tree was the sign and token. Hence he is
said to “bear our sins in his own body on the tree,” 1 Pet. ii.
24; because his hanging on the tree was the token of his bearing
the curse: “For he that is hanged is the curse of God,” Deut. xxi. 23. And in the blessing of
faithful Abraham all righteousness and acceptation with God is included;
for Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for
righteousness.
But because some, who, for reasons best known unto
themselves, do take all occasions to except against my writings, have in
particular raised an impertinent clamour about somewhat that I formerly
delivered to this purpose, I shall declare the whole of my judgment herein
in the words of some of those whom they can pretend no quarrel against,
that I know of.
The excellent words of Justin Martyr deserve the first place: Αὐτὸς
τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν ἀπέδοτο λύτρον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, τὸν ἅγιον
ὑπὲρ ἀνόμων, τὸν ἄκακον ὑπὲρ τῶν κακῶν, τὸν δίκαιον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδίκων, τὸν ἄφθαρτον
ὑπὲρ τῶν φθαρτῶν, τὸν ἀθάνατον ὑπὲρ τῶν θνητῶν· τί
γὰρ ἄλλο τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἠδυνήθη καλύψαι, ἢ
ἐκείνου δικαιοσύνη; ἐν τίνι δικαιωθῆναι δυνατὸν τοὺς ἀνόμους ἡμᾶς καὶ
ἀσεβεῖς, ἢ ἐν μόνῳ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ; ὦ τῆς γλυκείας
ἀνταλλαγῆς, ὦ τῆς ἀνεξιχνιάστου δημιουργίας,
ὦ τῶν ἀπροσδοκήτων εὐεργεσιῶν· ἵνα ἀνομία μὲν πολλῶν ἐν
δικαίῳ ἑνὶ κρυβῇ, δικαιοσύνη δὲ ἑνὸς πολλοὺς ἀνόμους
δικαιώσῃ, Epist. ad
Diognet.; — “He gave his Son a ransom for us; — the holy for
transgressors; the innocent for the nocent; the just for the unjust; the
incorruptible for the corrupt; the immortal for mortals. For what else
could hide or cover our sins but his righteousness? In whom else could we
wicked and ungodly ones be justified, or esteemed righteous, but in the Son
of God alone? O sweet permutation, or change! O unsearchable work, or
curious operation! O blessed beneficence, exceeding all expectations that
the iniquity of many should be hid in one just one, and the righteousness
of one should justify many transgressors.” And Gregory Nyssen speaks to the same purpose: Μεταθεὶς γὰρ πρὸς ἐαυτὸν τὸν τῶν ἡμῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ῥύπον,
μετέδωκέ μοι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ καθαρότητος, κοινωνόν με τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ κάλλους ἀπεργασάμενος, Orat. 2 in
Cant.; — “He has transferred unto himself the filth of my sins, and
communicated unto me his purity, and made me partaker of his beauty.” So
Augustine, also: “Ipse
peccatum ut nos justitia, nec nostra sed Dei, nec in nobis sed in ipso;
sicut ipse peccatum, non suum sed nostrum, nec in se sed in nobis
constitutum,” Enchirid. ad Laurent., cap. xli.; — “He was sin, that we
might be righteousness; not our own, but the righteousness of God; not in
ourselves, but in him; as he was sin, not his own, but ours, — not in
himself, but in us.” The old Latin translation renders those words,
Ps. xxii. 1, דִּבְרֵי שַׁאֲגָתִי — “Verba delictorum
meorum.” He thus comments on the place: “Quomodo
ergo dicit, ‘Delictorum meorum?’ nisi quia pro delictis nostris ipse
precatur; et delicta nostra delicta sua fecit, ut justitiam suam nostram
justitiam faceret;” — “How says he, ‘Of my sins?’ Because he
prayeth for our sins; he made our sins to be his, that he might make his
righteousness to be ours. Ὦ τῆς γλυκείας ἀνταλλαγῆς·
— “O sweet commutation and change!” And Chrysostom, to the same purpose, on those words
of the apostle, — “That we might be made the righteousness of God in him:”
Ποῖος ταῦτα λόγος, ποῖος,
ταῦτα παραστῆσαι δυνήσεται νοῦς; τὸν γὰρ δίκαιον,
φησὶν, ἐποίησεν ἁμαρτωλόν,
ἵνα τοὺς ἁμαρτωλοὺς ποιήσῃ δικαίους· μᾶλλον δὴ οὐδὲ οὕτως
εἶπεν· ἀλλ’ ὃ πολλῷ μεῖζον ἦν· οὐ γὰρ ἕξιν
ἔθηκεν, ἀλλ’ αὐτὴν τὴν
τάνοντα μόνον, ἀλλὰ τὸν μηδὲ γνόντα ἀμαρτίαν· ἵνα
καὶ ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα, οὐκ εἶπε, δίκαιοι, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνη, καὶ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη, Θεοῦ γάρ ἐστιν
αὕτη, ὅταν μὴ ἐξ ἔργων (ὅταν
καὶ κηλῖδα ἀνάγκη τινὰ μὴ εὑρεθῆναι) ἀλλ’
ἀπὸ χάριτος δικαιωθῶμεν, ἔνθα πᾶσα
ἁμαρτία ἠφάνισται, 2 Epist. ad Corinth. cap. v. Hom.
11; — “What word, what speech is this? What mind can comprehend or
express it? For he says, ‘He made him who was righteous to be made a
sinner, that he might make sinners righteous.’ Nor yet does he say so
neither, but that which is far more sublime and excellent; for he speaks
not of an inclination or affection, but expresses the quality itself. For
he says not, he made him a sinner, but sin; that we might be made, not
merely righteous, but righteousness, and that the righteousness of
God, when we are justified not by works (for if we should, there must be no
spot found in them), but by grace, whereby all sin is blotted out.” So
Bernard also, Epist. cxc., ad Innocent:— “Homo siquidem
qui debuit; homo qui solvit. Nam ‘si unus,’ inquit, ‘pro omnibus mortuus
est, ergo omnes mortui sunt;’ ut videlicet satisfactio unius omnibus
imputetur, sicut omnium peccata unus ille portavit: nec alter jam
inveniatur, qui forisfecit, alter
qui satisfecit; quia caput et corpus unus est Christus.” And many
more speak unto the same purpose. Hence Luther, before he engaged in the work of reformation,
in an epistle to one George Spenlein, a monk,
was not afraid to write after this manner: “Mi dulcis
frater, disce Christum et hunc crucifixum, disce ei cantare, et de teipso
desperans dicere ei; tu Domine Jesu es justitia mea, ego autem sum peccatum
tuum; tu assumpsisti meum, et dedisti mihi tuum; assumpsisti quod non eras,
et dedisti mihi quod non eram. Ipse suscepit te et peccata tua fecit sua,
et suam justitiam fecit tuam; maledictus qui hæc non credit!” Epist. an. 1516, tom. 1.
If those who show themselves now so quarrelsome almost
about every word that is spoken concerning Christ and his righteousness,
had ever been harassed in their consciences about the guilt of sin, as this
man was, they would think it no strafe matter to speak and write as he did.
Yea, some there are who have lived and died in the communion of the church
of Rome itself, that have given their testimony unto this truth. So speaks
Taulerus, Meditat. Vitæ Christ. cap vii. “Christus omnia mundi peccata in se recepit, tantumque pro illis
ultro sibi assumpsit dolerem cordis, ac si ipse ea perpetrasset;” —
“Christ took upon him all the sins of the world, and willingly underwent
that grief of heart for them, as if he himself had committed them.” And
again, speaking in the person of Christ: “Quandoquidem
peccatum Adæ multum abire non potest, obsecro te Pater cœlestis, ut ipsum
in me vindices. Ego enim omnia illius peccata in me recipio. Si hæc iræ
tempestas, propter me orta est, mitte me in mare amarissimæ
passionis;” — “Whereas the great sin of Adam cannot go away, I
beseech thee, heavenly Father, punish it in me. For I take all
his sins upon myself. If, then, this tempest of anger be risen for me,
cast me into the sea of my most bitter passion.” See, in the justification
of these expressions, Heb. x.
5–10. The discourse of Albertus Pighius to this purpose, though often cited and
urged, shall be once again repeated, both for its worth and truth, as also
to let some men see how fondly they have pleased themselves in reflecting
on some expressions of mine, as though I had been singular in them. His
words are, after others to the same purpose: “Quoniam
quidem inquit (apostolus) Deus erat in Christo, mundum reconcilians sibi,
non imputans hominibus sua delicta, et deposuit apud nos verbum
reconciliationis; in illo ergo justificamur coram Deo, non in nobis; non
nostrâ sed illius justitiâ, quæ nobis cum illo jam communicantibus
imputatur. Propriæ justitiæ inopes, extra nos, in illo docemur justitiam
quærere. Cum inquit, ui peccatum non noverat, pro nobis peccatum fecit;
hoc est, hostiam peccati expiatricem, ut nos efficeremur justitia Dei in
ipso, non nostrâ, sed Dei justitiâ justi efficimur in Christo; quo jure?
Amicitiæ, quæ communionem omnium inter amicos facit, juxta vetus et
celebratissimum proverbium; Christo insertis, conglutinatis, et unitis, et
sua nostra facit, suas divitias nobis communicat, suam justitiam inter
Patris judicium et nostram injustitiam interponit, et sub ea veluti sub
umbone ac clypeo a divina, quam commeruimus, ira nos abscondit, tuetur ac
protegit; imo eandem nobis impertit et nostram facit, qua tecti ornatique
audacter et secure jam divino nos sistamus tribunali et judicio: justique
non solum appareamus, sed etiam simus. Quemadmodum enim unius delicto
peccatores nos etiam factos affirmat apostolus: ita unius Christi justitiam
in justificandis nobis omnibus efficacem esse; et sicut per inobedientiam
unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi, sic per obedientiam unius
justi (inquit) constituentur multi. Hæc est Christi justitia, ejus
obedientia, qua voluntatem Patris sui perfecit in omnibus; sicut contrà
nostra injustitia est nostra inobedientia, et mandatorum Dei prævaricatio.
In Christi autem obedientia quod nostra collocatur justitia inde est, quod
nobis illi incorporatis, ac si nostra esset, accepta ea fertur: ut eâ ipsâ
etiam nos justi habeamur. Et velut ille quondam Jacob, quum nativitate
primogenitus non esset, sub habitu fratris occultatus, atque ejus veste
indutus, quæ odorem optimum spirabat, seipsum insinuavit patri, ut sub
aliena persona benedictionem primogenituræ acciperet: ita et nos sub
Christi primogeniti fratris nostri preciosa puritate delitescere, bono ejus
odore fragrare, ejus perfectione vitia nostra sepeliri et obtegi, atque ita
nos piissimo Patri ingerere, ut justitiæ benedictionem ab eodem assequamur,
necesse est.” And afterwards: “Justificat ergo nos
Deus Pater bonitate suâ gratuitâ, qua nos in Christo complectitur, dum
eidem insertos innocentiâ et justitiâ Christi nos induit; quæ una et vera
et perfecta est, quæ Dei sustinere
conspectum potest, ita unam pro nobis sisti oportet tribunali divini
judicii et veluti causæ nostræ intercessorem eidem repræsentari: qua
subnixi etiam hic obtineremus remissionem peccatorum nostrorum assiduam:
cujus puritate velatæ non imputantur nobis sordes nostræ, imperfectionum
immunditiæ, sed veluti sepultæ conteguntur, ne in judicium Dei veniant:
donec confecto in nobis, et plane extincto veteri homine, divina bonitas
nos in beatam pacem cum novo Adam recipiat;” — “ ‘God was in
Christ,’ says the apostle, ‘reconciling the world unto himself, not
imputing unto men their sins,’ [‘and has committed to us the word of
reconciliation.’] In him, therefore, we are justified before God; not in
ourselves, not by our own, but by his righteousness, which is imputed unto
us, now communicating with him. Wanting righteousness of our own, we are
taught to seek for righteousness without ourselves, in him. So he says,
‘Him who knew no sin, he made to be sin for us’ (that is, an expiatory
sacrifice for sin), ‘that we might be made the righteousness of God in
him.’ We are made righteous in Christ, not with our own, but with the
righteousness of God. By what right? the right of friendship, which makes
all common among friends, according unto the ancient celebrated proverb.
Being ingrafted into Christ, fastened, united unto him, he makes his things
ours, communicates his riches unto us, interposes his righteousness between
the judgment of God and our unrighteousness: and under that, as under a
shield and buckler, he hides us from that divine wrath which we have
deserved, he defends and protects us therewith; yea, he communicates it
unto us and makes it ours, so as that, being covered and adorned therewith,
we may boldly and securely place ourselves before the divine tribunal and
judgment, so as not only to appear righteous, but so to be. For even as
the apostle affirms, that by one man’s fault we were all made sinners, so
is the righteousness of Christ alone efficacious in the justification of us
all: ‘And as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so by
the obedience of one man,’ says he, ‘many are made righteous.’ This is the
righteousness of Christ, even his obedience, whereby in all things he
fulfilled the will of his Father; as, on the other hand, our
unrighteousness is our disobedience and our transgression of the commands
of God. But that our righteousness is placed in the obedience of Christ,
it is from hence, that we being incorporated into him, it is accounted unto
us as if it were ours; so as that therewith we are esteemed righteous. And
as Jacob of old, whereas he was not the first-born, being hid under the
habit of his brother, and clothed with his garment, which breathed a sweet
savour, presented himself unto his father, that in the person of another he
might receive the blessing of the primogeniture; so it is necessary that we
should lie hid under the precious purity of the First-born, our eldest brother, be fragrant with his sweet savour, and have our sin
buried and covered with his perfections, that we may present ourselves
before our most holy Father, to obtain from him the blessing of
righteousness.” And again: “God, therefore, does justify us by his free
grace or goodness, wherewith he embraces us in Christ Jesus, when he
clotheth us with his innocence and righteousness, as we are ingrafted into
him; for as that alone is true and perfect which only can endure in the
sight of God, so that alone ought to be presented and pleaded for us before
the divine tribunal, as the advocate of or plea in our cause. Resting
hereon, we here obtain the daily pardon of sin; with whose purity being
covered, our filth, and the uncleanness of our imperfections are not
imputed unto us, but are covered as if they were buried, that they may not
come into the judgment of God; until, the old man being destroyed and slain
in us, divine goodness receives us into peace with the second Adam.” So
far he, expressing the power which the influence of divine truth had on his
mind, contrary to the interest of the cause wherein he was engaged, and the
loss of his reputation with them; for whom in all other things he was one
of the fiercest champions. And some among the Roman church, who cannot
bear this assertion of the commutation of sin and righteousness by
imputation between Christ and believers, no more than some among
ourselves, do yet affirm the same concerning the righteousness of other
men: “Mercaturam quandam docere nos Paulus videtur.
Abundatis, inquit, vos pecunia, et estis inopes justitiæ; contra, illi
abundant justitia et sunt inopes pecuniæ; fiat quædam commutatio; date vos
piis egentibus pecuniam quæ vobis affluit, et illis deficit; sic futurum
est, ut illi vicissim justitiam suam qua abundant, et qua vos estis
destituti, vobis communicent.” Hosius, De Expresso Dei Verbo, tom. 2 p. 21. But I
have mentioned these testimonies, principally to be a relief unto some
men’s ignorance, who are ready to speak evil of what they understand
not.
This blessed permutation as unto sin and
righteousness is represented unto us in the Scripture as a principal object
of our faith, — as that whereon our peace with God is founded. And
although both these (the imputation of sin unto Christ, and the imputation
of righteousness unto us) be the acts of God, and not ours, yet are we by
faith to exemplify them in our own souls, and really to perform what on our
part is required unto their application unto us; whereby we receive
“the atonement,” Rom. v. 11. Christ calls unto him all
those that “labour and are heavy laden,” Matt. xi.
28. The weight that is upon the consciences of men, wherewith
they are laden, is the burden of sin. So the psalmist
complains that his “sins were a burden too heavy for him,” Ps.
xxxviii. 4. Such was Cain’s apprehension of his guilt,
Gen. iv. 13. This burden Christ bare,
when it was laid on him by divine estimation. For so it is said, וַעֲוֹנֹתָם הוּא יִסְבֹּל, Isa. liii.
11, — “He shall bear their iniquities” on him as a burden. And
this he did when God made to meet upon him “the iniquity of us all,”
verse 6. In the application of this unto
our own souls, as it is required that we be sensible of the weight and
burden of our sins and how it is heavier than we can bear; so the Lord
Christ calls us unto him with it, that we may be eased. This he does in
the preachings of the gospel, wherein he is “evidently crucified before our
eyes,” Gal. iii. 1. In the view which faith has
of Christ crucified (for faith is a “looking unto him,” Isa. xlv. 22; lxv. 1,
answering their looking unto the brazen serpent who were stung with fiery
serpents, John iii. 14,
15), and under a sense of his invitation (for faith is our
coming unto him, upon his call and invitation) to come unto him with our
burdens, a believer considers that God has laid all our iniquities upon
him; yea, that he has done so, is an especial object whereon faith is to
act itself, which is faith in his blood. Hereon does the soul approve of
and embrace the righteousness and grace of God, with the infinite
condescension and love of Christ himself. It gives its consent that what
is thus done is what becomes the infinite wisdom and grace of God; and
therein it rests. Such a person seeks no more to establish his own
righteousness, but submits to the righteousness of God. Herein, by faith,
does he leave that burden on Christ which he called him to bring with him,
and complies with the wisdom and righteousness of God in laying it upon
him. And herewithal does he receive the everlasting righteousness which
the Lord Christ brought in when he made an end of sin, and reconciliation
for transgressors.
The reader may be pleased to observe, that I am not
debating these things argumentatively, in such propriety of
expressions as are required in a scholastic disputation; which shall be
done afterwards, so far as I judge it necessary. But I am doing that which
indeed is better, and of more importance, — namely, declaring the
experience of faith in the expressions of the Scripture, or such as are
analogous unto them. And I had rather be instrumental in the communication
of light and knowledge unto the meanest believer, than to have the clearest
success against prejudiced disputers. Wherefore, by faith thus acting are
we justified, and have peace with God. Other foundation in this matter can
no man lay, that will endure the trial.
Nor are we to be moved, that men who are unacquainted with
these things in their reality and power do reject the whole work of
faith herein, as an easy effort of fancy or imagination. For
the preaching of the cross is foolishness unto the best of the natural wisdom of men; neither can any understand them but by the Spirit of
God. Those who know the terror of the Lord, who have been really convinced
and made sensible of the guilt of their apostasy from God, and of their
actual sins in that state, and what a fearful thing it is to fall into the
hands of the living God, — seeking thereon after a real solid foundation
whereon they may be accepted with him, — have other thoughts of these
things, and do find believing a thing to be quite of another nature than
such men suppose. It is not a work of fancy or imagination unto men, to
deny and abhor themselves, to subscribe unto the righteousness of God in
denouncing death as due to their sins, to renounce all hopes and
expectations of relief from any righteousness of their own, to mix the word
and promise of God concerning Christ and righteousness by him with faith,
so as to receive the atonement, and wherewithal to give up themselves unto
a universal obedience unto God. And as for them unto whom, through pride
and self-conceit on the one hand, or ignorance on the other, it is so, we
have in this matter no concernment with them. For unto whom these things
are only the work of fancy, the gospel is a fable.
Something unto this purpose I had written long since, in a
practical discourse concerning “Communion with God.” And
whereas some men of an inferior condition have found it useful, for the
strengthening themselves in their dependencies on some of their superiors,
or in compliance with their own inclinations, to cavil at my writings and
revile their author, that book has been principally singled out to exercise
their faculty and good intentions upon. This course is steered of late by
one Mr Hotchkis, in a book about
justification, wherein, in particular, be falls very severely on that
doctrine, which, for the substance of it, is here again proposed, p. 81.
And were it not that I hope it may be somewhat useful unto him to be a
little warned of his immoralities in that discourse, I should not in
the least have taken notice of his other impertinencies. The good man, I
perceive, can be angry with persons whom he never saw, and about things
which he can not or will not understand, so far as to revile them with most
opprobrious language. For my part, although I have never written any thing
designedly on this subject, or the doctrine of justification, before now,
yet he could not but discern, by what was occasionally delivered in that
discourse, that I maintain no other doctrine herein but what was the common
faith of the most learned men in all Protestant churches. And the reasons
why I am singled out for the object of his petulancy and spleen are too
manifest to need repetition. But I shall yet inform him of what, perhaps,
he is ignorant, — namely, that I esteem it no small honour that the
reproaches wherewith the doctrine opposed by him is reproached do fall upon
me. And the same I say concerning all the reviling and
contemptuous expressions that his ensuing pages are filled withal. But as
to the present occasion, I beg his excuse if I believe him not, that
the reading of the passages which he mentions out of my book filled him
with “horror and indignation,” as he pretends. For whereas he acknowledges
that my words may have a sense which he approves of (and which, therefore,
must of necessity be good and sound), what honest and sober person would
not rather take them in that sense, then wrest them unto another, so as to
cast himself under the disquietment of a fit of horrible indignation? In
this fit I suppose it was, if such a fit, indeed, did befall him (as one
evil begets another), that he thought he might insinuate something of my
denial of the necessity of our own personal repentance and
obedience. For no man who had read that book only of all my writings,
could, with the least regard to conscience or honesty, give
countenance unto such a surmise, unless his mind was much discomposed by
the unexpected invasion of a fit of horror. But such is his dealing with
me from first to last; nor do I know where to fix on any one instance of
his exceptions against me, wherein I can suppose he had escaped his
pretended fit and was returned unto himself, — that is, unto honest and
ingenuous thoughts; wherewith I hope he is mostly conversant. But though I
cannot miss in the justification of this charge by considering any instance
of his reflections, yet I shall at present take that which he insists
longest upon, and fills his discourse about it with most scurrility of
expressions. And this is in the 164th page of his book, and
those that follow; for there he disputes fiercely against me for making
this to be an undue end of our serving God, — namely, that we may flee
from the wrath to come. And who would not take this for an inexpiable
crime in any, especially in him who has written so much of the nature and
use of threatening under the gospel, and the fear that ought to be in
generated by them in the hearts of men, as I have done? Wherefore so great
a crime being the object of them all, his revilings seem not only to be
excused but allowed. But what if all this should prove a wilful
prevarication, not becoming a good man, much less a minister of the gospel?
My words, as reported and transcribed by himself, are these: “Some there
are that do the service of the house of God as the drudgery of their lives;
the principle they yield obedience upon is a spirit of bondage unto fear;
the rule they do it by is the law in its dread and rigour, exacting it of
them to the utmost without mercy or mitigation; the end they do it for is
to fly from the wrath to come, to pacify conscience, and to seek for
righteousness as it were by the works of the law.”
What follow unto the same purpose he omits, and what he adds as my words
are not so, but his own; ubi pudor, ubi fides? That which I affirmed to
be a part of an evil end, when and as it makes up one entire end, by being
mixed with sundry other things expressly mentioned, is singled out, as if I
had denied that in any sense it might be a part of a good end in our
obedience: which I never thought, I never said; I have spoken and written
much to the contrary. And yet, to countenance himself in this disingenuous
procedure, besides many other untrue reflections, he adds that I
insinuate, that those whom I describe are Christians that seek
righteousness by faith in Christ, p. 167. I must needs tell this
author that my faith in this matter is, that such works as these will have
no influence in his justification; and that the principal reason why I
suppose I shall not, in my progress in this discourse, take any particular
notice of his exceptions, either against the truth or me, — next unto this
consideration, that they are all trite and obsolete, and, as to what seems
to be of any force in them, will occur unto me in other authors from whom
they are derived, — is, that I may not have a continual occasion to declare
how forgetful he has been of all the rules of ingenuity, yea, and of
common honesty, in his dealing with me. For that which gave the
occasion unto this present unpleasing digression, — it being no more, as to
the substance of it, but that our sins were imputed unto Christ, and that
his righteousness is imputed unto us, — it is that in the faith whereof I
am assured I shall live and die, though he should write twenty as
learned books against it as those which he has already published; and in
what sense I do believe these things shall be afterwards declared. And
although I judge no men upon the expressions that fall from them in
polemical writings, wherein, on many occasions, they do affront
their own experience, and contradict their own prayers; yet, as to those
who understand not that blessed commutation of sins and righteousness, as
to the substance of it, which I have pleaded for, and the acting of our
faith with respect thereunto, I shall be bold to say, “that if the gospel
be hid, it is hid to them that perish.”
Sixthly, Introduction of grace by Jesus Christ into the whole of
our relation unto God, and its respect unto all the parts of our obedience
— No mystery of grace in the covenant of works — All religion originally
commensurate unto reason — No notions of natural light concerning the
introduction of the mediation of Christ and mystery of grace, into our
relation to God, Eph. i.
17–19 — Reason, as corrupted, can have no notions of religion
but what are derived from its primitive state — Hence the mysteries of the
gospel esteemed folly — Reason, as corrupted, repugnant unto the mystery of
grace — Accommodation of spiritual mysteries unto corrupt reason, wherefore
acceptable unto many — Reasons of it — Two parts of corrupted nature’s
repugnancy unto the mystery of the gospel:— 1. That which would reduce it
unto the private reason of men — Thence the Trinity denied, and the
incarnation of the Son of God; without which the doctrine of justification
cannot stand — Rule of the Socinians in the interpretation of the
Scripture. 2. Want of a due comprehension of the harmony that is between
all the parts of the mystery of grace — This harmony proved — Compared with
the harmony in the works of nature — To be studied — But it is learned only
of them who are taught of God; and in experience — Evil effects of the want
of a due comprehension hereof — Instances of them — All applied unto the
doctrine of justification
Sixthly. We can never state our thoughts aright in this
matter, unless we have a clear apprehension of, and satisfaction in, the
introduction of grace by Jesus Christ into the whole of our relation unto
God, with its respect unto all parts of our obedience. There was no
such thing, nothing of that nature or kind, in the first constitution of
that relation and obedience by the law of our creation. We were made in a
state of immediate relation unto God in our own persons, as our
creator, preserver, and rewarder. There was no mystery of grace in the
covenant of works. No more was required unto the consummation of that
state but what was given us in our creation, enabling us unto rewardable
obedience. “Do this, and live,” was the sole rule of our relation unto
God. There was nothing in religion originally of that which
the gospel celebrates under the name of the grace, kindness, and love of
God, whence all our favourable relation unto God does now proceed, and
whereinto it is resolved; nothing of the interposition of a mediator with
respect unto our righteousness before God, and acceptance with him; — which
is at present the life and soul of religion, the substance of the gospel,
and the centre of all the truths revealed in it. The introduction
of these things is that which makes our religion a mystery, yea, a “great
mystery,” if the apostle may be believed, 1 Tim. iii.
16. All religion at first was suited and commensurable unto
reason; but being now become a mystery, men for the most part are very
unwilling to receive it. But so it must be; and unless we are restored
unto our primitive rectitude, a religion suited unto the principles of our
reason (of which it has none but what answer that first state) will not
serve our turns.
Wherefore, of this introduction of Christ and grace in him
into our relation unto God, there are no notions in the natural conceptions
of our minds; nor are they discoverable by reason in the best and utmost of
its exercise, 1 Cor. ii. 14. For before our
understanding were darkened, and our reason debased by the fall, there were
no such things revealed or proposed unto us; yea, the supposition of them
is inconsistent with, and contradictory unto, that whole state and
condition wherein we were to live to God, — seeing they all suppose the
entrance of sin. And it is not likely that our reason, as now
corrupted, should be willing to embrace that which it knew nothing
of in its best condition, and which was inconsistent with that way of
attaining happiness which was absolutely suited unto it: for it has no
faculty or power but what it has derived from that state; and to suppose it
is now of itself suited and ready to embrace such heavenly mysteries of
truth and grace as it had no notions of, nor could have, in the state of
innocence, is to suppose that by the fall our eyes were opened to know good
and evil, in the sense that the serpent deceived our first parents with an
expectation of. Whereas, therefore, our reason was given us for our only
guide in the first constitution of our natures, it is naturally unready to
receive what is above it; and, as corrupted, has an enmity thereunto.
Hence, in the first open proposal of this mystery, —
namely, of the love and grace of God in Christ, of the introduction of a
mediator and his righteousness into our relation unto God, in that way
which God in infinite wisdom had designed, — the whole of it was looked on
as mere folly by the generality of the wise and rational men of the world,
as the apostle declares at large, 1 Cor. i.; neither
was the faith of them ever really received in the world without an act of
the Holy Ghost upon the mind in its renovation. And those who judge that
there is nothing more needful to enable the mind of man to receive the mysteries of the gospel in a due manner but the outward
proposal of the doctrine thereof, do not only deny the depravation of our
nature by the fall, but, by just consequence, wholly renounce that grace
whereby we are to be recovered. Wherefore, reason (as has been elsewhere
proved), acting on and by its own innate principles and abilities, conveyed
unto it from its original state, and as now corrupted, is repugnant unto
the whole introduction of grace by Christ into our relation unto God,
Rom. viii. 7. An endeavour, therefore, to
reduce the doctrine of the gospel, or what is declared therein concerning
the hidden mystery of the grace of God in Christ, unto the principles and
inclinations of the minds of men, or reason as it remains in us after the
entrance of sin, — under the power, at least, of those notions and
conceptions of things religious which it retains from its first state and
condition, — is to debase and corrupt them (as we shall see in sundry
instances), and so make way for their rejection.
Hence, very difficult it is to keep up doctrinally
and practically the minds of men unto the reality and spiritual
height of this mystery; for men naturally do neither understand it nor like
it: and therefore, every attempt to accommodate it unto the principles and
inbred notions of corrupt reason is very acceptable unto many, yea,
unto the most; for the things which such men speak and declare, are,
without more ado, — without any exercise of faith or prayer,
without any supernatural illumination, — easily intelligible, and
exposed to the common sense of mankind. But whereas a declaration of the
mysteries of the gospel can obtain no admission into the minds of men but
by the effectual working of the Spirit of God, Eph. i.
17–19, it is generally looked on as difficult, perplexed,
unintelligible; and even the minds of many, who find they cannot contradict
it, are yet not at all delighted with it. And here lies the advantage of
all them who, in these days, do attempt to corrupt the doctrine of the
gospel, in the whole or any part of it; for the accommodation of it unto
the common notions of corrupted reason is the whole of what they design.
And in the confidence of the suffrage hereof, they not only oppose the
things themselves, but despise the declaration of them as enthusiastical
canting. And by nothing do they more prevail themselves than by a
pretence of reducing all things to reason, and contempt of what they
oppose, as unintelligible fanaticism. But I am not more satisfied
in any thing of the most uncontrollable evidence, than that the
understandings of these men are no just measure or standard of spiritual
truth. Wherefore, notwithstanding all this fierceness of scorn, with the
pretended advantages which some think they have made by traducing
expressions in the writings of some men, it may be improper, it maybe only
not suited unto their own genius and capacity in these things,
we are not to be “ashamed of the gospel of Christ, which is the power of
God unto salvation to every one that believeth.”
Of this repugnancy unto the mystery of the wisdom and grace
of God in Christ, and the foundation of its whole economy, in the distinct
operations of the persons of the holy Trinity therein, there are two parts
or branches:—
1. That which would reduce the whole of it unto the
private reason of men, and their own weak, imperfect management
thereof. This is the entire design of the Socinians. Hence, —
(1.) The doctrine of the Trinity itself is denied,
impugned, yea, derided by them; and that solely on this account.
They plead that it is incomprehensible by reason; for there is in that
doctrine a declaration of things absolutely infinite and eternal, which
cannot be exemplified in, nor accommodated unto, things finite and
temporal. This is the substance of all their pleas against the doctrine of
the holy Trinity, that which gives a seeming life and sprightly vigour to
their objections against it; wherein yet, under the pretence of the use and
exercise of reason, they fall, and resolve all their reasonings into the
most absurd and irrational principles that ever the minds of men were
besotted withal. For unless you will grant them that what is above
their reason, is, therefore, contradictory unto true reason;
that what is infinite and eternal is perfectly comprehensible, and in all
its concerns and respects to be accounted for; that what cannot be in
things finite and of a separate existence, cannot be in things infinite,
whose being and existence can be but one; with other such irrational, yea,
brutish imaginations; all the arguments of these pretended men of reason
against the Trinity become like chaff that every breath of wind will blow
away. Hereon they must, as they do, deny the distinct operations of
any persons in the Godhead in the dispensation of the mystery of grace; for
if there are no such distinct persons, there can be no such distinct
operations. Now, as upon a denial of these things no one article of
faith can be rightly understood, nor any one duty of obedience
be performed unto God in an acceptable manner; so, in particular, we grant
that the doctrine of justification by the imputation of the righteousness
of Christ cannot stand.
(2.) On the same ground the incarnation of the Son of
God is rejected as ἀτόπων ἀτοπώτατον, — the most
absurd conception that ever befell the minds of men. Now it is to no
purpose to dispute with men so persuaded, about justification; yea,
we will freely acknowledge that all things we believe about it are γραώδεις μύθοι, — no better than old wives’ tales, — if
the incarnation of the Son of God be so also. For I can as well understand
how he who is a mere man, however exalted, dignified, and
glorified, can exercise a spiritual rule in and over the hearts,
consciences, and thoughts of all the men in the world, being intimately
knowing of and present unto them all equally at all times (which is another
of their fopperies), as how the righteousness and obedience of one
should be esteemed the righteousness of all that believe, if that one be no
more than a man, if he be not acknowledged to be the Son of God
incarnate.
Whilst the minds of men are prepossessed with such
prejudices, nay, unless they firmly assent unto the truth in these
foundations of it, it is impossible to convince them of the truth and
necessity of that justification of a sinner which is revealed in the
gospel. Allow the Lord Christ to be no other person but what they believe
him to be, and I will grant there can be no other way of
justification than what they declare; though I cannot believe that ever
any sinner will be justified thereby. These are the issues of an obstinate
refusal to give way unto the introduction of the mystery of God and his
grace into the way of salvation and our relation unto him.
And he who would desire an instance of the fertility of
men’s inventions in forging and coining objections against heavenly
mysteries, in the justification of the sovereignty of their own reason, as
unto what belongs to our relation unto God, need go no farther than the
writings of these men against the Trinity and incarnation of the eternal
Word. For this is their fundamental rule, in things divine and doctrines
of religion, — That not what the Scripture says is therefore to be
accounted true, although it seems repugnant unto any reasonings of ours, or
is above what we can comprehend; but what seems repugnant unto our reason,
let the words of the Scripture be what they will, that we must conclude
that the Scripture does not say so, though it seem never so expressly so to
do. “Itaque non quia utrumque Scripture dicat,
propterea hæc inter se non pugnare concludendum est; sed potius quia hæc
inter se pugnant, ideo alterutrum a Scriptura non dici statuendum
est,” says Schlichting ad Meisn.
Def. Socin. p. 102; — “Wherefore, because the Scripture affirms both
these” (that is the efficacy of God’s grace and the freedom of our wills),
“we cannot conclude from thence that they are not repugnant; but because
these things are repugnant unto one another, we must determine that one of
them is not spoken in the Scripture:” — no, it seems, let it say what it
will. This is the handsomest way they can take in advancing their own
reason above the Scripture; which yet savours of intolerable presumption.
So Socinus himself, speaking of
the satisfaction of Christ, says, in plain terms: “Ego
quidem etiamsi non semel sed sæpius id in sacris monumentis scriptum extaret, non idcirco tamen ita
prorsus rem se habere crederem, ut vos opinamini; cum enim id omnino fieri
non possit non secus atque in multis aliis Scripturæ Testimoniis, una cum
cæteris omnibus facio; aliquâ, quæ minus incommoda videretur,
interpretatione adhibitâ, eum sensum ex ejusmodi verbis elicerem qui sibi
constaret;” — “For my part, if this (doctrine) were extant and
written in the holy Scripture, not once, but often, yet would I not
therefore believe it to be so as you do; for where it can by no means be so
(whatever the Scripture says), I would, as I do with others in other
places, make use of some less incommodious interpretation, whereby I would
draw a sense out of the words that should be consistent with itself.” And
how he would do this he declares a little before: “Sacra
verba in alium sensum, quam verba sonant, per inusitatos etiam tropos
quandoque explicantur.” He would explain the words into another
sense than what they sound or propose, by unusual tropes. And, indeed,
such uncouth tropes does he apply, as so many engines and machines,
to pervert all the divine testimonies concerning our redemption,
reconciliation, and justification by the blood of Christ.
Having therefore fixed this as their rule, constantly to
prefer their own reason above the express words of the Scripture, which
must, therefore, by one means or other, be so perverted or wrested as to be
made compliant therewith, it is endless to trace them in their multiplied
objections against the holy mysteries, all resolved into this one
principle, that their reason cannot comprehend them, nor does
approve of them. And if any man would have an especial instance of the
serpentine wits of men winding themselves from under the power of
conviction by the spiritual light of truth, or at least endeavouring so to
do, let him read the comments of the Jewish rabbins on Isaiah, chap. liii., and of the Socinians
on the beginning of the Gospel of John.
2. The second branch of this repugnancy springs
from the want of a due comprehension of that harmony which is in the
mystery of grace, and between all the parts of it. This comprehension is
the principal effect of that wisdom which believers are taught by
the Holy Ghost. For our understanding of the wisdom of God in a mystery is
neither an art nor a science, whether purely speculative or
more practical, but a spiritual wisdom. And this spiritual wisdom
is such as understands and apprehends things, not so much, or not only in
the notion of them, as in their power, reality, and efficacy, towards their
proper ends. And, therefore, although it may be very few, unless they be
learned, judicious, and diligent in the use of means of all sorts, do
attain unto it clearly and distinctly in the doctrinal notions of
it; yet are all true believers, yea, the meanest of them,
directed and enabled by the Holy Spirit, as unto their own practice and
duty, to act suitably unto a comprehension of this harmony, according to
the promise that “they shall be all taught of God.” Hence, those things
which appear unto others contradictory and inconsistent one with another,
so as that they are forced to offer violence unto the Scripture and their
own experience in the rejection of the one or the other of them, are
reconciled in their minds and made mutually useful or helpful unto one
another, in the whole course of their obedience. But these things must be
farther spoken unto.
Such an harmony as that intended there is in the whole
mystery of God. For it is the most curious effect and product of divine
wisdom; and it is no impeachment of the truth of it, that it is not
discernible by human reason. A full comprehension of it no creature can in
this world arise unto. Only, in the contemplation of faith, we may arrive
unto such an understanding admiration of it as shall enable us to give
glory unto God, and to make use of all the parts of it in practice as we
have occasion. Concerning it the holy man mentioned before cried out,
Ὦ ἀνεξιχνιάστου δημιουργίας· — “O unsearchable
contrivance and operations.” And so is it expressed by the apostle, as
that which has an unfathomable depth of wisdom in it, Ὦ
βάθος πλούτου, etc. — “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom
and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways
past finding Rom. xi.
33–36. See to the same purpose, Eph. iii.
8–10.
There is a harmony, a suitableness of one thing unto
another, in all the works of creation. Yet we see that it is not perfectly
nor absolutely discoverable unto the wisest and most diligent of men. How
far are they from an agreement about the order and motions of the heavenly
bodies, of the sympathies and qualities of sundry things here below, in the
relation of causality and efficiency between one thing and another! The new
discoveries made concerning any of them, do only evidence how far men are
from a just and perfect comprehension of them. Yet such a universal
harmony there is in all the parts of nature and its operations, that
nothing in its proper station and operation is destructively contradictory
either to the whole or any part of it, but every thing contributes unto the
preservation and use of the universe. But although this harmony be not
absolutely comprehensible by any, yet do all living creatures, who
follow the conduct or instinct of nature, make use of it, and live upon it;
and without it neither their being could be preserved, nor their operations
continued.
But in the mystery of God and his grace, the harmony and
suitableness of one thing unto another, with their tendency unto the same end, is incomparably more excellent and glorious than that
which is seen in nature or the works of it. For whereas God made all
things at first in wisdom, yet is the new creation of all things by Jesus
Christ ascribed peculiarly unto the riches, stores, and treasures of that
infinite wisdom. Neither can any discern it unless they are taught of God;
for it is only spiritually discerned. But yet is it by the most despised.
Some seem to think that there is no great wisdom in it; and some, that no
great wisdom is required unto the comprehension of it: few think it worth
the while to spend half that time in prayer, in meditation, in the exercise
of self-denial, mortification, and holy obedience, doing the will of
Christ, that they may know of his word, to the attaining of a due
comprehension of the mystery of godliness, as some do in diligence, study,
and trial of experiments, who design to excel in natural or mathematical
sciences. Wherefore there are three things evident herein:—
1. That such an harmony there is in all the parts
of the mystery of God, wherein all the blessed properties of the divine
nature are glorified, our duty in all instances is directed and engaged,
our salvation in the way of obedience secured, and Christ, as the end of
all, exalted. Wherefore, we are not only to consider and know the several
parts of the doctrine of spiritual truths but their relation, also, one
unto another, their consistency one with another in practice, and their
mutual furtherance of one another unto their common end. And a disorder in
our apprehensions about any part of that whose beauty and use arises from
its harmony, gives some confusion of mind with respect unto the whole.
2. That unto a comprehension of this harmony in a due
measure, it is necessary that we be taught of God; without which we
can never be wise in the knowledge of the mystery of his grace. And herein
ought we to place the principal part of our diligence, in our inquiries
into the truths of the gospel.
3. All those who are taught of God to know his will,
unless it be when their minds are disordered by prejudices, false opinions,
or temptations, have an experience in themselves and their own practical
obedience, of the consistency of all parts of the mystery of God’s
grace and truth in Christ among themselves, — of their spiritual harmony
and cogent tendency unto the sane end. The introduction of the grace of
Christ into our relation unto God, makes no confusion or disorder in
their minds, by the conflict of the principles of natural reason, with
respect unto our first relation unto God, and those of grace, with respect
unto that whereunto we are renewed.
From the want of a due comprehension of this divine harmony
it is, that the minds of men are filled with imaginations of an
inconsistency between the most important parts of the mystery of the
gospel, from whence the confusions that are at this day in
Christian religion do proceed.
Thus the Socinians can see no consistency between the
grace or love of God and the satisfaction of Christ, but
imagine if the one of them be admitted, the other must be excluded out of
our religion. Wherefore they principally oppose the latter, under a
pretence of asserting and vindicating the former. And where these things
are expressly conjoined in the same proposition of faith, — as where it is
said that “we are justified freely by the grace of God, through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God has set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood,” Rom. iii. 24,
25, — they will offer violence unto common sense and reason,
rather than not disturb that harmony which they cannot understand. For
although it be plainly affirmed to be a redemption by his blood, as he is a
propitiation, as his blood was a ransom or price of redemption, yet they
will contend that it is only metaphorical, — a mere deliverance by power,
like that of the Israelites by Moses. But these things are clearly stated
in the gospel; and therefore not only consistent, but such as that the one
cannot subsist without the other. Nor is there any mention of any especial
love or grace of God unto sinners, but with respect unto the satisfaction
of Christ as the means of the communication of all its effects unto them.
See John iii. 16; Rom. iii.
23–25; viii. 30–33; 2 Cor. v.
19–21; Eph. i. 7, etc.
In like manner, they can see no consistency between the
satisfaction of Christ and the necessity of holiness or
obedience in them that do believe. Hence they continually clamour, that,
by our doctrine of the mediation of Christ, we overthrow all obligations
unto a holy life. And by their sophistical reasonings unto this purpose,
they prevail with many to embrace their delusion, who have not a spiritual
experience to confront their sophistry withal. But as the testimony of the
Scripture lies expressly against them, so those who truly believe, and have
real experience of the influence of that truth into the life of God, and
how impossible it is to yield any acceptable obedience herein without
respect thereunto, are secured from their snares.
These and the like imaginations arise from the
unwillingness of men to admit of the introduction of the mystery of grace
into our relation unto God. For suppose us to stand before God on the old
constitution of the covenant of creation, which alone natural reason likes
and is comprehensive of, and we do acknowledge these things to be
inconsistent. But the mystery of the wisdom and grace of God in Christ
cannot stand without them both.
So, likewise, God’s efficacious grace in the
conversion of sinners, and the exercise of the faculties of their
minds in a way of duty, are asserted as contradictory and
inconsistent. And although they seem both to be positively and frequently
declared in the Scripture, yet, say these men, their consistency being
repugnant to their reason, let the Scripture say what it will, yet is it to
be said by us that the Scripture does not assert one of them. And this is
from the same cause; men cannot, in their wisdom, see it possible that the
mystery of God’s grace should be introduced into our relation and obedience
unto God. Hence have many ages of the church, especially the last of them,
been filled with endless disputes, in opposition to the grace of God, or to
accommodate the conceptions of it unto the interests of corrupted
reason.
But there is no instance more pregnant unto this purpose
than that under our present consideration. Free justification, through
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, is cried out against, as
inconsistent with a necessity of personal holiness and obedience:
and because the Socinians insist principally on this pretence, it shall be
fully and diligently considered apart; and that holiness which, without it,
they and others deriving from them do pretend unto, shall be tried by the
unerring rule.
Wherefore I desire it may be observed, that in pleading for
this doctrine, we do it as a principal part of the introduction of grace
into our whole relation unto God. Hence we grant, —
1. That it is unsuited, yea foolish, and, as some speak,
childish, unto the principles of unenlightened and unsanctified
reason or understandings of men. And this we conceive to be the principal
cause of all the oppositions that are made unto it, and all the
deprivations of it that the church is pestered withal. Hence are the wits
of men so fertile in sophistical cavils against it, so ready to load it
with seeming absurdities, and I know not what unsuitableness unto their
wondrous rational conceptions. And no objection can be made against it, be
it never so trivial, but it is highly applauded by those who look on that
introduction of the mystery of grace, which is above their natural
conceptions, as unintelligible folly.
2. That the necessary relation of these things, one
unto the other, — namely, of justification by the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, and the necessity of our personal obedience, —
will not be clearly understood, nor duly improved, but by and in the
exercise of the wisdom of faith. This we grant also; and let who will make
what advantage they can of this concession. True faith has that spiritual
light in it, or accompanying of it, as that it is able to receive it, and
to conduct the soul unto obedience by it. Wherefore, reserving the
particular consideration hereof unto its proper place, I say, in general,
—
(1.) That this relation is evident unto that spiritual
wisdom whereby we are enabled, doctrinally and practically,
to comprehend the harmony of the mystery of God, and the consistency of all
the parts of it, one with another.
(2.) That it is made evident by the Scripture, wherein both
these things — justification through the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ, and the necessity of our personal obedience — are plainly asserted
and declared. And we defy that rule of the Socinians, that seeing these
things are inconsistent in their apprehension or unto their reason,
therefore we must say that one of them is not taught in the Scripture: for
whatever it may appear unto their reason, it does not so to ours; and we
have at least as good reason to trust unto our own reason as unto theirs.
Yet we absolutely acquiesce in neither, but in the authority of God in the
Scripture; rejoicing only in this, that we can set our seal unto his
revelations by our own experience. For, —
(3.) It is fully evident in the gracious conduct which the
minds of them that believe are under, even that of the Spirit of truth
and grace, and the inclinations of that new principle of the divine
life whereby they are acted; for although, from the remainders of sin and
darkness that are in them, temptations may arise unto a continuation in sin
because grace has abounded, yet are their minds so formed and framed by the
doctrine of this grace, and the grace of this doctrine, that the abounding
of grace herein is the principal motive unto their abounding in holiness,
as we shall see afterward.
And this we aver to be the spring of all those objections
which the adversaries of this doctrine do continually endeavour to entangle
it withal. As, — 1. If the passive righteousness (as it is
commonly called), that is, his death and suffering, be imputed unto us,
there is no need, nor can it be, that his active righteousness, or the
obedience of his life, should be imputed unto us; and so on the contrary:
for both together are inconsistent. 2. That if all sin be pardoned,
there is no need of the righteousness; and so on the contrary, if
the righteousness of Christ be imputed unto us, there is no room for, or
need of, the pardon of sin. 3. If we believe the pardon of our
sins, then are our sins pardoned before we believe, or we are bound to
believe that which is not so. 4. If the righteousness of Christ be
imputed unto us, then are we esteemed to have done and suffered what,
indeed, we never did nor suffered; and it is true, that if we are esteemed
ourselves to have done it, imputation is overthrown. 5. If Christ’s
righteousness be imputed unto us, then are we as righteous as was
Christ himself. 6. If our sins were imputed unto Christ, then was
he thought to have sinned, and was a sinner subjectively. 7. If
good works be excluded from any interest in our justification before
God, then are they of no use unto our salvation. 8.
That it is ridiculous to think that where there is no sin, there is
not all the righteousness that can be required. 9. That righteousness
imputed is only a putative or imaginary righteousness, etc.
Now, although all these and the like objections, however
subtilely managed (as Socinus boasts
that he had used more than ordinary subtlety in this cause, — “In quo, si subtilius aliquanto quam opus esse videretur, quædam a
nobis disputata sunt,” De Servat., par. iv., cap. 4.), are capable of plain and
clear solutions, and we shall avoid the examination of none of them; yet at
present I shall only say, that all the shades which they cast on the minds
of men do vanish and disappear before the light of express Scripture
testimonies, and the experience of them that do believe, where there is a
due comprehension of the mystery of grace in any tolerable measure.
Seventhly, General prejudices against the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ: — 1. That it is not in terms found in the
Scripture, answered. 2. That nothing is said of it in the writings of the
evangelists, answered, John xx.
30, 31 — Nature of Christ’s personal ministry — Revelations by
the Holy Spirit immediately from Christ — Design of the writings of the
evangelists. 3. Differences among Protestants themselves about this
doctrine, answered — Sense of the ancients herein — What is of real
difference among Protestants, considered
Seventhly. There are some common prejudices, that
are usually pleaded against the doctrine of the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ; which, because they will not orderly fall under a
particular consideration in our progress, may be briefly examined in these
general previous considerations:—
1. It is usually urged against it, that this imputation
of the righteousness of Christ is nowhere mentioned expressly in the
Scripture. This is the first objection of Bellarmine against it. “Hactenus,” says he, “nullum omnino locum
invenire putuerunt, ubi legeretur Christi justitiam nobis imputari ad
justitiam; vel nos justos esse per Christi justitiam nobis
imputatam,” De Justificat., lib. ii. cap.
7; — an objection, doubtless, unreasonably and immodestly urged by
men of this persuasion; for not only do they make profession of their whole
faith, or their belief of all things in matters of religion, in terms and
expressions nowhere used in the Scripture, but believe many things also, as
they say, with faith divine, not at all revealed or contained in the
Scripture, but drained by them out of the traditions of the church. I do
not, therefore, understand how such persons can modestly manage this as an
objection against any doctrine, that the terms wherein some do express it
are not ῥητῶς, — found in the Scripture just in that
order of one word after another as by them they are used; for this
rule may be much enlarged, and yet be kept strait enough to exclude
the principal concerns of their church out of the confines of Christianity.
Nor can I apprehend much more equity in others, who reflect with severity
on this expression of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as
unscriptural, as if those who make use thereof were criminal in no
small degree, when themselves, immediately in the declaration of their own
judgment, make use of such terms, distinctions, and expressions, as are so
far from being in the Scripture, as that it is odds they had never been in
the world, had they escaped Aristotle’s mint, or that of the
schools deriving from him.
And thus, although a sufficient answer has frequently
enough (if any thing can be so) been returned unto this objection in Bellarmine, yet has one of late amongst ourselves
made the translation of it into English to be the substance of the first
chapter of a book about justification; though he needed not to have given
such an early intimation unto whom he is beholding for the greatest part of
his ensuing discourse, unless it be what is taken up in despiteful
revilings of other men. For take from him what is not his own, on the one
hand, and impertinent cavils at the words and expressions of other men,
with forged imputations on some of them, on the other, and his whole book
will disappear. But yet, although he affirms that none of the Protestant
writers, who speak of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us
(which were all of them, without exception, until of late), have precisely
kept to the form of wholesome words, but have rather swerved and varied
from the language of the Scripture; yet he will excuse them from open
error, if they intend no more thereby but that we are made partakers of
the benefits of the righteousness of Christ. But if they intend that the
righteousness of Christ itself imputed unto us (that is, so as to be our
righteousness before God, whereon we are pardoned and accepted with him, or
do receive the forgiveness of sins, and a right to the heavenly
inheritance), then are they guilty of that error which makes us to be
esteemed to do ourselves what Christ did; and so on the other side, Christ
to have done what we do and did, chap. 2, 3. But these things are not so.
For, if we are esteemed to have done any thing in our own persons,
it cannot be imputed unto us as done for us by another; as it will appear
when we shall treat of these things afterwards. But the great and holy
persons intended, are as little concerned in the accusations or apologies
of some writers, as those writers seem to be acquainted with that learning,
wisdom, and judgment, wherein they did excel, and the characters whereof
are so eminently conspicuous in all their writings.
But the judgment of most Protestants is not only candidly
expressed, but approved of also by Bellarmine himself in another place. “Non esset,” says he, “absurdum, si quis
diceret nobis imputari Christi justitiam et merita; cum nobis donentur et
applicentur; ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissemus.” De Justif., lib. ii., cap. 10; — “It were not
absurd, if any one should say that the righteousness and merits of Christ
are imputed unto us, when they are given and applied unto us, as if we
ourselves had satisfied God.” And this he confirms with that saying of
Bernard, Epist. ad Innocent. cxc., “Nam ‘si unus
pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt,’ ut videlicet satisfactio
unius omnibus imputetur, sicut omnium
peccata unus ille portavit.” And those who will acknowledge no more
in this matter, but only a participation quovis
modo, one way or other, of the benefits of the obedience and
righteousness of Christ, wherein we have the concurrence of the Socinians
also, might do well, as I suppose, plainly to deny all imputation of his
righteousness unto us in any sense, as they do, seeing the benefits of his
righteousness cannot be said to be imputed unto us, what way soever we are
made partakers of them. For to say that the righteousness of Christ is
imputed unto us, with respect unto the benefits of it, when neither the
righteousness itself is imputed unto us, nor can the benefits of it be
imputed unto us, as we shall see afterward, does minister great occasion of
much needless variance and contests. Neither do I know any reason why men
should seek countenance unto this doctrine under such an expression as
themselves reflect upon as unscriptural, if they be contented that their
minds and sense should be clearly understood and apprehended; — for truth
needs no subterfuge.
The Socinians do now principally make use of this
objection. For, finding the whole church of God in the use of
sundry expressions, in the declaration of the most important truths of the
gospel, that are not literally contained in the Scripture, they hoped for
an advantage from thence in their opposition unto the things themselves.
Such are the terms of the Trinity, the incarnation, satisfaction, and merit
of Christ, as this also, of the imputation of his righteousness. How
little they have prevailed in the other instances, has been sufficiently
manifested by them with whom they have had to do. But as unto that part of
this objection which concerns the imputation of the righteousness of Christ
unto, believers, those by whom it is asserted do say, —
(1.) That it is the thing alone intended which they
plead for. If that be not contained in the Scripture, if it be not plainly
taught and confirmed therein, they will speedily relinquish it. But if
they can prove that the doctrine which they intend in this expression, and
which is thereby plainly declared unto the understandings of men, is a
divine truth sufficiently witnessed unto in the Scripture; then is
this expression of it reductively scriptural, and the truth itself
so expressed a divine verity. To deny this, is to take away all use of the
interpretation of the Scripture, and to overthrow the ministry of the
church. This, therefore, is to be alone inquired into.
(2.) They say, the same thing is taught and
expressed in the Scripture in phrases equipollent. For it affirms
that “by the obedience of one” (that is Christ), “many are made righteous,”
Rom. v. 19; and that we are made
righteous by the imputation of righteousness unto us, “Blessed is the man
unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,” chap.
iv. 6. And if we are made righteous by the imputation of
righteousness unto us, that obedience or righteousness whereby we are made
righteous is imputed unto us. And they will be content with this
expression of this doctrine, — that the obedience of Christ whereby we are
made righteous, is the righteousness that God imputes unto us. Wherefore,
this objection is of no force to disadvantage the truth pleaded for.
2. Socinus objects,
in particular, against this doctrine of justification by the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ, and of his satisfaction, that there is nothing
said of it in the Evangelists, nor in the report of the sermons
of Christ unto the people, nor yet in those of his private discourses with
his disciples; and he urges it vehemently and at large against the
whole of the expiation of sin by his death, De Servator., par. iv., cap. 9. And as it is
easy “malis inventis pejora addere,” this notion of
his is not only made use of and pressed at large by one among ourselves,
but improved also by a dangerous comparison between the writings of the
evangelists and the other writings of the New Testament. For to enforce
this argument, that the histories of the gospel, wherein the sermons of
Christ are recorded, do make no mention of the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ (as in his judgment they do not), nor of his
satisfaction, or merit, or expiation of sin, or of redemption by his death
(as they do not in the judgment of Socinus), it is added by him, that for his part he is
apt to admire our Saviour’s sermons, who was the author of our religion,
before the writings of the apostles, though inspired men. Whereunto
many dangerous insinuations and reflections on the writings of St Paul,
contrary to the faith and sense of the church in all ages, are subjoined.
See pp. 240, 241.
But this boldness is not only unwarrantable, but to be
abhorred. What place of Scripture, what ecclesiastical tradition, what
single precedent of any one sober Christian writer, what theological
reason, will countenance a man in making the comparison mentioned, and so
determining thereon? Such juvenile boldness, such want of a due
apprehension and understanding of the nature of divine inspiration, with
the order and design of the writings of the New Testament, which are the
springs of this precipitate censure, ought to be reflected on. At present,
to remove this pretence out of our way, it may be observed, —
(1.) That what the Lord Christ taught his disciples, in his
personal ministry on the earth, was suited unto that economy of the
church which was antecedent unto his death and resurrection. Nothing did
he withhold from them that was needful to their faith, obedience, and
consolation in that state. Many things he instructed them in out of the
Scripture, many new revelations he made unto them, and many
times did he occasionally instruct and rectify their judgments; howbeit he
made no clear, distinct revelation of those sacred mysteries unto them
which are peculiar unto the faith of the New Testament, nor were to
be distinctly apprehended before his death and resurrection.
(2.) What the Lord Christ revealed afterward by his Spirit
unto the apostles, was no less immediately from himself than was the
truth which he spoke unto them with his own mouth in the days of his flesh.
An apprehension to the contrary is destructive of Christian religion. The
epistles of the apostles are no less Christ’s sermons than that which he
delivered on the mount. Wherefore —
(3.) Neither in the things themselves, nor in the way of
their delivery or revelation, is there any advantage of the one sort of
writings above the other. The things written in the epistles proceed from
the same wisdom, the same grace, the same love, with the things which he
spoke with his own mouth in the days of his flesh, and are of the same
divine veracity, authority, and efficacy. The revelation which he made
by his Spirit is no less divine and immediate from himself, than what he
spoke unto his disciples on the earth. To distinguish between these
things, on any of these accounts, is intolerable folly.
(4.) The writings of the evangelists do not contain the
whole of all the instructions which the Lord Christ gave unto his
disciples personally on the earth. For he was seen of them after his
resurrection forty days, and spoke with them of “the things pertaining to
the kingdom of God,” Acts i. 3; and yet nothing hereof is
recorded in their writings, but only some few occasional speeches. Nor had
he given before unto them a clear and distinct understanding of those
things which were delivered concerning his death and resurrection in the
Old Testament; as is plainly declared, Luke xxiv.
25–27. For it was not necessary for them, in that state wherein
they were. Wherefore, —
(5.) As to the extent of divine revelations
objectively, those which he granted, by his Spirit, unto his apostles
after his ascension, were beyond those which he personally taught them, so
far as they are recorded in the writings of the evangelists. For he told
them plainly, not long before his death, that he had many things to say
unto them which “then they could not bear,” John xvi.
12. And for the knowledge of those things, he refers them to
the coming of the Spirit to make revelation of them from himself, in
the next words, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will
guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever
he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you,” verses 13,
14. And on this account he had told them before, that it was
expedient for them that he should go away, that the Holy Spirit might come
unto them, whom he would send from the Father, verse 7.
Hereunto he referred the full and clear manifestation of the mysteries of
the gospel. So false, as well as dangerous and scandalous, are those
insinuations of Socinus and his
followers.
(6.) The writings of the evangelists are full unto their
proper ends and purposes. These were, to record the genealogy,
conception, birth, acts, miracles, and teachings of our Saviour,
so far as to evince him to be the true, only-promised Messiah. So
he testifies who wrote the last of them: “Many other signs truly did Jesus,
which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” John xx. 30, 31. Unto this end every
thing is recorded by them that is needful unto the ingenerating and
establishing of faith. Upon this confirmation, all things declared in the
Old Testament concerning him — all that was taught in types and sacrifices
— became the object of faith, in that sense wherein they were interpreted
in the accomplishment; and that in them this doctrine was before revealed,
shall be proved afterward. It is, therefore, no wonder if some things, and
those of the highest importance, should be declared more fully in
other writings of the New Testament than they are in those of the
evangelists.
(7.) The pretence itself is wholly false; for there
are as many pregnant testimonies given unto this truth in one alone of the
evangelists as in any other book of the New Testament, — namely, in the
book of John. I shall refer to some of them, which will be pleaded in
their proper place, chap.
i. 12, 17; iii. 14–18, 36; v. 24.
But we may pass this by, as one of those inventions
concerning which Socinus boasts, in
his epistle to Michael Vajoditus, that his
writings were esteemed by many for the singularity of things asserted in
them.
3. The difference that has been among Protestant
writers about this doctrine is pleaded in the prejudice of it. Osiander, in the entrance of the reformation, fell
into a vain imagination, that we were justified or made righteous with the
essential righteousness of God, communicated unto us by Jesus Christ. And
whereas he was opposed herein with some severity by the most learned
persons of those days, to countenance himself in his singularity, he
pretended that there were twenty different opinions amongst the
Protestants themselves about the formal cause of our justification before
God. This was quickly laid hold on by them of the Roman church, and is
urged as a prejudice against the whole doctrine, by Bellarmine, Vasquez,
and others. But the vanity of this pretence of his has been sufficiently
discovered; and Bellarmine himself could
fancy but four opinions among them that seemed to be
different from one another, reckoning that of Osiander for one, De
Justificat., lib. ii., cap. 1. But whereas he knew that the
imagination of Osiander was exploded by them
all, the other three that he mentions are indeed but distinct parts of the
same entire doctrine. Wherefore, until of late it might be truly said,
that the faith and doctrine of all Protestants was in this article entirely
the same. For however they differed in the way, manner, and methods of its
declaration, and too many private men were addicted unto definitions and
descriptions of their own, under pretence of logical accuracy in teaching,
which gave an appearance of some contradiction among them; yet in this they
generally agreed, that it is the righteousness of Christ, and not our own,
on the account whereof we receive the pardon of sin, acceptance with God,
are declared righteous by the gospel, and have a right and title unto the
heavenly inheritance. Hereon, I say, they were generally agreed, first
against the Papists, and afterwards against the Socinians; and where this
is granted, I will not contend with any man about his way of declaring the
doctrine of it.
And that I may add it by the way, we have herein the
concurrence of the fathers of the primitive church. For although by
justification, following the etymology of the Latin word, they understood
the making us righteous with internal personal righteousness, — at least
some of them did so, as Austin in
particular, — yet that we are pardoned and accepted with God on any other
account but that of the righteousness of Christ, they believed not. And
whereas, especially in their controversy with the Pelagians, after the
rising of that heresy, they plead vehemently that we are made righteous by
the grace of God changing our hearts and natures, and creating in us a
principle of spiritual life and holiness, and not by the endeavours of our
own free will, or works performed in the strength thereof, their
words and expressions have been abused, contrary to their intention and
design.
For we wholly concur with them, and subscribe unto
all that they dispute about the making of us personally righteous
and holy by the effectual grace of God, against all merit of works and
operations of our own free will (our sanctification being every way as much
of grace as our justification, properly so called); and that in opposition
unto the common doctrine of the Roman church about the same matter: only
they call this our being made inherently and personally righteous by grace,
sometimes by the name of justification, which we do not. And this is laid
hold on as an advantage by those of the Roman church who do not concur with
them in the way and manner whereby we are so made righteous. But whereas
by our justification before God, we intend only that righteousness whereon
our sins are pardoned, wherewith we are made righteous in his
sight, or for which we are accepted as righteous before him, it will be
hard to find any of them assigning of it unto any other causes than the
Protestants do. So it is fallen out, that what they design to prove, we
entirely comply with them in; but the way and manner whereby they prove it
is made use of by the Papists unto another end, which they intended
not.
But as to the way and manner of the declaration of this
doctrine among Protestants themselves, there ever was some variety
and difference in expressions; nor will it otherwise be whilst the
abilities and capacities of men, whether in the conceiving of things of
this nature, or in the expression of their conceptions, are so various as
they are. And it is acknowledged that these differences of late have had
by some as much weight laid upon them as the substance of the doctrine
generally agreed in. Hence some have composed entire books, consisting
almost of nothing but impertinent cavils at other men’s words and
expressions. But these things proceed from the weakness of some men, and
other vicious habits of their minds, and do not belong unto the cause
itself. And such persons, as for me, shall write as they do, and fight on
until they are weary. Neither has the multiplication of questions, and the
curious discussion of them in the handling of this doctrine, wherein
nothing ought to be diligently insisted on but what is directive of our
practice, been of much use unto the truth itself, though it has not
been directly opposed in them.
That which is of real difference among persons who agree in
the substance of the doctrine, may be reduced unto a very few heads; as, —
(1.) There is something of this kind about the nature of faith
whereby we are justified, with its proper object in justifying, and its use
in justification. And an instance we have herein, not only of the weakness
of our intellects in the apprehension of spiritual things, but also of the
remainders of confusion and disorder in our minds; at least, how true it is
that we know only in part, and prophesy only in part, whilst we are in this
life. For whereas this faith is an act of our minds, put forth in
the way of duty to God, yet many by whom it is sincerely exercised, and
that continually, are not agreed either in the nature or proper object of
it. Yet is there no doubt but that some of them who differ amongst
themselves about these things, have delivered their minds free from the
prepossession of prejudices and notions derived from other artificial
reasonings imposed on them, and do really express their own conceptions as
to the best and utmost of their experience. And notwithstanding this
difference, they do yet all of them please God in the exercise of faith, as
it is their duty, and have that respect unto its proper object as secures
both their justification and salvation. And if we cannot, on
this consideration, bear with, and forbear, one another in our different
conceptions and expressions of those conceptions about these things, it is
a sign we have a great mind to be contentious, and that our confidences are
built on very weak foundations. For my part, I had much rather my lot
should be found among them who do really believe with the heart unto
righteousness, though they are not able to give a tolerable
definition of faith unto others, than among them who can endlessly
dispute about it with seeming accuracy and skill, but are negligent
in the exercise of it as their own duty. Wherefore, some things shall be
briefly spoken of in this matter, to declare my own apprehensions
concerning the things mentioned, without the least design to contradict or
oppose the conceptions of others.
(2.) There has been a controversy more directly stated
among some learned divines of the Reformed churches (for the
Lutherans are unanimous on the one side), about the righteousness of
Christ that is said to be imputed unto us. For some would have this to
be only his suffering of death, and the satisfaction which he made
for sin thereby, and others include therein the obedience of his
life also. The occasion, original, and progress of this controversy,
the persons by whom it has been managed, with the writings wherein it is
so, and the various ways that have been endeavoured for its reconciliation,
are sufficiently known unto all who have inquired into these things.
Neither shall I immix myself herein, in the way of controversy, or in
opposition unto others, though I shall freely declare my own judgment in
it, so far as the consideration of the righteousness of Christ, under this
distinction, is inseparable from the substance of the truth itself which I
plead for.
(3.) Some difference there has been, also, whether the
righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, or the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ, may be said to be the formal cause of
our justification before God; wherein there appears some variety of
expression among learned men, who have handled this subject in the way of
controversy with the Papists. The true occasion of the differences about
this expression has been this, and no other: Those of the Roman church do
constantly assert, that the righteousness whereby we are righteous before
God is the formal cause of our justification; and this righteousness, they
say, is our own inherent, personal righteousness, and not the
righteousness of Christ imputed unto us: wherefore they treat of this whole
controversy — namely, what is the righteousness on the account whereof we
are accepted with God, or justified — under the name of the formal cause of
justification; which is the subject of the second book of Bellarmine concerning justification. In
opposition unto them, some Protestants, contending that the righteousness
wherewith we are esteemed righteous before God, and accepted
with him, is the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, and not our own
inherent, imperfect, personal righteousness, have done it under this
inquiry, — namely, What is the formal cause of our justification? Which
some have said to be the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, — some,
the righteousness of Christ imputed. But what they designed herein was,
not to resolve this controversy into a philosophical inquiry about the
nature of a formal cause, but only to prove that that truly belonged unto
the righteousness of Christ in our justification which the Papists ascribed
unto our own, under that name. That there is a habitual, infused habit of
grace, which is the formal cause of our personal, inherent righteousness,
they grant: but they all deny that God pardons our sins, and justifies
our persons, with respect unto this righteousness, as the formal
cause thereof; nay, they deny that in the justification of a sinner
there either is, or can be, any inherent formal cause of it. And what they
mean by a formal cause in our justification, is only that which gives the
denomination unto the subject, as the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ does to a person that he is justified.
Wherefore, notwithstanding the differences that have been
among some in the various expression of their conceptions, the substance of
the doctrine of the reformed churches is by them agreed upon and retained
entire. For they all agree that God justifies no sinner, — absolves him
not from guilt, nor declares him righteous, so as to have a title unto the
heavenly inheritance, — but with respect unto a true and perfect
righteousness; as also, that this righteousness is truly the righteousness
of him that is so justified; that this righteousness becomes ours by God’s
free grace and donation, — the way on our part whereby we come to be really
and effectually interested therein being faith alone; and that this
is the perfect obedience or righteousness of Christ imputed unto us: in
these things, as they shall be afterwards distinctly explained, is
contained the whole of that truth whose explanation and confirmation is the
design of the ensuing discourse. And because those by whom this doctrine
in the substance of it is of late impugned, derive more from the Socinians
than the Papists, and make a nearer approach unto their principles, I shall
chiefly insist on the examination of those original authors by whom their
notions were first coined, and whose weapons they make use of in their
defence.
Eighthly, Influence of the doctrine of justification into the
first Reformation — Advantages unto the world by that Reformation — State
of the consciences of men under the Papacy, with respect unto justification
before God — Alterations made therein by the light of this doctrine, though
not received — Alterations in the Pagan unbelieving world by the
introduction of Christianity — Design and success of the first reformers
herein — Attempts for reconciliation with the Papists in this doctrine, and
their success — Remainders of the ignorance of the truth in the Roman
church — Unavoidable consequences of the corruption of this
doctrine
Eighthly. To close these previous discourses, it is worthy
our consideration what weight was laid on this doctrine of justification
at the first Reformation, and what influence it had into the whole work
thereof. However the minds of men may be changed as unto sundry doctrines
of faith among us, yet none can justly own the name of Protestant, but he must highly value the first Reformation: and
they cannot well do otherwise whose present even temporal advantages
are resolved thereinto. However, I intend none but such as own an especial
presence and guidance of God with them who were eminently and successfully
employed therein. Such persons cannot but grant that their faith in this
matter, and the concurrence of their thoughts about its importance, are
worthy consideration.
Now it is known that the doctrine of justification gave the
first occasion to the whole work of reformation, and was the main thing
whereon it turned. This those mentioned declared to be “Articulus stantis aut cadentis eccleseæ,” and that the
vindication thereof alone deserved all the pains that were taken in the
whole endeavour of reformation. But things are now, and that by virtue of
their doctrine herein, much changed in the world, though it be not so
understood or acknowledged. In general, no small benefit redounded unto
the world by the Reformation, even among them by whom it was not, nor is
received, though many bluster with contrary pretensions: for all the evils
which have accidentally ensued thereon, arising most of them from the
corrupt passions and interests of them by whom it has been opposed, are
usually ascribed unto it; and all the light, liberty, and benefit of the
minds of men which it has introduced, are ascribed unto other causes. But
this may be signally observed with respect unto the doctrine of
justification, with the causes and effects of its discovery and
vindication. For the first reformers found their own, and the consciences
of other men, so immersed in darkness, so pressed and harassed with fears,
terrors, and disquietments under the power of it, and so destitute of any
steady guidance into the ways of peace with God, as that with all diligence
(like persons sensible that herein their spiritual and eternal interest was
concerned) they made their inquiries after the truth in this matter; which
they knew must be the only means of their deliverance. All men in those
days were either kept in bondage under endless fears and anxieties of mind
upon the convictions of sin, or sent for relief unto indulgences, priestly
pardons, penances, pilgrimages, works satisfactory of their own, and
supererogatory of others, or kept under chains of darkness for purgatory
unto the last day. Now, he is no way able to compare things past and
present, who sees not how great an alteration is made in these things even
in the papal church. For before the Reformation, whereby the light of the
gospel, especially in this doctrine of justification, was diffused among
men, and shone even into their minds who never comprehended nor received
it, the whole almost of religion among them was taken up with, and confined
unto, these things. And to instigate men unto an abounding sedulity in the
observation of them, their minds were stuffed with traditions and stories of visions, apparitions, frightful spirits, and other
imaginations that poor mortals are apt to be amazed withal, and which their
restless disquietments gave countenance unto.
“Somnia, terrores magici, miracula, sagæ
Nocturni lemures, portentaque Thessala,”
[Hor., Ep. ii. 2, 209.]
were the principal objects of their creed, and matter of
their religious conversation. That very church itself comparatively at
ease from these things unto what it was before the Reformation; though so
much of them is still retained as to blind the eyes of men from discerning
the necessity as well as the truth of the evangelical doctrine of
justification.
It is fallen out herein not much otherwise than it did at
the first entrance of Christianity into the world. For there was an
emanation of light and truth from the gospel which affected the minds of
men, by whom yet the whole of it, in its general design, was opposed and
persecuted. For from thence the very vulgar sort of men became to have
better apprehensions and notions of God and his properties, or the original
and rule of the universe, than they had arrived unto in the midnight of
their paganism. And a sort of learned speculative men there were, who, by
virtue of that light of truth which sprung from the gospel, and was now
diffused into the minds of men, reformed and improved the old philosophy,
discarding many of those falsehoods and impertinencies wherewith it had
been encumbered. But when this was done, they still maintained their cause
on the old principles of the philosophers. And, indeed, their opposition
unto the gospel was far more plausible and pleadable than it was before.
For after they had discarded the gross conceptions of the common sort about
the divine nature and rule, and had blended the light of truth which brake
forth in Christian religion with their own philosophical notions, they made
a vigorous attempt for the reinforcement of heathenism against the main
design of the gospel. And things have not, as I said, fallen out much
otherwise in the Reformation. For as by the light of truth which therein
brake forth, the consciences of even the vulgar sort are in some measure
freed from those childish affrightments which they were before in bondage
unto; so those who are learned have been enabled to reduce the opinions and
practices of their church into a more defensible posture, and make their
opposition unto the truths of the gospel more plausible than they formerly
were. Yea, that doctrine which, in the way of its teaching and practice
among them, as also in its effects on the consciences of men, was so horrid
as to drive innumerable persons from their communion in that and other
things also, is now, in the new representation of it, with the artificial
covering provided for its former effects in practice, thought an argument
meet to be pleaded for a return unto its entire communion.
But to root the superstitions mentioned out of
the minds of men, to communicate unto them the knowledge of the
righteousness of God, which is revealed from faith to faith, and thereby to
deliver them from their bondage, fears, and distress, directing convinced
sinners unto the only way of solid peace with God, did the first reformers
labour so diligently in the declaration and vindication of the evangelical
doctrine of justification; and God was with them. And it is worth our
consideration, whether we should, on every cavil and sophism of men not so
taught, not so employed, not so tried, not so owned of God as they were,
and in whose writings there are not appearing such characters of wisdom,
sound judgment, and deep experience, as in theirs, easily part with
that doctrine of truth wherein alone they found peace unto their own souls,
and whereby they were instrumental to give liberty and peace with God unto
the souls and consciences of others innumerable, accompanied with the
visible effects of holiness of life, and fruitfulness in the works of
righteousness, unto the praise of God by Jesus Christ.
In my judgment, Luther spake
the truth when he said, “Amisso articulo justificationis,
simul amissa est tota doctrina Christiana.” And I wish he had not
been a true prophet, when he foretold that in the following ages the
doctrine thereof would be again obscured; the causes whereof I have
elsewhere inquired into.
Some late writers, indeed, among the Protestants have
endeavoured to reduce the controversy about justification with the Papist
unto an appearance of a far less real difference than is usually judged to
be in it. And a good work it is, no doubt, to pare off all unnecessary
occasions of debate and differences in religion, provided we go not so near
the quick as to let out any of its vital spirits. The way taken herein is,
to proceed upon some concessions of the most sober among the
Papists, in their ascriptions unto grace and the merit of Christ, on
the one side; and the express judgment of the Protestants, variously
delivered, of the necessity of good works to them that are justified, on
the other. Besides, it appears that in different expressions which either
party adhere unto, as it were by tradition, the same things are indeed
intended. Among them who have laboured in this kind, Ludovicus le Blanc, for his perspicuity
and plainness, his moderation and freedom from a contentious frame of
spirit, is “pene solus legi dignus.” He is like the
ghost of Tiresias in this matter. But
I must needs say, that I have not seen the effect that might be
desired of any such undertaking. For, when each party comes unto the
interpretation of their own concessions, which is, “ex
communi jure,” to be allowed unto them, and which they will be sure
to do in compliance with their judgment on the substance of the doctrine
wherein the main stress of the difference lies, the distance and breach
continue as wide as ever they were. Nor is there the least ground towards
peace obtained by any of our condescensions or compliance herein. For
unless we can come up entirely unto the decrees and canons of the Council
of Trent, wherein the doctrine of the Old and New Testament is
anathematized, they will make no other use of any man’s compliance, but
only to increase the clamour of differences among ourselves. I mention
nothing of this nature to hinder any man from granting whatever he can or
please unto them, without the prejudice of the substance of truths
professed in the protestant churches; but only to intimate the uselessness
of such concessions, in order unto peace and agreement with them, whilst
they have a Procrustes’ bed to lay us upon, and from whose size they will
not recede.
Here and there one (not above three or four in all may be
named, within this hundred and thirty years) in the Roman communion has
owned our doctrine of justification, for the substance of it. So did
Albertus Pighius, and the Antitagma
Coloniense, as Bellarmine acknowledges.
And what he says of Pighius is true, as we
shall see afterwards; the other I have not seen. Cardinal Contarinus, in a treatise of justification,
written before, and published about the beginning of the Trent Council,
delivers himself in the favour of it. But upon the observation of what he
had done, some say he was shortly after poisoned; though I must confess I
know not where they had the report.
But do what we can for the sake of peace, as too much
cannot be done for it, with the safety of truth, it cannot be denied but
that the doctrine of justification, as it works effectually in the church
of Rome, is the foundation of many enormities among them, both in judgment
and practice. They do not continue, I acknowledge, in that visible
predominancy and rage as formerly, nor are the generality of the people in
so much slavish bondage unto them as they were; but the streams of them do
still issue from this corrupt fountain, unto the dangerous infection of the
souls of men. For missatical expiatory sacrifices for the living and the
dead, the necessity of auricular confession, with authoritative absolution,
penances, pilgrimages, sacramentals, indulgences, commutations, works
satisfactory and supererogatory, the merit and intercession of saints
departed, with especial devotions and applications to this or that
particular saint or angel, purgatory, yea, on the matter, the whole of
monastic devotion, do depend thereon. They are all nothing but
ways invented to pacify the consciences of men, or divert them from
attending to the charge which is given in against them by the law of God;
sorry supplies they are of a righteousness of their own, for them who know
not how to submit themselves to the righteousness of God. And if the
doctrine of free justification by the blood of Christ were once again
exploded, or corrupted and made unintelligible, unto these things,
as absurd and foolish as now unto some they seem to be, or what is not one
jot better, men must and will again betake themselves. For if once they
are diverted from putting their trust in the righteousness of Christ, and
grace of God alone, and do practically thereon follow after, take up with,
or rest in, that which is their own, the first impressions of a sense of
sin which shall befall their consciences will drive them from their present
hold, to seek for shelter in any thing that tenders unto them the least
appearance of relief. Men may talk and dispute what they please, whilst
they are at peace in their own minds, without a real sense either of sin or
righteousness, yea, and scoff at them who are not under the power of the
same security; but when they shall be awakened with other apprehensions of
things than yet they are aware of, they will be put on new resolutions.
And it is in vain to dispute with any about justification, who have not
duly been convinced of a state of sin, and of its guilt; for such men
neither understand what they say, nor that whereof they
dogmatize.
We have, therefore, the same reasons that the first
reformers had, to be careful about the preservation of this doctrine of the
gospel pure and entire; though we may not expect the like success with them
in our endeavours unto that end. For the minds of the generality of men
are in another posture than they were when they dealt with them.
Under the power of ignorance and superstition they were; but yet multitudes
of them were affected with a sense of the guilt of sin. With us, for the
most part, things are quite otherwise. Notional light, accompanied with a
senselessness of sin, leads men unto a contempt of this doctrine, indeed of
the whole mystery of the gospel. We have had experience of the fruits of
the faith which we now plead for in this nation, for many years, yea, now
for some ages; and it cannot well be denied, but that those who have been
most severely tenacious of the doctrine of justification by the imputation
of the righteousness of Christ, have been the most exemplary in a holy
life: I speak of former days. And if this doctrine be yet farther
corrupted, debased, or unlearned among us, we shall quickly fall into one
of the extremes wherewith we are at present urged on either side. For
although the reliefs provided in the church of Rome, for the satisfaction
of the consciences of men, are at present by the most disliked, yea,
despised, yet, if they are once brought to a loss how to place their whole
trust and confidence in the righteousness of Christ, and grace
of God in him, they will not always live at such an uncertainty of mind as
the best of their own personal obedience will hang them on the briers of;
but betake themselves unto somewhat that tenders them certain peace and
security, though at present it may seem foolish unto them. And I doubt not
but that some, out of a mere ignorance of the righteousness of God,
which either they have not been taught, or have had no mind to learn, have,
with some integrity in the exercise of their consciences, betaken
themselves unto that pretended rest which the church of Rome offers unto
them. For being troubled about their sins, they think it better to betake
themselves unto that great variety of means for the ease and discharge of
their consciences which the Roman church affords, than to abide where they
are, without the least pretence of relief; as men will find in due time,
there is no such thing to be found or obtained in themselves. They may go
on for a time with good satisfaction unto their own minds; but if once they
are brought unto a loss through the conviction of sin, they must look
beyond themselves for peace and satisfaction, or sit down without them to
eternity. Nor are the principles and ways which others take up withal in
another extreme, upon the rejection of this doctrine, although more
plausible, yet at all more really useful unto the souls of men than those
of the Roman church which they reject as obsolete, and unsuited unto the
genius of the present age. For they all of them arise from, or lead unto,
the want of a due sense of the nature and guilt of sin, as also of the
holiness and righteousness of God with respect thereunto. And when such
principles as these do once grow prevalent in the minds of men, they
quickly grow careless, negligent, secure in sinning, and end for the most
part in atheism, or a great indifferency, as unto all
religion, and all the duties thereof.
Chapter I. Justifying faith; the causes and object of it declared
Justification by faith generally acknowledged — The meaning of it
perverted — The nature and use of faith in justification proposed to
consideration — Distinctions about it waived — A twofold faith of the
gospel expressed in the Scripture — Faith that is not justifying, Acts viii. 13; John ii. 23, 24; Luke viii. 13; Matt. vii. 22, 23 — Historical faith;
whence it is so called, and the nature of it — Degrees of assent in it —
Justification not ascribed unto any degree of it — A calumny obviated — The
causes of true saving faith — Conviction of sin previous unto it — The
nature of legal conviction, and its effects — Arguments to prove it
antecedent unto faith — Without the consideration of it, the true nature of
faith not to be understood — The order and relation of the law and gospel,
Rom. i. 17 — Instance of Adam — Effects
of conviction — Internal: Displicency and sorrow; fear of punishment;
desire of deliverance — External: Abstinence from sin; performance of
duties; reformation of life — Not conditions of justification; not formal
disposition unto it; not moral preparations for it — The order of God in
justification — The proper object of justifying faith — Not all divine
verity equally; proved by sundry arguments — The pardon of our own sins,
whether the first object of faith — The Lord Christ in the work of
mediation, as the ordinance of God for the recovery of lost sinners, the
proper object of justifying faith — The position explained and proved,
Acts x. 43; xvi.
31; iv. 12; Luke xxiv.
25–27; John
i. 12; iii. 16, 36; vi. 29, 47; vii. 38; Acts xxvi.
18; Col. ii. 6; Rom. iii.
24, 25; 1 Cor. i. 30;
2 Cor. v. 21; Eph. i. 7,
8; 2 Cor. v. 19
The means of
justification on our part is faith. That we are justified by
faith, is so frequently and so expressly affirmed in the Scripture, as
that it cannot directly and in terms by any be denied. For whereas some
begin, by an excess of partiality, which controversial engagements and
provocations do incline them unto, to affirm that our justification is more
frequently ascribed unto other things, graces or duties, than unto
faith, it is to be passed by in silence, and not contended
about. But yet, also, the explanation which some others make of this
general concession, that “we are justified by faith,” does as fully
overthrow what is affirmed therein as if it were in terms rejected; and it
would more advantage the understandings of men if it were plainly refused
upon its first proposal, than to be led about in a maze of words and
distinctions unto its real exclusion, as is done both by the Romanists and
Socinians. At present we may take the proposition as granted, and only
inquire into the true, genuine sense and meaning of it: That which first
occurs unto our consideration is faith; and that which does concern it may
be reduced unto two heads:— 1. Its nature. 2. Its use in
our justification.
Of the nature of faith in general, of the especial nature
of justifying faith, of its characteristical distinctions from that
which is called faith but is not justifying, so many discourses (divers of
them the effects of sound judgment and good experience) are already extant,
as it is altogether needless to engage at large into a farther discussion
of them. However, something must be spoken to declare in what sense we
understand these things; — what is that faith which we ascribe our
justification unto, and what is its use therein.
The distinctions that are usually made concerning faith (as
it is a word of various significations), I shall wholly pretermit; not only
as obvious and known, but as not belonging unto our present argument. That
which we are concerned in is, that in the Scripture there is mention made
plainly of a twofold faith, whereby men believe the gospel. For
there is a faith whereby we are justified, which he who has shall be
assuredly saved; which purifies the heart and works by love. And there is
a faith or believing, which does nothing of all this; which who has, and
has no more, is not justified, nor can be saved. Wherefore, every faith,
whereby men are said to believe, is not justifying. Thus it is said of
Simon the magician, that he “believed,”
Acts viii. 13, when he was in the “gall
of bitterness and bond of iniquity;” and therefore did not believe with
that faith which “purifieth the heart,” Acts xv. 9.
And that many “believed on the name of Jesus, when they saw the miracles
that he did; but Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew
what was in man,” John ii. 23,
24. They did not believe on his name as those do, or with that
kind of faith, who thereon “receive power to become the sons of God,”
John i. 12. And some, when they “hear
the word receive it with joy, believing for a while,” but “have no root,”
Luke viii. 13. And faith, without a
root in the heart, will not justify any; for “with the heart men believe
unto righteousness,” Rom. x. 10.
So is it with them who shall cry, “Lord, Lord” (at the last day), “we have
prophesied in thy name,” whilst yet they were always “workers of iniquity,”
Matt. vii. 22, 23.
This faith is usually called historical
faith. But this denomination is not taken from the object of
it, as though it were only the history of the Scripture, or the historical
things contained in it. For it respects the whole truth of the word, yea,
of the promises of the gospel as well as other things. But it is so called
from the nature of the assent wherein it does consist; for it is
such as we give unto historical things that are credibly testified unto
us.
And this faith has divers differences or degrees, both in
respect unto the grounds or reasons of it, and also its
effects. For as unto the first, all faith is an assent upon
testimony; and divine faith is an assent upon a divine testimony.
According as this testimony is received, so are the differences or degrees
of this faith. Some apprehend it on human motives only, and its
credibility unto the judgment of reason; and their assent is a mere natural
act of their understanding, which is the lowest degree of this historical
faith. Some have their minds enabled unto it by spiritual illumination,
making a discovery of the evidences of divine truth whereon it is to be
believed; the assent they give hereon is more firm and operative than that
of the former sort.
Again; it has its differences or degrees with respect unto
its effects. With some it does no way, or very little, influence
the will or the affections, or work any change in the lives of men. So is
it with them that profess they believe the gospel, and yet live in all
manner of sins. In this degree, it is called by the apostle James “a dead
faith,” and compared unto a dead carcase, without life or motion; and is an
assent of the very same nature and kind with that which devils are
compelled to give; and this faith abounds in the world. With others it has
an effectual work upon the affections, and that in many degrees, also,
represented in the several sorts of ground whereinto the seed of the word
is cast, and produces many effects in their lives. In the utmost
improvement of it, both as to the evidence it proceeds from and the effects
it produces, it is usually called temporary faith; — for it is
neither permanent against all oppositions, nor will bring any unto eternal
rest. The name is taken from that expression of our Saviour concerning him
who believes with this faith, — Πρόσκαιρός ἐστι,
Matt. xiii. 21.
This faith I grant to be true in its kind, and not merely
to be equivocally so called: it is not πίστις
ψευδώνυμος. It is so as unto the general nature of faith; but of
the same special nature with justifying faith it is not. Justifying faith
is not a higher, or the highest degree of this faith, but is of another
kind or nature. Wherefore, sundry things may be observed concerning this
faith, in the utmost improvement of it unto our present purpose. As —
1. This faith, with all the effects of it, men may have
and not be justified; and, if they have not a faith of another
kind, they cannot be justified. For justification is nowhere ascribed unto
it, yea, it is affirmed by the apostle James that none can be justified by
it.
2. It may produce great effects in the minds,
affections and lives of men, although not one of them that are peculiar
unto justifying faith. Yet such they may be, as that those in whom they
are wrought may be, and ought, in the judgment of charity, to be looked on
as true believers.
3. This is that faith which may be alone. We are
justified by faith alone; but we are not justified by that faith
which can be alone. Alone, respects its influence into our
justification, not its nature and existence. And we absolutely deny that
we can be justified by that faith which can be alone; that is,
without a principle of spiritual life and universal obedience, operative in
of it, as duty does require.
These things I have observed, only to obviate that calumny
and reproach which some endeavour to fix on the doctrine of justification
by faith only, through the mediation of Christ. For those who assert it,
must be Solifidians, Antinomians, and I know not what; — such as oppose or
deny the necessity of universal obedience, or good works. Most of them who
manage it, cannot but know in their own consciences that this charge is
false. But this is the way of handling controversies with many. They can
aver any thing that seems to advantage the cause they plead, to the great
scandal of religion. If by Solifidians, they mean those who believe that
faith alone is on our part the means, instrument, or condition (of which
afterward) of our justification, all the prophets and apostles were so, and
were so taught to be by Jesus Christ; as shall be proved. If they mean
those who affirm that the faith whereby we are justified is alone,
separate, or separable, from a principle and the fruit of holy obedience,
they must find them out themselves, we know nothing of them. For we allow
no faith to be of the same kind or nature with that whereby we are
justified, but what virtually and radically contains in it universal
obedience, as the effect is in the cause, the fruit in the root, and which
acts itself in all particular duties, according as by rule and
circumstances they are made so to be. Yea, we allow no faith to be
justifying, or to be of the same kind with it, which is not itself, and in
its own nature, a spiritually vital principle of obedience and good
works. And if this be not sufficient to prevail with some not to seek for
advantages by such shameful calumnies, yet is it so with others, to free
their minds from any concernment in them.
[As] for the especial nature of justifying faith, which we
inquire into, the things whereby it is evidenced may be reduced unto these
four heads:— 1. The causes of it on the part of God. 2. What is in
us previously required unto it. 3. The proper
object of it. 4. Its proper peculiar acts and
effects. Which shall be spoken unto so far as is necessary unto our
present design:—
1. The doctrine of the causes of faith, as unto its
first original in the divine will, and the way of its communication unto
us, is so large, and so immixed with that of the way and manner of the
operation of efficacious grace in conversion (which I have handled
elsewhere), as that I shall not here insist upon it. For as it cannot in a
few words be spoken unto, according unto its weight and worth, so to engage
into a full handling of it would too much divert us from our present
argument. This I shall only say, that from thence it may be uncontrollable
evidenced, that the faith whereby we are justified is of an especial
kind or nature, wherein no other faith, which justification is not
inseparable from, does partake with it.
2. Wherefore, our first inquiry is concerning what was
proposed in the second place, — namely, What is on our part, in a way of
duty, previously required thereunto; or, what is necessary to be found
in us antecedaneously unto our believing unto the justification of life?
And I say there is supposed in them in whom this faith is wrought, on whom
it is bestowed, and whose duty it is to believe therewith, the work of
the law in the conviction of sin; or, conviction of sin is a necessary
antecedent unto justifying faith. Many have disputed what belongs
hereunto, and what effects it produces in the mind, that dispose the soul
unto the receiving of the promise of the gospel. But whereas there are
different apprehensions about these effects or concomitants of conviction
(in compunction, humiliation, self-judging, with sorrow for sin committed,
and the like), as also about the degrees of them, as ordinarily prerequired
unto faith and conversion unto God, I shall speak very briefly unto them,
so far as they are inseparable from the conviction asserted. And I shall
first consider this conviction itself, with what is essential thereunto,
and then the effects of it in conjunction with that temporary faith before
spoken of. I shall do so, not as unto their nature, the knowledge whereof
I take for granted, but only as they have respect unto our
justification.
(1.) As to the first, I say, the work of conviction
in general, whereby the soul of man has a practical understanding of the
nature of sin, its guilt, and the punishment due unto it; and is made
sensible of his own interest therein, both with respect unto sin original
and actual, with his own utter disability to deliver himself out of the
state and condition wherein on the account of these things he finds himself
to be, — is that which we affirm to be antecedaneously necessary
unto justifying faith; that is, in the adult, and of whose
justification the word is the external means and instrument.
A convinced sinner is only “subjectum capax
justificationis,” — not that every one that is convinced
is or must necessarily be justified. There is not any such
disposition or preparation of the subject by this conviction, its
effects, and consequent, as that the form of justification, as the Papists
speak, or justifying grace, must necessarily ensue or be introduced
thereon. Nor is there any such preparation in it, as that, by virtue of
any divine compact or promise, a person so convinced shall be pardoned and
justified. But as a man may believe with any kind of faith that is not
justifying, such as that before mentioned, without this conviction; so it
is ordinarily previous and necessary so to be, unto that faith which is
unto the justification of life. The motive unto it is not that thereon a
man shall be assuredly justified; but that without it he cannot be so.
This, I say, is required in the person to be justified, in
order of nature antecedaneously unto that faith whereby we are justified;
which we shall prove with the ensuing arguments:— For, [1.] Without the due
consideration and supposition of it, the true nature of faith can never be
understood. For, as we have showed before, justification is God’s way of
the deliverance of the convinced sinner, or one whose mouth is stopped, and
who is guilty before God, — obnoxious to the law, and shut up under sin. A
sense, therefore, of this estate, and all that belongs unto it, is required
unto believing. Hence Le Blanc, who has
searched with some diligence into these things, commends the definition of
faith given by Mestrezat, — that it is “the
flight of a penitent sinner unto the mercy of God in Christ.” And there
is, indeed, more sense and truth in it than in twenty others that seem more
accurate. But without a supposition of the conviction mentioned, there is
no understanding of this definition of faith. For it is that alone which
puts the soul upon a flight unto the mercy of God in Christ, to be saved
from the wrath to come. Heb. vi. 18,
“Fled for refuge.”
[2.] The order, relation, and use of the law
and the gospel do uncontrollably evince the necessity of this conviction
previous unto believing. For that which any man has first to deal withal,
with respect unto his eternal condition, both naturally and by God’s
institution, is the law. This is first presented unto the soul with its
terms of righteousness and life, and with its curse in case
of failure. Without this the gospel cannot be understood, nor the grace of
it duly valued. For it is the revelation of God’s way for the relieving
the souls of men from the sentence and curse of the law, Rom.
i. 17. That was the nature, that was the use and end of the
first promise, and of the whole work of God’s grace revealed in all the
ensuing promises, or in the whole gospel. Wherefore, the faith which we
treat of being evangelical, — that which, in its especial nature and use,
not the law but the gospel requires, that which has the gospel for its
principle, rule, and object, — it is not required of us, cannot
be acted by us, but on a supposition of the work and effect of the law in
the conviction of sin, by giving the knowledge of it, a sense of its guilt,
and the state of the sinner on the account thereof. And that faith which
has not respect hereunto, we absolutely deny to be that faith whereby we
are justified, Gal. iii.
22–24; Rom. x. 4.
[3.] This our Saviour himself directly teaches in the
gospel. For he calls unto him only those who are weary and heavily laden;
affirms that the “whole have no need of the physician, but the sick;” and
that he “came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” In
all which he intends not those who were really sinners, as all men are, —
for he makes a difference between them, offering the gospel unto some and
not unto others, — but such as were convinced of sin, burdened with it, and
sought after deliverance.
So those unto whom the apostle Peter proposed the promise
of the gospel, with the pardon of sin thereby as the object of gospel
faith, were “pricked to the heart” upon the conviction of their sin, and
cried, “What shall we do?” Acts ii.
37–39. Such, also, was the state of the jailer unto whom the
apostle Paul proposed salvation by Christ, as what he was to believe for
his deliverance, Acts xvi.
30, 31.
[4.] The state of Adam, and God’s dealing with him therein,
is the best representation of the order and method of these things. As he
was after the fall, so are we by nature, in the very same state and
condition. Really he was utterly lost by sin, and convinced he was
both of the nature of his sin and of the effects of it, in that act of God
by the law on his mind, which is called the “opening of his eyes.” For it
was nothing but the communication unto his mind by his conscience of a
sense of the nature, guilt, effects, and consequents of sin; which the law
could then teach him, and could not do so before. This fills him with
shame and fear; against the former whereof he provided by
fig-leaves, and against the latter by hiding himself among the trees of the
garden. Nor, however they may please themselves with them, are any of the
contrivances of men, for freedom and safety from sin, either wiser or more
likely to have success. In this condition God, by an immediate inquisition
into the matter of fact, sharpens this conviction by the addition of his
own testimony unto its truth, and casts him actually under the curse of the
law, in a juridical denunciation of it. In this lost, forlorn, hopeless
condition, God proposes the promise of redemption by Christ unto him. And
this was the object of that faith whereby he was to be justified.
Although these things are not thus eminently and distinctly
translated in the minds and consciences of all who are called unto
believing by the gospel, yet for the substance of them, and as to the
previousness of the conviction of sin unto faith, they are
found in all that sincerely believe.
These things are known, and, for the substance of them,
generally agreed unto. But yet are they such as, being duly considered,
will discover the vanity and mistakes of many definitions of faith that are
obtruded on us. For any definition or description of it which has not
express, or at least virtual, respect hereunto, is but a deceit, and no way
answers the experience of them that truly believe. And such are all those
who place it merely in an assent unto divine revelation, of what
nature soever that assent be, and whatever effects are ascribed unto it.
For such an assent there may be, without any respect unto this work of the
law. Neither do I, to speak plainly, at all value the most accurate
disputations of any about the nature and act of justifying faith, who never
had in themselves an experience of the work of the law in conviction and
condemnation for sin, with the effects of it upon their consciences; or
[who] do omit the due consideration of their own experience, wherein what
they truly believe is better stated than in all their disputations. That
faith whereby we are justified is, in general, the acting of the soul
towards God, as revealing himself in the gospel, for deliverance out of
this state and condition, or from under the curse of the law applied unto
the conscience, according to his mind, and by the ways that he has
appointed. I give not this as any definition of faith, but only express
what has a necessary influence unto it, whence the nature of it may be
discerned.
(2.) The effects of this conviction, with their
respect unto our justification, real or pretended, may also be briefly
considered. And whereas this conviction is a mere work of the law, it is
not, with respect unto these effects, to be considered alone, but in
conjunction with, and under the conduct of, that temporary faith of the
gospel before described. And these two, temporary faith and
legal conviction, are the principles of all works or duties in
religion antecedent unto justification; and which, therefore, we must deny
to have in them any causality thereof. But it is granted that many acts
and duties, both internal and external, will ensue on real convictions.
Those that are internal may be reduced unto three heads:— [1.]
Displicency and sorrow that we have sinned. It is impossible
that any one should be really convinced of sin in the way before declared,
but that a dislike of sin, and of himself that he has sinned, shame of it,
and sorrow for it, will ensue thereon. And it is a sufficient evidence
that he is not really convinced of sin, whatever he profess, or whatever
confession he make, whose mind is not so affected, Jer. xxxvi.
24. [2.] Fear of punishment due to sin. For conviction
respects not only the instructive and preceptive part of the law, whereby
the being and nature of sin are discovered, but the sentence and curse of
it also, whereby it is judged and condemned, Gen. iv. 13, 14. Wherefore, where fear
of the punishment threatened does not ensue, no person is really convinced
of sin; nor has the law had its proper work towards him, as it is previous
unto the administration of the gospel. And whereas by faith we “fly from
the wrath to come,” where there is not a sense and apprehension of that
wrath as due unto us, there is no ground or reason for our believing. [3.]
A desire of deliverance from that state wherein a convinced sinner
finds himself upon his conviction is unavoidable unto him. And it is
naturally the first thing that conviction works in the minds of men, and
that in various degrees of care, fear, solicitude, and restlessness; which,
from experience and the conduct of Scripture light, have been explained by
many, unto the great benefit of the church, and sufficiently derided by
others. Secondly, These internal acts of the mind will also produce sundry
external duties, which may be referred unto two heads:— [1.]
Abstinence from known sin unto the utmost of men’s power. For they
who begin to find that it is an evil thing and a bitter that they have
sinned against God, cannot but endeavour a future abstinence from it. And
as this has respect unto all the former internal acts, as causes of it, so
it is a peculiar exurgency of the last of them, or a desire of deliverance
from the state wherein such persons are. For this they suppose to be the
best expedient for it, or at least that without which it will not be. And
herein usually do their spirits act by promises and vows, with renewed
sorrow on surprisals into sin, which will befall them in that condition.
[2.] The duties of religious worship, in prayer and hearing of the
word, with diligence in the use of the ordinances of the church, will ensue
hereon. For without these they know that no deliverance is to be obtained.
Reformation of life and conversation in various degrees does partly
consist in these things, and partly follow upon them. And these things are
always so, where the convictions of men are real and abiding.
But yet it must be said, that they are neither severally
nor jointly, though in the highest degree, either necessary dispositions,
preparations, previous congruities in a way of merit, nor conditions of our
justification. For, —
[1.] They are not conditions of justification. For
where one thing is the condition of another, that other thing must follow
the fulfilling of that condition, otherwise the condition of it, it is not;
but they may be all found where justification does not ensue: wherefore,
there is no covenant, promise, or constitution of God, making them to be
such conditions of justification, though, in their own nature, they may be
subservient unto what is required of us with respect thereunto; but a
certain infallible connection with it, by virtue of any promise
or covenant of God (as it is with faith), they have not. And other
condition, but what is constituted and made to be so by divine compact or
promise, is not to be allowed; for otherwise, conditions might be endlessly
multiplied, and all things, natural as well as moral, made to be so. So
the meat we eat may be a condition of justification. Faith and
justification are inseparable; but so are not justification and the things
we now insist upon, as experience does evince.
[2.] Justification may be, where the outward acts
and duties mentioned, proceeding from convictions under the conduct of
temporary faith, are not. For Adam was justified without them; so also
were the converts in the Acts, chap. ii., —
for what is reported concerning them is all of it essentially included in
conviction, verse 37; and so likewise was it with
the jailer, Acts xvi.
30, 31; and as unto many of them, it is so with most that do
believe. Therefore, they are not conditions; for a condition suspends the
event of a condition.
[3.] They are not formal dispositions unto
justification; because it consists not in the introduction of any new form
or inherent quality in the soul, as has been in part already declared, and
shall yet afterwards be more fully evinced. Nor, — [4.] Are they moral
preparations for it; for being antecedent unto faith evangelical, no
man can have any design in them, but only to “seek for righteousness by the
works of the law,” which is no preparation unto justification. All
discoveries of the righteousness of God, with the soul’s adherence unto it,
belong to faith alone. There is, indeed, a repentance which accompanies
faith, and is included in the nature of it, at least radically. This is
required unto our justification. But that legal repentance which precedes
gospel faith, and is without it, is neither a disposition, preparation, nor
condition of our justification.
In brief, the order of these things may be observed in the
dealing of God with Adam, as was before intimated. And there are three
degrees in it:— [1.] The opening of the eyes of the sinner, to see
the filth and guilt of sin in the sentence and curse of the law applied
unto his conscience, Rom. vii. 9,
10. This effects in the mind of the sinner the things before
mentioned, and puts him upon all the duties that spring from them. For
persons on their first convictions, ordinarily judge no more but that their
state being evil and dangerous, it is their duty to better it; and that
they can or shall do so accordingly, if they apply themselves thereunto.
But all these things, as to a protection or deliverance from the sentence
of the law, are no better than fig-leaves and hiding. [2.] Ordinarily, God
by his providence, or in the dispensation of the word, gives life and power
unto this work of the law in a peculiar manner; in answer unto the charge
which he gave unto Adam after his attempt to hide himself.
Hereby the “mouth of the sinner is stopped,” and he becomes, as thoroughly
sensible of his guilt before God, so satisfied that there is no relief or
deliverance to be expected from any of those ways of sorrow or duty that he
has put himself upon. [3.] In this condition it is a mere act of
sovereign grace, without any respect unto these things foregoing, to
call the sinner unto believing, or faith in the promise unto the
justification of life. This is God’s order; yet so as that what precedes
his call unto faith has no causality thereof.
3. The next thing to be inquired into is the proper
object of justifying faith, or of true faith, in its office, work, and
duty, with respect unto our justification. And herein we must first
consider what we cannot so well close withal. For besides other
differences that seem to be about it (which, indeed, are but different
explanations of the same thing for the substance), there are two opinions
which are looked on as extremes, the one in an excess, and the other in
defect. The first is that of the Roman church, and those who comply with
them therein. And this is, that the object of justifying faith, as such,
is all divine verity, all divine revelation, whether written in the
Scripture or delivered by tradition, represented unto us by the authority
of the church. In the latter part of this description we are not at
present concerned. That the whole Scripture, and all the parts of it, and
all the truths, of what sort soever they be, that are contained in it, are
equally the objects of faith in the discharge of its office in our
justification, is that which they maintain. Hence, as to the nature of it,
they cannot allow it to consist in any thing but an assent of the
mind. For, supposing the whole Scripture, and all contained in it, —
laws, precepts, promises, threatening, stories, prophecies, and the like, —
to be the object of it, and these not as containing in them things good or
evil unto us, but under this formal consideration as divinely revealed,
they cannot assign or allow any other act of the mind to be required
hereunto, but assent only. And so confident are they herein, — namely,
that faith is no more than an assent unto divine revelation, — as that
Bellarmine, in opposition unto Calvin, who placed knowledge in the
description of justifying faith, affirms that it is better defined by
ignorance than by knowledge.
This description of justifying faith and its object has
been so discussed, and on such evident grounds of Scripture and reason
rejected by Protestant writers of all sorts, as that it is needless to
insist much upon it again. Some things I shall observe in relation unto
it, whereby we may discover what is of truth in what they assert, and
wherein it falls short thereof. Neither shall I respect only them of the
Roman church who require no more to faith or believing, but only a bare
assent of the mind unto divine revelations, but them also who
place it wholly in such a firm assent as produces obedience unto all divine
commands. For as it does both these, as both these are included in it, so
unto the especial nature of it more is required. It is, as justifying,
neither a mere assent, nor any such firm degree of it as should produce
such effects.
(1.) All faith whatever is an act of that power of our
souls, in general, whereby we are able firmly to assent unto the truth upon
testimony, in things not evident unto us by sense or reason. It is “the
evidence of things not seen.” And all divine faith is in general an assent
unto the truth that is proposed unto us upon divine testimony. And hereby,
as it is commonly agreed, it is distinguished from opinion and moral
certainty on the one hand, and science or demonstration on the other.
(2.) Wherefore, in justifying faith there is an assent unto
all divine revelation upon the testimony of God, the revealer. By no other
act of our mind, wherein this is not included or supposed, can we be
justified; not because it is not justifying, but because it is not faith.
This assent, I say, is included in justifying faith. And therefore we find
it often spoken of in the Scripture (the instances whereof are gathered up
by Bellarmine and others) with respect unto
other things, and not restrained unto the especial promise of grace in
Christ; which is that which they oppose. But besides that in most places
of that kind the proper object of faith as justifying is included and
referred ultimately unto, though diversely expressed by some of its causes
or concomitant adjuncts, it is granted that we believe all divine
truth with that very faith whereby we are justified, so as that other
things may well be ascribed unto it.
(3.) On these concessions we yet say two things:— [1.] That
the whole nature of justifying faith does not consist merely in an assent
of the mind, be it never so firm and steadfast, nor whatever effects of
obedience it may produce. [2.] That in its duty and office in
justification, whence it has that especial denomination which alone we are
in the explanation of, it does not equally respect all divine revelation as
such, but has a peculiar object proposed unto it in the Scripture. And
whereas both these will be immediately evinced in our description of the
proper object and nature of faith, I shall, at present, oppose some few
things unto this description of them, sufficient to manifest how alien it
is from the truth.
1st. This assent is an act of the
understanding only, — an act of the mind with respect unto truth
evidenced unto it, be it of what nature it will. So we believe the worst
of things and the most grievous unto us, as well as the best and the most
useful. But believing is an act of the heart; which, in the
Scriptures comprises all the faculties of the soul as one entire principle
of moral and spiritual duties: “With the heart man believeth
unto righteousness,” Rom. x. 10.
And it is frequently described by an act of the will, though it be not so
alone. But without an act of the will, no man can believe as he ought.
See John v. 40; i. 12;
vi. 35. We come to Christ in an act of the will; and “let
whosoever will, come.” And to be willing is taken for to believe,
Ps. cx. 3; and unbelief is disobedience,
Heb. iii. 18, 19.
2dly. All divine truth is equally the
object of this assent. It respects not the especial nature or use of any
one truth, be it of what kind it will, more than another; nor can it do so,
since it regards only divine revelation. Hence that Judas was the traitor,
must have as great an influence into our justification as that Christ died
for our sins. But how contrary this is unto the Scripture, the analogy of
faith, and the experience of all that believe, needs neither declaration
nor confirmation.
3dly. This assent unto all divine revelation
may be true and sincere, where there has been no previous work of
the law, nor any conviction of sin. No such thing is required thereunto,
nor are they found in many who yet do so assent unto the truth. But, as we
have showed, this is necessary unto evangelical, justifying faith; and to
suppose the contrary, is to overthrow the order and use of the law and
gospel, with their mutual relation unto one another, in subserviency unto
the design of God in the salvation of sinners.
4thly. It is not a way of seeking relief
unto a convinced sinner, whose mouth is stopped, in that he is become
guilty before God. Such alone are capable subjects of justification, and
do or can seek after it in a due manner. A mere assent unto divine
revelation is not peculiarly suited to give such persons relief: for it is
that which brings them into that condition from whence they are to be
relieved; for the knowledge of sin is by the law. But faith is a peculiar
acting of the soul for deliverance.
5thly. It is no more than what the devils
themselves may have, and have, as the apostle James affirms. For that
instance of their believing one God, proves that they believe also whatever
this one God, who is the first essential truth, does reveal to be true.
And it may consist with all manner of wickedness, and without any
obedience; and so make God a liar, 1 John v.
10. And it is no wonder if men deny us to be justified by
faith, who know no other faith but this.
6thly. It no way answers the
descriptions that are given of justifying faith in the Scripture.
Particularly, it is by faith as it is justifying that we are said to
“receive” Christ, John i. 12;
Col. ii. 6; — to “receive” the promise,
the word, the grace of God, the atonement, James i. 21;
John iii. 33; Acts ii. 41; xi. 1;
Rom. v. 11; Heb. xi.
17; — to “cleave unto God,” Deut. iv.
4; Acts xi. 23. And so, in the Old
Testament it is generally expressed by trust and hope. Now, none of these
things are contained in a mere assent unto the truth; but they require
other actings of the soul than what are peculiar unto the understanding
only.
7thly. It answers not the experience of
them that truly believe. This all our inquiries and arguments in this
matter must have respect unto. For the sum of what we aim at is, only to
discover what they do who really believe unto the justification of life.
It is not what notions men may have hereof, nor how they express their
conceptions, how defensible they are against objections by accuracy of
expressions and subtle distinctions; but only what we ourselves do, if we
truly believe, that we inquire after. And although our differences about
it do argue the great imperfection of that state wherein we are, so as that
those who truly believe cannot agree what they do in their so doing, —
which should give us a mutual tenderness and forbearance towards each
other; — yet if men would attend unto their own experience in the
application of their souls unto God for the pardon of sin and righteousness
to life, more than unto the notions which, on various occasions, their
minds are influenced by, or prepossessed withal, many differences and
unnecessary disputations about the nature of justifying faith would be
prevented or prescinded. I deny, therefore, that this general assent unto
the truth, how firm soever it be, or what effects in the way of duty or
obedience soever it may produce, does answer the experience of any one true
believer, as containing the entire acting of his soul towards God for
pardon of sin and justification.
8thly. That faith alone is justifying which has
justification actually accompanying of it. For thence alone it has that
denomination. To suppose a man to have justifying faith, and not to be
justified, is to suppose a contradiction. Nor do we inquire after the
nature of any other faith but that whereby a believer is actually
justified. But it is not so with all them in whom this assent is found;
nor will those that plead for it allow that upon it alone any are
immediately justified. Wherefore it is sufficiently evident that there is
somewhat more required unto justifying faith than a real assent unto all
divine revelations, although we do give that assent by the faith whereby we
are justified.
But, on the other side, it is supposed that, by some, the
object of justifying faith is so much restrained, and the nature of it
thereby determined unto such a peculiar acting of the mind, as comprises
not the whole of what is in the Scripture ascribed unto it. So some have
said that it is the pardon of our sins, in particular, that is the object
of justifying faith; — faith, therefore, they make to be a full persuasion of the forgiveness of our sins through the mediation of
Christ; or, that what Christ did and suffered as our mediator, he did it
for us in particular: and a particular application of especial mercy unto
our own souls and consciences is hereby made the essence of faith; or, to
believe that our own sins are forgiven seems hereby to be the first and
most proper act of justifying faith. Hence it would follow, that whosoever
does not believe, or has not a firm persuasion of the forgiveness of his
own sins in particular, has no saving faith, — is no true believer; which
is by no means to be admitted. And if any have been or are of this
opinion, I fear that they were, in the asserting of it, neglective of their
own experience; or, it may be, rather, that they knew not how, in their
experience, all the other acting of faith, wherein its
essence does consist, were included in this persuasion, which in an
especial manner they aimed at: whereof we shall speak afterwards. And
there is no doubt unto me, but that this which they propose, faith is
suited unto, aims at, and does ordinarily effect in true believers, who
improve it, and grow in its exercise in a due manner.
Many great divines, at the first Reformation, did (as the
Lutherans generally yet do) thus make the mercy of God in Christ, and
thereby the forgiveness of our own sins, to be the proper object of
justifying faith, as such; — whose essence, therefore, they placed in a
fiducial trust in the grace of God by Christ declared in the
promises, with a certain unwavering application of them unto ourselves.
And I say, with some confidence, that those who endeavour not to attain
hereunto, either understand not the nature of believing, or are very
neglective, both of the grace of God and of their own peace.
That which inclined those great and holy persons so to
express themselves in this matter, and to place the essence of faith
in the highest acting of it (wherein yet they always included and
supposed its other acts), was the state of the consciences of men with whom
they had to do. Their contest in this article with the Roman church, was
about the way and means whereby the consciences of convinced, troubled
sinners might come to rest and peace with God. For at that time they were
no otherwise instructed, but that these things were to be obtained, not
only by works of righteousness which men did themselves, in
obedience unto the commands of God, but also by the strict observance of
many inventions of what they called the Church; with an ascription of a
strange efficacy to the same ends unto missatical sacrifices, sacramentals,
absolutions, penances, pilgrimages, and other the like superstitions.
Hereby they observed that the consciences of men were kept in perpetual
disquietments, perplexities, fears and bondage, exclusive of that rest,
assurance, and peace with God through the blood of Christ, which the gospel
proclaims and tenders; and when the leaders of the people in
that church had observed this, that indeed the ways and means which they
proposed and presented would never bring the souls of men to rest, nor give
them the least assurance of the pardon of sins, they made it a part
of their doctrine, that the belief of the pardon of our own sins, and
assurance of the love of God in Christ, were false and pernicious. For
what should they else do, when they knew well enough that in their way, and
by their propositions, they were not to be attained? Hence the principal
controversy in this matter, which the reformed divines had with those of
the church of Rome, was this, — Whether there be, according unto and by
the gospel, a state of rest and assured peace with God to be attained in
his life? And having all advantages imaginable for the proof hereof,
from the very nature, use, and end of the gospel, — from the grace, love,
and design of God in Christ, — from the efficacy of his mediation in his
oblation and intercession, — they assigned these things to be the especial
object of justifying faith, and that faith itself to be a fiduciary trust
in the especial grace and mercy of God, through the blood of Christ, as
proposed in the promises of the gospel; — that is, they directed the souls
of men to seek for peace with God, the pardon of sin, and a right unto the
heavenly inheritance, by placing their sole trust and confidence in the
mercy of God by Christ alone. But yet, withal, I never read any of them (I
know not what others have done) who affirmed that every true and sincere
believer always had a full assurance of the especial love of God in
Christ, or of the pardon of his own sins, — though they plead that this
the Scripture requires of them in a way of duty, and that this they ought
to aim at the attainment of.
And these things I shall leave as I find them, unto the use
of the church. For I shall not contend with any about the way and manner
of expressing the truth, where the substance of it is retained.
That which in these things is aimed at, is the advancement and glory of the
grace of God in Christ, with the conduct of the souls of men unto rest and
peace with him. Where this is attained or aimed at, and that in the way of
truth for the substance of it, variety of apprehensions and expressions
concerning the same things may tend unto the useful exercise of faith and
the edification of the church. Wherefore, neither opposing nor rejecting
what has been delivered by others as their judgments herein, I shall
propose my own thoughts concerning it; not without some hopes that they may
tend to communicate light in the knowledge of the thing itself inquired
into, and the reconciliation of some differences about it amongst learned
and holy men. I say, therefore, that the Lord Jesus Christ himself, as
the ordinance of God, in his work of mediation for the recovery and salvation of lost sinners, and as unto that end proposed in
the promise of the gospel, is the adequate, proper object of justifying
faith, or of saving faith in its work and duty with respect unto our
justification.
The reason why I thus state the object of justifying faith
is, because it completely answers all that is ascribed unto it in the
Scripture, and all that the nature of it does require. What belongs unto
it as faith in general, is here supposed; and what is peculiar unto it as
justifying, is fully expressed. And a few things will serve for the
explication of the thesis, which shall afterwards be confirmed.
(1.) The Lord Jesus Christ himself is asserted to be
the proper object of justifying faith. For so it is required in all those
testimonies of Scripture where that faith is declared to be our believing
in him, on his name, our receiving of him, or looking unto him; whereunto
the promise of justification and eternal life is annexed: whereof
afterwards. See John
i. 12; iii. 16, 36; vi. 29, 47; vii. 38; xiv. 12; Acts
x. 43; xiii. 38, 39; xvi. 31; xxvi. 18, etc.
(2.) He is not proposed as the object of our faith unto the
justification of life absolutely, but as the ordinance of
God, even the Father, unto that end: who therefore also is the
immediate object of faith as justifying; in what respects we shall declare
immediately. So justification is frequently ascribed unto faith as
peculiarly acted on him, John v. 24,
“He that believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
not come into judgment; but is passed from death unto life.” And herein is
comprised that grace, love, and favour of God, which is the principal
moving cause of our justification, Rom. iii. 23,
24. Add hereunto John vi. 29,
and the object of faith is complete: “This is the work of God, that ye
believe on him whom he hath sent.” God the Father as sending, and
the Son as sent, — that is, Jesus Christ in the work of his
mediation, as the ordinance of God for the recovery and salvation of lost
sinners, is the object of our faith. See 1 Pet. i.
21.
(3.) That he may be the object of our faith, whose general
nature consists in assent, and which is the foundation of all its other
acts, he is proposed in the promises of the gospel; which I therefore place
as concurring unto its complete object. Yet do I not herein consider the
promises merely as peculiar divine revelations, in which sense they belong
unto the formal object of faith; but as they contain, propose, and
exhibit Christ as the ordinance of God, and the benefits of his mediation,
unto them that do believe. There is an especial assent unto the promises
of the gospel, wherein some place the nature and essence of justifying
faith, or of faith in its work and duty with respect unto our
justification. And so they make the promises of the gospel to be the
proper object of it. And it cannot be but that, in the actings
of justifying faith, there is a peculiar assent unto them. Howbeit, this
being only an act of the mind, neither the whole nature nor the
whole work of faith can consist therein. Wherefore, so far as the promises
concur to the complete object of faith, they are considered materially
also, — namely, as they contain, propose, and exhibit Christ unto
believers. And in that sense are they frequently affirmed in the Scripture
to be the object of our faith unto the justification of life,
Acts ii. 39; xxvi.
6; Rom. iv. 16, 20; xv.
8; Gal. iii. 16,
18; Heb. iv. 1;
vi. 13; viii. 6; x. 36.
(4.) The end for which the Lord Christ, in the work
of his mediation, is the ordinance of God, and as such proposed in the
promises of the gospel, — namely, the recovery and salvation of lost
sinners, — belongs unto the object of faith as justifying. Hence, the
forgiveness of sin and eternal life are proposed in the Scripture as things
that are to be believed unto justification, or as the object of our faith,
Matt. ix. 2; Acts ii. 38, 39; v.
31; xxvi. 18; Rom. iii. 25; iv. 7, 8;
Col. ii. 13; Tit. i. 2,
etc. And whereas the just is to live by his faith, and every one is to
believe for himself, or make an application of the things believed unto his
own behoof, some from hence have affirmed the pardon of our own sins and
our own salvation to be the proper object of faith; and indeed it does
belong thereunto, when, in the way and order of God and the gospel, we can
attain unto it, 1 Cor. xv. 3,
4; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. i. 6,
7.
Wherefore, asserting the Lord Jesus Christ, in the work of
his mediation, to be the object of faith unto justification, I include
therein the grace of God, which is the cause; the pardon of sin, which is
the effect; and the promises of the gospel, which are the means, of
communicating Christ and the benefits of his mediation unto us.
And all these things are so united, so intermixed in their
mutual relations and respects, so concatenated in the purpose of God, and
the declaration made of his will in the gospel, as that the believing of
any one of them does virtually include the belief of the rest. And by whom
any one of them is disbelieved, they frustrate and make void all the rest,
and so faith itself.
The due consideration of these things solves all the
difficulties that arise about the nature of faith, either from the
Scripture or from the experience of them that believe, with respect unto
its object. Many things in the Scripture are we said to believe with it
and by it, and that unto justification; but two things are hence evident:—
First, That no one of them can be asserted to be the complete, adequate
object of our faith. Secondly, That none of them are so
absolutely, but as they relate unto the Lord Christ, as the
ordinance of God for our justification and salvation.
And this answers the experience of all that do truly
believe. For these things being united and made inseparable in
the constitution of God, all of them are virtually included in every one of
them. (1.) Some fix their faith and trust principally on the
grace, love, and mercy of God; especially they did so under the Old
Testament, before the clear revelation of Christ and his mediation. So did
the psalmist, Ps. cxxx. 3, 4; xxxiii. 18,
19; and the publican, Luke xviii.
13. And these are, in places of the Scripture innumerable,
proposed as the causes of our justification. See Rom. iii.
24; Eph. ii.
4–8; Tit. iii.
5–7. But this they do not absolutely, but with respect unto the
“redemption that is in the blood of Christ,” Dan. ix. 17.
Nor does the Scripture anywhere propose them unto us but under that
consideration. See Rom. iii. 24,
25; Eph. i.
6–8. For this is the cause, way, and means of the communication
of that grace, love, and mercy unto us. (2.) Some place and fix them
principally on the Lord Christ, his mediation, and the benefits
thereof. This the apostle Paul proposes frequently unto us in his own
example. See Gal. ii. 20; Phil.
iii. 8–10. But this they do not absolutely, but with
respect unto the grace and love of God, whence it is that they are given
and communicated unto us, Rom. viii. 32;
John iii. 16; Eph. i.
6–8. Nor are they otherwise anywhere proposed unto us in the
Scripture as the object of our faith unto justification. (3.) Some in a
peculiar manner fix their souls, in believing, on the promises. And
this is exemplified in the instance of Abraham, Gen. xv. 6;
Rom. iv. 20. And so are they proposed in
the Scripture as the object of our faith, Acts ii. 39;
Rom. iv. 16; Heb. iv. 1, 2; vi. 12, 13.
But this they do not merely as they are divine revelations, but as they
contain and propose unto us the Lord Christ and the benefits of his
mediation, from the grace, love, and mercy of God. Hence the apostle
disputes at large, in his Epistle unto the Galatians, that if justification
be any way but by the promise, both the grace of God and the death of
Christ are evacuated and made of none effect. And the reason is, because
the promise is nothing but the way and means of the communication of them
unto us. (4.) Some fix their faith on the things themselves which they aim
at, — namely, the pardon of sin and eternal life. And these also in
the Scripture are proposed unto us as the object of our faith, or that
which we are to believe unto justification, Ps. cxxx. 4;
Acts xxvi. 18; Tit. i.
2. But this is to be done in its proper order, especially as
unto the application of them unto our own souls. For we are nowhere
required to believe them, or our own interest in them, but as they are
effects of the grace and love of God, through Christ and his mediation,
proposed in the promises of the gospel. Wherefore the belief of them is
included in the belief of these, and is in order of nature antecedent
thereunto. And the belief of the forgiveness of sins, and eternal life,
without the due exercise of faith in those causes of them, is
but presumption.
I have, therefore, given the entire object of faith as
justifying, or in its work and duty with respect unto our justification, in
compliance with the testimonies of the Scripture, and the experience of
them that believe.
Allowing, therefore, their proper place unto the promises,
and unto the effect of all in the pardon of sins and eternal life, that
which I shall farther confirm is, that the Lord Christ, in the work of
his mediation, as the ordinance of God for the recovery and salvation of
lost sinners, is the proper adequate object of justifying faith. And
the true nature of evangelical faith consists in the respect of the heart
(which we shall immediately describe) unto the love, grace, and wisdom of
God; with the mediation of Christ, in his obedience; with the sacrifice,
satisfaction, and atonement for sin which he made by his blood. These
things are impiously opposed by some as inconsistent; for the second head
of the Socinian impiety is, that the grace of God and
satisfaction of Christ are opposite and inconsistent, so as that if
we allow of the one we must deny the other. But as these things are so
proposed in the Scripture, as that without granting them both neither can
be believed; so faith, which respects them as subordinate, — namely, the
mediation of Christ unto the grace of God, that fixes itself on the Lord
Christ and that redemption which is in his blood, — as the ordinance of
God, the effect of his wisdom, grace, and love, finds rest in both, and in
nothing else.
For the proof of the assertion, I need not labour in it, it
being not only abundantly declared in the Scripture, but that which
contains in it a principal part of the design and substance of the gospel.
I shall, therefore, only refer unto some of the places wherein it is
taught, or the testimonies that are given unto it.
The whole is expressed in that place of the apostle wherein
the doctrine of justification is most eminently proposed unto us, Rom. iii. 24, 25, “Being justified
freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom
God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood; to
declare his righteousness for the remission of sins.” Whereunto we may
add, Eph. i. 6, 7, “He has made us accepted in
the Beloved; in whom we have redemption through his blood, according to the
riches of his grace.” That whereby we are justified, is the especial
object of our faith unto justification. But this is the Lord Christ in the
work of his mediation: for we are justified by the redemption that is in
Jesus Christ; for in him we have redemption through his blood, even the
forgiveness of sin. Christ as a propitiation is the cause of our
justification, and the object of our faith, or we attain it by faith in his
blood. But this is so under this formal consideration, as he
is the ordinance of God for that end, — appointed, given, proposed, set
forth from and by the grace, wisdom, and love of God. God set him forth to
be a propitiation. He makes us accepted in the Beloved. We have
redemption in his blood, according to the riches of his grace, whereby he
makes us accepted in the Beloved. And herein he “abounds towards us in all
wisdom,” Eph. i. 8. This, therefore, is that which
the gospel proposes unto us, as the especial object of our faith unto the
justification of life.
But we may also in the same manner confirm the several
parts of the assertion distinctly:—
(1.) The Lord Jesus Christ, as proposed in the promise of
the gospel, is the peculiar object of faith unto justification.
There are three sorts of testimonies whereby this is confirmed:—
[1.] Those wherein it is positively asserted, as Acts x. 43, “To him give all the
prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall
receive remission of sins.” Christ believed in as the means and cause of
the remission of sins, is that which all the prophets give witness unto.
Acts xvi. 31, “Believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” It is the answer of the apostle
unto the jailer’s inquiry, — “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” His duty
in believing, and the object of it, the Lord Jesus Christ, is what they
return thereunto. Acts iv. 12,
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name
under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” That which is
proposed unto us, as the only way and means of our justification and
salvation, and that in opposition unto all other ways, is the object of
faith unto our justification; but this is Christ alone, exclusively unto
all other things. This is testified unto by Moses and the prophets; the
design of the whole Scripture being to direct the faith of the church unto
the Lord Christ alone, for life and salvation, Luke xxiv. 25–27.
[2.] All those wherein justifying faith is affirmed to be
our believing in him, or believing on his name; which are multiplied.
John i. 12, “He gave power to them to
become the sons of God, who believed on his name,” chap. iii.
16, “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life;” verse 36, “He that believeth on the Son
hath everlasting life;” chap. vi. 29,
“This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent;”
verse 47, “He that believeth on me hath
everlasting life;” chap. vii. 38,
“He that believeth on me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living
water.” So chap. ix. 35–37; xi.
25; Acts xxvi. 18, “That they may receive
forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by
faith that is in me.” 1 Pet. ii. 6,
7. In all which places, and many others, we are not
only directed to place and affix our faith on him, but the effect of
justification is ascribed thereunto. So expressly, Acts xiii. 38, 39; which is what we
design to prove.
[3.] Those which give us such a description of the acts of
faith as make him the direct and proper object of it. Such are they
wherein it is called a “receiving” of him. John i. 12,
“To as many as received him.” Col. ii. 6, “As
you have received Christ Jesus the Lord.” That which we receive by faith
is the proper object of it; and it is represented by their looking unto the
brazen serpent, when it was lifted up, who were stung by fiery serpents,
John iii. 14, 15; xii.
32. Faith is that act of the soul whereby convinced sinners,
ready otherwise to perish, do look unto Christ as he was made a
propitiation for their sins; and who so do “shall not perish, but have
everlasting life.” He is, therefore, the object of our faith.
(2.) He is so, as he is the ordinance of God unto
this end; which consideration is not to be separated from our faith in him:
and this also is confirmed by several sorts of testimonies:—
[1.] All those wherein the love and grace of
God are proposed as the only cause of giving Jesus Christ to be the way and
means of our recovery and salvation; whence they become, or God in them,
the supreme efficient cause of our justification. John iii.
16, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.” So Rom. v. 8; 1 John
iv. 9, 10. “Being justified through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus,” Rom. iii. 24; Eph. i.
6–8. This the Lord Christ directs our faith unto continually,
referring all unto him that sent him, and whose will he came to do,
Heb. x. 5.
[2.] All those wherein God is said to set forth and to make
him be for us and unto us, what he is so, unto the justification of life.
Rom. iii. 25, “Whom God has proposed to
be a propitiation.” 1 Cor. i. 30,
“Who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification,
and redemption.” 2 Cor. v. 21, “He has made him to be sin
for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in
him.” Acts xiii.
38, 39, etc. Wherefore, in the acting of faith in Christ unto
justification, we can no otherwise consider him but as the ordinance of God
to that end; he brings nothing unto us, does nothing for us, but what God
appointed, designed, and made him to do. And this must diligently be
considered, that by our regard by faith unto the blood, the sacrifice, the
satisfaction of Christ, we take off nothing from the free grace, favour,
and love of God.
[3.] All those wherein the wisdom of God in the contrivance
of this way of justification and salvation is proposed unto us. Eph. i. 7, 8, “In whom we have redemption
through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the
riches of his grace; wherein he hath abounded towards us in all wisdom and
understanding.” See chap. iii. 10,
11; 1 Cor. i. 24.
The whole is comprised in that of the apostle: “God was in
Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses
unto them,” 2 Cor. v. 19. All that is done in our
reconciliation unto God, as unto the pardon of our sins, and acceptance
with him unto life, was by the presence of God, in his grace, wisdom, and
power, in Christ designing and effecting of it.
Wherefore, the Lord Christ, proposed in the promise of the
gospel as the object of our faith unto the justification of life, is
considered as the ordinance of God unto that end. Hence the love, the
grace, and the wisdom of God, in the sending and giving of him, are
comprised in that object; and not only the actings of God in Christ towards
us, but all his actings towards the person of Christ himself unto the same
end, belong thereunto. So, as unto his death, “God set him forth to be a
propitiation,” Rom. iii. 25. “He spared him not, but
delivered him up for us all,” Rom. viii. 32;
and therein “laid all our sins upon him,” Isa. liii. 6.
So he was “raised for our justification,” Rom. iv. 25.
And our faith is in God, who “raised him from the dead,” Rom. x.
9. And in his exaltation, Acts v. 31.
Which things complete “the record that God hath given of his Son,”
1 John v. 10–12.
The whole is confirmed by the exercise of faith in prayer;
which is the soul’s application of itself unto God for the participation of
the benefits of the mediation of Christ. And it is called our “access
through him unto the Father,” Eph. ii. 18; our
coming through him “unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and
find grace to help in time of need,” Heb. iv. 15,
16; and through him as both “a high priest and sacrifice,”
Heb. x. 19–22. So do we “bow our
knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” Eph. iii.
14. This answers the experience of all who know what it is to
pray. We come therein in the name of Christ, by him, through his
mediation, unto God, even the Father; to be, through his grace, love, and
mercy, made partakers of what he has designed and promised to communicate
unto poor sinners by him. And this represents the complete object of our
faith.
The due consideration of these things will reconcile and
reduce unto a perfect harmony whatever is spoken in the Scripture
concerning the object of justifying faith, or what we are said to believe
therewith. For whereas this is affirmed of sundry things distinctly, they
can none of them be supposed to be the entire adequate object of faith.
But consider them all in their relation unto Christ, and they have all of
them their proper place therein, — namely, the grace of God, which is the cause; the pardon of sin, which is the effect; and the
promises of the gospel, which are the means, of communicating the Lord
Christ, and the benefits of his mediation unto us.
The reader may be pleased to take notice, that I do in this
place not only neglect, but despise, the late attempt of some to wrest all
things of this nature, spoken of the person and mediation of Christ, unto
the doctrine of the gospel, exclusively unto them; and that not only as
what is noisome and impious in itself, but as that also which has not yet
been endeavoured to be proved, with any appearance of learning, argument,
or sobriety.
Chapter II. The nature of justifying faith
The nature of justifying faith in particular, or of faith in the
exercise of it, whereby we are justified — The heart’s approbation of the
way of the justification and salvation of sinners by Christ, with its
acquiescency therein — The description given, explained and confirmed:— 1.
From the nature of the gospel — Exemplified in its contrary, or the nature
of unbelief, Prov. i. 30; Heb. ii. 3;
1 Pet. ii. 7; 1
Cor. i. 23, 24; 2 Cor. iv. 3 —
What it is, and wherein it does consist. 2. The design of God in and by
the gospel — His own glory his utmost end in all things — The glory of his
righteousness, grace, love, wisdom, etc. — The end of God in the way of the
salvation of sinners by Christ, Rom. iii. 25;
John iii. 16; 1 John iii.
16; Eph. i. 5,
6; 1 Cor. i. 24; Eph. iii.
10; Rom. i. 16; iv. 16;
Eph. iii. 9; 2 Cor. iv. 6.
3. The nature of faith thence declared — Faith alone ascribes and gives
this glory to God. 4. Order of the acts of faith, or the method in
believing — Convictions previous thereunto — Sincere assent unto all divine
revelations, Acts xxvi. 27 — The proposal of the
gospel unto that end, Rom. x.
11–17; 2 Cor. iii.
18, etc. — State of persons called to believe — Justifying faith
does not consist in any one single habit or act of the mind or will — The
nature of that about which is the first act of faith — Approbation of the
way of salvation by Christ, comprehensive of the special nature of
justifying faith — What is included there in:— 1. A renunciation of all
other ways, Hos. xiv. 2,
3; Jer. iii. 23; Ps. lxxi.
16; Rom. x. 3. 2. Consent of the will unto
this way, John xiv. 6. 3. Acquiescency of the
heart in God, 1 Pet. i. 21. 4. Trust in God. 5.
Faith described by trust — The reason of it — Nature and object of this
trust inquired into — A double consideration of special mercy — Whether
obedience be included in the nature of faith, or be of the essence of it —
A sincere purpose of universal obedience inseparable from faith — How faith
alone justifies — Repentance, how required in and unto justification — How
a condition of the new covenant — Perseverance in obedience is so also —
Definitions of faith
That which we
shall now inquire into, is the nature of justifying
faith; or of faith in that act and exercise of it whereby we are
justified, or whereon justification, according unto God’s ordination and
promise, does ensue. And the reader is desired to take along with him a
supposition of those things which we have already ascribed unto it, as it
is sincere faith in general; as also, of what is required previously
thereunto, as unto its especial nature, work, and duty in our
justification. For we do deny that ordinarily, and according unto the
method of God’s proceeding with us declared in the Scripture, wherein the
rule of our duty is prescribed, any one does, or can, truly believe with
faith unto justification, in whom the work of conviction, before
described, has not been wrought. All descriptions or definitions of faith
that have not a respect thereunto are but vain speculations. And hence
some do give us such definitions of faith as it is hard to conceive that
they ever asked of themselves what they do in their believing on Jesus
Christ for life and salvation.
The nature of justifying faith, with respect unto that
exercise of whereby we are justified, consists in the heart’s
approbation of the way of justification and salvation of sinners by Jesus
Christ proposed in the gospel, as proceeding from the grace, wisdom, and
love of God, with its acquiescency therein as unto its own concernment and
condition.
There needs no more for the explanation of this declaration
of the nature of faith than what we have before proved
concerning its object; and what may seem wanting thereunto will be fully
supplied in the ensuing confirmation of it. The Lord Christ, and his
mediation, as the ordinance of God for the recovery, life, and salvation of
sinners, is supposed as the object of this faith. And they are all
considered as an effect of the wisdom, grace, authority, and love of God,
with all their actings in and towards the Lord Christ himself, in his
susception and discharge of his office. Hereunto he constantly refers all
that he did and suffered, with all the benefits redounding unto the church
thereby. Hence, as we observed before, sometimes the grace, or love, or
especial mercy of God, sometimes his actings in or towards the Lord Christ
himself, in sending him, giving him up unto death, and raising him from the
dead, are proposed as the object of our faith unto justification. But they
are so, always with respect unto his obedience and the atonement that he
made for sin. Neither are they so altogether absolutely considered, but as
proposed in the promises of the gospel. Hence, a sincere assent unto the
divine veracity in those promises is included in this approbation.
What belongs unto the confirmation of this description
of faith shall be reduced unto these four heads:— 1. The declaration
of its contrary, or the nature of privative unbelief upon the
proposal of the gospel. For these things do mutually illustrate one
another. 2. The declaration of the design and end of God in and by
the gospel. 3. The nature of faith’s compliance with that design,
or its actings with respect thereunto. 4. The order, method, and
way of believing, as declared in the Scripture:—
1. The gospel is the revelation or declaration of that way
of justification and salvation for sinners by Jesus Christ, which God, in
infinite wisdom, love, and grace, has prepared. And upon a supposition of
the reception thereof, it is accompanied with precepts of obedience and
promises of rewards. “Therein is the righteousness of God,” — that which
he requires, accepts, and approves unto salvation, — “revealed from faith
unto faith,” Rom. i. 17. This is the record of God
therein, “That he has given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his
Son,” 1 John v. 11. So John iii. 14–17. “The words of this
life,” Acts v. 20; “All the counsel of God,”
Acts xx. 27. Wherefore, in the
dispensation or preaching of the gospel, this way of salvation is proposed
unto sinners, as the great effect of divine wisdom and grace. Unbelief is
the rejection, neglect, non-admission, or disapprobation of it, on the
terms whereon, and for the ends for which, it is so proposed. The unbelief
of the Pharisees, upon the preparatory preaching of John the Baptist, is
called the “rejecting of the counsel of God against themselves;” that is,
unto their own ruin, Luke vii. 30.
“They would none of my counsel,” is an expression to the same purpose,
Prov. i. 30; so is the “neglecting this
great salvation,” Heb. ii. 3, — not giving it
that admission which the excellency of it does require. A disallowing of
Christ, the stone ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες,
1 Pet. ii. 7, — the “builders disapproved
of,” as not meet for that place and work whereunto it was designed,
Acts iv. 11, — this is unbelief; to
disapprove of Christ, and the way of salvation by him, as not answering
divine wisdom, nor suited unto the end designed. So is it described by the
refusing or not receiving of him; all to the same purpose.
What is intended will be more evident if we consider the
proposal of the gospel where it issued in unbelief, in the first
preaching of it, and where it continues still so to do.
Most of those who rejected the gospel by their unbelief,
did it under this notion, that the way of salvation and blessedness
proposed therein was not a way answering divine goodness and power, such as
they might safely confide in and trust unto. This the apostle declares at
large, 1 Cor. i.; so he expresses it, verses 23, 24, “We preach Christ
crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks
foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ
the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” That which they declared unto
them in the preaching of the gospel was, that “Christ died for our sins,
according to the Scriptures,” chap. xv. 3.
Herein they proposed him as the ordinance of God, as the great effect of
his wisdom and power for the salvation of sinners. But as unto those who
continued in their unbelief, they rejected it as any such way, esteeming it
both weakness and folly. And therefore, he describes the faith of them
that are called, by their approbation of the wisdom and power of God
herein. The want of a comprehension of the glory of God in this way of
salvation, rejecting it thereon, is that unbelief which ruins the souls of
men, 2 Cor. iv. 3, 4.
So is it with all that continue unbelievers under the
proposal of the object of faith in the preaching of the gospel. They may
give an assent unto the truth of it, so far as it is a mere act of the
mind, — at least they find not themselves concerned to reject it; yea, they
may assent unto it with that temporary faith which we described
before, and perform many duties of religion thereon: yet do they manifest
that they are not sincere believers, that they do not believe with the
heart unto righteousness, by many things that are irreconcilable unto and
inconsistent with justifying faith. The inquiry, therefore, is, Wherein
the unbelief of such persons, on the account whereof they perish, does
consist, and what is the formal nature of it? It is not, as was said, in
the want of an assent unto the truths of the doctrine of the gospel: for
from such an assent are they said, in many places of the Scripture, to
believe, as has been proved; and this assent may be so firm, and by various
means so radicated in their minds, as that, in testimony unto it, they may
give their bodies to be burned; as men also may do in the
confirmation of a false persuasion. Nor is it the want of an especial
fiduciary application, of the promises of the gospel unto themselves,
and the belief of the pardon of their own sins in particular: for this is
not proposed unto them in the first preaching of the gospel, as that which
they are first to believe, and there may be a believing unto righteousness
where this is not attained, Isa. l. 10.
This will evidence faith not to be true; but it is not formal unbelief.
Nor is it the want of obedience unto the precepts of the gospel in
duties of holiness and righteousness; for these commands, as formally given
in and by the gospel, belong only unto them that truly believe, and are
justified thereon. That, therefore, which is required unto evangelical
faith, wherein the nature of it does consist, as it is the foundation of
all future obedience, is the heart’s approbation of the way of life and
salvation by Jesus Christ, proposed unto it as the effect of the
infinite wisdom, love, grace, and goodness of God; and as that which is
suited unto all the wants and whole design of guilty convinced sinners.
This such persons have not; and in the want thereof consists the formal
nature of unbelief. For without this no man is, or can be, influenced by
the gospel unto a relinquishment of sin, or encouraged unto obedience,
whatever they may do on other grounds and motives that are foreign unto the
grace of it. And wherever this cordial, sincere approbation of the way of
salvation by Jesus Christ, proposed in the gospel, does prevail, it will
infallibly produce both repentance and obedience.
If the mind and heart of a convinced sinner (for of such
alone we treat) be able spiritually to discern the wisdom, love, and grace
of God, in this way of salvation, and be under the power of that
persuasion, he has the ground of repentance and obedience which is given by
the gospel. The receiving of Christ mentioned in the Scripture, and
whereby the nature of faith in its exercise is expressed, I refer unto the
latter part of the description given concerning the soul’s acquiescence in
God, by the way proposed.
Again: some there were at first, and such still continue to
be, who rejected not this way absolutely, and in the notion of it,
but comparatively, as reduced to practice; and so perished in their
unbelief. They judged the way of their own righteousness to be better, as
that which might be more safely trusted unto, — as more according unto the
mind of God and unto his glory. So did the Jews generally, the frame of
whose minds the apostle represents, Rom. x. 3,
4. And many of them assented unto the doctrine of the gospel in
general as true, howbeit they liked it not in their hearts as the best way
of justification and salvation, but sought for them by the works of the
law.
Wherefore, unbelief, in its formal nature, consists in the
want of a spiritual discerning and approbation of the way of salvation by
Jesus Christ, as an effect of the infinite wisdom, goodness, and love of
God; for where these are, the soul of a convinced sinner cannot
but embrace it, and adhere unto it. Hence, also, all acquiescency in this
way, and trust and confidence in committing the soul unto it, or unto God
in it, and by it (without which whatever is pretended of believing is but a
shadow of faith), is impossible unto such persons; for they want the
foundation whereon alone they can be built. And the consideration hereof
does sufficiently manifest wherein the nature of true evangelical faith
does consist.
2. The design of God in and by the gospel, with the
work and office of faith with respect thereunto, farther confirms the
description given of it. That which God designs herein, in the first
place, is not the justification and salvation of sinners. His utmost
complete end, in all his counsels, is his own glory. He does all things
for himself; nor can he who is infinite do otherwise. But in an especial
manner he expresses this concerning this way of salvation by Jesus
Christ.
Particularly, he designed herein the glory of his
righteousness; “To declare his righteousness,” Rom.
iii. 25; — of his love; “God so loved the world,”
John iii. 16; “Herein we perceive the
love of God, that he laid down his life for us,” 1 John iii.
16; — of his grace; “Accepted, to the praise of the glory
of his grace,” Eph. i. 5,
6; — of his wisdom; “Christ crucified, the wisdom of
God,” 1 Cor. i. 24; “Might be known by the
church the manifold wisdom of God,” Eph. iii. 10; —
of his power; “it is the power of God unto salvation,” Rom.
i. 16; — of his faithfulness, Rom. iv. 16.
For God designed herein, not only the reparation of all that glory whose
declaration was impeached and obscured by the entrance of sin, but also a
farther exaltation and more eminent manifestation of it, unto the degrees
of its exaltation, and some especial instances before concealed, Eph.
iii. 9. And all this is called “The glory of God in the face of
Jesus Christ;” whereof faith is the beholding, 2 Cor. iv.
6.
3. This being the principal design of God in the way of
justification and salvation by Christ proposed in the gospel, that which on
our part is required unto a participation of the benefits of it, is the
ascription of that glory unto God which he designs so to exalt. The
acknowledgment of all these glorious properties of the divine nature, as
manifested in the provision and proposition of this way of life,
righteousness, and salvation, with an approbation of the way itself as an
effect of them, and that which is safely to be trusted unto, is that which
is required of us; and this is faith or believing: “Being strong in faith,
he gave glory to God,” Rom. iv. 20.
And this is in the nature of the weakest degree of sincere faith. And no
other grace, work, or duty, is suited hereunto, or firstly and directly of
that tendency, but only consequentially and in the way of gratitude. And
although I cannot wholly assent unto him who affirms that faith in the epistles of Paul is nothing but “existimatio
magnificè sentiens de Dei potentia, justitia, bonitate, et si quid
promiserit in eo præstando constantia,” because it is too general,
and not limited unto the way of salvation by Christ, his “elect in whom he
will be glorified;” yet has it much of the nature of faith in it.
Wherefore I say, that hence we may both learn the nature of faith, and
whence it is that faith alone is required unto our justification. The
reason of it is, because this is that grace or duty alone whereby we do or
can give unto God that glory which he designs to manifest and exalt in and
by Jesus Christ. This only faith is suited unto, and this it is to
believe. Faith, in the sense we inquire after, is the heart’s approbation
of, and consent unto, the way of life and salvation of sinners by Jesus
Christ, as that wherein the glory of the righteousness, wisdom, grace,
love, and mercy of God is exalted; the praise whereof it ascribes unto him,
and rests in it as unto the ends of it, — namely, justification, life, and
salvation. It is to give “glory to God,” Rom. iv. 20; to
“behold his glory as in a glass,” or the gospel wherein it is represented
unto us, 2 Cor. iii. 18; to have in our hearts
“the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ,” 2 Cor. iv. 6. The contrary whereunto
makes God a liar, and thereby despoils him of the glory of all those holy
properties which he this way designed to manifest, 1 John v.
10.
And, if I mistake not, this is that which the experience of
them that truly believe, when they are out of the heats of disputation,
will give testimony unto.
4. To understand the nature of justifying faith aright, or
the act and exercise of saving faith in order unto our justification, which
are properly inquired after, we must consider the order of it; first the
things which are necessarily previous thereunto, and then what it is to
believe with respect unto them. As, —
(1.) The state of a convinced sinner, who is the
only “subjectum capax justificationis.” This has
been spoken unto already, and the necessity of its precedency unto the
orderly proposal and receiving of evangelical righteousness unto
justification demonstrated. If we lose a respect hereunto, we lose our
best guide towards the discovery of the nature of faith. Let no man think
to understand the gospel, who knows nothing of the law. God’s
constitution, and the nature of the things themselves, have given the law
the precedency with respect unto sinners; “for by the law is the knowledge
of sin.” And gospel faith is the soul’s acting according to the mind of
God, for deliverance from that state and condition which it is cast under
by the law. And all those descriptions of faith which abound in the
writings of learned men, which do not at least include in them a virtual
respect unto this state and condition, or the work of the law on the consciences of sinners, are all of them vain speculations.
There is nothing in this whole doctrine that I will more firmly adhere unto
than the necessity of the convictions mentioned previous unto true
believing; without which not one line of it can be understood aright, and
men do but beat the air in their contentions about it. See Rom. iii. 21–24.
(2.) We suppose herein a sincere assent unto all
divine revelations, whereof the promises of grace and mercy by Christ are
an especial part. This Paul supposed in Agrippa when he would have won him
over unto faith in Christ Jesus: “King Agrippa, believest thou the
prophets? I know that thou believest,” Acts xxvi.
27. And this assent which respects the promises of the gospel,
not as they contain, propose, and exhibit the Lord Christ and the benefits
of his mediation unto us, but as divine revelations of infallible truth, is
true and sincere in its kind, as we described it before under the notion of
temporary faith; but as it proceeds no farther, as it includes no act of
the will or heart, it is not that faith whereby we are justified. However,
it is required thereunto, and is included therein.
(3.) The proposal of the gospel, according unto the
mind of God, is hereunto supposed; that is, that it be preached according
unto God’s appointment: for not only the gospel itself, but the
dispensation or preaching of it in the ministry of the church, is
ordinarily required unto believing. This the apostle asserts, and proves
the necessity of it at large, Rom. x.
11–17. Herein the Lord Christ and his mediation with God, the
only way and means for the justification and salvation of lost convinced
sinners, as the product and effect of divine wisdom, love, grace, and
righteousness, is revealed, declared, proposed, and offered unto such
sinners: “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to
faith,” Rom. i. 17. The glory of God is
represented “as in a glass,” 2 Cor. iii.
18; and “life and immortality are brought to light through the
gospel,” 2 Tim. i. 10; Heb. ii. 3.
Wherefore, —
(4.) The persons who are required to believe, and whose
immediate duty it is so to do, are such who really in their own consciences
are brought unto, and do make the inquiries mentioned in the Scripture, —
“What shall we do? What shall we do to be saved? How shall we fly from
the wrath to come? Wherewithal shall we appear before God? How shall we
answer what is laid unto our charge?” — or such as, being sensible of the
guilt of sin, do seek for a righteousness in the sight of God, Acts ii. 37, 38; xvi. 30,
31; Micah vi. 6,
7; Isa. xxxv. 4; Heb. vi.
18.
On these suppositions, the command and direction given unto
men being, “Believe, and thou shalt be saved;” the inquiry is, What is
that act or work of faith whereby we may obtain a real interest or
propriety in the promises of the gospel, and the things
declared in them, unto their justification before God?
And, — 1. It is evident, from what has been discoursed,
that it does not consist in, that it is not to be fully expressed by, any
one single habit or act of the mind or will distinctly whatever; for
there are such descriptions given of it in the Scripture, such things are
proposed as the object of it, and such is the experience of all that
sincerely believe, as no one single act, either of the mind or will, can
answer unto. Nor can an exact method of those acts of the soul which are
concurrent therein be prescribed; only what is essential unto it is
manifest.
2. That which, in order of nature, seems to have the
precedency, is the assent of the mind unto that which the psalmist
betakes himself unto in the first place for relief, under a sense of sin
and trouble, Ps. cxxx. 3,
4, “If thou, Lord,
shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?” The sentence of the
law and judgment of conscience lie against him as unto any acceptation with
God. Therefore, he despairs in himself of standing in judgment, or being
acquitted before him. In this state, that which the soul first fixes on,
as unto its relief, is, that “there is forgiveness with God.” This, as
declared in the gospel, is, that God in his love and grace will pardon and
justify guilty sinners through the blood and mediation of Christ. So it is
proposed, Rom. iii. 23,
24. The assent of the mind hereunto, as proposed in the promise
of the gospel, is the root of faith, the foundation of all that the soul
does in believing; nor is there any evangelical faith without it.
But yet, consider it abstractedly, as a mere act of the mind, the essence
and nature of justifying faith does not consist solely therein, though it
cannot be without it. But, —
3. This is accompanied, in sincere believing, with an
approbation of the way of deliverance and salvation proposed, as an
effect of divine grace, wisdom, and love; whereon the heart does rest in
it, and apply itself unto it, according to the mind of God. This is that
faith whereby we are justified; which I shall farther evince, by showing
what is included in it, and inseparable from it:—
(1.) It includes in it a sincere renunciation of all
other ways and means for the attaining of righteousness, life, and
salvation. This is essential unto faith, Acts iv. 12;
Hos. xiv. 2, 3; Jer. iii.
23; Ps. lxxi. 16, “I will make mention of thy
righteousness, of thine only.” When a person is in the condition before
described (and such alone are called immediately to believe, Matt. ix. 13; xi. 28;
1 Tim. i. 15), many things will present
themselves unto him for his relief, particularly his own righteousness,
Rom. x. 3. A renunciation of them all,
as unto any hope or expectation of relief from them, belongs unto sincere
believing, Isa. l. 10,
11.
(2.) There is in it the will’s consent,
whereby the soul betakes itself cordially and sincerely, as unto all its
expectation of pardon of sin and righteousness before God, unto the way of
salvation proposed in the gospel. This is that which is called “coming
unto Christ,” and “receiving of him,” whereby true justifying faith is so
often expressed in the Scripture; or, as it is peculiarly called,
“believing in him,” or “believing on his name.” The whole is expressed,
John xiv. 6, “Jesus saith unto him, I am
the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by
me.”
(3.) An acquiescency of the heart in God, as the
author and principal cause of the way of salvation prepared, as acting in a
way of sovereign grace and mercy towards sinners: “Who by him do believe in
God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith
and hope might be in God,” 1 Pet. i. 21.
The heart of a sinner does herein give unto God the glory of all those holy
properties of his nature which he designed to manifest in and by Jesus
Christ. See Isa. xlii. 1; xlix. 3. And
this acquiescency in God is that which is the immediate root of that
waiting, patience, long-suffering, and hope, which are the proper acts and
effects of justifying faith, Heb. vi. 12, 15, 18,
19.
(4.) Trust in God, or the grace and mercy of God in
and through the Lord Christ, as set forth to be a propitiation through
faith in his blood, does belong hereunto, or necessarily ensue hereon; for
the person called unto believing is, — first, Convinced of sin, and
exposed unto wrath; secondly, Has nothing else to trust unto for
help and relief; thirdly, Does actually renounce all other things
that tender themselves unto that end: and therefore, without some act of
trust, the soul must lie under actual despair; which is utterly
inconsistent with faith, or the choice and approbation of the way of
salvation before described.
(5.) The most frequent declaration of the nature of faith
in the Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, is by this trust; and
that because it is that act of it which composes the soul, and
brings it unto all the rest it can attain. For all our rest in this world
is from trust in God; and the especial object of this trust, so far as it
belongs unto the nature of that faith whereby we are justified, is “God in
Christ reconciling the world unto himself.” For this is respected where
his goodness, his mercy, his grace, his name, his faithfulness, his power,
are expressed, or any of them, as that which it does immediately rely upon;
for they are no way the object of our trust, nor can be, but on the account
of the covenant which is confirmed and ratified in and by the blood of
Christ alone.
Whether this trust or confidence shall be esteemed of the
essence of faith, or as that which, on the first fruit and working
of it, we are found in the exercise of, we need not positively
determine. I place it, therefore, as that which belongs unto justifying
faith, and is inseparable from it. For if all we have spoken before
concerning faith may be comprised under the notion of a firm assent and
persuasion, yet it cannot be so if any such assent be conceivable exclusive
of this trust.
This trust is that whereof many divines do make special
mercy to be the peculiar object; and that especial mercy to be such as
to include in it the pardon of our own sins. This by their adversaries is
fiercely opposed, and that on such grounds as manifest that they do not
believe that there is any such state attainable in this life; and that if
there were, it would not be of any use unto us, but rather be a means of
security and negligence in our duty: wherein they betray how great is the
ignorance of these things in their own minds. But mercy may be said to be
especial two ways:— First, In itself, and in opposition unto common
mercy. Secondly, With respect unto him that believes. In the first sense,
especial mercy is the object of faith as justifying; for no more is
intended by it but the grace of God setting forth Christ to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood, Rom. iii. 23,
24. And faith in this especial mercy is that which the apostle
calls our “receiving of the atonement,” Rom. v. 11; —
that is, our approbation of it, and adherence unto it, as the great effect
of divine wisdom, goodness, faithfulness, love, and grace; which will,
therefore, never fail to them who put their trust in it. In the latter
sense, it is looked on as the pardon of our own sins in particular,
the especial mercy of God unto our souls. That this is the object of
justifying faith, that a man is bound to believe this in order of nature
antecedent unto his justification, I do deny; neither yet do I know of any
testimony or safe experience whereby it may be confirmed. But yet, for any
to deny that an undeceiving belief hereof is to be attained in this
life, or that it is our duty to believe the pardon of our own sins and the
especial love of God in Christ, in the order and method of our duty and
privileges, limited and determined in the gospel, so as to come to the full
assurance of them (though I will not deny but that peace with God, which is
inseparable from justification, may be without them); [is to] seem not to
be much acquainted with the design of God in the gospel, the efficacy of
the sacrifice of Christ, the nature and work of faith, or their own duty,
nor the professed experience of believers recorded in the Scripture. See
Rom. v. 1–5; Heb. x. 2, 10,
19–22; Ps. xlvi. 1, 2; cxxxviii. 7,
8, etc. Yet it is granted that all these things are rather
fruits or effects of faith, as under exercise and improvement, than of the
essence of it, as it is the instrument in our justification.
And the trust before mentioned, which is
either essential to justifying faith, or inseparable from its is
excellently expressed by Bernard, Dom. vi. post Pentec., Ser. 3, “Tria considero in quibus tota spes mea consistit, charitatem
adoptionis, veritatem promissionis, potestatem redditionis. Murmuret jam
quantum voluerit insipiens cogitatio mea, dicens: Quis enim es tu, et
quanta est illa gloria, quibusve meritis hanc obtinere speras? Et ego
fiducialiter respondebo: Scio cui credidi, et certus sum, quia in charitate
nimia adoptavit me, quia verax in promissione, quia potens in exhibitione:
licet enim ei facere quod voluerit. Hic est funiculus triplex qui
difficilè rumpitur, quem nobis a patria nostra in hunc carcerem usque
dimissum firmiter, obsecro, teneamus: ut ipse nos sublevet, ipse nos trahat
et pertrahat usque ad conspectum gloriæ magni Dei: qui est benedictus in
sæcula. Amen.”
Concerning this faith and trust, it is earnestly pleaded by
many that obedience is included in it; but as to the way and manner
thereof, they variously express themselves. Socinus, and those who follow him absolutely, do make
obedience to be the essential form of faith; which is denied by Episcopius. The Papists distinguish between
faith in-formed and faith formed by charity: which comes to
the same purpose, for both are built on this supposition, — that there may
be true evangelical faith (that which is required as our duty, and
consequently is accepted of God, that may contain all in it which is
comprised in the name and duty of faith) that may be without charity or
obedience, and so be useless; for the Socinians do not make
obedience to be the essence of faith absolutely, but as it
justifies. And so they plead unto this purpose, that “faith without works
is dead.” But to suppose that a dead faith, or that faith which is dead,
it that faith which is required of us in the gospel in the way of duty, is
a monstrous imagination. Others plead for obedience, charity, the love of
God, to be included in the nature of faith; but plead not directly that
this obedience is the form of faith, but that which belongs unto the
perfection of it, as it is justifying. Neither yet do they say that by
this obedience, a continued course of works and obedience, as though
that were necessary unto our first justification, is required; but only a
sincere active purpose of obedience: and thereon, as the manner of our days
is, load them with reproaches who are otherwise minded, if they knew who
they were. For how impossible it is, according unto their principles who
believe justification by faith alone, that justifying faith should be
without a sincere purpose of heart to obey God in all things, I
shall briefly declare. For, First, They believe that faith is “not
of ourselves, it is the gift of God;” yea, that it is a grace wrought in
the hearts of men by the exceeding greatness of his power. And to suppose
such a grace dead, inactive, unfruitful, not operative unto the great end
of the glory of God, and the transforming of the souls of them
that receive it into his image, is a reflection on the wisdom, goodness,
and love of God himself. Secondly, That this grace is in them a
principle of spiritual life, which in the habit of it, as resident in
the heart, is not really distinguished from that of all other grace
whereby we live to God. So, that there should be faith habitually in the
heart, — I mean that evangelical faith we inquire after, — or actually
exercised, where there is not a habit of all other graces, is utterly
impossible. Neither is it possible that there should be any exercise of
this faith unto justification, but where the mind is prepared, disposed,
and determined unto universal obedience. And therefore, Thirdly, It
is denied that any faith, trust, or confidence, which may be imagined, so
as to be absolutely separable from, and have its whole nature consistent
with, the absence of all other graces, is that faith which is the
especial gift of God, and which in the gospel is required of us in a way of
duty. And whereas some have said, that “men may believe, and place their
firm trust in Christ for life and salvation, and yet not be justified;” —
it is a position so destructive unto the gospel, and so full of scandal
unto all pious souls, and contains such an express denial of the record
that God has given concerning his Son Jesus Christ, as I wonder that any
person of sobriety and learning should be surprised into it. And whereas
they plead the experience of multitudes who profess this firm faith and
confidence in Christ, and yet are not justified, — it is true, indeed, but
nothing unto their purpose; for whatever they profess, not only not
one of them does so in the sight and judgment of God, where this matter is
to be tried, but it is no difficult matter to evict them of the folly and
falseness of this profession, by the light and rule of the gospel, even in
their own consciences, if they would attend unto instruction.
Wherefore we say, the faith whereby we are justified, is
such as is not found in any but those who are made partakers of the Holy
Ghost, and by him united unto Christ, whose nature is renewed, and in whom
there is a principle of all grace, and purpose of obedience. Only we say,
it is not any other grace, as charity and the like, nor any
obedience, that gives life and form unto this faith; but it is this
faith that gives life and efficacy unto all other graces, and form unto all
evangelical obedience. Neither does any thing hence accrue unto our
adversaries, who would have all those graces which are, in their root and
principle, at least, present in all that are to be justified, to have the
same influence unto our justification as faith has: or that we are
said to be justified by faith alone; and in explication of it, in answer
unto the reproaches of the Romanists, do say we are justified by faith
alone, but not by that faith which is alone; that we intend by faith all
other graces and obedience also. For besides that, the nature
of no other grace is capable of that office which is assigned unto faith in
our justification, nor can be assumed into a society in operation with it,
— namely, to receive Christ, and the promises of life by him, and to give
glory unto God on their account; so when they can give us any testimony of
Scripture assigning our justification unto any other grace, or all graces
together, or all the fruits of them, so as it is assigned unto faith, they
shall be attended unto.
And this, in particular, is to be affirmed of
repentance; concerning which it is most vehemently urged, that it is
of the same necessity unto our justification as faith is. For this they
say is easily proved, from testimonies of Scripture innumerable, which call
all men to repentance that will be saved; especially those two
eminent places are insisted on, Acts ii. 38, 39; iii.
19. But that which they have to prove, is not that it is of the
same necessity with faith unto them that are to be justified, but
that it is of the same use with faith in their justification.
Baptism in that place of the apostle, Acts
ii. 38, 39, is joined with faith no less than repentance;
and in other places it is expressly put into the same condition. Hence,
most of the ancients concluded that it was no less necessary unto salvation
than faith or repentance itself. Yet never did any of them assign it the
same use in justification with faith. But it is pleaded, whatever
is a necessary condition of the new covenant, is also a necessary
condition of justification; for otherwise a man might be justified, and
continuing in his justified estate, not be saved, for want of that
necessary condition: for by a necessary condition of the new
covenant, they understand that without which a man cannot be saved. But of
this nature is repentance as well as faith, and so is equally a condition
of our justification. The ambiguity of the signification of the word
condition does cast much disorder on the present inquiry, in the
discourses of some men. But to pass it by at present, I say, final
perseverance is a necessary condition of the new covenant; wherefore,
by this rule, it is also of justification. They say, some things are
conditions absolutely; such as are faith and
repentance, and a purpose of obedience: some are so on some
supposition only, — namely, that a man’s life be continued in this
world; such is a course in obedience and good works, and perseverance
unto the end. Wherefore I say then, that on supposition that a man lives
in this world, perseverance unto the end is a necessary condition of
his justification. And if so, no man can be justified whilst he is in this
world; for a condition does suspend that whereof it is a condition from
existence until it be accomplished. It is, then, to no purpose to dispute
any longer about justification, if indeed no man is, nor can be, justified
in this life. But how contrary this is to Scripture and experience is
known.
If it be said, that final perseverance, which is so
express a condition of salvation in the new covenant, is not
indeed the condition of our first justification, but it is the
condition of the continuation of our justification; then they yield up
their grand position, that whatever is a necessary condition of the new
covenant is a necessary condition of justification: for it is that which
they call the first justification alone which we treat about. And
that the continuation of our justification depends solely on the same
causes with our justification itself, shall be afterwards declared. But it
is not yet proved, nor ever will be, that whatever is required in them that
are to be justified, is a condition whereon their justification is
immediately suspended. We allow that alone to be a condition of
justification which has an influence of causality thereunto, though
it be but the causality of an instrument. This we ascribe unto
faith alone. And because we do so, it is pleaded that we ascribe
more in our justification unto ourselves than they do by whom we are
opposed. For we ascribe the efficiency of an instrument herein unto
our own faith, when they say one that it is a condition, or “causa sine qua non,” of our justification. But I judge
that grave and wise men ought not to give so much to the defence of the
cause they have undertaken, seeing they cannot but know indeed the
contrary. For after they have given the specious name of a
condition, and a “causa sine qua non,” unto
faith, they immediately take all other graces and works of obedience into
the same state with it, and the same use in justification; and after this
seeming gold has been cast for a while into the fire of disputation,
there comes out the calf of a personal, inherent righteousness, whereby men
are justified before God, “virtute fœderis
evangelici;” for as for the righteousness of Christ to be imputed
unto us, it is gone into heaven, and they know not what is become of
it.
Having given this brief declaration of the nature of
justifying faith, and the acts of it (as I suppose, sufficient unto my
present design), I shall not trouble myself to give an accurate
definition of it. What are my thoughts concerning it, will be
better understood by what has been spoken, than by any precise definition I
can give. And the truth is, definitions of justifying faith have
been so multiplied by learned men, and in so great variety, and [there is]
such a manifest inconsistency among some of them, that they have been of no
advantage unto the truth, but occasions of new controversies and divisions,
whilst every one has laboured to defend the accuracy of his own definition,
when yet it may be difficult for a true believer to find any thing
compliant with his own experience in them; which kind of definitions in
these things I have no esteem for. I know no man that has laboured in this
argument about the nature of faith more than Dr Jackson; yet, when he has done all, he gives us a
definition of justifying faith which I know few that will subscribe unto:
yet is it, in the main scope of it, both pious and sound. For
he tells us, “Here at length, we may define the faith by which the just
live, to be a firm and constant adherence unto the mercies and the
loving-kindness of Lord; or, generally, unto the spiritual food exhibited
in his sacred word, as much better than this life itself, and all the
contentments it is capable of; grounded on a taste or relish of their
sweetness, wrought in the soul or heart of a man by the Spirit of Christ.”
Whereunto he adds, “The terms for the most part are the prophet David’s;
not metaphorical, as some may fancy, much less equivocal, but proper and
homogeneal to the subject defined,” tom. i. book iv.
chap. 9. For the lively scriptural expressions of faith, by
receiving on Christ, leaning on him, rolling ourselves or our burden on
him, tasting how gracious the Lord is, and the like, which of late have
been reproached, yea, blasphemed, by many, I may have occasion to speak of
them afterwards; as also to manifest that they convey a better
understanding of the nature, work, and object of justifying faith, unto the
minds of men spiritually enlightened, than the most accurate
definitions that many pretend unto; some whereof are destructive and
exclusive of them all.
Chapter III. The use of faith in justification; its especial object
farther cleared
Use of faith in justification; various conceptions about it — By
whom asserted as the instrument of it; by whom denied — In what sense it is
affirmed so to be — The expressions of the Scripture concerning the use of
faith in justification; what they are, and how they are best explained by
an instrumental cause — Faith, how the instrument of God in justification —
How the instrument of them that do believe — The use of faith expressed in
the Scripture by apprehending, receiving; declared by an instrument —
Faith, in what sense the condition of our justification — Signification of
that term, whence to be learned
The
description before given of justifying faith does sufficiently
manifest of what use it is in justification; nor shall I in general add
much unto what may be thence observed unto that purpose. But whereas this
use of it has been expressed with some variety, and several ways of
it asserted inconsistent with one another, they must be considered in our
passage. And I shall do it with all brevity possible; for these things
lead not in any part of the controversy about the nature of
justification, but are merely subservient unto other conceptions concerning
it. When men have fixed their apprehensions about the principal matters in
controversy, they express what concerns the use of faith in an
accommodation thereunto. Supposing such to be the nature of justification
as they assert, it must be granted that the use of faith therein
must be what they plead for. And if what is peculiar unto any in the
substance of the doctrine be disproved, they cannot deny but that their
notions about the use of faith do fall unto the ground. Thus is it with
all who affirm faith to be either the instrument, or the
condition, or the “causa sine qua non,” or
the preparation and disposition of the subject, or a meritorious cause, by way of condecency or congruity, in
and of our justification. For all these notions of the use of faith
are suited and accommodated unto the opinions of men concerning the nature
and principal causes of justification. Neither can any trial or
determination be made as unto their truth and propriety, but upon a
previous judgment concerning those causes, and the whole nature of
justification itself. Whereas, therefore, it were vain and endless to
plead the principal matter in controversy upon every thing that
occasionally belongs unto it, — and so by the title unto the whole
inheritance of every cottage that is built on the premises, —
I shall briefly speak unto these various conceptions about the use of
faith in our justification, rather to find out and give an
understanding of what is intended by them, than to argue about their truth
and propriety, which depend on that wherein the substance of the
controversy does consist.
Protestant divines, until of late, have unanimously
affirmed faith to be the instrumental cause of our justification.
So it is expressed to be in many of the public confessions of their
churches. This notion of theirs concerning the nature and use of
faith was from the first opposed by those of the Roman church.
Afterward it was denied also by the Socinians, as either false or improper.
Socin. Miscellan. Smalcius adv. Frantz. disput.
4; Schlichting. adver. Meisner. de Justificat. And of late
this expression is disliked by some among ourselves; wherein they follow
Episcopius, Curcellæus, and others of that way. Those who
are sober and moderate do rather decline this notion and expression as
improper, than reject them as untrue. And our safest course,
in these cases, is to consider what is the thing or matter intended. If
that be agreed upon, he deserves best of truth who parts with strife about
propriety of expressions, before it be meddled with. Tenacious pleading
about them will surely render our contentions endless; and none will ever
want an appearance of probability to give them countenance in what they
pretend. If our design in teaching be the same with that of the Scripture,
— namely, to inform the minds of believers, and convey the light of the
knowledge of God in Christ unto them, we must be contented sometimes to
make use of such expressions as will scarce pass the ordeal of arbitrary
rules and distinctions, through the whole compass of notional and
artificial sciences. And those who, without more ado, reject the
instrumentality of faith in our justification, as an unscriptural
notion, as though it were easy for them with one breath to blow away
the reasons and arguments of so many learned men as have pleaded for it,
may not, I think, do amiss to review the grounds of their confidence. For
the question being only concerning what is intended by it, it is not
enough that the term or word itself, of an instrument, is not found unto this purpose in the Scripture; for on the same
ground we may reject a trinity of persons in the divine essence,
without an acknowledgment whereof, not one line of the Scripture can be
rightly understood.
Those who assert faith to be as the instrumental
cause in our justification, do it with respect unto two ends. For,
first, they design thereby to declare the meaning of those expressions in
the Scripture wherein we are said to be justified πίστει, absolutely; which must denote, either
“instrumentum, aut formam, aut modum actionis.”
Λογιζόμεθα οὖν τίστει δικαιοῦσθει ἄνθρωπον,
Rom. iii. 28; — “Therefore we conclude
that a man is justified by faith.” So, Διὰ πίστεως,
verse 22; Ἐκ
πίστεως, Rom. i. 17; Gal. iii. 8;
Διὰ τῆς πίστεως, Eph. ii. 8; Ἐκ πίστεως, καὶ διὰ τῆς πίστεως,
Rom. iii. 30; — that is “Fide, ex fide, per fidem;” which we can express only, by
faith, or through faith. “Propter fidem,” or διὰ πίστιν, for our faith, we are nowhere said to be
justified. The inquiry is, What is the most proper, lightsome, and
convenient way of declaring the meaning of these expressions? This the
generality of Protestants do judge to be by an instrumental
cause: for some kind of causality they do plainly intimate, whereof the
lowest and meanest is that which is instrumental; for they are used of
faith in our justification before God, and of no other grace of duty
whatever. Wherefore, the proper work or office of faith in our
justification is intended by them. And διὰ is
nowhere used in the whole New Testament with a genitive case (nor in
any other good author), but it denotes an instrumental efficiency at
least. In the divine works of the holy Trinity, the operation of the
second person, who is in them a principal efficient, yet is sometimes
expressed thereby; it may be to denote the order of operation in the holy
Trinity answering the order of subsistence, though it be applied unto God
absolutely or the Father: Rom. xi. 36,
Δι’ αὐτοῦ· — “By him are all
things.” Again, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου and ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως are directly opposed, Gal.
iii. 2. But when it is said that a man is not justified ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, — “by the works of the law,” — it is
acknowledged by all that the meaning of the expression is to exclude all
efficiency, in every kind of such works, from our justification. Is
follows, therefore, that where, in opposition hereunto, we are said to be
justified ἐκ πίστεως, — “by faith,” — an
instrumental efficiency is intended. Yet will I not, therefore, make it my
controversy with any, that faith is properly an instrument, or the
instrumental cause in or of our justification; and so divert into an
impertinent contest about the nature and kinds of instruments and
instrumental causes, as they are metaphysically hunted with a confused cry
of futilous terms and distinctions. But this I judge, that among all those
notions of things which may be taken from common use and understanding, to
represent unto our minds the meaning and intention of the
scriptural expressions so often used, πίστει, ἐκ πίστεως, διὰ πίστεως, there is
none so proper as this of an instrument or instrumental
cause, seeing a causality is included in them, and that of any
other kind certainly excluded; nor has it any of its own.
But it may be said, that if faith be the instrumental
cause of justification, it is either the instrument of God, or the
instrument of believers themselves. That it is not the instrument of God
is plain, in that it is a duty which he prescribes unto us: it is an act of
our own; and it is we that believe, not God; nor can any act of ours
be the instrument of his work. And if it be our instrument, seeing an
efficiency is ascribed unto it, then are we the efficient causes of
our own justification in some sense, and may be said to justify
ourselves; which is derogatory to the grace of God and the blood of
Christ.
I confess that I lay not much weight on exceptions of this
nature. For, First, Notwithstanding what is said herein, the Scripture is
express, that “God justifieth us by faith.” “It is one God which shall
justify the circumcision ἐκ πίστεως, (by faith,)
“and the uncircumcision διὰ τῆς πίστεως, (through or
by faith), Rom. iii. 30. “The Scripture foreseeing
that God would justify the heathen through faith,” Gal. iii.
8. As he “purifieth the hearts of men by faith,” Acts
xv. 9, wherefore faith, in some sense, may be said to be the
instrument of God in our justification, both as it is the means and
way ordained and appointed by him on our part whereby we shall be
justified; as also, because he bestows it on us, and works it in us unto
this end, that we may be justified: for “by grace we are saved through
faith, and that not of ourselves; it is the gift of God,” Eph. ii.
8. If any one shall now say, that on these accounts, or with
respect unto divine ordination and operation concurring unto our
justification, faith is the instrument of God, in its place and way, (as
the gospel also is, Rom. i. 16; and the ministers of it,
2 Cor. v. 18; 1 Tim. iv.
6; and the sacraments also, Rom. iv. 11;
Tit. iii. 5, in their several places and
kinds), unto our justification, it may be he will contribute unto a right
conception of the work of God herein, as much as those shall by whom it is
denied.
But that which is principally intended is, that it is the
instrument of them that do believe. Neither yet are they said
hereon to justify themselves. For whereas it does neither really
produce the effect of justification by a physical operation, nor can
do so, it being a pure sovereign act of God; nor is morally any way
meritorious thereof; nor does dispose the subject wherein it is unto
the introduction of an inherent formal cause of justification, there being
no such thing in “rerum natura;” nor has any other
physical or moral respect unto the effect of justification,
but what arises merely from the constitution and appointment
of God; there is no colour of reason, from the instrumentality of
faith asserted, to ascribe the effect of justification unto any but
unto the principal efficient cause, which is God alone, and from whom it
proceeds in a way of free and sovereign grace, disposing the order of
things and the relation of them one unto another as seems good unto him.
Δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι, Rom.
iii. 24; Διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ
αἵματι, verse 25. It is, therefore, the
ordinance of God prescribing our duty, that we may be justified freely by
his grace, having its use and operation towards that end, after the manner
of an instrument; as we shall see farther immediately. Wherefore,
so far as I can discern, they contribute nothing unto the real
understanding of this truth, who deny faith to be the instrumental
cause of our justification; and, on other grounds, assert it to be the
condition thereof, unless they can prove this is a more natural
exposition of these expressions, πίστει, ἐκ πίστεως, διὰ τῆς πίστεως, which
is the first thing to be inquired after. For all that we do in this matter
is but to endeavour a right understanding of Scripture propositions
and expressions, unless we intend to wander “extra
oleas,” and lose ourselves in a maze of uncertain conjectures.
Secondly. They designed to declare the use of faith in
justification, expressed in the Scripture by apprehending and receiving
of Christ or his righteousness, and remission of sins
thereby. The words whereby this use of faith in our justification is
expressed, are, λαμβάνω, παραλαμβάνω, and καταλαμβάνω. And
the constant use of them in the Scripture is, to take or
receive what is offered, tendered, given or granted unto us; or to
apprehend and lay hold of any thing thereby to make it our
own: as ἐπιλαμβάνομαι is also used in the same
sense, Heb. ii. 16. So we are said by faith to
“receive Christ,” John i. 12; Col. ii. 6; —
the “abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness,” Rom.
v. 17; — the “word of promise,” Acts ii. 41; —
the “word of God,” Acts viii. 14;
1 Thess i. 6;
ii. 13; — the “atonement made by the blood of Christ,” Rom.
v. 11; — the “forgiveness of sins,” Acts x. 43; xxvi. 18; —
the “promise of the Spirit,” Gal. iii. 14; —
the “promises,” Heb. ix. 15. There is, therefore,
nothing that concurs unto our justification, but we receive it by
faith. And unbelief is expressed by “not receiving,” John
i. 11; iii. 11; xii. 48; xiv. 17. Wherefore, the object of
faith in our justification, that whereby we are justified, is tendered,
granted, and given unto us of God; the use of faith being to lay
hold upon it, to receive it, so as that it may be our own. What
we receive of outward things that are so given unto us, we do it by our
hand; which, therefore, is the instrument of that reception, that
whereby we apprehend or lay hold of any thing to appropriate it unto
ourselves, and that, because this is the peculiar office which, by nature, it is assigned unto among all the members of the body.
Other uses it has, and other members, on other accounts, may be as
useful unto the body as it; but it alone is the
instrument of receiving and apprehending that which, being given, is
to be made our own, and to abide with us. Whereas, therefore, the
righteousness wherewith we are justified is the gift of God, which
is tendered unto us in the promise of the gospel; the use and office
of faith being to receive, apprehend, or lay hold of and
appropriate, this righteousness, I know not how it can be better
expressed than by an instrument, nor by what notion of it more light
of understanding may be conveyed unto our minds. Some may suppose other
notions are meet to express it by on other accounts; and it may be so with
respect unto other uses of it: but the sole present inquiry is, how it
shall be declared, as that which receives Christ, the
atonement, the gift of righteousness; which shall prove its
only use in our justification. He that can better express this than by an
instrument ordained of God unto this end, all whose use depends on
that ordination of God, will deserve well of the truth. It is true, that
all those who place the formal cause or reason of our justification in
ourselves, or our inherent righteousness, and so, either directly or
by just consequence, deny all imputation of the righteousness of Christ
unto our justification, are not capable of admitting faith to be an
instrument in this work, nor are pressed with this consideration;
for they acknowledge not that we receive a righteousness which is not our
own, by way of gift, whereby we are justified, and so cannot allow
of any instrument whereby it should be received. The righteousness
itself being, as they phrase it, putative, imaginary, a
chimera, a fiction, it can have no real accidents, — nothing
that can be really predicated concerning it. Wherefore, as was said at the
entrance of this discourse, the truth and propriety of this declaration of
the use of faith in our justification by an instrumental
cause, depends on the substance of the doctrine itself concerning the
nature and principal causes of it, with which they must stand or fall. If
we are justified through the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ, which faith alone apprehends and receives, it will not be denied
but that it is rightly enough placed as the instrumental cause of
our justification. And if we are justified by an inherent, evangelical
righteousness of our own, faith may be the condition of its
imputation, or a disposition for its introduction, or a congruous
merit of it, but an instrument it cannot be. But yet, for the
present, it has this double advantage:— First, That it best and most
appositely answers what is affirmed of the use of faith in our
justification in the Scripture, as the instances given do manifest.
Secondly, That no other notion of it can be so stated, but that it
must be apprehended in order of time to be previous unto justification; which justifying faith cannot be, unless a man may be a
true believer with justifying faith, and yet not be justified.
Some do plead that faith is the condition of our
justification, and that otherwise it is not to be conceived of. As I said
before, so I say again, I shall not contend with any man about words,
terms, or expressions, so long as what is intended by them is agreed upon.
And there is an obvious sense wherein faith may he called the
condition of our justification; for no more may be intended thereby,
but that it is the duty on our part which God requires, that we may
be justified. And this the whole Scripture bears witness unto. Yet this
hinders not but that, as unto its use, it may be the
instrument whereby we apprehend or receive Christ and his
righteousness. But to assert it the condition of our justification,
or that we are justified by it as the condition of the new covenant, so as,
from a preconceived signification of that word, to give it another use
in justification, exclusive of that pleaded for, as the instrumental
cause thereof, is not easily to be admitted; because it supposes an
alteration in the substance of the doctrine itself.
The word is nowhere used in the Scripture in this matter;
which I argue no farther, but that we have no certain rule or standard to
try and measure its signification by. Wherefore, it cannot first be
introduced in what sense men please, and then that sense turned into
argument for other ends. For thus, on a supposed concession that it is the
condition of our justification, some heighten it into a
subordinate righteousness, imputed unto us antecedently, as I
suppose, unto the imputation of the righteousness of Christ in any sense,
whereof it is the condition. And some, who pretend to lessen its
efficiency or dignity in the use of it in our justification, say it is only
“causa sine qua non;” which leaves us at as great an
uncertainty as to the nature and efficacy of this condition as we were
before. Nor is the true sense of things at all illustrated, but rather
darkened, by such notions.
If we may introduce words into religion nowhere used in the
Scripture (as we may and must, if we design to bring light, and communicate
proper apprehensions of the things contained [in it] unto the minds of
men), yet are we not to take along with them arbitrary, preconceived
senses, forged either among lawyers or in the peripatetical school. The
use of them in the most approved authors of the language whereunto they do
belong, and their common vulgar acceptation among ourselves, must determine
their sense and meaning. It is known what confusion in the minds of men,
the introduction of words into ecclesiastical doctrines, of whose
signification there has not been a certain determinate rule agreed on, has
produced. So the word “merit” was introduced by some of the ancients (as
is plain from the design of their discourses where they use
it) for impetration or acquisition “quovis modo;” —
by any means whatever. But there being no cogent reason to confine the
word unto that precise signification, it has given occasion to as great a
corruption as has befallen Christian religion. We must, therefore, make
use of the best means we have to understand the meaning of this word, and
what is intended by it, before we admit of its use in this case.
“Conditio,” in the best Latin
writers, is variously used, answering κατάστασις,
τύχη, ἀξία, αἰτία, συνθήκη, in the Greek; that
is, “status, fortuna, dignitas, causa, pactum
initum.” In which of these significations it is here to be
understood is not easy to be determined. In common use among us, it
sometimes denotes the state and quality of men, — that is,
κατάστασις and ἀξία; and
sometimes a valuable consideration for what is to be done, — that
is, αἰτία or συνθήκη. But
herein it is applied unto things in great variety; sometimes the
principal procuring, purchasing cause is so expressed. As the
condition whereon a man lends another a hundred pounds is, that
he be paid it again with interest; — the condition whereon a man
conveys his land unto another is, that he receive so much money for
it: so a condition is a valuable consideration. And sometimes
it signifies such things as are added to the principal cause, whereon its
operation is suspended; — as a man bequeaths a hundred pounds unto another,
on condition that he come or go to such a place to demand it. This is no
valuable consideration, yet is the effect of the principal cause, or
the will of the testator, suspended thereon. And as unto degrees of
respect unto that whereof any thing is a condition, as to purchase,
procurement, valuable consideration, necessary presence, the variety is
endless. We therefore cannot obtain a determinate sense of this word
condition, but from a particular declaration of what is intended by
it, wherever it is used. And although this be not sufficient to exclude
the use of it from the declaration of the way and manner how we are
justified by faith, yet is it so to exclude the imposition of any precise
signification of it, any other than is given it by the matter treated of.
Without this, every thing is left ambiguous and uncertain whereunto it is
applied.
For instance, it is commonly said that faith and new
obedience are the condition of the new covenant; but yet, because of
the ambiguous signification and various use of that term (condition) we
cannot certainly understand what is intended in the assertion. If no more
be intended but that God, in and by the new covenant, does
indispensably require these things of us, — that is, the restipulation
of a good conscience towards God, by the resurrection of Christ from the
dead, in order unto his own glory, and our full enjoyment of all the
benefits of it, it is unquestionably true; but if it be intended that they are such a condition of the covenant as to be by us
performed antecedently unto the participation of any grace, mercy,
or privilege of it, so as that they should be the consideration and
procuring causes of them, — that they should be all of them, as some speak,
the reward of our faith and obedience, — it is most false, and not
only contrary to express testimonies of Scripture, but destructive of the
nature of the covenant itself. If it be intended that these things, though
promised in the covenant, and wrought in us by the grace of God, are yet
duties required of us, in order unto the participation and enjoyment
of the full end of the covenant in glory, it is the truth which is
asserted; but if it be said that faith and new obedience — that is, the
works of righteousness which we do — are so the condition of the
covenant, as that whatever the one is ordained of God as a means of, and in
order to such or such an end, as justification, that the other is
likewise ordained unto the same end, with the same kind of efficacy, or
with the same respect unto the effect, it is expressly contrary to the
whole scope and express design of the apostle on that subject. But it will
be said that a condition in the sense intended, when faith is said
to be a condition of our justification, is no more but that it is “causa sine qua non;” which is easy enough to be
apprehended. But yet neither are we so delivered out of uncertainties into
a plain understanding of what is intended; for these “causæ
sine quibus non” may be taken largely or more strictly and
precisely. So are they commonly distinguished by the masters in these
arts. Those so called, in a larger sense, are all such
causes, in any kind of efficiency or merit, as are inferior unto
principal causes, and would operate nothing without them; but in
conjunction with them, have a real effective influence,
physical or moral, into the production of the effect. And if
we take a condition to be a “causa sine qua non” in
this sense, we are still at a loss what may be its use, efficiency, or
merit, with respect unto our justification. If it be taken more strictly
for that which is necessarily present, but has no causality in any
kind, not that of a receptive instrument, I cannot understand how it
should be an ordinance of God. For every thing that he has appointed unto
any end, moral or spiritual, has, by virtue of that
appointment, either a symbolical instructive efficacy, or an
active efficiency, or a rewardable condecency, with respect
unto that end. Other things may be generally and remotely necessary unto
such an end, so far as it partakes of the order of natural beings, which
are not ordinances of God with respect thereunto, and so have no kind of
causality with respect unto it, as it is moral or spiritual. So the
air we breathe is needful unto the preaching of the word, and consequently
a “causa sine qua non” thereof; but an ordinance of
God with especial respect thereunto it is not. But every thing that he appoints unto an especial spiritual end, has an efficacy or
operation in one or other of the ways mentioned; for they either concur
with the principal cause in its internal efficiency, or they operate
externally in the removal of obstacles and hindrances that oppose the
principal cause in its efficiency. And this excludes all causes “sine quibus non,” strictly so taken, from any place among
divine ordinances. God appoints nothing for an end that shall do nothing.
His sacraments are not ἀργὰ σημεῖα· but, by
virtue of his institution, do exhibit that grace which they do not
in themselves contain. The preaching of the word has a real
efficiency unto all the ends of it. So have all the graces and duties that
he works in us, and requires of us: by them all are “we made meet for the
inheritance of the saints in light;” and our whole obedience, through his
gracious appointment, has a rewardable condecency with respect unto
eternal life. Wherefore, as faith may be allowed to be the condition of
our justification, if no more be intended thereby but that it is what
God requires of us that we may be justified; so, to confine the declaration
of its use in our justification unto its being the condition of
it, when so much as a determinate signification of it cannot be agreed
upon, is subservient only unto the interest of unprofitable strife and
contention.
To close these discourses concerning faith and its
use in our justification, some things must yet be added concerning
its especial object. For
although what has been spoken already thereon, in the description of its
nature and object in general, be sufficient, in general, to state its
especial object also; yet there having been an inquiry concerning
it, and debate about it, in a peculiar notion, and under some especial
terms, that also must be considered. And this is, Whether justifying
faith, in our justification, or its use therein, do respect Christ as a
king and prophet, as well as a priest, with the
satisfaction that as such he made for us, and that in the same manner, and
unto the same ends and purposes? And I shall be brief in this inquiry,
because it is but a late controversy, and, it may be, has more of
curiosity in its disquisition than of edification in its determination.
However, being not, that I know of, under these terms stated in any public
confessions of the reformed churches, it is free for any to express their
apprehensions concerning it. And to this purpose I say, —
1. Faith, whereby we are justified, in the receiving of
Christ, principally respects his person, for all those ends for which he is
the ordinance of God. It does not, in the first place, as it is faith in
general, respect his person absolutely, seeing its formal object, as such,
is the truth of God in the proposition, and not the thing itself
proposed. Wherefore, it so respects and receives Christ as proposed in
the promise, — the promise itself being the formal object of its
assent.
2. We cannot so receive Christ in the
promise, as in that act of receiving him to exclude the
consideration of any of his offices; for as he is not at any time to be
considered by us but as vested with all his offices, so a distinct
conception of the mind to receive Christ as a priest, but not as a king
or prophet, is not faith, but unbelief, — not the receiving, but the
rejecting of him.
3. In the receiving of Christ for justification formally,
our distinct express design is to be justified thereby, and no more. Now,
to be justified is to be freed from the guilt of sin, or to have all
our sins pardoned, and to have a righteousness wherewith to appear before
God, so as to be accepted with him, and a right to the heavenly
inheritance. Every believer has other designs also, wherein he is
equally concerned with this, — as, namely, the renovation of his nature,
the sanctification of his person, and ability to live unto God in all holy
obedience; but the things before mentioned are all that he aims at or
designs in his applications unto Christ, or his receiving of him unto
justification. Wherefore, —
4. Justifying faith, in that act or work of it
whereby we are justified, respects Christ in his priestly office alone, as
he was the surety of the covenant, with what he did in the discharge
thereof. The consideration of his other office is not excluded, but
it is not formally comprised in the object of faith as justifying.
5. When we say that the sacerdotal office of
Christ, or the blood of Christ, or the satisfaction of
Christ, is that alone which faith respects in justification, we do not
exclude, yea, we do really include and comprise, in that
assertion, all that depends thereon, or concurs to make them effectual unto
our justification. As, — First, The “free grace” and favour of God in
giving of Christ for us and unto us, whereby we are frequently said to be
justified, Rom. iii. 24; Eph. ii. 8;
Tit. iii. 7. His wisdom, love,
righteousness, and power, are of the same consideration, as has been
declared. Secondly. Whatever in Christ himself was necessary antecedently
unto his discharge of that office, or was consequential thereof, or did
necessarily accompany it. Such was his incarnation, the whole
course of his obedience, his resurrection, ascension,
exaltation, and intercession; for the consideration of all these
things is inseparable from the discharge of his priestly office. And
therefore is justification either expressly or virtually assigned unto them
also, Gen. iii. 15; 1 John iii.
8; Heb. ii.
14–16; Rom. iv. 25; Acts v.
31; Heb. vii. 27; Rom. viii.
34. But yet, wherever our justification is so assigned unto
them, they are not absolutely considered, but with respect unto
their relation to his sacrifice and satisfaction. Thirdly. All the means
of the application of the sacrifice and righteousness of the Lord Christ
unto us are also included therein. Such is the principal efficient
cause thereof, which is the Holy Ghost; whence we are said to
be “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God,”
1 Cor. vi. 11; and the
instrumental cause thereof on the part of God, which is the “promise
of the gospel,” Rom. i. 17; Gal. iii.
22, 23. It would, therefore, be unduly pretended, that by this
assertion we do narrow or straiten the object of justifying faith as it
justifies; for, indeed, we assign a respect unto the whole mediatory
office of Christ, not excluding the kingly and prophetical parts
thereof, but only such a notion of them as would not bring in more
of Christ, but much of ourselves, into our justification. And the
assertion, as laid down, may be proved, —
(1.) From the experience of all that are justified, or do
seek for justification according unto the gospel: for under this notion of
seeking for justification, or a righteousness unto justification,
they were all of them to be considered, and do consider themselves as ὑπόδικοι τῷ Θεῷ, — “guilty before God,” — subject,
obnoxious, liable unto his wrath in the curse of the law; as we declared in
the entrance of this discourse, Rom. iii. 19.
They were all in the same state that Adam was in after the fall, unto whom
God proposed the relief of the incarnation and suffering of Christ,
Gen. iii. 15. And to seek after
justification, is to seek after a discharge from this woeful state and
condition. Such persons have, and ought to have, other designs and desires
also. For whereas the state wherein they are antecedent unto their
justification is not only a state of guilt and wrath, but such also
as wherein, through the depravation of their nature, the power of
sin is prevalent in them, and their whole souls are defiled, they
design and desire not only to be justified, but to be
sanctified also; but as unto the guilt of sin, and the want of a
righteousness before God, from which justification is their relief, herein,
I say, they have respect unto Christ as “set forth to be a propitiation
through faith in his blood.” In their design for sanctification
they have respect unto the kingly and prophetical offices of
Christ, in their especial exercise; but as to their freedom from the guilt
of sin, and their acceptance with God, or their justification in his
sight, — that they may be freed from condemnation, that they may not come
into judgment, — it is Christ crucified, it is Christ lifted up as the
“brazen serpent” in the wilderness, it is the blood of Christ, it is the
propitiation that he was and the atonement that he made, it is his bearing
their sins, his being made sin and the curse for them, it is his obedience,
the end which he put unto sin, and the everlasting righteousness which he
brought in, that alone their faith does fix upon and acquiesce in. If it
be otherwise in the experience of any, I acknowledge I am not acquainted
with it. I do not say that conviction of sin is the only antecedent
condition of actual justification; but this it is that makes a
sinner “subjectum capax justificationis.” No man,
therefore, is to be considered as a person to be justified, but he who is
actually under the power of the conviction of sin, with all the necessary
consequent thereof. Suppose, therefore, any sinner in this condition, as
it is described by the apostle, Rom. iii., “guilty
before God,” with his “mouth stopped” as unto any pleas, defences, or
excuses; suppose him to seek after a relief and deliverance out of this
estate, — that is, to be justified according to the gospel, — he neither
does nor can wisely take any other course than what he is there
directed unto by the same apostle, verses
20–25, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh
be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now
the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by
the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God, which is by faith
of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no
difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being
justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his
blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are
past, through the forbearance of God.” Whence I argue, —
That which a guilty, condemned sinner, finding no hope nor
relief from the law of God, the sole rule of all his obedience, does
betake himself unto by faith, that he may be delivered or justified, — that
is the especial object of faith as justifying. But this is the grace of
God alone, through the redemption that is in Christ; or Christ proposed
as a propitiation through faith in his blood. Either this is so, or the
apostle does not aright guide the souls and consciences of men in that
condition wherein he himself does place them. It is the blood of
Christ alone that he directs the faith unto of all them that would be
justified before God. Grace, redemption, propitiation, all through the
blood of Christ, faith does peculiarly respect and fix upon. This is that,
if I mistake not, which they will confirm by their experience who
have made any distinct observation of the acting of their faith in their
justification before God.
(2.) The Scripture plainly declares that faith as
justifying respects the sacerdotal office and acting of Christ
alone. In the great representation of the justification of the church of
old, in the expiatory sacrifice, when all their sins and iniquities
were pardoned, and their persons accepted with God, the acting of their
faith was limited unto the imposition of all their sins on the head of
the sacrifice by the high priest, Lev. xvi. “By his
knowledge” (that is, by faith in him) “shall my righteous servant justify
many; for he shall bear their iniquities,” Isa. liii.
11. That alone which faith respects in Christ, as unto the
justification of sinners, is his “bearing their iniquities.” Guilty, convinced sinners look unto him by faith, as those
who were stung with “fiery serpents” did to the “brazen serpent,” — that
is, as he was lifted up on the cross, John iii. 14,
15. So did he himself express the nature and acting of faith in
our justification. Rom. iii. 24,
25, “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption
that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation
through faith in his blood.” As he is a propitiation, as he shed his blood
for us, as we have redemption thereby, he is the peculiar object of our
faith, with respect unto our justification. See to the same purpose,
Rom. v. 9, 10; Eph. i. 7;
Col. i. 14; Eph. ii.
13–16; Rom. viii. 3,
4. “He we made sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him,” 2 Cor. v. 21.
That which we seek after in justification, is a participation of the
righteousness of God; — to be made the righteousness of God, and that not
in ourselves, but in another; that is, in Christ Jesus. And
that alone which is proposed unto our faith as the means and cause of it,
is his being made sin for us, or a sacrifice for sin; wherein all
the guilt of our sins was laid on him, and he bare all our
iniquities. This therefore, is its peculiar object herein. And wherever,
in the Scripture, we are directed to seek for the forgiveness of
sins by the blood of Christ, to receive the atonement, to be justified
through the faith of him as crucified, the object of faith in justification
is limited and determined.
But it may be pleaded, in exception unto the testimonies,
that no one of them does affirm that we are justified by faith in the blood
of Christ alone, so as to exclude the consideration of the other offices of
Christ and their acting from being the object of faith in the same manner
and unto the same ends with his sacerdotal office, and what belongs
thereunto, or is derived from it.
Ans. This exception derives from that common
objection against the doctrine of justification by faith alone, —
namely, that that exclusive term alone is not found in the
Scripture, or in any of the testimonies that are produced for justification
by faith. But it is replied, with sufficient evidence of truth, that
although the word be not found syllabically used unto this purpose,
yet there are exceptive expressions equivalent unto it; as we shall
see afterwards. It is so in this particular instance also; for, — First,
Where our justification is expressly ascribed unto our faith in the
blood of Christ as the propitiation for our sins, unto our believing in
him as crucified for us, and it is nowhere ascribed unto our
receiving of him as King, Lord, or Prophet, it is plain that the former
expressions are virtually exclusive of the latter consideration. Secondly,
I do not say that the consideration of the kingly and
prophetical offices of Christ is excluded from our
justification, as works are excluded in opposition unto faith and
grace: for they are so excluded, as there we are to exercise an act of our minds in their positive rejection, as saying,
“Get you hence, you have no lot nor portion in this matter;” but as to
these offices of Christ, as to the object of faith as justifying, we say
only that they are not included therein. For, so to believe to be
justified by his blood, as to exercise a positive act of the mind,
excluding a compliance with his other offices, is an impious
imagination.
(3.) Neither the consideration of these offices
themselves, nor any of the peculiar acts of them, is suited to give
the souls and consciences of convinced sinners that relief which
they seek after in justification. We are not, in this whole cause, to lose
out of our eye the state of the person who is to be justified, and
what it is he does seek after, and ought to seek after, therein. Now, this
is pardon of sin, and righteousness before God alone. That,
therefore, which is no way suited to give or tender this relief unto
him, is not, nor can be, the object of his faith whereby he is justified,
in that exercise of it whereon his justification does depend. This relief,
it will be said, is to be had in Christ alone. It is true; but under what
consideration? For the whole design of the sinner is, how he may be
accepted with God, be at peace with him, have all his
wrath turned away, by a propitiation or atonement. Now, this can no
otherwise be done but by the acting of some one towards God and with
God on his behalf; for it is about the turning away of God’s anger, and
acceptance with him, that the inquiry is made. It is by the blood of
Christ that we are “made nigh,” who were “far off,” Eph. ii.
13. By the blood of Christ are we reconciled, who were
enemies, verse 16. By the blood of Christ
we have redemption, Rom. iii. 24,
25; Eph. i. 7, etc. This, therefore, is the
object of faith.
All the actings of the kingly and prophetical offices of
Christ are all of them from God; that is, in the name and authority
of God towards us. Not any one of them is towards God on our
behalf, so as that by virtue of them we should expect acceptance
with God. They are all good, blessed, holy in themselves, and of an
eminent tendency unto the glory of God in our salvation: yea, they are no
less necessary unto our salvation, to the praise of God’s grace, than are
the atonement for sin and satisfaction which he made; for from them is the
way of life revealed unto us, grace communicated, our persons sanctified,
and the reward bestowed. Yea, in the exercise of his kingly power
does the Lord Christ both pardon and justify sinners. Not that he did as a
king constitute the law of justification; for it was given and
established in the first promise, and he came to put it in execution,
John iii. 16; but in the virtue of his
atonement and righteousness, imputed unto them, he does both pardon and
justify sinners. But they are the acts of his sacerdotal office
alone, that respect God on our behalf. Whatever he did on earth with
God for the church, in obedience, suffering, and offering up
of himself; whatever he does in heaven, in intercession and appearance in
the presence of God, for us; it all entirely belongs unto his priestly
office. And in these things alone does the soul of a convinced sinner
find relief when he seeks after deliverance from the state of sin,
and acceptance with God. In these, therefore, alone the peculiar object of
his faith, that which will give him rest and peace, must be comprised. And
this last consideration is, of itself, sufficient to determine this
difference.
Sundry things are objected against this assertion, which I
shall not here at large discuss, because what is material in any of them
will occur on other occasions, where its consideration will be more proper.
In general it may be pleaded, that justifying faith is the same
with saving faith: nor is it said that we are justified by this or
that part of faith, but by faith in general; that is, as taken essentially,
for the entire grace of faith. And as unto faith in this sense, not only a
respect unto Christ in all his offices, but obedience itself also is
included in it; as is evident in many places of the Scripture. Wherefore,
there is no reason why we should limit the object of it unto the person of
Christ as acting in the discharge of his sacerdotal office, with the
effects and fruits thereof.
Ans. 1. Saving faith and justifying faith,
in any believer, are one and the same; and the adjuncts of saving and
justifying are but external denominations, from its distinct operations and
effects. But yet saving faith does act in a peculiar manner, and is
of peculiar use in justification, such as it is not of under any other
consideration whatever. Wherefore, — 2. Although saving faith, as
it is described in general, do ever include obedience, not as its
form or essence, but as the necessary effect is included in the
cause, and the fruit in the fruit-bearing juice; and is often
mentioned as to its being and exercise where there is no express mention of
Christ, his blood, and his righteousness, but is applied unto all the acts,
duties, and ends of the gospel; yet this proves not at all but that, as
unto its duty, place, and acting in our justification, it has
a peculiar object. If it could be proved, that where justification is
ascribed unto faith, that there it has any other object assigned unto it,
as that which it rested in for the pardon of sin and acceptance with God,
this objection were of some force; but this cannot be done. 3. This is not
to say that we are justified by a part of faith, and not by it as
considered essentially; for we are justified by the entire grace of
faith, acting in such a peculiar way and manner, as others have
observed. But the truth is, we need not insist on the discussion of this
inquiry; for the true meaning of it is, not whether any thing of Christ is
to be excluded from being the object of justifying faith, or of faith in
our justification; but, what in and of ourselves, under
the name of receiving Christ as our Lord and King, is to be admitted
unto an efficiency or conditionality in that work. As it is
granted that justifying faith is the receiving of Christ, so
whatever belongs unto the person of Christ, or any office of his, or any
acts in the discharge of any office, that may be reduced unto any cause of
our justification, the meritorious, procuring, material, formal, or
manifesting cause of it, is, so far as it does so, freely admitted to
belong unto the object of justifying faith. Neither will I contend with
any upon this disadvantageous stating of the question, — What of Christ
is to be esteemed the object of justifying faith, and what is not so?
for the thing intended is only this, — Whether our own obedience,
distinct from faith, or included in it, and in like manner as faith,
be the condition of our justification before God? This being that
which is intended, which the other question is but invented to lead unto a
compliance with, by a more specious pretence than in itself it is capable
of, under those terms it shall be examined, and no otherwise.
Chapter IV. Of justification; the notion and signification of the word
in Scripture
The proper sense of these words, justification, and to justify,
considered — Necessity thereof — Latin derivation of justification — Some
of the ancients deceived by it — From “jus,” and
“justum;” “justus filius,”
who — The Hebrew הִצְדִּיק — Use and signification
of it — Places where it is used examined, 2 Sam. xv. 4;
Deut. xxv. 1; Prov. xvii.
15; Isa. v. 23; l. 8, 9;
1 Kings viii.
31, 32; 2 Chron. vi.
22, 23; Ps. lxxxii. 3;
Exod. xxiii. 7; Job xxvii.
5; Isa. liii. 11; Gen. xliv.
16; Dan. xii. 3 — The constant sense of the
word evinced — Δικαιόω, use of it in other authors,
to punish — What it is in the New Testament, Matt. xi. 19; xii. 37;
Luke
vii. 29; x. 29; xvi. 15; xviii. 14; Acts xiii. 38, 39; Rom. ii. 13; iii. 4 —
Constantly used in a forensic sense — Places seeming dubious, vindicated,
Rom. viii. 30; 1 Cor. vi.
11; Tit. iii.
5–7; Rev. xxii. 11 — How often these words,
δικαιόω and δικαιοῦμαι, are
used in the New Testament — Constant sense of this — The same evinced from
what is opposed unto it, Isa. l. 8,
9; Prov. xvii. 15; Rom. v. 16, 18; viii.
33, 34 — And the declaration of it in terms equivalent,
Rom. iv. 6, 11; v. 9,
10; 2 Cor. v. 20,
21; Matt. i. 21; Acts xiii.
39; Gal. ii. 16, etc. — Justification in the
Scripture, proposed under a juridical scheme, and of a forensic title — The
parts and progress of it — Inferences from the whole
Unto the right
understanding of the nature of justification, the proper sense and
signification of these words themselves, justification and to
justify, is to be inquired into; for until that is agreed upon, it is
impossible that our discourses concerning the thing itself should be freed
from equivocation. Take words in various senses, and all may be true that
is contradictorily affirmed or denied concerning what they are supposed to
signify; and so it has actually fallen out in this case, as we shall see
more fully afterwards. Some taking these words in one sense, some
in another, have appeared to deliver contrary doctrines concerning
the thing itself, or our justification before God, who yet have fully
agreed in what the proper determinate sense or signification of the
words does import; and therefore the true meaning of them has been declared
and vindicated already by many. But whereas the right stating hereof is of
more moment unto the determination of what is principally controverted
about the doctrine itself, or the thing signified, than most do apprehend,
and something at least remains to be added for the declaration and
vindication of the import and only signification of these words in the
Scripture, I shall give an account of my observations concerning it with
what diligence I can.
The Latin derivation and composition of the
word “justificatio,” would seem to denote an
internal change from inherent unrighteousness unto righteousness likewise
inherent, by a physical motion and transmutation, as the schoolmen speak;
for such is the signification of words of the same composition. So
sanctification, mortification, vivification, and the like, do all
denote a real internal work on the subject spoken of. Hereon, in the whole
Roman school, justification is taken for justifaction, or the making
of a man to be inherently righteous, by the infusion of a principle
or habit of grace, who was before inherently and habitually unjust
and unrighteous. Whilst this is taken to be the proper signification of
the word, we neither do nor can speak, ad
idem, in our disputations with them about the cause and nature
of that justification which the Scripture teaches.
And this appearing sense of the word possibly deceived some
of the ancients, as Austin in particular, to
declare the doctrine of free, gratuitous sanctification, without
respect unto any works of our own, under the name of justification;
for neither he nor any of them ever thought of a justification
before God, consisting in the pardon of our sins and the acceptation of our
persons as righteous, by virtue of any inherent habit of grace
infused into us, or acted by us. Wherefore the subject-matter must be
determined by the scriptural use and signification of these words,
before we can speak properly or intelligibly concerning it: for if to
justify men in the Scripture, signify to make them subjectively
and inherently righteous, we must acknowledge a mistake in what we
teach concerning the nature and causes of justification; and if it signify
no such thing, all their disputations about justification by the
infusion of grace, and inherent righteousness thereon, fall to the
ground. Wherefore, all Protestants (and the Socinians all of them comply
therein) do affirm, that the use and signification of these words is
forensic, denoting an act of jurisdiction. Only the Socinians, and
some others, would have it to consist in the pardon of sin only; which,
indeed, the word does not at all signify. But the sense of the word is, to
assoil, to acquit, to declare and pronounce righteous upon a trial; which,
in this case, the pardon of sin does necessarily accompany.
“Justificatio” and “justifico” belong not, indeed, unto the Latin
tongue, nor can any good author be produced who ever used them, for the
making of him inherently righteous, by any means, who was not so
before. But whereas these words were coined and framed to signify such
things as are intended, we have no way to determine the signification of
them, but by the consideration of the nature of the things which they were
invented to declare and signify. And whereas, in this language, these
words are derived from “jus” and “justum,” they must respect an act of jurisdiction
rather than a physical operation or infusion. “Justificari” is “justus censeri, pro justo
haberi;” — to be esteemed, accounted, or adjudged righteous. So a
man was made “justus filius,” in adoption, unto him
by whom he was adopted, which, what it is, is well declared by Budæus, Cajus lib. ii., F. de Adopt. De Arrogatione
loquens —: “Is qui adoptat rogatur, id est,
interrogatur, an velit eum quem adopturus sit, justum sibi filium esse.
Justum,” says he, “intelligo, non verum, ut aliqui
censent, sed omnibus partibus, ut ita dicam, filiationis, veri filii vicem
obtinentem, naturalis et legitimi filii loco sedentem.” Wherefore,
as by adoption there is no internal inherent change made in the
person adopted, but by virtue thereof he is esteemed and
adjudged as a true son, and has all the rights of a legitimate son;
so by justification, as to the importance of the word, a man is only
esteemed, declared, and pronounced righteous, as if he were
completely so. And in the present case justification and
gratuitous adoption are the same grace, for the substance of them,
John i. 12; only, respect is had, in
their different denomination of the same grace, unto different effects or
privileges that ensue thereon.
But the true and genuine signification of these words is to
be determined from those in the original languages of the Scripture which
are expounded by them. In the Hebrew it is צָדַק.
This the LXX. render by Δίκαιον ἀποφαίνω, Job
xxvii. 5; Δίκαιος ἀναφαίνομαι, chap. xiii. 18; Δίκαιον
κρίνω, Prov. xvii. 15; — to show or declare
one righteous; to appear righteous; to judge any one righteous. And the
sense may be taken from any one of them, as Job xiii.
18, הִנֵּה־נָא עָרַכְּתִּי מִשְׁפָּט יָדַעְתִּי כִּי־אֲנִי אֶצְדָּק,
— “Behold, now I have ordered my cause; I know that I shall be justified.”
The ordering of his cause (his judgment), his cause to be judged on, is his
preparation for a sentence, either of absolution or condemnation: and
hereon his confidence was, that he should be justified; that is,
absolved, acquitted, pronounced righteous. And the sense is no less
pregnant in the other places. Commonly, they render it by δικαιόω·, whereof I shall speak afterwards.
Properly, it denotes an action towards another (as
justification and to justify do) in Hiphil only; and a reciprocal
action of a man on himself in Hithpael, חִצְטַדָּק. Hereby alone is the true sense of these words
determined. And I say, that in no place, or on any occasion, is it used in
that conjugation wherein it denotes an action towards another, in
any other sense but to absolve, acquit, esteem, declare, pronounce
righteous, or to impute righteousness; which is the forensic
sense of the word we plead for, — that is its constant use and
signification, nor does it ever once signify to make inherently righteous,
much less to pardon or forgive: so vain is the pretence of some, that
justification consist only in the pardon of sin, which is not signified by the word in any one place of Scripture. Almost in all places
this sense is absolutely unquestionable; nor is there any more than one
which will admit of any debate, and that on so faint a pretence as cannot
prejudice its constant use and signification in all other places.
Whatever, therefore, an infusion of inherent grace may be, or
however it may be called, justification it is not, it cannot be; the
word nowhere signifying any such thing. Wherefore those of the church of
Rome do not so much oppose justification by faith through the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ, as, indeed, deny that there is any such thing
as justification: for that which they call the first
justification, consisting in the infusion of a principle of inherent
grace, is no such thing as justification: and their second
justification, which they place in the merit of works, wherein
absolution or pardon of sin has neither place nor consideration, is
inconsistent with evangelical justification; as we shall show
afterwards.
This word, therefore, whether the act of God towards men,
or of men towards God, or of men among themselves, or of one towards
another, be expressed thereby, is always used in a forensic sense,
and does not denote a physical operation, transfusion, or
transmutation. 2 Sam. xv. 4, “If any man has a suit or
cause, let him come to me,” וְהִצְדַּקְתִּיו, “and I
will do him justice;” — “I will justify him, judge in his cause, and
pronounce for him.” Deut. xxv. 1,
“If there be a controversy among men, and they come unto judgment, that the
judges may judge them,” וְהִצְדִּיקוּ אֶת־הַצַּדִּיק, “they shall justify the
righteous;” pronounce sentence on his side: whereunto is opposed, וְהִרְשִׁיעוּ אֶת־הָרָשָׁע, — “and they shall condemn the
wicked;” make him wicked, as the word signifies; — that is, judge, declare,
and pronounce him wicked; whereby he becomes so judicially, and in the eye
of the law, as the other is made righteous by declaration and acquitment.
He does not say, “This shall pardon the righteous;” which to suppose would
overthrow both the antithesis and design of the place. And הִרְשִׁעַ is as much to infuse wickedness into a
man, as הִצְדִּיק is to infuse a principle of
grace or righteousness into him. The same antithesis occurs,
Prov. xvii. 15, מַצְדִּיק רָשָׁע וּמַרְשִׁעַ צַדִּיק, — “He that
justifieth the wicked, and condemneth the righteous.” Not he that makes
the wicked inherently righteous, not he that changes him
inherently from unrighteous unto righteousness; but he that, without
any ground, reason, or foundation, acquits him in judgment, or
declares him to be righteous, “is an abomination unto the Lord.” And although this be spoken
of the judgment of men, yet the judgment of God also is according unto this
truth: for although he justifies the ungodly, — those who are so in
themselves, — yet he does it on the ground and consideration of a
perfect righteousness made theirs by imputation; and by another act
of his grace, that they may be meet subjects of this righteous favour, really and inherently changes them from
unrighteousness unto holiness, by the renovation of their natures. And
these things are singular in the actings of God, which nothing amongst men
has any resemblance unto or can represent; for the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ unto a person in himself ungodly, unto his
justification, or that he may be acquitted, absolved, and declared
righteous, is built on such foundations, and proceeds on such principles of
righteousness, wisdom, and sovereignty, as have no place among the actions
of men, nor can have so; as shall afterwards be declared. And, moreover,
when God does justify the ungodly, on the account of the righteousness
imputed unto him, he does at the same instant, by the power of his grace,
make him inherently and subjectively righteous or holy; which men
cannot do one towards another. And therefore, whereas man’s justifying
of the wicked is to justify them in their wicked ways, whereby they are
constantly made worse, and more obdurate in evil; when God justifies the
ungodly, their change from personal unrighteousness and unholiness unto
righteousness and holiness does necessarily and infallibly accompany
it.
To the same purpose is the word used, Isa.
v. 23, “Which justify the wicked for reward;” and chap. l. 8, 9, קָרוֹב מַצְדִּקִי — “He is near that justifieth me; who
will contend with me? let us stand together: who is mine adversary? let
him come near to me. Behold, the Lord God will help me; who shall condemn
me?” where we have a full declaration of the proper sense of the word;
which is, to acquit and pronounce righteous on a trial. And the same sense
is fully expressed in the former antithesis. 1 Kings viii. 31, 32, “If any man
trespass against his neighbour, and an oath be laid upon him to cause him
to swear, and the oath come before thine altar in this house; then hear
thou in heaven, and do, and judge thy servants,” לְהַרְשׁיעַ רָשָׁע, “to condemn the wicked,” to charge his
wickedness on him, to bring his way on his head, וּלְהַצְדִּיק צַדִּיק, “and to justify the righteous.”
The same words are repeated, 2 Chron. vi.
22, 23. Ps. lxxxii. 3,
עַנִי וָרָשׁ הַצְדִּיקוּ — “Do justice to the
afflicted and poor;” that is, justify them in their cause against wrong and
oppression. Exod. xxiii. 7, לֹא־אַצְדִּיק רָשָׁע — “I will not justify the wicked;”
absolve, acquit, or pronounce him righteous. Job xxvii. 5,
חָלִילָה לִּי אִם־אַצְדִּיק אֶתְבֶם — “Be it far
from me that I should justify you,” or pronounce sentence on your side as
if you were righteous. Isa. liii. 11,
“By his knowledge my righteous servant,” יַצְדִּיק,
“shall justify many:” the reason whereof is added, “For he shall bear their
iniquities;” whereon they are absolved and justified.
Once it is used in Hithpael, wherein a
reciprocal action is denoted, that whereby a man justifies himself.
Gen. xliv. 16, “And Judah
said, What shall we say unto my lord? what shall we speak?” וּמַה־נִּצְטַדָּק, “and how shall we justify ourselves?
God hath found out our iniquity.” They could plead nothing why they should
be absolved from guilt.
Once the participle is used to denote the outward
instrumental cause of the justification of others; in which place
alone there is any doubt of its sense. Dan. xii. 3,
וּמַצְדִּיקֵי הָרַבִּים, — “And they that justify
many,” namely, in the same sense that the preachers of the gospel are said
“to save themselves and others,” 1 Tim. iv. 16;
for men may be no less the instrumental causes of the justification of
others than of their sanctification.
Wherefore, although צָדַק in
Kal signifies “justum esse,” and sometimes
“juste agere,” which may relate unto inherent
righteousness, yet where any action towards another is denoted, this
word signifies nothing but to esteem, declare, pronounce, and
adjudge any one absolved, acquitted, cleared, justified: there is,
therefore, no other kind of justification once mentioned in the Old
Testament.
Δικαιόω is the word used to the same
purpose in the New Testament, and that alone. Neither is this word used in
any good author whatever to signify the making of a man righteous by
any applications to produce internal righteousness in him; but either to
absolve and acquit, to judge, esteem, and pronounce righteous; or, on the
contrary, to condemn. So Suidas, Δικαιοῦν δυὸ δηλοῖ, τὸ τε κολάζειν,
καὶ τὸ δίκαιον νομίζειν· — “It has two
significations; to punish, and to account righteous.” And he confirms this
sense of the word by instances out of Herodotus, Appianus,
and Josephus. And again, Δικαιῶσαι αἰτιατικῇ, καταδικάσαι, κολάσαι, δίκαιον νομίσαι
with an accusative case; that is, when it respects and affects a
subject, a person, it is either to condemn and punish, or to esteem and
declare righteous: and of this latter sense he gives pregnant instances
in the next words. Hesychius mentions only
the first signification. Δικαιούμενον, κολαζόμενον, δικαιῶσαι, κολάσαι. They never thought of any sense of this word but
what is forensic. And, in our language, to be justified was
commonly used formerly for to be judged and sentenced; as it is still among
the Scots. One of the articles of peace between the two nations at the
surrender of Leith, in the days of Edward VI., was, “That if any one
committed a crime, he should be justified by the law, upon his trial.”
And, in general, δικαοῦσθαι is “jus
in judicio auferre;” and δικαιῶσαι is “justum censere, declarare pronuntiare;” and how in the
Scripture it is constantly opposed unto “condemnare,” we shall see immediately.
But we may more distinctly consider the use of this word in
the New Testament, as we have done that of הִצְדִּיק
in the Old. And that which we inquire concerning is, — whether this word
be used in the New Testament in a forensic sense, to
denote an act of jurisdiction; or in a physical sense, to
express an internal change or mutation, — the infusion of a
habit of righteousness, and the denomination of the person to be
justified thereon; or whether it signifies not pardon of sin. But this we
may lay aside: for surely no man was ever yet so fond as to pretend that
δικαίοω did signify to pardon sin, yet is it the
only word applied to express our justification in the New Testament; for if
it be taken only in the former sense, then that which is pleaded for by
those of the Roman church under the name of justification, whatever it be,
however good, useful, and necessary, yet justification it is not, nor can
be so called, seeing it is a thing quite of another nature than what alone
is signified by that word. Matt. xi.
19, Ἐδικαιώθη ἡ Σοφία, — “Wisdom is
justified of her children;” not made just, but approved and declared.
Chap. xii. 37, Ἐκ τῶν
λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ· — “By thy words thou shalt be justified;” not
made just by them, but judged according to them, as is manifested in the
antithesis, καὶ ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου
καταδικασθήσῃ — “and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”
Luke vii. 29, Ἐδικαίωσαν
τὸν Θεόν· — “They justified God;” not, surely, by making him
righteous in himself, but by owning, avowing, and declaring his
righteousness. Chap. x. 29, Ὁ δὲ θέλων
δικαιοῦν ἑαυτόν· — “He, willing to justify himself;” to declare and
maintain his own righteousness. To the same purpose, chap. xvi. 15, Ὑμεῖς
ἐστε οἱ δικαιοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων — “Ye are they
which justify yourselves before men;” they did not make themselves
internally righteous, but approved of their own condition, as our
Saviour declares in the place, chap. xviii.
14, the publican went down δεδικαιωμένος
(justified) unto his house; that is, acquitted, absolved, pardoned, upon
the confession of his sin, and supplication for remission. Acts xiii. 38, 39, with Rom.
ii. 13, Οἱ ποιηταὶ τοῦ νύμου
δικαιωθήσονται· — “The doers of the law shall be justified.” The
place declares directly the nature of our justification before God, and
puts the signification of the word out of question; for justification
ensues as the whole effect of inherent righteousness according unto
the law: and, therefore, it is not the making of us righteous, which
is irrefragable. It is spoken of God, Rom. iii. 4, Ὅπως ἄν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου· — “That thou
mightest be justified in thy sayings;” where to ascribe any other sense to
the word is blasphemy. In like manner the same word is used, and in the
same signification, 1 Cor. iv. 4;
1 Tim. iii. 16; Rom.
iii. 20, 26, 28, 30; iv. 2, 5; v. 1, 9; vi. 7; viii. 30;
Gal. ii.
16, 17; iii. 11, 24; v. 4; Tit. iii. 7;
James ii.
21, 24, 25; and in no one of these instances can it admit of any
other signification, or denote the making of any man righteous by the
infusion of a habit or principle of righteousness, or any internal
mutation whatever.
It is not, therefore, in many places of Scripture, as Bellarmine grants, that the words we
have insisted on do signify the declaration or juridical
pronunciation of any one to be righteous; but, in all places
where they are used, they are capable of no other but a forensic
sense; especially is this evident where mention is made of
justification before God. And because, in my judgment, this one
consideration does sufficiently defeat all the pretences of those of the
Roman church about the nature of justification, I shall consider what is
excepted against the observation insisted on, and remove it out of our
way.
Lud. de Blanc, in his
reconciliatory endeavours on this article of justification, (“Thes. de
Usu et Acceptatione Vocis, Justificandi,”) grants unto the Papists
that the word δικαιόω does, in sundry places of the
New Testament, signify to renew, to sanctify, to infuse a
habit of holiness or righteousness, according as they plead. And there
is no reason to think but he has grounded that concession on those
instances which are most pertinent unto that purpose; neither is it to be
expected that a better countenance will be given by any unto this
concession than is given it by him. I shall therefore examine all the
instances which he insists upon unto this purpose, and leave the
determination of the difference unto the judgment of the reader. Only, I
shall premise that which I judge not an unreasonable demand, — namely, that
if the signification of the word, in any or all the places which he
mentions, should seem doubtful unto any (as it does not unto me),
that the uncertainty of a very few places should not make us question the
proper signification of a word whose sense is determined in so many wherein
it is clear and unquestionable. The first place he mentions is that of the
apostle Paul himself, Rom. viii. 30,
“moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he
called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also
glorified.” The reason whereby he pleads that by justified in this
place, an internal work of inherent holiness in them that are
predestinated is designed, is this, and no other: “It is not,” says he,
“likely that the holy apostle, in this enumeration of gracious privileges,
would omit the mention of our sanctification, by which we are freed from
the service of sin, and adorned with true internal holiness and
righteousness. But this is utterly omitted, if it be not comprised under
the name and title of being justified; for it is absurd with some to refer
it unto the head of glorification.”
Ans. 1. The grace of sanctification, whereby
our natures are spiritually washed, purified, and endowed with a principle
of life, holiness, and obedience unto God, is a privilege unquestionably
great and excellent, and without which none can be saved; of the same
nature, also, is our redemption by the blood of Christ; and both
these does this apostle, in other places without number, declare, commend,
and insist upon: but that he ought to have introduced
the mention of them or either of them in this place, seeing he has not done
so, I dare not judge.
2. If our sanctification be included or intended in
any of the privileges here expressed, there is none of them,
predestination only excepted, but it is more probably to be reduced
unto, than unto that of being justified. Indeed, in vocation it
seems to be included expressly. For whereas it is effectual
vocation that is intended, wherein a holy principle of spiritual life,
or faith itself, is communicated unto us, our sanctification
radically, and as the effect in it adequate immediate cause, is contained
in it. Hence, we are said to “be called to be saints,” Rom. i.
7; which is the same with being “sanctified in Christ Jesus,”
1 Cor. i. 2. And in many other places is
sanctification included in vocation.
3. Whereas our sanctification, in the infusion of a
principle of spiritual life, and the acting of it unto an increase in
duties of holiness, righteousness, and obedience, is that whereby we are
made meet for glory, and is of the same nature essentially with glory
itself, whence its advances in us are said to be from “glory to glory,”
2 Cor. iii. 18; and glory itself is
called the “grace of life,” 1 Pet. iii. 7:
it is much more properly expressed by our being glorified than by
being justified, which is a privilege quite of another nature.
However, it is evident that there is no reason why we should depart from
the general use and signification of the word, no circumstance in the text
compelling us so to do.
The next place that he gives up unto this signification is
1 Cor. vi. 11, “Such were some of you:
but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name
of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” That by
justification here, the infusion of an inherent principle of
grace, making us inherently righteous, is intended, he endeavours to prove
by three reasons:— 1. “Because justification is here ascribed unto the
Holy Ghost: ‘Ye are justified by the Spirit of our God.’ But to renew us
is the proper work of the Holy Spirit.” 2. “It is manifest,” he says,
“that by justification the apostle does signify some change in the
Corinthians, whereby they ceased to be what they were before. For they
were fornicators and drunkards, such at could not inherit the kingdom of
God; but now were changed: which proves a real inherent work of grace to be
intended.” 3. “If justification here signify nothing but to be absolved
from the punishment of sin, then the reasoning of the apostle will be
infirm and frigid: for after he has said that which is greater, as
heightening of it, he adds the less; for it is more to be washed than
merely to be freed from the punishment of sin.”
Ans. 1. All these reasons prove not that it is the
same to be sanctified and to be justified; which
must be, if that be the sense of the latter which is here pleaded for. But
the apostle makes an express distinction between them, and, as this author
observes, proceeds from one to another, by an ascent from the lesser to the
greater. And the infusion of a habit or principle of grace, or
righteousness evangelical, whereby we are inherently righteous, by
which he explains our being justified in this place, is our
sanctification, and nothing else. Yea, and sanctification is
here distinguished from washing, — “But ye are washed, but ye are
sanctified;” so as that it peculiarly in this place denotes positive habits
of grace and holiness: neither can he declare the nature of it any way
different from what he would have expressed by being justified.
2. Justification is ascribed unto the Spirit of
God, as the principal efficient cause of the application of the grace
of God and blood of Christ, whereby we are justified, unto our souls and
consciences; and he is so also of the operation of that faith
whereby we are justified: whence, although we are said to be justified by
him, yet it does not follow that our justification consists in the
renovation of our natures.
3. The change and mutation that was made in these
Corinthians, so far as it was physical, in effects inherent (as such
there was), the apostle expressly ascribes unto their washing and
sanctification; so that there is no need to suppose this change to
be expressed by their being justified. And in the real change
asserted — that is, in the renovation of our natures — consists the
true entire work and nature of our sanctification. But whereas, by
reason of the vicious habits and practices mentioned, they were in a state
of condemnation, and such as had no right unto the kingdom of
heaven, they were by their justification changed and transferred out
of that state into another, wherein they had peace with God, and right unto
life eternal.
4. The third reason proceeds upon a mistake, — namely,
that to be justified is only to be “freed from the punishment due
unto sin;” for it comprises both the non-imputation of sin and the
imputation of righteousness, with the privilege of adoption, and
right unto the heavenly inheritance, which are inseparable from it. And
although it does not appear that the apostle, in the enumeration of these
privileges, did intend a process from the lesser unto the
greater; nor is it safe for us to compare the unutterable effects of
the grace of God by Christ Jesus, such as sanctification and
justification are, and to determine which is greatest and
which is least; yet, following the conduct of the Scripture, and the
due consideration of the things themselves, we may say that in this life we
can be made partakers of no greater mercy or privilege than what consists
in our justification. And the reader may see from hence how
impossible it is to produce any one place wherein the words
“justification,” and “to justify,” do signify a real internal
work and physical operation, in that this learned man, a person of more
than ordinary perspicacity, candour, and judgment, designing to prove it,
insisted on such instances as give so little countenance unto what he
pretended. He adds, Tit. iii.
5–7, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but
according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and
renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus
Christ our Saviour; that, being justified by his grace, we should be made
heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” The argument which he alone
insists upon to prove that by justification here, an infusion of
internal grace is intended, is this:— that the apostle affirming first,
that “God saved us, according unto his mercy, by the washing of
regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” and afterwards affirming
that we are “justified by his grace,” he supposes it necessary that we
should be regenerate and renewed, that we may be justified; and if so, then
our justification contains and comprises our sanctification also.
Ans. The plain truth is, the apostle speaks not one
word of the necessity of our sanctification, or
regeneration, or renovation by the Holy Ghost,
antecedently unto our justification; a supposition whereof contains
the whole force of this argument. Indeed he assigns our regeneration,
renovation, and justification, all the means of our salvation,
all equally unto grace and mercy, in opposition unto any works of our own;
which we shall afterwards make use of. Nor is there intimated by him any
order of precedency or connection between the things that he
mentions, but only between justification and adoption, justification having
the priority in order of nature: “That, being justified by his grace, we
should be heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” All the things he
mentions are inseparable. No man is regenerate or renewed by the Holy
Ghost, but withal he is justified; — no man is justified, but withal he is
renewed by the Holy Ghost. And they are all of them equally of sovereign
grace in God, in opposition unto any works of righteousness that we
have wrought. And we plead for the freedom of God’s grace in
sanctification no less than in justification. But that it is necessary
that we should be sanctified, that we may be justified before God, who
justifies the ungodly, the apostle says not in this place, nor any thing to
that purpose; neither yet, if he did so, would it at all prove that the
signification of that expression “to be justified,” is “to be
sanctified,” or to have inherent holiness and righteousness wrought in us:
and these testimonies would not have been produced to prove it, wherein
these things are so expressly distinguished, but that there are none to be
found of more force or evidence.
The last place wherein he grants this signification of the
word δικαιόω, is Rev. xxii. 11, Ὁ δίκαιος
δικααιωθήτω ἔτι· — “Qui justus est, justificetur
adhuc;” which place is pleaded by all the Romanists. And our author
says they are but few among the Protestants who do not acknowledge that the
word cannot be here used in a forensic sense, but that to be
justified, is to go on and increase in piety and righteousness.
Ans. But, — (1.) There is a great objection lies in
the way of any argument from these words, — namely, from the various
reading of the place; for many ancient copies read, not Ὁ δίκαιος δικααιωθήτω ἔτι, which the Vulgar renders “Justificetur adhuc;” but, Δικαιοσύνην
ποιησάτω ἔτι· — “Let him that is righteous work righteousness
still,” as does the printed copy which now lies before me. So it was in
the copy of the Complutensian edition, which Stephens commends above all others, and in one more
ancient copy that he used. So it is in the Syrian and Arabic published by
Hutterus, and in our own Polyglot. So Cyprian reads the words, “De bono
patientiæ; justus autem adhuc justiora faciat, similiter et qui sanctus
sanctiora.” And I doubt not but that it is the true reading of the
place, δικααιωθήτω being supplied by some to comply
with ἁγιασθήτω that ensues. And this phrase of
δικαιοσύνην ποιεῖν is peculiar unto this apostle,
being nowhere used in the New Testament (nor, it may be, in any other
author) but by him. And he uses it expressly, 1 Epist. ii.
29, and chap. iii. 7,
where these words, Ὁ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην, δικαιός ἔστι, do plainly contain what is here expressed.
(2.) To be justified, as the word is rendered by the Vulgar, “Let
him be justified more” (as it must be rendered, if the word δικαιωθήτω be retained), respects an act of God, which
neither in its beginning nor continuation is prescribed unto us as a duty,
nor is capable of increase in degrees; as we shall show afterwards.
(3.) Men are said to be δίκαιοι generally from
inherent righteousness; and if the apostle had intended
justification in this place, he would not have said ὁ
δίκαιος, but ὁ δικαιωθείς. All which things
prefer the Complutensian, Syrian, and Arabic, before the Vulgar reading of
this place. If the Vulgar reading be retained, no more can be intended but
that he who is righteous should so proceed in working righteousness as to
secure his justified estate unto himself, and to manifest it before God and
the world.
Now, whereas the words δικαιόω and
δικαιοῦμαι are used thirty-six times in the New
Testament, these are all the places whereunto any exception is put in
against their forensic signification; and how ineffectual these
exceptions are, is evident unto any impartial judge.
Some other considerations may yet be made use of, and
pleaded to the same purpose. Such is the opposition that is made between
justification and condemnation. So is it, Isa. l. 8, 9; Prov. xvii.
15; Rom. v. 16, 18; viii.
33, 34; and in sundry other places, as may be observed in the preceding enumeration of them. Wherefore, as
condemnation is not the infusing of a habit of wickedness into him
that is condemned, nor the making of him to be inherently wicked who
was before righteous, but the passing a sentence upon a man with respect
unto his wickedness; no more is justification the change of a person
from inherent unrighteousness unto righteousness, by the infusion of a
principle of grace, but a sentential declarations of him to be
righteous.
Moreover, the thing intended is frequently declared in the
Scripture by other equivalent terms, which are absolutely exclusive
of any such sense as the infusion of a habit of righteousness; so
the apostle expresses it by the “imputation of righteousness without
works,” Rom. iv. 6,
11; and calls it the “blessedness” which we have by the “pardon
of sin” and the “covering of iniquity,” in the same place. So it is called
“reconciliation with God,” Rom. v. 9,
10. To be “justified by the blood of Christ” is the same with
being “reconciled by his death.” “Being now justified by his blood, we
shall be saved from wrath by him. For if, when we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, we
shall be saved by his life.” See 2 Cor. v. 20,
21. Reconciliation is not the infusion of a habit of
grace, but the effecting of peace and love, by the removal of all
enmity and causes of offence. To “save,” and “salvation,” are used to the
same purpose. “He shall save his people from their sins,” Matt. i. 21, is the same with “By him
all that believe are justified from all things, from which they could not
be justified by the law of Moses,” Acts xiii.
39. That of Gal. ii. 16, “We
have believed, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not
by the works of the law,” is the same with Acts xv. 11,
“But we believe that, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall
be saved, even as they.” Eph. ii. 8,
9, “By grace are ye saved through faith; … and not of works,” is
so to be justified. So it is expressed by pardon, or the “remission of
sins,” which is the effect of it, Rom. iv. 5,
6; by “receiving the atonement,” chap. v. 11; not
“coming into judgment” or “condemnation,” John v. 24;
“blotting out sins and iniquities,” Isa. xliii.
25; Ps. li. 9; Isa. xliv.
22; Jer. xviii. 23; Acts iii.
19; “casting them into the bottom of the sea,” Micah vii. 19; and sundry other
expressions of an alike importance. The apostle declaring it by its
effects, says, Δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί· —
“Many shall be made righteous,” Rom. v. 19.
Δίκαιος καθίσταται, [he is made righteous] who on a
juridical trial in open court, is absolved and declared righteous.
And so it may be observed that all things concerning
justification are proposed in the Scripture under a juridical
scheme, or forensic trial and sentence. As, — (1.) A
judgment is supposed in it, concerning which the
psalmist prays that it may not proceed on the terms of the law, Ps.
cxliii. 2. (2.) The judge is God himself, Isa. l. 7, 8; Rom. viii.
33. (3.) The tribunal whereon God sits in judgment, is
the “throne of grace,” Heb. iv. 16.
“Therefore will the Lord wait,
that he may be gracious unto you; and therefore will he be exalted, that he
may have mercy upon you; for the Lord is a God of judgment,”
Isa. xxx. 18. (4.) A guilty
person. This is the sinner, who is ὐπόδικος τῷ
Θεῷ, — so guilty of sin as to be obnoxious to the judgment of God;
τῷ δικαιώματι τοῦ Θεοῦ, Rom. iii. 19; i. 32, —
whose mouth is stopped by conviction. (5.) Accusers are ready to
propose and promote the charge against the guilty person; — these are the
law, John v. 45; and conscience,
Rom. ii. 15; and Satan also,
Zech. iii. 1; Rev. xii.
10. (6.) The charge is admitted and drawn up in a
hand-writing in form of Law, and is laid before the tribunal of the
Judge, in bar, to the deliverance of the offender, Col. ii.
14. (7.) A plea is prepared in the gospel for the guilty
person; and this is grace, through the blood of Christ, the ransom paid,
the atonement made the eternal righteousness brought in by the surety of
the covenant, Rom. iii.
23–25; Dan. ix. 24; Eph. i. 7.
(8.) Hereunto alone the sinner betakes himself, renouncing all other
apologies or defensatives whatever, Ps. cxxx. 2, 3; cxliii.
2; Job ix. 2, 3; xlii. 5–7;
Luke xviii. 13; Rom.
iii. 24, 25; v. 11, 16–19; viii. 1–3, 32, 33; Isa. liii. 5, 6; Heb. ix.
13–15; x. 1–13; 1 Pet. ii. 24;
1 John i. 7. Other plea for a sinner
before God there is none. He who knows God and himself will not provide or
betake himself unto any other. Nor will he, as I suppose, trust unto any
other defence, were he sure of all the angels in heaven to plead for him.
(9.) To make this plea effectual, we have an Advocate with the
Father, and he pleads his own propitiation for us, 1 John ii. 1, 2. (10.) The
sentence hereon is absolution, on the account of the ransom, blood,
or sacrifice and righteousness of Christ; with acceptation into favour, as
persons approved of God, Job xxxiii.
24; Ps. xxxii. 1,
2; Rom. iii. 23–25; viii.
1, 33, 34; 2 Cor. v. 21;
Gal. iii. 13, 14.
Of what use the declaration of this process in the
justification of a sinner may be, has been in some measure before declared.
And if many did seriously consider that all these things do concur, and
are required, unto the justification of every one that shall be
saved, it may be they would not have such slight thoughts of sin, and the
way of deliverance from the guilt of it, as they seem to have. From this
consideration did the apostle learn that “terror of the Lord,” which made
him so earnest with men to seek after reconciliation, 2 Cor. v. 10, 11.
I had not so long insisted on the signification of the
words in the Scripture, but that a right understanding of it does not only
exclude the pretences of the Romanists about the infusion of a
habit of charity from being the formal cause of our justification
before God, but may also give occasion unto some to take advice, into what
place or consideration they can dispose their own personal, inherent
righteousness in their justification before him.
Chapter V. The distinction of a first and second justification
examined — The continuation of justification: whereon it does depend
Distinction of a first and second justification — The whole
doctrine of the Roman church concerning justification grounded on this
distinction — The first justification, the nature and causes of it,
according unto the Romanists — The second justification, what it is in
their sense — Solution of the seeming difference between Paul and James,
falsely pretended by this distinction — The same distinction received by
the Socinians and others — The latter termed by some the continuation of
our justification — The distinction disproved — Justification considered,
either as unto its essence or its manifestation — The manifestation of it
twofold, initial and final — Initial is either unto ourselves or others —
No second justification hence ensues — Justification before God, legal and
evangelical — Their distinct natures — The distinction mentioned derogatory
to the merit of Christ — More in it ascribed unto ourselves than unto the
blood of Christ, in our justification — The vanity of disputations to this
purpose — All true justification overthrown by this distinction — No
countenance given unto this justification in the Scripture — The second
justification not intended by the apostle James — Evil of arbitrary
distinctions — Our first justification so described in the Scripture as to
leave no room for a second — Of the continuation of our justification;
whether it depend on faith alone, or our personal righteousness, inquired —
Justification at once completed, in all the causes and effects of it,
proved at large — Believers, upon their justification, obliged unto perfect
obedience — The commanding power of the law constitutes the nature of sin
in them who are not obnoxious unto its curse — Future sins, in what sense
remitted at our first justification — The continuation of actual pardon,
and thereby of a justified estate; on what it does depend — Continuation of
justification, the act of God; whereon it depends in that sense — On our
part, it depends on faith alone — Nothing required hereunto but the
application of righteousness imputed — The continuation of our
justification is before God — That whereon the continuation of our
justification depends, pleadable before God — This not our personal
obedience, proved:— 1. By the experience of all believers. 2.
Testimonies of Scripture. 3. Examples — The distinction mentioned
rejected
Before we
inquire immediately into the nature and causes of
justification, there are some things yet previously to be considered, that
we may prevent all ambiguity and misunderstanding about the subject to be
treated of. I say, therefore, that the evangelical justification,
which alone we plead about, is but one, and is at once completed.
About any other justification before God but one, we will not contend with
any. Those who can find out another may, as they please, ascribe what they
will unto it, or ascribe it unto what they will. Let us, therefore,
consider what is offered of this nature.
Those of the Roman church do ground their whole doctrine of
justification upon a distinction of a double justification; which
they call the first and the second. The first justification,
they say, is the infusion or the communication unto us of an inherent
principle or habit of grace or charity. Hereby, they say, original sin
is extinguished, and all habits of sin are expelled. This
justification they say is by faith; the obedience and satisfaction
of Christ being the only meritorious cause thereof. Only, they
dispute many things about preparations for it, and
dispositions unto it. Under those terms the Council of Trent
included the doctrine of the schoolmen about “meritum de
congruo,” as both Hosius and Andradius confess, in the defence of that council.
And as they are explained, they come much to one; however, the council
warily avoided the name of merit with respect unto this their first
justification. And the use of faith herein (which with them is no
more but a general assent unto divine revelation) is to bear the principal
part in these preparations. So that to be “justified by faith,”
according unto them, is to have the mind prepared by this kind of believing
to receive “gratiam gratum facientem,” — a habit of
grace, expelling sin and making us acceptable unto God. For upon this
believing, with those other duties of contrition and
repentance which must accompany it, it is meet and
congruous unto divine wisdom, goodness, and faithfulness, to give us
that grace whereby we are justified. And this, according unto them, is
that justification whereof the apostle Paul treats in his epistles, from
the procurement whereof he excludes all the works of the law. The
second justification is an effect or consequent hereof, and the
proper formal cause thereof is good works, proceeding from this
principle of grace and love. Hence are they the righteousness wherewith
believers are righteous before God, whereby they merit eternal life. The
righteousness of works they call it; and suppose it taught by the apostle
James. This they constantly affirm to make us “justos ex
injustis;” wherein they are followed by others. For this is the way
that most of them take to salve the seeming repugnancy between the apostles
Paul and James. Paul, they say, treats of the first justification
only, whence he excludes all works; for it is by faith, in the manner
before described: but James treats of the second justification;
which is by good works. So Bellar., lib. ii. cap. 16,
and lib iv. cap. 18. And it is the express determination of those
at Trent, sess. vi. cap. 10. This
distinction was coined unto no other end but to bring in confusion into the
whole doctrine of the gospel. Justification through the free grace of God,
by faith in the blood of Christ, is evacuated by it. Sanctification
is turned into a justification, and corrupted by making the fruits of it
meritorious. The whole nature of evangelical justification,
consisting in the gratuitous pardon of sin and the imputation of
righteousness, as the apostle expressly affirms, and the declaration of a
believing sinner to be righteous thereon, as the word alone signifies, is
utterly defeated by it.
Howbeit others have embraced this distinction also, though
not absolutely in their sense. So do the Socinians. Yea, it must
be allowed, in some sense, by all that hold our inherent
righteousness to be the cause of, or to have any influence into, our
justification before God. For they do allow of a justification which in
order of nature is antecedent unto works truly gracious and
evangelical: but consequential unto such works there is a
justification differing at least in degree, if not in nature
and kind, upon the difference of its formal cause; which is our new
obedience from the former. But they mostly say it is only the
continuation of our justification, and the increase of it as to
degrees, that they intend by it. And if they may be allowed to turn
sanctification into justification, and to make a progress
therein, or an increase thereof, either in the root or fruit, to be a
new justification, they may make twenty justifications as well as
two, for aught I know: for therein the “ inward man is renewed day by day,”
2 Cor. iv. 16; and believers go “from
strength to strength,” are “changed from glory to glory,” 2 Cor. iii. 18, by the addition of one
grace unto another in their exercise, 2 Pet. i.
5–8, and “increasing with the increase of God,”
Col. ii. 19, do in all things “grow up
into him who is the head,” Eph. iv. 15.
And if their justification consist herein, they are justified anew every
day. I shall therefore do these two things:— 1. Show that this
distinction is both unscriptural and irrational. 2. Declare
what is the continuation of our justification, and whereon it does
depend.
1. Justification by faith in the blood of Christ may be
considered either as to the nature and essence of it, or as unto its
manifestation and declaration. The manifestation of it is twofold:—
First, Initial, in this life. Second, Solemn and complete,
at the day of judgment; whereof we shall treat afterwards. The
manifestation of it in this life respects either the souls and
consciences of them that are justified, or others; that is, the
church or the world. And each of these have the name of
justification assigned unto them, though our real justification
before God be always one and the same. But a man may be really
justified before God, and yet not have the evidence or assurance of it in
his own mind; wherefore that evidence or assurance is not of the nature or
essence of that faith whereby we are justified, nor does necessarily
accompany our justification. But this manifestation of a man’s own
justification unto himself, although it depend on many especial causes,
which are not necessary unto his justification absolutely before God, is
not a second justification when it is attained; but only the
application of the former unto his conscience by the Holy Ghost. There is
also a manifestation of it with respect unto others, which in like
manner depends on other causes then does our justification before God
absolutely; yet is it not a second justification: for it depends
wholly on the visible effects of that faith whereby we are
justified, as the apostle James instructs us; yet is it only one single
justification before God, evidenced and declared, unto his glory, the
benefit of others, and increase of our own reward.
There is also a twofold justification before God
mentioned in the Scripture. First, “By the works of the law,” Rom. ii. 13; x. 5;
Matt. xix. 16–19. Hereunto is
required an absolute conformity unto the whole law of God, in our natures,
all the faculties of our souls, all the principles of our moral operations,
with perfect actual obedience unto all its commands, in all instances of
duty, both for matter and manner: for he is cursed who continues not
in all things that are written in the law, to do them; and he that
breaks any one commandment is guilty of the breach of the whole
law. Hence the apostle concludes that none can be justified by the
law, because all have sinned. Second, There is a justification by
grace, through faith in the blood of Christ; whereof we treat. And
these ways of justification are contrary, proceeding on terms
directly contradictory, and cannot be made consistent with or subservient
one to the other. But, as we shall manifest afterwards, the
confounding of them both, by mixing them together, is that which is aimed
at in this distinction of a first and second justification. But
whatever respects it may have, that justification which we have before God,
in his sight through Jesus Christ, is but one, and at once full and
complete; and this distinction is a vain and fond invention. For, —
(1.) As it is explained by the Papists, it is exceedingly
derogatory to the merit of Christ; for it leaves it no effect towards us,
but only the infusion of a habit of charity. When that is done, all
that remains, with respect unto our salvation, is to be wrought by
ourselves. Christ has only merited the first grace for us, that we
therewith and thereby may merit life eternal. The merit of Christ being
confined in its effect unto the first justification, it has no
immediate influence into any grace, privilege, mercy, or glory that follows
thereon; but they are all effects of that second justification which
is purely by works. But this is openly contrary unto the whole tenor of
the Scripture: for although there be an order of God’s appointment, wherein
we are to be made partakers of evangelical privileges in grace and glory,
one before another, yet are they all of them the immediate effects of the
death and obedience of Christ; who has “obtained for us eternal
redemption,” Heb. ix. 12; and is “the author of
eternal salvation unto all that do obey him,” chap. v. 9;
“having by one offering forever perfected them that are sanctified.” And
those who allow of a secondary, if not of a second, justification,
by our own inherent, personal righteousnesses, are also guilty hereof,
though not in the same degree with them; for whereas they ascribe unto it
our acquitment from all charge of sin after the first justification, and a
righteousness accepted in judgment, in the judgment of God, as if it were
complete and perfect, whereon depends our final absolution and reward, it
is evident that the immediate efficacy of the satisfaction and merit of
Christ has its bounds assigned unto it in the first justification;
which, whether it be taught in the Scripture or no, we shall afterward
inquire.
(2.) More, by this distinction, is ascribed unto
ourselves, working by virtue of inherent grace, as unto the
merit and procurement of spiritual and eternal good, than unto the blood
of Christ; for that only procures the first grace and
justification for us. Thereof alone it is the meritorious cause; or, as
others express it, we are made partakers of the effects of it in the pardon
of sins past: but, by virtue of this grace, we do ourselves obtain,
procure, or merit, another, a second, a complete
justification, the continuance of the favour of God, and all the fruits
of it, with life eternal and glory. So do our works, at least, perfect and
complete the merit of Christ, without which it is imperfect. And those who
assign the continuation of our justification,
wherein all the effects of divine favour and grace are contained, unto our
own personal righteousness, as also final justification before God as the
pleadable cause of it, do follow their steps, unto the best of my
understanding. But such things as these may be disputed; in debates of
which kind it is incredible almost what influence on the minds of men,
traditions, prejudices, subtlety of invention and arguing, do obtain, to
divert them from real thoughts of the things about which they contend, with
respect unto themselves and their own condition. If by any means such
persons can be called home unto themselves, and find leisure to
think how and by what means they shall come to appear before the high God,
to be freed from the sentence of the law, and the curse due to sin, — to
have a pleadable righteousness at the judgment-seat of God before which
they stand, — especially if a real sense of these things be implanted on
their minds by the convincing power of the Holy Ghost, — all their subtle
arguments and pleas for the mighty efficacy of their own personal
righteousness will sink in their minds like water at the return of the
tide, and leave nothing but mud and defilement behind them.
(3.) This distinction of two justifications, as used
and improved by those of the Roman church, leaves us, indeed, no
justification at all. Something there is, in the branches of it, of
sanctification; but of justification nothing at all. Their
first justification, in the infusion of a habit or principle of
grace, unto the expulsion of all habits of sin, is sanctification, and
nothing else. And we never did contend that our justification in such a
sense, if any will take it in such a sense, does consist in the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ. And this justification,
if any will needs call it so, is capable of degrees, both of increase in
itself and of exercise in its fruits; as was newly declared. But, not only
to call this our justification, with a general respect unto the
notion of the word, as a making of us personally and inherently righteous,
but to plead that this is the justification through faith in the blood
of Christ declared in the Scripture, is to exclude the only true,
evangelical justification from any place in religion. The second branch of
the distinction has much in it like unto justification by the law,
but nothing of that which is declared in the gospel. So that this
distinction, instead of coining us two justifications, according to
the gospel, has left us none at all. For, —
(4.) There is no countenance given unto this distinction in
the Scripture. There is, indeed, mention therein, as we observed before,
of a double justification, — the one by the law, the other according unto
the gospel; but that either of these should, on any account, be
sub-distinguished into a first and second of the same kind, —
that is, either according unto the law or the gospel, — there is nothing in
the Scripture to intimate. For this second
justification is no way applicable unto what the apostle James
discourses on that subject. He treats of justification; but speaks not one
word of an increase of it, or addition unto it, of a first or second.
Besides, he speaks expressly of him that boasts of faith; which
being without works, is a dead faith. But he who has the first
justification, by the confession of our adversaries, has a true, living
faith, formed and enlivened by charity. And he uses the same testimony
concerning the justification of Abraham that Paul does; and therefore does
not intend another, but the same, though in a diverse respect. Nor does
any believer learn the least of it in his own experience; nor, without a
design to serve a farther turn, would it ever have entered the minds of
sober men on the reading of the Scripture. And it is the bane of spiritual
truth, for men, in the pretended declaration of it, to coin arbitrary
distinctions, without Scripture ground for them, and obtrude them as
belonging unto the doctrine they treat of. They serve unto no other end or
purpose but only to lead the minds of men from the substance of what they
ought to attend unto, and to engage all sorts of persons in endless strifes
and contentions. If the authors of this distinction would but go over the
places in the Scripture where mention is made of our justification
before God, and make a distribution of them into the respective parts of
their distinction, they would quickly find themselves at an unbelievable
loss.
(5.) There is that in the Scripture ascribed unto our
first justification, if they will needs call it so, as leaves no
room for their second feigned justification; for the sole foundation
and pretence of this distinction is a denial of those things to belong unto
our justification by the blood of Christ which the Scripture
expressly assigns unto it. Let us take out some instances of what belongs
unto the first, and we shall quickly see how little it is, yea, that
there is nothing left for the pretended second justification. For, — [1.]
Therein do we receive the complete “pardon and forgiveness of our sins,”
Rom. iv. 6, 7; Eph. i. 7; iv. 32; Acts xxvi. 18. [2.] Thereby are we
“made righteous,” Rom. v. 19; x. 4; and, [3.]
Are freed from condemnation, judgment, and death, John
iii. 16, 19; v. 25; Rom. viii. 1; [4.]
Are reconciled unto God, Rom. v. 9,
10; 2 Cor. v. 21; and, [5.] Have peace
unto him, and access into the favour wherein we stand by grace, with
the advantages and consolations that depend thereon in a sense of his love,
Rom. v. 1–5. And, [6.] We have
adoption therewithal, and all its privileges, John
i. 12; and, in particular, [7.] A right and title
unto the whole inheritance of glory, Acts xxvi.
18; Rom. viii. 17. And, [8.] Hereon
eternal life does follow, Rom. viii. 30; vi. 23.
Which things will be again immediately spoken unto upon another occasion.
And if there be anything now left for their second
justification to do, as such, let them take it as their own; these things
are all of them ours, or do belong unto that one justification which
we do assert. Wherefore it is evident, that either the first
justification overthrows the second, rendering it needless; or the
second destroys the first, by taking away what essentially
belongs unto it: we must therefore part with the one or the other, for
consistent they are not. But that which gives countenance unto the fiction
and artifice of this distinction, and a great many more, is a
dislike of the doctrine of the grace of God, and justification from
thence, by faith in the blood of Christ; which some endeavour hereby to
send out of the way upon a pretended sleeveless errand,
whilst they dress up their own righteousness in its robes, and exalt it
into the room and dignity thereof.
2. But there seems to be more of reality and difficulty in
what is pleaded concerning the continuation of our justification;
for those that are freely justified are continued in that
state until they are glorified. By justification they are really changed
into a new spiritual state and condition, and have a new relation given
them unto God and Christ, unto the law and the gospel. And it is inquired
what it is whereon their continuation in this state does on their
part depend; or what is required of them that they may be justified unto
the end. And this, as some say, is not faith alone, but also the
works of sincere obedience. And none can deny but that they are
required of all them that are justified, whilst they continue in a state of
justification on this side glory, which next and immediately ensues
thereunto; but whether, upon our justification at first before God,
faith be immediately dismissed from its place and office, and its
work be given over unto works, so as that the continuation of our
justification should depend on our own personal obedience, and not on
the renewed application of faith unto Christ and his righteousness, is
worth our inquiry. Only, I desire the reader to observe, that whereas the
necessity of owning a personal obedience in justified persons is on all
hands absolutely agreed, the seeming difference that is herein concerns not
the substance of the doctrine of justification, but the manner of
expressing our conceptions concerning the order of the disposition of God’s
grace, and our own duty unto edification; wherein I shall use my own
liberty, as it is meet others should do theirs. And I shall offer my
thoughts hereunto in the ensuing observations:—
(1.) Justification is such a work as is at once
completed in all the causes and the whole effect of it, though not
as unto the full possession of all that it gives right and title unto.
For, — [1.] All our sins, past, present, and to come, were at once
imputed unto and laid upon Jesus Christ; in what sense we shall
afterwards inquire. “He was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon
him; and with his stripes are we healed. All we like sheep have gone
astray; we have turned every one to his own way: and the Lord has made to meet on him the
iniquities of us all,” Isa. liii. 5,
6. “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the
tree,” 1 Pet. ii. 24. The assertions being
indefinite, without exception or limitation, are equivalent unto
universals. All our sins were on him, he bare them
all at once; and therefore, once died for all. [2.] He did,
therefore, at once “finish transgression, make an end of sin, make
reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness,”
Dan. ix. 24. At once he expiated all our
sins; for “by himself he purged our sins,” and then “sat down at the right
hand of the Majesty on high,” Heb. i. 3. And
“we are sanctified,” or dedicated unto God, “through the offering of the
body of Jesus Christ once for all; for by one offering he hath
perfected” (consummated, completed, as unto their spiritual state) “them
that are sanctified,” Heb. x. 10, 14. He never
will do more than he has actually done already, for the expiation of all
our sins from first to last; “for there remaineth no more sacrifice for
sin.” I do not say that hereupon our justification is complete, but only,
that the meritorious procuring cause of it was at once completed,
and is never to be renewed or repeated any more; all the inquiry is
concerning the renewed application of it unto our souls and consciences,
whether that be by faith alone, or by the works of
righteousness which we do. [3.] By our actual believing with justifying
faith, believing on Christ, or his name, we do receive him; and thereby, on
our first justification, become the “sons of God,” John i.
12; that is, “heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ,”
Rom. viii. 17. Hereby we have a right
unto, and an interest in, all the benefits of his mediation; which is to be
at once completely justified. For “in him we are complete,” Col.
ii. 10; for by the faith that is in him we do “receive the
forgiveness of sins,” and a lot or “inheritance among all them that are
sanctified,” Acts xxvi. 18; being immediately
“justified from all things, from which we could not be justified by the
law,” Acts xiii. 39; yea, God thereon
“blesseth us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ,”
Eph. i. 3. All these things are
absolutely inseparable from our first believing in him; and therefore our
justification is at once complete. In particular, — [4.] On our believing,
all our sins are forgiven. “He hath quickened you together with
him, having forgiven you all trespasses,” Col. ii.
13–15. For “in him we have redemption through his blood, even
the forgiveness of sins, according unto the riches of his grace,” Eph. i.
7; which one place obviates all the petulant exceptions of some
against the consistency of the free grace of God in the pardon of sins, and
the satisfaction of Christ in the procurement thereof. [5.]
There is hereon nothing to be laid unto the charge of them that are
so justified; for “he that believeth has everlasting life, and shall not
come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life,” John
v. 24. And “who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s
elect? It is God that justifieth; it is Christ that died,” Rom. viii. 33, 34. And “there is no
condemnation unto them that are in Christ Jesus,” verse 1; for,
“being justified by faith, we have peace with God,” chap. v.
1. And, [6.] We have that blessedness hereon whereof in
this life we are capable, chap. iv. 5,
6. From all which it appears that our justification is at
once complete. And, [7.] It must be so, or no man can be justified
in this world. For no time can be assigned, nor measure of obedience be
limited, whereon it may be supposed that any one comes to be justified
before God, who is not so on his first believing; for the Scripture does
nowhere assign any such time or measure. And to say that no man is
completely justified in the sight of God in this life, is at once to
overthrow all that is taught in the Scriptures concerning justification,
and wherewithal all peace with God and comfort of believers. But a man
acquitted upon his legal trial is at once discharged of all that the
law has against him.
(2.) Upon this complete justifications, believers are
obliged unto universal obedience unto God. The law is not
abolished, but established, by faith. It is neither abrogated nor
dispensed withal by such an interpretation as should take off
its obligation in any thing that it requires, nor as to the degree and
manner wherein it requires it. Nor is it possible it should be so; for it
is nothing but the rule of that obedience which the nature of God
and man makes necessary from the one to the other. And that is an
Antinomianism of the worst sort, and most derogatory unto the law of God,
which affirms it to be divested of its power to oblige unto perfect
obedience, so as that what is not so shall (as it were in despite of the
law) be accepted as if it were so, unto the end for which the law requires
it. There is no medium, but that either the law is utterly
abolished, and so there is no sin, for where there is no law there is no
transgression, or it must be allowed to require the same obedience that it
did at its first institution, and unto the same degree. Neither is it in
the power of any man living to keep his conscience from judging and
condemning that, whatever it be, wherein he is convinced that he comes
short of the perfection of the law. Wherefore, —
(3.) The commanding power of the law in positive
precepts and prohibitions, which justified persons are subject unto, does
make and constitute all their unconformities unto it to be no less truly
and properly sins in their own nature, than they would be if their
persons were obnoxious unto the curse of it. This they are not, nor
can be; for to be obnoxious unto the curse of the law,
and to be justified, are contradictory; but to be subject to the
commands of the law, and to be justified, are not so. But it is a
subjection to the commanding power of the law, and not an
obnoxiousness unto the curse of the law, that constitutes the nature of
sin in its transgression. Wherefore, that complete justification which
is at once, though it dissolve the obligation on the sinner
unto punishment by the curse of the law, yet does it not annihilate
the commanding authority of the law unto them that are justified,
that, what is sin in others should not be so in them. See Rom. viii. 1,
33, 34.
Hence, in the first justification of believing sinners, all
future sins are remitted as unto any actual obligation unto
the curse of the law, unless they should fall into such sins as should,
ipso facto, forfeit their justified estate,
and transfer them from the covenant of grace into the covenant of works;
which we believe that God, in his faithfulness, will preserve them from.
And although sin cannot be actually pardoned before it be
actually committed, yet may the obligation unto the curse of the law
be virtually taken away from such sins in justified persons as are
consistent with a justified estate, or the terms of the covenant of grace,
antecedently unto their actual commission. God at once in this sense
“forgiveth all their iniquities, and healeth all their diseases, redeemeth
their life from destruction, and crowneth them with loving-kindness and
tender mercies,” Ps. ciii. 3,
4. Future sins are not so pardoned as that, when they are
committed, they should be no sins; which cannot be, unless the commanding
power of the law be abrogated: but their respect unto the curse of the law,
or their power to oblige the justified person thereunto, is taken away.
Still there abides the true nature of sin in every
unconformity unto or transgression of the law in justified persons, which
stands in need of daily actual pardon. For there is “no man that liveth
and sinneth not;” and “if we say that we have no sin, we do but deceive
ourselves.” None are more sensible of the guilt of sin, none are more
troubled for it, none are more earnest in supplications for the pardon of
it, than justified persons. For this is the effect of the sacrifice of
Christ applied unto the souls of believers, as the apostle declares
Heb. x. 1–4, 10,
14, that it does take away conscience condemning the sinner
for sin, with respect unto the curse of the law; but it does not take
away conscience condemning sin in the sinner, which, on all
considerations of God and themselves, of the law and the gospel, requires
repentance on the part of the sinner, and actual pardon on
the part of God.
Whereas, therefore, one essential part of justification
consists in the pardon of our sins, and sins cannot be actually
pardoned before they are actually committed, our
present inquiry is, whereon the continuation of our justification does
depend, notwithstanding the interveniency of sin after we are
justified, whereby such sins are actually pardoned, and our persons are
continued in a state of acceptation with God, and have their right unto
life and glory uninterrupted? Justification is at once complete in the
imputation of a perfect righteousness, the grant of a right and title unto
the heavenly inheritance, the actual pardon of all past sins, and the
virtual pardon of future sin; but how or by what means, on what terms and
conditions, this state is continued unto those who are once justified,
whereby their righteousness is everlasting, their title to life and glory
indefeasible, and all their sins are actually pardoned, is to be
inquired.
For answer unto this inquiry I say, — (1.) “It is God that
justifieth;” and, therefore, the continuation of our justification is
his act also. And this, on his part, depends on the immutability
of his counsel; the unchangeableness of the everlasting covenant, which
is “ordered in all things, and sure;” the faithfulness of his
promises; the efficacy of his grace; his complacency in the
propitiation of Christ; with the power of his intercession, and the
irrevocable grant of the Holy Ghost unto them that do believe: which things
are not of our present inquiry.
(2.) Some say that, on our part, the continuation of
this state of our justification depends on the condition of good
works; that is, that they are of the same consideration and use with
faith itself herein. In our justification itself there is, they will
grant, somewhat peculiar unto faith; but as unto the continuation of our
justification, faith and works have the same influence into it; yea,
some seem to ascribe it distinctly unto works in an especial manner, with
this only proviso, that they be done in faith. For my part I cannot
understand that the continuation of our justification has any other
dependencies than has our justification itself. As faith alone is required
unto the one, so faith alone is required unto the other, although its
operations and effects in the discharge of its duty and office in
justification, and the continuation of it, are diverse; nor can it
otherwise be. To clear this assertion two things are to be observed:—
[1.] That the continuation of our justification is
the continuation of the imputation of righteousness and the
pardon of sins. I do still suppose the imputation of righteousness to
concur unto our justification, although we have not yet examined what
righteousness it is that is imputed. But that God in our justification
imputes righteousness unto us, is so expressly affirmed by the
apostle as that it must not be called in question. Now the first act of
God in the imputation of righteousness cannot be repeated; and the
actual pardon of sin after justification is an effect and consequent of
that imputation of righteousness. If any man sin, there is a propitiation:
“Deliver him, I have found a ransom.” Wherefore, unto this actual pardon
there is nothing required but the application of that righteousness which
is the cause of it; and this is done by faith only.
[2.] The continuation of our justification is before
God, or in the sight of God, no less than our absolute justification is.
We speak not of the sense and evidence of it unto our own souls unto peace
with God, nor of the evidencing and manifestation of it unto others by its
effects, but of the continuance of it in the sight of God. Whatever,
therefore, is the means, condition, or cause hereof, is pleadable
before God, and ought to be pleaded unto that purpose. So, then, the
inquiry is, —
What it is that, when a justified person is guilty
of sin (as guilty he is more or less every day), and his conscience is
pressed with a sense thereof, as that only thing which can endanger or
intercept his justified estate, his favour with God, and title unto glory,
he betakes himself unto, or ought so to do, for the continuance of his
state and pardon of his sins, what he pleads unto that purpose, and what is
available thereunto? That this is not his own obedience, his personal
righteousness, or fulfilling the condition of the new covenant, is evident,
from, — 1st. The experience of believers themselves;
2dly. The testimony of Scripture; and, 3dly.
The example of them whose cases are recorded therein:—
1st. Let the experience of them that do
believe be inquired into; for their consciences are continually exercised
herein. What is it that they betake themselves unto, what is it that they
plead with God for the continuance of the pardon of their sins, and the
acceptance of their persons before him? Is it any thing but sovereign
grace and mercy, through the blood of Christ? Are not all the
arguments which they plead unto this end taken from the topics of the name
of God, his mercy, grace, faithfulness, tender compassion, covenant, and
promises, — all manifested and exercised in and through the Lord Christ and
his mediation alone? Do they not herein place their only trust and
confidence, for this end, that their sins may be pardoned, and their
persons, though every way unworthy in themselves, be accepted with God?
Does any other thought enter into their hearts? Do they plead their own
righteousness, obedience, and duties to this purpose? Do they leave
the prayer of the publican, and betake themselves unto that of the
Pharisee? And is it not of faith alone? which is that grace whereby
they apply themselves unto the mercy or grace of God through the mediation
of Christ. It is true that faith herein works and acts itself in and by
godly sorrow, repentance, humiliation, self-judging and abhorrence,
fervency in prayer and supplications, with a humble waiting for an answer of peace from God, with engagements unto renewed obedience:
but it is faith alone that makes applications unto grace in the
blood of Christ for the continuation of our justified estate, expressing
itself in those other ways and effects mentioned; from none of which a
believing soul does expect the mercy aimed at.
2dly. The Scripture expressly does declare this
to be the only way of the continuation of our justification,
1 John iii. 1, 2, “These things write I
unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with
the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our
sins.” It is required of those that are justified that they sin not, — it
is their duty not to sin; but yet it is not so required of them, as that if
in any thing they fail of their duty, they should immediately lose the
privilege of their justification. Wherefore, on a supposition of sin,
if any man sin (as there is no man that lives and sins not), what
way is prescribed for such persons to take, what are they to apply
themselves unto that their sin may be pardoned, and their acceptance with
God continued; that is, for the continuation of their justification? The
course in this case directed unto by the apostle is none other but the
application of our souls by faith unto the Lord Christ, as our advocate
with the Father, on the account of the propitiation that he has made for
our sins. Under the consideration of this double act of his
sacerdotal office, his oblation and intercession, he is the object
of our faith in our absolute justification; and so he is as unto the
continuation of it. So our whole progress in our justified estate, in all
the degrees of it, is ascribed unto faith alone.
It is no part of our inquiry, what God requires of them
that are justified. There is no grace, no duty, for the substance of
them, nor for the manner of their performance, that are required, either by
the law or the gospel, but they are obliged unto them. Where they are
omitted, we acknowledge that the guilt of sin is contracted, and
that attended with such aggravations as some will not own or allow to be
confessed unto God himself. Hence, in particular, the faith and grace of
believers, [who] do constantly and deeply exercise themselves in godly
sorrow, repentance, humiliation for sin, and confession of it
before God, upon their apprehensions of its guilt. And these duties are so
far necessary unto the continuation at our justification, as that a
justified estate cannot consist with the sins and vices that are opposite
unto them; so the apostle affirms that “if we live after the flesh, we
shall die,” Rom. viii. 13. He that does not
carefully avoid falling into the fire or water, or other things immediately
destructive of life natural, cannot live. But these are not the things
whereon life does depend. Nor have the best of our duties any other
respect unto the continuation of our justification, but only as in them we
are preserved from those things which are contrary unto
it, and destructive of it. But the sole question is, upon what the
continuation of our justification does depend, not concerning what duties
are required of us in the way of our obedience. If this be that which is
intended in this position, that the continuation of our justification
depends on our own obedience and good works, or that our own obedience and
good works are the condition of the continuation of our justification, —
namely, that God does indispensably require good works and obedience in all
that are justified, so that a justified estate is inconsistent with the
neglect of them, — it is readily granted, and I shall never contend with
any about the way whereby they choose to express the conceptions of their
minds. But if it be inquired what it is whereby we immediately concur in a
way of duty unto the continuation of our justified estate, — that is, the
pardon of our sins and acceptance with God, — we say it is faith alone; for
“The just shall live by faith,” Rom. i. 17. And
as the apostle applies this divine testimony to prove our first or
absolute justification to be by faith alone; so does he also apply it
unto the continuation of our justification, as that which is by the
same means only, Heb. x. 38,
39, “Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back,
my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them that draw
back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.”
The drawing back to perdition includes the loss of a justified estate,
really so or in profession. In opposition whereunto the apostle places
“believing unto the saving of the soul;” that is, unto the continuation of
justification unto the end. And herein it is that the “just live by
faith;” and the loss of this life can only be by unbelief: so the “life
which we now live in the flesh we live by the faith of the Son of God, who
loved us, and gave himself for us,” Gal. ii. 20.
The life which we now lead in the flesh is the continuation of our
justification, a life of righteousness and acceptation with God; in
opposition unto a life by the works of the law, as the next words declare,
verse 21, “I do not frustrate the grace
of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then is Christ dead in vain.”
And this life is by faith in Christ, as “he loved us, and gave himself for
us;” that is, as he was a propitiation for our sins. This, then, is the
only way, means, and cause, on our part, of the preservation of this life,
of the continuance of our justification; and herein are we “kept by the
power of God through faith unto salvation.” Again; if the continuation of
our justification depends on our own works of obedience, then is the
righteousness of Christ imputed unto us only with respect unto our
justification at first, or our first justification, as some speak. And
this, indeed, is the doctrine of the Roman school. They teach that the
righteousness of Christ is so far imputed unto us, that on the account
thereof God gives unto us justifying grace, and thereby
the remission of sin, in their sense; whence they allow it [to be] the
meritorious cause of our justification. But on a supposition thereof, or
the reception of that grace, we are continued to be justified before God by
the works we perform by virtue of that grace received. And though some of
them rise so high as to affirm that this grace and the works of it need
no farther respect unto the righteousness of Christ, to deserve our second
justification and life eternal, as does Vasquez expressly, in 1, 2,
q. 114, disp. 222, cap. 3; yet many of them affirm that it is still
from the consideration of the merit of Christ that they are so
meritorious. And the same, for the substance of it, is the judgment of
some of them who affirm the continuation of our justification to
depend on our own works, setting aside that ambiguous term of merit;
for it is on the account of the righteousness of Christ, they say, that our
own works, or imperfect obedience, is so accepted with God, that the
continuation of our justification depends thereon. But the apostle gives
us another account hereof, Rom. v.
1–3; for he distinguishes three things:— 1. Our access
into the grace of God. 2. Our standing in that grace. 3. Our
glorying in that station against all opposition. By the first he
expresses our absolute justification; by the second, our
continuation in the state whereinto we are admitted thereby; and by
the third, the assurance of that continuation, notwithstanding all
the oppositions we meet withal. And all these he ascribes equally unto
faith, without the intermixture of any other cause or condition; and
other places express to the same purpose might be pleaded.
3dly. The examples of them that did
believe, and were justified, which are recorded in the Scripture, do all
bear witness unto the same truth. The continuation of the
justification of Abraham before God is declared to have been by faith
only, Rom. iv. 3; for the instance of his
justification, given by the apostle from Gen. xv. 6, was
long after he was justified absolutely. And if our first
justification, and the continuation of it, did not depend absolutely on
the same cause, the instance of the one could not be produced for a proof
of the way and means of the other, as here they are. And David, when a
justified believer, not only places the blessedness of man in the free
remission of sins, in opposition unto his own works in general,
Rom. iv. 6, 7, but, in his own particular
case, ascribes the continuation of his justification and acceptation
before God unto grace, mercy, and forgiveness alone; which
are no otherwise received but by faith, Ps. cxxx. 3–5; cxliii. 2.
All other works and duties of obedience do accompany faith in the
continuation of our justified estate, as necessary effects and
fruits of it, but not as causes, means, or conditions,
whereon that effect is suspended. It is patient waiting by faith that brings in the full accomplishment of the
promises, Heb. vi. 12,
15. Wherefore, there is but one justification, and that
of one kind only, wherein we are concerned in this disputation, — the
Scripture makes mention of no more; and that is the justification of an
ungodly person by faith. Nor shall we admit of the consideration of any
other. For if there be a second justification, it must be of the
same kind with the first, or of another; — if it be of the
same kind, then the same person is often justified with the same kind
of justification, or at least more than once; and so on just reason ought
to be often baptized; — if it be not of the same kind, then the same
person is justified before God with two sorts of justification; of
both which the Scripture is utterly silent. And [so] the continuation of
our justification depends solely on the same causes with our justification
itself.
Chapter VI. Evangelical personal righteousness, the nature and use of
it — Final judgment, and its respect unto justification
Evangelical personal righteousness; the nature and use of it —
Whether there be an evangelical justification on our evangelical
righteousness, inquired into — How this is by some affirmed and applauded —
Evangelical personal righteousness asserted as the condition of our
righteousness, or the pardon of sin — Opinion of the Socinians — Personal
righteousness required in the gospel — Believers hence denominated
righteous — Not with respect unto righteousness habitual, but actual only —
Inherent righteousness the same with sanctification, or holiness — In what
sense we may be said to be justified by inherent righteousness — No
evangelical justification on our personal righteousness — The imputation of
the righteousness of Christ does not depend thereon — None have this
righteousness, but they are antecedently justified — A charge before God,
in all justification before God — The instrument of this charge, the law or
the gospel — From neither of them can we be justified by this personal
righteousness — The justification pretended needless and useless — It has
not the nature of any justification mentioned in the Scripture, but is
contrary to all that is so called — Other arguments to the same purpose —
Sentential justification at the last day — Nature of the last judgement —
Who shall be then justified — A declaration of righteousness, and an actual
admission into glory, the whole of justification at the last day — The
argument that we are justified in this life in the same manner, and on the
same grounds, as we shall be judged at the last day, that judgement being
according unto works, answered; and the impertinency of it
declared
The things
which we have discoursed concerning the first and second
justification, and concerning the continuation of justification,
have no other design but only to clear the principal subject whereof we
treat from what does not necessarily belong unto it. For until all things
that are either really heterogeneous or otherwise superfluous are
separated from it, we cannot understand aright the true state of the
question about the nature and causes of our justification before God. For
we intend one justification only, — namely, that whereby God at once
freely by his grace justifies a convinced sinner through faith in the blood
of Christ. Whatever else any will be pleased to call justification,
we are not concerned in it, nor are the consciences of them that believe.
To the same purpose we must, therefore, briefly also consider what is
usually disputed about our own personal righteousness, with a
justification thereon; as also what is called sentential
justification at the day of judgment. And I shall treat no farther of
them in this place, but only as it is necessary to free the principal
subject under consideration from being intermixed with them, as really it
is not concerned in them. For what influence our own personal
righteousness has into our justification before God will be afterwards
particularly examined. Here we shall only consider such a notion of it as
seems to interfere with it, and disturb the right understanding of it. But
yet I say concerning this also, that it rather belongs unto
the difference that will be among us in the expression of our
conceptions about spiritual things whilst we know but in part, than unto
the substance of the doctrine itself. And on such differences no breach of
charity can ensue, whilst there is a mutual grant of that liberty of mind
without which it will not be preserved one moment.
It is, therefore, by some apprehended that there is an
evangelical justification upon our evangelical personal
righteousness. This they distinguish from that justification which is
by faith through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, in the
sense wherein they do allow it; for the righteousness of Christ is our
legal righteousness, whereby we have pardon of sin, and acquitment
from the sentence of the law, on the account of his satisfaction and merit.
But, moreover, they say that as there is a personal, inherent
righteousness required of us, so there is a justification by the
gospel thereon. For by our faith, and the plea of it, we are justified
from the charge of unbelief; by our sincerity, and the plea of it, we are
justified from the charge of hypocrisy; and so by all other graces and
duties from the charge of the contrary sins in commission or omission, so
far as such sins are inconsistent with the terms of the covenant of grace.
How this differs from the second justification before God, which some say
we have by works, on the supposition of the pardon of sin for the
satisfaction of Christ, and the infusion of a habit of grace enabling us to
perform those works, is declared by those who so express themselves.
Some add, that this inherent, personal, evangelical
righteousness, is the condition on our part of our legal righteousness, or
of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto our justification, or
the pardon of sin. And those by whom the satisfaction and merit of Christ
are denied, make it the only and whole condition of our absolute
justification before God. So speak all the Socinians constantly; for they
deny our obedience unto Christ to be either the meritorious or efficient
cause of our justification; only they say it is the condition of it,
without which God has decreed that we shall not be made partakers of the
benefit thereof. So does Socinus
himself, De Justificat. p. 17,
“Sunt opera nostra, id est, ut dictum fuit, obedientia quam
Christo præstamus, licet nec efficiens nec meritoria, tamen causa est (ut
vocant) sine quâ non, justificationis coram Deo, atque æternæ
nostræ.” Again, p. 14, inter Opuscul, “Ut cavendum
est ne vitæ sanctitatem atque innocentiam effectum justificationis nostræ
coram Deo esse credamus, neque illam nostræ coram Deo justificationis
causam efficientem aut impulsivam esse affirmemus; set tantummodo causam
sine quâ eam justificationem nobis non contingere decrevit Deus.”
And in all their discourses to this purpose they assert our personal righteousness and holiness, or our obedience unto the
commands of Christ, which they make to be the form and essence of faith, to
be the condition whereon we obtain justification, or the remission of sins.
And indeed, considering what their opinion is concerning the person of
Christ, with their denial of his satisfaction and merit, it is impossible
they should frame any other idea of justification in their minds.
But what some among ourselves intend by a compliance with them herein, who
are not necessitated thereunto by a prepossession with their opinions about
the person and mediation of Christ, I know not. For as for them, all their
notions about grace, conversion to God, justification, and the like
articles of our religion, they are nothing but what they are necessarily
cast upon by their hypothesis about the person of Christ.
At present I shall only inquire into that peculiar
evangelical justification which is asserted to be the effect of our
own personal righteousness, or to be granted us thereon. And
hereunto we may observe, —
1. That God does require in and by the gospel a sincere
obedience of all that do believe, to be performed in and by their own
persons, though through the aids of grace supplied unto them by Jesus
Christ. He requires, indeed, obedience, duties, and works of
righteousness, in and of all persons whatever; but the consideration of
them which are performed before believing is excluded by all from any
causality or interest in our justification before God: at least, whatever
any may discourse of the necessity of such works in a way of
preparation unto believing (whereunto we have spoken before), none
bring them into the verge of works evangelical, or obedience of
faith; which would imply a contradiction. But that the works inquired
after are necessary unto all believers, is granted by all; on what grounds,
and unto what ends, we shall inquire afterwards. They are declared,
Eph. ii. 10.
2. It is likewise granted that believers, from the
performance of this obedience, or these works of righteousness, are
denominated righteous in the Scripture, and are personally and
internally righteous, Luke i. 6;
John iii. 7. But yet this denomination
is nowhere given unto them with respect unto grace habitually
inherent, but unto the effect of it in duties of obedience; as in the
places mentioned: “They were both righteous before God, walking in all the
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless;” — the latter words give
the reason of the former, or their being esteemed righteous before God.
And, “He that does righteousness is righteous;” — the denomination is from
doing. And Bellarmine, endeavouring
to prove that it is habitual, not actual righteousness, which
is, as he speaks, the formal cause of our justification before God,
could not produce one testimony of Scripture wherein any one
is denominated righteous from habitual righteousness, (De Justificat., lib. ii. cap. 15); but is forced
to attempt the proof of it with this absurd argument, — namely, that “we
are justified by the sacraments, which do not work in us actual, but
habitual righteousness.” And this is sufficient to discover the
insufficiency of all pretence for any interest of our own righteousness
from this denomination of being righteous thereby, seeing it has not
respect unto that which is the principal part thereof.
3. This inherent righteousness, taking it for that
which is habitual and actual, is the same with our sanctification;
neither is there any difference between them, only they are diverse names
of the same thing. For our sanctification is the inherent
renovation of our natures exerting and acting itself in newness of
life, or obedience unto God in Christ and works of righteousness. But
sanctification and justification are in the Scripture perpetually
distinguished, whatever respect of causality the one of them may
have unto the other. And those who do confound them, as the Papists do, do
not so much dispute about the nature of justification, as endeavour
to prove that indeed there is no such thing as justification at all; for
that which would serve most to enforce it, — namely, the pardon of sin, —
they place in the exclusion and extinction of it, by the infusions of
inherent grace, which does not belong unto justification.
4. By this inherent, personal righteousness we may
be said several ways to be justified. As, — (1.) In our own consciences,
inasmuch at it is an evidence in us and unto us of our participation of the
grace of God in Christ Jesus, and of our acceptance with him; which has no
small influence into our peace. So speaks the apostle, “Our rejoicing is
this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly
sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had
our conversation in the world,” 2 Cor. i. 12:
who yet disclaims any confidence therein as unto his justification before
God; for says he, “Although I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby
justified,” 1 Cor. iv. 4. (2.) Hereby may we be said
to be justified before men; that is, acquitted of evils laid unto
our charge, and approved as righteous and unblamable; for the state of
things is so in the world, as that the professors of the gospel ever were,
and ever will be, evil spoken of, as evil doers. The rule given them to
acquit themselves, so as that at length they may be acquitted and justified
by all that are not absolutely blinded and hardened in wickedness, is that
of a holy and fruitful walking, in abounding in good works, 1 Pet. ii. 12; iii. 16.
And so is it with respect unto the church, that we be not judged dead,
barren professors, but such as have been made partakers of the like
precious faith with others: “Show me thy faith by thy works,” James
ii. Wherefore, (3.) This righteousness is
pleadable unto our justification against all the charges of Satan,
who is the great accuser of the brethren, — of all that believe. Whether
he manage his charge privately in our consciences (which is as it
were before God), as he charged Job; or by his instruments, in all manner
of reproaches and calumnies (whereof some in this age have had experience
in an eminent manner), this righteousness is pleadable unto our
justification.
On a supposition of these things, wherein our personal
righteousness is allowed its proper place and use (as shall afterward
be more fully declared), I do not understand that there is an
evangelical justification whereby believers are, by and on the
account of this personal, inherent righteousness, justified in the sight of
God; nor does the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto our
absolute justification before him depend thereon. For, —
1. None have this personal righteousness but they
are antecedently justified in the sight of God. It is wholly the
obedience of faith, proceeding from true and saving faith in God by Jesus
Christ: for, as it was said before, works before faith, are, as by general
consent, excluded from any interest in our justification, and we have
proved that they are neither conditions of it, dispositions
unto it, nor preparations for it, properly so called; but every true
believer is immediately justified on his believing. Nor is there any
moment of time wherein a man is a true believer, according as faith is
required in the gospel, and yet not justified; for as he is thereby
united unto Christ, which is the foundation of our justification by
him, so the whole Scripture testifies that he that believes is justified,
or that there is an infallible connection in the ordination of God between
true faith and justification. Wherefore this personal righteousness
cannot be the condition of our justification before God, seeing it is
consequential thereunto. What may be pleaded in exception hereunto
from the supposition of a second justification, or differing causes
of the beginning and continuation of justification, has been already
disproved.
2. Justification before God is a freedom and
absolution from a charge before God, at least it is contained
therein; and the instrument of this charge must either be the law or
the gospel. But neither the law nor the gospel do
before God, or in the sight of God, charge true believers with unbelief,
hypocrisy, or the like; for “who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s
elect,” who are once justified before him? Such a charge may be laid
against them by Satan, by the church sometimes on mistake, by the world, as
it was in the case of Job; against which this righteousness is pleadable.
But what is charged immediately before God is charged by God himself either
by the law or the gospel; and the judgement of God is according unto truth. If this charge be by the law, by the law we must be
justified. But the plea of sincere obedience will not justify us by
the law. That admits of none in satisfaction unto its demands but that
which is complete and perfect. And where the gospel lays any thing
unto the charge of any persons before God, there can be no justification
before God, unless we shall allow the gospel to be the instrument of a
false charge; for what should justify him whom the gospel condemns?
And if it be a justification by the gospel from the charge of the law, it
renders the death of Christ of no effect; and a justification without a
charge is not to be supposed.
3. Such a justification as that pretended is altogether
needless and useless. This may easily be evinced from what
the Scripture asserts unto our justification in the sight of God by faith
in the blood of Christ; but this has been spoken to before on another
occasion. Let that be considered, and it will quickly appear that there is
no place nor use for this new justification upon our personal
righteousness, whether it be supposed antecedent and
subordinate thereunto, or consequential and perfective
thereof.
4. This pretended evangelical justification has not
the nature of any justification that is mentioned in the Scripture, — that
is, neither that by the law, nor that provided in the gospel.
Justification by the law is this, — The man that does the works of it
shall live in them. This it does not pretend unto. And as unto
evangelical justification, it is every way contrary unto it. For
therein the charge against the person to be justified is true, —
namely, that he has sinned, and is come short of the glory of God; [but] in
this it is false, — namely, that a believer is an unbeliever; a
sincere person, a hypocrite; one fruitful in good works, altogether
barren: and this false charge is supposed to be exhibited in the name of
God, and before him. Our acquitment, in true, evangelical
justification, is by absolution or pardon of sin; here, by a
vindication of our own righteousness. There, the plea of the person
to be justified is, Guilty; all the world is become guilty before
God: but here, the plea of the person on his trial is, Not guilty,
whereon the proofs and evidences of innocence and righteousness do ensue;
but this is a plea which the law will not admit, and which the gospel
disclaims.
5. If we are justified before God on our own personal
righteousness, and pronounced righteous by him on the account thereof, then
God enters into judgement with us on something in ourselves, and
acquits us thereon; for justification is a juridical act, in and of
that judgment of God which is according unto truth. But that God should
enter into judgment with us, and justify us with respect unto what
he judges on, or our personal righteousness, the psalmist does not believe,
Ps. cxxx. 2, 3; cxliii.
2; nor did the publican, Luke xviii.
6. This personal righteousness of ours cannot
be said to be a subordinate righteousness, and subservient unto our
justification by faith in the blood of Christ: for therein God justifies
the ungodly, and imputes righteousness unto him that works
not; and, besides, it is expressly excluded from any consideration in
our justification, Eph. ii. 7,
8.
7. This personal, inherent righteousness, wherewith
we are said to be justified with this evangelical justification, is
our own righteousness. Personal righteousness, and our own
righteousness, are expressions equivalent; but our own righteousness is not
the material cause of any justification before God. For, — (1.) It is
unmeet so to be, Isa. lxiv. 6.
(2.) It is directly opposed unto that righteousness whereby we are
justified, as inconsistent with it unto that end, Phil. iii.
9; Rom. x. 3,
4.
It will be said that our own righteousness is the
righteousness of the law, but this personal righteousness is
evangelical. But, — (1.) It will be hard to prove that our personal
righteousness is any other but our own righteousness; and our own
righteousness is expressly rejected from any interest in our justification
in the places quoted. (2.) That righteousness which is evangelical
in respect of its efficient cause, its motives and some especial ends, is
legal in respect of the formal reason of it and our obligation unto
it; for there is no instance of duty belonging unto it, but, in general, we
are obliged unto its performance by virtue of the first commandment, to
“take the Lord for our God.”
Acknowledging therein his essential verity and sovereign authority, we are
obliged to believe all that he shall reveal, and to obey in
all that he shall command. (3.) The good works rejected from any
interest in our justification, are those whereunto we are “created in
Christ Jesus,” Eph. ii.
8–10; the “works of righteousness which we have done,” Tit. iii. 5, wherein the Gentiles are
concerned, who never sought for righteousness by the works of the law,
Rom. ix. 30. But it will yet be said,
that these things are evident in themselves. God does require an
evangelical righteousness in all that do believe; this Christ is
not, nor is it the righteousness of Christ. He may be said to be our
legal righteousness, but our evangelical righteousness he is
not; and, so far as we are righteous with any righteousness, so far we are
justified by it. For according unto this evangelical righteousness
we must be tried; if we have it we shall be acquitted, and if we have it
not we shall be condemned. There is, therefore, a justification according
unto it.
I answer, — 1. According to some authors or maintainers of
this opinion, I see not but that the Lord Christ is as much our
evangelical righteousness as he is our legal. For our legal
righteousness he is not, in their judgement, by a proper imputation
of his righteousness unto us, but by the communication of
the fruits of what he did and suffered for us. And so he is our
evangelical righteousness also; for our sanctification is an effect
or fruit of what he did and suffered for us, Eph. v. 26,
27; Tit. ii. 14.
2. None have this evangelical righteousness but
those who are, in order of nature at least, justified before they actually
have it; for it is that which is required of all that do believe, and are
justified thereon. And we need not much inquire how a man is justified
after he is justified.
3. God has not appointed this personal
righteousness in order unto our justification before him in this life,
though he have appointed it to evidence our justification before others,
and even in his sight; as shall be declared. He accepts of it,
approves of it, upon the account of the free justification of the person in
and by whom it is wrought: so he had “respect unto Abel and his offering.”
But we are not acquitted by it from any real charge in the sight of God,
nor do receive remission of sins on the account of it. And those
who place the whole of justification in the remission of sins, making this
personal righteousness the condition of it, as the Socinians do,
leave not any place for the righteousness of Christ in our
justification.
4. If we are in any sense justified hereby in the sight of
God, we have whereof to boast before him. We may not have so
absolutely, and with respect unto merit; yet we have so
comparatively, and in respect of others who cannot make the same
plea for their justification. But all boasting is excluded; and it
will not relieve, to say that this personal righteousness is of the free
grace and gift of God unto some, and not unto others; for we must plead it
as our duty, and not as God’s grace.
5. Suppose a person freely justified by the grace of God,
through faith in the blood of Christ, without respect unto any works,
obedience, or righteousness of his own, we do freely grant, — (1.) That God
does indispensably require personal obedience of him; which may be
called his evangelical righteousness. (2.) That God does approve of
and accept, in Christ, this righteousness so performed. (3.) That hereby
that faith whereby we are justified is evidenced, proved,
manifested, in the sight of God and men. (4.) That this righteousness is
pleadable unto an acquitment against any charge from Satan, the
world, or our own consciences. (5.) That upon it we shall be
declared righteous at the last day, and without it none shall so be.
And if any shall think meet from hence to conclude unto an evangelical
justification, or call God’s acceptance of our righteousness by that
name, I shall by no means contend with them. And wherever this inquiry is
made, — not how a sinner, guilty of death, and obnoxious unto the curse, shall be pardoned, acquitted, and justified, which
is by the righteousness of Christ alone imputed unto him — but how a man
that professes evangelical faith, or faith in Christ, shall be
tried, judged, and whereon, as such, he shall be justified, we grant that
it is and must be, by his own personal, sincere obedience.
And these things are spoken, not with a design to contend
with any, or to oppose the opinions of any; but only to remove from the
principal question in hand those things which do not belong unto
it.
A very few words will also free our inquiry from any
concernment in that which is called sentential justification, at the
day of judgement; for of what nature soever it be, the person concerning
whom that sentence is pronounced was, — (1.) Actually and completely
justified before God in this world; (2.) Made partaker of all the
benefits of that justification, even unto a blessed resurrection in glory:
“It is raised in glory,” 1 Cor. xv.
43. (3.) The souls of the most will long before have enjoyed a
blessed rest with God, absolutely discharged and acquitted from all
their labours and all their sins; there remains nothing but an actual
admission of the whole person into eternal glory. Wherefore this
judgement can be no more but declaratory, unto the glory of God, and the
everlasting refreshment of them that have believed. And without reducing
of it unto a new justification, as it is nowhere called in the
Scripture, the ends of that solemn judgement, — in the manifestation of the
wisdom and righteousness of God, in appointing the way of salvation by
Christ, as well as in giving of the law; the public conviction of them by
whom the law has been transgressed and the gospel despised; the vindication
of the righteousness, power, and wisdom of God in the rule of the world by
his providence, wherein, for the most part, his paths unto all in this life
are in the deep, and his footsteps are not known; the glory and honour of
Jesus Christ, triumphing over all his enemies, then fully made his
footstool; and the glorious exaltation of grace in all that do believe,
with sundry other things of an alike tendency unto the ultimate
manifestation of divine glory in the creation and guidance of all things, —
are sufficiently manifest.
And hence it appears how little force there is in that
argument which some pretend to be of so great weight in this cause. “As
every one,” they say, “shall be judged of God at the last day, in
the same way and manner or on the same grounds, is he justified of God in
this life; but by works, and not by faith alone, every one shall be judged
at the last day: wherefore by works, and not by faith alone, every one is
justified before God in this life.” For, —
1. It is nowhere said that we shall be judged at the last
day “ex operibus;” but only that God will render
unto men “secundum opera.” But God does not justify
any in this life “secundum opera;” being justified freely by his grace, and not according to the
works of righteousness which we have done. And we are everywhere said to
be justified in this life “ex fide,” “per fidem,” but nowhere “propter
fidem;” or, that God justifies us “secundum
fidem,” by faith, but not for our faith, nor according unto
our faith. And we are not to depart from the expressions of the Scripture,
where such a difference is constantly observed.
2. It is somewhat strange that a man should be judged at
the last day, and justified in this life, just in the same way and
manner, — that is, with respect unto faith and works, — when the
Scripture does constantly ascribe our justification before God unto faith
without works; and the judgment at the last day is said to be according
unto works, without any mention of faith.
3. If justification and eternal judgment
proceed absolutely on the same grounds, reasons, and causes, then if men
had not done what they shall be condemned for doing at the last day, they
should have been justified in this life; but many shall be condemned only
for sins against the light of nature, Rom. ii. 12, as
never having the written law or gospel made known unto them: wherefore unto
such persons, to abstain from sins against the light of nature would be
sufficient unto their justification, without any knowledge of Christ or the
gospel.
4. This proposition, — that God pardons men their sins,
gives them the adoption of children, with a right unto the heavenly
inheritance, according to their works, — is not only foreign to the
gospel, but contradictory unto it, and destructive of it, as contrary unto
all express testimonies of the Scripture, both in the Old Testament and the
New, where these things are spoken of; but that God judges all men, and
renders unto all men, at the last judgment, according unto their
works, is true, and affirmed in the Scripture.
5. In our justification in this life by faith, Christ is
considered as our propitiation and advocate, as he who has made
atonement for sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness; but at the
last day, and in the last judgment, he is considered only as the judge.
6. The end of God in our justification is the glory of
his grace, Eph. i. 6; but the end of God in the last
judgment is the glory of his remunerative righteousness, 2
Tim. iv. 8.
7. The representation that is made of the final
judgment, Matt. vii. and
xxv., is only of the visible church. And therein the
plea of faith, as to the profession of it, is common unto all, and is
equally made by all. Upon that plea of faith, it is put unto the trial
whether it were sincere, true faith or no, or only that which was dead and
barren. And this trial is made solely by the fruits and effects of it; and
otherwise, in the public declaration of things unto all, it cannot be made. Otherwise, the faith whereby we are justified comes
not into judgment at the last day. See John v. 24,
with Mark xvi. 16.
Chapter VII. Imputation, and the nature of it; with the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ in particular
Imputation, and the nature of it — The first express record of
justification determines it to be by imputation, Gen. xv.
6 — Reasons of it — The doctrine of imputation cleared by Paul;
the occasion of it — Maligned and opposed by many — Weight of the doctrine
concerning imputation of righteousness, on all hands acknowledged —
Judgment of the Reformed churches herein, particularly of the church of
England — By whom opposed, and on what grounds — Signification of the word
— Difference between “reputare” and “imputare” — Imputation of two kinds:— 1. Of what was ours
antecedently unto that imputation, whether good or evil — Instances in both
kinds — Nature of this imputation — The thing imputed by it, imputed for
what it is, and nothing else. 2. Of what is not ours antecedently unto
that imputation, but is made so by it — General nature of this imputation —
Not judging of others to have done what they have not done — Several
distinct grounds and reasons of this imputation:— 1. “Ex
justitia;” (1.) “Propter relationem
fœderalem;” (2.) “Propter relationem
naturalem;” 2. “Ex voluntaria sponsione” —
Instances, Philem. 18; Gen. xliii.
9 — Voluntary sponsion, the ground of the imputation of sin to
Christ. 3. “Ex injuria,” 1 Kings i.
21. 4. “Ex mera gratia,” Rom.
iv. — Difference between the imputation of any works of ours,
and of the righteousness of God — Imputation of inherent righteousness is
“ex justitia” — Inconsistency of it with that which
is “ex mera gratia,” Rom. xi. 6 —
Agreement of both kinds of imputation — The true nature of the imputation
of righteousness unto justification explained — Imputation of the
righteousness of Christ — The thing itself imputed, not the effect of it;
proved against the Socinians
The first
express record of the justification of any sinner is of Abraham. Others
were justified before him from the beginning, and there is that affirmed of
them which sufficiently evidences them so to have been; but this
prerogative was reserved for the father of the faithful, that
his justification, and the express way and manner of it, should be first
entered on the sacred record. So it is, Gen. xv. 6, “He
believed in the Lord, and it
was counted unto him for righteousness.” וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ, — it was “accounted” unto him, or
“imputed” unto him, for righteousness. Ἐλογίσθη, —
it was “counted, reckoned, imputed.” And “it was not written for his sake
alone that it was imputed unto him, but for us also, unto whom it shall be
imputed if we believe,” Rom. iv. 23,
24. Wherefore, the first express declaration of the nature of
justification in the Scripture affirms it to be by imputation, — the
imputation of somewhat unto righteousness; and this [is] done in that place
and instance which is recorded on purpose, as the precedent and example of
all those that shall be justified. As he was justified so are we, and no
otherwise.
Under the New Testament there was a necessity of a more
full and clear declaration of the doctrine of it; for it is among the first
and most principal parts of that heavenly mystery of truth which was to be
brought to light by the gospel. And, besides, there was from the
first a strong and dangerous opposition made unto it; for this
matter of justification, the doctrine of it, and what necessarily belongs
thereunto, was that whereon the Jewish church broke off from God, refused
Christ and the gospel, perishing in their sins; as is expressly declared,
Rom. ix. 31;
x. 3, 4. And, in like manner, a dislike of it, an opposition
unto it, ever was, and ever will be, a principle and cause of the apostasy
of any professing church from Christ and the gospel that falls under the
power and deceit of them; as it fell out afterwards in the churches of the
Galatians. But in this state the doctrine of justification was fully
declared, stated, and vindicated, by the apostle Paul, in a peculiar
manner. And he does it especially by affirming and proving that we have
the righteousness whereby and wherewith we are justified by
imputation; or, that our justification consists in the
non-imputation of sin, and the imputation of
righteousness.
But yet, although the first-recorded instance of
justification, — and which was so recorded that it might be an example, and
represent the justification of all that should be justified unto the end of
the world, — is expressed by imputation and righteousness
imputed, and the doctrine of it, in that great case wherein the eternal
welfare of the church of the Jews, or their ruin, was concerned, is so
expressed by the apostle; yet is it so fallen out in our days, that nothing
in religion is more maligned, more reproached, more despised, than the
imputation of righteousness unto us, or an imputed righteousness.
“A putative righteousness, the shadow of a dream, a fancy, a mummery, an
imagination,” say some among us. An opinion, “fœda,
execranda, pernitiosa, detestanda,” says Socinus. And opposition arises unto it every day from
great variety of principles; for those by whom it is opposed and rejected
can by no means agree what to set up in the place of it.
However, the weight and importance of this doctrine is on
all hands acknowledged, whether it be true or false. It is not a
dispute about notions, terms, and speculations, wherein Christian practice
is little or not at all concerned (of which nature many are needlessly
contended about); but such as has an immediate influence into our whole
present duty, with our eternal welfare or ruin. Those by
whom this imputation of righteousness is rejected, do affirm that
the faith and doctrine of it do overthrow the necessity of gospel
obedience, of personal righteousness and good works, bringing in
antinomianism and libertinism in life. Hereon it must, of
necessity, be destructive of salvation in those who believe it, and conform
their practice thereunto. And those, on the other hand, by whom it is
believed, seeing they judge it impossible that any man should be justified
before God any other way but by the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ, do, accordingly, judge that without it none can be saved.
Hence a learned man of late concludes his discourse concerning it, “Hactenus de imputatione justitiæ Christi; sine qua nemo unquam
aut salvatus est, aut salvari queat,” Justificat. Paulin. cap.
viii.; — “Thus far of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ;
without which no man was ever saved, nor can any so be.” They do not think
nor judge that all those are excluded from salvation who cannot apprehend,
or do deny, the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ, as by them declared; but they judge that they are so unto whom that
righteousness is not really imputed: nor can they do otherwise,
whilst they make it the foundation of all their own acceptation with God
and eternal salvation. These things greatly differ. To
believe the doctrine of it, or not to believe it, as thus or thus
explained, is one thing; and to enjoy the thing, or not enjoy
it, is another. I no way doubt but that many men do receive more grace
from God than they understand or will own, and have a greater efficacy of
it in them than they will believe. Men may be really saved by that grace
which doctrinally they do deny; and they may be justified by the
imputation of that righteousness which, in opinion, they deny to be
imputed: for the faith of it is included in that general assent
which they give unto the truth of the gospel, and such an adherence unto
Christ may ensue thereon, as that their mistake of the way whereby they
are saved by him shall not defraud them of a real interest therein. And
for my part, I must say that notwithstanding all the disputes that I see
and read about justification (some whereof are full of offence and
scandal), I do not believe but that the authors of them (if they be not
Socinians throughout, denying the whole merit and satisfaction of Christ)
do really trust unto the mediation of Christ for the pardon of their sins
and acceptance with God, and not unto their own works or obedience; nor
will I believe the contrary, until they expressly declare it. Of the
objection, on the other hand, concerning the danger of the doctrine of the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, in reference unto the
necessity of holiness and works of righteousness, we must treat
afterwards.
The judgment of the Reformed churches herein is known unto
all, and must be confessed, unless we intend by vain cavils to
increase and perpetuate contentions. Especially the church of England is
in her doctrine express as unto the imputation of the righteousness
of Christ, both active and passive, as it is usually
distinguished. This has been of late so fully manifested out of her
authentic writings, — that is, the articles of religion, and
books of homilies, and other writings publicly authorized, — that it
is altogether needless to give any farther demonstration of it. Those who
pretend themselves to be otherwise minded are such as I will not contend
withal; for to what purpose is it to dispute with men who will deny the
sun to shine, when they cannot bear the heat of its beams?
Wherefore, in what I have to offer on this subject, I shall not in the
least depart from the ancient doctrine of the church of England;
yea, I have no design but to declare and vindicate it, as God shall
enable.
There are, indeed, sundry differences among persons
learned, sober, and orthodox (if that term displease not), in the
way and manner of the explication of the doctrine of justification by the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, who yet all of them agree
in the substance of it, — in all those things wherein the grace of God, the
honour of Christ, and the peace of the souls of men, are principally
concerned. As far as it is possible for me, I shall avoid the concerning
of myself at present in these differences; for unto what
purpose is it to contend about them, whilst the substance of the
doctrine itself is openly opposed and rejected? Why should we debate
about the order and beautifying of the rooms in a house, whilst fire is set
unto the whole? When that is well quenched, we may return to the
consideration of the best means for the disposal and use of the several
parts of it.
There are two grand parties by whom the doctrine of
justification by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is
opposed, — namely, the Papists and the Socinians; but they
proceed on different principles, and unto different ends. The design of
the one is to exalt their own merits; of the other, to
destroy the merit of Christ. But besides these, who trade in
company, we have many interlopers, who, coming in on their hand, do
make bold to borrow from both as they see occasion. We shall have to do
with them all in our progress; not with the persons of any, nor the way and
manner of their expressing themselves, but the opinions of all of them, so
far as they are opposite unto the truth: for it is that which wise
men despise, and good men bewail, — to see persons pretending
unto religion and piety, to cavil at expressions, to contend about words,
to endeavour the fastening of opinions on men which they own not, and
thereon mutually to revile one another, publishing all to the world as some
great achievement or victory. This is not the way to teach the truths of
the gospel, nor to promote the edification of the church. But, in general,
the importance of the cause to be pleaded, the greatness of the opposition
that is made unto the truth, and the high concernment of the souls of
believers to be rightly instructed in it, do call for a renewed declaration
and vindication of it. And what I shall attempt unto this purpose I do it
under this persuasion, — that the life and continuance of any church on the
one hand, and its apostasy or ruin on the other, do depend in an eminent
manner on the preservation or rejection of the truth in this article of
religion; and, I shall add, as it has been professed, received, and
believed in the church of England in former days.
The first thing we are to consider is the meaning of these
words, to impute, and imputation; for, from a mere plain
declaration hereof, it will appear that sundry things charged on a
supposition of the imputation we plead for are vain and groundless,
or the charge itself is so.
חָשַב, the word first used to this
purpose, signifies to think, to esteem, to judge, or to refer
a thing or matter unto any; to impute, or to be imputed, for
good or evil. See Lev. vii. 18; xvii. 4, and
Ps. cvi. 31. וַתֵּחָשֶב לוֹ לִצְדָקָה, — “And it was counted,
reckoned, imputed unto him for righteousness;” to judge or esteem this
or that good or evil to belong unto him, to be his. The LXX. express it by
λογιζω and λογίζομαι, as do the writers of the New Testament also;
and these are rendered by “reputare, imputare, acceptum
ferre, tribuere, assignare, ascribere.” But there is a different
signification among these words: in particular, to be reputed
righteous, and to have righteousness imputed, differ, as cause
and effect; for that any may be reputed righteous, — that is, be judged or
esteemed so to be, — there must be a real foundation of that
reputation, or it is a mistake, and not a right judgment; as a man
may be reputed to be wise who is a fool, or reputed to be rich who is a
beggar. Wherefore, he that is reputed righteous must either have a
righteousness of his own, or another antecedently imputed unto him,
as the foundation of that reputation. Wherefore, to impute
righteousness unto one that has none of his own, is not to
repute him to be righteous who is indeed unrighteous; but it is to
communicate a righteousness unto him, that he may rightly and justly be
esteemed, judged, or reputed righteous.
“Imputare” is a word that the Latin
tongue owns in the sense wherein it is used by divines. “Optime de pessimis meruisti, ad quos pervenerit incorrupta rerum
fides, magno authori suo imputata,” Senec. ad Mart. And Plin., lib. xviii. cap. 1, in his apology for the earth,
our common parent, “Nostris eam criminibus urgemus,
culpamque nostram illi imputamus.”
In their sense, to impute any thing unto another is,
if it be evil, to charge it on him, to burden him with it: so says
Pliny, “We impute our own faults to the earth,
or charge them upon it.” If it be good, it is to ascribe it unto him as
his own, whether originally it were so or no: “Magno
authori imputata.” Vasquez, in Thom. 22, tom. ii. disp. 132, attempts the sense of the word,
but confounds it with “reputare:” “Imputare aut reputare quidquam alicui, est idem atque inter ea
quæ sunt ipsius, et ad eum pertinent, connumerare et recensere.”
This is “reputare” properly; “imputare” includes an act antecedent unto this
accounting or esteeming a thing to belong unto any person.
But whereas that may be imputed unto us which is
really our own antecedently unto that imputation, the word must
needs have a double sense, as it has in the instances given out of Latin
authors now mentioned. And, —
1. To impute unto us that which was really ours
antecedently unto that imputation, includes two things in it:— (1.) An
acknowledgment or judgment that the thing so imputed is really and
truly ours, or in us. He that imputes wisdom or learning unto any
man does, in the first place, acknowledge him to be wise or
learned. (2.) A dealing with them according unto it, whether it be
good or evil. So when, upon a trial, a man is
acquitted because he is found righteous; first, he is judged and esteemed
righteous, and then dealt with as a righteous person, — his righteousness
is imputed unto him. See this exemplified, Gen. xxx.
33.
2. To impute unto us that which is not our own
antecedently unto that imputation, includes also in it two things:—
(1.) A grant or donation of the thing itself unto us, to be
ours, on some just ground and foundation; for a thing must be made
ours before we can justly be dealt withal according unto what is
required on the account of it. (2.) A will of dealing with us, or an
actual dealing with us, according unto that which is so made ours; for in
this matter whereof we treat, the most holy and righteous God does not
justify any, — that is, absolve them from sin, pronounce them
righteous, and thereon grant unto them right and title unto eternal life, —
but upon the interveniency of a true and complete righteousness, truly and
completely made the righteousness of them that are to be justified in order
of nature antecedently unto their justification. But these things will be
yet made more clear by instances; and it is necessary they should be
so.
(1.) There is an imputation unto us of that which is
really our own, inherent in us, performed by us, antecedently unto
that imputation, and this whether it be evil or good. The rule and nature
hereof is given and expressed, Ezek. xviii.
20, “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and
the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Instances we have of both
sorts. First, in the imputation of sin when the person guilty of it is so
judged and reckoned a sinner as to be dealt withal accordingly. This
imputation Shimei deprecated, 2 Sam. xix.
19. He said unto the king, “Let not my lord impute iniquity
unto me,” — אַל־יַחֲשָׁב־לִי אַדֹנִי עָוֹן, the word
used in the expression of the imputation of righteousness, Gen.
xv. 6, — “neither do thou remember that which thy servant did
perversely: for thy servant doth know that I have sinned.” He was guilty,
and acknowledged his guilt; but deprecates the imputation of it in
such a sentence concerning him as his sin deserved. So Stephen deprecated
the imputation of sin unto them that stoned him, whereof they were really
guilty, Acts vii. 60, “Lay not this sin to their
charge;” — impute it not unto them: as, on the other side, Zechariah
the son of Jehoiada, who died in the same cause and the same kind of death
with Stephen, prayed that the sin of those which slew him might be charged
on them, 2 Chron. xxiv. 22. Wherefore to
impute sin is to lay it unto the charge of any, and to deal with
them according unto its desert.
To impute that which is good unto any, is to judge
and acknowledge it so to be theirs, and thereon to deal with them in whom
it is according unto its respect unto the law of God. The “righteousness
of the righteous shall be upon him.” So Jacob provided that
his “righteousness should answer for him,” Gen. xxx. 33.
And we have an instance of it in God’s dealing with men, Ps. cvi. 30, 31, “Then stood up
Phinehas and executed judgment; and that was counted unto him for
righteousness.” Notwithstanding it seemed that he had not sufficient
warrant for what he did, yet God, that knew his heart, and what guidance of
his own Spirit he was under, approved his act as righteous, and gave
him a reward testifying that approbation.
Concerning this imputation it must be observed, that
whatever is our own antecedently thereunto, which is an act of God
thereon, can never be imputed unto us for any thing more or less
than what it is really in itself. For this imputation consists of two
parts, or two things concur thereunto:— First, A judgment of the
thing to be ours, to be in us, or to belong unto us. Secondly, A
will of dealing with us, or an actual dealing with us,
according unto it. Wherefore, in the imputation of any thing unto us which
is ours, God esteems it not to be other than it is. He does not esteem
that to be a perfect righteousness which is imperfect; so to do,
might argue either a mistake of the thing judged on, or perverseness in the
judgment itself upon it. Wherefore, if, as some say, our own faith and
obedience are imputed unto us for righteousness, seeing they are
imperfect, they must be imputed unto us for an imperfect
righteousness, and not for that which is perfect; for that judgment of
God which is according unto truth is in this imputation. And the
imputation of an imperfect righteousness unto us, esteeming it only
as such, will stand us in little stead in this matter. And the
acceptilation which some plead (traducing a fiction in human laws to
interpret the mystery of the gospel) does not only overthrow all
imputation, but the satisfaction and merit of Christ also. And it must
be observed, that this imputation is a mere act of justice, without
any mixture of grace; as the apostle declares, Rom.
xi. 6. For it consists of these two parts:— First, An
acknowledging and judging that to be in us which is truly so; Secondly, A
will of dealing with us according unto it: both which are acts of
justice.
(2.) The imputation unto us of that which is not our own
antecedently unto that imputation, at least not in the same manner as
it is afterwards, is various also, as unto the grounds and causes that it
proceeds upon. Only it must be observed, that no imputation of this
kind is to account them unto whom anything is imputed to have done the
things themselves which are imputed unto them. That were not to
impute, but to err in judgment, and, indeed, utterly to
overthrow the whole nature of gracious imputation. But it is to make
that to be ours by imputation which was not ours before, unto all
ends and purposes whereunto it would have served if it had been our own
without any such imputation.
It is therefore a manifest mistake of
their own which some make the ground of a charge on the doctrine of
imputation. For they say, “If our sins were imputed unto Christ,
then must he be esteemed to have done what we have done amiss, and so be
the greatest sinner that ever was;” and on the other side, “If his
righteousness be imputed unto us, then are we esteemed to have done what
he did, and so to stand in no need of the pardon of sin.” But
this is contrary unto the nature of imputation, which proceeds on no such
judgment; but, on the contrary, that we ourselves have done nothing of what
is imputed unto us, nor Christ any thing of what was imputed unto him.
To declare more distinctly the nature of this
imputation, I shall consider the several kinds of it, or
rather the several grounds whence it proceeds. For this imputation
unto us of what is not our own antecedent unto that imputation, may
be either, — 1. “Ex justitia;” or, 2. “Ex voluntaria sponsione;” or, 3. “Ex
injuria; or, 4. “Ex gratia;” — all which
shall be exemplified. I do not place them thus distinctly, as if they
might not some of them concur in the same imputation, which I shall
manifest that they do; but I shall refer the several kinds of imputation
unto that which is the next cause of every one.
1. Things that are not our own originally, personally,
inherently, may yet be imputed unto us “ex
justitia,” by the rule of righteousness. And this may be done upon
a double relation unto those whose they are:— (1.) Federal. (2.)
Natural.
(1.) Things done by one may he imputed unto others, “propter relationem fœderalem,” — because of a covenant
relation between them. So the sin of Adam was and is imputed unto
all his posterity; as we shall afterward more fully declare. And the
ground hereof is that we stood all in the same covenant with him, who was
our head and representative therein. The corruption and depravation
of nature which we derive from Adam is imputed unto us with the first
kind of imputation, — namely, of that which is ours antecedently unto
that imputation: but his actual sin is imputed unto us as that which
becomes ours by that imputation; which before it was not. Hence, says
Bellarmine himself, “Peccatum Adami ita posteris omnibus imputatur, ac si omnes idem
peccatum patravissent,” De Amiss. Grat., lib.
iv. cap. 10; — “The sin of Adam is so imputed unto all his
posterity, as if they had all committed the same sin.” And he gives us
herein the true nature of imputation, which he fiercely disputes against in
his books on justification. For the imputation of that sin unto us, as if
we had committed it, which he acknowledges, includes both a
transcription of that sin unto us, and a dealing with us as if we
had committed it; which is the doctrine of the apostle, Rom.
v.
(2) There is an imputation of sin unto others, “ex justitia propter
relationem naturalem,” — on the account of a natural relation
between them and those who had actually contracted the guilt of it. But
this is so only with respect unto some outward, temporary effects of
it. So God speaks concerning the children of the rebellious Israelites in
the wilderness, “Your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years,
and bear your whoredoms,” Numb. xiv. 33;
— “Your sin shall be so far imputed unto your children, because of
their relation unto you, and your interest in them, as that
they shall suffer for them in an afflictive condition in the wilderness.”
And this was just because of the relation between them; as the same
procedure of divine justice is frequently declared in other places of the
Scripture. So, where there is a due foundation of it, imputation is an act
of justice.
2. Imputation may justly ensue “ex
voluntaria sponsione,” — when one freely and willingly undertakes to
answer for another. An illustrious instance hereof we have in that passage
of the apostle unto Philemon in the behalf of Onesimus, verse
18, “If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought” (τοῦτο ἐμοι ἐλλόγει), “impute it unto me, — put it on my
account.” He supposes that Philemon might have a double action against
Onesimus. (1.) “Injuriarum,” of wrongs: Εἰ δέ τι ἠδίκησέ σε· — “If he hath dealt unjustly with
thee, or by thee, if he hath so wronged thee as to render himself obnoxious
unto punishment.” (2.) “Damni,” or of loss: Ἢ ὀφείλει· — “If he oweth thee ought, be a debtor unto
thee;” which made him liable to payment or restitution. In this state the
apostle interposes himself by a voluntary sponsion, to undertake for
Onesimus: “I Paul have written it with my own hand,” Ἐγὼ
ἀποτίσω· — “I Paul will answer for the whole.” And this he did by
the transcription of both the debts of Onesimus unto himself; for
the crime was of that nature as might be taken away by compurgation, being
not capital. And the imputation of them unto him was made just by his
voluntary undertaking of them. “Account me,” says he, “the
person that has done these things; and I will make satisfaction, so
that nothing be charged on Onesimus.” So Judah voluntarily undertook unto
Jacob for the safety of Benjamin, and obliged himself unto perpetual
guilt in case of failure, Gen. xliii. 9,
“I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him: if I bring
him not unto thee, and set him before thee,” וְחָטָאתִי לְךָ כָּל־הַיָּמִים, — “I will sin,” or “be a
sinner before thee always,” — be guilty, and, as we say, bear the
blame. So he expresses himself again unto Joseph, chap. xliv. 32. It seems this is the
nature and office of a surety; what he undertakes for is justly to
be required at his hand, as if he had been originally and personally
concerned in it. And this voluntary sponsion was one ground of the
imputation of our sin unto Christ. He took on him the person of the whole church that had sinned, to answer for what they had
done against God and the law. Hence that imputation was “fundamentaliter ex compacto, ex voluntaria sponsione;” —
it had its foundation in his voluntary undertaking. But, on supposition
hereof, it was actually “ex justitia;” it being
righteous that he should answer for it, and make good what he had so
undertaken, the glory of God’s righteousness and holiness being greatly
concerned herein.
3. There is an imputation “ex
injuria,” when that is laid unto the charge of any whereof he is not
guilty: so Bathsheba says unto David, “It shall come to pass that when my
lord the king shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall
be חַטָּאִים,” (sinners), 1
Kings i. 21; — “shall be dealt with as offenders, as guilty
persons; have sin imputed unto us, on one pretence or other, unto our
destruction. We shall be sinners, — be esteemed so, and be dealt
withal accordingly.” And we may see that, in the phrase of the Scripture,
the denomination of sinners follows the imputation as well as the
inhesion of sin; which will give light unto that place of the
apostle, “He was made sin for us,” 2 Cor. v. 21.
This kind of imputation has no place in the judgment of God. It is far
from him that the righteous should be as the wicked.
4. There is an imputation “ex mera
gratia,” — of mere grace and favour. And this is, when that which
antecedently unto this imputation was no way ours, not
inherent in us, not performed by us, which we had no right nor title
unto, is granted unto us, made ours, so as that we are judged of and dealt
with according unto it. This is that imputation, in both branches
of it, — negative in the non-imputation of sin, and positive in the
imputation of righteousness, — which the apostle so vehemently
pleads for, and so frequently asserts, Rom. iv.; for he
both affirms the thing itself, and declares that it is of mere
grace, without respect unto any thing within ourselves. And if this
kind of imputation cannot be fully exemplified in any other instance but
this alone whereof we treat, it is because the foundation of it, in the
mediation of Christ, is singular, and that which there is nothing to
parallel in any other case among men.
From what has been discoursed concerning the nature and
grounds of imputation, sundry things are made evident, which
contribute much light unto the truth which we plead for, at least unto the
right understanding and stating of the matter under debate. As, —
1. The difference is plain between the imputation of
any works of our own unto us, and the imputation of the
righteousness of faith without works. For the imputation of works unto
us, be they what they will, be it faith itself as a work of obedience in
us, is the imputation of that which was ours before such imputation;
but the imputation of the righteousness of faith, or the righteousness of
God which is by faith, is the imputation of that which is
made ours by virtue of that imputation. And these two imputations
differ in their whole kind. The one is a judging of that to be in
us which indeed is so, and is ours before that judgment be passed
concerning it; the other is a communication of that unto us which
before was not ours. And no man can make sense of the apostle’s discourse,
— that is, he cannot understand any thing of it, — if he acknowledge not
that the righteousness he treats of is made ours by
imputation, and was not ours antecedently thereunto.
2. The imputation of works, of what sort soever
they be, of faith itself as a work, and all the obedience of faith,
is “ex justitia,” and not “ex
gratia,” — of right, and not of grace. However the bestowing of
faith on us, and the working of obedience in us, may be of grace, yet the
imputation of them unto us, as in us, and as ours, is an act of
justice; for this imputation, as was showed, is nothing but a
judgment that such and such things are in us, or are ours, which
truly and really are so, with a treating of us according unto them. This
is an act of justice, as it appears in the description given of that
imputation; but the imputation of righteousness, mentioned by the
apostle, is as unto us “ex mera gratia,” of mere
grace, as he fully declares, — δωρεὰν τῇ χάριτι
αὐτοῦ. And, moreover, he declares that these two sorts of
imputation are inconsistent and not capable of any composition, so that
any thing should be partly of the one, and partly of the other, Rom.
xi. 6, “If by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise
grace is no more grace: but if it be of works, then it is no more grace;
otherwise work is no more work.” For instance, if faith itself as a
work of ours be imputed unto us, it being ours antecedently unto
that imputation, it is but an acknowledgment of it to be in us and ours,
with an ascription of it unto us for what it is; for the ascription
of any thing unto us for what it is not, is not imputation, but
mistake. But this is an imputation “ex justitia,”
of works; and so that which is of mere grace can have no place, by the
apostle’s rule. So the imputation unto us of what is in us is exclusive of
grace, in the apostle’s sense. And on the other hand, if the righteousness
of Christ be imputed unto us, it must be “ex mera
gratia,” of mere grace; for that is imputed unto us which was not
ours antecedently unto that imputation, and so is communicated unto
us thereby. And here is no place for works, nor for any pretence of them.
In the one way, the foundation of imputation is in ourselves; in the other,
it is in another; which are irreconcilable.
3. Herein both these kinds of imputation do agree,
— namely, in that whatever is imputed unto us, it is imputed for what it
is, and not for what it is not. If it be a perfect
righteousness that is imputed unto us, so it is esteemed and judged to
be; and accordingly are we to be dealt withal, even as those
who have a perfect righteousness; and if that which is imputed as
righteousness unto us be imperfect, or imperfectly so, then as such
must it be judged when it is imputed; and we must be dealt withal as those
which have such an imperfect righteousness, and no otherwise. And
therefore, whereas our inherent righteousness is imperfect (they are
to be pitied or despised, not to be contended withal, that are otherwise
minded), if that be imputed unto us, we cannot be accepted on the
account thereof as perfectly righteous, without an error in judgment.
4. Hence the true nature of that imputation which we plead
for (which so many cannot or will not understand) is manifest, and that
both negatively and positively; for, — (1.) Negatively.
First, It is not a judging or esteeming of them to be righteous who
truly and really are not so. Such a judgment is not reducible unto any of
the grounds of imputation before mentioned. It has the nature of that
which is “ex injuria,” or a false charge, only it
differs materially from it; for that respects evil, this that
which is good. And therefore the clamours of the Papists and others
are mere effects of ignorance or malice, wherein they cry out “ad ravim,” [till they are hoarse,] that we affirm God to
esteem them to be righteous who are wicked, sinful, and
polluted. But this falls heavily on them who maintain that we are
justified before God by our own inherent righteousness: for then a man is
judged righteous who indeed is not so; for he who is not perfectly
righteous cannot be righteous in the sight of God unto justification.
Secondly, It is not a naked pronunciation or declaration of any one
to be righteous, without a just and sufficient foundation for the judgement
of God declared therein. God declares no man to be righteous but him who
is so; the whole question being how he comes so to be. Thirdly, It is not
the transmission or transfusion of the righteousness of
another into them that are to be justified, that they should become
perfectly and inherently righteous thereby; for it is impossible that the
righteousness of one should be transfused into another, to become
his subjectively and inherently: but it is a great mistake, on the
other hand, to say that therefore the righteousness of one can no way be
made the righteousness of another; which is to deny all imputation.
Wherefore, — (2.) Positively. This imputation is an act
of God “ex mera gratia,” — of his mere love
and grace; whereby, on the consideration of the mediation of Christ, he
makes an effectual grant and donation of a true, real, perfect
righteousness, even that of Christ himself unto all that do believe; and
accounting it as theirs, on his own gracious act, both absolves them from
sin and grants them right and title unto eternal life. Hence, —
5. In this imputation, the thing itself is first
imputed unto us, and not any of the effects of it, but they are made
ours by virtue of that imputation. To say that the
righteousness of Christ, — that is, his obedience and sufferings, — are
imputed unto us only as unto their effects, is to say that we have the
benefit of them, and no more; but imputation itself is denied. So say the
Socinians; but they know well enough, and ingenuously grant, that they
overthrow all true, real imputation thereby. “Nec enim ut
per Christi justitiam justificemur, opus est ut illius justitia, nostra
fiat justitia; sed sufficit ut Christi justitia sit causa nostræ
justificationis; et hactenus possumus tibi concedere, Christi justitiam
esse nostram justitiam, quatenus nostrum in bonum justitiamque redundat;
verum tu proprie nostram, id est, nobis attributam ascriptamque
intelligis,” says Schlichtingius, Disp. pro Socin. ad Meisner. p.
250. And it is not pleasing to see some among ourselves with so
great confidence take up the sense and words of these men in their
disputations against the Protestant doctrine in this cause; that is,
the doctrine of the church of England.
That the righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us as
unto its effects, has this sound sense in it, — namely, 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 really communicates all the
effects of it unto us. But to say the righteousness of Christ is not
imputed unto us, only its effects are so, is really to overthrow all
imputation; for (as we shall see) the effects of the righteousness of
Christ cannot be said properly to be imputed unto us; and if his
righteousness itself be not so, imputation has no place herein, nor can it
be understood why the apostle should so frequently assert it as he does,
Rom. iv. And therefore the Socinians, who
expressly oppose the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, and plead
for a participation of its effects or benefits only, do wisely deny any
such kind of righteousness of Christ, — namely, of satisfaction and
merit (or that the righteousness of Christ, as wrought by him, was
either satisfactory or meritorious), — as alone may be imputed unto us.
For it will readily be granted, that what alone they allow the
righteousness of Christ to consist in cannot be imputed unto us, whatever
benefit we may have by it. But I do not understand how those who grant the
righteousness of Christ to consist principally in his satisfaction
for us, or in our stead, can conceive of an imputation of the
effects thereof unto us, without an imputation of the thing itself;
seeing it is for that, as made ours, that we partake of the benefits of it.
But, from the description of imputation and the instances of it, it
appears that there can be no imputation of any thing unless the thing
itself be imputed; nor any participation of the effects of
any thing but what is grounded on the imputation of the thing itself.
Wherefore, in our particular case, no imputation of the righteousness of
Christ is allowed, unless we grant itself to be imputed; nor can we have
any participation of the effects of it but on the supposition and
foundation of that imputation. The impertinent cavils that some of late
have collected from the Papists and Socinians, — that if it be so, then are
we as righteous as Christ himself, that we have redeemed the
world and satisfied for the sins of others, that the pardon of sin
is impossible and personal righteousness needless, — shall
afterward be spoken unto, so far as they deserve.
All that we aim to demonstrate is, only, that either the
righteousness of Christ itself is imputed unto us, or there is no
imputation in the matter of our justification; which, whether there be or
no, is another question, afterward to be spoken unto. For, as was said,
the effects of the righteousness of Christ cannot be said properly to be
imputed unto us. For instance, pardon of sin is a great effect of the
righteousness of Christ. Our sins are pardoned on the account thereof.
God for Christ’s sake, forgives us all our sins. But the pardon of
sin cannot be said to be imputed unto us, nor is so. Adoption,
justification, peace with God, all grace and glory, are effects of the
righteousness of Christ; but that these things are not imputed unto us, nor
can be so, is evident from their nature. But we are made partakers of them
all upon the account of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto
us, and no otherwise.
Thus much may suffice to be spoken of the nature of
imputation of the righteousness of Christ; the grounds, reasons, and
causes whereof, we shall in the next place inquire into. And I doubt not
but we shall find, in our inquiry, that it is no such figment as some,
ignorant of these things, do imagine; but, on the contrary, an important
truth immixed with the most fundamental principles of the mystery of the
gospel, and inseparable from the grace of God in Christ Jesus.
Chapter VIII. Imputation of the sins of the church unto Christ —
Grounds of it — The nature of his suretiship — Causes of the new covenant —
Christ and the church one mystical person — Consequents thereof
Imputation of sin unto Christ — Testimonies of the ancients unto
that purpose — Christ and the church one mystical person — Mistakes about
that state and relation — Grounds and reasons of the union that is the
foundation of this imputation — Christ the surety of the new covenant; in
what sense, unto what ends — Heb. vii. 22,
opened — Mistakes about the causes and ends of the death of Christ — The
new covenant, in what sense alone procured and purchased thereby — Inquiry
whether the guilt of our sins was imputed unto Christ — The meaning of the
words, “guilt,” and “guilty” — The distinction of “reatus
culpæ,” and “reatus pœnæ,” examined — Act of
God in the imputation of the guilt of our sins unto Christ — Objections
against it answered — The truth confirmed
Those who
believe the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto
believers, for the justification of life, do also unanimously profess that
the sins of all believers were imputed unto Christ. And this they
do on many testimonies of the Scripture directly witnessing thereunto; some
whereof shall be pleaded and vindicated afterwards. At present we are only
on the consideration of the general notion of these things,
and the declaration of the nature of what shall be proved afterwards. And,
in the first place, we shall inquire into the foundation of this
dispensation of God, and the equity of it, or the grounds whereinto it is
resolved; without an understanding whereof the thing itself cannot be well
apprehended.
The principal foundation hereof is, — that Christ and
the church, in this design, were one mystical person; which
state they do actually coalesce into, through the uniting efficacy
of the Holy Spirit. He is the head, and believers are the members of that
one person, as the apostle declares, 1 Cor.
xii. 12, 13. Hence, as what he did is imputed unto them, as if
done by them; so what they deserved on the account of sin was charged upon
him. So is it expressed by a learned prelate, “Nostram
causam sustinebat, qui nostram sibi carnem aduniverat, et ita nobis
arctissimo vinculo conjunctus, et ἑνωθεὶς, quæ erant nostra fecit
sua.” And again, “Quit mirum si in nostra persona
constitutus, nostram carnem indutus,” etc., Montacut. Origin. Ecclesiast. The ancients
speak to the same purpose. Leo. Serm.
xvii. “Ideo se humanæ imfirmitati virtus divina
conseruit, ut dum Deus sua facit esse quæ nostra sunt, nostra faceret esse
quæ sua sunt;” and also Serm. xvi.
“Caput nostrum Dominus Jesus Christus omnia in se corporis
sui membra transformans, quod olim in psalmo eructaverit, id in supplicio
crucis sub redemptorum suorum voce clamavit.” And so speaks Augustine to the same purpose, Epist. cxx., ad Honoratum, “Audimus vocem corporis ex ore capitis. Ecclesia in illo
patiebatur, quando pro ecclesia patiebatur,” etc.; — “We hear the
voice of the body from the mouth of the head. The church suffered in him
when he suffered for the church; as he suffers in the church when the
church suffers for him. For as we have heard the voice of the church in
Christ suffering, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? look upon
me;’ so we have heard the voice of Christ in the church suffering, ‘Saul,
Saul, why persecuteth thou me?’ ” But we may yet look a little backwards
and farther into the sense of the ancient church herein. “Christus,” says Irenæus,
“omnes gentes exinde ab Adam dispersas, et generationem
hominum in semet ipso recapitulatus est; unde a Paulo typus futuri dictus
est ipse Adam,” lib. iii. cap.
33. And again, “Recapitulans universum hominum
genus in se ab initio usque ad finem, recapitulatus est et mortem
ejus.” In this of recapitulation, there is no doubt but he
had respect unto the ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, mentioned
Eph. i. 10; and it may be this was that
which Origen intended enigmatically, by
saying, “The soul of the first Adam was the soul of Christ, as it is
charged on him.” And Cyprian, Epist. lxii., on bearing about the
administration of the sacrament of the eucharist, “Nos
omnes portabat Christus; qui et peccata nostra portabet;” — “He bare
us,” or suffered in our person, “when he bare our sins.”
Whence Athanasius affirms of the voice he
used on the cross, Οὐκ αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος· ἀλλὰ ἡμεῖς ἐν ἐκείνῳ
πάσχοντες ἦμεν· — “We suffered in him.” Eusebius speaks many things to this purpose, Demonstrat. Evangel. lib. x.
cap. 1. Expounding those words of the psalmist, “Heal my soul, for”
(or, as he would read them, if) “I have sinned against thee,” and applying
them unto our Saviour in his sufferings, he says thus, Ἐπειδὰν τὰς ἡμετέρας κοινοποιεῖ εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἁμαρτίας· —
“Because he took of our sins to himself;” communicated our sins to himself,
making them his own: for so he adds, Ὅτι τὰς ἡμέτερας
ἁμαρτίας ἐξοικειούμενος· — “Making our sins his own.” And because
in his following words he fully expresses what I design to prove, I shall
transcribe them at large: Πῶς δὲ τὰς ἡμετέρας ἁμαρτίας
ἐξοικειοῦται; καὶ πῶς φέρειν λέγεται τὰς ἀνομίας ἡμῶν, ἢ καθ’ ὁ σῶμα αὐτοῦ εἶναι λεγόμεθα; κατὰ
τὸν ἀπόστολον φήσαντα, ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ σῶμα
Χριστοῦ, καὶ μέλη ἐκ μέρους· καὶ καθ’ ὃ πάσχοντος ἑνὸς μέλους, συμπάσχει πάντα
τὰ μέλη, οὕτω τῶν πολλῶν μελῶν πασχόντων καὶ
ἁμαρτανόντων, καὶ αὐτὸς κατὰ τοὺς τῆς συμπαθείας
λόγους, ἐπειδήπερ εὐδόκησε Θεοῦ Λόγος ὢν,
μορφὴν δούλου λαβεῖν, καὶ τῷ κοινῷ
πάντων ἡμῶν σκηνώματι συναφθῆναι· τοὺς τῶν πασχόντων μελῶν πόνους εἰς
ἑαυτὸν ἀναλαμβάνει, καὶ τὰς ἡμετέρας νόσους
ἰδιοποιεῖται, καὶ πάντων ἡμῶν ὑπεραλγεῖ καὶ
ὑπερπονεῖ κατὰ τοὺς τῆς φιλανθρωπίας νόμους· οὐ μόνον δὲ ταῦτα πράξας ὁ
Ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κολασθεὶς καὶ
τιμωρίαν ὑποσχών, ἣν αὐτὸς μὲν οὐκ ὤφειλεν,
ἀλλ’ ἡμεις τοῦ πλήθους ἕνεκεν
πεπλημμελημένων, ἡμῖν αἴτιος τῆς τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων
ἀφέσεως κατέστη, ἅτε τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀναδεξάμενος
θανάτον, μάστιγάς τε καὶ ὕβρεις καὶ ἀτιμίας ἡμῖν
ἐποφειλομένας εἰς αὐτὸν μεταθεὶς, καὶ τὴν ἡμῖν
προστετιμημένην κατάραν ἐφ’ ἑαυτὸν ἑλκύσας,
γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα· καὶ τί γὰρ ἄλλο ἣ ἀντίψυχος;
διό φησιν ἐξ ἡμετέρου προσώπου τὸ λόγιον — ὥστε
εἰκότως ἑνῶν ἑαυτὸν ἡμῖν, ἡμᾶς τε αὑτῶ καὶ τὰ
ἡμέτερα πάθη ἰδιοποιούμενός φησιν, ἐγὼ εἶπα,
Κύριε ἐλέησόν με, ἰάσαι τὴν ψυχήν
μου, ὅτι ἥμαρτόν σοι.
I have transcribed this passage at large because, as I
said, what I intend to prove in the present discourse is declared fully
therein. Thus, therefore, he speaks: “How, then, did he make our sins to
be his own, and how did he bear our iniquities? Is it not from thence,
that we are said to be his body? as the apostle speaks, ‘You are the body
of Christ, and members, for your part, or of one another.’ And as when one
member suffers, all the members do suffer; so the many members sinning and
suffering, he, according unto the laws of sympathy in the same body (seeing
that, being the Word of God, he would take the form of a servant, and be
joined unto the common habitation of us all in the same nature), took the
sorrows or labours of the suffering members on him, and made all their
infirmities his own; and, according to the laws of humanity (in the same
body), bare our sorrow and labour for us. And the Lamb of God did not only
these things for us but he underwent torments and was punished for us; that which he was no ways exposed unto for himself, but we
were so by the multitude of our sins: and thereby he became the cause of
the pardon of our sins, — namely, because he underwent death, stripes,
reproaches, translating the thing which we had deserved unto himself, — and
was made a curse for us, taking unto himself the curse that was due to us;
for what was he but (a substitute for us) a price of redemption for our
souls? In our person, therefore, the oracle speaks, — whilst freely
uniting himself unto us, and us unto himself, and making our (sins or
passions his own), ‘I have said, Lord, be merciful unto me; heal my soul,
for I have sinned against thee.’ ”
That our sins were transferred unto Christ and made
his, that thereon he underwent the punishment that was due unto us
for them, and that the ground hereof, whereinto its equity is resolved, is
the union between him and us, is fully declared in this discourse.
So says the learned and pathetical author of the Homilies on Matt. v., in the works of Chrysostom, Hom. liv., which is the last of them,
“In carne sua omnem carnem suscepit, crucifixus, omnem
carnem crucifixit in se.” He speaks of the church. So they speak
often, others of them, that “he bare us,” that “he took us with him on the
cross,” that “we were all crucified in him;” as Prosper, “He is not saved by the cross of Christ who
is not crucified in Christ,” Resp. ad cap., Gal. cap. ix.
This, then, I say, is the foundation of the
imputation of the sins of the church unto Christ, — namely, that he and it
are one person; the grounds whereof we must inquire into.
But hereon sundry discourses do ensue, and various
inquiries are made, — What a person is? in what sense, and
in how many senses, that word may be used? what is the true notion
of it? what is a natural person? what a legal, civil, or
political person? in the explication whereof some have fallen into
mistakes. And if we should enter into this field, we need not fear matter
enough of debate and altercation. But I must needs say, that these things
belong not unto our present occasion; nor is the union of Christ and the
church illustrated, but obscured by them. For Christ and believers are
neither one natural person, nor a legal or political
person, nor any such person as the laws, customs, or usages of men
do know or allow of. They are one mystical person; whereof although
there may be some imperfect resemblances found in natural or
political unions, yet the union from whence that denomination is
taken between him and us is of that nature, and arises from such reasons
and causes, as no personal union among men (or the union of many
persons) has any concernment in. And therefore, as to the
representation of it unto our weak understandings, unable to
comprehend the depth of heavenly mysteries, it is compared unto
unions of divers kinds and natures. So is it
represented by that of man and wife; not as unto those mutual
affections which give them only a moral union, but from the
extraction of the first woman from the flesh and bone of the first
man, and the institution of God for the individual society of life thereon.
This the apostle at large declares, Eph. v.
25–32: whence he concludes, that from the union thus
represented, “We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones,”
verse 30; or have such a relation unto
him as Eve had to Adam, when she was made of his flesh and bone, and
so was one flesh with him. So, also, it is compared unto the union of the
head and members of the same natural body, 1 Cor. xii.
12; and unto a political union also, between a ruling or
political head and its political members; but never exclusively unto the
union of a natural head and its members comprised in the same expression,
Eph. iv. 15; Col. ii. 19.
And so also unto sundry things in nature, as a vine and its
branches, John xv. 1,
2. And it is declared by the relation that was between
Adam and his posterity, by God’s institution and the law of
creation, Rom. v. 12, etc. And the Holy Ghost, by
representing the union that is between Christ and believers by such a
variety of resemblances, in things agreeing only in the common or
general notion of union, on various grounds, does sufficiently
manifest that it is not of, nor can be reduced unto, any one kind of them.
And this will yet be made more evident by the consideration of the
causes of it, and the grounds whereinto it is resolved. But whereas
it would require much time and diligence to handle them at large, which the
mention of them here, being occasional, will not admit, I shall only
briefly refer unto the heads of them:—
1. The first spring or cause of this union, and of
all the other causes of it, lies in that eternal compact that was
between the Father and the Son concerning the recovery and salvation of
fallen mankind. Herein, among other things, as the effects thereof, the
assumption of our nature (the foundation of this union) was
designed. The nature and terms of this compact, counsel, and agreement, I
have declared elsewhere; and therefore must not here again insist upon it.
But the relation between Christ and the church, proceeding from
hence, and so being an effect of infinite wisdom, in the counsel of the
Father and Son, to be made effectual by the Holy Spirit, must be
distinguished from all other unions or relations whatever.
2. The Lord Christ, as unto the nature which he was to
assume, was hereon predestinated unto grace and glory. He was προεγνωσμένος, — “fore-ordained,” predestinated, “before
the foundation of the world,” 1 Pet. i. 20;
that is, he was so, as unto his office, so unto all the grace and glory
required thereunto, and consequent thereon. All the grace and glory of the
human nature of Christ was an effect of free divine
pre-ordination. God chose it from all eternity unto a participation of
all which it received in time. Neither can any other cause of the glorious
exaltation of that portion of our nature be assigned.
3. This grace and glory whereunto he was preordained was
twofold:— (1.) That which was peculiar unto himself; (2.) That which
was to be communicated, by and through him, unto the church. (1.) Of
the first sort was the χάρις ἑνώσεως, — the
grace of personal union; that single effect of divine wisdom
(whereof there is no shadow nor resemblance in any other works of God,
either of creation, providence, or grace), which his nature was filled
withal: “Full of grace and truth.” And all his personal glory, power,
authority, and majesty as mediator, in his exaltation at the right hand of
God, which is expressive of them all, do belong hereunto. These things
were peculiar unto him, and all of them effects of his eternal
predestination. But, — (2.) He was not thus predestinated
absolutely, but also with respect unto that grace and glory which in him
and by him was to be communicated unto the church And he was so, —
[1.] As the pattern and exemplary cause of our
predestination; for we are “predestinated to be conformed unto the image of
the Son of God, that he might be the first born among many brethren,”
Rom. viii. 29. Hence he shall even
“change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious
body,” Phil. iii. 21; that when he appears we
may be every way like him, 1 John iii.
2.
[2.] As the means and cause of communicating all grace
and glory unto us; for we are “chosen in him before the foundation of
the world, that we should be holy, and predestinated unto the adoption of
children by him,” Eph. i.
3–5. He was designed as the only procuring cause of all
spiritual blessings in heavenly things unto those who are chosen in him.
Wherefore, —
[3.] He was thus fore-ordained as the head of the
church; it being the design of God to gather all things into a head in him,
Eph. i. 10.
[4.] All the elect of God were, in his eternal
purpose and design, and in the everlasting covenant between the Father and
the Son, committed unto him, to be delivered from sin, the law, and death,
and to be brought into the enjoyment of God: “Thine they were, and thou
gavest them me,” John xvii. 6. Hence was that love of
his unto them wherewith he loved them, and gave himself for them,
antecedently unto any good or love in them, Eph. v. 25,
26; Gal. ii. 20; Rev. i. 5,
6.
[5.] In the prosecution of this design of God, and in the
accomplishment of the everlasting covenant, in the fulness of time he took
upon him our nature, or took it into personal subsistence with himself.
The especial relation that ensued hereon between him and the elect children the apostle declares at large, Heb. ii. 10–17; and I refer the reader
unto our exposition of that place.
[6.] On these foundations he undertook to be the surety
of the new covenant, Heb. vii. 22,
“Jesus was made a surety of a better testament.” This alone, of all the
fundamental considerations of the imputation of our sins unto Christ, I
shall insist upon, on purpose to obviate or remove some mistakes about the
nature of his suretiship, and the respect of it unto the covenant
whereof he was the surety. And I shall borrow what I shall offer hereon
from our exposition of this passage of the apostle in the seventh chapter
of this epistle, not yet published, with very little variation from what I
have discoursed on that occasion, without the least respect unto, or
prospect of, any treating on our present subject.
The word ἔγγυος is nowhere found in
the Scripture but in this place only; but the advantage which some would
make from thence, — namely, that it being but one place wherein the
Lord, Christ is called a surety, it is not of much force, or much to be
insisted on, — is both unreasonable and absurd; for, — 1st.
This one place is of divine revelation; and therefore is of the same
authority with twenty testimonies unto the same purpose. One divine
testimony makes our faith no less necessary, nor does one less secure it
from being deceived than a hundred.
2dly. The signification of the word is
known from the use of it, and what it signifies among men; so that
no question can be made of its sense and importance, though it be but once
used: and this on any occasion removes the difficulty and danger, τῶν ἅπαξ λεγομένων. 3dly. The thing itself
intended is so fully declared by the apostle in this place, and so
plentifully taught in other places of the Scripture, as that the single use
of this word may add light, but can be no prejudice unto it.
Something may be spoken unto the signification of the word
ἔγγυος, which will give light into the thing
intended by it. Γύαλον is “vola
manûs,” — the “palm of the hand;” thence is ἔγγυος, or εἰς τὸ γύαλον, — to
“deliver into the hand.” Ἐγγυητής is of the same
signification. Hence being a surety is interpreted by striking the hand,
Prov. vi. 1, “My son, if thou be surety
for thy friend, if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger.” So it
answers the Hebrew עָרַב, which the LXX. render
ἐγγυάω, Prov. vi. 1; xvii.
18; xx. 16; and by διεγγυάω, Neh. v.
3. עָרַב originally signifies to
mingle, or a mixture of any things or persons; and thence,
from the conjunction and mixture is between a surety and
him for whom he is a surety, whereby they coalesce into one
person, as unto the ends of that suretiship, it is used for a
surety, or to give surety. And he that was or did עָרַב, a surety, or become a surety, was to answer for him
for whom he was so, whatsoever befell him. So is it
described, Gen. xliii. 9, in the words of Judah unto
his father Jacob, concerning Benjamin, אָנֹכִי אֶעֶרְבֶנּוּ, — “I will be surety for him; of my
hand shalt thou require him.” In undertaking to be surety for him, as unto
his safety and preservation, he engages himself to answer for all
that should befall him; for so he adds, “If I bring him not unto thee, and
set him before thee, let me be guilty forever.” And on this ground he
entreats Joseph that he might be a servant and a bondman in
his stead, that he might go free and return unto his father, Gen. xliv. 32, 33. This is required
unto such a surety, that he undergo and answer all that he
for whom he is a surety is liable unto, whether in things criminal or
civil, so far as the suretiship does extend. A surety is an
undertaker for another, or others, who thereon is justly and legally
to answer what is due to them, or from them; nor is the word otherwise
used. See Job xvii. 3; Prov.
vi. 1; xi. 15; xvii. 18; xx. 16; xxvii. 13. So Paul became a
surety unto Philemon for Onesimus, verse 18.
Ἐγγύη is “sponsio, expromissio,
fidejussio,” — an undertaking or giving security for any thing or
person unto another, whereon an agreement did ensue. This, in some cases,
was by pledges, or an earnest, Isa. xxxvi. 8,
הִתְעָרֶב נָא, — “Give surety, pledges, hostages,”
for the true performance of conditions. Hence is עֵרָבוֹן, ἀῤῥαβών, “a pledge,” or
“earnest,” Eph. i. 14. Wherefore ἔγγυος is “sponsor, fidejussor,
præs,” — one that voluntarily takes on himself the cause or
condition of another, to answer, or undergo, or pay what he is liable unto,
or to see it done; whereon he becomes justly and legally obnoxious unto
performance. In this sense is the word here used by the apostle; for it
has no other.
In our present inquiry into the nature of this suretiship
of Christ, the whole will be resolved into this one question, — namely,
whether the Lord Christ was made a surety only on the part of God
unto us, to assure us that the promise of the covenant on his
part should be accomplished; or also and principally an undertaker
on our part, for the performance of what is required; if not of us, yet
with respect unto us, that the promise may be accomplished? The first of
these is vehemently asserted by the Socinians, who are followed by Grotius and Hammond in
their annotations on this place.
The words of Schlichtingius are: “Sponsor
fœderis appellatur Jesus, quod nomine Dei nobis, spoponderit, id est fidem
fecerit, Deum fœderis promissiones servaturum. Non vero quasi pro nobis
spoponderit Deo, nostrorumve debitorum solutionem in se receperit. Nec
enim nos misimus Christum sed Deus, cujus nomine Christus ad nos venit,
fœdus nobiscum panxit, ejusque promissiones ratas fore spopondit et in se
recepti; ideoque nec sponsor simpliciter, sed fœderis sponsor nominatur;
spopondit autem Christus pro fœderis divini veritate, non tantum quatenus id firmum ratumque fore
verbis perpetuo testatus est; sed etiam quatenus muneris sui fidem, maximis
rerum ipsarum comprobavit documentis, cum perfecta vitæ innocentia et
sanctitate, cum divinis plane quæ patravit, operibus; cum mortis adeo
truculentæ, quam pro doctrinæ suæ veritate subiit, perpessione.”
After which he subjoins a long discourse about the evidences which
we have of the veracity of Christ. And herein we have a brief
account of their whole opinion concerning the mediation of Christ. The
words of Grotius are, “Spopondit Christus; id est, nos certos promissi fecit, non solis
verbis, sed perpetua vitæ sanctitate, morte ob id tolerata et miraculis
plurimis;” — which are an abridgment of the discourse of Schlichtingius. To the same purpose Dr Hammond expounds it, that he was a sponsor or
surety for God unto the confirmation of the promises of the
covenant.
On the other hand, the generality of expositors, ancient
and modern, of the Roman and Protestant churches, on the place, affirm that
the Lord Christ, as the surety of the covenant, was properly a surety or
undertaker unto God for us, and not a surety and undertaker unto us for
God. And because this is a matter of great importance, wherein the
faith and consolation of the church is highly concerned, I shall insist a
little upon it.
And, first, We may consider the argument that
is produced to prove that Christ was only a surety for God unto us.
Now, this is taken neither from the name nor nature of the office or
work of surety, nor from the nature of the covenant whereof
he was a surety, nor of the office wherein he was so. But
the sole argument insisted on is, that we do not give Christ as a surety
of the covenant unto God, but he gives him unto us; and therefore he is
a surety for God and the accomplishment of his promises, and not for
us, to pay our debts, or to answer what is required of us.
But there is no force in this argument; for it belongs not
unto the nature of a surety by whom he is or may be designed unto
his office and work therein. His own voluntary susception of the
office and work is all that is required, however he may be designed or
induced to undertake it. He who, of his own accord, does
voluntarily undertake for another, on what grounds, reasons, or
considerations soever he does so, is his surety. And this the Lord
Christ did in the behalf of the church: for when it was said, “Sacrifice,
and burnt-offering, and whole burnt-offerings for sin, God would not have,”
or accept as sufficient to make the atonement that he required, so as that
the covenant might be established and made effectual unto us; then said he,
“Lo, I come to do thy will, O God,” Heb. x. 5, 7. He willingly
and voluntarily, out of his own abundant goodness and love, took upon him
to make atonement for us; wherein he was our surety.
And accordingly, this undertaking is ascribed unto that love which
he exercised herein, Gal. ii. 20;
1 John iii. 16; Rev. i. 5.
And there was this in it, moreover, that he took upon him our nature or the
seed of Abraham; wherein he was our surety. So that although we neither
did nor could appoint him so to be, yet he took from us that wherein
and whereby he was so; which is as much as if we had designed him unto his
work, as to the true reason of his being our surety. Wherefore,
notwithstanding those antecedent transactions that were between the Father
and him in this matter, it was the voluntary engagement of himself
to be our surety, and his taking our nature upon him for that end,
which was the formal reason of his being instated in that
office.
It is indeed weak, and contrary unto all common experience,
that none can be a surety for others unless those others design him and
appoint him so to be. The principal instances of suretiship in the world
have been by the voluntary undertaking of such as were no way procured so
to do by them for whom they undertook. And in such undertakings, he unto
whom it is made is no less considered than they for whom it is made: as
when Judah, on his own account, became a surety for Benjamin, he had as
much respect unto the satisfaction of his father as the safety of his
brother. And so the Lord Christ, in his undertaking to be a surety for us,
had respect unto the glory of God before our safety.
Secondly, We may consider the arguments whence it is
evident that he neither was nor could be a surety unto us for God,
but was so for us unto God. For, —
1. Ἔγγυος or ἐγγυητής, “a surety,” is one that undertakes for another
wherein he is defective, really or in reputation. Whatever
that undertaking be, whether in words of promise or in depositing of real
security in the hands of an arbitrator, or by any other personal engagement
of life and body, it respects the defect of the person for whom any
one becomes a surety. Such a one is “sponsor,” or “fidejussor,” in all
good authors and common use of speech. And if any one be of absolute
credit himself, and of a reputation every way unquestionable, there is
no need of a surety, unless in case of mortality. The words of a
surety in the behalf of another whose ability or reputation is
dubious, are, “Ad me recipio, faciet, aut faciam.”
And when ἔγγους is taken adjectively, as sometimes,
it signifies “satisdationibus obnoxius,” — liable to
payments for others that are non-solvent.
2. God can, therefore, have no surety properly,
because there can be no imagination of any defect on his part.
There may be, indeed a question whether any word or promise be a word or
promise of God. To assure us hereof, it is not the work of a
surety, but only any one or any means that may give
evidence that so it is, — that is, of a witness. But upon a supposition
that what is proposed is his word or promise, there can be no
imagination or fear of any defect on his part, so as that there
should be any need of a surety for the performance of it. He does
therefore make use of witnesses to confirm his word, — that is, to
testify that such promises he has made, and so he will do: so the Lord
Christ was his witness. Isa. xliii.
10, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have
chosen;” but they were not all his sureties. So he affirms that “he
came into the world to bear witness unto the truth,” John xviii. 37, — that is, the truth
of the promises of God; for he was the minister of the circumcision for
the truth of the promises of God unto the fathers, Rom.
xv. 8: but a surety for God, properly so called, he was
not, nor could be. The distance and difference is wide enough between a
witness and a surety; for a surety must be of more
ability, or more credit and reputation, than he or those for whom he
is a surety, or there is no need of his suretiship; or, at least, he
must add unto their credit, and make it better than without him. This none
can be for God, no, not the Lord Christ himself, who, in his whole work,
was the servant of the Father. And the apostle does not use this
word in a general, improper sense, for any one that by any means
gives assurance of any other thing, for so he had ascribed nothing peculiar
unto Christ; for in such a sense all the prophets and apostles were
sureties for God, and many of them confirmed the truth of his word
and promises with the laying down of their lives; but such a surety
he intends as undertakes to do that for others which they cannot do for
themselves, or at least are not reputed to be able to do what is required
of them.
3. The apostle had before at large declared who and what
was God’s surety in this matter of the covenant, and how impossible
it was that he should have any other. And this was himself alone,
interposing himself by his oath; for in this cause, “because he
could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,” Heb.
vi. 13, 14. Wherefore, if God would give any other
surety besides himself, it must be one greater than he. This
being every way impossible, he swears by himself only. Many ways he
may and does use for the declaring and testifying of his truth unto us,
that we may know and believe it to be his word; and so the Lord Christ in
his ministry was the principal witness of the truth of God. But
other surety than himself he can have none. And therefore, —
4. When he would have us in this matter not only come unto
the full assurance of faith concerning his promises, but also to
have strong consolation therein, he resolves it wholly into the
immutability of his counsel, as declared by his promise and
oath, chap. vi. 18,
19: so that neither is God capable of having
any surety, properly so called; neither do we stand in need of any
on his part for the confirmation of our faith in the highest degree.
5. We, on all accounts, stand in need of a surety
for us, or on our behalf. Neither, without the interposition of such a
surety, could any covenant between God and us be firm and stable, or an
everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure. In the first
covenant made with Adam there was no surety, but God and men were the
immediate covenanters; and although we were then in a state and condition
able to perform and answer all the terms of the covenant, yet was it broken
and disannulled. If this came to pass by the failure of the promise
of God, it was necessary that on the making of a new covenant he should
have a surety to undertake for him, that the covenant might be stable
and everlasting; but this is false and blasphemous to imagine. It was
man alone who failed and broke that covenant: wherefore it was
necessary, that upon the making of the new covenant, and that with a
design and purpose that it should never be disannulled, as the
former was, we should have a surety and undertaker for us; for if
that first covenant was not firm and stable, because there was no
surety to undertake for us, notwithstanding all that ability which
we had to answer the terms of it, how much less can any other be so, now
[that] our natures are become depraved and sinful! Wherefore we alone were
capable of a surety, properly so called, for us; we alone stood
in need of him; and without him the covenant could not be firm and
inviolate on our part. The surety, therefore of this covenant, is so with
God for us.
6. It is the priesthood of Christ that the apostle
treats of in this place, and that alone: wherefore he is a surety as he
is a priest, and in the discharge of that office; and therefore is so
with God on our behalf. This Schlichtingius observes, and is aware what
will ensue against his pretensions; which he endeavours to obviate. “Mirum,” says he, “porro alicui videri
posset, cur divinus author de Christi sacerdotio, in superioribus et in
sequentibus agens, derepente eum sponsorem fœderis non vero sacerdotem
vocet? Cur non dixerit ‘tanto præstantioris fœderis factus est sacerdos
Jesus?’ Hoc enim plane requirere videtur totus orationis contextus.
Credibile est in voce sponsionis sacerdotium quoque Christi intelligi.
Sponsoris enim non est alieno nomine quippiam promittere, et fidem suam pro
alio interponere; sed etiam, si ita res ferat, alterius nomine id quod
spopondit præstare. In rebus quidem humanis, si id non præstet is pro quo
sponsor fidejussit; hic vero propter contrariam causam (nam prior hic locum
habere non potest), nempe quatenus ille pro quo spopondit Christus per
ipsum Christum promissa sua nobis exhibet; qua in re præcipue Christi
sacerdotium continetur.”
Ans. 1. It may indeed, seem strange,
unto any one who imagines Christ to be such a surety as he does, why
the apostle should so call him, and so introduce him in the description of
his priestly office, as that which belongs thereunto; but grant what is the
proper work and duty of a surety, and who the Lord Jesus was
a surety for, and it is evident that nothing more proper or pertinent could
be mentioned by him, when he was in the declaration of that office.
Ans. 2. He confesses that by his exposition of this
suretiship of Christ, as making him a surety for God, he contradicts
the nature and only notion of a surety among men. For such a one,
he acknowledges, does nothing but in the defect and inability of
them for whom he is engaged and does undertake; he is to pay that
which they owe, and to do what is to be done by them, which they
cannot perform. And if this be not the notion of a surety in this
place, the apostle makes use of a word nowhere else used in the whole
Scripture, to teach us that which it does never signify among men: which is
improbable and absurd; for the sole reason why he did make use of it was,
that from the nature and notion of it amongst men in other
cases, we may understand the signification of it, what he intends by it,
and what under that name he ascribes unto the Lord Jesus.
Ans. 3. He has no way to solve the apostle’s
mention of Christ being a surety, in the description of his
priestly office, but by overthrowing the nature of that office also;
for to confirm this absurd notion, that Christ as a priest was a
surety for God, he would have us believe that the priesthood
of Christ consists in his making effectual unto us the promises of God, or
his effectual communicating of the good things promised unto us; the
falsehood of which notion, really destructive of the priesthood
of Christ, I have elsewhere at large detected and confuted. Wherefore,
seeing the Lord Christ is a surety of the covenant as a priest, and
all the sacerdotal actings of Christ have God for their immediate object,
and are performed with him on our behalf, he was a surety for us also.
A surety, “sponsor, vas, præs,
fidejussor,” for us, the Lord Christ was, by his voluntary
undertaking, out of his rich grace and love, to do, answer, and perform
all that is required on our part, that we may enjoy the benefits of the
covenant, the grace and glory prepared, proposed, and promised in it, in
the way and manner determined on by divine wisdom. And this may be reduced
unto two heads:— First, His answering for our transgressions against the
first covenant; Secondly, His purchase and procurement of the grace of the
new: “he was made a curse for us, … that the blessing of Abraham might come
on us,” Gal. iii.
13–15.
(1.) He undertook, as the surety of the covenant, to
answer for all the sins of those who are to be, and are, made partakers of
the benefits of it; — that is, to undergo the punishment
due unto their sins; to make atonement for them by offering himself a
propitiatory sacrifice for the expiation of their sins, redeeming
them, by the price of his blood, from their state of misery and bondage
under the law, and the curse of it, Isa. liii. 4–6, 10;
Matt. xx. 28; 1 Tim. ii.
6; 1 Cor. vi. 20; Rom.
iii. 25, 26; Heb. x.
5–8; Rom. viii. 2,
3; 2 Cor. v.
19–21; Gal. iii. 13: and this was absolutely
necessary, that the grace and glory prepared in the covenant might be
communicated unto us. Without this undertaking of his, and performance of
it, the righteousness and faithfulness of God would not permit that
sinners, — such as had apostatized from him, despised his authority
and rebelled against him, falling thereby under the sentence and curse of
the law, — should again be received into his favour, and made partakers of
grace and glory; this, therefore, the Lord Christ took upon himself, as the
surety of the covenant.
(2.) That those who were to be taken into this covenant
should receive grace enabling them to comply with the terms of it,
fulfil its conditions, and yield the obedience which God required therein;
for, by the ordination of God, he was to procure, and did merit and procure
for them, the Holy Spirit, and all needful supplies of grace, to make them
new creatures, and enable them to yield obedience unto God from a new
principle of spiritual life, and that faithfully unto the end: so was he
the surety of this better testament. But all things belonging
hereunto will be handled at large in the place from whence, as I said,
these are taken, as suitable unto our present occasion.
But some have other notions of these things; for they say
that “Christ, by his death, and his obedience therein, whereby he offered
himself a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour unto God, procured for us the
new covenant:” or, as one speaks, “All that we have by the death of Christ
is, that whereunto we owe the covenant of grace; for herein he did and
suffered what God required and freely appointed him to do and suffer. Not
that the justice of God required any such thing, with respect unto their
sins for whom he died, and in whose stead, or to bestead whom, he suffered,
but what, by a free constitution of divine wisdom and sovereignty, was
appointed unto him. Hereon God was pleased to remit the terms of the old
covenant, and to enter into a new covenant with mankind, upon terms suited
unto our reason, possible unto our abilities, and every way advantageous
unto us; for these terms are, faith and sincere obedience, or such an
assent unto the truth of divine revelation effectual in obedience unto the
will of God contained in them, upon the encouragement given whereunto in
the promises of eternal life, or a future reward, made therein. On the
performance of these conditions our justification, adoption, and future
glory, do depend; for they are that righteousness before God
whereon he pardons our sins, and accepts our persons as if we were
perfectly righteous.” Wherefore, by this procuring the new covenant for
us, which they ascribe unto the death of Christ, they intend the
abrogation of the old covenant, or of the law, — or at least such a
derogation from it, that it shall no more oblige us either unto sinless
obedience or punishment, nor require a perfect righteousness unto our
justification before God, — and the constitution of a new law of
obedience, accommodated unto our present state and condition; on whose
observance all the promises of the gospel do depend.
Others say, that in the death of Christ there was real
satisfaction made unto God; not to the law, or unto God according to what
the law required, but unto God absolutely; that is, he did what God was
well pleased and satisfied withal, without any respect unto his
justice or the curse of the law. And they add, that hereon the whole
righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us, so far as that we are made
partakers of the benefits thereof; and, moreover, that the way of the
communication of them unto us is by the new covenant, which by his
death the Lord Christ procured: for the conditions of this
covenant are established in the covenant itself, whereon God will bestow
all the benefits and effects of it upon us; which are faith and obedience.
Wherefore, what the Lord Christ has done for us is thus far accepted as our
legal righteousness, as that God, upon our faith and obedience with
respect thereunto, does release and pardon all our sins of omission and
commission. Upon this pardon there is no need of any positive perfect
righteousness unto our justification or salvation; but our own personal
righteousness is accepted with God in the room of it, by virtue of the
new covenant which Christ has procured. So is the doctrine hereof stated
by Curcellæus, and those that join with him
or follow him.
Sundry things there are in these opinions that deserve an
examination; and they will most, if not all of them, occur unto us in our
progress. That which alone we have occasion to inquire into, with respect
unto what we have discoursed concerning the Lord Christ as surety of the
covenant, and which is the foundation of all that is asserted in them,
is, that Christ by his death procured the new covenant for us;
which, as one says, is all that we have thereby: which, if it should
prove otherwise, we are not beholding unto it for any thing at all. But
these things must be examined. And, —
(1.) The terms of procuring the new covenant are
ambiguous. It is not as yet, that I know of, by any declared how the Lord
Christ did procure it, — whether he did so by his
satisfaction and obedience, as the meritorious cause of it,
or by what other kind of causality. Unless this be stated, we are
altogether uncertain what relation of the new covenant
unto the death of Christ is intended; and to say that thereunto we owe
the new covenant does not mend the matter, but rather render the terms
more ambiguous. Neither is it declared whether the constitution of
the covenant, or the communication of the benefits of it, is
intended. It is yet no less general, that God was so well pleased with
what Christ did, as that hereon he made and entered into a new covenant
with mankind. This they may grant who yet deny the whole satisfaction
and merit of Christ. If they mean that the Lord Christ, by his obedience
and suffering, did meritoriously procure the making and establishing of the
new covenant, which was all that he so procured, and the entire effect of
his death, what they say may be understood; but the whole nature of the
mediation of Christ is overthrown thereby.
(2.) This opinion is liable unto a great prejudice, in
that, whereas it is in such a fundamental article of our religion,
and about that wherein the eternal welfare of the church is so nearly
concerned, there is no mention made of it in the Scripture; for is it not
strange, if this be, as some speak, the sole effect of the death of Christ,
whereas sundry other things are frequently in the Scripture ascribed unto
it as the effects and fruits thereof, that this which is only so should be
nowhere mentioned, — neither in express words, nor such as will allow of
this sense by any just or lawful consequence? Our redemption, pardon of
sins, the renovation of our natures, our sanctification, justification,
peace with God, eternal life, are all jointly and severally assigned
thereunto, in places almost without number; but it is nowhere said in the
Scripture that Christ by his death merited, procured, obtained, the new
covenant, or that God should enter into a new covenant with mankind;
yea, as we shall see, that which is contrary unto it, and inconsistent with
it, is frequently asserted.
(3.) To clear the truth herein, we must consider the
several notions and causes of the new covenant, with the true and real
respect of the death of Christ thereunto. And it is variously represented
unto us:—
[1.] In the designation and preparation of its terms and
benefits in the counsel of God. And this, although it have the nature of
an eternal decree, yet is it not the same with the decree of
election, as some suppose: for that properly respects the subjects or
persons for whom grace and glory are prepared; this, the preparation of
that grace and glory as to the way and manner of their communication. Some
learned men do judge that this counsel and purpose of the will of God to
give grace and glory in and by Jesus Christ unto the elect, in the way and
by the means by him prepared, is formally the covenant of grace, or at
least that the substance of the covenant is comprised therein; but it is
certain that more is required to complete the whole nature of a covenant.
Nor is this purpose or counsel of God called the covenant in
the Scripture, but is only proposed as the spring and fountain of it,
Eph. i. 3–12. Unto the full
exemplification of the covenant of grace there is required the declaration
of this counsel of God’s will, accompanied with the means and powers of its
accomplishment, and the prescription of the way whereby we are so to be
interested in it, and made partakers of the benefits of it: but in the
inquiry after the procuring cause of the new covenant, it is the first
thing that ought to come under consideration; for nothing can be the
procuring cause of the covenant which is not so of this spring and
fountain of it, of this idea of it in the mind of God, of the
preparation of its terms and benefits. But this is nowhere in the
Scripture affirmed to be the effect of the death or mediation of Christ;
and to ascribe it thereunto is to overthrow the whole freedom of eternal
grace and love. Neither can any thing that is absolutely eternal,
as is this decree and counsel of God, be the effect of, or procured by, any
thing that is external and temporal.
[2.] It may be considered with respect unto the federal
transactions between the Father and the Son, concerning the
accomplishment of this counsel of his will. What these were, wherein they
did consist, I have declared at large, Exercitat., vol. ii. Neither do I call
this the covenant of grace absolutely; nor is it so called in the
Scripture. But yet some will not distinguish between the covenant of the
mediator and the covenant of grace, because the promises of the covenant
absolutely are said to be made to Christ, Gal. iii. 16;
and he is the πρῶτον δεκτικόν, or first subject of
all the grace of it. But in the covenant of the mediator, Christ stands
alone for himself, and undertakes for himself alone, and not as the
representative of the church; but this he is in the covenant of grace. But
this is that wherein it had its designed establishment, as unto all the
ways, means, and ends of its accomplishment; and all things are so disposed
as that it might be effectual, unto the eternal glory of the wisdom, grace,
righteousness, and power of God. Wherefore the covenant of grace could not
be procured by any means or cause but that which was the
cause of this covenant of the mediator, or of God the Father with
the Son, as undertaking the work of mediation. And as this is nowhere
ascribed unto the death of Christ in the Scripture, so to assert it
is contrary unto all spiritual reason and understanding. Who can conceive
that Christ by his death should procure the agreement between God
and him that he should die?
[3.] With respect unto the declaration of it by
especial revelation. This we may call God’s making or establishing of it,
if we please; though making of the covenant in Scripture is applied
principally, if not only, unto its execution or actual application unto
persons, 2 Sam. xxiii. 5; Jer. xxxii. 40. This declaration
of the grace of God, and the provision in the covenant of the mediator for
the making of it effectual unto his glory, is most usually called the
covenant of grace. And this is twofold:—
1st. In the way of a singular and absolute
promise: so was it first declared unto and established with Adam, and
afterwards with Abraham. The promise is the declaration of the purpose
of God before declared, or the free determination and counsel of his
will, as to his dealing with sinners on the supposition of the fall,
and their forfeiture of their first covenant state. Hereof the grace
and will of God were the only cause, Heb. viii. 8. And
the death of Christ could not be the means of its procurement; for
he himself, and all that he was to do for us, was the substance of that
promise. And this promise, — as it is declarative of the purpose or
counsel of the will of God for the communication of grace and glory unto
sinners, in and by the mediation of Christ, according to the ways and on
the terms prepared and disposed in his sovereign wisdom and pleasure, — is
formally the new covenant; though something yet is to be added to complete
its application unto us. Now, the substance of the first promise,
wherein the whole covenant of grace was virtually comprised, directly
respected and expressed the giving of him for the recovery of mankind from
sin and misery by his death, Gen. iii. 15.
Wherefore, if he and all the benefits of his mediation, his death, and all
the effects of it, be contained in the promise of the covenant, — that is,
in the covenant itself, — then was not his death the procuring cause
of that covenant, nor do we owe it thereunto.
2dly. In the additional prescription of
the way and means whereby it is the will of God that we shall enter into a
covenant state with him, or be interested in the benefits of it. This
being virtually comprised in the absolute promise (for every promise
of God does tacitly require faith and obedience in us), is expressed in
other places by way of the condition required on our part. This is
not the covenant, but the constitution of the terms on our part,
whereon we are made partakers of it. Nor is the constitution of these
terms an effect of the death of Christ, or procured thereby; it is a
mere effect of the sovereign grace and wisdom of God. The things
themselves, as bestowed on us, communicated unto us, wrought in us by
grace, are all of them effects of the death of Christ; but the
constitution of them to be the terms and conditions of the covenant,
is an act of mere sovereign wisdom and grace. “God so loved the world, as
to send his only begotten Son to die,” not that faith and repentance might
be the means of salvation, but that all his elect might believe, and that
all that believe “might not perish, but have everlasting life.” But yet it
is granted that the constitution of these terms of the covenant does
respect the federal transaction between the Father and
the Son, wherein they were ordered to the praise of the glory of God’s
grace; and so, although their constitution was not the procurement of his
death, yet without respect unto it, it had not been. Wherefore, the
sole cause of God’s making the new covenant was the same with that
of giving Christ himself to be our mediator, — namely, the
purpose, counsel, goodness, grace, and love of God, as it is
everywhere expressed in the Scripture.
[4.] The covenant may be considered as unto the actual
application of the grace, benefits, and privileges of it unto any
persons, whereby they are made real partakers of them, or are taken into
covenant with God; and this alone, in the Scripture, is intended by God’s
making a covenant with any. It is not a general revelation, or
declaration of the terms and nature of the covenant (which some call a
universal conditional covenant, on what grounds they know best, seeing the
very formal nature of making a covenant with any includes the actual
acceptation of it, and participation of the benefits of it by them), but a
communication of the grace of it, accompanied with a prescription of
obedience, that is God’s making his covenant with any; as all instances of
it in the Scripture do declare.
It may be, therefore, inquired, What respect the
covenant of grace has unto the death of Christ, or what influence it has
thereunto?
I answer, Supposing what is spoken of his being a
surety thereof, it has a threefold respect thereunto:—
1st. In that the covenant, as the grace and
glory of it were prepared in the counsel of God, as the terms of it were
fixed in the covenant of the mediator, and as it was declared in the
promise, was confirmed, ratified, and made irrevocable thereby.
This our apostle insists upon at large, Heb. ix.
15–20; and he compares his blood, in his death and sacrifice of
himself, unto the sacrifices and their blood whereby the old
covenant was confirmed, purified, dedicated, or established, verses 18, 19. Now, these sacrifices
did not procure that covenant, or prevail with God to enter
into it, but only ratified and confirmed it; and this was done in the new
covenant by the blood of Christ.
2dly. He thereby underwent and performed all
that which, in the righteousness and wisdom of God, was required; that the
effects, fruits, benefits, and grace, intended, designed, and
prepared in the new covenant, might be effectually accomplished and
communicated unto sinners. Hence, although he procured not the
covenant for us by his death, yet he was, in his person, mediation,
life, and death, the only cause and means whereby the whole grace of the
covenant is made effectual unto us. For, —
3dly. All the benefits of it were
procured by him; — that is, all the grace, mercy,
privileges, and glory, that God has prepared in the counsel of his will,
that were fixed as unto the way of this communication in the covenant of
the mediator, and proposed in the promises of it, are purchased,
merited, and procured by his death; and effectually communicated
or applied unto all the covenanters by virtue thereof, with others of his
mediatory acts. And this is much more an eminent procuring of the new
covenant than what is pretended about the procurement of its terms and
conditions; for if he should have procured no more but this, — if we owe
this only unto his mediation, that God would thereon, or did, grant and
establish this rule, law, and promise, that whoever believed should be
saved, — it were possible that no one should be saved thereby; yea, if he
did no more, considering our state and condition, it was impossible that
any one should so be.
To give the sum of these things, it is inquired with
respect unto which of these considerations of the new covenant it is
affirmed that it was procured by the death of Christ. If it be said
that it is with respect unto the actual communication of all the grace and
glory prepared in the covenant, and proposed unto us in the promises of it,
it is most true. All the grace and glory promised in the covenant were
purchased for the church by Jesus Christ. In this sense, by his
death he procured the new covenant. This the whole Scripture, from the
beginning of it in the first promise unto the end of it, does bear witness
unto; for it is in him alone that “God blesseth us with all spiritual
blessings in heavenly things.” Let all the good things that are mentioned
or promised in the covenant, expressly or by just consequence, be summed
up, and it will be no hard matter to demonstrate concerning them all, and
that both jointly and severally, that they were all procured for us
by the obedience and death of Christ.
But this is not that which is intended; for most of this
opinion do deny that the grace of the covenant, in conversion unto God,
the remission of sins, sanctification, justification, adoption, and the
like, are the effects or procurements of the death of Christ. And they do,
on the other hand, declare that it is God’s making of the covenant which
they do intend, that is, the contrivance of the terms and conditions of it,
with their proposal unto mankind for their recovery. But herein there is
οὐδὲν ὑγιές. For —
(1.) The Lord Christ himself, and the whole work of his
mediation, as the ordinance of God for the recovery and salvation of lost
sinners, is the first and principal promise of the covenant; so his
exhibition in the flesh, his work of mediation therein, with our
deliverance thereby, was the subject of that first promise, which virtually
contained this whole covenant: so he was of the renovation of it unto Abraham, when it was solemnly confirmed by the oath of
God, Gal. iii. 16, 17. And Christ did not by
his death procure the promise of his death, nor of his exhibition in the
flesh, or his coming into the world that he might die.
(2.) The making of this covenant is everywhere in
the Scripture ascribed (as is also the sending of Christ himself to die)
unto the love, grace, and wisdom of God alone; nowhere unto the death of
Christ, as the actual communication of all grace and glory are. Let all
the places be considered, where either the giving of the promise,
the sending of Christ, or the making of the covenant, are mentioned, either
expressly or virtually, and in none of them are they assigned unto any
other cause but the grace, love, and wisdom of God alone; all to be made
effectual unto us by the mediation of Christ.
(3.) The assignation of the sole end, of the death
of Christ to be the procurement of the new covenant, in the sense
contended for, does indeed evacuate all the virtue of the death of Christ
and of the covenant itself; for, — First, The covenant which they
intend is nothing but the constitution and proposal of new terms and
conditions for life and salvation unto all men. Now, whereas the
acceptance and accomplishment of these conditions depend upon the wills of
men no way determined by effectual grace, it was possible that,
notwithstanding all Christ did by his death, yet no one sinner might be
saved thereby, but that the whole end and design of God therein might be
frustrated. Secondly, Whereas the substantial advantage of these
conditions lies herein, that God will now, for the sake of Christ, accept
of an obedience inferior unto that required in the law, and so as that the
grace of Christ does not raise up all things unto a conformity and
compliance with the holiness and will of God declared therein, but
accommodate all things unto our present condition, nothing can be
invented more dishonourable to Christ and the gospel; for what does it else
but make Christ the minister of sin, in disannulling the holiness
that the law requires, or the obligation of the law unto it, without any
provision of what might answer or come into the room of it, but that which
is incomparably less worthy? Nor is it consistent with divine wisdom,
goodness, and immutability, to appoint unto mankind a law of
obedience, and cast them all under the severest penalty upon the
transgression of it, when he could in justice and honour have given them
such a law of obedience, whose observance might consist with many
failings and sins; for if he have done that now, he could have done so
before: which how far it reflects on the glory of the divine properties
might be easily manifested. Neither does this fond imagination comply with
those testimonies of Scripture, that the Lord Christ came not to
destroy the law, but to fulfil it, that he is the end
of the law; and that by faith the law is not disannulled, but
established. Lastly, The Lord Christ was the mediator and
surety of the new covenant, in and by whom it was ratified, confirmed,
and established: and therefore by him the constitution of it was not
procured; for all the acts of his office belong unto that mediation, and it
cannot be well apprehended how any act of mediation for the establishment
of the covenant, and rendering it effectual, should procure it.
7. But to return from this digression. That wherein all
the precedent causes of the union between Christ and believers,
whence they become one mystical person, do centre, and whereby they are
rendered a complete foundation of the imputation of their sins unto him,
and of his righteousness unto them, is the communication of his
Spirit, the same Spirit that dwells in him, unto them, to abide in, to
animate and guide, the whole mystical body and all its members. But this
has of late been so much spoken unto, as that I shall do no more but
mention it.
On the considerations insisted on, — whereby the Lord
Christ became one mystical person with the church, or bare the
person of the church in what he did as mediator, in the holy, wise disposal
of God as the author of the law, the supreme rector or governor of all
mankind, as unto their temporal and eternal concernments, and by his own
consent, — the sins of all the elect were imputed unto him. Thus
having been the faith and language of the church in all ages, and that
derived from and founded on express testimonies of Scripture, with all the
promises and resignations of his exhibition in the flesh from the
beginning, cannot now, with any modesty, be expressly denied. Wherefore
the Socinians themselves grant that our sins may be said to be imputed
unto Christ, and he to undergo the punishment of them, so far as that
all things which befell him evil and afflictive in this life,
with the death which he underwent, were occasioned by our
sins; for had not we sinned, there had been no need of nor
occasion for his suffering. But notwithstanding this concession,
they expressly deny his satisfaction, or that properly he underwent
the punishment due unto our sins; wherein they deny also all imputation of
them unto him. Others say that our sins were imputed unto him
“quoad reatum pœnæ,” but not “quoad
reatum culpæ.” But I must acknowledge that unto me this distinction
gives “inanem sine mente sonum.” The substance of
it is much insisted on by Feuardentius,
Dialog v. p. 467; and he is
followed by others. That which he would prove by it is, that the Lord
Christ did not present himself before the throne of God with the
burden of our sins upon him, so as to answer unto the justice
of God for them. Whereas, therefore, “reatus,” or
“guilt,” may signify either “dignitatem pœnæ,” or
“obligationem ad pœnam,” as Bellarmine distinguishes. De Amiss. Grat., lib. vii. cap. 7, with respect unto Christ the latter only is to be admitted. And
the main argument he and others insist upon is this, — that if our sins be
imputed unto Christ, as unto the guilt of the fault, as they speak,
then he must be polluted with them, and thence be denominated a
sinner in every kind. And this would be true, if our sins could be
communicated unto Christ by transfusion, so as to be his inherently
and subjectively; but their being so only by imputation gives no
countenance unto any such pretence. However, there is a notion of legal
uncleanness, where there is no inherent defilement; so the
priest who offered the red heifer to make atonement, and
he that burned her, were said to be unclean, Numb. xix. 7, 8. But hereon they say,
that Christ died and suffered upon the special command of God, not
that his death and suffering were any way due upon the account of our sins,
or required in justice; which is utterly to overthrow the satisfaction of
Christ.
Wherefore, the design of this distinction is, to
deny the imputation of the guilt of our sins unto Christ; and then
in what tolerable sense can they be said to be imputed unto him, I cannot
understand. But we are not tied up unto arbitrary distinctions, and
the sense that any are pleased to impose on the terms of them. I shall,
therefore, first inquire into the meaning of these words, guilt and
guilty, whereby we may be able to judge what it is which in this
distinction is intended.
The Hebrews have no other word to signify guilt or
guilty but אָשָׁם; and this they use both for
sin, the guilt of it, the punishment due unto it, and
a sacrifice for it. Speaking of the guilt of blood, they use not
any word to signify guilt, but only say, דָּם לוֹ — “It is blood to him.” So David prays,
“Deliver me” מִדָּמִים, “from blood;” which we
render “blood-guiltiness,” Ps. li. 14. And
this was because, by the constitution of God, he that was guilty of
blood was to die by the hand of the magistrate, or of God himself. But
אָשָׁם (ascham) is nowhere used for
guilt, but it signifies the relation of the sin
intended unto punishment. And other significations of it will be in vain
sought for in the Old Testament.
In the New Testament he that is guilty is said to be ὑπόδικος, Rom. iii. 19;
that is, obnoxious to judgment or vengeance for sin, one that ἡ δίκη ζῇν οὐκ εἴασεν, as they speak, Acts xxviii. 4, “whom vengeance
will not suffer to go unpunished;” — and ἔνοχος,
1 Cor. xi. 27, a word of the same
signification; — once by ὀφείλω, Matt. xxiii. 18, to owe, to be indebted
to justice. To be obnoxious, liable unto justice, vengeance, punishment
for sin, is to be guilty.
“Reus,” “guilty,” in the Latin is of
a large signification. He who is “crimini
obnoxious,” or “pœnæ propter crimen,” or
“voti debitor,” or “promissi,” or “officii ex
sponsione,” is called “reus.” Especially every sponsor or surety is “reus” in the law. “Cum servus pecuniam
pro libertate pactus est, et ob eam rem, reum dederit,” (that is,
“sponsorem, expromissorem,”) “quamvis servus ab alio manusmissus est, reus tamen
obligabitur.” He is “reus,” who engages
himself for any other, as to the matter of his engagement; and the same is
the use of the word in the best Latin authors. “Opportuna
loca dividenda præfectis esse ac suæ quique partis tutandæ reus
sit,” Liv. De Bello Punic. lib.
v. 30; — that every captain should so take care of the station
committed to him, as that if any thing happened amiss it should be imputed
unto him. And the same author again, “An, quicunque aut
propinquitate, aut affinitate, regiam aut aliquibus ministeriis
contigissent, alienæ culpæ rei trucidarentur,” B. P., lib. iv. 22; — should be guilty of the fault
of another (by imputation), and suffer for it. So that in the Latin tongue
he is “reus,” who, for himself or any other, is
obnoxious unto punishment or payment.
“Reatus” is a word of late admission
into the Latin tongue, and was formed of “reus.” So
Quintilian informs us, in his discourse of
the use of obsolete and new words, lib. viii., cap. 3, “Quæ vetera nunc sunt,
fuerunt olim nova, et quædam in usu perquam recentia; ut, Messala primus
reatum, munerarium Augustus primus, dixerat;” — to which he adds
“piratica, musica,” and some others, then newly come
into use: but “reatus” at its first invention was of
no such signification as it is now applied unto. I mention it only to show
that we have no reason to be obliged unto men’s arbitrary use of
words. Some lawyers first used it “pro
crimine,” — a fault exposing unto punishment; but the original
invention of it, confirmed by long use, was to express the outward
state and condition of him who was “reus,” after
he was first charged in a cause criminal, before he was acquitted or
condemned. Those among the Romans who were made “rei” by any public accusation did betake themselves unto a
poor squalid habit, a sorrowful countenance, suffering their hair
and beards to go undressed. Hereby, on custom and usage, the people who
were to judge on their cause were inclined to compassion: and Milo furthered his sentence of banishment because he
would not submit to this custom, which had such an appearance of
pusillanimity and baseness of spirit. This state of sorrow and
trouble, so expressed, they called “reatus,” and
nothing else. It came afterwards to denote their state who were committed
unto custody in order unto their trial, when the government ceased to be
popular; wherein alone the other artifice was of use: and if this
word be of any use in our present argument, it is to express the state of
men after conviction of sin, before their justification. That is
their “reatus,” the condition wherein the proudest
of them cannot avoid to express their inward sorrow and anxiety of mind by
some outward evidences of them. Beyond this we are not obliged by the use of this word, but must consider the thing
itself which now we intend to express thereby.
Guilt, in the Scripture, is the respect of sin
unto the sanction of the law, whereby the sinner becomes obnoxious unto
punishment; and to be guilty is to be ὑπόδικος τῷ
Θεῷ· — liable unto punishment for sin from God, as the supreme
lawgiver and judge of all. And so guilt, or “reatus,” is well defined to be “obligatio
ad pœnam, propter culpam, aut admissam in se, aut imputatum, justè aut
injustè;” for so Bathsheba says unto David, that she and her son
Solomon should be חַטָּאִים, — sinners; that
is, be esteemed guilty, or liable unto punishment for some evil laid
unto their charge, 1 Kings i. 21.
And the distinction of “dignitas pœnæ,” and “obligatio ad pœnam” is but the same thing in diverse
words; for both do but express the relation of sin unto the sanction of the
law: or if they may be conceived to differ, yet are they inseparable; for
there can be no “obligatio ad pœnam” where there is
not “dignitas pœnæ.”
Much less is there any thing of weight in the distinction
of “reatus culpæ” and “reatus
pœnæ;” for this “reatus culpæ” is nothing but
“dignitas pœnæ propter culpam.” Sin has other
considerations, — namely, its formal nature, as it is a
transgression of the law, and the stain of filth that it brings upon
the soul; but the guilt of it is nothing but its respect unto
punishment from the sanction of the law. And so, indeed, “reatus culpæ” is “reatus pœnæ,” —
the guilt of sin is its desert of punishment. And where there is not this
“reatus culpæ” there can be no “pœnæ,” no punishment properly so called; for “pœnæ” is “vindicta noxæ,” — the
revenge due to sin. So, therefore, there can be no punishment, nor “reatus pœnæ,” the guilt of it, but where there is “reatus culpæ,” or sin considered with its guilt; and the
“reatus pœnæ” that may be supposed without the guilt
of sin, is nothing but that obnoxiousness unto afflictive evil on
the occasion of sin which the Socinians admit with respect unto the
suffering of Christ, and yet execrate his satisfaction.
And if this distinction should be apprehended to be of
“reatus,” from its formal respect unto sin and
punishment, it must, in both parts of the distinction, be of the same
signification, otherwise there is an equivocation in the subject of
it. But “reatus pœnæ,” is a liableness, an
obnoxiousness unto punishment according to the sentence of the law, that
whereby a sinner becomes ὑπόδικος τῷ Θεῷ· and then
“reatus culpæ” must be an obnoxiousness unto
sin; which is uncouth. There is, therefore, no imputation of sin where
there is no imputation of its guilt; for the guilt of punishment, which is
not its respect unto the desert of sin, is a plain fiction, — there is no
such thing “in rerum nature.” There is no guilt of
sin, but in its relation unto punishment.
That, therefore, which we affirm herein is,
that our sins were so transferred on Christ, as that thereby he became
אָשֵׁם, ὑπόδικος τῷ Θεῷ,
“reus,” — responsible unto God, and obnoxious unto
punishment in the justice of God for them. He was “alienæ
culpæ reus,” — perfectly innocent in himself; but took our guilt on
him, or our obnoxiousness unto punishment for sin. And so he may be, and
may be said to be, the greatest debtor in the world, who never
borrowed nor owed one farthing on his own account, if he become surety for
the greatest debt of others: so Paul became a debtor unto
Philemon, upon his undertaking for Onesimus, who before owed him
nothing.
And two things concurred unto this imputation of sin unto
Christ, — First, The act of God imputing it. Second, The voluntary act of
Christ himself in the undertaking of it, or admitting of the charge.
(1.) The act of God, in this imputation of the guilt of our
sins unto Christ, is expressed by his “laying all our iniquities upon him,”
“making him to be sin for us, who knew no sin,” and the like. For, — [1.]
As the supreme governor, lawgiver, and judge of all, unto whom it belonged
to take care that his holy law was observed, or the offenders punished, he
admitted, upon the transgression of it, the sponsion and
suretiship of Christ to answer for the sins of men, Heb. x. 5–7. [2.] In order unto this
end, he made him under the law, or gave the law power over him, to
demand of him and inflict on him the penalty which was due unto the sins of
them for whom he undertook, Gal. iii. 13; iv. 4, 5. [3.]
For the declaration of the righteousness of God in this setting forth of
Christ to be a propitiation, and to bear our iniquities, the guilt
of our sins was transferred unto him in an act of the righteous
judgment of God accepting and esteeming of him as the guilty person;
as it is with public sureties in every case.
(2.) The Lord Christ’s voluntary susception of the
state and condition of a surety, or undertaker for the church, to
appear before the throne of God’s justice for them, to answer whatever was
laid unto their charge, was required hereunto; and this he did absolutely.
There was a concurrence of his own will in and unto all those divine
acts whereby he and the church were constituted one mystical person;
and of his own love and grace did he as our surety stand in our stead
before God, when he made inquisition for sin; — he took it on himself, as
unto the punishment which it deserved. Hence it became just and righteous
that he should suffer, “the just for the unjust, that he might bring us
unto God.”
For if this be not so, I desire to know what is become of
the guilt of the sins of believers; if it were not transferred on
Christ, it remains still upon themselves, or it is nothing. It will be
said that guilt is taken away by the free pardon of sin. But if so,
there was no need of punishment for it at all, — which
is, indeed, what the Socinians plead, but by others is not admitted, — for
if punishment be not for guilt, it is not punishment.
But it is fiercely objected against what we have asserted,
that if the guilt of our sins was imputed unto Christ, then was he
constituted a sinner thereby; for it is the guilt of sin that makes
any one to be truly a sinner. This is urged by Bellarmine, lib.
ii., De Justificat., not for its own sake, but to disprove the
imputation of his righteousness unto us; as it is continued by others with
the same design. For says he, “If we be made righteous, and the children
of God, through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, then was he
made a sinner, ‘et quod horret animus cogitare, filius
diaboli;’ by the imputation of the guilt of our sins or our
unrighteousness unto him.” And the same objection is pressed by others,
with instances of consequences which, for many reasons, I heartily wish had
been forborne. But I answer, —
[1.] Nothing is more absolutely true, nothing is more
sacredly or assuredly believed by us, than that nothing which Christ did or
suffered, nothing that he undertook or underwent, did or could constitute
him subjectively, inherently, and thereon personally, a
sinner, or guilty of any sin of his own. To bear the guilt or blame of
other men’s faults, — to be “alienæ culpæ reus,”
— makes no man a sinner, unless he did unwisely or irregularly undertake
it. But that Christ should admit of any thing of sin in himself, as it is
absolutely inconsistent with the hypostatical union, so it would render him
unmet for all other duties of his office, Heb. vii. 25,
26. And I confess it has always seemed scandalous unto me, that
Socinus, Crellius, and Grotius,
do grant that, in some sense, Christ suffered for his own sins, and
would prove it from that very place wherein it is positively denied,
chap. vii. 27. This ought to be sacredly
fixed and not a word used, nor thought entertained, of any possibility of
the contrary, upon any supposition whatever.
[2.] None ever dreamed of a transfusion or
propagation of sin from us unto Christ, such as there was from Adam unto
us. For Adam was a common person unto us, — we are not so to Christ: yea,
he is so to us; and the imputation of our sins unto him is a singular act
of divine dispensation, which no evil consequence can ensue upon.
[3.] To imagine such an imputation of our sins unto Christ
as that thereon they should cease to be our sins, and become his
absolutely, is to overthrow that which is affirmed; for, on that
supposition, Christ could not suffer for our sins, for they ceased to be
ours antecedently unto his suffering. But the guilt of them was so
transferred unto him, that through his suffering for it, it might be
pardoned unto us.
These things being premised, I say, —
First, There is in sin a transgression of the preceptive
part of the law; and there is an obnoxiousness unto the punishment from the
sanction of it. It is the first that gives sin its formal nature;
and where that is not subjectively, no person can be constituted
formally a sinner. However any one may be so denominated, as
unto some certain end or purpose, yet, without this, formally a sinner none
can be, whatever be imputed unto them. And where that is, no
non-imputation of sin, as unto punishment, can free the person in
whom it is from being formally a sinner. When Bathsheba told David that
she and her son Solomon should be חַטָּאִים
(sinners), by having crimes laid unto their charge; and when Judah
told Jacob that he would be a sinner before him always on the
account of any evil that befell Benjamin (it should be imputed unto him);
yet neither of them could thereby be constituted a sinner formally.
And, on the other hand, when Shimei desired David not to impute sin unto
him, whereby he escaped present punishment, yet did not that
non-imputation free him formally from being a sinner. Wherefore
sin, under this consideration, as a transgression of the preceptive part
of the law, cannot be communicated from one unto another, unless it be
by the propagation of a vitiated principle or habit. But yet neither so
will the personal sin of one, as inherent in him, ever come to be
the personal sin of another. Adam has upon his personal sin communicated a
vicious, depraved, and corrupted nature unto all his posterity; and,
besides, the guilt of his actual sin is imputed unto them, as if it had
been committed by every one of them: but yet his particular personal
sin neither ever did, nor ever could, become the personal sin of any
one of them any otherwise than by the imputation of its guilt unto them.
Wherefore our sins neither are, nor can be, so imputed unto Christ, as that
they should become subjectively his, as they are a transgression of
the preceptive part of the law. A physical translation or transfusion of
sin is, in this case, naturally and spiritually impossible; and yet, on a
supposition thereof alone do the horrid consequences mentioned depend. But
the guilt of sin is an external respect of it, with regard unto the
sanction of the law only. This is separable from sin; and if it were not
so, no one sinner could either be pardoned or saved. It may, therefore, be
made another’s by imputation, and yet that other not rendered
formally a sinner thereby. This was that which was imputed unto
Christ, whereby he was rendered obnoxious unto the curse of the law; for it
was impossible that the law should pronounce any accursed but the guilty,
nor would do so, Deut. xxvii.
26.
Secondly, There is a great difference between the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us and the imputation of our
sins unto Christ; so as that he cannot in the same manner be
said to be made a sinner by the one as we are made righteous
by the other. For our sin was imputed unto Christ only as he was our
surety for a time, — to this end, that he might take it away, destroy it,
and abolish it. It was never imputed unto him, so as to make any
alteration absolutely in his personal state and condition. But his
righteousness is imputed unto us to abide with us, to be ours always, and
to make a total change in our state and condition, as unto our
relation unto God. Our sin was imputed unto him only for a
season, not absolutely, but as he was a surety, and unto the special
end of destroying it; and taken on him on this condition, that his
righteousness should be made ours for ever. All things are otherwise in
the imputation of his righteousness unto us, which respects us absolutely,
and not under a temporary capacity, abides with us for ever, changes our
state and relation unto God, and is an effect of superabounding grace.
But it will be said that if our sins, as to the guilt of
them, were imputed unto Christ, then God must hate Christ; for
he hates the guilty. I know not well how I come to mention these things,
which indeed I look upon as cavils, such as men may multiply if they please
against any part of the mysteries of the gospel. But seeing it is
mentioned, it may be spoken unto; and, —
First, It is certain that the Lord Christ’s taking
on him the guilt of our sins was a high act of obedience unto God,
Heb. x. 5, 6; and for which the “Father
loved him,” John x.
17, 18. There was, therefore, no reason why God should hate
Christ for his taking on him our debt, and the payment of it, in an act of
the highest obedience unto his will. Secondly, God in this matter
is considered as a rector, ruler, and judge. Now, it is not
required of the severest judge, that, as a judge, he should hate the guilty
person, no, although he be guilty originally by inhesion, and not by
imputation. As such, he has no more to do but consider the guilt, and
pronounce the sentence of punishment. But, Thirdly, Suppose a
person, out of an heroic generosity of mind, should become an Ἀντίψυχος for another, for his friend, for a good man, so
as to answer for him with his life, as Judah undertook to be for Benjamin
as to his liberty, — which, when a man has lost, he is civilly dead, and
“capite diminutus,” — would the most cruel tyrant
under heaven, that should take away his life, in that case hate him?
would he not rather admire his worth and virtue? As such a one it was
that Christ suffered, and no otherwise. Fourthly, All the force of
this exception depends on the ambiguity of the word hate; for it may
signify either an aversation or detestation of mind, or only a will of
punishing, as in God mostly it does. In the first sense, there was no
ground why God should hate Christ on this imputation of guilt unto him,
whereby he became “non propriæ sed alienæ culpæ reus.” Sin inherent renders
the soul polluted, abominable, and the only object of divine
aversation; but for him who was perfectly innocent, holy, harmless,
undefiled in himself, who did no sin, neither was there guile found in his
mouth, to take upon him the guilt of other sins, thereby to comply with and
accomplish the design of God for the manifestation of his glory and
infinite wisdom, grace, goodness, mercy, and righteousness, unto the
certain expiation and destruction of sin, — nothing could render him more
glorious and lovely in the sight of God or man. But for a will of
punishing in God, where sin is imputed, none can deny it, but they must
therewithal openly disavow the satisfaction of Christ.
The heads of some few of those arguments wherewith the
truth we have asserted is confirmed shall close this discourse:—
1. Unless the guilt of sin was imputed unto Christ,
sin was not imputed unto him in any sense, for the punishment of sin is not
sin; nor can those who are otherwise minded declare what it is of sin that
is imputed. But the Scripture is plain, that “God laid on him the iniquity
of us all,” and “made him to be sin for us;” which could not otherwise be
but by imputation.
2. There can be no punishment but with respect unto
the guilt of sin personally contracted or imputed. It is guilt alone that
gives what is materially evil and afflictive the formal nature of
punishment, and nothing else. And therefore those who understand full well
the harmony of things and opinions, and are free to express their
minds, do constantly declare that if one of these be denied, the other must
be so also; and if one be admitted, they must both be so. If guilt was not
imputed unto Christ, he could not, as they plead well enough, undergo the
punishment of sin; much he might do and suffer on the occasion of sin, but
undergo the punishment due unto sin he could not. And if it should be
granted that the guilt of sin was imputed unto him, they will not deny but
that he underwent the punishment of it; and if he underwent the punishment
of it, they will not deny but that the guilt of it was imputed unto him;
for these things are inseparably related.
3. Christ was made a curse for us, the curse of the
law, as is expressly declared, Gal. iii. 13,
14. But the curse of the law respects the guilt of sin only; so
as that where that is not, it cannot take place in any sense, and where
that is, it does inseparably attend it, Deut. xxvii.
26.
4. The express testimonies of the Scripture unto this
purpose cannot be evaded, without an open wresting of their words and
sense. So God is said to “make all our iniquities to meet upon him,” and
he bare them on him as his burden; for so the word signifies, Isa.
liii. 6, “God has laid on him” אֵת עֲוֹן כֻּלָּנוּ, “the iniquity,” (that is, the guilt)
“of us all;” verse 11,
וַעֲוֹנֹתָם הוּא יִסְבֹּל, “and their sin or guilt
shall he bear.” For that is the intendment of עָוֹן, where joined with any other word that denotes sin:
as it is in those places, Ps. xxxii. 5,
“Thou forgavest” עֲוֹן חַטָּאתִי, “the iniquity of
my sin,” — that is, the guilt of it, which is that alone that is taken away
by pardon; that “his soul was made an offering for the guilt of sin;” that
“he was made sin,” that “sin was condemned in his flesh,” etc.
5. This was represented in all the sacrifices of old,
especially the great anniversary [one], on the day of expiation, with the
ordinance of the scape-goat; as has been before declared.
6. Without a supposition hereof it cannot be understood
how the Lord Christ should be our Ἀντίψυχος, or
suffer ἀντὶ ἡμῶν, in our stead, unless we will admit
the exposition of Mr Ho, a late writer, who,
reckoning up how many things the Lord Christ did in our stead, adds, as the
sense thereof, that it is to bestead us; than which, if he can
invent any thing more fond and senseless, he has a singular
faculty in such an employment.
Chapter IX. The formal cause of justification, or the righteousness on
the account whereof believers are justified before God — Objections
answered
Principal controversies about justification:— 1. Concerning the
nature of justification, stated; 2. Of the formal cause of it; 3. Of the
way whereby we are made partakers of the benefits of the mediation of
Christ — What intended by the formal cause of justification, declared — The
righteousness on the account whereof believers are justified before God
alone, inquired after under these terms — This the righteousness of Christ,
imputed unto them — Occasions of exceptions and objections against this
doctrine — General objections examined — Imputation of the righteousness of
Christ consistent with the free pardon of sin, and with the necessity of
evangelical repentance — Method of God’s grace in our justification —
Necessity of faith unto justification, on supposition of the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ — Grounds of that necessity — Other objections,
arising mostly from mistakes of the truth, asserted, discussed, and
answered
The principal
differences about the doctrine of justification are reducible unto three
heads:— 1. The nature of it, — namely, whether it consist in an
internal change of the person justified, by the imputation of a
habit of inherent grace or righteousness; or whether it be a
forensic act, in the judging, esteeming, declaring, and pronouncing
such a person to be righteous, thereon absolving him from all his sins,
giving unto him right and title unto life. Herein we have to do only with
those of the church of Rome, all others, both Protestants and Socinians,
being agreed on the forensic sense of the word, and the nature of the thing
signified thereby. And this I have already spoken unto, so far as our
present design does require; and that, I hope, with such evidence of truth
as cannot well be gainsaid. Nor may it be supposed that we have too long
insisted thereon, as an opinion which is obsolete, and long since
sufficiently confuted. I think much otherwise, and that those who avoid
the Romanists in these controversies, will give a greater appearance of
fear than of contempt; for when all is done, if free justification
through the blood of Christ, and the imputation of his righteousness,
be not able to preserve its station in the minds of men, the
Popish doctrine of justification must and will return upon the world, with
all the concomitants and consequences of it. Whilst any knowledge of the
law or gospel is continued amongst us, the consciences of men will at one
time or other, living or dying, be really affected with a sense of sin, as
unto its guilt and danger. Hence that trouble and those disquietments of
mind will ensue, as will force men, be they never so unwilling, to seek
after some relief and satisfaction. And what will not men attempt who are
reduced to the condition expressed, Mic. vi. 6,
7? Wherefore, in this case, if the true and only relief
of distressed consciences of sinners who are weary and heavy-laden be hid
from their eyes, — if they have no apprehension of, nor trust in, that
which alone they may oppose unto the sentence of the law, and interpose
between God’s justice and their souls, wherein they may take shelter from
the storms of that wrath which abides on them that believe not, — they will
betake themselves unto any thing which confidently tenders them present
ease and relief. Hence many persons, living all their days in an ignorance
of the righteousness of God, are oftentimes on their sick-beds, and in
their dying hours, proselyted unto a confidence in the ways of rest and
peace which the Romanists impose upon them; for such seasons of advantage
do they wait for, unto the reputation, as they suppose, of their own zeal,
— in truth unto the scandal of Christian religion. But finding at any time
the consciences of men under disquietments, and ignorant of or disbelieving
that heavenly relief which is provided in the gospel, they are ready with
their applications and medicines, having on them pretended approbations of
the experience of many ages, and an innumerable company of devout souls in
them. Such is their doctrine of justification, with the addition of those
other ingredients of confession, absolution, penances, or commutations,
aids from saints and angels, especially the blessed Virgin; all warmed by
the fire of purgatory, and confidently administered unto persons sick of
ignorance, darkness, and sin. And let none please themselves in the
contempt of these things. If the truth concerning evangelical
justification be once disbelieved among us, or obliterated by any artifices
out of the minds of men, unto these things, at one time or other, they must
and will betake themselves. As for the new schemes and projections of
justification, which some at present would supply us withal, they are no
way suited nor able to give relief or satisfaction unto a conscience really
troubled for sin, and seriously inquiring how it may have rest and peace
with God. I shall take the boldness, therefore, to say, whoever be
offended at it, that if we lose the ancient doctrine of justification
through faith in the blood of Christ, and the imputation of his
righteousness unto us, public confession of religion will
quickly issue in Popery or Atheism, or at least in what is
the next door unto it, — καὶ ταῦτα μὲν δὴ ταῦτα.
2. The second principal controversy is about the formal
cause of justification, as it is expressed and stated by those of the
Roman church; and under these terms some Protestant divines have consented
to debate the matter in difference. I shall not interpose into a strife of
words; — so the Romanists will call that which we inquire after. Some of
ours say the righteousness of Christ imputed, some, the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, is the formal cause of our justification; some,
that there is no formal cause of justification, but this is that which
supplies the place and use of a formal cause, which is the righteousness of
Christ. In none of these things will I concern myself, though I judge what
was mentioned in the last place to be most proper and significant.
The substance of the inquiry wherein alone we are
concerned, is, What is that righteousness whereby and wherewith a
believing sinner is justified before God; or whereon he is accepted
with God, has his sins pardoned, is received into grace and favour, and has
a title given him unto the heavenly inheritance? I shall no otherwise
propose this inquiry, as knowing that it contains the substance of what
convinced sinners do look after in and by the gospel.
And herein it is agreed by all, the Socinians only
excepted, that the procatarctical or procuring
cause of the pardon of our sins and acceptance with God, is the
satisfaction and merit of Christ. Howbeit, it cannot be denied but that
some, retaining the names of them, do seem to renounce or disbelieve the
things themselves; but we need not to take any notice thereof, until they
are free more plainly to express their minds. But as concerning the
righteousness itself inquired after, there seems to be a difference among
them who yet all deny it to be the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us.
For those of the Roman church plainly say, that upon the infusion of a
habit of grace, with the expulsion of sin, and the renovation of our
natures thereby, which they call the first justification, we are actually
justified before God by our own works of righteousness. Hereon they
dispute about the merit and satisfactoriness of those works, with their
condignity of the reward of eternal life. Others, as the Socinians,
openly disclaim all merit in our works; only some, out of reverence,
as I suppose, unto the antiquity of the word, and under the shelter of the
ambiguity of its signification, have faintly attempted an accommodation
with it. But in the substance of what they assert unto this purpose, to
the best of my understanding, they are all agreed: for what
the Papists call “justitia operum,” — the
righteousness of works, — they call a personal, inherent, evangelical
righteousness; whereof we have spoken before. And whereas the Papists say
that this righteousness of works is not absolutely perfect, nor in itself
able to justify us in the sight of God, but owes all its worth and dignity
unto this purpose unto the merit of Christ, they affirm that this
evangelical righteousness is the condition whereon we enjoy the benefits of
the righteousness of Christ, in the pardon of our sins, and the acceptance
of our persons before God. But as unto those who will acknowledge no
other righteousness wherewith we are justified before God, the meaning
is the same, whether we say that on the condition of this
righteousness we are made partakers of the benefits of the
righteousness of Christ, or that it is the righteousness of Christ
which makes this righteousness of ours accepted with God. But these things
must afterwards more particularly be inquired into.
3. The third inquiry wherein there is not an agreement in
this matter is, — upon a supposition of a necessity that he who is to be
justified should, one way or other, be interested in the
righteousness of Christ, what it is that on our part is required thereunto.
This some say to be faith alone; others, faith and works also, and that in
the same kind of necessity and use. That whose consideration we at present
undertake is the second thing proposed; and, indeed, herein lies the
substance of the whole controversy about our justification before God, upon
the determination and stating whereof the determination of all other
incident questions does depend.
This, therefore, is that which herein I affirm:— The
righteousness of Christ (in his obedience and suffering for us) imputed
unto believers, as they are united unto him by his Spirit, is that
righteousness whereon they are justified before God, on the account whereof
their sins are pardoned, and a right is granted them unto the heavenly
inheritance.
This position is such as wherein the substance of that
doctrine, in this important article of evangelical truth which we plead
for, is plainly and fully expressed. And I have chosen the rather thus to
express it, because it is that thesis wherein the learned Davenant laid down that common doctrine of the
Reformed churches whose defence he undertook. This is the shield of truth
in the whole cause of justification; which, whilst it is preserved safe, we
need not trouble ourselves about the differences that are among learned men
about the most proper stating and declaration of some lesser concernments
of it. This is the refuge, the only refuge, of distressed consciences,
wherein they may find rest and peace.
For the confirmation of this assertion, I shall do these
three things:— I. Reflect on what is needful unto the explanation
of it. II. Answer the most important general
objections against it. III. Prove the truth of it by arguments and
testimonies of the holy Scripture.
I. As to the first of these, or what is necessary unto the
explanation of this assertion, it has been sufficiently spoken unto in our
foregoing discourses. The heads of some things only shall at present be
called over.
1. The foundation of the imputation asserted is
union. Hereof there are many grounds and causes, as has been declared; but
that which we have immediate respect unto, as the foundation of this
imputation, is that whereby the Lord Christ and believers do actually
coalesce into one mystical person. This is by the Holy Spirit
inhabiting in him as the head of the church in all fulness, and in all
believers according to their measure, whereby they become members of his
mystical body. That there is such a union between Christ and believers is
the faith of the catholic church, and has been so in all ages. Those who
seem in our days to deny it, or question it, either know not what they say,
or their minds are influenced by their doctrine who deny the divine persons
of the Son and of the Spirit. Upon supposition of this union, reason will
grant the imputation pleaded for to be reasonable; at least, that there is
such a peculiar ground for it as is not to be exemplified in any things
natural or political among men.
2. The nature of imputation has been fully spoken
unto before, and whereunto I refer the reader for the understanding of what
is intended thereby.
3. That which is imputed is the righteousness of
Christ; and, briefly, I understand hereby his whole obedience unto God,
in all that he did and suffered for the church. This, I say, is imputed
unto believers, so as to become their only righteousness before God unto
the justification of life.
If beyond these things any expressions have been made use
of, in the explanation of this truth, which have given occasion unto any
differences or contests, although they may be true and defensible against
objections, yet shall not I concern myself in them. The substance of the
truth as laid down, is that whose defence I have undertaken; and where that
is granted or consented unto, I will not contend with any about their way
and methods of its declaration, nor defend the terms and expressions that
have by any been made use of therein. For instance, some have said that
“what Christ did and suffered is so imputed unto us, as that we are judged
and esteemed in the sight of God to have done or suffered ourselves in
him.” This I shall not concern myself in; for although it may have a sound
sense given unto it, and is used by some of the ancients, yet because offence is taken at it, and the substance of the truth we
plead for is better otherwise expressed, it ought not to be contended
about. For we do not say that God judges or esteems that we did and
suffered in our own persons what Christ did and suffered; but only that he
did it and suffered it in our stead. Hereon God makes a grant and donation
of it unto believers upon their believing, unto their justification before
him. And the like may be said of many other expressions of the like
nature.
II. These things being premised, I proceed unto the
consideration of the general objections that are urged against the
imputation we plead for: and I shall insist only on some of the principal
of them, and whereinto all others may be resolved; for it were endless to
go over all that any man’s invention can suggest unto him of this kind.
And some general considerations we must take along with us herein; as,
—
1. The doctrine of justification is a part, yea, an
eminent part, of the mystery of the gospel. It is no marvel,
therefore, if it be not so exposed unto the common notions of reason as
some would have it to be. There is more required unto the true spiritual
understanding of such mysteries; yea, unless we intend to renounce the
gospel, it must be asserted that reason as it is corrupted, and the mind of
man as destitute of divine, supernatural revelation, do dislike every such
truth, and rise up in enmity against it. So the Scripture directly
affirms, Rom. viii. 7; 1 Cor. ii.
14.
2. Hence are the minds and inventions of men
wonderfully fertile in coining objections against evangelical truths and
raising cavils against them. Seldom to this purpose do they want an
endless number of sophistical objections, which, because they know no
better, they themselves judge insoluble; for carnal reason being once set
at liberty, under the false notion of truth, to act itself freely and
boldly against spiritual mysteries, is subtile in its arguing, and pregnant
in its invention of them. How endless, for instance, are the sophisms of
the Socinians against the doctrine of the Trinity! and how do they triumph
in them as unanswerable! Under the shelter of them they despise the force
of the most evident testimonies of the Scripture and those multiplied on
all occasions. In like manner they deal with the doctrine of the
satisfaction of Christ, as the Pelagians of old did with that of his grace.
Wherefore, he that will be startled at the appearance of subtile or
plausible objections against any gospel mysteries that are plainly
revealed, and sufficiently attested in the Scripture, is not likely to come
unto much stability in his profession of them.
3. The most of the objections which are levied against the
truth in this cause do arise from the want of a due comprehension of the
order of the work of God’s grace, and of our compliance
wherewithal in a way of duty, as was before observed; for they consist in
opposing those things one to another as inconsistent, which, in their
proper place and order, are not only consistent, but mutually
subservient unto one another, and are found so in the experience of
them that truly believe. Instances hereof have been given before, and
others will immediately occur. Taking the consideration of these things
with us, we may see as the rise, so of what force the objections are.
4. Let it be considered that the objections which are made
use of against the truth we assert, are all of them taken from certain
consequences which, as it is supposed, will ensue on the admission of
it. And as this is the only expedient to perpetuate controversies and make
them endless, so, to my best observation, I never yet met with any one but
that, to give an appearance of force unto the absurdity of the consequences
from whence he argues, he framed his suppositions, or the state of the
question, unto the disadvantage of them whom he opposed; a course of
proceeding which I wonder good men are not either weary or ashamed of.
1. It is objected, “That the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ does overthrow all remission of sins on the part of
God.” This is pleaded for by Socinus, De Servatore, lib. iv. cap. 2–4; and by others it is also
made use of. A confident charge this seems to them who steadfastly believe
that without this imputation there could be no remission of
sin. But they say, “That he who has a righteousness imputed unto him
that is absolutely perfect, so as to be made his own, needs no pardon, has
no sin that should be forgiven, nor can he ever need forgiveness.” But
because this objection will occur unto us again in the vindication of one
of our ensuing arguments, I shall here speak briefly unto it:—
(1.) Grotius shall answer this
objection. Says he, “Cum duo nobis peperisse Christum
dixerimus, impunitatem et præmium, illud satisfactioni, hoc merito Christi
distinctè tribuit vetus ecclesia. Satisfactio consistit in peccatorum
translatione, meritum in perfectissimæ obedientiæ pro nobis præstitæ
imputatione,” Præfat. ad lib. de Satisfact.; — “Whereas we have said
that Christ has procured or brought forth two things for us, — freedom from
punishment, and a reward, — the ancient church attributes the one of them
distinctly unto his satisfaction, the other unto his merit. Satisfaction
consists in the translation of sins (from us unto him); merit, in the
imputation of his most perfect obedience, performed for us, unto us.” In
his judgment, the remission of sins and the imputation of righteousness
were as consistent as the satisfaction and merit of Christ; as indeed they
are.
(2.) Had we not been sinners, we should have had no
need of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to
render us righteous before God. Being so, the first end for which it is
imputed is the pardon of sin; without which we could not be
righteous by the imputation of the most perfect righteousness. These
things, therefore, are consistent, — namely, that the satisfaction of
Christ should be imputed unto us for the pardon of sin, and the obedience
of Christ be imputed unto us to render us righteous before God; and they
are not only consistent, but neither of them singly were sufficient unto
our justification.
2. It is pleaded by the same author, and others, “That the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ overthrows all necessity of
repentance for sin, in order unto the remission or pardon thereof, yea,
renders it altogether needless; for what need has he of repentance for sin,
who, by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, is esteemed
completely just and righteous in the sight of God? If Christ satisfied for
all sins in the person of the elect, if as our surety he paid all our
debts, and if his righteousness be made ours before we repent, then is all
repentance needless.” And these things are much enlarged on by the same
author in the place before mentioned.
Ans. (1.) It must be remembered that we require
evangelical faith, in order of nature, antecedently unto our
justification by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us;
which also is the condition of its continuation. Wherefore, whatever is
necessary thereunto is in like manner required of us in order unto
believing. Amongst these, there is a sorrow for sin, and a
repentance of it; for whosoever is convinced of sin in a due manner,
so as in be sensible of its evil and guilt, — both as in its own nature it
is contrary unto the preceptive part of the holy law, and in the necessary
consequences of it, in the wrath and curse of God, — cannot but be
perplexed in his mind that he has involved himself therein; and that
posture of mind will be accompanied with shame, fear, sorrow, and
other afflictive passions. Hereon a resolution does ensue utterly to
abstain from it for the future, with sincere endeavours unto that purpose;
issuing, if there be time and space for it, in reformation of life. And in
a sense of sin, sorrow for it, fear concerning it, abstinence from it, and
reformation of life, a repentance true in its kind does consist. This
repentance is usually called legal, because its motives are principally
taken from the law; but yet there is, moreover, required unto it that
temporary faith of the gospel which we have before described; and as it
does usually produce great effects, in the confession of sin, humiliation
for it, and change of life (as in Ahab and the Ninevites), so ordinarily it
precedes true saving faith, and justification thereby. Wherefore, the
necessity hereof is no way weakened by the doctrine of the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, yea, it is strengthened and made
effectual thereby; for without it, in the order of the gospel, an interest
therein is not to be attained. And this is that which, in the Old
Testament, is so often proposed as the means and condition of turning away
the judgments and punishments threatened unto sin; for it is true and
sincere in its kind. Neither do the Socinians require any other repentance
unto justification; for as they deny true evangelical repentance in all the
especial causes of it, so that which may and does precede faith in order of
nature is all that they require. This objection, therefore, as managed by
them, is a causeless, vain pretence.
(2.) Justifying faith includes in its nature the entire
principle of evangelical repentance, so as that it is utterly
impossible that a man should be a true believer, and not, at the
same instant of time, be truly penitent; and therefore are they so
frequently conjoined in the Scripture as one simultaneous duty. Yea, the
call of the gospel unto repentance is a call to faith acting itself by
repentance: So the sole reason of that call unto repentance which the
forgiveness of sins is annexed unto, Acts ii. 38,
is the proposal of the promise which is the object of faith, verse
39. And those conceptions and affections which a man has about
sin, with a sorrow for it and repentance of it, upon a legal
conviction, being enlivened and made evangelical by the introduction of
faith as a new principle of them, and giving new motives unto them, do
become evangelical; so impossible is it that faith should be without
repentance. Wherefore, although the first act of faith, and its
only proper exercise unto justification, does respect the grace of God in
Christ, and the way of salvation by him, as proposed in the promise of the
gospel, yet is not this conceived in order of time to precede its acting in
self-displicency, godly sorrow, and universal conversion from
sin unto God; nor can it be so, seeing it virtually and radically contains
all of them in itself. However, therefore, evangelical repentance is not
the condition of our justification, so as to have any direct
influence thereinto; nor are we said anywhere to be justified by
repentance; nor is conversant about the proper object which
alone the soul respects therein; nor is a direct and immediate giving
glory unto God on the account of the way and work of his wisdom and
grace in Christ Jesus, but a consequent thereof; nor is that reception
of Christ which is expressly required unto our justification, and which
alone is required thereunto; — yet is it, in the root, principle, and
promptitude of mind for its exercise, in every one that is justified, then
when he is justified. And it is peculiarly proposed with respect unto the
forgiveness of sins, as that without which it is impossible we
should have any true sense or comfort of it in our souls; but it is
not so as any part of that righteousness on the consideration
whereof our sins are pardoned, nor as that whereby we have an interest
therein. These things are plain in the divine method of our justification,
and the order of our duty prescribed in the gospel; as also in the
experience of them that do believe. Wherefore, considering the necessity
of legal repentance unto believing; with the sanctification of the
affections exercised therein by faith, whereby they are made evangelical;
and the nature of faith, as including in it a principle of universal
conversion unto God; and in especial, of that repentance which has for
its principal motive the love of God and of Jesus Christ, with the grace
from thence communicated, — all which are supposed in the doctrine pleaded
for; the necessity of true repentance is immovably fixed on its proper
foundation.
(3.) As unto what was said in the objection concerning
Christ’s suffering in the person of the elect, I know not whether
any have used it or no, nor will I contend about it. He suffered in their
stead; which all sorts of writers, ancient and modern, so express, — in
his suffering he bare the person of the church. The meaning is what
was before declared. Christ and believers are one mystical person, one
spiritually-animated body, head and members. This, I suppose, will not be
denied; to do so, is to overthrow the church and the faith of it. Hence,
what he did and suffered is imputed unto them. And it is granted that, as
the surety of the covenant, he paid all our debts, or answered for all our
faults; and that his righteousness is really communicated unto us. “Why,
then,” say some, “there is no need of repentance; all is done for us
already.” But why so? Why must we assent to one part of the gospel unto
the exclusion of another? Was it not free unto God to appoint what way,
method, and order he would, whereby these things should be communicated
unto us? Nay, upon the supposition of the design of his wisdom and grace,
these two things were necessary:—
[1.] That this righteousness of Christ should be
communicated unto us, and be made ours, in such a way and manner as that he
himself might be glorified therein, seeing he has disposed all things, in
this whole economy, unto “the praise of the glory of his grace,” Eph. i.
6. This was to be done by faith, on our part. It is so; it
could be no otherwise: for that faith whereby we are justified is our
giving unto God the glory of his wisdom, grace, and love; and whatever does
so is faith, and nothing else is so.
[2.] That whereas our nature was so corrupted and depraved
as that, continuing in that state, it was not capable of a
participation of the righteousness of Christ, or any benefit of it, unto
the glory of God and our own good, it was in like manner necessary that it
should be renewed and changed. And unless it were so, the
design of God in the mediation of Christ, — which was the
entire recovery of us unto himself, — could not be attained. And
therefore, as faith, under the formal consideration of it, was necessary
unto the first end, — namely, that of giving glory unto God, — so unto this
latter end it was necessary that this faith should be accompanied with,
yea, and contain in itself, the seeds of all those other graces wherein the
divine nature does consist, whereof we are to be made partners. Not only,
therefore, the thing itself, or the communication of the righteousness of
Christ unto us, but the way, and manner, and means of it, do depend on
God’s sovereign order and disposal. Wherefore, although Christ did make
satisfaction to the justice of God for all the sins of the church,
and that as a common person (for no man in his wits can deny but that he
who is a mediator and a surety is, in some sense, a common person);
and although he did pay all our debts; yet does the particular interest of
this or that man in what he did and suffered depend on the way,
means, and order designed of God unto that end. This, and this alone,
gives the true necessity of all the duties which are required of us, with
their order and their ends.
3. It is objected, “That the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, which we defend, overthrows the necessity of faith
itself.” This is home indeed. “Aliquid
adhærebit” is the design of all these objections; but they have
reason to plead for themselves who make it. “For on this supposition,”
they say, “the righteousness of Christ is ours before we do believe; for
Christ satisfied for all our sins, as if we had satisfied in our own
persons. And he who is esteemed to have satisfied for all his sins in his
own person is acquitted from them all and accounted just, whether he
believe or no; nor is there any ground or reason why he should be required
to believe. If, therefore, the righteousness of Christ be really ours,
because, in the judgment of God, we are esteemed to have wrought it in him,
then it is ours before we do believe. If it be otherwise, then it is plain
that that righteousness itself can never be made ours by believing; only
the fruits and effects of it may be suspended on our believing, whereby we
may be made partakers of them. Yea, if Christ made any such satisfaction
for us as is pretended, it is really ours, without any farther imputation;
for, being performed for us and in our stead, it is the highest injustice
not to have us accounted pardoned and acquitted, without any farther,
either imputation on the part of God or faith on ours.” These things I
have transcribed out of Socinus,
De Servatore, lib. iv.
cap. 2–5; which I would not have done but that I find others to have
gone before me herein, though to another purpose. And he concludes with a
confidence which others also seem, in some measure, to have learned of him;
for he says unto his adversary, “Hæc tua, tuorumque
sententia, adeo fœda et execrabilis est, ut pestilentiorem errorem post homines natos in populo. Dei
extitisse non credam,” — speaking of the satisfaction of Christ, and
the imputation of it unto believers. And, indeed, his serpentine wit was
fertile in the invention of cavils against all the mysteries of the gospel.
Nor was he obliged by any one of them, so as to contradict himself in what
he opposed concerning any other of them; for, denying the deity of Christ,
his satisfaction, sacrifice, merit, righteousness, and overthrowing the
whole nature of his mediation, nothing stood in his way which he had a mind
to oppose. But I somewhat wonder how others can make use of his inventions
in this kind; who, if they considered aright their proper tendency, they
will find them to be absolutely destructive of what they seem to own. So
it is in this present objection against the imputation of the righteousness
of Christ. If it has any force in it, as indeed it has not, it is to prove
that the satisfaction of Christ was impossible; and so he intended it. But
it will be easily removed.
I answer, first, in general, that the whole fallacy of this
objection lies in the opposing one part of the design and method of
God’s grace in this mystery of our justification unto another; or the
taking of one part of it to be the whole, which, as to its efficacy and
perfection, depends on somewhat else. Hereof we warned the reader in our
previous discourses. For the whole of it is a supposition that the
satisfaction of Christ, if there be any such thing, must have its whole
effect without believing on our part; which is contrary unto the whole
declaration of the will of God in the gospel. But I shall principally
respect them who are pleased to make use of this objection, and yet do not
deny the satisfaction of Christ. And I say, —
(1.) When the Lord Christ died for us, and offered himself
as a propitiatory sacrifice, “God laid all our sins on him,” Isa.
liii. 6; and he then “bare them all in his own body on the
tree,” 1 Pet. ii. 24. Then he suffered in our
stead, and made full satisfaction for all our sins; for he “appeared to put
away sin by the sacrifice of himself,” Heb. ix. 26; and
“by one offering he has perfected forever them that are sanctified,”
chap. x. 14. He whose sins were not
actually and absolutely satisfied for in that one offering of Christ, shall
never have them expiated unto eternity; for “henceforth he dies no more,”
there is “no more sacrifice for sin.” The repetition of a sacrifice for
sin, which must be the crucifying of Christ afresh, overthrows the
foundation of Christian religion.
(2.) Notwithstanding this full, plenary satisfaction
once made for the sins of the world that shall be saved, yet all men
continue equal to be born by nature “children of wrath;” and whilst they
believe not, “the wrath of God abides on them,” John iii.
36; — that is, they are obnoxious unto and under the curse of
the law. Wherefore, on the only making of that satisfaction,
no one for whom it was made in the design of God can be said to have
suffered in Christ, nor to have an interest in his satisfaction, nor by any
way or means be made partaker of it antecedently unto another act of God in
its imputation unto him. For this is but one part of the purpose of God’s
grace as unto our justification by the blood of Christ, — namely, that he
by his death should make satisfaction for our sins; nor is it to be
separated from what also belongs unto it in the same purpose of God.
Wherefore, from the position or grant of the satisfaction of Christ, no
argument can be taken unto the negation of a consequential act of its
imputation unto us; nor, therefore, of the necessity of our faith in the
believing and receiving of it, which is no less the appointment of God than
it was that Christ should make that satisfaction. Wherefore, —
(3.) That which the Lord Christ paid for us is as
truly paid as if we had paid it ourselves. So he speaks, Ps.
lxix. 5, אֲשֶׁר לאֹ־גָזֹלֲתִּי אָז אָשִׁיב. He made no
spoil of the glory of God; what was done of that nature by us, he
returned it unto him. And what he underwent and suffered, he underwent and
suffered in our stead. But yet the act of God in laying our sins on Christ
conveyed no actual right and title to us unto what he did and suffered.
They are not immediately thereon, nor by virtue thereof, ours, or esteemed
ours; because God has appointed somewhat else, not only antecedent
thereunto, but as the means of it, unto his own glory. These things, both
as unto their being and order, depend on the free ordination of God. But
yet, —
(4.) It cannot be said that this satisfaction was made for
us on such a condition as should absolutely suspend the event, and
render it uncertain whether it should ever be for us or no. Such a
constitution may be righteous in pecuniary solutions. A man may lay down a
great sum of money for the discharge of another, on such a condition as may
never be fulfilled; for, on the absolute failure of the condition, his
money may and ought to be restored unto him, whereon he has received no
injury or damage. But in penal suffering for crimes and sins, there can be
no righteous constitution that shall make the event and efficacy of it to
depend on a condition absolutely uncertain, and which may not come to pass
or be fulfilled; for if the condition fail, no recompense can be made unto
him that has suffered. Wherefore, the way of the application of the
satisfaction of Christ unto them for whom it was made, is sure and
steadfast in the purpose of God.
(5.) God has appointed that there shall be an immediate
foundation of the imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness of
Christ unto us; whereon we may be said to have done and suffered in him what he did and suffered in our stead, by that grant, donation,
and imputation of it unto us; or that we may be interested in it, that it
may be made ours: which is all we contend for. And this is our actual
coalescency into one mystical person with him by faith. Hereon does
the necessity of faith originally depend. And if we shall add hereunto the
necessity of it likewise unto that especial glory of God which he designs
to exalt in our justification by Christ, as also unto all the ends of our
obedience unto God, and the renovation of our natures into his image, its
station is sufficiently secured against all objections. Our actual
interest in the satisfaction of Christ depends on our actual insertion into
his mystical body by faith, according to the appointment of God.
4. It is yet objected, “That if the righteousness of
Christ be made ours, we may be said to be saviours of the world, as he was,
or to save others, as he did; for he was so and did so by his
righteousness, and no otherwise.” This objection also is of the same
nature with those foregoing, — a mere sophistical cavil. For, —
(1.) The righteousness of Christ is not transfused into us,
so as to be made inherently and subjectively ours, as it was in him,
and which is necessarily required unto that effect of saving others
thereby. Whatever we may do, or be said to do, with respect unto others,
by virtue of any power or quality inherent in ourselves, we can be said to
do nothing unto others, or for them, by virtue of that which is imputed
unto us only for our own benefit. That any righteousness of ours should
benefit another, it is absolutely necessary that it should be wrought by
ourselves.
(2.) If the righteousness of Christ could be transfused
into us, and be made inherently ours, yet could we not be, nor be said to
be, the saviours of others thereby; for our nature in our individual
persons is not “subjectum capax,” or capable to
receive and retain a righteousness useful and effectual unto that end.
This capacity was given unto it in Christ by virtue of the hypostatical
union, and no otherwise. The righteousness of Christ himself, as performed
in the human nature, would not have been sufficient for the justification
and salvation of the church, had it not been the righteousness of his
person who is, both God and man; for “God redeemed his church with his own
blood.”
(3.) This imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto
us, as unto its ends and use, has its measure from the will of God,
and his purpose in that imputation; and this is, that it should be the
righteousness of them unto whom it is imputed, and nothing else.
(4.) We do not say that the righteousness of Christ, as
made absolutely for the whole church, is imputed unto every believer;
but his satisfaction for every one of them in particular, according unto
the will of God, is imputed unto them, — not with respect unto
its general ends, but according unto every one’s particular interest.
Every believer has his own homer of this bread of life; and all are
justified by the same righteousness.
(5.) The apostle declares, as we shall prove afterwards,
that as Adam’s actual sin is imputed unto us unto 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 by
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 imputed unto us it is, because
himself was righteous with it, not for himself, but for us.
5. It is yet said, “That if we insist on personal
imputation unto every believer of what Christ did, or if any believer be
personal1y righteous in the very individual acts of Christ’s righteousness,
many absurdities will follow.” But it was observed before, that when any
design to oppose an opinion from the absurdities which they suppose would
follow upon it, they are much inclined so to state it as, that at least
they may seem so to do. And this oft times the most worthy and candid
persons are not free from, in the heat of disputation. So I fear it is
here fallen out; for as unto personal imputation, I do not well
understand it. All imputation is unto a person, and is the act of a
person, be it of what, and what sort it will; but from neither of them can
be denominated a personal imputation. And if an imputation be allowed that
is not unto the persons of men, — namely, in this case unto all believers,
— the nature of it has not yet been declared, as I know of.
That any have so expressed the imputation pleaded for,
“that every believer should be personally righteous in the very individual
acts of Christ’s righteousness,” I know not; I have neither read nor heard
any of them who have so expressed their mind. It may be some have done so:
but I shall not undertake the defence of what they have done; for it seems
not only to suppose that Christ did every individual act which in any
instance is required of us, but also that those acts are made our own
inherently, — both which are false and impossible. That which indeed is
pleaded for in this imputation is only this, that what the Lord Christ did
and suffered as the mediator and surety of the covenant, in answer unto the
law, for them, and in their stead, is imputed unto every one of them unto
the justification of life. And sufficient this is unto that end, without
any such supposals. (1.) From the dignity of the person
who yielded this obedience, which rendered it both satisfactory and
meritorious, and imputable unto many. (2.) From the nature of the
obedience itself, which was a perfect compliance with, a fulfilling of,
and satisfaction unto the whole law in all its demands. This, on the
supposition of that act of God’s sovereign authority, whereby a
representative of the whole church was introduced to answer the law, is the
ground of his righteousness being made theirs, and being every way
sufficient unto their justification. (3.) From the constitution of
God, that what was done and suffered by Christ as a public
person, and our surety, should be reckoned unto us, as if done by
ourselves. So the sin of Adam, whilst he was a public person, and
represented his whole posterity, is imputed unto us all, as if we had
committed that actual sin. This Bellarmine
himself frequently acknowledges: “Peccavimus in primo
homine quando ille peccavit, et illa ejus prævaricatio nostra etiam
prævaricatio fuit. Non enim vere per Adami inobedientiam constitueremur
peccatores, nisi inobedientia illius nostra etiam inobedientia
esset,” De Amiss. Grat. et Stat. Peccat., lib. v.
cap. 18. And elsewhere, that the actual sin of Adam is imputed unto
us, as if we all had committed that actual sin; that is, broken the whole
law of God. And this is that whereby the apostle illustrates the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto believers; and it may on as
good grounds be charged with absurdities as the other. It is not,
therefore, said that God judges that we have in our own persons done
those very acts, and endured that penalty of the law, which the Lord Christ
did and endured; for this would overthrow all imputation; — but what
Christ did and suffered, that God imputes unto believers unto the
justification of life, as if it had been done by themselves; and his
righteousness as a public person is made theirs by imputation, even as the
sin of Adam, whilst a public person, is made the sin of all his posterity
by imputation.
Hereon none of the absurdities pretended, which are really
such, do at all follow. It does not so, that Christ in his own person
performed every individual act that we in our circumstances are obliged
unto in a way of duty; nor was there any need that so he should do. This
imputation, as I have showed, stands on other foundations. Nor does it
follow, that every saved person’s righteousness before God is the
same identically and numerically with Christ’s in his public capacity as
mediator; for this objection destroys itself, by affirming that as it was
his, it was the righteousness of God-man, and so it has an especial nature
as it respects or relates unto his person. It is the same that Christ in
his public capacity did work or effect. But there is a wide difference in
the consideration of it as his absolutely, and as made ours.
It was formally inherent in him, — is only
materially imputed unto us; was actively his, — is
passively ours; was wrought in the person of God-man for the
whole church, — is imputed unto each single believer, as unto his
own concernment only. Adam’s sin, as imputed unto us, is not the sin of a
representative, though it be of him that was so, but is the particular sin
of every one of us; but this objection must be farther spoken unto, where
it occurs afterwards. Nor will it follow, that on this supposition we
should be accounted to have done that which was done long before we were in
a capacity of doing any thing; for what is done for us and in our
stead, before we are in any such capacity, may be imputed unto us, as is
the sin of Adam. And yet there is a manifold sense wherein men may be said
to have done what was done for them and in their name, before their
actual existence; so that therein is no absurdity. As unto what is added
by the way, that Christ did not do nor suffer the “idem” that we were obliged unto; whereas he did what the
law required, and suffered what the law threatened unto the disobedient,
which is the whole of what we are obliged unto, it will not be so easily
proved, nor the arguments very suddenly answered, whereby the contrary has
been confirmed. That Christ did sustain the place of a surety, or was the
surety of the new covenant, the Scripture does so expressly affirm that it
cannot be denied. And that there may be sureties in cases criminal as well
as civil and pecuniary, has been proved before. What else occurs about
the singularity of Christ’s obedience, as he was mediator, proves
only that his righteousness, as formally and inherently his, was peculiar
unto himself; and that the adjuncts of it, which arise from its relation
unto his person, as it was inherent in him, are not communicable unto them
to whom it is imputed.
6. It is, moreover, urged, “That upon the supposed
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, it will follow that every
believer is justified by the works of the law; for the obedience of Christ
was a legal righteousness, and if that be imputed unto us, then are we
justified by the law; which is contrary unto express testimonies of
Scripture in many places.” Ans. (1.) I know nothing more frequent
in the writings of some learned men than that the righteousness of Christ
is our legal righteousness; who yet, I presume, are able to free
themselves of this objection. (2.) If this do follow in the true sense of
being justified by the law, or the works of it, so denied in the Scripture,
their weakness is much to be pitied who can see no other way whereby we may
be freed from an obligation to be justified by the law, but by this
imputation of the righteousness of Christ. (3.) The Scripture which affirms
that “by the deeds of the law no man can be justified,” affirms in like
manner that by “faith we do not make void the law, but establish it;” that
“the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us;” that Christ
“came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it,” and is the “end of the law
for righteousness unto them that do believe.” And that the law must be
fulfilled, or we cannot be justified, we shall prove afterwards. (4.) We
are not hereon justified by the law, or the works of it, in the only
sense of that proposition in the Scripture; and to coin new
senses or significations of it is not safe. The meaning of it in the
Scripture is, that only “the doers of the law shall be justified,”
Rom. ii. 13; and that “he that does the
things of it shall live by them,” chap. x. 5, —
namely, in his own person, by the way of personal duty, which alone the law
requires. But if we, who have not fulfilled the law in the way of
inherent, personal obedience, are justified by the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ unto us, then are we justified by Christ, and not
by the law.
But it is said that this will not relieve; for if
his obedience be so imputed unto us, as that we are accounted by God in
judgment to have done what Christ did, it is all one upon the matter, and
we are as much justified by the law as if we had in our own proper persons
performed an unsinning obedience unto it. This I confess I cannot
understand. The nature of this imputation is here represented, as
formerly, in such a way as we cannot acknowledge; from thence alone this
inference is made, which yet, in my judgment, does not follow thereon. For
grant an imputation of the righteousness of another unto us, be it of what
nature it will, all justification by the law and works of it, in the sense
of the Scripture, is gone for ever. The admission of imputation takes off
all power from the law to justify; for it can justify none but upon a
righteousness that is originally and inherently his own: “The man that does
them shall live in them.” If the righteousness that is imputed be the
ground and foundation of our justification, and made ours by that
imputation, state it how you will, that justification is of grace, and not
of the law. However, I know not of any that say we are accounted of God
in judgment personally to have done what Christ did; and it may have
a sense that is false, — namely, that God should judge us in our own
persons to have done those acts which we never did. But what Christ did
for us, and in our stead, is imputed and communicated unto
us, as we coalesce into one mystical person with him by faith; and thereon
are we justified. And this absolutely overthrows all justification by the
law or the works of it; though the law be established, fulfilled, and
accomplished, that we may be justified.
Neither can any, on the supposition of the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ truly stated, be said to merit their own
salvation. Satisfaction and merit are adjuncts of the righteousness of
Christ, as formally inherent in his own person; and as such it
cannot be transfused into another. Wherefore, as it is imputed unto
individual believers, it has not those properties accompanying
of it, which belong only unto its existence in the person of the Son of
God. But this was spoken unto before, as also much of what was necessary
to be here repeated.
These objections I have in this place taken notice of
because the answers given unto them do tend to the farther explanation of
that truth, whose confirmation, by arguments and testimonies of Scripture,
I shall now proceed unto.
Chapter X. Arguments for justification by the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ — The first argument from the nature and use of our
own personal righteousness
Arguments for justification by the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ — Our own personal righteousness not that on the
account whereof we are justified in the sight of God — Disclaimed in the
Scriptures, as to any such end — The truth and reality of it granted —
Manifold imperfections accompanying it, rendering it unmeet to be a
righteousness unto the justification of life
III. There is a justification of convinced sinners on
their believing. Hereon are their sins pardoned, their persons accepted
with God, and a right is given unto them unto the heavenly inheritance.
This state they are immediately taken into upon their faith, or believing
in Jesus Christ. And a state it is of actual peace with God. These
things at present I take for granted; and they are the foundation of all
that I shall plead in the present argument. And I do take notice of them,
because some seem, to the best of my understanding, to deny any real actual
justification of sinners on their believing in this life. For they make
justification to be only a general conditional sentence declared in the
gospel; which, as unto its execution, is delayed unto the day of judgment.
For whilst men are in this world, the whole condition of it being not
fulfilled, they cannot be partakers of it, or be actually and absolutely
justified. Hereon it follows, that indeed there is no real state of
assured rest and peace with God by Jesus Christ, for any persons in this
life. This at present I shall not dispute about, because it seems to me to
overthrow the whole gospel, — the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and all
the comfort of believers; about which I hope we are not as yet called to
contend.
Our inquiry is, how convinced sinners do, on their
believing, obtain the remission of sins, acceptance with God, and a right
unto eternal life? And if this can no other way be done but by the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto them, then thereby alone are
they justified in the sight of God. And this assertion proceeds on a
supposition that there is a righteousness required unto the justification
of any person whatever: for whereas God, in the justification of any
person, does declare him to be acquitted from all crimes laid unto his charges, and to stand as righteous in his sight, it must
be on the consideration of a righteousness whereon any man is so acquitted
and declared; for the judgment of God is according unto truth. This we
have sufficiently evidenced before, in that juridical procedure wherein the
Scripture represents unto us the justification of a believing sinner. And
if there be not other righteousness whereby we may be thus justified but
only that of Christ imputed unto us, then thereby must we be justified, or
not at all; and if there be any such other righteousness, it must be our
own, inherent in us, and wrought out by us; for these two kinds, inherent
and imputed righteousness, our own and Christ’s, divide the whole nature of
righteousness, as to the end inquired after. And that there is no such
inherent righteousness, no such righteousness of our own, whereby we may be
justified before God, I shall prove in the first place. And I shall do it,
first, from express testimonies of Scripture, and then from the
consideration of the thing itself; and two things I shall premise
hereunto:—
1. That I shall not consider this righteousness of our own
absolutely in itself, but as it may be conceived to be improved and
advanced by its relation unto the satisfaction and merit of Christ: for
many will grant that our inherent righteousness is not of itself sufficient
to justify us in the sight of God; but take it as it has value and worth
communicated unto it from the merit of Christ, and so it is accepted unto
that end, and judged worthy of eternal life. We could not merit life and
salvation had not Christ merited that grace for us whereby we may do so,
and merited also that our works should be of such a dignity with respect
unto reward. We shall, therefore, allow what worth can be reasonably
thought to be communicated unto this righteousness from its respect unto
the merit of Christ.
2. Whereas persons of all sorts and parties do take
various ways in the assignation of an interest in our justification unto
our own righteousness, so as that no parties are agreed about it, nor many
of the same mind among themselves, — as might easily be manifested in the
Papists, Socinians, and others, — I shall, so far as it is possible in the
ensuing arguments, have respect unto them all; for my design is to prove
that it has no such interest in our justification before God, as
that the righteousness of Christ should not be esteemed the only
righteousness whereon we are justified.
And, first, we
shall produce some of those many testimonies which may be pleaded unto this
purpose, Ps. cxxx. 3,
4, “If thou, Lord,
shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is
forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.” There is an inquiry
included in these words, how a man, how any man, may be justified before
God; how he may stand, that is, in the presence of God, and be accepted
with him, — how he shall stand in judgment, as it is
explained, Ps. i. 5, “The wicked shall not stand in
the judgment,” shall not be acquitted on their trial. That which first
offers itself unto this end is his own obedience; for this the law
requires of him in the first place, and this his own conscience calls upon
him for. But the psalmist plainly declares that no man can thence manage a
plea for his justification with any success; and the reason is, because,
notwithstanding the best of the obedience of the best of men, there are
iniquities found with them against the Lord their God; and if men come to
their trial before God, whether they shall be justified or condemned, these
also must be heard and taken into the account. But then no man can
“stand,” no man can be “justified,” as it is elsewhere expressed.
Wherefore, the wisest and safest course is, as unto our justification
before God, utterly to forego this plea and not to insist on our own
obedience, lest our sins should appear also, and be heard. No reason can
any man give on his own account why they should not be so; and if they be
so, the best of men will be cast in their trial as the psalmist
declares.
Two things are required in this trial, that a sinner may
stand:— 1. That his iniquities be not observed, for if they be so,
he is lost for ever. 2. That a righteousness be produced and
pleaded that will endure the trial; for justification is upon a justifying
righteousness. For the first of these, the psalmist tells us it must be
through pardon or forgiveness. “But there is forgiveness with thee,” —
wherein lies our only relief against the condemnatory sentence of the law
with respect unto our iniquities, — that is, through the blood of Christ,
for in him “we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of
sins,” Eph. i. 7. The other cannot be our own
obedience, because of our iniquities. Wherefore this the same psalmist
directs us unto, Ps. lxxi. 16, “I will go in the strength
of the Lord God: I will make
mention of thy righteousness, of thine only.” The righteousness of God,
and not his own, yea, in opposition unto his own, is the only plea that in
this case he would insist upon.
If no man can stand a trial before God upon his own
obedience, so as to be justified before him, because of his own personal
iniquities; and if our only plea in that case be the righteousness of God,
the righteousness of God only, and not our own; then is there no personal,
inherent righteousness in any believers whereon they may be justified;
— which is that which is to be proved.
The same is again asserted by the same person, and that
more plainly and directly, Ps. cxliii. 2,
“Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man
living be justified.” This testimony is the more to he considered, because
as it is derived from the law, Exod. xxxiv.
7, so it is transferred into the gospel, and twice urged
by the apostle unto the same purpose, Rom. iii. 20;
Gal. ii. 16.
The person who insists on this plea with God
professes himself to be his servant: “Enter not into judgment with
thy servant;” that is, one that loved him, feared him, yielded all sincere
obedience. He was not a hypocrite, not an unbeliever, not an unregenerate
person, who had performed no works but such as were legal, such as the law
required, and such as were done in the strength of the law only; such works
as all will acknowledge to be excluded from our justification, and which,
as many judge, are only those which are so excluded. David it was, who was
not only converted, a true believer, had the Spirit of God, and the aids of
special grace in his obedience, but had this testimony unto his sincerity,
that he was “a man after God’s own heart.” And this witness had he in his
own conscience of his integrity, uprightness, and personal righteousness,
so as that he frequently avows them, appeals unto God concerning the truth
of them, and pleads them as a ground of judgment between him and his
adversaries. We have, therefore, a case stated in the instance of a
sincere and eminent believer, who excelled most in inherent, personal
righteousness.
This person, under these circumstances, thus testified unto
both by God and in his own conscience, as unto the sincerity, yea, as unto
the eminency, of his obedience, considers how he may “stand before God,”
and “be justified in his sight.” Why does he not now plead his own merits;
and that, if not “ex condigno,” yet at least “ex congruo,” he deserved to be acquitted and justified?
But he left this plea for that generation of men that were to come after,
who would justify themselves and despise others. But suppose he had no
such confidence in the merit of his works as some have now attained unto,
yet why does he not freely enter into judgment with God, put it unto the
trial whether he should be justified or no, by pleading that he had
fulfilled the condition of the new covenant, that everlasting covenant
which God made with him, ordered in all things, and sure? For upon a
supposition of the procurement of that covenant and the terms of it by
Christ (for I suppose the virtue of that purchase he made of it is allowed
to extend unto the Old Testament), this was all that was required of him.
Is it not to be feared that he was one of them who see no necessity, or
leave none, of personal holiness and righteousness, seeing he makes no
mention of it, now it should stand him in the greatest stead? At least he
might plead his faith, as his own duty and work, to be imputed unto
him for righteousness. But whatever the reason be, he waives them all, and
absolutely deprecates a trial upon them. “Come not,” says he, “O Lord, into judgment with thy
servant;” as it is promised that he who believes should “not come into
judgment,” John v. 24.
And if this holy person renounce the whole consideration of
all his personal, inherent righteousness, in every
kind, and will not insist upon it under any pretence, in any place, as unto
any use in his justification before God, we may safely conclude there is no
such righteousness in any, whereby they may be justified. And if men would
but leave those shades and coverts under which they hide themselves in
their disputations, — if they would forego those pretences and distinctions
wherewith they delude themselves and others, and tell us plainly what
plea they dare make in the presence of God from their own righteousness
and obedience, that they may be justified before him, — we should better
understand their minds than now we do. There is one, I confess, who speaks
with some confidence unto this purpose, and that is Vasquez the Jesuit, in 1, 2, disp.
204, cap. 4, “Inhærens justitia ita reddit animam
justam et sanctam ac proinde filiam Dei, ut hoc ipso reddat eam heredem, et
dignam æterna gloria; imo ipse Deus efficere non potest ut hujusmodi justus
dignus non sit æterna beatitudine.” Is it not sad, that David
should discover so much ignorance of the worth of his inherent
righteousness, and discover so much pusillanimity with respect unto his
trial before God, whereas God himself could not otherwise order it, but
that he was, and must be, “worthy of eternal blessedness?”
The reason the psalmist gives why he will not put it unto
the trial, whether he should be acquitted or justified upon his own
obedience, is this general axiom: “For in thy sight,” or before thee,
“shall no man living be justified.” This must be spoken absolutely,
or with respect unto some one way or cause of justification. If it
be spoken absolutely, then this work ceases forever, and there is indeed no
such thing as justification before God. But this is contrary unto the
whole Scripture, and destructive of the gospel. Wherefore it is spoken
with respect unto our own obedience and works. He does not pray
absolutely that he “would not enter into judgement with him,” for this were
to forego his government of the world; but that he would not do so on the
account of his own duties and obedience. But if so be these duties and
obedience did answer, in any sense or way, what is required of us as a
righteousness unto justification, there was no reason why he should
deprecate a trial by them or upon them. But whereas the Holy Ghost does so
positively affirm that “no man living shall be justified in the sight of
God,” by or upon his own works or obedience, it is, I confess, marvellous
unto me that some should so interpret the apostle James as if he affirmed
the express contrary, — namely, that we are justified in the sight of God
by our own works, — whereas indeed he says no such thing. This, therefore,
is an eternal rule of truth, — By or upon his own obedience no man living
can be justified in the sight of God. It will be said, “That if God enter
into judgment with any on their own obedience by and according
to the law, then, indeed, none can be justified before him; but God judging
according to the gospel and the terms of the new covenant, men may be
justified upon their own duties, works, and obedience.” Ans. (1.)
The negative assertion is general and unlimited, — that “no man living
shall” (on his own works or obedience) “be justified in the sight of God.”
And to limit it unto this or that way of judging, is not to distinguish,
but to contradict the Holy Ghost. (2.) The judgment intended is only with
respect unto justification, as is plain in the words; but there is no
judgment on our works or obedience, with respect unto righteousness and
justification, but by the proper rule and measure of them, which is the
law. If they will not endure the trial by the law, they will endure no
trial, as unto righteousness and justification in the sight of God. (3.)
The prayer and plea of the psalmist, on this supposition, are to this
purpose: “O Lord, enter not
into judgment with thy servant by or according unto the law; but enter into
judgment with me on my own works and obedience according to the rule of the
gospel;” for which he gives this reason, “because in thy sight shall no man
living be justified:” which how remote it is from his intention need not be
declared. (4.) The judgment of God unto justification according to the
gospel does not proceed on our works of obedience, but upon the
righteousness of Christ, and our interest therein by faith; as is too
evident to be modestly denied. Notwithstanding this exception, therefore,
hence we argue, —
If the most holy of the servants of God, in and after a
course of sincere, fruitful obedience, testified unto by God himself, and
witnessed in their own consciences, — that is, whilst they have the
greatest evidences of their own sincerity, and that indeed they are the
servants of God, — do renounce all thoughts of such a righteousness
thereby, as whereon, in any sense, they may be justified before God; then
there is no such righteousness in any, but it is the righteousness of
Christ alone, imputed unto us, whereon we are so justified. But that so
they do, and ought all of them so to do, because of the general rule here
laid down, that in the sight of God no man living shall be justified, is
plainly affirmed in this testimony.
I no way doubt but that many learned men, after all their
pleas for an interest of personal righteousness and works in our
justification before God, do, as unto their own practice, betake themselves
unto this method of the psalmist, and cry, as the prophet Daniel does, in
the name of the church, “We do not present our supplications before thee
for our own righteousness, but for thy great mercies,” chap. ix. 18. And therefore Job (as we
have formerly observed), after a long and earnest defence of his own faith,
integrity, and personal righteousness, wherein he justified himself against
the charge of Satan and men, being called to plead his cause
in the sight of God, and declare on what grounds he expected to be
justified before him, renounces all his former pleas, and betakes himself
unto the same with the psalmist, chap. xl. 4; xlii. 6.
It is true, in particular cases, and as unto some special
ends in the providence of God, a man may plead his own integrity and
obedience before God himself. So did Hezekiah, when he prayed for the
sparing of his life, Isa. xxxviii. 3,
“Remember now, O Lord, I
beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth, and with a perfect
heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight.” This, I say, may be
done with respect unto temporal deliverance, or any other particular end
wherein the glory of God is concerned: so was it greatly in sparing the
life of Hezekiah at that time. For whereas he had with great zeal and
industry reformed religion and restored the true worship of God, the
“cutting him off in the midst of his days” would have occasioned the
idolatrous multitude to have reflected on him as one dying under a token of
divine displeasure. But none ever made this plea before God for the
absolute justification of their persons. So Nehemiah, in that great
contest which he had about the worship of God and the service of his house,
pleads the remembrance of it before God, in his justification against his
adversaries; but resolves his own personal acceptance with God into
pardoning mercy: “And spare me according unto the multitude of thy
mercies,” chap. xiii. 22.
Another testimony we have unto the same purpose in the
prophet Isaiah, speaking in the name of the church, chap. lxiv. 6, “We are all as an unclean
thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” It is true the
prophet does in this place make a deep confession of the sins of the
people; but yet withal he joins himself with them, and asserts the especial
interest of those concerning whom he speaks, by adoption, — that God was
their Father, and they his people, chap. lxiii. 16, lxiv. 8,
9. And the righteousnesses of all that are the children of God
are of the same kind, however they may differ in degrees, and some
of them may be more righteous than others; but it is all of it described to
be such, as that we cannot, I think, justly expect justification in the
sight of God upon the account of it. But whereas the consideration of the
nature of our inherent righteousness belongs unto the second way of the
confirmation of our present argument, I shall not farther here insist on
this testimony.
Many others also, unto the same purpose, I shall wholly
omit, — namely, all those wherein the saints of God, or the church, in a
humble acknowledgment and confession of their own sins, do betake
themselves unto the mercy and grace of God alone, as dispensed through the
mediation and blood of Christ; and all those wherein God
promises to pardon and blot out our iniquities for his own sake, for his
name’s sake — to bless the people, not for any good that was in them, nor
for their righteousness, nor for their works, the consideration whereof he
excludes from having any influence into any acting of his grace towards
them; and all those wherein God expresses his delight in them alone, and
his approbation of them who hope in his mercy, trust in his name, betaking
themselves unto him as their only refuge, pronouncing them accursed who
trust in any thing else, or glory in themselves, — such as contain singular
promises unto them that betake themselves unto God, as fatherless,
hopeless, and lost in themselves.
There is none of the testimonies which are multiplied unto
this purpose, but they sufficiently prove that the best of God’s saints
have not a righteousness of their own whereon they can, in any sense, be
justified before God. For they do all of them, in the places referred
unto, renounce any such righteousness of their own, all that is in them,
all that they have done or can do, and betake themselves unto grace and
mercy alone. And whereas, as we have before proved, God, in the
justification of any, does exercise grace towards them with respect unto a
righteousness whereon he declares them righteous and accepted before him,
they do all of them respect a righteousness which is not inherent in us,
but imputed to us.
Herein lies the substance of all that we inquire into, in
this matter of justification. All other disputes about qualifications,
conditions, causes, ἄνευ ὧν οὐκ, any kind of
interest for our own works and obedience in our justification before God,
are but the speculations of men at ease. The conscience of a
convinced sinner, who presents himself in the presence of God, finds all
practically reduced unto this one point, — namely, whether he will trust
unto his own personal inherent righteousness, or, in a full renunciation of
it, betake himself unto the grace of God and the righteousness of Christ
alone. In other things he is not concerned. And let men phrase his own
righteousness unto him as they please, let them pretend it meritorious, or
only evangelical, not legal, — only an accomplishment of the condition of
the new covenant, a cause without which he cannot be justified, — it
will not be easy to frame his mind unto any confidence in it, as unto
justification before God, so as not to deceive him in the issue.
The second
part of the present argument is taken from the nature of the thing
itself, or the consideration of this personal, inherent righteousness
of our own, what it is, and wherein it does consist, and of what use it may
be in our justification. And unto this purpose it may be observed, —
That we grant an inherent righteousness in all that do
believe, as has been before declared: “For the fruit of the
Spirit is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth,” Eph. v.
9. “Being made free from sin, we become the servants of
righteousness,” Rom. vi. 18. And our duty it is to
“follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness,”
1 Tim. vi. 11. And although
righteousness be mostly taken for an especial grace or duty, distinct from
other graces and duties, yet we acknowledge that it may be taken for the
whole of our obedience before God; and the word is so used in the
Scripture, where our own righteousness is opposed unto the righteousness of
God. And it is either habitual or actual. There is a habitual
righteousness inherent in believers, as they have “put on the new man,
which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness,” Eph.
iv. 24; as they are the “workmanship of God, created in Christ
Jesus unto good works,” chap. ii. 10.
And there is an actual righteousness, consisting in those good works
whereunto we are so created, or the fruits of righteousness, which are to
the praise of God by Jesus Christ. And concerning this righteousness it
may be observed, — First, That men are said in the Scripture to be
just or righteous by it; but no one is said to be justified by it before
God. Secondly, That it is not ascribed unto, or found in, any but
those that are actually justified in order of nature antecedent
thereunto.
This being the constant doctrine of all the Reformed
churches and divines, it is an open calumny whereby the contrary is
ascribed unto them, or any of those who believe the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ unto our justification before God. So Bellarmine affirms that no Protestant writers
acknowledge an inherent righteousness but only Bucer and Chemnitius;
when there is no one of them by whom either the thing itself or the
necessity of it is denied. But some excuse may be made for him, from the
manner whereby they expressed themselves, wherein they always carefully
distinguished between inherent holiness and that righteousness whereby we
are justified. But we are now told by one, that if we should affirm it a
hundred times, he could scarce believe us. This is somewhat severe; for
although he speaks but to one, yet the charge falls equally upon all who
maintain that imputation of the righteousness of Christ which he denies,
who being at least the generality of all Protestant divines, they are
represented either as so foolish as not to know what they say, or so
dishonest as to say one thing and believe another. But he endeavours to
justify his censure by sundry reasons; and, first, he says, “That inherent
righteousness can on no other account be said to be ours, than that by it
we are made righteous; that is, that it is the condition of our
justification required in the new covenant. This being denied, all
inherent righteousness is denied.” But how is this proved? What if one
should say that every believer is inherently righteous, but
yet that this inherent righteousness was not the condition of his
justification, but rather the consequent of it, and that it is nowhere
required in the new covenant as the condition of our justification? How
shall the contrary be made to appear? The Scripture plainly affirms that
there is such an inherent righteousness in all that believe; and yet as
plainly that we are justified before God by faith without works.
Wherefore, that it is the condition of our justification, and so
antecedent unto it, is expressly contrary unto that of the apostle, “Unto
him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his
faith is counted unto him for righteousness,” Rom. iv. 5.
Nor is it the condition of the covenant itself, as that whereon the whole
grace of the covenant is suspended; for as it is habitual, wherein the
denomination of righteous is principally taken, it is a grace of the
covenant itself, and so not a condition of it, Jer. xxxi. 33; xxxii. 39;
Ezek.
xxxvi. 25–27. If no more be intended but that it is, as unto
its actual exercise, what is indispensably required of all that are taken
into covenant, in order unto the complete ends of it, we are agreed; but
hence it will not follow that it is the condition of our justification. It
is added, “That all righteousness respects a law and a rule, by which it is
to be tried; and he is righteous who has done these things which that law
requires by whose rule he is to be judged.” But, First, This is not
the way whereby the Scripture expresses our justification before God, which
alone is under consideration, — namely, that we bring unto it a personal
righteousness of our own, answering the law whereby we are to be judged;
yea, an assertion to this purpose is foreign to the gospel, and destructive
of the grace of God by Jesus Christ. Secondly, It is granted that
all righteousness respects a law as the rule of it; and so does this
whereof we speak, namely, the moral law; which being the sole,
eternal, unchangeable rule of righteousness, if it do not in the substance
of it answer thereunto, a righteousness it is not. But this it does,
inasmuch as that, so far as it is habitual, it consists in the renovation
of the image of God, wherein that law is written in our hearts; and all the
actual duties of it are, as to the substance of them, what is required by
that law. But as unto the manner of its communication unto us, and of its
performance by us, from faith in God by Jesus Christ, and love unto him, as
the author and fountain of all the grace and mercy procured and
administered by him, it has respect unto the gospel. What will follow from
hence? Why, that he is just that does those things which that law requires
whereby he is to be judged. He is so certainly; for “not the hearers of
the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified,”
Rom. ii. 13. “So Moses describeth the
righteousness of the law, that the man which does those things
shall live in them,” Rom. x. 5. But although the
righteousness whereof we discourse be required by the law, — as certainly
it is, for it is nothing but the law in our hearts, from whence we walk in
the ways and keep the statutes or commandments of God, — yet does it not so
answer the law as that any man can be justified by it. But then it
will be said that if it does not answer that law and rule whereby we are to
be judged, then it is no righteousness; for all righteousness must answer
the law whereby it is required. And I say it is most true, it is no
perfect righteousness; it does not so answer the rule and law as
that we can be justified by it, or safely judged on it. But, so far as it
does answer the law, it is a righteousness, — that is, imperfectly so, and
therefore is an imperfect righteousness; which yet gives the denomination
of righteous unto them that have it, both absolutely and comparatively. It
is said, therefore, that it is “the law of grace or the gospel from whence
we are denominated righteous with this righteousness;” but that we are by
the gospel denominated righteous, from any righteousness that is not
required by the moral law, will not be proved. Nor does the law of grace
or the gospel anywhere require of us or prescribe unto us this
righteousness, as that whereon we are to be justified before God. It
requires faith in Christ Jesus, or the receiving of him as he is proposed
in the promises of it, in all that are to be justified. It requires, in
like manner, “repentance from dead works” in all that believe; as also the
fruits of faith, conversion unto God, and repentance, in the works of
righteousness, which are to the praise of God by Jesus Christ, with
perseverance therein unto the end; and all this may, if you please, be
called our evangelical righteousness, as being our obedience unto God
according to the gospel. But yet the graces and duties wherein it does
consist do no more perfectly answer the commands of the gospel than they do
those of the moral law; for that the gospel abates from the holiness of the
law, and makes that to be no sin which is sin by the law, or approves
absolutely of less intension or lower degrees in the love of God than the
law does, is an impious imagination.
And that the gospel requires all these things entirely and
equally, as the condition of our justification before God, and so
antecedently thereunto, is not yet proved, nor ever will be. It is hence
concluded that “this is our righteousness, according unto the evangelical
law which requires it; by this we are made righteous, — that is, not guilty
of the non-performance of the condition required in that law.” And these
things are said to be very plain! So, no doubt, they seemed unto the
author; unto us they are intricate and perplexed. However, I wholly deny
that our faith, obedience, and righteousness, considered as ours, as
wrought by us, although they are all accepted with God through
Jesus Christ, according to the grace declared in the gospel, do perfectly
answer the commands of the gospel requiring them of us, as to matter,
manner, and degree; and [assert] that therefore it is utterly impossible
that they should be the cause or condition of our justification before God.
Yet in the explanation of these things, it is added by the same author,
that “our maimed and imperfect righteousness is accepted unto salvation, as
if it were every way absolute and perfect; for that so it should be, Christ
has merited by his most perfect righteousness.” But it is justification,
and not salvation, that alone we discourse about; and that the works of
obedience or righteousness have another respect unto salvation than they
have unto justification, is too plainly and too often expressed in the
Scripture to be modestly denied. And if this weak and imperfect
righteousness of ours be esteemed and accepted as every way perfect before
God, then either it is because God judges it to be perfect, and so declares
us to be most just, and justified thereon in his sight; or he judges it not
to be complete and perfect, yet declares us to be perfectly righteous in
his sight thereby. Neither of these, I suppose, can well be granted. It
will therefore be said, it is neither of them; but “Christ has obtained, by
his complete and most perfect righteousness and obedience, that this lame
and imperfect righteousness of ours should be accepted as every way
perfect.” And if it be so, it may be some will think it best not to go
about by this weak, halt, and imperfect righteousness, but, as unto their
justification, betake themselves immediately unto the most perfect
righteousness of Christ; which I am sure the Scripture encourages them
unto. And they will be ready to think that the righteousness which cannot
justify itself, but must be obliged unto grace and pardon through
the merits of Christ, will never be able to justify them. But what will
ensue on this explanation of the acceptance of our imperfect righteousness
unto justification, upon the merit of Christ? This only, so far as I can
discern, that Christ has merited and procured, either that God should judge
that to be perfect which is imperfect, and declare us perfectly righteous
when we are not so; or that he should judge the righteousness still to be
imperfect, as it is, but declare us to be perfectly righteous with and by
this imperfect righteousness. These are the plain paths that men walk in
who cannot deny but that there is a righteousness required unto our
justification, or that we may be declared righteous before God, in the
sight of God, according unto the judgment of God; yet, denying the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us, will allow us no other
righteousness unto this end but that which is so weak and imperfect as that
no man can justify it in his own conscience, nor, without a frenzy of
pride, can think or imagine himself perfectly righteous thereby.
And whereas it is added, that “he is blind who
sees not that this righteousness of ours is subordinate unto the
righteousness of Christ,” I must acknowledge myself otherwise minded,
notwithstanding the severity of this censure. It seems to me that the
righteousness of Christ is subordinate unto this righteousness of our own,
as here it is stated, and not the contrary: for the end of all is our
acceptance with God as righteous; but according unto these thoughts, it is
our own righteousnesses whereon we are immediately accepted with God as
righteous. Only Christ has deserved by his righteousness that our
righteousness may be so accepted; and is therefore, as unto the end of our
justification before God, subordinate thereunto.
But to return from this digression, and to proceed unto our
argument. This personal, inherent righteousness which, according to the
Scripture, we allow in believers, is not that whereby or wherewith we are
justified before God; for it is not perfect, nor perfectly answers any
rule of obedience that is given unto us: and so cannot be our
righteousness before God unto our justification. Wherefore, we must be
justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, or be justified
without respect unto any righteousness, or not be justified at all. And a
threefold imperfection does accompany it:—
1. As to the principle of it, as it is habitually
resident in us; for, — (1.) There is a contrary principle of sin
abiding with it in the same subject, whilst we are in this world. For
contrary qualities may be in the same subject, whilst neither of them is in
the highest degree. So it is in this case, Gal. v. 17, “For
the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and
these are contrary one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that
ye would.” (2.) None of the faculties of our souls are perfectly
renewed whilst we are in this world. “The inward man is renewed day by
day,” 2 Cor. iv. 16; and we are always to be
purging ourselves from all pollution of flesh and spirit, 2
Cor. vii. 1. And hereunto belongs whatever is spoken in the
Scripture, whatever believers find in themselves by experience, of the
remainders of indwelling sin, in the darkness of our minds; whence at best
we know but in part, and through ignorance are ready to wander out of the
way, Heb. v. 2, in the deceitfulness of the
heart and disorder of affections. I understand not how any one can think
of pleading his own righteousness in the sight of God, or suppose that he
can be justified by it, upon this single account, of the imperfection of
its inherent habit or principle. Such notions arise from the ignorance of
God and ourselves, or the want of a due consideration of the one and the
other. Neither can I apprehend how a thousand distinctions can safely
introduce it into any consideration in our justification before God. He
that can search in any measure, by a spiritual light, into his
own heart and soul, will find “God be merciful to me a sinner,” a better
plea than any he can be furnished withal from any worth of his own. “What
is man, that he should be clean? And he that is born of a woman, that he
should be righteous?” Job xv. 14–16; iv. 18,
19. Hence says Gregory, in Job ix., lib. ix., cap. 14, “Ut
sæpe diximus omnis justitia humana injustitia esse convincitur si distincte
judicetur.” Bernard speaks to the same
purpose, and almost in the same words, Serm.
i. fest. omn. sanct., “Quid potest esse omnis
justitia nostra coram Deo? nonne juxta prophetam velut ‘pannus menstruatæ’
reputabitur; et si districtè judicetur, injustitia invenietur omnis
justitia nostra, et minus habens.” A man cannot be justified in any
sense by that righteousness which, upon trial, will appear rather to be an
unrighteousness.
2. It is imperfect with respect unto every act and
duty of it, whether internal or external. There is iniquity cleaving
unto our holy things, and all our “righteousnesses are as filthy rags,”
Isa. lxiv. 6. It has been often and well
observed, that if a man, the best of men, were left to choose the best of
his works that ever he performed, and thereon to enter into judgment with
God, if only under this notion, that he has answered and fulfilled the
condition required of him as unto his acceptation with God, it would be his
wisest course (at least it would be so in the judgment of Bellarmine) to renounce it, and betake himself
unto grace and mercy alone.
3. It is imperfect by reason of the incursion of actual
sins. Hence our Saviour has taught us continually to pray for the
“forgiveness of our sins;” and “if we say that we have no sins, we deceive
ourselves,” for “in many things we offend all.” And what confidence can be
placed in this righteousness, which those who plead for it in this cause
acknowledge to be weak, maimed, and imperfect?
I have but touched on these things, which might have been
handled at large, and are indeed of great consideration in our present
argument. But enough has been spoken to manifest, that although this
righteousness of believers be on other accounts like the fruit of the vine,
that glads the heart of God and man, yet as unto our justification before
God, it is like the wood of the vine, — a pin is not to be taken from it to
hang any weight of this cause upon.
Two things are pleaded in the behalf of this righteousness,
and its influence into our justification:— 1. That it is absolutely
complete and perfect. Hence some say that they are perfect and
sinless in this life; they have no more concern in the mortification of
sin, nor of growth in grace. And indeed this is the only rational pretence
of ascribing our justification before God thereunto; for were it so with any, what should hinder him from being justified thereon
before God, but only that he has been a sinner? — which spoils the
whole market. But this vain imagination is so contrary unto the Scripture,
and the experience of all that know the terror of the Lord, and what it is
to walk humbly before him, as that I shall not insist on the refutation of
it.
2. It is pleaded, “That although this righteousness be not
an exact fulfilling of the moral law, yet is it the accomplishment of the
condition of the new covenant, or entirely answers the law of grace, and
all that is required of us therein.”
Ans. (1.) This wholly takes away sin, and the
pardon of it, no less than does the conceit of sinless perfection which we
now rejected; for if our obedience do answer the only law and rule of it
whereby it is to be tried, measured, and judged, then is there no sin in
us, nor need of pardon. No more is required of any man, to keep him
absolutely free from sin, but that he fully answer, and exactly comply
with, the rule and law of his obedience whereby he must be judged. On this
supposition, therefore, there is neither sin nor any need of the pardon of
it. To say that there is still both sin and need of pardon, with respect
unto the moral law of God, is to confess that law to be the rule of our
obedience, which this righteousness does no way answer; and therefore none
by it can be justified in the sight of God.
(2.) Although this righteousness be accepted in
justified persons by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet consider the
principle of it, with all the acts and duties wherein it does consist, as
they are required and prescribed in the gospel unto us, and they do neither
jointly nor severally fulfil and answer the commands of the gospel, no more
than they do the commands of the law. Wherefore, they cannot all of them
constitute a righteousness consisting in an exact conformity unto the rules
of the gospel, or the law of it; for it is impious to imagine that the
gospel requiring any duty of us, suppose the love of God, does make any
abatement, as unto the matter, manner, or degrees of perfection in it, from
what was required by the law. Does the gospel require a lower degree of
love to God, a less perfect love, than the law did? God forbid. The same
may be said concerning the inward frame of our natures, and all other
duties whatever. Wherefore, although this righteousness is accepted in
justified persons (as God had respect unto Abel, and then unto his
offering), in the way and unto the ends that shall be afterwards declared;
yet, as it relates unto the commands of the gospel, both it and all the
duties of it are no less imperfect than it would be if it should be left
unto its trial by the law of creation only.
(3.) I know not what some men intend. On the one hand they
affirm that our Lord Jesus Christ has enlarged and heightened
the spiritual sense of the moral law, and not only so, but added
unto it new precepts of more exact obedience than it did require; — but on
the other, they would have him to have brought down or taken off the
obligation of the law, so as that a man, according as he has adapted
it unto the use of the gospel, shall be judged of God to have fulfilled the
whole obedience which it requires, who never answered any one precept of it
according unto its original sense and obligation; for so it must be if this
imperfect righteousness be on any account esteemed a fulfilling of the rule
of our obedience, as that thereon we should be justified in the sight of
God.
(4.) This opinion puts an irreconcilable difference between
the law and the gospel, not to be composed by any distinctions; for,
according unto it, God declares by the gospel a man to be perfectly
righteous, justified, and blessed, upon the consideration of a
righteousness that is imperfect; and in the law he pronounces every one
accursed who continues not in all things required by it, and as they are
therein required. But it is said that this righteousness is no otherwise
to be considered but as the condition of the new covenant, whereon we
obtain remission of sins on the sole account of the satisfaction of Christ,
wherein our justification does consist.
Ans. (1.) Some, indeed, do say so, but not all, not
the most, not the most learned, with whom in this controversy we
have to do. And in our pleas for what we believe to be the truth, we
cannot always have respect unto every private opinion whereby it is
opposed. (2.) That justification consists only in the pardon of sin
is so contrary to the signification of the word, the constant use of it in
the Scripture, the common notion of it amongst mankind, the sense of men in
their own consciences who find themselves under an obligation unto duty,
and express testimonies of the Scripture, as that I somewhat wonder how it
can be pretended. But it shall be spoken unto elsewhere. (3.) If this
righteousness be the fulfilling of the condition of the new covenant
whereon we are justified, it must be in itself such as exactly answers some
rule or law of righteousness, and so be perfect: which it does not; and
therefore cannot bear the place of a righteousness in our justification.
(4.) That this righteousness is the condition of our justification before
God, or of that interest in the righteousness of Christ whereby we are
justified, is not proved, nor ever will be.
I shall briefly add two or three considerations, excluding
this personal righteousness from its pretended interest in our
justification, and close this argument:—
1. That righteousness which neither answers the law of
God nor the end of God in our justification by the gospel, is not that
whereon we are justified. But such is this inherent righteousness of believers, even of the best of them. (1.) That it answers not
the law of God has been proved from its imperfection. Nor will any
sober person pretend that it exactly and perfectly fulfil the law of our
creation. And this law cannot be disannulled whilst the relation of
creator and rewarder on the one hand, and of creatures capable of obedience
and rewards on the other, between God and us does continue. Wherefore,
that which answers not this law will not justify us; for God will not
abrogate that law, that the transgressors of it may be justified. “Do we,”
says the apostle, by the doctrine of justification by faith without works,
“make void the law? God forbid: yea, we establish it,” Rom.
iii. 31. (2.) That we should be justified with respect unto it
answers not the end of God in our justification by the gospel; for this is
to take away all glorying in ourselves and all occasion of it, every thing
that might give countenance unto it, so as that the whole might be to the
praise of his own grace by Christ, Rom. iii. 27;
1 Cor. i. 29–31. How it is faith alone
that gives glory to God herein has been declared in the description of its
nature. But it is evident that no man has, or can possibly have, any
other, any greater occasion of boasting in himself, with respect unto his
justification, than that he is justified on his performance of that
condition of it, which consists in his own personal righteousness.
2. No man was ever justified by it in his own
conscience, much less can he be justified by it in the sight of God;
“for God is greater than our hearts and knoweth all things.” There is no
man so righteous, so holy, in the whole world, nor ever was, but his own
conscience would charge him in many things with his coming short of the
obedience required of him, in matter or manner, in the kind or degrees of
perfection; for there is no man that lives and sins not. Absolutely,
“Nemo absolvitur se judice.” Let any man be put
unto a trial in himself whether he can be justified in his own conscience
by his own righteousness, and he will be cast in the trial at his own
judgment-seat; and he that does not thereon conclude that there must be
another righteousness whereby he must be justified, that originally and
inherently is not his own, will be at a loss for peace, with God. But it
will be said, that “men may be justified in their consciences that they
have performed the condition of the new covenant, which is all that is
pleaded with respect unto this righteousness.” And I no way doubt but that
men may have a comfortable persuasion of their own sincerity in obedience,
and satisfaction in the acceptance of it with God. But it is when they try
it as an effect of faith, whereby they are justified, and not as the
condition of their justification. Let it be thus stated in their minds, —
that God requires a personal righteousness in order unto their
justification, whereon their determination must be, “This is
my righteousness which I present unto God that I may be justified,” and
they will find difficulty in arriving at it, if I be not much mistaken.
3. None of the holy men of old, whose faith and
experience are recorded in the Scripture, did ever plead their own
personal righteousness, under any notion of it, either as to the merit
of their works or as unto their complete performance of what was required
of them as the condition of the covenant, in order unto their justification
before God. This has been spoken unto before.
Chapter XI. The nature of the obedience that God requires of us — The
eternal obligation of the law thereunto
Nature of the obedience or righteousness required unto
justification — Original and causes of the law of creation — The substance
and end of that law — The immutability or unchangeableness of it,
considered absolutely, and as it was the instrument of the covenant between
God and man — Arguments to prove it unchangeable; and its obligation unto
the righteousness first required perpetually in force — Therefore not
abrogated, not dispensed withal, not derogated from, but accomplished —
This alone by Christ, and the imputation of his righteousness unto
us
Our second
argument shall be taken from the nature of that obedience or
righteousness which God requires of us that we may be accepted of him, and
approved by him. This being a large subject, if fully to be handled, I
shall reduce what is of our present concernment in it unto some special
heads or observations:—
1. God being a most perfect, and therefore a most free
agent, all his acting towards mankind, all his dealings with them, all his
constitutions and laws concerning them, are to be resolved into his own
sovereign will and pleasure. No other reason can be given of the
original of the whole system of them. This the Scripture testifies
unto, Ps. cxv. 3; cxxxv.
6; Prov. xvi. 4; Eph. i. 9, 11; Rev.
iv. 11. The being, existence, and natural circumstances of all
creatures being an effect of the free counsel and pleasure of God, all that
belongs unto them must be ultimately resolved thereinto.
2. Upon a supposition of some free acts of the will of
God, and the execution of them, constituting an order in the things
that outwardly are of him, and their mutual respect unto one another, some
things may become necessary in this relative state, whose being was
not absolutely necessary in its own nature. The order of all
things, and their mutual respect unto one another, depend on God’s free
constitution no less than their being absolutely. But upon a supposition
of that constitution, things have in that order a necessary relation one to
another, and all of them unto God. Wherefore, —
3. It was a free, sovereign act of God’s will, to
create, effect, or produce such a creature as man is; that is, of a
nature intelligent, rational, capable of moral obedience, with rewards and
punishments. But on a supposition hereof, man, so freely
made, could not be governed any other ways but by a moral instrument of
law or rule, influencing the rational faculties of his soul unto
obedience, and guiding him therein. He could not in that constitution be
contained under the rule of God by a mere physical influence, as are
all irrational or brute creatures. To suppose it, is to deny or destroy
the essential faculty and powers wherewith he was created. Wherefore, on
the supposition of his being, it was necessary that a law or rule of
obedience should be prescribed unto him and be the instrument of God’s
government towards him.
4. This necessary law, so far forth as it was necessary,
did immediately and unavoidably ensue upon the constitution of our nature
in relation unto God. Supposing the nature, being, and properties of God,
with the works of creation, on the one hand; and suppose the being,
existence, and the nature of man, with his necessary relation unto God, on
the other; and the law whereof we speak is nothing but the rule of that
relation, which can neither be nor be preserved without it. Hence is
this law eternal, indispensable, admitting of no other variation than does
the relation between God and man, which is a necessary exurgence from their
distinct natures and properties.
5. The substance of this law was, that man,
adhering unto God absolutely, universally, unchangeably, uninterruptedly,
in trust, love, and fear, as the chiefest good, the first author of his
being, of all the present and future advantages whereof it was capable,
should yield obedience unto him, with respect unto his infinite
wisdom, righteousness, and almighty power to protect, reward, and punish,
in all things known to be his will and pleasure, either by the light of his
own mind or especial revelation made unto him. And it is evident that no
more is required unto the constitution and establishment of this law but
that God be God, and man be man, with the necessary relation that must
thereon ensue between them. Wherefore, —
6. This law does eternally and unchangeably oblige
all men unto obedience to God, — even that obedience which it requires, and
in the manner wherein it requires it; for both the substance of what it
requires, and the manner of the performance of it, as unto measures and
degrees, are equally necessary and unalterable, upon the suppositions laid
down. For God cannot deny himself, nor is the nature of man changed as
unto the essence of it, whereunto alone respect is had in this law, by any
thing that can fall out. And although God might superadd unto the original
obligations of this law what arbitrary commands he pleased, such as did not
necessarily proceed or arise from the relation between him and us, which
might be, and be continued without them; yet would they be resolved into
that principle of this law, that God in all things was
absolutely to be trusted and obeyed.
7. “Known unto God are all his works from the foundation
of the world.” In the constitution of this order of things he made it
possible, and foresaw it would be future, that man would rebel against the
preceptive power of the law, and disturb that order of things wherein he
was placed under his moral rule. This gave occasion unto that effect of
infinite divine righteousness, in constituting the punishment that man
should fall under, upon his transgression of this law. Neither was this an
effect of arbitrary will and pleasure, any more than the law itself was.
Upon the supposition of the creation of man, the law mentioned was
necessary, from all the divine properties of the nature of God; and upon a
supposition that man would transgress the law, God being now considered as
his ruler and governor, the constitution of the punishment due unto his sin
and transgression of it was a necessary effect of divine righteousness.
This it would not have been had the law itself been arbitrary; but that
being necessary, so was the penalty of its transgression. Wherefore, the
constitution of this penalty is liable to no more change, alteration, or
abrogation than the law itself, without an alteration in the state and
relation between God and man.
8. This is that law which our Lord Jesus Christ came “not
to destroy, but to fulfil,” that he might be “the end of it for
righteousness unto them that do believe.” This law he abrogated not, nor
could do so without a destruction of the relation that is between God and
man, arising from, or ensuing necessarily on, their distinct beings and
properties; but as this cannot be destroyed, so the Lord Christ came unto a
contrary end, — namely, to repair and restore it where it was weakened.
Wherefore, —
9. This law, the law of sinless, perfect obedience,
with its sentence of the punishment of death on all transgressors, does and
must abide in force forever in this world; for there is no more required
hereunto but that God be God, and man be man. Yet shall this be farther
proved:—
(1.) There is nothing, not one word, in the
Scripture intimating any alteration in or abrogation of this law; so as
that any thing should not be duty which it makes to be duty,
or any thing not be sin which it makes to be sin, either as
unto matter or degrees, or that the thing which it makes to be sin, or
which is sin by the rule of it, should not merit and deserve that
punishment which is declared in the sanction of it, or threatened by it:
“The wages of sin is death.” If any testimony of Scripture can be produced
unto either of these purposes, — namely, that either any thing is not sin,
in the way of omission or commission, in the matter or manner of its
performance, which is made to be so by this law, or that any
such sin, or any thing that would have been sin by this is law, is exempted
from the punishment threatened by it, as unto merit or desert, — it shall
be attended unto. It is, therefore, in universal force towards all
mankind. There is no relief in this case, but “Behold the Lamb of
God.”
In exception hereunto it is pleaded, that when it was first
given unto Adam, it was the rule and instrument of a covenant between God
and man, — a covenant of works and perfect obedience; but upon the entrance
of sin, it ceased to have the nature of a covenant unto any. And it is so
ceased, that on an impossible supposition that any man should fulfil the
perfect righteousness of it, yet should he not be justified, or obtain the
benefit of the covenant thereby. It is not, therefore, only become
ineffectual unto us as a covenant by reason of our weakness and disability
to perform it, but it is ceased in its own nature so to be; but these
things, as they are not unto our present purpose, so are they wholly
unproved. For, —
[1.] Our discourse is not about the federal adjunct
of the law, but about its moral nature only. It is enough that, as
a law, it continues to oblige all mankind unto perfect obedience, under its
original penalty. For hence it will unavoidably follow, that unless the
commands of it be complied withal and fulfilled, the penalty will fall on
all that transgress it. And those who grant that this law is still in
force as unto its being a rule of obedience, or as unto its requiring
duties of us, do grant all that we desire. For it requires no obedience
but what it did in its original constitution, — that is, sinless and
perfect; and it requires no duty, nor prohibits any sin, but under the
penalty of death upon disobedience.
[2.] It is true, that he who is once a sinner, if he should
afterwards yield all that perfect obedience unto God that the law requires,
could not thereby obtain the benefit of the promise of the covenant. But
the sole reason of it is, because he is antecedently a sinner, and
so obnoxious unto the curse of the law; and no man can be obnoxious unto
its curse and have a right unto its promise at the same time. But so to
lay the supposition, that the same person is by any means free from the
curse due unto sin, and then to deny that, upon the performance of that
perfect, sinless obedience which the law requires, he should have right
unto the promise of life thereby, is to deny the truth of God, and to
reflect the highest dishonour upon his justice. Jesus Christ himself was
justified by this law; and it is immutably true, that he who does the
things of it shall live therein.
[3.] It is granted that man continued not in the
observation of this law, as it was the rule of the covenant between
God and him. The covenant it was not, but the rule of it; which, that it
should be, was superadded unto its being as a law. For the
covenant comprised things that were not any part of a result from the
necessary relation of God and man. Wherefore man, by his sin as unto
demerit, may be said to break this covenant, and as unto any benefit unto
himself, to disannul it. It is also true, that God did never formally and
absolutely renew or give again this law as a covenant a second time. Nor
was there any need that so he should do, unless it were declaratively only,
for so it was renewed at Sinai; for the whole of it being an emanation
of eternal right and truth, it abides, and must abide, in full force
forever. Wherefore, it is only thus far broken as a covenant, that all
mankind having sinned against the commands of it, and so, by guilt, with
the impotency unto obedience which ensued thereon, defeated themselves of
any interest in its promise, and possibility of attaining any such
interest, they cannot have any benefit by it. But as unto its power to
oblige all mankind unto obedience, and the unchangeable truth of its
promises and threatenings, it abides the same as it was from the
beginning.
(2.) Take away this law, and there is left no standard
of righteousness unto mankind, no certain boundaries of good and evil,
but those pillars whereon God has fixed the earth are left to move and
float up and down like the isle of Delos in the sea. Some say, the rule of
good and evil unto men is not this law in its original constitution, but
the light of nature and the dictates of reason. If they mean that light
which was primigenial and concreated with our natures, and those dictates
of right and wrong which reason originally suggested and improved, they
only say, in other words, that this law is still the unalterable rule of
obedience unto all mankind. But if they intend the remaining light of
nature that continues in every individual in this depraved state thereof,
and that under such additional deprivations as traditions, customs,
prejudices, and lusts of all sorts, have affixed unto the most, there is
nothing more irrational; and it is that which is charged with no less
inconvenience than that it leaves no certain boundaries of good and evil.
That which is good unto one, will, on this ground, be in its own nature
evil unto another, and so on the contrary; and all the idolaters that ever
were in the world might on this pretence be excused.
(3.) Conscience bears witness hereunto. There is no
good nor evil required or forbidden by this law, that, upon the discovery
of it, any man in the world can persuade or bribe his conscience not to
comply with it in judgment, as unto his concernment therein. It will
accuse and excuse, condemn and free him, according to the sentence of this
law, let him do what he can to the contrary.
In brief, it is acknowledged that God, by virtue of his
supreme dominion over all, may, in some instances, change the nature and
order of things, so as that the precepts of the divine law
shall not in them operate in their ordinary efficacy. So was it in the
case of his command unto Abraham to slay his son, and unto the Israelites
to rob the Egyptians. But on a supposition of the continuance of that
order of things which this law is the preservation of, such is the
intrinsic nature of the good and evil commanded and forbidden therein, that
it is not the subject of divine dispensation; as even the schoolmen
generally grant.
10. From what we have discoursed, two things do
unavoidably ensue:—
(1.) That whereas all mankind have by sin fallen under the
penalty threatened unto the transgression of this law, — and [the]
suffering of this penalty, which is eternal death, being inconsistent with
acceptance before God, or the enjoyment of blessedness, — it is utterly
impossible that any one individual person of the posterity of Adam should
be justified in the sight of God, accepted with him or blessed by him,
unless this penalty be answered, undergone, and suffered, by them or for
them. The δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ herein is not to be
abolished, but established.
(2.) That unto the same end, of acceptation with
God, justification before him, and blessedness from him, the
righteousness of this eternal law must be fulfilled in us in such a way as
that, in the judgment of God, which is according unto truth, we may be
esteemed to have fulfilled it, and be dealt with accordingly. For upon a
supposition of a failure herein, the sanction of the law is not arbitrary,
so as that the penalty may or may not be inflicted, but necessary, from the
righteousness of God as the supreme governor of all.
11. About the first of these, our controversy is with the
Socinians only, who deny the satisfaction of Christ, and any necessity
thereof. Concerning this I have treated elsewhere at large, and expect not
to see an answer unto what I have disputed on that subject. As unto the
latter of them, we must inquire how we may be supposed to comply with the
rule, and answer the righteousness of this unalterable law, whose authority
we can no way be exempted from. And that which we plead is, that the
obedience and righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, — his obedience as
the surety of the new covenant, granted unto us, made ours by the gracious
constitution, sovereign appointment, and donation of God, — is that whereon
we are judged and esteemed to have answered the righteousness of the law.
“By the obedience of one many are made righteous,” Rom. v.
19. “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in
us,” Rom. viii. 4. And hence we argue, —
If there be no other way whereby the righteousness of the
law may be fulfilled in us, without which we cannot be justified, but must fall inevitably under the penalty threatened unto the
transgression of it, but only the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us,
then is that the sole righteousness whereby we are justified in the sight
of God. But the former is true, and so, therefore is the latter.
12. On the supposition of this law, and its original
obligation unto obedience, with its sanction and threatenings, there can be
but one of three ways whereby we may come to be justified before God, who
have sinned, and are no way able in ourselves to perform the obedience for
the future which it does require. And each of them has a respect unto a
sovereign act of God with reference unto this law. The first is the
abrogation of it, that it should no more oblige us either unto
obedience or punishment. This we have proved impossible; and they will
woefully deceive their own souls who shall trust unto it. The second is by
transferring of its obligation, unto the end of justification, on a surety
or common undertaker. This is that which we plead for, as the substance of
the mystery of the gospel, considering the person and grace of this
undertaker or surety. And herein all things do tend unto the exaltation of
the glory of God in all the holy properties of his nature, with the
fulfilling and establishing of the law itself, Matt. v.
17; Rom. iii. 31; viii. 4;
x. 3, 4. The third way is by an act of God towards the law, and
another towards us, whereby the nature of the righteousness which the law
requires is changed; which we shall examine as the only reserve against our
present argument.
13. It is said, therefore, that by our own personal
obedience we do answer the righteousness of the law, so far as it is
required of us. But whereas no sober person can imagine that we can,
or that any one in our lapsed condition ever did, yield in our own persons
that perfect, sinless obedience unto God which is required of us in the law
of creation, two things are supposed, that our obedience, such as it is,
may be accepted with God as if it were sinless and perfect. For although
some will not allow that the righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us for
what it is, yet they contend that our own righteousness is imputed unto us
for what it is not. Of these things the one respects the law, the other
our obedience.
14. That which respects the law is not the
abrogation of it. For although this would seem the most expedite
way for the reconciliation of this difficulty, — namely, that the law of
creation is utterly abrogated by the gospel, both as unto its obligation
unto obedience and punishment, and no law is to be continued in force but
that which requires only sincere obedience of us, whereof there is, as unto
duties [and] the manner of their performance, not any absolute rule or
measure, — yet this is not by many pretended. They say not that this law
is so abrogated as that it should not have the power and efficacy of a law towards us. Nor is it possible it should be so; nor can any
pretence be given how it should so be. It is true, it was broken by man,
is so by us all, and that with respect unto its principal end of our
subjection unto God and dependence upon him, according to the rule of it;
but it is foolish to think that the fault of those unto whom a righteous
law is rightly given should abrogate or disannul the law itself. A law
that is good and just may cease and expire as unto any power of obligation,
upon the ceasing or expiration of the relation which it did respect; so the
apostle tells us that “when the husband of a woman is dead, she is free
from the law of her husband,” Rom. vii. 2. But
the relation between God and us, which was constituted in our first
creation, can never cease. But a law cannot be abrogated without a new law
given, and made by the same or an equal power that made it, either
expressly revoking it, or enjoining things inconsistent with it and
contradictory unto its observation. In the latter way the law of Mosaical
institutions was abrogated and disannulled. There was not any positive law
made for the taking of it away; but the constitution and introduction of a
new way of worship by the gospel, inconsistent with it and contrary unto
it, deprived it of all its obligatory power and efficacy. But neither of
these ways has God taken away the obligation of the original law of
obedience, either as unto duties or recompenses of reward. Neither is
there any direct law made for its abrogation; nor has he given any new law
of moral obedience, either inconsistent with or contrary unto it: yea, in
the gospel it is declared to be established and fulfilled.
It is true, as was observed before, that this law was made
the instrument of a covenant between God and man; and so there is another
reason of it, for God has actually introduced another covenant inconsistent
with it, and contrary unto it. But yet neither does this instantly, and
“ipso facto,” free all men unto the law, in the way
of a covenant. For, unto the obligation of a law, there is no more
required but that the matter of it be just and righteous; that it be given
or made by him who has just authority so to give or make it; and be
sufficiently declared unto them who are to be obliged by it. Hence the
making and promulgation of a new law does “ipso
facto” abrogate any former law that is contrary unto it, and frees
all men from obedience unto it who were before obliged by it. But in a
covenant it is not so. For a covenant does not operate by mere sovereign
authority; it becomes not a covenant without the consent of them with whom
it is made. Wherefore, no benefit accrues unto any, or freedom from the
old covenant, by the constitution of the new, unless he has actually
complied with it, has chosen it, and is interested in it thereby. The
first covenant made with Adam, we did in him consent unto and accept of.
And therein, not withstanding our sin, do we and must we
abide, — that is, under the obligation of it unto duty and punishment, —
until by faith we are made partakers of the new. It cannot therefore be
said, that we are not concerned in the fulfilling of the righteousness of
this law, because it is abrogated.
15. Nor can it be said that the law has received a new
interpretation, whereby it is declared that it does not oblige, nor
shall be construed for the future to oblige, any unto sinless and perfect
obedience, but may be complied with on far easier terms. For the law being
given unto us when we were sinless, and on purpose to continue and preserve
us in that condition, it is absurd to say that it did not oblige us unto
sinless obedience; and not an interpretation, but a plain depravation of
its sense and meaning. Nor is any such thing once intimated in the gospel.
Yea, the discourses of our Saviour upon the law are absolutely destructive
of any such imagination. For whereas the scribes and Pharisees had
attempted, by their false glosses and interpretations, to accommodate the
law unto the inclinations and lusts of men (a course since pursued both
nationally and practically, as all who design to burden the consciences of
men with their own commands do endeavour constantly to recompense them by
an indulgence with respect unto the commands of God), he, on the contrary,
rejects all such pretended epieikias
[accommodations] and interpretations, restoring the law unto its pristine
crown, as the Jews’ tradition is, that the Messiah shall do.
16. Nor can a relaxation of the law be pretended,
if there be any such thing in rule; for if there be, it respects the whole
being of the law, and consists either in the suspension of its whole
obligation, at least for a season, or the substitution of another person to
answer its demands, who was not in the original obligation, in the room of
them that were. For so some say that the Lord Christ was made under the
law for us by an act of relaxation of the original obligation of the law;
how properly, “ipsi viderint.” But here, in no
sense, it can have place.
17. The act of God towards the law in this case intended,
is a derogation from its obliging power as unto obedience. For
whereas it did originally oblige unto perfect, sinless obedience in all
duties, both as unto their substance and the manner of their performance,
it shall be allowed to oblige us still unto obedience, but not unto that
which is absolutely the same, especially not as unto the completeness and
perfection of it; for if it do so, either it is fulfilled in the
righteousness of Christ for us, or no man living can ever be justified in
the sight of God. Wherefore, by an act of derogation from its original
power, it is provided that it shall oblige us still unto obedience, but not
that which is absolutely sinless and perfect; but although it be performed with less intension of love unto God, or in a lower
degree than it did at first require, so it be sincere and universal as unto
all parts of it, it is all that the law now requires of us. This is all
that it now requires, as it is adapted unto the service of the new
covenant, and made the rule of obedience according to the law of Christ.
Hereby is its preceptive part, so far as we are concerned in it, answered
and complied withal. Whether these things are so or no, we shall see
immediately in a few words.
18. Hence it follows, that the act of God with respect
unto our obedience is not an act of judgment according unto any rule or law
of his own; but an acceptilation, or an esteeming, accounting, accepting
that as perfect, or in the room of that which is perfect, which
really and in truth is not so.
19. It is added, that both these depend on, and are the
procurements of, the obedience, suffering, and merits of Christ.
For on their account it is that our weak and imperfect obedience is
accepted as if it were perfect; and the power of the law, to require
obedience absolutely perfect, is taken away. And these being the effects
of the righteousness of Christ, that righteousness may on their account,
and so far, be said to be imputed unto us.
20. But notwithstanding the great endeavours that have
been used to give a colour of truth unto these things, they are both of
them but fictions and imaginations of men, that have no ground in the
Scripture, nor do comply with the experience of them that believe. For to
touch a little on the latter, in the first place, there is no true believer
but has these two things fixed in his mind and conscience, —
(1.) That there is nothing in principles, habits,
qualities, or actions, wherein he comes short of a perfect compliance with
the holy law of God, even as it requires perfect obedience, but that it has
in it the nature of sin, and that in itself deserving the curse annexed
originally unto the breach of that law. They do not, therefore, apprehend
that its obligation is taken off, weakened, or derogated from in any thing.
(2.) That there is no relief for him, with respect unto what the law
requires or unto what it threatens, but by the mediation of Jesus Christ
alone, who of God is made righteousness unto him. Wherefore, they do not
rest in or on the acceptation of their own obedience, such as it is, to
answer the law, but trust unto Christ alone for their acceptation with
God.
21. They are both of them doctrinally untrue; for
as unto the former, — (1.) It is unwritten. There is no intimation
in the Scripture of any such dispensation of God with reference unto the
original law of obedience. Much is spoken of our deliverance from the
curse of the law by Christ, but of the abatement of its preceptive power
nothing at all. (2.) It is contrary to the Scripture; for it is
plainly affirmed that the law is not to be abolished, but
fulfilled; not to be made void, but to be established; that the
righteousness of it must be fulfilled in us. (3.) It is a supposition both
unreasonable and impossible. For, — [1.] The law was a representation unto
us of the holiness of God, and his righteousness in the government of his
creatures. There can be no alteration made herein, seeing with God himself
there is no variableness nor shadow of changing. [2.] It would leave no
standard of righteousness, but only a Lesbian rule, which turns and applies
itself unto the light and abilities of men, and leaves at least as many
various measures of righteousness as there are believers in the world. [3.]
It includes a variation in the centre of all religion, which is the natural
and moral relation of men unto God; for so there must be, if all that was
once necessary thereunto do not still continue so to be. [4.] It is
dishonourable unto the mediation of Christ; for it makes the principal end
of it to be, that God should accept of a righteousness unto our
justification inexpressibly beneath that which he required in the law of
our creation. And this in a sense makes him the minister of sin, or that
he has procured an indulgence unto it; not by the way of satisfaction and
pardon, whereby he takes away the guilt of it from the church, but by
taking from it its nature and demerit, so as that what was so originally
should not continue so to be, or at least not to deserve the punishment it
was first threatened withal. [5.] It reflects on the goodness of God
himself; for on this supposition, that he has reduced his law into that
state and order as to be satisfied by an observation of it so weak, so
imperfect, accompanied with so many failures and sins, as it is with
the obedience of the best men in this world (whatever thoughts unto the
contrary the frenzy of pride may suggest unto the minds of any), what
reason can be given, consistent with his goodness, why he should give a law
at first of perfect obedience, which one sin laid all mankind under the
penalty of unto their ruin?
22. All these things, and sundry others of the same kind,
do follow also on the second supposition, of an acceptilation or an
imaginary estimation of that as perfect which is imperfect, as sinless
which is attended with sins innumerable. But the judgment of God is
according unto truth; neither will he reckon that unto us for a perfect
righteousness in his sight which is so imperfect as to be like tattered
rags, especially having promised unto us robes of righteousness and
garments of salvation.
That which necessarily follows on these discourses is,
That there is no other way whereby the original, immutable law of God
may be established and fulfilled with respect unto us, but by the
imputation of the perfect obedience and righteousness of Christ, who is the
end of the law for righteousness unto all that do believe.
Chapter XII. The imputation of the obedience of Christ unto the law
declared and vindicated
Imputation of the obedience of Christ no less necessary than that
of his suffering, on the same ground — Objections against it:— First, That
it is impossible — Management hereof by Socinus — Ground of this objection, that the Lord Christ
was for himself obliged unto all the obedience he yielded unto God, and
performed it for himself, answered — The obedience inquired after, the
obedience of the person of Christ the Son of God — In his whole person
Christ was not under the law — He designed the obedience he performed for
us, not for himself — This actual obedience not necessary as a
qualification of his person unto the discharge of his office — The
foundation of this obedience in his being made man, and of the posterity of
Abraham, not for himself, but for us — Right of the human nature unto
glory, by virtue of union — Obedience necessary unto the human nature, as
Christ in it was made under the law — This obedience properly for us —
Instances of that nature among men — Christ obeyed as a public person, and
so not for himself — Human nature of Christ subject unto the law, so an
eternal rule of dependence on God, and subjection to him; not as prescribed
unto us whilst we are in this world, in order unto our future blessedness
or reward — Second objection, That it is useless, answered — He that is
pardoned all his sins is not thereon esteemed to have done all that is
required of him — Not to be unrighteous negatively, not the same with being
righteous positively — The law obliges both unto punishment and obedience —
How, and in what sense — Pardon of sin gives no title to eternal life — The
righteousness of Christ, who is one, imputed unto many — Arguments proving
the imputation of the obedience of Christ unto the justification of
life
From the
foregoing general argument another does issue in particular, with respect
unto the imputation of the active obedience or righteousness of Christ unto
us, as an essential part of that righteousness whereon we are justified
before God. And it is as follows:— “If it were necessary that the Lord
Christ, as our surety, should undergo the penalty of the law for us, or in
our stead, because we have all sinned, then it was necessary also that, as
our surety, he should yield obedience unto the preceptive part of the law
for us also; and if the imputation of the former be needful for us unto our
justification before God, then is the imputation of the latter also
necessary unto the same end and purpose.” For why was it necessary, or why
would God have it so, that the Lord Christ, as the surety of the covenant,
should undergo the curse and penalty of the law, which we had incurred the
guilt of by sin, that we may be justified in his sight? Was it not that
the glory and honour of his righteousness, as the author of the law, and
the supreme governor of all mankind thereby, might not be violated in the
absolute impunity of the infringers of it? And if it were requisite unto
the glory of God that the penalty of the law should be undergone for us, or
suffered by our surety in our stead, because we had sinned, wherefore is it
not as requisite unto the glory of God that the preceptive part of
the law be complied withal for us, inasmuch as obedience thereunto is
required of us? And as we are no more able of ourselves to full the law in
a way of obedience than to undergo the penalty of it, so as that we may be
justified thereby; so no reason can be given why God is not as much
concerned, in honour and glory, that the preceptive power and part of the
law be complied withal by perfect obedience, as that the sanction of
it be established by undergoing the penalty of it. Upon the same grounds,
therefore, that the Lord Christ’s suffering the penalty of the law for us
was necessary that we might be justified in the sight of God, and that the
satisfaction he made [might] thereby be imputed unto us, as if we ourselves
had made satisfaction unto God, as Bellarmine speaks and grants; on the same it was
equally necessary, — that is, as unto the glory and honour of the
Legislator and supreme Governor of all by the law, — that he should fulfil
the preceptive part of it, in his perfect obedience thereunto; which also
is to be imputed unto us for our justification.
Concerning the first of these, — namely, the satisfaction
of Christ, and the imputation of it unto us, — our principal
difference is with the Socinians. And I have elsewhere written so much in
the vindication of the truth therein, that I shall not here again re-assume
the same argument; it is here, therefore, taken for granted, although I
know that there are some different apprehensions about the notion of
Christ’s suffering in our stead, and of the imputation of those sufferings
unto us. But I shall here take no notice of them, seeing I press this
argument no farther, but only so far forth that the obedience of Christ
unto the law, and the imputation thereof unto us, are no less necessary
unto our justification before God, than his suffering of the penalty of the
law, and the imputation thereof unto us, unto the same end. The nature of
this imputation, and what it is formally that is imputed, we have
considered elsewhere.
That the obedience of Christ the mediator is thus imputed
to us, shall be afterwards proved in particular by testimonies of the
Scripture. Here I intend only the vindication of the argument as before
laid down, which will take us up a little more time than ordinary. For
there is nothing in the whole doctrine of justification which meets with a
more fierce and various opposition; but the truth is great, and will
prevail.
The things that are usually objected and vehemently urged
against the imputation of the obedience of Christ unto our justification,
may be reduced unto three heads — I. That it is impossible. II.
That it is useless. III. That it is pernicious to believe
it. And if the arguments used for the enforcement of these objections be
as cogent as the charge itself is fierce and severe, they will unavoidably
overthrow the persuasions of it in the minds of all sober persons. But
there is ofttimes a wide difference between what is said and what is
proved, as will appear in the present case:—
I. It is pleaded impossible, on this single ground,
— namely, “That the obedience of Christ unto the law was due from him on
his own account, and performed by him for himself, as a man made under the
law.” Now, what was necessary unto himself, and done for himself, cannot
be said to be done for us, so as to be imputed unto us.
II. It is pretended to be useless from hence,
because all “our sins of omission and commission being pardoned in our
justification on the account of the death and satisfaction of Christ, we
are thereby made completely righteous; so as that there is not the least
necessity for, or use of, the imputation of the obedience of Christ unto
us.”
III. Pernicious also they say it is, as that which
takes away “the necessity of our own personal obedience, introducing
antinomianism, libertinism, and all manner of evils.”
For this last part of the charge, I refer it unto its
proper place; for although it be urged by some against this part of the
doctrine of justification in a peculiar manner, yet is it
managed by others against the whole of it. And although we should grant
that the obedience of Christ unto the law is not imputed unto us unto our
justification, yet shall we not be freed from disturbance by this false
accusation, unless we will renounce the whole of the satisfaction and merit
of Christ also; and we intend not to purchase our peace with the whole
world at so dear a rate. Wherefore, I shall in its proper place give this
part of the charge its due consideration, as it reflects on the whole
doctrine of justification, and all the causes thereof, which we believe and
profess.
I. The first part of this charge, concerning the
impossibility of the imputation of the obedience of Christ unto us, is
insisted on by Socinus de Servat., part iii. cap.
5. And there has been nothing since pleaded unto the same purpose
but what has been derived from him, or wherein, at least, he has not
prevented the inventions of other men, and gone before them. And he makes
this consideration the principal engine wherewith he endeavours the
overthrow of the whole doctrine of the merit of Christ; for he
supposes that if all he did in a way of obedience was due from himself on
his own account, and was only the duty which he owed unto God for himself
in his station and circumstances, as a man in this world, it cannot be
meritorious for us, nor any way imputed unto us. And in like manner, to
weaken the doctrine of his satisfaction, and the imputation thereof unto
us, he contends that Christ offered as a priest for himself, in that kind
of offering which he made on the cross, part ii. cap. 22. And his real opinion was, that
whatever was of offering or sacrifice in the death of Christ, it was for
himself; that is, it was an act of obedience unto God, which pleased him,
as the savour of a sweet-smelling sacrifice. His offering for us is only
the presentation of himself in the presence of God in heaven; now he has no
more to do for himself in a way of duty. And the truth is, if the
obedience of Christ had respect unto himself only, — that is, if he yielded
it unto God on the necessity of his condition, and did not do it for us, —
I see no foundation left to assert his merit upon, no more than I do for
the imputation of it unto them that believe.
That which we plead is, that the Lord Christ fulfilled
the whole law for us; he did not only undergo the penalty of it due
unto our sins, but also yielded that perfect obedience which it did
require. And herein I shall not immix myself in the debate of the
distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ; for he
exercised the highest active obedience in his suffering, when he offered
himself to God through the eternal Spirit. And all his obedience,
considering his person, was mixed with suffering, as a part of his
exinanition and humiliation; whence it is said, that “though he were a Son,
yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.”
And however doing and suffering are in various categories of things, yet
Scripture testimonies are not to be regulated by philosophical artifices
and terms. And it must needs be said, that the sufferings of Christ, as
they were purely penal, are imperfectly called his passive righteousness;
for all righteousness is either in habit or in action,
whereof suffering is neither; nor is any man righteous, or so esteemed,
from what he suffers. Neither do sufferings give satisfaction unto the
commands of the law, which require only obedience. And hence it will
unavoidably follow, that we have need of more than the mere sufferings of
Christ, whereby we may be justified before God, if so be that any
righteousness be required thereunto; but the whole of what I intend is,
that Christ’s fulfilling of the law, in obedience unto its commands, is no
less imputed unto us for our justification than his undergoing the penalty
of it is.
I cannot but judge it sounds ill in the ears of all
Christians, “That the obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, as our mediator
and surety, unto the whole law of God, was for himself alone, and not for
us;” or, that what he did therein was not that he might be the end of the
law for righteousness unto them that do believe, nor a means of the
fulfilling of the righteousness of the law in us; — especially considering
that the faith of the church is, that he was given to us, born to us; that
for us men, and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, and did and
suffered what was required of him. But whereas some who deny the
imputation of the obedience of Christ unto us for our justification, do
insist principally on the second thing mentioned, — namely, the
unusefulness of it, — I shall under this part of the charge consider only
the arguing of Socinus; which is the
whole of what some at present do endeavour to perplex the truth withal.
To this purpose is his discourse, part iii. cap. 5. De Servat.: “Jam vero manifestum est, Christum quia homo natus fuerat, et
quidem, ut inquit Paulus, factus sub lege, legi divinæ inquam, quæ æterna
et immutabilis est, non minus quam cæteri homines obnoxium fuisse. Alioqui
potuisset Christus æternam Dei legem negligere, sive etiam universam si
voluisset infringere, quod impium est vel cogitare. Immo ut supra alicubi
explicatum fuit, nisi ipse Christus legi divinæ servandæ obnoxius fuisset,
ut ex Pauli verbis colligitur, non potuisset iis, qui ei legi servandæ
obnoxii sunt, opem ferre et eos ad immortalitatis firmam spem traducere.
Non differebat igitur hac quidem ex parte Christus, quando homo natus erat,
a cæteris hominibus. Quocirca nec etiam pro aliis, magis quam quilibet
alius homo, legem divinam conservando satisfacere potuit, quippe qui ipse
eam servare omnino debuit.” I have transcribed his words, that it
may appear with whose weapons some young disputers among
ourselves do contend against the truth.
The substance of his plea is, — that our Lord Jesus Christ
was for himself, or on his own account, obliged unto all that obedience
which he performed. And this he endeavours to prove with this reason, —
“Because if it were otherwise, then he might, if he would, have neglected
the whole law of God, and have broken it at his pleasure.” For he forgot
to consider, that if he were not obliged unto it upon his own account, but
was so on ours, whose cause he had undertaken, the obligation on him unto
most perfect obedience was equal to what it would have been had he been
originally obliged on his own account. However, hence he infers “That what
he did could not be for us, because it was so for himself; no more than
what any other man is bound to do in a way of duty for himself can be
esteemed to have been done also for another.” For he will allow of none of
those considerations of the person of Christ which make what he did and
suffered of another nature and efficacy than what can be done or suffered
by any other man. All that he adds in the process of his discourse is, —
“That whatever Christ did that was not required by the law in general, was
upon the especial command of God, and so done for himself; whence it cannot
be imputed unto us.” And hereby he excludes the church from any benefit by
the mediation of Christ, but only what consists in his doctrine, example,
and the exercise of his power in heaven for our good; which was the thing
that he aimed at. But we shall consider those also which make use of his
arguments, though not as yet openly unto all his ends.
To clear the truth herein, the things ensuing must be
observed, —
1. The obedience we treat of was the obedience of Christ
the mediator: but the obedience of Christ, as “the mediator of the
covenant,” was the obedience of his person; for “God redeemed his church
with his own blood,” Acts xx. 28.
It was performed in the human nature; but the person of Christ was he that
performed it. As in the person of a man, some of his acts, as to the
immediate principle of operation, are acts of the body, and some are so of
the soul; yet, in their performance and accomplishment, are they the acts
of the person: so the acts of Christ in his mediation, as to their ἐνεργήματα, or immediate operation, were the acting of his
distinct natures, — some of the divine and some of the human, immediately;
but as unto their ἀποτελέσματα, and the perfecting
efficacy of them, they were the acts of his whole person, — his acts who
was that person, and whose power of operation was a property of his person.
Wherefore, the obedience of Christ, which we plead to have been for us,
was the obedience of the Son of God; but the Son of God was never
absolutely made ὑπὸ νόμον, — “under the law,” — nor
could be formally obliged thereby. He was, indeed, as the
apostle witnesses, made so in his human nature, wherein he performed this
obedience: “Made of a woman, made under the law,” Gal. iv. 4.
He was so far forth made under the law, as he was made of a woman; for in
his person he abode “Lord of the sabbath,” Mark ii. 28;
and therefore of the whole law. But the obedience itself was the obedience
of that person who never was, nor ever could absolutely be, made under the
law in his whole person; for the divine nature cannot be subjected unto an
outward work of its own, such as the law is, nor can it have an
authoritative, commanding power over it, as it must have if it were made
ὑπὸ νόμον, — “under the law.” Thus the apostle
argues that “Levi paid tithes in Abraham,” because he was then in his
loins, when Abraham himself paid tithes unto Melchizedek, Heb.
vii. And thence he proves that he was inferior unto the Lord
Christ, of whom Melchizedek was a type. But may it not thereon be replied,
that then no less the Lord Christ was in the loins of Abraham than Levi?
“For verily,” as the same apostle speaks, “he took on him the seed of
Abraham.” It is true, therefore, that he was so in respect of his human
nature; but as he was typed and represented by Melchizedek in his whole
person, “without father, without mother, without genealogy, without
beginning of days or end of life,” so he was not absolutely in Abraham’s
loins, and was exempted from being tithed in him. Wherefore, the obedience
whereof we treat, being not the obedience of the human nature
abstractedly, however performed in and by the human nature; but the
obedience of the person of the Son of God, however the human nature
was subject to the law (in what sense, and unto what ends, shall be
declared afterwards); it was not for himself, nor could be for himself;
because his whole person was not obliged thereunto. It is therefore a fond
thing, to compare the obedience of Christ with that of any other man, whose
whole person is under the law. For although that may not be for himself
and others (which yet we shall show that in some cases it may), yet this
may, yea, must be for others, and not for himself. This, then, we must
strictly hold unto. If the obedience that Christ yielded unto the law were
for himself, whereas it was the act of his person, his whole person,
and the divine nature therein, were “made under the law;” which cannot be.
For although it is acknowledged that, in the ordination of God, his
exinanition was to precede his glorious, majestical exaltation, as the
Scripture witnesses, Phil. ii. 9;
Luke xxiv. 26; Rom. xiv.
9; yet absolutely his glory was an immediate consequent of the
hypostatical union, Heb. i. 6; Matt. ii.
11.
Socinus, I confess,
evades the force of this argument, by denying the divine person of Christ.
But in this disputation I take that for granted, as having proved it
elsewhere beyond what any of his followers are able to
contradict. And if we may not build on truths by him denied, we shall
scarce have any one principle of evangelical truth left us to prove any
thing from. However, I intend them only at present who concur with him in
the matter under debate, but renounce his opinion concerning the person of
Christ.
2. As our Lord Jesus Christ owed not in his own person
this obedience for himself, by virtue of any authority or power that the
law had over him, so he designed and intended it not for himself, but
for us. This, added unto the former consideration, gives full evidence
unto the truth pleaded for; for if he was not obliged unto it for himself,
— his person that yielded it not being under the law, — and if he intended
it not for himself; then it must be for us, or be useless. It was in our
human nature that he performed all this obedience. Now, the susception of
our nature was a voluntary act of his own, with reference unto some end and
purpose; and that which was the end of the assumption of our nature was, in
like manner, the end of all that he did therein. Now, it was for us, and
not for himself, that he assumed our nature; nor was any thing added unto
him thereby. Wherefore, in the issue of his work, he proposes this only
unto himself, that he may be “glorified with that glory which he had with
the Father before the world was,” by the removal of that vail which was put
upon it in his exinanition. But that it was for us that he assumed our
nature, is the foundation of Christian religion, as it is asserted by the
apostle, Heb. ii. 14; Phil. ii.
5–8.
Some of the ancient schoolmen disputed, that the Son of God
should have been incarnate although man had not sinned and fallen; the same
opinion was fiercely pursued by Osiander, as
I have elsewhere declared: but none of them once imagined that he should
have been so made man as to be made under the law, and be obliged thereby
unto that obedience which now he has performed; but they judged that
immediately he was to have been a glorious head unto the whole creation.
For it is a common notion and presumption of all Christians, but only such
as will sacrifice such notions unto their own private conceptions, that the
obedience which Christ yielded unto the law on the earth, in the state and
condition wherein he yielded it, was not for himself, but for the church,
which was obliged unto perfect obedience, but was not able to accomplish
it. That this was his sole end and design in it is a fundamental article,
if I mistake not, of the creed of most Christians in the world; and to deny
it does consequentially overthrow all the grace and love both of the Father
and [of the] Son in his mediation.
It is said, “That this obedience was necessary as a
qualification of his person, that he might be meet to be a mediator for us;
and therefore was for himself.” It belongs unto the necessary constitution
of his person, with respect unto his mediatory work; but this
I positively deny. The Lord Christ was every way meet for the whole work
of mediation, by the ineffable union of the human nature with the divine,
which exalted it in dignity, honour, and worth, above any thing or all
things that ensued thereon. For hereby he became in his whole person the
object of all divine worship and honour; for “when he bringeth the
First-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God
worship him.” Again, that which is an effect of the person of the
Mediator, as constituted such, is not a qualification necessary unto its
constitution; that is, what he did as mediator did not concur to the making
of him meet so to be. But of this nature was all the obedience which he
yielded unto the law; for as such “it became him to fulfil all
righteousness.”
Whereas, therefore, he was neither made man nor of the
posterity of Abraham for himself, but for the church, — namely, to become
thereby the surety of the covenant, and representative of the whole, — his
obedience as a man unto the law in general, and as a son of Abraham unto
the law of Moses, was for us, and not for himself, so designed, so
performed; and, without a respect unto the church, was of no use unto
himself. He was born to us, and given to us; lived for us, and died for
us; obeyed for us, and suffered for us, — that “by the obedience of one
many might be made righteous.” This was the “grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ;” and this is the faith of the catholic church. And what he did for
us is imputed unto us. This is included in the very notion of his doing it
for us, which cannot be spoken in any sense, unless that which he so did be
imputed unto us. And I think men ought to be wary that they do not, by
distinctions and studied evasions, for the defence of their own private
opinions, shake the foundations of Christian religion. And I am sure it
will be easier for them, as it is in the proverb, to wrest the club out of
the hand of Hercules, than to dispossess the minds of true believers of
this persuasion: “That what the Lord Christ did in obedience unto God,
according unto the law, he designed in his love and grace to do it for
them.” He needed no obedience for himself, he came not into a capacity of
yielding obedience for himself, but for us; and therefore for us it was
that he fulfilled the law in obedience unto God, according unto the terms
of it. The obligation that was on him unto obedience was originally no
less for us, no less needful unto us, no more for himself, no more
necessary unto him, than the obligation was on him, as the surety of the
covenant, to suffer the penalty of the law, was either the one or the
other.
3. Setting aside the consideration of the grace and love
of Christ, and the compact between the Father and the Son as unto his
undertaking for us, which undeniably proves all that he did in the pursuit
of them to be done for us, and not for himself; I say, setting
aside the consideration of these things, and the human nature of Christ, by
virtue of its union with the person of the Son of God, had a right unto,
and might have immediately been admitted into, the highest glory whereof it
was capable, without any antecedent obedience unto the law. And this is
apparent from hence, in that, from the first instant of that union, the
whole person of Christ, with our nature existing therein, was the object of
all divine worship from angels and men; wherein consists the highest
exaltation of that nature.
It is true, there was a peculiar glory that he was
actually to be made partaker of, with respect unto his antecedent obedience
and suffering, Phil. ii. 8,
9. The actual possession of this glory was, in the ordination
of God, to be consequential unto his obeying and suffering, not for
himself, but for us. But as unto the right and capacity of the human
nature in itself, all the glory whereof it was capable was due unto it from
the instant of its union; for it was therein exalted above the condition
that any creature is capable of by mere creation. And it is but a Socinian
fiction, that the first foundation of the divine glory of Christ was laid
in his obedience, which was only the way of his actual possession of that
part of his glory which consists in his mediatory power and authority over
all. The real foundation of the whole was laid in the union of his person;
whence he prays that the Father would glorify him (as unto manifestation)
with that glory which he had with him before the world was.
I will grant that the Lord Christ was “viator” whilst he
was in this world, and not absolutely “possessor;” yet I say withal, he was
so, not that any such condition was necessary unto him for himself, but he
took it upon him by especial dispensation for us. And, therefore, the
obedience he performed in that condition was for us, and not for
himself.
4. It is granted, therefore, that the human nature of
Christ was made ὑπὸ νόμον, as the apostle affirms,
“That which was made of a woman, was made under the law.” Hereby obedience
became necessary unto him, as he was and whilst he was “viator.” But this
being by especial dispensation, — intimated in the expression of it, he was
“made under the law,” namely, as he was “made of a woman,” by especial
dispensation and condescension, expressed, Phil. ii.
6–8, — the obedience he yielded thereon was for us, and not for
himself. And this is evident from hence, for he was so made under the law
as that not only he owed obedience unto the precepts of it, but he was made
obnoxious unto its curse. But I suppose it will not be said that he was so
for himself, and therefore not for us. We owed obedience unto the law, and
were obnoxious unto the curse of it, or ὑπόδικοι τῷ Θεῷ. Obedience was required of us, and was as
necessary unto us if we would enter into life, as the answering of the
curse for us was if we would escape death eternal. Christ, as our surety,
is “made under the law” for us, whereby he becomes liable and obliged unto
the obedience which the law required, and unto the penalty that it
threatened. Who shall now dare to say that he underwent the penalty of the
law for us indeed, but he yielded obedience unto it for himself only? The
whole harmony of the work of his mediation would be disordered by such a
supposition.
Judah, the son of Jacob, undertook to be a bondsman instead
of Benjamin his brother, that he might go free, Gen. xliv.
33. There is no doubt but Joseph might have accepted of the
stipulation. Had he done so, the service and bondage he undertook had been
necessary unto Judah, and righteous for him to bear: howbeit he had
undergone it, and performed his duty in it, not for himself, but for his
brother Benjamin; and unto Benjamin it would have been imputed in his
liberty. So when the apostle Paul wrote these words unto Philemon
concerning Onesimus, Εἰ δέ τι ἠδίκησέ σε, ἢ ὀφείλεν, τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγει,
ἐγὼ ἀποτίσω, verse 18, — “
‘If he hath wronged thee,’ dealt unrighteously or injuriously with thee,
‘or oweth thee ought,’ wherein thou hast suffered loss by him, ‘put that on
mine account,’ or impute it all unto me, ‘I will repay it,’ or answer for
it all,” — he supposes that Philemon might have a double action against
Onesimus, the one “injuriarum,” and the other “damni” or “debiti,” of wrong and
injury, and of loss or debt, which are distinct actions in the law: “If he
hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought.” Hereon he proposes himself, and
obliges himself by his express obligation: Ἐγὼ Παῦλος
ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί, — “I Paul have written it with mine own hand,”
that he would answer for both, and pay back a valuable consideration if
required. Hereby was he obliged in his own person to make satisfaction
unto Philemon; but yet he was to do it for Onesimus, and not for himself.
Whatever obedience, therefore, was due from the Lord Christ, as to his
human nature, whilst in the form of a servant, either as a man or as an
Israelite, seeing he was so not necessarily, by the necessity of nature for
himself, but by voluntary condescension and stipulation for us; for us it
was, and not for himself.
5. The Lord Christ, in his obedience, was not a
private but a public person. He obeyed as he was the surety
of the covenant, — as the mediator between God and man. This, I suppose,
will not be denied. He can by no imagination be considered out of that
capacity. But what a public person does as a public person, — that is, as
a representative of others, and an undertaker for them, — whatever may be
his own concernment therein, he does it not for himself, but for others.
And if others were not concerned therein, if it were not for them, what he does would be of no use or signification; yea, it implies
a contradiction that any one should do any thing as a public person, and do
it for himself only. He who is a public person may do that wherein he
alone is concerned, but he cannot do so as he is a public person.
Wherefore, as Socinus, and those that
follow him, would have Christ to have offered for himself, which is to make
him a mediator for himself, his offering being a mediatory act, which is
both foolish and impious; so to affirm his mediatory obedience, his
obedience as a public person, to have been for himself, and not for others,
has but little less of impiety in it.
6. It is granted, that the Lord Christ having a human
nature, which was a creature, it was impossible but that it should be
subject unto the law of creation; for there is a relation that does
necessarily arise from, and depend upon, the beings of a creator and a
creature. Every rational creature is eternally obliged, from the nature of
God, and its relation thereunto, to love him, obey him, depend upon him,
submit unto him, and to make him its end, blessedness, and reward. But the
law of creation, thus considered, does not respect the world and this life
only, but the future state of heaven and eternity also; and this law the
human nature of Christ is subject unto in heaven and glory, and cannot but
be so whilst it is a creature, and not God, — that is, whilst it has its
own being. Nor do any men fancy such a transfusion of divine properties
into the human nature of Christ, as that it should be
self-subsisting, and in itself absolutely immense; for this
would openly destroy it. Yet none will say that he is now ὑπὸ νόμον, — “under the law,” — in the sense intended by
the apostle. But the law, in the sense described, the human nature of
Christ was subject unto, on its own account, whilst he was in this world.
And this is sufficient to answer the objection of Socinus, mentioned at the entrance of this discourse, —
namely, that if the Lord Christ were not obliged unto obedience for
himself, then might he, if he would, neglect the whole law, or infringe it;
for besides that it is a foolish imagination concerning that “holy thing”
which was hypostatically united unto the Son of God, and thereby rendered
incapable of any deviation from the divine will, the eternal, indispensable
law of love, adherence, and dependence on God, under which the human nature
of Christ was, and is, as a creature, gives sufficient security against
such suppositions.
But there is another consideration of the law of God, —
namely, as it is imposed on creatures by especial dispensation, for some
time and for some certain end, with some considerations, rules, and orders
that belong not essentially unto the law; as before described. This is the
nature of the written law of God, which the Lord Christ was made under, not
necessarily, as a creature, but by especial dispensation. For the law, under this consideration, is presented unto us as such,
not absolutely and eternally, but whilst we are in this world, and that
with this especial end, that by obedience thereunto we may obtain the
reward of eternal life. And it is evident that the obligation of the law,
under this consideration, ceases when we come to the enjoyment of that
reward. It obliges us no more formally by its command, “Do this, and
live,” when the life promised is enjoyed. In this sense the Lord Christ
was not made subject unto the law for himself, nor did yield obedience unto
it for himself; for he was not obliged unto it by virtue of his created
condition. Upon the first instant of the union of his natures, being
“holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners,” he might,
notwithstanding the law that he was made subject unto, have been stated in
glory; for he that was the object of all divine worship needed not any new
obedience to procure for him a state of blessedness. And had he naturally,
merely by virtue of his being a creature, been subject unto the law in this
sense, he must have been so eternally, which he is not; for those things
which depend solely on the natures of God and the creature are eternal and
immutable. Wherefore, as the law in this sense was given unto us, not
absolutely, but with respect unto a future state and reward, so the Lord
Christ did voluntarily subject himself unto it for us; and his obedience
thereunto was for us, and not for himself. These things, added unto what I
have formerly written on this subject, whereunto nothing has been opposed
but a few impertinent cavils, are sufficient to discharge the first part of
that charge laid down before, concerning the impossibility of the
imputation of the obedience of Christ unto us; which, indeed, is equal unto
the impossibility of the imputation of the disobedience of Adam unto us,
whereby the apostle tells us that “we were all made sinners.”
II. The second part of the objection or charge against the
imputation of the obedience of Christ unto us is, “That it is useless unto
the persons that are to be justified; for whereas they have in their
justification the pardon of all their sins, they are thereby righteous, and
have a right or title unto life and blessedness; for he who is so pardoned
as not to be esteemed guilty of any sin of omission or commission wants
nothing that is requisite thereunto; for he is supposed to have done all
that he ought, and to have omitted nothing required of him in a way of
duty. Hereby he becomes not unrighteous; and to be not unrighteous is the
same as to be righteous; as he that is not dead is alive. Neither is
there, nor can there be, any middle state between death and life.
Wherefore, those who have all their sins forgiven have the blessedness of
justification; and there is neither need nor use of any farther imputation
of righteousness unto them.” And sundry other things of the same nature
are urged unto the same purpose, which will be all of them
either obviated in the ensuing discourse, or answered elsewhere.
Ans. This cause is of more importance, and more
evidently stated in the Scriptures, than to be turned into such niceties,
which have more of philosophical subtilty than theological
solidity in them. This exception, therefore, might be dismissed
without farther answer than what is given us in the known rule, that a
truth well established and confirmed is not to be questioned, much less
relinquished, on every entangling sophism, though it should appear
insoluble; but, as we shall see, there is no such difficulty in these
arguings but what may easily be discussed. And because the matter of the
plea contained in them is made use of by sundry learned persons, who yet
agree with us in the substance of the doctrine of justification, — namely,
that it is by faith alone, without works, through the imputation of the
merit and satisfaction of Christ, — I shall, as briefly as I can, discover
the mistakes that it proceeds upon.
1. It includes a supposition, that he who is pardoned
his sins of omission and commission, is esteemed to have done all that is
required of him, and to have committed nothing that is forbidden; for,
without this supposition, the bare pardon of sin will neither make,
constitute, nor denominate any man righteous. But this is far otherwise,
nor is any such thing included in the nature of pardon: for, in the pardon
of sin, neither God nor man does judge that he who has sinned has not
sinned; which must be done, if he who is pardoned be esteemed to have done
all that he ought, and to have done nothing that he ought not to do. If a
man be brought on his trial for any evil act, and, being legally convicted
thereof, is discharged by sovereign pardon, it is true that, in the eye of
the law, he is looked upon as an innocent man, as unto the punishment that
was due unto him; but no man thinks that he is made righteous thereby, or
is esteemed not to have done that which really he has done, and whereof he
was convicted. Joab, and Abiathar the priest, were at the same time guilty
of the same crime. Solomon gives order that Joab be put to death for his
crime; but unto Abiathar he gives a pardon. Did he thereby make, declare,
or constitute him righteous? Himself expresses the contrary, affirming him
to be unrighteous and guilty, only he remitted the punishment of his fault,
1 Kings ii. 26. Wherefore, the pardon
of sin discharges the guilty person from being liable or obnoxious unto
anger, wrath, or punishment due unto his sin; but it does not suppose, nor
infer in the least, that he is thereby, or ought thereon, to be esteemed or
adjudged to have done no evil, and to have fulfilled all righteousness.
Some say, pardon gives a righteousness of innocency, but not of
obedience. But it cannot give a righteousness of innocency
absolutely, such as Adam had; for he had actually done no
evil. It only removes guilt, which is the respect of sin unto punishment,
ensuing on the sanction of the law. And this supposition, which is an
evident mistake, animates this whole objection.
The like may be said of what is in like manner supposed, —
namely, that not to be unrighteous, which a man is on the pardon of sin, is
the same with being righteous. For if not to be unrighteous be taken
privatively, it is the same with being just or righteous: for it
supposes that he who is so has done all the duty that is required of him
that he may be righteous. But not to be unrighteous negatively, as
the expression is here used, it does not do so: for, at best, it supposes
no more but that a man as yet has done nothing actually against the rule of
righteousness. Now this may be when yet he has performed none of the
duties that are required of him to constitute him righteous, because the
times and occasions of them are not yet. And so it was with Adam in the
state of innocence; which is the height of what can be attained by the
complete pardon of sin.
2. It proceeds on this supposition, that the law, in
case of sin, does not oblige unto punishment and obedience both, so as
that it is not satisfied, fulfilled, or complied withal, unless it be
answered with respect unto both; for if it does so, then the pardon of sin,
which only frees us from the penalty of the law, does yet leave it
necessary that obedience be performed unto it, even all that it does
require. But this, in my judgment, is an evident mistake, and that such as
does not “establish the law, but make it void,” And this I shall
demonstrate:—
(1.) The law has two parts or powers:— First, Its
preceptive part, commanding and requiring obedience, with a promise of life
annexed: “Do this, and live.” Secondly, The sanction on supposition of
disobedience, binding the sinner unto punishment, or a meet recompense of
reward: “In the day thou sinnest thou shalt die.” And every law, properly
so called, proceeds on these suppositions of obedience or disobedience,
whence its commanding and punishing power are inseparate from its
nature.
(2.) This law whereof we speak was first given unto man in
innocence, and therefore the first power of it was only in act; it obliged
only unto obedience: for an innocent person could not be obnoxious unto its
sanction, which contained only an obligation unto punishment, on
supposition of disobedience. It could not, therefore, oblige our first
parents unto obedience and punishment both, seeing its obligation unto
punishment could not be in actual force but on supposition of actual
disobedience. A moral cause of, and motive unto, obedience it was, and had
an influence into the preservation of man from sin. Unto that
end it was said unto him, “In the day thou eatest, thou shalt surely die.”
The neglect hereof, and of that ruling influence which it ought to have had
on the minds of our first parents, opened the door unto the entrance of
sin. But it implies a contradiction, that an innocent person should be
under an actual obligation unto punishment from the sanction of the law.
It bound only unto obedience, as all laws, with penalties, do before their
transgression. But, —
(3.) On the committing of sin (and it is so with every one
that is guilty of sin), man came under an actual obligation unto
punishment. This is no more questionable than whether at first he was
under an obligation unto obedience. But then the question is, whether the
first intention and obligation of the law unto obedience does cease to
affect the sinner, or continue so as at the same time to oblige him unto
obedience and punishment, both its powers being in act towards him? And
hereunto I say, —
[1.] Had the punishment threatened been immediately
inflicted unto the utmost of what was contained in it, this could have been
no question; for man had died immediately, both temporally and eternally,
and been cast out of that state wherein alone he could stand in any
relation unto the preceptive power of the law. He that is finally executed
has fulfilled the law so as that he owes no more obedience unto it.
But, [2.] God, in his wisdom and patience, has otherwise
disposed of things. Man is continued a “viator” still, in the way unto his
end, and not fully stated in his eternal and unchangeable condition,
wherein neither promise nor threatening, reward nor punishment, could be
proposed unto him. In this condition he falls under a twofold
consideration:— First, Of a guilty person, and so is obliged unto
the full punishment that the law threatens. This is not denied. Second,
Of a man, a rational creature of God, not yet brought unto his
eternal end.
[3.] In this state, the law is the only instrument
and means of the continuance of the relation between God and him.
Wherefore, under this consideration, it cannot but still oblige him unto
obedience, unless we shall say that by his sin he has exempted himself from
the government of God. Wherefore, it is by the law that the rule and
government of God over men is continued whilst they are in “statu viatorum;” for every disobedience, every
transgression of its rule and order, as to its commanding power, casts us
afresh and farther under its power of obliging unto punishment.
Neither can these things be otherwise. Neither can any man
living, not the worst of men, choose but judge himself, whilst he is in
this world, obliged to give obedience unto the law of God, according to the notices that he has of it by the light of nature or
otherwise. A wicked servant that is punished for his fault, if it be with
such a punishment as yet continues his being and his state of servitude, is
not by his punishment freed from an obligation unto duty, according unto
the rule of it; yea, his obligation unto duty, with respect unto that crime
for which he was punished, is not dissolved until his punishment be
capital, and so put an end unto his state. Wherefore, seeing that by the
pardon of sin we are freed only from the obligation unto punishment, there
is, moreover, required unto our justification an obedience unto what the
law requires.
And this greatly strengthens the argument in whose
vindication we are engaged; for we being sinners, we were obnoxious both
unto the command and curse of the law. Both must be answered, or we cannot
be justified. And as the Lord Christ could not by his most perfect
obedience satisfy the curse of the law, “Dying thou shalt die;” so by the
utmost of his suffering he could not fulfil the command of the law, “Do
this, and live.” Passion, as passion, is not obedience, — though there may
be obedience in suffering, as there was in that of Christ unto the height.
Wherefore, as we plead that the death of Christ is imputed unto us for our
justification, so we deny that it is imputed unto us for our righteousness.
For by the imputation of the sufferings of Christ our sins are remitted or
pardoned, and we are delivered from the curse of the law, which he
underwent; but we are not thence esteemed just or righteous, which we
cannot be without respect unto the fulfilling of the commands of the law,
or the obedience by it required. The whole matter is excellently expressed
by Grotius in the words before alleged: “Cum duo nobis peperisse Christum dixerimus, impunitatem et
præmium, illud satisfctioni, hoc merito Christi distincte tribuit vetus
ecclesia. Satisfactio consistit in meritorum translatione, meritum in
perfectissimæ obedientiæ pro nobis præstitiæ imputatione.”
(4.) The objection mentioned proceeds also on this
supposition, that pardon of sin gives title unto eternal blessedness in
the enjoyment of God; for justification does so, and, according to the
authors of this opinion, no other righteousness is required thereunto but
pardon of sin. That justification does give right and title unto adoption,
acceptation with God, and the heavenly inheritance, I suppose will not be
denied, and it has been proved already. Pardon of sin depends solely on
the death or suffering of Christ: “In whom we have redemption through his
blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace,”
Eph. i. 7. But suffering for punishment
gives right and title unto nothing, only satisfies for something; nor does
it deserve any reward: it is nowhere said, “Suffer this, and live,” but “Do
this, and live.”
These things, I confess, are inseparably
connected in the ordinance, appointment, and covenant of God. Whosoever
has his sins pardoned is accepted with God, has right unto eternal
blessedness. These things are inseparable; but they are not one and the
same. And by reason of their inseparable relation are they so put together
by the apostle, Rom. iv.
6–8, “Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man
unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works: Blessed are they whose
iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: blessed is the man to
whom the Lord will not impute sin.” It is the imputation of righteousness
that gives right unto blessedness; but pardon of sin is inseparable from
it, and an effect of it, both being opposed unto justification by works, or
an internal righteousness of our own. But it is one thing to be freed from
being liable unto eternal death, and another to have right and title unto a
blessed and eternal life. It is one thing to be redeemed from under the
law, — that is, the curse of it; another, to receive the adoption of sons;
— one thing to be freed from the curse; another, to have the blessing of
Abraham come upon us: as the apostle distinguishes these things, Gal. iii. 13,
14; iv. 4, 5; and so does our Lord Jesus Christ, Acts xxvi. 18, “That they may receive
forgiveness of sins, and inheritance” (a lot and right to the inheritance)
“amongst them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” Ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν, which we have by faith in Christ, is only
a dismission of sin from being pleadable unto our condemnation; on which
account “there is no condemnation unto them that are in Christ Jesus.” But
a right and title unto glory, or the heavenly inheritance, it gives not.
Can it be supposed that all the great and glorious effects of present grace
and future blessedness should follow necessarily on, and be the effect of,
mere pardon of sin? Can we not be pardoned but we must thereby of
necessity be made sons, heirs of God, and co-heirs with Christ?
Pardon of sin is in God, with respect unto the sinner, a
free, gratuitous act: “Forgiveness of sin through the riches of his grace.”
But with respect unto the satisfaction of Christ, it is an act in
judgment. For on the consideration thereof, as imputed unto him, does
God absolve and acquit the sinner upon his trial. But pardon on a
juridical trial, on what consideration soever it be granted, gives no right
nor title unto any favour, benefit, or privilege, but only mere
deliverance. It is one thing to be acquitted before the throne of a king
of crimes laid unto the charge of any man, which may be done by clemency,
or on other considerations; another to be made his son by adoption, and
heir unto his kingdom.
And these things are represented unto us in the Scripture
as distinct, and depending on distinct causes: so are they in the vision
concerning Joshua the high priest, Zech.
iii. 4, 5, “And he answered and spake unto those that stood
before him saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he
said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will
clothe thee with change of raiment. And I said, Let them set a fair mitre
upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him
with garments.” It has been generally granted that we have here a
representation of the justification of a sinner before God. And the taking
away of filthy garments is expounded by the passing away of iniquity. When
a man’s filthy garments are taken away, he is no more defiled with them;
but he is not thereby clothed. This is an additional grace and favour
thereunto, — namely, to be clothed with change of garments. And what this
raiment is, is declared, Isa. lxi. 10,
“He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with
the robe of righteousness;” which the apostle alludes unto, Phil. iii. 9. Wherefore these things are
distinct, — namely, the taking away of the filthy garments, and the
clothing of us with change of raiment; or, the pardon of sin, and the robe
of righteousness. By the one are we freed from condemnation; by the other
have we right unto salvation. And the same is in like manner represented,
Ezek. xvi. 6–12.
This place I had formerly urged to this purpose about communion with God, p. 187; which Mr Hotchkis, in his usual manner, attempts to answer.
And to omit his reviling expressions, with the crude, unproved assertion of
his own conceits, his answer is, — that by the change of raiment mentioned
in the prophet, our own personal righteousness is intended; for he
acknowledges that our justification before God is here represented. And so
also he expounds the place produced in the confirmation of the exposition
given, Isa. lxi. 10, where this change of
raiment is called, “The garments of salvation, and the robe of
righteousness;” and thereon affirms that our righteousness itself before
God is our personal righteousness p. 203, — that is, in our justification
before him, which is the only thing in question. To all which presumptions
I shall oppose only the testimony of the same prophet, which he may
consider at his leisure, and which, at one time or other, he will subscribe
unto. Isa. lxiv. 6, “We are all as an unclean
thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” He who can make
garments of salvation and robes of righteousness of these filthy rags, has
a skill in composing spiritual vestments that I am not acquainted withal.
What remains in the chapter wherein this answer is given unto that
testimony of the Scripture, I shall take no notice of; it being, after his
accustomed manner, only a perverse wresting of my words unto such a sense
as may seem to countenance him in casting a reproach upon
myself and others.
There is, therefore, no force in the comparing of these
things unto life and death natural, which are immediately opposed: “So that
he who is not dead is alive, and he who is alive is not dead;” — there
being no distinct state between that of life and death; for these things
being of different natures, the comparison between them is no way
argumentative. Though it may be so in things natural, it is otherwise in
things moral and political, where a proper representation of justification
may be taken, as it is forensic. If it were so, that there is no
difference between being acquitted of a crime at the bar of a judge, and a
right unto a kingdom, nor different state between these things, it would
prove that there is no intermediate estate between being pardoned and
having a right unto the heavenly inheritance. But this is a fond
imagination.
It is true that right unto eternal life does succeed
unto freedom from the guilt of eternal death: “That they may receive
forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified.”
But it does not do so out of a necessity in the nature of the things
themselves, but only in the free constitution of God. Believers have the
pardon of sin, and an immediate right and title unto the favour of God, the
adoption of sons, and eternal life. But there is another state in the
nature of the things themselves, and this might have been so actually, had
it so seemed good unto God; for who sees not that there is a “status,” or “conditio personæ,”
wherein he is neither under the guilt of condemnation nor has an immediate
right and title unto glory in the way of inheritance? God might have
pardoned men all their sins past, and placed them in a state and condition
of seeking righteousness for the future by the works of the law, that so
they might have lived; for this would answer the original state of Adam.
But God has not done so. True; but whereas he might have done so, it is
evident that the disposal of men into this state and condition of right
unto life and salvation, does not depend on nor proceed from the pardon of
sin, but has another cause; which is, the imputation of the righteousness
of Christ unto us, as he fulfilled the law for us.
And, in truth, this is the opinion of the most of our
adversaries in this cause: for they do contend, that over and above the
remission of sin, which some of them say is absolute, without any respect
unto the merit or satisfaction of Christ, others refer it unto them; they
all contend that there is, moreover, a righteousness of works required unto
our justification; — only they say this is our own incomplete, imperfect
righteousness imputed unto us as if it were perfect; that is, for what it
is not, and not the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us for what it
is.
From what has been discoursed, it is evident
that unto our justification before God is required, not only that we be
freed from the damnatory sentence of the law, which we are by the pardon of
sin, but, moreover, “that the righteousness of the law be fulfilled in us,”
or, that we have a righteousness answering the obedience that the law
requires; whereon our acceptance with God, through the riches of his grace,
and our title unto the heavenly inheritance, do depend. This we have not
in and of ourselves, nor can attain unto; as has been proved. Wherefore
the perfect obedience and righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us, or in
the sight of God we can never be justified.
Nor are the cavilling objections of the Socinians, and
those that follow them, of any force against the truth herein. They tell
us, “That the righteousness of Christ can be imputed but unto one, if unto
any; for who can suppose that the same righteousness of one should become
the righteousness of many, even of all that believe? Besides, he performed
not all the duties that are required of us in all our relations, he being
never placed in them.” These things, I say, are both foolish and impious,
destructive unto the whole gospel; for all things here depend on the
ordination of God. It is his ordinance, that as “through the offence of
one many are dead,” so “disgrace, and the gift of grace, through one man,
Christ Jesus, has abounded unto many;” and “as by the offence of one
judgment came upon all men unto condemnation, so by the righteousness of
one the free gift came upon all unto the righteousness of life;” and “by
the obedience of one many are made righteous;” as the apostle argues,
Rom. v. For “God sent his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, that the righteousness of the law
might be fulfilled in us,” chap. viii. 3,
4; for he was “the end of the law” (the whole end of it), “for
righteousness unto them that do believe,” chap. x. 4.
This is the appointment of the wisdom, righteousness, and grace of God,
that the whole righteousness and obedience of Christ should be accepted as
our complete righteousness before him, imputed unto us by his grace, and
applied unto us or made ours through believing; and, consequently, unto all
that believe. And if the actual sin of Adam be imputed unto us all,
who derive our nature from him, unto condemnation, though he sinned not in
our circumstances and relations, is it strange that the actual obedience of
Christ should be imputed unto them who derive a spiritual nature from him,
unto the justification of life? Besides, both the satisfaction and
obedience of Christ, as relating unto his person, were, in some sense,
infinite, — that is, of an infinite value, — and so cannot be
considered in parts, as though one part of it were imputed unto one, and
another unto another, but the whole is imputed unto every one that does
believe; and if the Israelites could say that David was “worth
ten thousand of them,” 2 Sam. xviii.
3, we may well allow the Lord Christ, and so what he did and
suffered, to be more than us all, and all that we can do and suffer.
There are also sundry other mistakes that concur unto that
part of the charge against the imputation of the righteousness of Christ
unto us, which we have now considered. I say of his righteousness; for the
apostle in this case uses those two words, δικαίωμα
and ὑπακοή, “righteousness” and “obedience,” as
ἰσοδυναμοῦντα — of the same signification, Rom. v. 18, 19. Such are these:— that
remission of sin and justification are the same, or that justification
consists only in the remission of sin; — that faith itself, as our act and
duty, seeing it is the condition of the covenant, is imputed unto us for
righteousness; — or that we have a personal, inherent righteousness of our
own, that one way or other is our righteousness before God unto
justification; either a condition it is, or a disposition
unto it, or has a congruity in deserving the grace of justification,
or a downright merit of condignity thereof: for all these are but
various expressions of the same thing, according unto the variety of the
conceptions of the minds of men about it. But they have been all
considered and removed in our precedent discourses.
To close this argument, and our vindication of it, and
therewithal to obviate an objection, I do acknowledge that our blessedness
and life eternal is, in the Scripture, ofttimes ascribed unto the death of
Christ. But, — 1. It is so κατ’ ἐξοχήν, — as the principal cause of the whole, and
as that without which no imputation of obedience could have justified us;
for the penalty of the law was indispensably to be undergone. 2. It is so
κατὰ συγγένειαν, — not exclusively unto all
obedience, whereof mention is made in other places, but as that whereunto
it is inseparably conjoined. “Christus in vita passivam
habuit actionem; in morte passionem activam sustinuit; dum salutem
operaretur in medio terræ,” Bernard.
And so it is also ascribed unto his resurrection κατ’ ἔνδειξιν, with respect unto
evidence and manifestation; but the death of Christ exclusively, as unto
his obedience, is nowhere asserted as the cause of eternal life, comprising
that exceeding weight of glory wherewith it is accompanied.
Hitherto we have treated of and vindicated the imputation
of the active obedience of Christ unto us, as the truth of it was deduced
from the preceding argument about the obligation of the law of creation. I
shall now briefly confirm it with other reasons and testimonies:—
1. That which Christ, the mediator and surety of the
covenant, did do in obedience unto God, in the discharge and
performance of his office, that he did for us; and that is imputed
unto us. This has been proved already, and it has too great an evidence of
truth to be denied. He was “born to us, given to us,”
Isa. ix. 6; for “what the law could not
do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,” Rom.
viii. 3, 4. Whatever is spoken of the grace, love, and purpose
of God in sending or giving his Son, or of the love, grace, and
condescension of the Son in coming and undertaking of the work of
redemption designed unto him, or of the office itself of a mediator or
surety, gives testimony unto this assertion; yea, it is the fundamental
principle of the gospel, and of the faith of all that truly believe. As
for those by whom the divine person and satisfaction of Christ are denied,
whereby they evert the whole work of his mediation, we do not at present
consider them. Wherefore what he so did is to be inquired into. And,
—
(1.) The Lord Christ, our mediator and surety, was, in his
human nature, made ὑπὸ νόμον, — “under the law,”
Gal. iv. 4. That he was not so for
himself, by the necessity of his condition, we have proved before. It was,
therefore, for us. But as made under the law, he yielded obedience unto
it; this, therefore, was for us, and is imputed unto us. The exception of
the Socinians, that it is the judicial law only that is intended, is too
frivolous to be insisted on; for he was made under that law whose curse we
are delivered from. And if we are delivered only from the curse of the law
of Moses, wherein they contend that there was neither promises nor
threatening of eternal things, of any thing beyond this present life, we
are still in our sins, under the curse of the moral law, notwithstanding
all that he has done for us. It is excepted, with more colour of sobriety,
that he was made under the law only as to the curse of it. But it is plain
in the text that Christ was made under the law as we are under it. He was
“made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.” And if he
was not made so as we are, there is no consequence from his being made
under it unto our redemption from it. But we were so under the law, as not
only to be obnoxious unto the curse, but so as to be obliged unto all the
obedience that it required; as has been proved. And if the Lord Christ has
redeemed us only from the curse of it by undergoing it, leaving us in
ourselves to answer its obligation unto obedience, we are not freed nor
delivered. And the expression of “under the law” does in the first place,
and properly, signify being under the obligation of it unto obedience, and
consequentially only with a respect unto the curse. Gal.
iv. 21, “Tell me, ye that desire to be ὑπὸ
νόμον, — “under the law.” They did not desire to be under the curse
of the law, but only its obligation unto obedience; which, in all usage of
speech, is the first proper sense of that expression. Wherefore, the Lord
Christ being made under the law for us, he yielded perfect
obedience unto it for us; which is therefore imputed unto us. For that
what he did was done for us, depends solely on imputation.
(2.) As he was thus made under the law, so he did
actually fulfil it by his obedience unto it. So he testifies
concerning himself, — “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil,” Matt. v. 17. These words of our Lord
Jesus Christ, as recorded by the evangelist, the Jews continually object
against the Christians, as contradictory to what they pretend to be done by
him, — namely, that he has destroyed and taken away the law. And Maimonides, in his treatise, “De Fundamentis Legis,” has
many blasphemous reflections on the Lord Christ, as a false prophet in this
matter. But the reconciliation is plain and easy. There was a twofold law
given unto the church, — the moral and the ceremonial law. The first, as
we have proved, is of an eternal obligation; the other was given only for a
time. That the latter of these was to be taken away and abolished, the
apostle proves with invincible testimonies out of the Old Testament against
the obstinate Jews, in his Epistle unto the Hebrews. Yet was it not to be
taken away without its accomplishment, when it ceased of itself.
Wherefore, our Lord Christ did no otherwise dissolve or destroy that law
but by the accomplishment of it; and so he did put an end unto it, as is
fully declared, Eph. ii.
14–16. But the law κατ’ ἐξοχήν, that which obliges all men unto obedience unto God
always, he came not καταλύσαι, to destroy, — that is
ἀθετῆσαι, to abolish it, as an ἀθέτησις is ascribed unto the Mosaical law, Heb.
ix. 26 (in the same sense is the word used, Matt. xxiv. 2;
xxvi. 61; xxvii. 40; Mark xiii. 2; xiv.
58; xv. 29; Luke xxi. 6;
Acts v. 38, 39; vi. 14;
Rom. xiv. 20; 2 Cor. v.
1; Gal. ii. 18, mostly with an accusative
case, of the things spoken of), or καταργῆσαι, which
the apostle denies to be done by Christ, and faith in him. Rom.
iii. 31, Νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως;
Μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ νόμον ἱστῶμεν· — “Do we then make void the law
through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Νόμον ἱστάναι is to confirm its obligation unto obedience;
which is done by faith only, with respect unto the moral law; the other
being evacuated as unto any power of obliging unto obedience. This,
therefore, is the law which our Lord Christ affirms that he came “not to
destroy;” so he expressly declares in his ensuing discourse, showing both
its power of obliging us always unto obedience, and giving an exposition of
it. This law the Lord Christ came πληρῶσαι. Πληρῶσαι τὸν νόμον, in the Scripture, is the same with
ἐμπλῆσαι τὸν νόμον in other writers; that is, to
yield full, perfect obedience unto the commands of the law, whereby they
are absolutely fulfilled. Πληρῶσαι νόμον is not to
make the law perfect; for it was always νόμος
τέλειος, — a “perfect law,” James i. 25;
but to yield perfect obedience unto it: the same that our Saviour calls
πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην, Matt. iii.
15, “to fulfil all righteousness;” that is, by obedience unto
all God’s commands and institutions, as is evident in the place. So the
apostle uses the same expression, Rom. xiii. 8,
“He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.”
2. It is a vain exception, that Christ fulfilled the law
by his doctrine, in the exposition of it. The opposition between
the words πληρῶσαι and καταλύσαι, — “to fulfil” and “to destroy,” — will admit of
no such sense; and our Saviour himself expounds this “fulfilling of the
law,” by doing the commands of it, Matt. v. 19.
Wherefore, the Lord Christ as our mediator and surety fulfilling the law,
by yielding perfect obedience thereunto, he did it for us; and to us it is
imputed.
This is plainly affirmed by the apostle, Rom. v. 18, 19, “Therefore, as by the
offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the
righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of
life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners; so by the
obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” The full plea from, and
vindication of, this testimony, I refer unto its proper place in the
testimonies given unto the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto
our justification in general. Here I shall only observe, that the apostle
expressly and in terms affirms that “by the obedience of Christ we are made
righteous,” or justified; which we cannot be but by the imputation of it
unto us. I have met with nothing that had the appearance of any sobriety
for the eluding of this express testimony, but only that by the obedience
of Christ his death and sufferings are intended, wherein he was obedient
unto God; as the apostle says, he was “obedient unto death, even the death
of the cross,” Phil. ii. 8. But yet there is herein no
colour of probability. For, — (1.) It is acknowledged that there was such
a near conjunction and alliance between the obedience of Christ and his
sufferings, that though they may be distinguished, yet can they not be
separated. He suffered in the whole course of his obedience, from the womb
to the cross; and he obeyed in all his sufferings unto the last moment
wherein he expired. But yet are they really things distinct, as we have
proved; and they were so in him who “learned obedience by the things that
he suffered,” Heb. v. 8. (2.) In this place, [Rom. v.]
ὑπακοή, verse 19, and
δικαίωμα, verse 18, are
the same, — obedience and righteousness. “By the righteousness of one,”
and “by the obedience of one,” are the same. But suffering, as suffering,
is not δικαίωμα, is not righteousness; for if it
were, then every one that suffers what is due to him should be righteous,
and so be justified, even the devil himself. (3.) The righteousness and
obedience here intended are opposed τῷ παραπτώματι,
— to the offence: “By the offence of one.” But the offence
intended was an actual transgression of the law; so is παράπτωμα, a fall from, or a fall in, the course of
obedience. Wherefore the δικαίωμα, or
righteousness, must be an actual obedience unto the commands of the law, or
the force of the apostle’s reasoning and antithesis cannot be understood.
(4.) Particularly, it is such an obedience as is opposed unto the
disobedience of Adam, — “one man’s disobedience,” “one man’s obedience;” —
but the disobedience of Adam was an actual transgression of the law: and
therefore the obedience of Christ here intended was his active obedience
unto the law; — which is that we plead for. And I shall not at present
farther pursue the argument, because the force of it, in the confirmation
of the truth contended for, will be included in those that follow.
Chapter XIII. The nature of justification proved from the difference
of the covenants
The difference between the two covenants stated — Arguments from
thence
That which we
plead in the third place unto our purpose is, the difference between the
two covenants. And herein it may be observed, —
1. That by the two covenants I understand those which were
absolutely given unto the whole church, and were all to bring it εἰς τελειότητα, — unto a complete and perfect state; that
is, the covenant of works, or the law of our creation as it was given unto
us, with promises and threatenings, or rewards and punishments, annexed
unto it; and the covenant of grace, revealed and proposed in the first
promise. As unto the covenant of Sinai, and the new testament as actually
confirmed in the death of Christ, with all the spiritual privileges thence
emerging, and the differences between them, they belong not unto our
present argument.
2. The whole entire nature of the covenant of works
consisted in this, — that upon our personal obedience, according unto
the law and rule of it, we should be accepted with God, and rewarded with
him. Herein the essence of it did consist; and whatever covenant
proceeds on these terms, or has the nature of them in it, however it may be
varied with additions or alterations, is the same covenant still, and not
another. As in the renovation of the promise wherein the essence of the
covenant of grace was contained, God did ofttimes make other additions unto
it (as unto Abraham and David), yet was it still the same covenant for the
substance of it, and not another; so whatever variations may
be made in, or additions unto, the dispensation of the first covenant, so
long as this rule is retained, “Do this, and live,” it is still the same
covenant for the substance and essence of it.
3. Hence two things belonged unto this covenant:— First,
That all things were transacted immediately between God and man.
There was no mediator in it, no one to undertake any thing, either on the
part of God or man, between them; for the whole depending on every one’s
personal obedience, there was no place for a mediator. Secondly, That
nothing but perfect, sinless obedience would be accepted with God, or
preserve the covenant in its primitive state and condition. There was
nothing in it as to pardon of sin, no provision for any defect in personal
obedience.
4. Wherefore, this covenant being once established between
God and man, there could be no new covenant made, unless the essential
form of it were of another nature, — namely, that our own personal
obedience be not the rule and cause of our acceptation and
justification before God; for whilst this is so, as was before observed,
the covenant is still the same, however the dispensation of it may be
reformed or reduced to suit unto our present state and condition. What
grace soever might be introduced into it, that could not be so which
excluded all works from being the cause of our justification. But if a new
covenant be made, such grace must be provided as is absolutely inconsistent
with any works of ours, as unto the first ends of the covenant; as the
apostle declares, Rom. xi. 6.
5. Wherefore, the covenant of grace, supposing it a new,
real, absolute covenant, and not a reformation of the dispensation of the
old, or a reduction of it unto the use of our present condition (as some
imagine it to be), must differ, in the essence, substance, and nature of
it, from that first covenant of works. And this it cannot do if we are to
be justified before God on our personal obedience; wherein the essence of
the first covenant consisted. If, then, the righteousness wherewith we are
justified before God be our own, our own personal righteousness, we are yet
under the first covenant, and no other.
6. But things in the new covenant are indeed quite
otherwise; for, — First, It is of grace, which wholly excludes
works; that is, so of grace, as that our own works are not the means of
justification before God; as in the places before alleged. Secondly, It
has a mediator and surety; which is built alone on this supposition,
that what we cannot do in ourselves which was originally required of us,
and what the law of the first covenant cannot enable us to perform, that
should be performed for us by our mediator and surety. And if this be not
included in the very first notion of a mediator and surety, yet it is in
that of a mediator or surety that does voluntarily interpose himself, upon an open acknowledgment that those for whom he undertakes were
utterly insufficient to perform what was required of them; — on which
supposition all the truth of the Scripture does depend. It is one of the
very first notions of Christian religion, that the Lord Christ was given to
us, born to us; that he came as a mediator, to do for us what we could not
do for ourselves, and not merely to suffer what we had deserved. And here,
instead of our own righteousness, we have the “righteousness of God;”
instead of being righteous in ourselves before God, he is “The Lord our Righteousness.” And
nothing but a righteousness of another kind and nature, unto justification
before God, could constitute another covenant. Wherefore, the
righteousness whereby we are justified is the righteousness of Christ
imputed unto us, or we are still under the law, under the covenant of
works.
It will be said that our personal obedience is by
none asserted to be the righteousness wherewith we are justified before
God, in the same manner as it was under the covenant of works; but the
argument speaks not as unto the manner or way whereby it is so, but to the
thing itself. If it be so in any way or manner, under what qualifications
soever, we are under that covenant still. If it be of works any way, it is
not of grace at all. But it is added, that the differences are such as are
sufficient to constitute covenants effectually distinct: as, — 1. “The
perfect, sinless obedience was required in the first covenant; but in the
new, that which is imperfect, and accompanied with many sins and failings,
is accepted.” Ans. This is “gratis dictum,”
and begs the question. No righteousness unto justification before God is
or can be accepted but what is perfect. 2. “Grace is the original fountain
and cause of all our acceptation before God in the new covenant.”
Ans. It was so also in the old. The creation of man in original
righteousness was an effect of divine grace, benignity, and goodness; and
the reward of eternal life in the enjoyment of God was of mere sovereign
grace: yet what was then of works was not of grace; — no more is it at
present. 3. “There would then have been merit of works, which is now
excluded.” Ans. Such a merit as arises from an equality and
proportion between works and reward, by the rule of commutative justice,
would not have been in the works of the first covenant; and in no other
sense is it now rejected by them that oppose the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ. 4. “All is now resolved into the merit of Christ,
upon the account whereof alone our own personal righteousness is accepted
before God unto our justification.” Ans. The question is not, on
what account, nor for what reason, it is so accepted? but, whether it be
or no? — seeing its so being is effectually constitutive of a covenant of
works.
Chapter XIV. The exclusion of all sorts of works from an interest in
justification — What is intended by “the law,” and the “works” of it, in
the epistles of Paul
All works whatever are expressly excluded from any interest in
our justification before God — What intended by the works of the law — Not
those of the ceremonial law only — Not perfect works only, as required by
the law of our creation — Not the outward works of the law, performed
without a principle of faith — Not works of the Jewish law — Not works with
a conceit of merit — Not works only wrought before believing, in the
strength of our own wills — Works excluded absolutely from our
justification, without respect unto a distinction of a first and second
justification — The true sense of the law in the apostolical assertion that
none are justified by the works thereof — What the Jews understood by the
law — Distribution of the law under the Old Testament — The whole law a
perfect rule of all inherent moral or spiritual obedience — What are the
works of the law, declared from the Scripture, and the argument thereby
confirmed — The nature of justifying faith farther declared
We shall take
our fourth argument from the express exclusion of all works, of what
sort soever, from our justification before God. For this alone is that
which we plead, — namely, that no acts or works of our own are the causes
or conditions of our justification; but that the whole of it is resolved
into the free grace of God, through Jesus Christ, as the mediator and
surety of the covenant. To this purpose the Scripture speaks expressly.
Rom. iii. 28, “Therefore we conclude that
a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law.” Rom. iv.
5, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Rom.
xi. 6, “If it be of grace, then is it no more of works.”
Gal. ii. 16, “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: for by the works of the law
shall no flesh be justified.” Eph. ii. 8,
9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith … not of works, lest
any man should boast.” Tit. iii. 5,
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us.”
These and the like testimonies are express, and in positive
terms assert all that we contend for. And I am persuaded that no
unprejudiced person, whose mind is not prepossessed with notions and
distinctions whereof not the least tittle is offered unto them from the
texts mentioned, nor elsewhere, can but judge that the law, in every sense
of it, and all sorts of works whatever, that at any time, or by any means,
sinners or believers do or can perform, are, not in this or that sense, but
every way and in all senses, excluded from our justification before God.
And if it be so, it is the righteousness of Christ alone that we must
betake ourselves unto, or this matter must cease for ever. And this
inference the apostle himself makes from one of the testimonies before
mentioned, — namely, that of Gal. ii.
19–21; for he adds upon it, “I through the law am dead to the
law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless
I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live
in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave
himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness
come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”
Our adversaries are extremely divided amongst themselves
and can come unto no consistency, as to the sense and meaning
of the apostle in these assertions; for what is proper and obvious unto the
understanding of all men, especially from the opposition that is made
between the law and works on the one hand, and faith, grace, and Christ on
the other (which are opposed as inconsistent in this matter of our
justification), they will not allow; nor can do so without the ruin of the
opinions they plead for. Wherefore, their various conjectures shall be
examined, as well to show their inconsistency among themselves by whom the
truth is opposed, as to confirm our present argument:—
1. Some say it is the ceremonial law alone, and the
works of it, that are intended; or the law as given unto Moses on mount
Sinai, containing that entire covenant that was afterwards to be abolished.
This was of old the common opinion of the schoolmen, though it be now
generally exploded. And the opinion lately contended for, that the apostle
Paul excludes justification from the works of the law, or excludes works
absolutely perfect, and sinless obedience, not because no man can yield
that perfect obedience which the law requires, but because the law
itself which he intends could not justify any by the observation of
it, is nothing but the renovation of this obsolete notion, that it is
the ceremonial law only, or, which upon the matter is all one, the law
given on mount Sinai, abstracted from the grace of the promise, which could
not justify any in the observation of its rites and commands. But of all
other conjectures, this is the most impertinent and contradictory unto the
design of the apostle; and is therefore rejected by Bellarmine himself. For the apostle treats of
that law whose doers shall be justified, Rom. ii. 13; and
the authors of this opinion would have it to be a law that can justify none
of them that do it. That law he intends whereby is the knowledge of sin;
for he gives this reason why we cannot be justified by the works of it, —
namely, because “by it is the knowledge of sin,” chap. iii.
20: and by what law is the knowledge of sin he expressly
declares, where he affirms that he “had not known lust, except the law had
said, Thou shalt not covet,” chap. vii. 7;
which is the moral law alone. That law he designs which stops the mouth of
all sinners, and makes all the world obnoxious unto the judgment of God,
chap. iii. 19; which none can do but the
law written in the heart of men at their creation, chap.
ii. 14, 15; — that law, which “if a man do the works of it, he
shall live in them,” Gal. iii. 12,
Rom. x. 5; and which brings all men under
the curse for sin, Gal. iii. 10; —
the law that is established by faith, and not made void, Rom.
iii. 31; which the ceremonial law is not, nor the covenant of
Sinai; — the law whose righteousness is “to be fulfilled in us,” Rom.
viii. 4. And the instance which the apostle gives of
justification without the works of that law which he intends,
— namely, that of Abraham, — was some hundreds of years before the giving
of the ceremonial law. Neither yet do I say that the ceremonial law and
the works of it are excluded from the intention of the apostle: for when
that law was given, the observation of it was an especial instance of that
obedience we owed unto the first table of the decalogue; and the exclusion
of the works thereof from our justification, inasmuch as the performance of
them was part of that moral obedience which we owed unto God, is exclusive
of all other works also. But that it is alone here intended, or that law
which could never justify any by its observation, although it was observed
in due manner, is a fond imagination, and contradictory to the express
assertion of the apostle. And, whatever is pretended to the contrary, this
opinion is expressly rejected by Augustine,
Lib. de Spiritu et Litera,
cap. viii. “Ne quisquam putaret hic apostolum ea
lege dixisse neminem justificari, quæ in sacramentis veteribus multa
continet figurata præcepta, unde etiam est ista circumcisio carnis,
continuo subjunxit, quam dixerit legem et ait; ‘per legem cognitio
peccati.’ ” And to the same purpose he speaks again, Epist. cc., “Non solum
illa opera legis quæ sunt in veteribus sacramentis, et nunc revelato
testamento novo non observantur a Christianis, sicut est circumcisio
præputii, et sabbati carnalis vacatio; et a quibusdam escis abstinentia, et
pecorum in sacrificiis immolatio, et neomenia et azymum, et cætera
hujusmodi, verum etiam illud quod in lege dictum est, ‘Non concupisces,’
quod utique et Christianis nullus ambigit esse dicendum, non justificat
hominem, nisi per fidem Jesu Christi, et gratiam Dei per Jesum Christum
Dominum nostrum.”
2. Some say the apostle only excludes the perfect
works required by the law of innocence; which is a sense diametrically
opposite unto that foregoing. But this best pleases the Socinians. “Paulus agit de operibus et perfectis in hoc dicto, ideo enim
adjecit, sine operibus legis, ut indicaretur loqui eum de operibus a lege
requisitis, et sic de perpetua et perfectissima divinorum præceptorum
obedientia sicut lex requirit. Cum autem talem obedientiam qualem lex
requirit nemo præstare possit, ideo subjecit apostolus nos justificari
fide, id est, fiduciâ et obedientiâ ea quantum quisque præstare potest, et
quotidie quam maximum præstare studet, et connititur. Sine operibus legis,
id est, etsi interim perfecte totam legem sicut debebat complere
nequit;” says Socinus himself.
But, — (1.) We have herein the whole granted of what we plead for, —
namely, that it is the moral, indispensable law of God that is intended by
the apostle; and that by the works of it no man can be justified, yea, that
all the works of it are excluded from our justification: for it is, says
the apostle, “without works.” The works of this law being performed
according unto it, will justify them that perform them, as he affirms, chap. ii. 13; and the Scripture elsewhere
witnesses that “he that does them shall live in them.” But because this
can never be done by any sinner, therefore all consideration of them is
excluded from our justification. (2.) It is a wild imagination that the
dispute of the apostle is to this purpose, — that the perfect works of the
law will not justify us, but imperfect works, which answer not the law,
will do so. (3.) Granting the law intended to be the moral law of God, the
law of our creation, there is no such distinction intimated in the least by
the apostle, that we are not justified by the perfect works of it which we
cannot perform, but by some imperfect works that we can perform, and labour
so to do. Nothing is more foreign unto the design and express words of his
whole discourse. (4.) The evasion which they betake themselves unto, that
the apostle opposes justification by faith unto that of works, which he
excludes, is altogether vain in this sense; for they would have this faith
to be our obedience unto the divine commands, in that imperfect manner
which we can attain unto. For when the apostle has excluded all such
justification by the law and the works thereof, he does not advance in
opposition unto them, and in their room, our own faith and obedience; but
adds, “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is
in Jesus Christ; whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith
in his blood.”
3. Some of late among ourselves, — and they want not them
who have gone before them, — affirm that the works which the apostle
excludes from justification are only the outward works of the law,
performed without an inward principle of faith, fear, or the love of
God. Servile works, attended unto from a respect unto the threatening
of the law, are those which will not justify us. But this opinion is not
only false, but impious. For, — (1.) The apostle excludes the works of
Abraham, which were not such outward, servile works as are imagined.
(2.) The works excluded are those which the law requires; and the
law is holy, just, and good. But a law that requires only outward works,
without internal love to God, is neither holy, just, nor good. (3.) The law
condemns all such works as are separated from the internal principle of
faith, fear, and love; for it requires that in all our obedience we should
love the Lord our God with all our hearts. And the apostle says, that we
are not justified by the works which the law condemns, but not by
them which the law commands. (4.) It is highly reflexive on the
honour of God, that he unto whose divine prerogative it belongs to know the
hearts of men alone, and therefore regards them alone in all the duties of
their obedience, should give a law requiring outward, servile works only;
for if the law intended require more, then are not those the only works
excluded.
4. Some say, in general, it is the Jewish
law that is intended; and think thereby to cast off the whole
difficulty. But if, by the Jewish law, they intend only the ceremonial
law, or the law absolutely as given by Moses, we have already showed the
vanity of that pretence; but if they mean thereby the whole law or rule of
obedience given unto the church of Israel under the Old Testament, they
express much of the truth, — it may be more than they designed.
5. Some say that it is works with a conceit of
merit, that makes the reward to be of debt, and not of grace, that are
excluded by the apostle. But no such distinction appears in the text or
context; for, — (1,) The apostle excludes all works of the law, —
that is, that the law requires of us in a way of obedience, — be they of
what sort they will. (2.) The law requires no works with a conceit
of merit. (3.) Works of the law originally included no merit, as
that which arises from the proportion of one thing unto another in the
balance of justice; and in that sense only is it rejected by those who
plead for an interest of works in justification. (4.) The merit which the
apostle excludes is that which is inseparable from works, so that it cannot
be excluded unless the works themselves be so. And unto their merit
two things concur:— First, A comparative boasting; that is, not
absolutely in the sight of God, which follows the “meritum
ex condigno” which some poor sinful mortals have fancied in their
works, but that which gives one man a preference above another in the
obtaining of justification; which grace will not allow, chap.
iv. 2. Secondly, That the reward be not absolutely of
grace, but that respect he had therein unto works; which makes it so
far to be of debt, not out of an internal condignity, which would not have
been under the law of creation, but out of some congruity with respect unto
the promise of God, verse 4. In these two regards merit is
inseparable from works; and the Holy Ghost, utterly to exclude it, excludes
all works from which it is inseparable, as it is from all. Wherefore, (5.)
The apostle speaks not one word about the exclusion of the merit of works
only; but he excludes all works whatever, and that by this argument, that
the admission of them would necessarily introduce merit in the sense
described; which is inconsistent with grace. And although some think that
they are injuriously dealt withal, when they are charged with maintaining
of merit in their asserting the influence of our works into our
justification; yet those of them who best understand themselves and the
controversy itself, are not so averse from some kind of merit, as knowing
that it is inseparable from works.
6. Some contend that the apostle excludes only works
wrought before believing, in the strength of our own wills and
natural abilities, without the aid of grace. Works, they suppose, required
by the law are such as we perform by the direction and command
of the law alone. But the law of faith requires works in the strength of
the supplies of grace; which are not excluded. This is that which the most
learned and judicious of the church of Rome do now generally betake
themselves unto. Those who amongst us plead for works in our
justification, as they use many distinctions to explain their minds, and
free their opinion from a coincidence with that of the Papists; so, as yet,
they deny the name of merit, and the thing itself in the sense of the
church of Rome, as it is renounced likewise by all the Socinians:
wherefore, they make use of the preceding evasion, that merit is excluded
by the apostle, and works only as they are meritorious; although the
apostle’s plain argument be, that they are excluded because such a merit as
is inconsistent with grace is inseparable from their admission.
But the Roman church cannot so part with merit.
Wherefore, they are to find out a sort of works to be excluded only, which
they are content to part withal as not meritorious. Such are those before
described, wrought, as they say, before believing, and without the aids of
grace; and such, they say, are all the works of the law. And this they do
with some more modesty and sobriety than those amongst us who would have
only external works and observances to be intended. For they grant that
sundry internal works, as those of attrition, sorrow for sin, and the like,
are of this nature. But the works of the law it is, they say, that are
excluded. But this whole plea, and all the sophisms wherewith it is
countenanced, have been so discussed and defeated by Protestant writers of
all sorts against Bellarmine and others, as
that it is needless to repeat the same things, or to add any thing unto
them. And it will be sufficiently evinced of falsehood in what we shall
immediately prove concerning the law and works intended by the apostle.
However, the heads of the demonstration of the truth to the contrary may be
touched on. And, — (1.) The apostle excludes all works, without
distinction or exception. And we are not to distinguish where the law does
not distinguish before us. (2.) All the works of the law are
excluded: therefore all works wrought after believing by the aids of grace
are excluded; for they are all required by the law. See Ps. cxix. 35; Rom. vii.
22. Works not required by the law are no less an abomination to
God than sins against the law. (3.) The works of believers after
conversion, performed by the aids of grace, are expressly excluded by the
apostle. So are those of Abraham, after he had been a believer many years,
and abounded in them unto the praise of God. So he excludes his own works
after his conversion, Gal. ii. 16;
1 Cor. iv. 4; Phil. iii.
9; and so he excludes the works of all other believers,
Eph. ii. 9, 10. (4.) All works are
excluded that might give countenance unto boasting,
Rom. iv. 2; iii.
27; Eph. ii. 9; 1 Cor.
i. 29–31. But this is done more by the good works of
regenerate persons than by any works of unbelievers. (5.) The law
required faith and love in all our works; and therefore if all the
works of the law be excluded, the best works of believers are so. (6.)
All works are excluded which are opposed unto grace working freely
in our justification; but this all works whatever are, Rom.
xi. 6. (7.) In the Epistle unto the Galatians, the apostle does
exclude from our justification all those works which the false teachers
pressed as necessary thereunto: but they urged the necessity of the works
of believers, and those which were by grace already converted unto God; for
those upon whom they pressed them unto this end were already actually so.
(8.) They are good works that the apostle excludes from our justification;
for there can be no pretence of justification by those works that are not
good, or which have not all things essentially requisite to make them so:
but such are all the works of unbelievers performed without the aids of
grace, — they are not good, nor as such accepted with God, but want what is
essentially requisite unto the constitution of good works; and it is
ridiculous to think that the apostle disputes about the exclusion of such
works from our justification as no man in his wits would think to have any
place therein. (9.) The reason why no man can be justified by the law, is
because no man can yield perfect obedience thereunto; for by perfect
obedience the law will justify, Rom. ii. 13; x. 5.
Wherefore, all works are excluded that are not absolutely perfect; but this
the best works of believers are not, as we have proved before. (10.) If
there be a reserve for the works of believers, performed by the aid of
grace, in our justification, it is, that either they may be
concauses thereof, or be indispensably subservient unto those things
that are so. That they are concauses of our justification is not
absolutely affirmed; neither can it be said that they are necessarily
subservient unto them that are so. They are not so unto the efficient
cause thereof, which is the grace and favour of God alone, Rom. iii. 24, 25; iv.
16; Eph. ii. 8,
9; Rev. i. 5; — nor are they so unto the
meritorious cause of it, which is Christ alone, Acts xiii. 38; xxvi.
18; 1 Cor. i. 30; 2
Cor. v. 18–21; — nor unto the material cause of it, which is the
righteousness of Christ alone, Rom. x. 3,
4, — nor are they so unto faith, in what place soever it be
stated; for not only is faith only mentioned, wherever we are taught the
way how the righteousness of Christ is derived and communicated unto us,
without any intimation of the conjunction of works with it, but also, as
unto our justification, they are placed in opposition and contradiction one
to the other, Rom. iii. 28. And sundry other things
are pleadable unto the same purpose.
7. Some affirm that the apostle excludes all works from
our first justification, but not from the
second; or, as some speak, the continuation of our justification. But we
have before examined these distinctions, and found them groundless.
Evident it is, therefore, that men put themselves into an
uncertain, slippery station, where they know not what to fix upon, nor
wherein to find any such appearance of truth as to give them countenance in
denying the plain and frequently-repeated assertion of the apostle.
Wherefore, in the confirmation of the present argument, I
shall more particularly inquire into what it is that the apostle intends by
the law and works whereof he treats. For as unto our justification,
whatever they are, they are absolutely and universally opposed unto grace,
faith, the righteousness of God, and the blood of Christ, as those which
are altogether inconsistent with them. Neither can this be denied or
questioned by any, seeing it is the plain design of the apostle to evince
that inconsistency.
1. Wherefore, in general, it is evident that the apostle,
by the law and the works thereof, intended what the Jews with whom he
had to do did understand by the law, and their own whole obedience
thereunto. I suppose this cannot be denied; for without a concession
of it there is nothing proved against them, nor are they in any thing
instructed by him. Suppose those terms equivocal, and to be taken in one
sense by him, and by them in another, and nothing can be rightly concluded
from what is spoken of them. Wherefore, the meaning of these terms, “the
law,” and “works,” the apostle takes for granted as very well known, and
agreed on between himself and those with whom he had to do.
2. The Jews by “the law” intended what the Scriptures of
the Old Testament meant by that expression; for they are nowhere blamed for
any false notion concerning the law, or that they esteemed any thing to be
so but what was so indeed, and what was so called in the Scripture. Their
present oral law was not yet hatched, though the Pharisees were brooding of
it.
3. “The law” under the Old Testament does immediately
refer unto the law given at mount Sinai, nor is there any distinct mention
of it before. This is commonly called “the law” absolutely; but most
frequently “the law of God,” “the law of the Lord;” and sometimes “the law
of Moses,” because of his especial ministry in the giving of it: “Remember
ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him,” Mal iv.
4. And this the Jews intended by “the law.”
4. Of the law so given at Horeb, there was a distribution
into three parts. (1.) There was עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים, — Deut iv. 13,
“The ten words;” so also chap. x. 4; —
that is, the ten commandments written upon two tables of stone. This part
of the law was first given, was the foundation of the whole, and contained
that perfect obedience which was required of mankind by law of
creation; and was now received into the church with the highest
attestations of its indispensable obligation unto obedience or punishment.
(2.) חֻקֶּים, which the LXX. render by δικαιώματα, — that is, “jura,” “rites,” or “statutes;” but
the Latin from thence, “justificationes,”
(“justifications,”) which has given great occasion of mistake in many, both
ancient and modern divines. We call it “the ceremonial law.” The apostle
terms this part of the law distinctly, Νόμος ἐντολῶν ἐν
δόγμασι, Eph. ii. 15, “The law of commandments
contained in ordinances;” that is, consisting in a multitude of arbitrary
commands. (3.) מִשְׁפָּתִים, which we commonly call
“the judicial law.” This distribution of the law shuts up the Old
Testament, as it is used in places innumerable before; only the עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים, — “the ten words,” — is expressed by
the general word תּוֹרָה, — “the law,” Mal iv.
4.
5. These being the parts of the law given unto the church
in Sinai, the whole of it is constantly called תּוֹרָה, — “the law,” — that is, the instruction (as the
word signifies) that God gave unto the church, in the rule of obedience
which he prescribed unto it. This is the constant signification of that
word in Scripture, where it is taken absolutely; and thereon does not
signify precisely the law as given at Horeb, but comprehends with it all
the revelations that God made under the Old Testament, in the explanation
and confirmation of that law, in rules, motives, directions, and
enforcements of obedience.
6. Wherefore; תּוֹרָה, — “the law,”
— is the whole rule of obedience which God gave to the church under
the Old Testament, with all the efficacy wherewith it was accompanied by
the ordinances of God, including in it all the promises and threatenings
that might be motives unto the obedience that God did require; — this is
that which God and the church called “the law” under the Old Testament, and
which the Jews so called with whom our apostle had to do. That which we
call “the moral law” was the foundation of the whole; and those
parts of it which we call “the judicial and ceremonial law,”
were peculiar instances of the obedience which the church under the Old
Testament was obliged unto, in the especial polity and divine worship which
at that season were necessary unto it. And two things does the Scripture
testify unto concerning this law:—
(1.) That it was a perfect, complete rule of all that
internal spiritual and moral obedience which God required of the
church: “The law of the Lord
is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the
simple,” Ps. xix. 7. And it so was of all the
external duties of obedience, for matter and manner, time and season; that
in both the church might walk “acceptably before God,” Isa. viii. 20. And although the original
duties of the moral part of the law are often preferred before the
particular instances of obedience in duties of outward
worship, yet the whole law was always the whole rule of all the obedience,
internal and external, that God required of the church, and which he
accepted in them that did believe.
(2.) That this law, this rule of obedience, as it was
ordained of God to be the instrument of his rule of the church, and by
virtue of the covenant made with Abraham, unto whose administration it was
adapted, and which its introduction on Sinai did not disannul, was
accompanied with a power and efficacy enabling unto obedience. The
law itself, as merely preceptive and commanding, administered no power or
ability unto those that were under its authority to yield obedience unto
it; no more do the mere commands of the gospel. Moreover, under the Old
Testament it enforced obedience on the minds and consciences of men by the
manner of its first delivery, and the severity of its sanction, so as to
fill them with fear and bondage; and was, besides, accompanied with such
burdensome rules of outward worship, as made it a heavy yoke unto the
people. But as it was God’s doctrine, teaching, instruction in all
acceptable obedience unto himself, and was adapted unto the covenant of
Abraham, it was accompanied with an administration of effectual
grace, procuring and promoting obedience in the church. And the law is
not to be looked on as separated from those aids unto obedience which God
administered under the Old Testament; whose effects are therefore ascribed
unto the law itself See Ps. i., xix.,
cxix.
This being “the law” in the sense of the apostle, and those
with whom he had to do, our next inquiry is, What was their sense of
“works,” or “works of the law?” And I say it is plain that
they intended hereby the universal sincere obedience of the church unto
God, according unto this law. And other works the law of God acknowledges
not; yea, it expressly condemns all works that have any such defect in them
as to render them unacceptable unto God. Hence, notwithstanding all the
commands that God had positively given for the strict observance of
sacrifices, offerings, and the like; yet, when the people performed them
without faith and love, he expressly affirms that he “commanded them not,”
— that is, to be observed in such a manner. In these works, therefore,
consisted their personal righteousness, as they walked “in all the
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless,” Luke i. 6;
wherein they did “instantly serve God day and night,” Acts xxvi. 7. And this they esteemed to
be their own righteousness, their righteousness according unto the law; as
really it was, Phil. iii. 6,
9. For although the Pharisees had greatly corrupted the
doctrine of the law, and put false glosses on sundry precepts of it; yet,
that the church in those days did, by “the works of the law,” understand
either ceremonial duties only, or external works, or works
with a conceit of merit, or works wrought without an internal principle of
faith and love to God, or any thing but their own personal sincere
obedience unto the whole doctrine and rule of the law, there is nothing
that should give the least colour of imagination. For, —
1. All this is perfectly stated in the suffrage which the
scribe gave unto the declaration of the sense and design of the law, with
the nature of the obedience which it does require, and was made at his
request by our blessed Saviour. Mark xii.
28–33, “And one of the scribes came, and having heard them
reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked
him, Which is the first commandment of all?” (or as it is, Matt. xxii. 36, “Which is the great
commandment in the law?”) “And Jesus answered him, The first of all the
commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our Gods is one Lord; and thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; this is the first
commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou
hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none but he: and to
love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all
the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself,
is more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices.” And this [is] so
expressly given by Moses as the sum of the law, — namely, faith and love,
as the principle of all our obedience, Deut. vi. 4,
5, that it is marvellous what should induce any learned, sober
person to fix upon any other sense of it; as that it respected
ceremonial or external works only, or such as may be wrought without
faith or love. This is the law concerning which the apostle disputes, and
this the obedience wherein the works of it do consist; and more than this,
in the way of obedience, God never did nor will require of any in this
world. Wherefore, the law and the works thereof which the apostle excludes
from justification, is that whereby we are obliged to believe in God as one
God, the only God, and love him with all our hearts and souls, and our
neighbours as ourselves; and what works there are, or can be, in any
persons, regenerate or not regenerate, to be performed in the strength of
grace or without it, that are acceptable unto God, that may not be reduced
unto these heads, I know not.
2. The apostle himself declares that it is the law and the
works of it, in the sense we have expressed, that he excludes from our
justification. For the law he speaks of is “the law of righteousness,”
Rom. ix. 31, — the law whose
righteousness is to be “fulfilled in us,” that we may be accepted with God,
and freed from condemnation, chap. viii. 4; —
that in obedience whereunto our own personal righteousness does consist, whether that we judge so before conversion,
Rom. x. 3; or what is so after it,
Phil. iii. 9; — the law which if a man
observe, “he shall live,” and be justified before God, Rom.
ii. 13; Gal. iii. 12;
Rom. x. 5; — that law which is “holy,
just, and good,” which discovers and condemns all sin whatever, chap. vii. 7, 9.
From what has been discoursed, these two things are evident
in the confirmation of our present argument:— first, That the law intended
by the apostle, when he denies that by the works of the law any can be
justified, is the entire rule and guide of our obedience unto God, even as
unto the whole frame and spiritual constitution of our souls, with all the
acts of obedience or duties that he requires of us; and, secondly, That the
works of this law, which he so frequently and plainly excludes from our
justification, and therein opposes to the grace of God and the blood of
Christ, are all the duties of obedience, — internal, supernatural;
external, ritual, — however we are or may be enabled to perform them, that
God requires of us. And these things excluded, it is the righteousness of
Christ alone, imputed unto us, on the account whereof we are justified
before God.
The truth is, so far as I can discern, the real difference
that is at this day amongst us, about the doctrine of our justification
before God, is the same that was between the apostle and the
Jews, and no other. But controversies in religion make a great
appearance of being new, when they are only varied and made different by
the new terms and expressions that are introduced into the handling of
them. So has it fallen out in the controversy about nature and grace; for
as unto the true nature of it, it is the same in these days as it was
between the apostle Paul and the Pharisees; between Austin and Pelagius
afterwards. But it has now passed through so many forms and dresses of
words, as that it can scarce be known to be what it was. Many at this day
will condemn both Pelagius and the doctrine
that he taught, in the words wherein he taught it, and yet embrace and
approve of the things themselves which he intended. The introduction of
every change in philosophical learning gives an appearance of a change in
the controversies which are managed thereby; but take off the covering of
philosophical expressions, distinctions, metaphysical notions, and futilous
terms of art, which some of the ancient schoolmen and later disputants have
cast upon it, and the difference about grace and nature is amongst us all
the same that it was of old, and as it is allowed by the Socinians.
Thus the apostle, treating of our justification before God,
does it in those terms which are both expressive of the thing itself, and
were well understood by them with whom he had to do; such as the Holy
Spirit, in their revelation, had consecrated unto their proper use. Thus,
on the one hand, he expressly excludes the law, our own
works, our own righteousness, from any interest
therein; and in opposition unto, and as inconsistent with them, in the
matter of justification, he ascribes it wholly unto the righteousness of
God, righteousness imputed unto us, the obedience of Christ, Christ made
righteousness unto us, the blood of Christ as a propitiation, faith,
receiving Christ, and the atonement. There is no awakened conscience,
guided by the least beam of spiritual illumination, but in itself plainly
understands these things, and what is intended in them. But through the
admission of exotic learning, with philosophical terms and notions, into
the way of teaching spiritual things in religion, a new face and appearance
is put on the whole matter; and a composition made between those things
which the apostle directly opposes as contrary and inconsistent. Hence are
all our discourses about preparations, dispositions, conditions, merits
“de congruo et condigno,” with such a train of
distinctions, as that if some bounds be not fixed unto the inventing and
coining of them (which, being a facile work, grows on us every day), we
shall not ere long be able to look through them, so as to discover the
things intended, or rightly to understand one another; for as one said of
lies, so it may be said of arbitrary distinctions, they must be
continually new thatched over, or it will rain through. But the best way
is to cast off all these coverings, and we shall then quickly see that the
real difference about the justification of a sinner before God is the same,
and no other, as it was in the days of the apostle Paul between him and the
Jews. And all those things which men are pleased now to plead for, with
respect unto a causality in our justification before God, under the names
of preparations, conditions, dispositions, merit, with respect unto a first
or second justification, are as effectually excluded by the apostle as if
he had expressly named them every one; for in them all there is a
management, according unto our conceptions and the terms of the learning
passant in the present age, of the plea for our own personal
righteousness, which the Jews maintained against the apostle. And the true
understanding of what he intends by the law, the works and righteousness
thereof, would be sufficient to determine this controversy, but that men
are grown very skilful in the art of endless wrangling.
Chapter XV. Faith alone
Of faith alone
The truth
which we plead has two parts:— 1. That the righteousness of God imputed
to us, unto the justification of life, is the righteousness of Christ, by whose obedience we are made righteous.
2. That it is faith alone which on our part is required to interest
us in that righteousness, or whereby we comply with God’s grant and
communication of it, or receive it unto our use and benefit; for although
this faith is in itself the radical principle of all obedience, — and
whatever is not so, which cannot, which does not, on all occasions,
evidence, prove, show, or manifest itself by works, is not of the same kind
with it, — yet, as we are justified by it, its act and duty is such, or of
that nature, as that no other grace, duty, or work, can be associated with
it, or be of any consideration. And both these are evidently confirmed in
that description which is given us in the Scripture of the nature of faith
and believing unto the justification of life.
I know that many expressions used in the declaration of the
nature and work of faith herein are metaphorical, at least are generally
esteemed so to be; — but they are such as the Holy Ghost, in his infinite
wisdom, thought meet to make use of for the instruction and edification of
the church. And I cannot but say, that those who understand not how
effectually the light of knowledge is communicated unto the minds of them
that believe by them, and a sense of the things intended unto their
spiritual experience, seem not to have taken a due consideration of them.
Neither, whatever skill we pretend unto, do we know always what expressions
of spiritual things are metaphorical. Those oftentimes may seem so to be,
which are most proper. However, it is most safe for us to adhere unto the
expressions of the Holy Spirit, and not to embrace such senses of things as
are inconsistent with them, and opposite unto them. Wherefore, —
1. That faith whereby we are justified is most frequently
in the New Testament expressed by receiving. This notion of faith
has been before spoken unto, in our general inquiry into the use of it in
our justification. It shall not, therefore, be here much again insisted
on. Two things we may observe concerning it:— First, That it is so
expressed with respect unto the whole object of faith, or unto all that
does any way concur unto our justification; for we are said to receive
Christ himself: “As many as received him, to them gave he power to
become the sons of God,” John i. 12;
“As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord,” Col. ii. 6. In
opposition hereunto unbelief is expressed by not receiving of him,
John
i. 11; iii. 11; xii. 48; xiv. 17. And it is a receiving of
Christ as he is “The Lord our
Righteousness,” as of God he is made righteousness unto us. And as no
grace, no duty, can have any co-operation with faith herein, — this
reception of Christ not belonging unto their nature, nor comprised in their
exercise, — so it excludes any other righteousness from our justification
but that of Christ alone; for we are “justified by faith.”
Faith alone receives Christ; and what it receives is the cause of our
justification, whereon we become the sons of God. So we “receive the
atonement” made by the blood of Christ, Rom. v. 11; for
“God hath set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.”
And this receiving of the atonement includes the soul’s approbation of the
way of salvation by the blood of Christ, and the appropriation of the
atonement made thereby unto our own souls. For thereby also we receive the
forgiveness of sins: “That they may receive forgiveness of sins … by faith
that is in me,” Acts xxvi.
18. In receiving Christ we receive the atonement; and in the
atonement we receive the forgiveness of sins. But, moreover, the grace of
God, and righteousness itself, as the efficient and material cause of our
justification, are received also; even the “abundance of grace and the gift
of righteousness,” Rom. v. 17. So that faith, with respect
unto all the causes of justification, is expressed by “receiving;”
for it also receives the promise, the instrumental cause on the part of God
thereof, Acts ii. 41; Heb. ix. 15.
Secondly, That the nature of faith, and its acting with respect unto all
the causes of justification, consisting in receiving, that which is the
object of it must be offered, tendered, and given unto us, as that which is
not our own, but is made our own by that giving and receiving. This is
evident in the general nature of receiving. And herein, as was observed,
as no other grace or duty can concur with it, so the righteousness whereby
we are justified can be none of our own antecedent unto this reception, nor
at any time inherent in us. Hence we argue, that if the work of faith in
our justification be the receiving of what is freely granted, given,
communicated, and imputed unto us, — that is, of Christ, of the atonement,
of the gift of righteousness, of the forgiveness of sins, — then have
our other graces, our obedience, duties, works, no influence into our
justification, nor are any causes or conditions thereof; for they are
neither that which does receive nor that which is received, which alone
concur thereunto.
2. Faith is expressed by looking: “Look unto me,
and be ye saved,” Isa. xlv. 22;
“A man shall look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect unto the
Holy One of Israel,” chap. xvii. 7;
“They shall look upon me whom they have pierced,” Zech. xii.
10. See Ps. cxxiii. 2.
The nature hereof is expressed, John iii. 14,
15, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so
must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have eternal life.” For so was he to be lifted up on the
cross in his death, John viii. 28, chap. xii.
32. The story is recorded Numb. xxi. 8,
9. I suppose none doubt but that the stinging of the people by
fiery serpents, and the death that ensued thereon, were types
of the guilt of sin, and the sentence of the fiery law thereon; for these
things happened unto them in types, 1 Cor. x.
11. When any was so stung or bitten, if he betook himself unto
any other remedies, he died and perished. Only they that looked unto the
brazen serpent that was lifted up were healed, and lived; for this was the
ordinance of God, — this way of healing alone had he appointed. And their
healing was a type of the pardon of sin, with everlasting life. So by
their looking is the nature of faith expressed, as our Saviour plainly
expounds it in this place: “So must the Son of man be lifted up, that
whosoever believeth in him,” — that is, as the Israelites looked unto the
serpent in the wilderness, — [“should not perish.”] And although this
expression of the great mystery of the gospel by Christ himself has been by
some derided, or, as they call it, exposed, yet is it really as instructive
of the nature of faith, justification, and salvation by Christ, as any
passage in the Scripture. Now, if faith, whereby we are justified, and in
that exercise of it wherein we are so, be a looking unto Christ, under a
sense of the guilt of sin and our lost condition thereby, for all, for our
only help and relief, for deliverance, righteousness, and life, then is it
therein exclusive of all other graces and duties whatever; for by them we
neither look, nor are they the things which we look after. But so is the
nature and exercise of faith expressed by the Holy Ghost; and they who do
believe understand his mind. For whatever may be pretended of metaphor in
the expression, faith is that act of the soul whereby they who are
hopeless, helpless, and lost in themselves, do, in a way of
expectancy and trust, seek for all help and relief in Christ alone,
or there is not truth in it. And this also sufficiently evinces the nature
of our justification by Christ.
3. It is, in like manner, frequently expressed by
coming unto Christ: “Come unto me, all ye that labour,” Matt. xi. 28. See John
vi. 35, 37, 45, 65; vii. 37. To come unto Christ for life and
salvation, is to believe on him unto the justification of life; but no
other grace or duty is a coming unto Christ: and therefore have they no
place in justification. He who has been convinced of sin, who has been
wearied with the burden of it, who has really designed to fly from the
wrath to come, and has heard the voice of Christ in the gospel inviting him
to come unto him for help and relief, will tell you that this coming unto
Christ consists in a man’s going out of himself, in a complete renunciation
of all his own duties and righteousness, and betaking himself with all his
trust and confidence unto Christ alone, and his righteousness, for pardon
of sin, acceptation with God, and a right unto the heavenly inheritance.
It may be some will say this is not believing, but canting;
be it so: we refer the judgment of it to the church of God.
4. It is expressed by fleeing for
refuge: Heb. vi. 18, “Who have fled for refuge,
to lay hold on the hope set before us.” [See] Prov. xviii.
10. Hence some have defined faith to be “perfugium animæ,” the flight of the soul unto Christ for
deliverance from sin and misery. And much light is given unto the
understanding of the thing intended thereby. For herein it is supposed
that he who believes is antecedently thereunto convinced of his lost
condition, and that if he abide therein he must perish eternally; that he
has nothing of himself whereby he may be delivered from it; that he must
betake himself unto somewhat else for relief; that unto this end he
considers Christ as set before him, and proposed unto him in the promise of
the gospel; that he judges this to be a holy, a safe way, for his
deliverance and acceptance with God, as that which has the characters of
all divine excellencies upon it: hereon he flees unto it for refuge, that
is, with diligence and speed, that he perish not in his present condition;
he betakes himself unto it by placing his whole trust and affiance thereon.
And the whole nature of our justification by Christ is better declared
hereby, unto the supernatural sense and experience of believers, than by a
hundred philosophical disputations about it.
5. The terms and notions by which it is expressed under
the Old Testament are, leaning on God, Mic. iii.
11; or Christ, Cant. viii. 5; —
rolling or casting ourselves and our burden on the Lord,
Ps. xxii. 8, [margin,]
xxxvii. 5 — (the wisdom of the Holy Ghost in which expressions
has by some been profanely derided); — resting on God, or in him,
2 Chron. xiv. 11; Ps.
xxxvii. 7; — cleaving unto the Lord, Deut.
iv. 4; Acts xi. 23;
as also by trusting, hoping, and waiting, in places
innumerable. And it may be observed, that those who acted faith as it is
thus expressed, do everywhere declare themselves to be lost, hopeless,
helpless, desolate, poor, orphans; whereon they place all their hope and
expectation on God alone.
All that I would infer from these things is, that the faith
whereby we believe unto the justification of life, or which is required of
us in a way of duty that we may be justified, is such an act of the whole
soul whereby convinced sinners do wholly go out of themselves to rest upon
God in Christ for mercy, pardon, life, righteousness, and salvation, with
an acquiescence of heart therein; which is the whole of the truth pleaded
for.
Chapter XVI. The truth pleaded farther confirmed by testimonies of
Scripture. — Jer. xxiii. 6
Testimonies of Scripture confirming the doctrine of justification
by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ — Jer. xxiii.
6, explained and vindicated
That which we
now proceed unto, is the consideration of those express testimonies
of Scripture which are given unto the truth pleaded for, and especially of
those places where the doctrine of the justification of sinners is
expressly and designedly handled. From them it is that we must learn the
truth, and into them must our faith be resolved; unto whose authority all
the arguing and objections of men must give place. By them is more light
conveyed into the understandings of believers than by the most subtile
disputations. And it is a thing not without scandal, to see among
Protestants whole books written about justification, wherein scarce one
testimony of Scripture is produced, unless it be to find out evasions from
the force of them. And, in particular, whereas the apostle Paul has most
fully and expressly (as he had the greatest occasion so to do) declared and
vindicated the doctrine of evangelical justification, not a few, in what
they write about it, are so far from declaring their thoughts and faith
concerning it out of his writings, as that they begin to reflect upon them
as obscure, and such as give occasion unto dangerous mistakes; and unless,
as was said, to answer and except against them upon their own corrupt
principles, seldom or never make mention of them; as though we were grown
wiser than he, or that Spirit whereby he was inspired, guided, acted in all
that he wrote. But there can be nothing more alien from the genius of
Christian religion, than for us not to endeavour humbly to learn the
mystery of the grace of God herein, in the declaration of it made by him.
But the foundation of God stands sure, what course soever men shall be
pleased to take into their profession of religion.
For the testimonies which I shall produce and insist upon,
I desire the reader to observe, — 1. That they are but some of the
many that might be pleaded unto the same purpose. 2. That those which
have been, or yet shall be alleged, on particular occasions, I shall wholly
omit; and such are most of them that are given unto this truth in the Old
Testament. 3. That in the exposition of them I shall, with what diligence
I can, attend, — First, Unto the analogy of faith; that is, the
manifest scope and design of the revelation of the mind and will of God in
the Scripture. And that this is to exalt the freedom and riches of his own
grace, the glory and excellency of Christ and his mediation; to discover
the woeful, lost, forlorn condition of man by sin; to debase and depress
every thing that is in and of ourselves, as to the attaining life,
righteousness, and salvation; cannot be denied by any who have their sense
exercised in the Scriptures. Secondly, Unto the
experience of them that do believe, with the condition of them who
seek after justification by Jesus Christ. In other things I hope the best
helps and rules of the interpretation of the Scripture shall not be
neglected.
There is weight in this case deservedly laid on the name of
the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as promised and given unto us, —
namely, “The Lord our
Righteousness,” Jer. xxiii. 6. As the name Jehovah,
being given and ascribed unto him, is a full indication of his divine
person; so the addition of his being our righteousness, sufficiently
declares that in and by him alone we have righteousness, or are made
righteous. So was he typed by Melchizedek, as first the “King of
righteousness,” then the “King of peace,” Heb. vii. 2; for
by his righteousness alone have we peace with God. Some of the Socinians
would evade this testimony, by observing, that righteousness in the Old
Testament is urged sometimes for benignity, kindness, and mercy; and so
they suppose it may be here. But the most of them, avoiding the palpable
absurdity of this imagination, refer to the righteousness of God in the
deliverance and vindication of his people. So Brenius briefly, “Ita vocatur quia Dominus per manum ejus judicium et justitiam
faciet Israeli.” But these are evasions of bold men, who care not,
so they may say somewhat, whether what they say be agreeable to the analogy
of faith or the plain words of the Scripture. Bellarmine, who was more wary to give some
appearance of truth unto his answers, first gives other reasons why he is
called “The Lord our
Righteousness;” and then, whether unawares or overpowered by the evidence
of truth, grants that sense of the words which contains the whole of the
cause we plead for. “Christ,” he says, “may be called ‘The Lord our Righteousness,’ because he
is the efficient cause of our righteousness;” — as God is said to be our
“strength and salvation.” Again, “Christ is said to be our righteousness,
as he is our wisdom, our redemption, and our peace; because he has redeemed
us, and makes us wise and righteous, and reconciles us unto God.” And
other reasons of the same nature are added by others. But not trusting to
these expositions of the words, he adds, “Deinde dicitur
Christus justitia nostra, quoniam satisfecit patri pro nobis, et eam
satisfactionem ita nobis donat et communicat, cum nos justificat, ut nostra
satisfactio et justitia dici possit.” And afterward, “Hoc modo non esset absurdum, si quis diceret nobis imputari
Christi justitiam et merita, cum nobis donantur et applicantur, ac si nos
ipsi Deo satisfecissimus,” De Justificat., lib.
ii. cap. 10; — “Christ is said to be our righteousness because he
has made satisfaction for us to the Father; and does so give and
communicate that satisfaction unto us when he justifies us, that it may be said to be our satisfaction and righteousness. And in this
sense it would not be absurd if any one should say that the righteousness
of Christ and his merits are imputed unto us, as if we ourselves had
satisfied God.” In this sense we say that Christ is “The Lord our Righteousness;” nor is
there any thing of importance in the whole doctrine of justification that
we own, which is not here granted by the cardinal, and that in terms which
some among ourselves scruple at and oppose. I shall therefore look a
little farther into this testimony, which has wrested so eminent a
confession of the truth from so great an adversary. “Behold, the days
come, saith the Lord, that I
will raise up unto David a righteous Branch; … and this is his name whereby
he shall be called, The Lord
our Righteousness,” Jer. xxiii. 5,
6. It is confessed among Christians that this is an illustrious
renovation of the first promise concerning the incarnation of the Son of
God, and our salvation by him. This promise was first given when we had
lost our original righteousness, and were considered only as those who had
sinned and come short of the glory of God. In this estate a righteousness
was absolutely necessary, that we might be again accepted with God; for
without a righteousness, yea, that which is perfect and complete, we never
were so, nor ever can be so. In this estate it is promised that he shall
be our “righteousness;” or, as the apostle expresses it, “the end of the
law for righteousness to them that do believe.” That he is so, there can
be no question; the whole inquiry is, how he is so? This [is], say the
most sober and modest of our adversaries, because he is the efficient
cause of our righteousness; that is, of our personal, inherent
righteousness. But this righteousness may be considered either in itself,
as it is an effect of God’s grace, and so it is good and holy, although it
be not perfect and complete; or it may be considered as it is ours,
inherent in us, accompanied with the remaining defilements of our nature.
In that respect, as this righteousness is ours, the prophet affirms that,
in the sight of God, “we are all as an unclean thing, and all our
righteousnesses are as filthy rags” Isa. lxiv. 6.
כָּל־צִדְקֹתֵינוּ comprises our whole personal,
inherent righteousness; and the Lord Christ cannot from hence be
denominated יְהוָה צִדְקֵנוּ, — “The Lord our Righteousness,” seeing it
is all as filthy rags. It must therefore be a righteousness of another
sort whence this denomination is taken, and on the account whereof this
name is given him: wherefore he is our righteousness, as all our
righteousnesses are in him. So the church, which confesses all her own
righteousnesses to be as filthy rags, says, “In the Lord have I righteousness,”
chap. xlv. 24, (which is expounded of
Christ by the apostle, Rom. xiv. 11;)
אַךְ בַּיהוָה לִי צְדָקוֹת, — “Only in the Lord are my righteousnesses:” which
two places the apostle expresses, Phil. iii. 8,
9, “That I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine
own righteousness, which is of the law” (in this case as
filthy rags), “but that which is through the faith of Christ, the
righteousness which is of God by faith.” Hence it is added, “In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be
justified,” Isa. xlv. 25, — namely, because he is,
in what he is, in what he was, and did, as given unto and for us, “our
righteousness,” and our righteousness is all in him; which totally excludes
our own personal, inherent righteousness from any interest in our
justification, and ascribes it wholly unto the righteousness of Christ.
And thus is that emphatical expression of the psalmist, “I will go in the
strength of the Lord God” (for
as unto holiness and obedience, all our spiritual strength is from him
alone); “and I will make mention” צִדְקָתְךָ לְבַדֶּךָ, Ps. lxxi. 16,
“of thy righteousness, of thine only.” The redoubling of the affix
excludes all confidence and trusting in any thing but the righteousness of
God alone. For this the apostle affirms to be the design of God in making
Christ to be righteousness unto us, — namely, “that no flesh should glory
in his presence; but that he that glorieth, should glory in the Lord,”
1 Cor. i. 29,
31. For it is by faith alone making mention, as unto our
justification, of the righteousness of God, of his righteousness only, that
excludes all boasting, Rom. iii. 27.
And, besides what shall be farther pleaded from particular testimonies, the
Scripture does eminently declare how he is “The Lord our Righteousness,” — namely,
in that he “makes an end of sin and reconciliation for iniquity, and brings
in everlasting righteousness,” Dan. ix. 24.
For by these things is our justification completed, — namely, in
satisfaction made for sin, the pardon of it in our reconciliation unto God,
and the providing for us an everlasting righteousness. Therefore is he
“The Lord our Righteousness,”
and so rightly called. Wherefore, seeing we had lost original
righteousness, and had none of our own remaining, and stood in need
of a perfect, complete righteousness to procure our acceptance with
God, and such a one as might exclude all occasion of boasting of any thing
in ourselves, the Lord Christ being given and made unto us “The Lord our Righteousness,” in whom we
have all our righteousness (our own, as it is ours, being as filthy rags in
the sight of God); and this by making an end of sin, and reconciliation for
iniquity, and bringing in everlasting righteousness: it is by his
righteousness, by his only, that we are justified in the sight of God, and
do glory. This is the substance of what in this case we plead for; and
thus it is delivered in Scripture, in a way bringing more light and
spiritual sense into the minds of believers than those philosophical
expressions and distinctions which vaunt themselves with a pretence of
propriety and accuracy.
Chapter XVII. Testimonies out of the evangelists considered
Testimonies out of the evangelists considered — Design of our
Saviour’s sermon on the mount — The purity and penalty of the law
vindicated by him — Arguments from thence — Luke
xviii. 9–14, the parable of the Pharisee and publican explained
and applied to the present argument — Testimonies out of the Gospel by
John,
chap. i. 12; iii. 14–18, etc.
The reasons
why the doctrine of justification by the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ is more fully and clearly delivered in the following writings of the
New Testament than it is in those of the evangelists, who wrote the history
of the life and death of Christ, have been before declared; but yet in them
also it is sufficiently attested, as unto the state of the church before
the death and resurrection of Christ, which is represented in them. Some
few of the many testimonies which may be pleaded out of their writings unto
that purpose I shall consider, first, —
The principal design of our blessed Saviour’s sermon,
especially that part of it which is recorded, Matt. v., is to
declare the true nature of righteousness before God. The scribes
and Pharisees, from a bondage unto whose doctrines he designed to vindicate
the consciences of those that heard him, placed all our righteousness
before God in the works of the law, or men’s own obedience thereunto. This
they taught the people, and hereon they justified themselves, as he charges
them, Luke xvi. 15, “Ye are they which
justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts, for that which
is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God,” — as in
this sermon he makes it evident; and all those who were under their conduct
did seek to “establish their own righteousness, as it were by the works of
the law,” Rom. ix. 32; x.
3. But yet were they convinced in their own consciences that
they could not attain unto the law of righteousness, or unto that
perfection of obedience which the law did require. Yet would they not
forego their proud, fond imagination of justification by their own
righteousness; but, as the manner of all men is in the same case, sought
out other inventions to relieve them against their convictions; for unto
this end they corrupted the whole law by their false glosses and
interpretations, to bring down and debase the sense of it, unto what they
boasted in themselves to perform. So does he in whom our Saviour gives an
instance of the principle and practice of the whole society, by way of a
parable, Luke
xviii. 11, 12; and so the young man affirmed that he had kept
the whole law from his youth, — namely, in their sense, Matt. xix. 20.
To root this pernicious error out of the church, our Lord
Jesus Christ in many instances gives the true, spiritual sense and
intention of the law, manifesting what the righteousness is which the law
requires, and on what terms a man may be justified thereby. And among
sundry others to the same purpose, two things he evidently declares:— 1. That the law, in its precepts and prohibitions, had regard
unto the regulation of the heart, with all its first motions and
acting; for he asserts that the inmost thoughts of the heart, and the first
motions of concupiscence therein, though not consented unto, much less
actually accomplished in the outward deeds of sin, and all the occasions
leading unto them, are directly forbidden in the law. This he does in his
holy exposition of the seventh commandment, chap.
v. 27–30. 2. He declares the penalty of the law on the
least sin to be hell-fire, in his assertion of causeless anger to be
forbidden in the sixth commandment. If men would but try themselves by
these rules, and others there given by our Saviour, it would, it may be,
take them off from boasting in their own righteousness and justification
thereby. But as it was then, so is it now also; the most of them who would
maintain a justification by works, do attempt to corrupt the sense of the
law, and accommodate it unto their own practice. The reader may see an
eminent demonstration hereof in a late excellent treatise, whose title is,
“The Practical Divinity of
the Papists Discovered to be Destructive of Christianity and Men’s
Souls.” The spirituality of
the law, with the severity of its sanction, extending itself unto the least
and most imperceptible motions of sin in the heart, are not believed, or
not aright considered, by them who plead for justification by works in any
sense. Wherefore, the principal design of the sermon of our Saviour is, as
to declare what is the nature of that obedience which God requires by the
law, so to prepare the minds of his disciples to seek after another
righteousness, which, in the cause and means of it, was not yet plainly to
be declared, although many of them, being prepared by the ministry of John,
did hunger and thirst after it.
But he sufficiently intimates wherein it did consist, in
that he affirms of himself that he “came to fulfil the law,” verse
17. What he came for, that he was sent for; for as he was sent,
and not for himself, “he was born to us, given unto us.” This was to
fulfil the law, that so the righteousness of it might be fulfilled in us.
And if we ourselves cannot fulfil the law, in the proper sense of its
commands (which yet is not to be abolished but established, as our Saviour
declares); if we cannot avoid the curse and penalty of it upon its transgression; and if he came to fulfil it for us (all which are
declared by himself); — then is his righteousness, even [that] which he
wrought for us in fulfilling the law, the righteousness wherewith we are
justified before God. And whereas here is a twofold righteousness proposed
unto us — one in the fulfilling of the law by Christ; the other in our own
perfect obedience unto the law, as the sense of it is by him declared; and
other middle righteousness between them there is none, — it is left unto
the consciences of convinced sinners whether of these they will adhere and
trust unto; and their direction herein is the principal design we ought to
have in the declaration of this doctrine.
I shall pass by all those places wherein the foundations of
this doctrine are surely laid, because it is not expressly mentioned in
them; but such they are as, in their proper interpretation, do necessarily
infer it. Of this kind are they all wherein the Lord Christ is said to die
for us or in our stead, to lay down his life a ransom for us or in our
stead, and the like; but I shall pass them by, because I will not digress
at all from the present argument.
But the representation made by our Saviour himself of the
way and means whereon and whereby men come to be justified before God, in
the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, is a guide unto all men who
have the same design with them. Luke xviii.
9–14: “And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in
themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up
into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The
Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am
not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this
publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes
unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful unto me, a
sinner. I tell you, that this man went down unto his house justified
rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased;
and every one that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”
That the design of our Saviour herein was to represent the
way of our justification before God is evident, — 1. From the description
given of the persons whom he reflected on, verse 9. They
were such as “trusted in themselves that they were righteous;” or that they
had a personal righteousness of their own before God. 2. From the general
rule wherewith he confirms the judgment he had given concerning the persons
described: “Every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that
humbleth himself shall be exalted,” verse 14.
As this is applied unto the Pharisee, and the prayer that is ascribed unto
him, it declares plainly that every plea of our own works, as unto
our justification before God, under any consideration, is a
self-exaltation which God despises; and, as applied
unto the publican, that a sense of sin is the only preparation on our part
for acceptance with him on believing. Wherefore, both the persons are
represented as seeking to be justified; for so our Saviour expresses the
issue of their address unto God for that purpose: the one was justified,
the other was not.
The plea of the Pharisee unto this end consists of two
parts:— 1. That he had fulfilled the condition whereon he might be
justified. He makes no mention of any merit, either of congruity or
condignity. Only, whereas there were two parts of God’s covenant then with
the church, the one with respect unto the moral, the other with respect
unto the ceremonial law, he pleads the observation of the condition of it
in both parts, which he shows in instances of both kinds: only he adds the
way that he took to farther him in this obedience, somewhat beyond what was
enjoined, — namely, that he fasted twice in the week; for when men begin to
seek for righteousness and justification by works, they quickly think their
best reserve lies in doing something extraordinary, more than other men,
and more, indeed, than is required of them. This brought forth all the
pharisaical austerities in the Papacy. Nor can it be said that all this
signified nothing, because he was a hypocrite and a boaster; for it will be
replied that it should seem all are so who seek for justification by works;
for our Saviour only represents one that does so. Neither are these things
laid in bar against his justification, but only that he “exalted himself”
in “trusting unto his own righteousness.” 2. In an ascription of all that
he did unto God: “God, I thank thee.” Although he did all this, yet he
owned the aid and assistance of God by his grace in it all. He esteemed
himself much to differ from other men; but ascribed it not unto himself
that so he did. All the righteousness and holiness which he laid claim
unto, he ascribed unto the benignity and goodness of God. Wherefore, he
neither pleaded any merit in his works, nor any works performed in his own
strength, without the aid of grace. All that he pretends is, that by the
grace of God he had fulfilled the condition of the covenant; and thereon
expected to be justified. And whatever words men shall be pleased to make
use of in their vocal prayers, God interprets their minds according to what
they trust in, as unto their justification before him. And if some men
will be true unto their own principles, this is the prayer which, “mutatis mutandis,” they ought to make.
If it be said, that it is charged on this Pharisee that he
“trusted in himself,” and “despised others,” for which he was rejected; I
answer, — 1. This charge respects not the mind of the person, but the
genius and tendency of the opinion. The persuasion of justification
by works includes in it a contempt of other men; for “if Abraham had been justified by works, he should have had whereof to glory.” 2.
Those whom he despised were such as placed their whole trust in grace and
mercy, — as this publican. It were to be wished that all others of the
same mind did not so also.
The issue is, with this person, that he was not justified;
neither shall any one ever be so on the account of his own personal
righteousness. For our Saviour has told us, that when we have done all
(that is, when we have the testimony of our consciences unto the integrity
of our obedience), instead of pleading it unto our justification, we should
say (that is, really judge and profess) that we are δοῦλοι
ἀχρεῖοι, — “unprofitable servants,” Luke xvii.
10: as the apostle speaks, “I know nothing by myself; yet am I
not hereby justified,” 1 Cor. iv. 4.
And he that is δοῦλος ἀχρεῖος, and has nothing to
trust unto but his service, will be cast out of the presence of God,
Matt. xxv. 30. Wherefore, on the best
of our obedience, to confess ourselves δοῦλοι
ἀχρεῖοι, is to confess that, after all, in ourselves, we deserve to
be cast out of the presence of God.
In opposition hereunto, the state and prayer of the
publican, under the same design of seeking justification before God, are
expressed. And the outward acts of his person are mentioned, as
representing and expressive of the inward frame of his mind: “He stood afar
off,” and “did not so much as lift up his eyes;” he “smote upon his
breast.” All of them represent a person desponding, yea, despairing in
himself. This is the nature, this is the effect, of that conviction of sin
which we before asserted to be antecedently necessary unto justification.
Displicency, sorrow, sense of danger, fear of wrath, — all are present with
him. In brief he declares himself guilty before God, and his mouth stopped
as unto any apology or excuse. And his prayer is a sincere application of
his soul unto sovereign grace and mercy, for a deliverance out of the
condition wherein he was by reason of the guilt of sin. And in the use of
the word; ἱλάσκομαι, there is respect had unto a
propitiation. In the whole of his address there is contained, — 1.
Self-condemnation and abhorrence. 2. Displicency and sorrow for sin. 3. A
universal renunciation of all works of his own, as any condition of his
justification. 4. An acknowledgment of his sin, guilt, and misery. And
this is all that, on our part, is required unto justification before God,
excepting that faith whereby we apply ourselves unto him for
deliverance.
Some make a weak attempt from hence to prove that
justification consists wholly in the remission of sin, because, on the
prayer of the publican for mercy and pardon, he is said to be “justified:”
but there is no force in this argument; for, — 1. The whole nature of
justification is not here declared, but only what is required on our
part whereunto. The respect of it unto the mediation of Christ was not yet expressly to be brought to light; as was showed before. 2.
Although the publican makes his address unto God under a deep sense of the
guilt of sin, yet he prays not for the bare pardon of sin, but for all that
sovereign mercy or grace God has provided for sinners. 3. The term of
justification must have the same sense when applied unto the Pharisee
as when applied unto the publican; and if the meaning of it with respect
unto the publican be, that he was pardoned, then has it the same sense with
respect unto the Pharisee, — he was not pardoned. But he came on no such
errand. He came to be justified, not pardoned; nor does he make the least
mention of his sin, or any sense of it. Wherefore, although the pardon of
sin be included in justification, yet to justify, in this place, has
respect unto a righteousness whereon a man is declared just and righteous;
wrapped up, on the part of the publican, in the sovereign producing cause,
— the mercy of God.
Some few testimonies may be added out of the other
evangelist, in whom they abound: “As many as received him, to them gave he
power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name,”
John i. 12. Faith is expressed by the
receiving of Christ; for to receive him, and to believe on his name, are
the same. It receives him as set forth of God to be a propitiation for
sin, as the great ordinance of God for the recovery and salvation of lost
sinners. Wherefore, this notion of faith includes in it, — 1. A
supposition of the proposal and tender of Christ unto us, for
some end and purpose. 2. That this proposal is made unto us in the
promise of the gospel. Hence, as we are said to receive Christ, we
are said to receive the promise also. 3. The end for which the Lord Christ
is so proposed unto us in the promise of the gospel; and this is the same
with that for which he was so proposed in the first promise, — namely, the
recovery and salvation of lost sinners. 4. That in the tender of
his person, there is a tender made of all the fruits of his
mediation, as containing the way and means of our deliverance from sin
and acceptance with God. 5. There is nothing required on our part unto an
interest in the end proposed, but receiving of him, or believing on his
name. 6. Hereby are we entitled unto the heavenly inheritance; we have
power to become the sons of God, wherein our adoption is asserted, and
justification included. What this receiving of Christ is, and wherein it
does consist, has been declared before, in the consideration of that faith
whereby we are justified. That which hence we argue is, that there is no
more required unto the obtaining of a right and title unto the heavenly
inheritance, but faith alone in the name of Christ, the receiving of
Christ as the ordinance of God for justification and salvation. This gives
us, I say, our original right thereunto, and therein our
acceptance with God, which is our justification; though more be required
unto the actual acquisition and possession of it. It is said, indeed, that
other graces and works are not excluded, though faith alone be expressed.
But every thing which is not a receiving of Christ is excluded. It is, I
say, virtually excluded, because it is not of the nature of that which is
required. When we speak of that whereby we see, we exclude no other member
from being a part of the body; but we exclude all but the eye from the act
of seeing. And if faith be required, as it is a receiving of Christ, every
grace and duty which is not so is excluded, as unto the end of
justification.
Chap. iii.
14–18, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that
he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world
to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He
that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is
condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only
begotten Son of God.”
I shall observe only a few things from these words, which
in themselves convey a better light of understanding in this mystery unto
the minds of believers than many long discourses of some learned men:— 1.
It is of the justification of men, and their right to eternal life
thereon, that our Saviour discourses. This is plain in verse
18, “He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that
believeth not is condemned already.” 2. The means of attaining this
condition or state on our part is believing only, as it is three
times positively asserted, without any addition. 3. The nature of
this faith is declared, — (1.) By its object, — that is, Christ himself,
the Son of God, “Whosoever believeth in him;” which is frequently repeated.
(2.) The especial consideration wherein he is the object of faith unto the
justification of life; and that is as he is the ordinance of God, given,
sent, and proposed, from the love and grace of the Father: “God so loved
the world, that he gave;” “God sent his Son.” (3.) The especial act yet
included in the type, whereby the design of God in him is illustrated; for
this was the looking unto the brazen serpent lifted up in the wilderness by
them who were stung with fiery serpents. Hereunto our faith in Christ unto
justification does answer, and includes a trust in him alone for
deliverance and relief. This is the way, these are the only causes and
means, of the justification of condemned sinners, and are the substance of
all that we plead for.
It will be said, that all this proves not the imputation
of the righteousness of Christ unto us, which is
the thing principally inquired after; but if nothing be required on our
part unto justification but faith acted on Christ, as the ordinance of God
for our recovery and salvation, it is the whole of what we plead for. A
justification by the remission of sins alone, without a righteousness
giving acceptance with God and a right unto the heavenly inheritance, is
alien unto the Scripture and the common notion of justification amongst
men. And what this righteousness must be, upon a supposition that faith
only on our part is required unto a participation of it, is sufficiently
declared in the words wherein Christ himself is so often asserted as the
object of our faith unto that purpose.
Not to add more particular testimonies, which are
multiplied unto the same purpose in this evangelist, the sum of the
doctrine declared by him is, “That the Lord Jesus Christ was ‘the Lamb of
God which taketh away the sin of the world;’ that is, by the sacrifice of
himself, wherein he answered and fulfilled all the typical sacrifices of
the law: that unto this end he sanctified himself, that those who believe
might be sanctified, or perfected forever, by his own offering of himself:
that in the gospel he is proposed as lifted up and crucified for us, as
bearing all our sins in his body on the tree: that by faith in him we have
adoption, justification, freedom from judgment and condemnation, with a
right and title unto eternal life: that those who believe not are condemned
already, because they believe not on the Son of God; and, as he elsewhere
expresses it, ‘make God a liar,’ in that they believe not his testimony,
namely, that ‘he hath given unto us eternal life, and that this life is in
his Son.’ ” Nor does he anywhere make mention of any other means, cause,
or condition of justification on our part but faith only, though he abounds
in precepts unto believers for love, and keeping the commands of Christ.
And this faith is the receiving of Christ in the sense newly declared; and
this is the substance of the Christian faith in this matter; which ofttimes
we rather obscure than illustrate, by debating the consideration of any
thing in our justification but the grace and love of God, the person and
mediation of Christ, with faith in them.
Chapter XVIII. The nature of justification as declared in the epistles
of St Paul, in that unto the Romans especially. — Chap. iii.
[iv. v. x.; 1 Cor. i. 30;
2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. ii.
16; Eph. ii.
8–10; Phil. iii. 8,
9.]
Testimonies out of the Epistles of Paul the apostle — His design
in the third, fourth and fifth
chapters to the Romans — That design explained at large, and
applied to the present argument
That the way
and manner of our justification before God, with all the causes and means
of it, are designedly declared by the apostle in the Epistle to the Romans,
chap. iii., iv., v., as also vindicated from objections, so as
to render his discourse thereon the proper seat of this doctrine, and
whence it is principally to be learned, cannot modestly be denied. The
late exceptions of some, that this doctrine of justification by faith
without works is found only in the writings of St Paul, and that his
writings are obscure and intricate, are both false and scandalous to
Christian religion, so as that, in this place, we shall not afford them the
least consideration. He wrote ὑπὸ Πνεύματος ἁγίου
φερόμενος, — as he was “moved by the Holy Ghost.” And as all the
matter delivered by him was sacred truth, which immediately requires our
faith and obedience, so the way and manner wherein he declared it was such
as the Holy Ghost judged most expedient for the edification of the church.
And as he said himself with confidence, that if the gospel which he
preached, and as it was preached by him, though accounted by them
foolishness, was hid, so as that they could not understand nor comprehend
the mystery of it, it was “hid unto them that are lost;” so we may say,
that if what he delivers in particular concerning our justification before
God seems obscure, difficult, or perplexed unto us, it is from our
prejudices, corrupt affections, or weakness of understanding at best, not
able to comprehend the glory of this mystery of the grace of God in Christ,
and not from any defect in his way and manner of the revelation of it.
Rejecting, therefore, all such perverse insinuations, in a due sense of our
own weakness, and acknowledgment that at best we know but in part, we shall
humbly inquire into the blessed revelation of this great mystery of the
justification of a sinner before God, as by him declared in those chapters
of his glorious Epistle to the Romans; and I shall do it with all briefness
possible, so as not, on this occasion, to repeat what has been already
spoken, or to anticipate what may be spoken in place more convenient.
The first thing he does is to prove all men to be under
sin, and to be guilty before God. This he gives as the conclusion of his
preceding discourse, from chap. i. 18, or
what he had evidently evinced thereby, chap. iii. 19, 23. Hereon
an inquiry does arise, how any of them come to be justified before God?
And whereas justification is a sentence upon the consideration of a
righteousness, his grand inquiry is, what that righteousness is, on the
consideration whereof a man may be so justified? And concerning this, he
affirms expressly that it is not the righteousness of the law, nor of the
works of it; whereby what he does intend has been in part before declared,
and will be farther manifested in the process of our discourse. Wherefore,
in general, he declares that the righteousness whereby we are justified is
the righteousness of God, in opposition unto any righteousness of our own,
chap. i. 17;
iii. 21, 22. And he describes this righteousness of God by three properties:— 1. That it is χωρὶς
νόμου, — “without the law,” verse 21;
separated in all its concerns from the law; not attainable by it, nor any
works of it, which they have no influence into. It is neither our
obedience unto the law, nor attainable thereby. Nor can any expression
more separate and exclude the works of obedience unto the law from any
concernment in it than this does. Wherefore, whatever is, or can be,
performed by ourselves in obedience unto the law, is rejected from any
interest in this righteousness of God, or the procurement of it to be made
ours. 2. That yet it “is witnessed unto by the law,” verse
21: “The law and the prophets.”
The apostle, by this distinction of the books of the Old
Testament into “the law and the prophets,” manifests that by the “law” he
understands the books of Moses. And in them testimony is given unto this
righteousness of God four ways:—
(1.) By a declaration of the causes of the necessity
of it unto our justification. This is done in the account given of our
apostasy from God, of the loss of his image, and the state of sin that
ensued thereon; for hereby an end was put unto all possibility and hope of
acceptance with God by our own personal righteousness. By the entrance of
sin our own righteousness went out of the world; so that there must be
another righteousness prepared and approved of God, and called “the
righteousness of God,” in opposition unto our own, or all relation of love
and favour between God and man must cease forever.
(2.) In the way of recovery from this state, generally
declared in the first promise of the blessed seed, by whom this
righteousness of God was to be wrought and introduced; for he alone was “to
make an end of sin, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,” צֶדֶק עֹלָמִים, Dan. ix. 24;
that righteousness of God that should be the means of the justification of
the church in all ages, and under all dispensations.
(3.) By stopping up the way unto any other righteousness,
through the threatenings of the law, and that curse which every
transgression of it was attended withal. Hereby it was plainly and fully
declared that there must be such a righteousness provided for our
justification before men as would answer and remove that curse.
(4.) In the prefiguration and representation of that only
way and means whereby this righteousness of God was to be wrought. This it
did in all its sacrifices, especially in the great anniversary sacrifice on
the day of expiation, wherein all the sins of the church were laid on the
head of the sacrifice, and so carried away.
3. He describes it by the only way of our participation of
it, the only means on our part of the communication of it unto us. And
this is by faith alone: “The righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for
there is no difference,” Rom. iii. 22.
Faith in Christ Jesus is so the only way and means whereby this
righteousness of God comes upon us, or is communicated unto us, that it is
so unto all that have this faith, and only unto them; and that without
difference on the consideration of any thing else besides. And although
faith, taken absolutely, may be used in various senses, yet, as thus
specified and limited, the faith of Christ Jesus, or, as he calls it, “the
faith that is in me,” Acts xxvi.
18, it can intend nothing but the reception of him, and trust in
him, as the ordinance of God for righteousness and salvation.
This description of the righteousness of God revealed in
the gospel, which the apostle asserts as the only means and cause of our
justification before God, with the only way of its participation and
communication unto us, by the faith of Christ Jesus, fully confirms the
truth we plead for. For if the righteousness wherewith we must be
justified before God be not our own, but the righteousness of God, as these
things are directly opposed, Phil. iii. 9;
and the only way whereby it comes upon us, or we are made partakers of it,
is by the faith of Jesus Christ; then our own personal, inherent
righteousness or obedience has no interest in our justification before God:
which argument is insoluble, nor is the force of it to be waived by any
distinctions whatever, if we keep our hearts unto a due reverence of the
authority of God in his word.
Chap. iii.
24–26 explained, and the true sense of the words vindicated —
The causes of justification enumerated — Apostolical inference from the
consideration of them
Having fully proved that no men living have any
righteousness of their own whereby they may be justified, but are all shut
up under the guilt of sin; and having declared that there is a
righteousness of God now fully revealed in the gospel, whereby alone we may
be so, leaving all men in themselves unto their own lot, inasmuch as “all
have sinned and come short of the glory of God;” — he proceeds to declare
the nature of our justification before God in all the causes of it,
Rom. iii. 24–26, “Being justified freely
by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God has
set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his
righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the
forbearance of God, to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that
he might be just, and the justifier of them that believe in Jesus.”
Here it is that we may and ought, if anywhere, to expect
the interest of our personal obedience, under some qualification or
other, in our justification to be declared. For if it should be supposed
(which yet it cannot, with any pretence of reason) that, in the foregoing
discourse, the apostle had excluded only the works of the law as absolutely
perfect, or as wrought in our own strength without the aid of grace, or as
meritorious; yet having generally excluded all works from our
justification, verse 20, without distinction or
limitation, it might well be expected, and ought to have been so, that,
upon the full declaration which he gives us of the nature and way of our
justification, in all the causes of it, he should have assigned the place
and consideration which our own personal righteousness had in our
justification before God, — the first, or second, or continuation of it,
somewhat or other, — or at least made some mention of it, under the
qualification of gracious, sincere, or evangelical, that it might not seem
to be absolutely excluded. It is plain the apostle thought of no such
thing, nor was at all solicitous about any reflection that might be made on
his doctrine, as though it overthrew the necessity of our own obedience.
Take in the consideration of the apostle’s design, with the circumstances
of the context, and the argument from his utter silence about our
own personal righteousness, in our justification before God, is
unanswerable. But this is not all; we shall find, in our progress, that it
is expressly and directly excluded by him.
All unprejudiced persons must needs think, that no words
could be used more express and emphatical to secure the whole of our
justification unto the free grace of God, through the blood or
mediation of Christ, wherein it is faith alone that gives us an interest,
than these used here by the apostle. And, for my part, I shall only say,
that I know not how to express myself in this matter in words and terms
more express or significant of the conception of my mind. And if we could
all but subscribe the answer here given by the apostle, how, by what means,
on what grounds, or by what causes, we are justified before God, — namely,
that “we are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is
in Christ Jesus, whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith
in his blood,” etc., — there might be an end of this controversy.
But the principal passages of this testimony must be
distinctly considered. First, the principal efficient cause is
first expressed with a peculiar emphasis, or the “causa προηγουμένη·” Δικαιούμενοι δωρωὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι, — “Being justified
freely by his grace.” God is the principal efficient cause of our
justification, and his grace is the only moving cause thereof. I shall not
stay upon the exception of those of the Roman church, — namely, that by
τῇ χάριτι αὐτοῦ (which their translation renders
“per gratiam Dei”), the internal, inherent grace of
God, which they make the formal cause of justification, is intended; — for
they have nothing to prove it but that which overthrows it, namely, that it
is added unto δωρεάν, “freely;” which were needless,
if it signify the free grace or favour of God: for both these expressions,
“gratis per gratiam,” “freely by grace,” are put
together to give the greater emphasis unto this assertion, wherein the
whole of our justification is vindicated unto the free grace
of God. So far as they are distinguishable, the one denotes the
principle from whence our justification proceeds, — namely, grace;
and the other, the manner of its operation, — it works freely.
Besides, the grace of God in this subject does everywhere constantly
signify his goodness, love, and favour; as has been undeniably proved by
many. See Rom. v. 15; Eph. ii. 4, 8, 9; 2
Tim. i. 9; Tit. iii. 4,
5.
“Being justified δωρεάν (so the LXX.
render the Hebrew particle חִנָּם), — “without
price,” without merit, without cause; — and sometimes it is used for
“without end;” that is, what is done in vain, as δωρεάν is used by the apostle, Gal. ii. 21;
— without price or reward, Gen. xxix. 15;
Exod. xxi. 2; 2 Sam. xxiv.
24; — without cause, or merit, or any means of procurement,
1 Sam. xix. 5; Ps. lxix.
4; in this sense it is rendered by δωρεάν, John xv. 25.
The design of the word is to exclude all consideration of any thing in us
that should be the cause or condition of our justification. Χάρις, “favour,” absolutely considered, may have respect
unto somewhat in him towards whom it is showed. So it is said that Joseph
found grace or favour, χάριν, in the eyes of
Potiphar, Gen. xxxix. 4: but he found it not δωρεάν, without any consideration or cause; for he “saw
that the Lord was with him,
and made all that he did to prosper in his hand,” verse 3. But
no words can be found out to free our justification before God from all
respect unto any thing in ourselves, but only what is added expressly as
the means of its participation on our part, through faith in his blood,
more emphatical than these here used by the apostle: Δωρεὰν
τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι, — “Freely by his grace.” And with whom this is not
admitted, as exclusive of all works or obedience of our own, of all
conditions, preparations, and merit, I shall despair of ever expressing my
conceptions about it intelligibly unto them.
Having asserted this righteousness of God as the cause and
means of our justification before him, in opposition unto all righteousness
of our own, and declared the cause of the communication of it unto us on
the part of God to be mere free, sovereign grace, the means on our part
whereby, according unto the ordination of God, we do receive, or are really
made partakers of, that righteousness of God whereon we are justified, is
by faith: Διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν αὐτοῦ αἵματι, — that
is, “By faith alone.” Nothing else is proposed, nothing else
required unto this end. It is replied, that there is no intimation that it
is by faith alone, or that faith is asserted to be the means of our
justification exclusively unto other graces or works. But there is such an
exclusion directly included in the description given of that faith whereby
we are justified, with respect unto its especial object, — “By faith in his
blood;” for faith respecting the blood of Christ as that whereby
propitiation was made for sin, — in which respect alone the
apostle affirms that we are justified through faith, — admits of no
association with any other graces or duties. Neither is it any part of
their nature to fix on the blood of Christ for justification before God;
wherefore they are all here directly excluded. And those who think
otherwise may try how they can introduce them into this context without an
evident corrupting of it, and perverting of its sense. Neither will the
other evasion yield our adversaries the least relief, — namely, that by
faith, not the single grace of faith is intended, but the whole obedience
required in the new covenant, faith and works together. For as all works
whatever, as our works, are excluded in the declaration of the causes of
our justification on the part of God (Δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ
χάριτι, — “Freely by his grace”), by virtue of that great rule,
Rom. xi. 6, “If by grace, then no more of
works; otherwise grace is no more grace;” so the determination of the
object of faith in its act or duty, whereon we are justified, —
namely, the blood of Christ, — is absolutely exclusive of all works from an
interest in that duty; for whatever looks unto the blood of Christ for
justification is faith, and nothing else. And as for the calling of it a
single act or duty, I refer the reader unto our preceding discourse about
the nature of justifying faith.
Three things the apostle infers from the declaration he had
made of the nature and causes of our justification before God, all of them
farther illustrating the meaning and sense of his words:—
1. That boasting is excluded: Ποῦ οὖν ἡ
καύχησις; ἐξεκλείσθη, chap. iii. 27.
Apparent it is from hence, and from what he affirms concerning Abraham,
chap. iv. 2, that a great part, at least,
of the controversy he had about justification, was, whether it did admit of
any καύχησις or καύχημα in
those that were justified. And it is known that the Jews placed all their
hopes in those things whereof they thought they could boast, — namely,
their privileges and their righteousness. But from the declaration made of
the nature and causes of justification, the apostle infers that all
boasting whatever is utterly shut out of doors, — ἐξεκλείσθη. Boasting, in our language is the name of a
vice; and is never used in a good sense. But καύχησις and καύχημα, the words
used by the apostle, are ἐκ τῶν μέσων, — of an
indifferent signification; and, as they are applied, may denote a virtue as
well as a vice: so they do, Heb. iii. 6.
But always, and in all places, they respect something that
is peculiar in or unto them unto whom they are ascribed. Wherever any
thing is ascribed unto one, and not unto another, with respect unto any
good end, there is fundamentum καυχήσεως, — a “foundation for boasting.” All this, says
the apostle, in the matter of our justification, is utterly excluded. But
wherever respect is had unto any condition or qualification in one more
than another, especially if it be of works, it gives a ground
of boasting, as he affirms, Rom. iv. 2. And
it appears, from comparing that verse with this, that wherever there is any
influence of our own works into our justification, there is a ground of
boasting; but in evangelical justification no such boasting in any kind can
be admitted. Wherefore, there is no place for works in our justification
before God; for if there were, it is impossible but that a καύχημα, in one kind or other, before God or man, must be
admitted.
2. He infers a general conclusion, “That a man is
justified by faith, without the works of the law,” chap. iii.
28. What is meant by “the law,” and what by “the works of the
law,” in this discourse of the apostle about our justification, has been
before declared. And if we are justified freely through faith in the blood
of Christ, that faith which has the propitiation of Christ for its especial
object, or as it has so, can take no other grace nor duty into partnership
with itself therein; and being so justified as that all such boasting is
excluded as necessarily results from any differencing graces or works in
ourselves, wherein all the works of the law are excluded, it is certain
that it is by faith alone in Christ that we are justified. All works are
not only excluded, but the way unto their return is so shut up by the
method of the apostle’s discourse, that all the reinforcements which the
wit of man can give unto them will never introduce them into our
justification before God.
3. He asserts from hence, that we “do not make void the
law through grace,” but establish it, verse 31; which,
how it is done, and how alone it can be done, has been before declared.
This is the substance of the resolution the apostle gives
unto that great inquiry, how a guilty convinced sinner may come to be
justified in the sight of God? — “The sovereign grace of God, the mediation
of Christ, and faith in the blood of Christ, are all that he requires
thereunto.” And whatever notions men may have about justification in other
respects, it will not be safe to venture on any other resolution of this
case and inquiry; nor are we wiser than the Holy Ghost.
Chap. iv., design of the disputation of
the apostle therein — Analysis of his discourse — Verses 4,
5, particularly insisted on; their true sense vindicated — What
works excluded from the justification of Abraham — Who it is that works not
— In what sense the ungodly are justified — All men ungodly antecedently
unto their justification — Faith alone the means of justification on our
part — Faith itself, absolutely considered, not the righteousness that is
imputed unto us — Proved by sundry arguments
Rom. chap. iv. In the beginning of the
fourth chapter he confirms what he had before doctrinally declared, by a
signal instance; and this was of the justification of Abraham, who being
the father of the faithful, his justification is proposed as the pattern of
ours, as he expressly declares, verses
22–24. And some few things I shall observe on this instance in
our passage unto the fifth verse, where
I shall fix our discourse.
1. He denies that Abraham was justified by works,
verse 2. And, — (1.) These works were not
those of the Jewish law, which alone some pretend to be excluded
from our justification in this place; for they were the works he performed
some hundreds of years before the giving of the law at Sinai:
wherefore they are the works of his moral obedience unto God that are
intended. (2.) Those works must be understood which Abraham had then, when
he is said to be justified in the testimony produced unto that purpose; but
the works that Abraham then had were works of righteousness, performed in
faith and love to God, works of new obedience under the conduct and
aids of the Spirit of God, works required in the covenant of grace. These
are the works excluded from the justification of Abraham. And these things
are plain, express, and evident, not to be eluded by any distinctions or
evasions. All Abraham’s evangelical works are expressly excluded from his
justification before God.
2. He proves by the testimony of Scripture, declaring the
nature and grounds of the justification of Abraham, that he was justified
no other way but that which he had before declared, — namely, by grace,
through faith in Christ Jesus, verse 3. “Abraham
believed God” (in the promise of Christ and his mediation), “and it was
counted unto him for righteousness,” verse 3. He was
justified by faith in the way before described (for other justification by
faith there is none), in opposition unto all his own works and personal
righteousness thereby.
3. From the same testimony he declares how he came to be
partaker of that righteousness whereon he was justified before God;
which was by imputation: it was counted or imputed unto him for
righteousness. The nature of imputation has been before declared.
4. The especial nature of this imputation, — namely, that
it is of grace, without respect unto works, — he asserts and proves,
verse 4, from what is contrary thereunto:
“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”
Where works are of any consideration, there is no room for that kind of
imputation whereby Abraham was justified: for it was a gracious imputation,
and that is not of what is our own antecedently thereunto, but what is made
our own by that imputation; for what is our own cannot be imputed unto us
in a way of grace, but only reckoned ours in a way of debt. That which is
our own, with all the effects of it, is due unto us; and, therefore, they
who plead that faith itself is imputed unto us, to give some countenance
unto an imputation of grace, do say it is imputed not for what it is, for
then it would be reckoned of debt, but for what it is not. So Socinus, “Cum fides
imputatur nobis pro justitia ideo imputatur, quia nec ipsa fides justitia
est, nec verè in se eam continet,” De Servat., part iv. cap. 2. Which kind of
imputation, being indeed only a false imagination, we have before
disproved. But all works are inconsistent with that imputation whereby
Abraham was justified. It is otherwise with him that works, so as thereon
to be justified, than it was with him. Yea, say some, “All
works that are meritorious, that are performed with an opinion of merit,
that make the reward to be of debt, are excluded; but other works are not.”
This distinction is not learned from the apostle; for, according unto him,
if this be merit and meritorious, that the reward be reckoned of debt, then
all works in justification are so. For, without distinction or limitation,
he affirms that “unto him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned of
grace, but of debt.” He does not exclude some sort of works, or works in
some sense, because they would make the reward of debt, but affirms that
all would do so, unto the exclusion of gracious imputation; for if the
foundation of imputation be in ourselves, imputation by grace is
excluded. In the fifth verse, the sum of the apostle’s
doctrine, which he had contended for, and what he had proved, is expressed:
“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” It is granted on all
hands, that the close of the verse, “His faith is counted for
righteousness,” does express the justification of the person intended. He
is justified; and the way of it is, his faith is counted or imputed.
Wherefore, the foregoing words declare the subject of justification and its
qualification, or the description of the person to be justified, with all
that is required on his part thereunto.
And, first, it is said of him that he is ὁ
μὴ ἐργαζόμενος, — “who worketh not.” It is not required unto his
justification that he should not work, that he should not perform
any duties of obedience unto God in any kind, which is working; for every
person in the world is always obliged unto all duties of obedience,
according to the light and knowledge of the will of God, the means whereof
is afforded unto him: but the expression is to be limited by the
subject-matter treated of; — he “who worketh not,” with respect unto
justification; though not the design of the person, but the nature of the
thing is intended. To say, he who worketh not is justified through
believing, is to say that his works, whatever they be, have no influence
into his justification, nor has God in justifying of him any respect unto
them: wherefore, he alone who worketh not is the subject of justification,
the person to be justified; that is, God considers no man’s works, no man’s
duties of obedience, in his justification, seeing we are justified δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι, — “freely by his grace.” And when
God affirms expressly that he justifies him who works not, and that freely
by his grace, I cannot understand what place our works or duties of
obedience can have in our justification; for why should we trouble
ourselves to invent of what consideration they may be in our justification
before God, when he himself affirms that they are of none at all? Neither
are the words capable of any evading interpretation. He that
worketh not is he that worketh not, let men say what they
please, and distinguish as long as they will: and it is a boldness not to
be justified, for any to rise up in opposition unto such express divine
testimonies, however they may be harnessed with philosophical notions and
arguings; which are but as thorns and briers, which the word of God will
pass through and consume.
But the apostle farther adds, in the description of the
subject of justification, that God “justifieth the ungodly.” This
is that expression which has stirred up so much wrath amongst many, and on
the account whereof some seem to be much displeased with the apostle
himself. If any other person dare but say that God justifies the ungodly,
he is personally reflected on as one that by his doctrine would overthrow
the necessity of godliness, holiness, obedience, or good works; “for what
need can there be of any of them, if God justifies the ungodly?” Howbeit
this is a periphrasis of God, that he is ὁ δικαιῶν τὸν
ἀσεβῆ, — “he that justifieth the ungodly.” This is his prerogative
and property; as such will he be believed in and worshipped, which adds
weight and emphasis unto the expression; and we must not forego this
testimony of the Holy Ghost, let men be as angry as they please.
“But the difference is about the meaning of the
words.” If so, it may be allowed without mutual offence, though we should
mistake their proper sense. Only, it must be granted that God “justifieth
the ungodly.” “That is,” say some, “those who formerly were ungodly,
not those who continue ungodly when they are justified.” And this
is most true. All that are justified were before ungodly; and all that are
justified are at the same instant made godly. But the question is, whether
they are godly or ungodly antecedently in any moment of time unto their
justification? If they are considered as godly, and are so indeed, then
the apostle’s words are not true, that God justifies the ungodly; for the
contradictory proposition is true, God justifies none but the godly. For
these propositions, God justifies the ungodly, and God justifies none but
the godly, are contradictory; for here are expressly κατάφασις and ἀπόφασις
ἀντικείμεναι, which is ἀντίφασις.
Wherefore, although in and with the justification of a
sinner, he is made godly, — for he is endowed with that faith which
purifies the heart and is a vital principle of all obedience, and the
conscience is purged from dead works by the blood of Christ, — yet
antecedently unto this justification he is ungodly and considered as
ungodly, as one that works not, as one whose duties and obedience
contribute nothing unto his justification. As he works not, all works are
excluded from being the “causa per quam;” and as he
is ungodly, from being the “causa sine qua non” of
his justification.
The qualification of the subject, or the means
on the part of the person to be justified, and whereby he becomes actually
so to be, is faith, or believing: “But believeth on him who justifieth the
ungodly;” — that is, it is faith alone. For it is the faith of him
who worketh not; and not only so, but its especial object, God as
justifying the ungodly, is exclusive of the concomitance of any works
whatever.
This is faith alone, or it is impossible to express faith
alone, without the literal use of that word alone. But faith being
asserted in opposition unto all works of ours, “unto him that worketh not;”
and its especial nature declared in its especial object, God as “justifying
the ungodly,” — that is, freely by his grace, through the redemption that
is in Christ Jesus; — no place is left for any works to make the least
approach towards our justification before God, under the covert of any
distinction whatever. And the nature of justifying faith is here also
determined. It is not a mere assent unto divine revelations; it is
not such a firm assent unto them as should cause us to yield obedience unto
all the precepts of the Scripture, — though these things are included in
it; but it is a believing on and trusting unto him that justified the
ungodly, through the mediation of Christ.
Concerning this person, the apostle affirms that “his faith
is counted for righteousness;” — that is, he is justified in the way and
manner before declared. But there is a difference about the sense of these
words. Some say the meaning of them is, that faith, as an act, a
grace, a duty, or work of ours, is so imputed. Others say that it is faith
as it apprehends Christ and his righteousness, which is properly imputed
unto us, that is intended. So faith, they say, justifies, or is counted
for righteousness relatively, not properly, with respect unto its object;
and so acknowledge a trope in the words. And this is fiercely opposed, as
though they denied the express words of the Scripture, when yet they do but
interpret this expression, once only used, by many others, wherein the same
thing is declared. But those who are for the first sense, do all affirm
that faith here is to be taken as including obedience or works, either as
the form and essence of it, or as such necessary concomitants as have the
same influence with it into our justification, or are in the same manner
the condition of it. But as herein they admit also of a trope in the
words, which they so fiercely blame in others, so they give this sense of
the whole: “Unto him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth
the ungodly, his faith and works are counted to him for righteousness;” —
which is not only to deny what the apostle affirms, but to assign unto him
a plain contradiction.
And I do a little marvel that any unprejudiced person
should expound this solitary expression in such a sense as is contradictory
unto the design of the apostle, the words of the same period, and the whole ensuing context. For that which the apostle proposes
unto confirmation, which contains his whole design, is, that we are
justified by the righteousness which is of God by faith in the blood of
Christ. That this cannot be faith itself shall immediately be made
evident. And in the words of the text all works are excluded, if any words
be sufficient to exclude them; but faith absolutely, as a single grace,
act, and duty of ours, much more as it includes obedience in it, is a work,
— and in the latter sense, it is all works. And in the ensuing
context he proves that Abraham was not justified by works. But not to be
justified by works, and to be justified by some works, — as faith itself is
a work, and if, as such, it be imputed unto us for righteousness, we are
justified by it as such, — are contradictory. Wherefore, I shall oppose
some few arguments unto this feigned sense of the apostle’s words:—
1. To believe absolutely, — as faith is an act and
duty of ours, — and works are not opposed, for faith is a work, an
especial kind of working; but faith, as we are justified by it, and
works, or to work, are opposed: “To him that worketh not, but
believeth.” So Gal. ii. 16; Eph. ii. 8,
9.
2. It is the righteousness of God that is imputed
unto us; for we are “made the righteousness of God in Christ,” 2
Cor. v. 21; “The righteousness of God upon them that believe,”
Rom. iii. 21, 22; but faith, absolutely
considered, is not the righteousness of God. “God imputeth unto us
righteousness without works,” chap. iv. 6; but
there is no intimation of a double imputation, of two sorts of
righteousnesses, — of the righteousness of God, and that which is not so.
Now faith, absolutely considered, is not the righteousness of God; for,
—
(1.) That whereunto the righteousness of God is revealed,
whereby we believe and receive it, is not itself the righteousness of God;
for nothing can be the cause or means of itself; — but the righteousness of
God is “revealed unto faith,” chap. i. 17; and
by it is it “received,” chap. iii. 22; v. 11.
(2.) Faith is not the righteousness of God which is by
faith; but the righteousness of God which is imputed unto us is “the
righteousness of God which is by faith,” chap. iii. 22;
Phil. iii. 9.
(3.) That whereby the righteousness of God is to be sought,
obtained, and submitted unto, is not that righteousness itself; but such is
faith, Rom. ix. 30, 31; x. 3,
4.
(4.) The righteousness which is imputed unto us is not
our own antecedently unto that imputation: “That I may be found in
him, not having mine own righteousness,” Phil. iii. 9;
but faith is a man’s own: “Show me thy faith, and I will show thee my
faith,” James ii. 18.
(5.) “God imputeth righteousness” unto us, Rom. iv.
6; and that righteousness which God imputes unto us
is the righteousness whereby we are justified, for it is imputed unto us
that we may be justified; — but we are justified by the obedience and blood
of Christ: “By the obedience of one we are made righteous,” chap.
v. 19; “Much more now being justified by his blood,” verse
9; “He hath put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,” Heb.
ix. 26; Isa. liii. 11,
“By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall
bear their iniquities.” But faith is neither the obedience nor the blood
of Christ.
(6.) Faith, as we said before, is our own; and that
which is our own may be imputed unto us. But the discourse of the apostle
is about that which is not our own antecedently unto imputation, but is
made ours thereby, as we have proved; for it is of grace. And the
imputation unto us of what is really our own antecedently unto that
imputation, is not of grace, in the sense of the apostle; for what is so
imputed is imputed for what it is, and nothing else. For that imputation
is but the judgment of God concerning the thing imputed, with respect unto
them whose it is. So the act of Phinehas was imputed unto him for
righteousness. God judged it, and declared it to be a righteous,
rewardable act. Wherefore, if our faith and obedience be imputed unto us,
that imputation is only the judgment of God that we are believers, and
obedient. “The righteousness of the righteous,” saith the prophet, “shall
be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him,” Ezek. xviii. 20. As the wickedness of
the wicked is upon him, or is imputed unto him; so the righteousness of the
righteous is upon him, or is imputed unto him. And the wickedness of the
wicked is on him, when God judges him wicked as his works are; so is the
righteousness of a man upon him, or imputed unto him, when God judges of
his righteousness as it is. Wherefore, if faith, absolutely considered, be
imputed unto us as it contains in itself, or as it is accompanied with,
works of obedience; then it is imputed unto us, either for a perfect
righteousness, which it is not, or for an imperfect righteousness, which it
is; or the imputation of it is the accounting of that to be a perfect
righteousness which is but imperfect. But none of these can be
affirmed:—
[1.] It is not imputed unto us for a perfect
righteousness, the righteousness required by the law; for so it is not.
Episcopius confesses in his disputation,
dispute. 45, sect. 7,
8, that the righteousness which is imputed unto us must be “absolutissima et perfectissima,” — “most absolute and most
perfect.” And thence he thus defines the imputation of righteousness unto
us, — namely, that it is, “gratiosa divinæ mentis
æstimatio, quâ credentem in Filium suum, eo loco reputat ac si perfectè
justus esset, ac legi et voluntati ejus per omnia semper paruisset.” And no man will pretend that faith is
such a most absolute and most perfect righteousness, as that by it the
righteousness of the law should be fulfilled in us, as it is by that
righteousness which is imputed unto us.
[2.] It is not imputed unto us for what it is, —
an imperfect righteousness; for, First, This would be of no
advantage unto us; for we cannot be justified before God by an imperfect
righteousness, as is evident in the prayer of the psalmist, Ps.
cxliii. 2, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy
sight no man living” (no servant of thine who has the most perfect or
highest measure of imperfect righteousness) “shall be justified.”
Secondly, The imputation of any thing unto us that was ours
antecedently unto that imputation, for what it is, and no more, is
contrary unto the imputation described by the apostle; as has been
proved.
[3.] This imputation pleaded for cannot be a judging of
that to be a perfect righteousness which is imperfect; for the
judgment of God is according to truth. But without judging it to be such,
it cannot be accepted as such. To accept of any thing, but only for what
we judge it to be, is to be deceived.
Lastly, If faith, as a work, be imputed unto us, then it
must be as a work wrought in faith; for no other work is accepted with God.
Then must that faith also wherein it is wrought be imputed unto us; for
that also is faith and a good work. That, therefore, must have another
faith from whence it must proceed; and so “in
infinitum.”
Many other things there are in the ensuing explication of
the justification of Abraham, the nature of his faith and his righteousness
before God, with the application of them unto all that do believe, which
may be justly pleaded unto the same purpose with those passages of the
context which we have insisted on; but if every testimony should be pleaded
which the Holy Ghost has given unto this truth, there would be no end of
writing. One thing more I shall observe, and put an end unto our discourse
on this chapter.
Rom. iv.
6–8. The apostle pursues his argument to prove the freedom of
our justification by faith, without respect unto works, through the
imputation of righteousness, in the instance of pardon of sin, which
essentially belongs thereunto. And this he does by the testimony of the
psalmist, who places the blessedness of a man in the remission of sins.
His design is not thereby to declare the full nature of justification,
which he had done before, but only to prove the freedom of it from any
respect unto works in the instance of that essential part of it. “Even as
David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth
righteousness without works,” (which was the only thing he designed to
prove by this testimony), “saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are
forgiven.” He describes their blessedness by it; — not that
their whole blessedness does consist therein, but this concurs unto it,
wherein no respect can possibly be had unto any works whatever. And he may
justly from hence describe the blessedness of a man, in that the imputation
of righteousness and the non-imputation of sin (both which the apostle
mentions distinctly), wherein his whole blessedness as unto justification
does consist, are inseparable. And because remission of sin is the first
part of justification, and the principal part of it, and has the imputation
of righteousness always accompanying it, the blessedness of a man may be
well described thereby; yea, whereas all spiritual blessings go together in
Christ, Eph. i. 3, a man’s blessedness may be
described by any of them. But yet the imputation of righteousness and the
remission of sin are not the same, no more than righteousness imputed and
sin remitted are the same. Nor does the apostle propose them as the same,
but mentions them distinctly, both being equally necessary unto our
complete justification, as has been proved.
Rom. v.
12–21. Boasting excluded in ourselves, asserted in God — The
design and sum of the apostle’s argument — Objection of Socinus removed — Comparison between the
two Adams, and those that derive from them — Sin entered into the world —
What sin intended — Death, what it comprises, what intended by it — The
sense of these words, “inasmuch,” or, “in whom all have sinned,” cleared
and vindicated — The various oppositions used by the apostle in this
discourse: principally between sin or the fall, and the free gift; between
the disobedience of the one, and the obedience of another; judgment on the
one hand, and justification unto life on the other — The whole context at
large explained, and the argument for justification by the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ, fully confirmed
Rom. v.
12–21. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have
sinned: (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed
when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even
over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression,
who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also
is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead; much
more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus
Christ, has abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so
is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift
is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death
reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the
gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ:)
Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon
all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many
were made sinners; so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might abound: but where sin
abounded, grace did much more abound: that as sin has reigned unto death,
even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus
Christ our Lord.”
The apostle, chap. iii. 27,
affirms that in this matter of justification all καύχησις, or “boasting,” is excluded; but here, in the
verse foregoing, he grants a boasting or a καύχημα.
Οὐ μόνον δὲ, ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν
τῷ Θεῷ· — “And not only so, but we also glory in God.” He excludes
boasting in ourselves, because there is nothing in us to procure or promote our own justification. He allows it us in God, because of
the eminency and excellency of the way and means of our justification which
in his grace he has provided. And the καύχημα, or
“boasting” in God, here allowed us, has a peculiar respect unto what the
apostle had in prospect farther to discourse of. Οὐ μόνον
δὲ, — “And not only so,” — includes what he had principally treated
of before concerning our justification, so far as it consists in the pardon
of sin; for although he does suppose, yea, and mention, the imputation of
righteousness also unto us, yet principally he declares our justification
by the pardon of sin and our freedom from condemnation, whereby all
boasting in ourselves is excluded. But here he designs a farther progress,
as unto that whereon our glorying in God, on a right and title freely given
us unto eternal life, does depend. And this is the imputation of the
righteousness and obedience of Christ unto the justification of life, or
the reign of grace through righteousness unto eternal life.
Great complaints have been made by some concerning the
obscurity of the discourse of the apostle in this place, by reason of
sundry ellipses, antapodota, hyperbata, and other figures of speech, which
either are or are feigned to be therein. Howbeit, I cannot but think, that
if men acquainted with the common principles of Christian religion, and
sensible in themselves of the nature and guilt of our original apostasy
from God, would without prejudice read ταύτην τὴν περιοχὴν
τῆς Γραφῆς, — “this place of the Scripture,” — they will grant that
the design of the apostle is to prove, that as the sin of Adam was imputed
unto all men unto condemnation, so the righteousness or obedience of Christ
is imputed unto all that believe unto the justification of life. The sum
of it is given by Theodoret, Dial. iii. “Vide, quomodo quæ Christi sunt cum iis quæ sunt Adami
conferantur, cum morbo medicina, cum vulnere emplastrum, cum peccato
justitia, cum execratione benedictio, cum condemnatione remissio, cum
transgressione obedientia, cum morte vita, cum inferis regnum, Christus cum
Adam, homo cum homine.”
The differences that are among interpreters about the
exposition of these words relate unto the use of some particles,
prepositions, and the dependence of one passage upon another; on none of
which the confirmation of the truth pleaded for does depend. But the plain
design of the apostle, and his express propositions, are such as, if men
could but acquiesce in them, might put an end unto this controversy.
Socinus acknowledges
that this place of Scripture does give, as he speaks, the greatest occasion
unto our opinion in this matter; for he cannot deny but at least a great
appearance of what we believe is represented in the words of the apostle.
He does, therefore, use his utmost endeavour to wrest and
deprave them; and yet, although most of his artifices are since traduced
into the annotations of others upon the place, he himself produces nothing
material but what is taken out of Origen, and
the comment of Pelagius on this epistle,
which is extant in the works of Jerome, and was
urged before him by Erasmus. The substance or
what he pleads for is, that the actual transgression of Adam is not imputed
unto his posterity, nor a depraved nature from thence communicated unto
them; only, whereas he had incurred the penalty of death, all that
derive their nature from him in that condition are rendered subject unto
death also. And as for that corruption of nature which is in us, or a
proneness unto sin, it is not derived from Adam, but is a habit contracted
by many continued acts of our own. So also, on the other hand, that the
obedience or righteousness of Christ is not imputed unto us; only when we
make ourselves to become his children by our obedience unto him, — he
having obtained eternal life for himself by his obedience unto God, — we
are made partakers of the benefits thereof. This is the substance of his
long disputation on this subject, De Servatore, lib. iv. cap. 6. But this is not to
expound the words of the apostle, but expressly to contradict them, as we
shall see in the ensuing consideration of them.
I intend not an exposition of the whole discourse of the
apostle, but only of those passages in it which evidently declare the way
and manner of our justification before God.
A comparison is here proposed and pursued between the first
Adam, by whom sin was brought into the world, and the second Adam, by whom
it is taken away. And a comparison it is ἐκ τοῦ
ἐναντίου, — of things contrary; wherein there is a similitude in
some things, and a dissimilitude in others, both sorts illustrating the
truth declared in it. The general proposition of it is contained in
verse 12. “As by one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that
all have sinned.” The entrance of sin and punishment into the world was by
one man; and that by one sin, as he afterwards declares: yet were they not
confined unto the person of that one man, but belonged equally unto all.
This the apostle expresses, inverting the order of the effect and cause.
In the entrance of it he first mentions the cause or sin, and then the
effect or punishment: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin;” but in the application of it unto all men, he expresses first the
effect and then the cause: “Death passed on all men, for that all have
sinned.” Death, on the first entrance of sin, passed on all, — that is,
all men became liable and obnoxious unto it, as the punishment due to sin.
All men that ever were, are, or shall be, were not then existent in their
own persons; but yet were they all of them then, upon the
first entrance of sin, made subject to death, or liable unto punishment.
They were so by virtue of divine constitution, upon their federal
existence in the one man that sinned. And actually they became
obnoxious in their own persons unto the sentence of it upon their first
natural existence, being born children of wrath.
It is hence manifest what sin it is that the apostle
intends, — namely, the actual sin of Adam, — the one sin of that one common
person, whilst he was so. For although the corruption and depravation of
our nature does necessarily ensue thereon, in every one that is brought
forth actually to the world by natural generation; yet is it the guilt of
Adam’s actual sin alone that rendered them all obnoxious unto death upon
the first entrance of sin into the world. So death entered by sin, — the
guilt of it, obnoxiousness unto it; and that with respect unto all men
universally.
Death here comprises the whole punishment due unto sin, be
it what it will, concerning which we need not here to dispute: “The wages
of sin is death,” Rom. vi. 23, and nothing else. Whatever
sin deserves in the justice of God, whatever punishment God at any time
appointed or threatened unto it, it is comprised in death: “In the day thou
eatest thereof, thou shalt die the death.” This, therefore, the apostle
lays down as the foundation of his discourse, and of the comparison which
he intends, — namely, that in and by the actual sin of Adam, all men are
made liable unto death, or unto the whole punishment due unto sin; that is,
the guilt of that sin is imputed unto them. For nothing is intended by the
imputation of sin unto any, but the rendering them justly obnoxious unto
the punishment due unto that sin; as the not imputing of sin is the freeing
of men from being subject or liable unto punishment. And this sufficiently
evidences the vanity of the Pelagian gloss, that death passed upon all
merely by virtue of natural propagation from him who had deserved it,
without any imputation of the guilt of sin unto them; which is a
contradiction unto the plain words of the apostle. For it is the guilt
of sin, and not natural propagation, that he affirms to be the cause of
death.
Having mentioned sin and death, the one as the only cause
of the other, the guilt of sin of the punishment of death, — sin deserving
nothing but death, and death being due unto nothing but sin, — he declares
how all men universally became liable unto this punishment, or guilty of
death: Ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον,
— “In quo omnes peccaverunt,” — “In whom all have
sinned.” For it relates unto the one man that sinned, in whom all sinned:
which is evident from the effect thereof, inasmuch as “in him all died,”
1 Cor. xv. 22; or, as it is here, on
his sin “death passed on all men.” And this is the evident sense of the words, ἐπὶ being put for ἐν which is not unusual in the Scripture. See Matt. xv. 5; Rom. iv. 18; v. 2; Phil.
i. 3; Heb. ix. 17. And it is often so used by
the best writers in the Greek tongue. So Hesiod, Μέτρον δ’ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἄριστον, — “Modus in omnibus
rebus optimus.” So, Ἐφ’ ὑμῖν
ἐστιν, — “In vobis situm est;” Τοῦτο ἐπ’ ἐμοὶ κεῖται, — “Hoc in me situm est.” And this reading of the words is
contended for by Austin against the
Pelagians, rejecting their “eo quad” or “propterea.” But I shall not contend about the reading of
the words. It is the artifice of our adversaries to persuade men, that the
force of our argument to prove from hence the imputation of the sin of Adam
unto his posterity, does depend solely upon this interpretation of these
words, ἐφ’ ᾧ, by “in whom.”
We shall, therefore, grant them their desire, that they are better rendered
by “eo quod,” “propterea,” or
“quatenus,” — “inasmuch,” “because.” Only, we must
say that here is a reason given why “death passed on all men,” inasmuch as
“all have sinned,” — that is, in that sin whereby death entered into the
world.
It is true, death, by virtue of the original constitution
of the law, is due unto every sin, whenever it is committed. But the
present inquiry is, how death passed at once on all men? How they came [to
be] liable and obnoxious unto it upon its first entrance by the actual sin
of Adam? — which cannot be by their own actual sin; yea, the apostle, in
the next verses, affirms that death passed on them also who never sinned
actually, or as Adam did, whose sin was actual. And if the actual sins of
men, in imitation of Adam’s sin, were intended, then should men be made
liable to death before they had sinned; for death, upon its first entrance
into the world, passed on all men, before any one man had actually sinned
but Adam only. But that men should be liable unto death, which is nothing
but the punishment of sin, when they have not sinned, is an open
contradiction. For although God, by his sovereign power, might indict
death on an innocent creature, yet that an innocent creature should be
guilty of death is impossible: for to be guilty of death, is to have
sinned. Wherefore this expression, “Inasmuch as all have sinned,”
expressing the desert and guilt of death then when sin and death first
entered into the world, no sin can be intended in it but the sin of Adam,
and our interest therein: “Eramus enim omnes ille unus
homo;” and this can be no otherwise but by the imputation of the
guilt of that sin unto us. For the act of Adam not being ours inherently
and subjectively, we cannot be concerned in its effect but by the
imputation of its guilt; for the communication of that unto us which is not
inherent in us, is that which we intend by imputation.
This is the πρόστασις of the
intended collation; which I have insisted the longer on, because the
apostle lays in it the foundation of all that he afterwards
infers and asserts in the whole comparison. And here, some say, there is
an ἀναταπόδατον in his discourse; that is, he lays
down the proposition on the part of Adam, but does not show what answers to
it on the contrary in Christ. And Origen gives
the reason of the silence of the apostle herein, — namely, lest what is to
be said therein should be abused by any unto sloth and negligence. For
whereas he says ὥσπερ, “as” (which is a note of
similitude) “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;” so
the ἀπόδοσις, or reddition, should be, “so by one
righteousness entered into the world, and life by righteousness.”
This he acknowledges to be the genuine filling up of the
comparison, but was not expressed by the apostle, lest men should abuse it
unto negligence or security, supposing that to be done already which should
be done afterwards. But as this plainly contradicts and everts most of
what he farther asserts in the exposition of the place, so the apostle
concealed not any truth upon such considerations. And as he plainly
expresses that which is here intimated, verse 19, so he
shows how foolish and wicked any such imaginations are, as suppose that any
countenance is given hereby unto any to indulge themselves in their
sins.
Some grant, therefore, that the apostle does conceal the
expression of what is ascribed unto Christ, in opposition unto what he had
affirmed of Adam and his sin, unto verse 19; but
the truth is, it is sufficiently included in the close of verse
14, where he affirms of Adam that, in those things whereof he
treats, he was “the figure of him that was to come.” For the way and
manner whereby he introduced righteousness and life, and communicated them
unto men, answered the way and manner whereby Adam introduced sin and
death, which passed on all the world. Adam being the figure of Christ,
look how it was with him, with respect unto his natural posterity,
as unto sin and death; so it is with the Lord Christ, the second Adam, and
his spiritual posterity, with respect unto righteousness and life.
Hence we argue, —
If the actual sin of Adam was so imputed unto all his
posterity as to be accounted their own sin unto condemnation, then is the
actual obedience of Christ, the second Adam, imputed unto all his spiritual
seed (that is, unto all believers) unto justification. I shall not
here farther press this argument, because the ground of it will occur unto
us afterwards.
The two next verses, containing an objection and an answer
returned unto it, wherein we have no immediate concernment, I shall pass
by.
Verses 15,
16. The apostle proceeds to explain his comparison in those
things wherein there is a dissimilitude between the comparates:—
“But not as the offence, so also is the free
gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead; much more the grace
of God, and the gift by grace, by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto
many.”
The opposition is between παράπτωμα
on the one hand, and χάρισμα on the other, — between
which a dissimilitude is asserted, not as unto their opposite effects of
death and life, but only as unto the degrees of their efficacy, with
respect unto those effects. Παράπτωμα, the offence,
the fall, the sin, the transgression, — that is, τοῦ ἑνὸς
παρακοὴ, “the disobedience of one,” verse 19. Hence
the first sin of Adam is generally called “the fall,” — τὸ
παράπτωμα. That which is opposed hereunto is τὸ
χάρισμα· — “Donum, donum gratuitum; beneficium, id
quod Deus gratificatur;” that is, Χάρις τοῦ
Θεοῦ, καὶ δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ, as it is immediately explained, “The grace of God, and the
free gift by grace, through Jesus Christ.” Wherefore, although this word,
in the next verse, does precisely signify the righteousness of Christ, yet
here it comprehends all the causes of our justification, in opposition unto
the fall of Adam, and the entrance of sin thereby.
The consequent and effect τοῦ
παραπτώματος, — “of the offence,” the fall, — is, that “many be
dead.” No more is here intended by “many,” but only that the effects of
that one offence were not confined unto one; and if we inquire who or how
many those many are, the apostle tells us that they are all men
universally; that is, all the posterity of Adam. By this one offence,
because they all sinned, therein they are all dead; that is, rendered
obnoxious and liable unto death, as the punishment due unto that one
offence. And hence also it appears how vain it is to wrest those words of
verse 12, “Inasmuch as all have sinned,”
unto any other sin but the first sin in Adam, seeing it is given as the
reason why death passed on them; it being here plainly affirmed “that they
are dead,” or that death passed on them by that one offence.
The efficacy τοῦ χαρίσματος, — “of
the free gift,” — opposed hereunto, is expressed, as that which abounded
much more. Besides the thing itself asserted, which is plain and evident,
the apostle seems to me to argue the equity of our justification by grace,
through the obedience of Christ, by comparing it with the condemnation that
befell us by the sin and disobedience of Adam. For if it were just, meet,
and equal, that all men should be made subject unto condemnation for the
sin of Adam; it is much more so, that those who believe should be justified
by the obedience of Christ, through the grace and free donation of God.
But wherein, in particular, the gift by grace abounded unto many, above the
efficacy of the fall to condemn, he declares afterwards. And that whereby
we are freed from condemnation, more eminently than we are made obnoxious
unto it by the fall and sin of Adam, by that alone we are
justified before God. But this is by the grace of God, and the gift by
grace, through Jesus Christ alone; which we plead for, verse
16. Another difference between the comparates is
expressed, or rather the instance is given in particular of the
dissimilitude asserted in general before:—
“And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for
the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many
offences unto justification.”
Δι’ ἑνὸς
ἁμαρτήσαντος, “By one that sinned,” is the same with δι’ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος, “by one
sin,” one offence, the one sin of that man. Κρῖμα,
we render “judgment.” Most interpreters do it by “reatus,” “guilt,” or “crimen,”
which is derived from it. So מִשְׁפָּת, “judicium,” is used in the Hebrew for guilt: מִשְׁפַּט־מָוֶת לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה, Jer. xxvi.
11, “The judgment of death is to this man, this man is guilty of
death, has deserved to die.” First, therefore, there was παράπρτωμα, the sin, the fall, τοῦ
ἑνος ἁμαρτήσαντος, of one man that sinned; it was his actual sin
alone. Thence followed κρῖμα, “reatus,” “guilt;” this was common unto all. In and
by that one sin, guilt came upon all. And the end hereof, that
which it rendered men obnoxious unto, is κατάκριμα,
— “condemnation,” guilt unto condemnation. And this guilt unto
condemnation which came upon all, was ἐξ ἑνός, — of
one person, or sin. This is the order of things on the part of Adam:— (1.)
Παράπτωμα, the one sin; (2.) Κρῖμα, the guilt that thereon ensued unto all; (3.)
Κατάκριμα, the condemnation which that guilt
deserved. And their “antitheta,” or opposites, in the second Adam are:—
(1.) Χάρισμα, the free donation of God; (2.)
Δώρημα, the gift of grace itself, or the
righteousness of Christ; (3.) Δικαίωμα, or δικαίωσις ζωῆς, “justification of life.” But yet though
the apostle does thus distinguish these things, to illustrate his
comparison and opposition, that which he intends by them all is the
righteousness and obedience of Christ, as he declares, verses 18, 19. This, in the matter of
our justification, he calls, — (1.) Χάρισμα, with
respect unto the free, gratuitous grant of it by the grace of God, Δωρεὰ τῆς χάριτος, and (2.) Δώρημα,
with respect unto us who receive it, — a free gift it is unto us; and (3.)
Δικαίωμα, with respect unto its effect of making us
righteous.
Whereas, therefore, by the sin of Adam imputed unto them,
guilt came on all men unto condemnation, we must inquire wherein the free
gift was otherwise: “Not as by one that sinned, so was the gift.” And it
was so in two things: for, — 1. Condemnation came upon all by one
offence; but being under the guilt of that one offence, we contract the
guilt of many more innumerable. Wherefore, if the free gift had respect
only unto that one offence, and intended itself no farther, we could not be
delivered; wherefore it is said to be “of many offences,” —
that is, of all our sins and trespasses whatever. 2. Adam, and all his
posterity in him, were in a state of acceptation with God, and placed in a
way of obtaining eternal life and blessedness, wherein God himself would
have been their reward. In this estate, by the entrance of sin, they lost
the favour of God, and incurred the guilt of death or condemnation, for
they are the same. But they lost not an immediate right and title unto
life and blessedness; for this they had not, nor could have before the
course of obedience prescribed unto them was accomplished. That,
therefore, which came upon all by the one offence, was the loss of God’s
favour in the approbation of their present state, and the judgment or guilt
of death and condemnation. But an immediate right unto eternal life, by
that one sin was not lost. The free gift is not so: for as by it we are
freed, not only from one sin, but from all our sins, so also by it we have
a right and title unto eternal life; for therein, “grace reigns through
righteousness unto eternal life,” verse 21.
The same truth is farther explained and confirmed,
verse 17, “For if by one man’s offence
death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and
of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.”
The design of the apostle having been sufficiently manifested in our
observations on the former verses, I shall from this only observe those
things which more immediately concern our present subject. And, —
1. It is worth observation with what variety of
expressions the apostle sets forth the grace of God in the justification of
believers: Δικαίωμα, δώρημα,
χάρις, χάρισμα, περισσεία χάριτος, δωρεὰ τῆς
δικαιοσύνης. Nothing is omitted that may any way express the
freedom, sufficiency, and efficacy of grace unto that end. And although
these terms seem some of them to be coincident in their signification, and
to be used by him promiscuously, yet do they every one include something
that is peculiar, and all of them set forth the whole work of grace. Δικαίωμα seems to me to be used in this argument for δικαιολόγημα, which is the foundation of a cause in trial,
the matter pleaded, whereon the person tried is to be acquitted and
justified; and this is the righteousness of Christ, “of one.” Δώρημα, or a free donation, is exclusive of all desert and
conditions on our part who do receive it; and it is that whereby we are
freed from condemnation, and have a right unto the justification of life.
Χάρις is the free grace and favour of God, which is
the original or efficient cause of our justification, as was declared,
chap. iii. 24. Χάρισμα has been explained before. Περισσεία χάριτος, — “The abundance of grace,” — is added
to secure believers of the certainty of the effect. It is that whereunto
nothing is wanting unto our justification. Δωρεὰ τῆς
δικαιοσύνης expresses the free grant of that righteousness which is
imputed unto us unto the justification of life, afterward
called “the obedience of Christ.” Be men as wise and learned as they
please, it becomes us all to learn to think and speak of these divine
mysteries from this blessed apostle, who knew them better than we all, and,
besides, wrote by divine inspiration.
And it is marvellous unto me how men can break through the
fence that he has made about the grace of God and obedience of Christ, in
the work of our justification before God, to introduce their own works of
obedience, and to find a place for them therein. But the design of Paul
and some men, in declaring this point of our justification before God,
seems to be very opposite and contrary. His whole discourse is concerning
the grace of God, the death, blood, and obedience of Christ, as if he could
never sufficiently satisfy himself in the setting out and declaration of
them, without the least mention of any works or duties of our own, or the
least intimation of any use that they are of herein. But all their pleas
are for their own works and duties; and they have invented as many terms to
set them out by as the Holy Ghost has used for the expression and
declaration of the grace of God. Instead of the words of wisdom before
mentioned, which the Holy Ghost has taught, wherewith he fills up his
discourse, theirs are filled with conditions, preparatory dispositions,
merits, causes, and I know not what trappings for our own works. For
my part I shall choose rather to learn of him, and accommodate my
conceptions and expressions of gospel mysteries, and of this in especial
concerning our justification, unto his who cannot deceive me, than trust to
any other conduct, how specious soever its pretences may be.
2. It is plain in this verse that no more is required of
any one unto justification, but that he receive the “abundance of grace and
the gift of righteousness;” for this is the description that the apostle
gives of those that are justified, as unto any thing that on their part is
required. And as this excludes all works of righteousness which we do, —
for by none of them do we receive the abundance of grace, and the gift of
righteousness, — so it does also the imputation of faith itself unto our
justification, as it is an act and duty of our own: for faith is that
whereby we receive the gift of righteousness by which we are justified.
For it will not be denied but that we are justified by the gift of
righteousness, or the righteousness which is given unto us; for by it have
we right and title unto life. But our faith is not this gift; for that
which receives, and that which is received, are not the same.
3. Where there is περισσεία
χάριτος, and χάρις ὑπερπερισσεύουσα, —
“abounding grace,” “superabounding grace,” — exerted in our justification,
no more is required thereunto; for how can it be said to abound, yea, to
superabound, not only to the freeing of us from condemnation, but the giving of us a title unto life, if in any thing it is to
be supplied and eked out by works and duties of our own? The things
intended do fill up these expressions, although to some they are but an
empty noise.
4. There is a gift of righteousness required unto our
justification, which all must receive who are to be justified, and all are
justified who do receive it; for they that receive it shall “reign in life
by Jesus Christ.” And hence it follows, — (1.) That the righteousness
whereby we are justified before God can be nothing of our own, nothing
inherent in us, nothing performed by us. For it is that which is freely
given us, and this donation is by imputation: “Blessed is the man unto whom
God imputeth righteousness,” chap. iv. 6. And
by faith we receive what is so given and imputed; and otherwise we
contribute nothing unto our participation of it. This it is to be
justified in the sense of the apostle. (2.) It is such a righteousness as
gives right and title unto eternal life; for they that receive it shall
“reign in life.” Wherefore, it cannot consist in the pardon of sin alone;
for, — [1.] The pardon of sin can in no tolerable sense be called “the gift
of righteousness.” Pardon of sin is one thing, and righteousness another.
[2.] Pardon of sin does not give right and title unto eternal life. It is
true, he whose sins are pardoned shall inherit eternal life; but not merely
by virtue of that pardon, but through the imputation of righteousness which
does inseparably accompany it, and is the ground of it.
The description which is here given of our justification by
grace, in opposition unto the condemnation that we were made liable unto by
the sin of Adam, and in exaltation above it, as to the efficacy of grace
above that of the first sin, in that thereby not one but all sins are
forgiven, and not only so, but a right unto life eternal is communicated
unto us, is this: “That we receive the grace of God, and the gift of
righteousness;” which gives us a right unto life by Jesus Christ. But this
is to be justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ,
received by faith alone.
The conclusion of what has been evinced, in the management
of the comparison insisted on, is fully expressed and farther confirmed,
chap. v. 18, 19.
Verse 18. “Therefore, as by the offence
of one judgment came upon all men unto condemnation; even so by the
righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of
life.” So we read the words. “By the offence of one:” the Greek copies
vary here. Some read, Τῷ ἑνὶ παραπτώματι, whom
Beza follows, and our translation in the margin,
— “By one offence;” most by Δι’ ἑνὸς
παραπτώματος, — “By the offence of one;” and so afterwards as unto
righteousness: but both are unto the same purpose. For the one offence intended is the offence of one, — that is, of Adam; and
the one righteousness is the righteousness of one, — Jesus Christ.
The introduction of this assertion by ἄρα
οὖν, the note of a syllogistical inference, declares what is here
asserted to be the substance of the truth pleaded for. And the comparison
is continued, ὡς, — these things have themselves
after the same manner.
That which is affirmed on the one side is, Δι’ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους
εἰς κατάκριμα, — “By the sin or fall of one, on all men unto
condemnation,” — that is, judgment, say we, repeating κρῖμα from the foregoing verse. But κρῖμα
εἰς κατάκριμα is guilt, and that only. By the sin of one, all men
became guilty, and were made obnoxious unto condemnation. The guilt of it
is imputed unto all men; for no otherwise can it come upon them unto
condemnation, no otherwise can they be rendered obnoxious unto death and
judgment on the account thereof. For we have evinced, that by death and
condemnation, in this disputation of the apostle, the whole punishment due
unto sin is intended. This, therefore, is plain and evident on that
hand.
In answer hereunto, the δικαίωμα of
one, as to the causality of justification, is opposed unto the παράπτωμα of the other, as unto its causality unto or of
condemnation: Δι’ ἑνὸς
δικαιώματος, — “By the righteousness of one:” that is, the
righteousness that is pleadable εἰς δικαίωσιν, unto
justification; for that is δικαίωμα, a righteousness
pleaded for justification. By this, say our translators, “the free gift
came upon all,” repeating χάρισμα from the foregoing
verse, as they had done κρῖμα before on the other
hand. The Syriac translation renders the words without the aid of any
supplement: “Therefore, as by the sin of one, condemnation was unto all
men, so by the righteousness of one, justification unto life shall be unto
all men;” and the sense of the words is so made plain without the supply of
any other word into the text. But whereas in the original the words are
not κατάκριμα εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, but εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς καράκριμα, and so in the latter
clause, somewhat from his own foregoing words, is to be supplied to answer
the intention of the apostle. And this is χάρισμα,
“gratiosa donatio,” “the free grant” of
righteousness; or δώρημα, “the free gift” of
righteousness unto justification. The righteousness of one, Christ Jesus,
is freely granted unto all believers, to the justification of life; for the
“all men” here mentioned are described by, and limited unto, them that
“receive the abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness by Christ,”
verse 17.
Some vainly pretend from hence a general grant of
righteousness and life unto all men, whereof the greatest part are
never made partakers; than which nothing can be more opposite nor
contradictory unto the apostle’s design. Men are not made guilty of
condemnation from the sin of Adam, by such a divine
constitution, as that they may, or on some conditions may not, be obnoxious
thereunto. Every one, so soon as he actually exists, and by virtue thereof
is a descendant from the first Adam, is actually in his own person liable
thereunto, and the wrath of God abides on him. And no more are intended on
the other side, but those only who, by their relation through faith unto
the Lord Christ, the second Adam, are actually interested in the
justification of life. Neither is the controversy about the universality
of redemption by the death of Christ herein concerned. For those by whom
it is asserted do not affirm that it is thence necessary that the free gift
unto the justification of life should come on all; for that they know it
does not do. And of a provision of righteousness and life for men in case
they do believe, although it be true, yet nothing is spoken in this place.
Only the certain justification of them that believe, and the way of it, are
declared. Nor will the analogy of the comparison here insisted on admit of
any such interpretation; for the “all,” on the one hand, are all and
only those who derive their being from Adam by natural propagation. If
any man might be supposed not to do so, he would not be concerned in his
sin or fall. And so really it was with the man Christ Jesus. And those on
the other hand, are only those who derive a spiritual life from Christ.
Suppose a man not to do so, and he is no way interested in the
righteousness of the “one” unto the justification of life. Our argument
from the words is this:— As the sin of one that came on all unto
condemnation, was the sin of the first Adam imputed unto them; so the
righteousness of the one unto the justification of life that comes on all
believers, is the righteousness of Christ imputed unto them. And what
can be more clearly affirmed or more evidently confirmed than this is by
the apostle, I know not.
Yet is it more plainly expressed, verse
19. “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners,
so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”
This is well explained by Cyrillus Alexandrinus in Joan. lib. xi. cap. 25: “Quemadmodum prævaricatione primi hominis ut in primitiis generis
nostri, morti addicti fuimus; eodem modo per obedientiam et justitiam
Christi, in quantum seipsum legi subjecit, quamvis legis author esset,
benedictio et vivificatio quæ per Spiritum est, ad totam nostram penetravit
naturam.” And by Leo, Epist. xii. ad Juvenalem: “Ut autem
reparet omnium vitam, recepit omnium causam; at sicut per unius reatum
omnes facti fuerunt peccatores, ita per unius innocentiam omnes fierent
innocentes; inde in homines manaret justitia, ubi est humana suscepta
natura.”
That which he before called παράπτωμα and δικαίωμα he now
expresses by παρακοή and ὑπακοή, — “disobedience” and “obedience.” The παρακοή of Adam, or his disobedience,
was his actual transgression of the law of God. Hereby, says the apostle,
“many were made sinners,” — sinners in such a sense as to be obnoxious unto
death and condemnation; for liable unto death they could not be made,
unless they were first made sinners or guilty. And this they could not be,
but that they are esteemed to have sinned in him, whereon the guilt of his
sin was imputed unto them. This, therefore, he affirms, — namely, that the
actual sin of Adam was so the sin of all men, as that they were made
sinners thereby, obnoxious unto death and condemnation.
That which he opposes hereunto is ἡ
ὑπακοή, — “the obedience of one;” that is, of Jesus Christ. And
this was the actual obedience that he yielded unto the whole law of God.
For as the disobedience of Adam was his actual transgression of the whole
law, so the obedience of Christ was his actual accomplishment or fulfilling
of the whole law. This the antithesis does require.
Hereby many are made righteous. How? By the
imputation of that obedience unto them. For so, and no otherwise, are men
made sinners by the imputation of the disobedience of Adam. And this is
that which gives us a right and title unto eternal life, as the apostle
declares, verse 21, “That as sin reigned unto
death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life.”
This righteousness is no other but the “obedience of one,” — that is, of
Christ, — as it is called, verse 19. And
it is said to “come” upon us, — that is, to be imputed unto us; for
“Blessed is the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness.” And hereby we
have not only deliverance from that death and condemnation whereunto we
were liable by the sin of Adam, but the pardon of many offences, — that is,
of all our personal sins, — and a right unto life eternal through the grace
of God; for we are “justified freely by his grace, through the redemption
that is in Christ Jesus.”
And these things are thus plainly and fully delivered by
the apostle; unto whose sense and expressions also (so far as may be) it is
our duty to accommodate ours. What is offered in opposition hereunto is so
made up of exceptions, evasions, and perplexed disputes, and leads us so
far off from the plain words of the Scripture, that the conscience of a
convinced sinner knows not what to fix upon to give it rest and
satisfaction, nor what it is that is to be believed unto justification.
Piscator, in his scholia on
this chapter and elsewhere, insists much on a specious argument against the
imputation of the obedience of Christ unto our justification; but it
proceeds evidently on an open mistake and false supposition, as well as it
is contradictory unto the plain words of the text. It is true, which he
observes and proves, that our redemption, reconciliation, pardon of sin,
and justification, are often ascribed unto the death and blood of Christ in
a signal manner. The reasons of it have partly been intimated
before; and a farther account of them shall be given immediately. But it
does not thence follow that the obedience of his life, wherein he fulfilled
the whole law, being made under it for us, is excluded from any causality
therein, or is not imputed unto us. But in opposition hereunto he thus
argues:—
“Si obedientia vitæ Christi nobis ad
justitiam imputaretur, non fuit opus Christum pro nobis mori; mori enim
necesse fuit pro nobis injustus,” 1 Pet. iii.
18. “Quod si ergo justi effecti sumus per vitam
illius, causa nulla relicta fuit cur pro nobis moreretur; quia justitia Dei
non patitur ut puniat justos. At punivit nos in Christo, seu quod idem
valet punivit Christum pro nobis, et loco nostri, posteaquam ille sancte
vixisset, ut certum est e Scriptura. Ergo non sumus justi effecti per
sanctam vitam Christi. Item, Christus mortuus est ut justitiam illam Dei
nobis acquireret,” 2 Cor. v. 21.
“Non igitur illam acquisiverat ante mortem.”
But this whole argument, I say, proceeds upon an evident
mistake; for it supposes such an order of things as that the obedience of
Christ, or his righteousness in fulfilling the law, is first imputed unto
us, and then the righteousness of his death is afterwards to take place, or
to be imputed unto us; which, on that supposition, he says, would be of no
use. But no such order or divine constitution is pleaded or pretended in
our justification. It is true, the life of Christ and his obedience unto
the law did precede his sufferings, and undergoing the curse thereof, —
neither could it otherwise be, for this order of these things between
themselves was made necessary from the law of nature, — but it does not
thence follow that it must be observed in the imputation or application of
them unto us. For this is an effect of sovereign wisdom and grace, not
respecting the natural order of Christ’s obedience and suffering,
but the moral order of the things whereunto they are appointed. And
although we need not assert, nor do I so do, different acts of the
imputation of the obedience of Christ unto the justification of life, or a
right and title unto life eternal, and of the suffering of Christ unto the
pardon of our sins and freedom from condemnation, — but by both we have
both, according unto the ordinance of God, that Christ may be all in all, —
yet as unto the effects themselves, in the method of God’s bringing sinners
unto the justification of life, the application of the death of Christ unto
them, unto the pardon of sin and freedom from condemnation, is, in order of
nature, and in the exercise of faith, antecedent unto the application of
his obedience unto us for a right and title unto life eternal.
The state of the person to be justified is a state of sin
and wrath, wherein he is liable unto death and condemnation. This is that
which a convinced sinner is sensible of, and which alone, in
the first place, he seeks for deliverance from: “What shall we do to be
saved?” This, in the first place, is represented unto him in the doctrine
and promise of the gospel; which is the rule and instrument of its
application. And this is [by] the death of Christ. Without this no
actual righteousness imputed unto him, not the obedience of Christ himself,
will give him relief; for he is sensible that he has sinned, and thereby
come short of the glory of God, and under the sentence condemnatory of the
law. Until he receives a deliverance from hence, it is to no purpose to
propose that unto him which should give him right unto life eternal. But
upon a supposition hereof, he is no less concerned in what shall yet
farther give him title whereunto, that he may reign in life through
righteousness. Herein, I say, in its order, conscience is no less
concerned than in deliverance from condemnation. And this order is
expressed in the declaration of the fruit and effects of the mediation of
Christ, Dan. ix. 24, “To make reconciliation for
iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness.” Neither is there any
force in the objection against it, that actually the obedience of Christ
did precede his suffering: for the method of their application is not
prescribed thereby; and the state of sinners to be justified, with the
nature of their justification, requires it should be otherwise, as God also
has ordained. But because the obedience and sufferings of Christ were
concomitant from first to last, both equally belonging unto his state of
exinanition, and cannot in any act or instance be separated, but only in
notion or imagination, seeing he suffered in all his obedience and obeyed
in all his sufferings, Heb. v. 8; and
neither part of our justification, in freedom from condemnation and right
unto life eternal, can be supposed to be or exist without the other,
according unto the ordinance and constitution of God; the whole effect is
jointly to be ascribed unto the whole mediation of Christ, so far as he
acted towards God in our behalf, wherein he fulfilled the whole law, both
as to the penalty exacted of sinners and the righteousness it requires unto
life as an eternal reward. And there are many reasons why our
justification is, in the Scripture, by way of eminency, ascribed unto the
death and blood-shedding of Christ.
For, — 1. The grace and love of God, the principal,
efficient cause of our justification, are therein made most eminent and
conspicuous; for this is most frequently in the Scripture proposed unto us
as the highest instance and undeniable demonstration of divine love
and grace. And this is that which principally we are to consider in our
justification, the glory of them being the end of God therein. He “made us
accepted in the Beloved, to the praise of the glory of his grace,”
Eph. i. 6. Wherefore, this being the
fountain, spring, and sole cause, both of the obedience of
Christ and of the imputation thereof unto us, with the pardon of sin and
righteousness thereby, it is everywhere in the Scripture proposed as the
prime object of our faith in our justification, and opposed directly unto
all our own works whatever. The whole of God’s design herein is, that
“grace may reign through righteousness unto eternal life.” Whereas,
therefore, this is made most evident and conspicuous in the death of
Christ, our justification is in a peculiar manner assigned thereunto.
2. The love of Christ himself and his grace are peculiarly
exalted in our justification: “That all men may honour the Son even as they
honour the Father.” Frequently are they expressed unto this purpose,
2 Cor. viii. 9; Gal. ii.
20; Phil. ii. 6,
7; Rev. i. 5,
6. And those also are most eminently exalted in his death, so
as that all the effects and fruits of them are ascribed thereunto in a
peculiar manner; as nothing is more ordinary than, among many things that
concur to the same effect, to ascribe it unto that which is most eminent
among them, especially if it cannot be conceived as separated from the
rest.
3. This is the clearest testimony that what the Lord
Christ did and suffered was for us, and not for himself; for without the
consideration hereof, all the obedience which he yielded unto the law might
be looked on as due only on his own account, and himself to have been such
a Saviour as the Socinians imagine, who should do all with us from God, and
nothing with God for us. But the suffering of the curse of the law by him
who was not only an innocent man, but also the Son of God, openly testifies
that what he did and suffered was for us, and not for himself. It is no
wonder, therefore, if our faith as unto justification be in the first
place, and principally, directed unto his death and blood-shedding.
4. All the obedience of Christ had still respect unto the
sacrifice of himself which was to ensue, wherein it received its
accomplishment, and whereon its efficacy unto our justification did depend:
for as no imputation of actual obedience would justify sinners from the
condemnation that was passed on them for the sin of Adam; so, although the
obedience of Christ was not a mere preparation or qualification of his
person for his suffering, yet its efficacy unto our justification did
depend on his suffering that was to ensue, when his soul was made an
offering for sin.
5. As was before observed, reconciliation and the pardon
of sin through the blood of Christ do directly, in the first place, respect
our relief from the state and condition whereinto we were cast by the sin
of Adam, — in the loss of the favour of God, and liableness unto death.
This, therefore, is that which principally, and in the first place, a lost
convinced sinner, such as Christ calls unto himself, does look
after. And therefore justification is eminently and frequently proposed as
the effect of the blood-shedding and death of Christ, which are the direct
cause of our reconciliation and pardon of sin. But yet from none of these
considerations does it follow that the obedience of the one man, Christ
Jesus, is not imputed unto us, whereby grace might reign through
righteousness unto eternal life.
The same truth is fully asserted and confirmed, Rom. viii. 1–4. But this place has been
of late so explained and so vindicated by another, in his learned and
judicious exposition of it (namely, Dr Jacomb),
as that nothing remains of weight to be added unto what has been pleaded
and argued by him, part i.
verse 4, p. 587, and onwards. And indeed the answers which he
subjoins (to the arguments whereby he confirms the truth) to the most usual
and important objections against the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ, are sufficient to give just satisfaction unto the minds of
unprejudiced, unengaged persons. I shall therefore pass over this
testimony, as that which has been so lately pleaded and vindicated, and not
press the same things, it may be (as is not unusual) unto their
disadvantage.
Rom. x. 3,
4, explained and insisted on to the same purpose
Rom. x. 3,
4. “For they” (the Jews, who had a zeal for God, but not
according to knowledge), “being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going
about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves
unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for
righteousness unto every one that believeth.”
What is here determined, the apostle enters upon the
proposition and declaration of, chap. ix. 30.
And because what he had to propose was somewhat strange, and unsuited unto
the common apprehensions of men, he introduces it with that prefatory
interrogation, Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; (which he uses on the
like occasions, chap. iii. 5;
vi. 1; vii. 7; ix. 14) — “What shall we say then?” that is, “Is
there in this matter ‘unrighteousness with God?’ ” as verse
14; or, “What shall we say unto these things?” or, “This is that
which is to be said herein.” That which hereon he asserts is, “That the
Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to
righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith; but Israel, which
followed after the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of
righteousness;” that is, unto righteousness itself before God.
Nothing seems to be more contrary unto reason than what is
here made manifest by the event. The Gentiles, who lived in sin and
pleasures, not once endeavouring to attain unto any righteousness before
God, yet attained unto it upon the preaching of the gospel. Israel, on the
other hand, which followed after righteousness diligently in all the works
of the law, and duties of obedience unto God thereby, came
short of it, attained not unto it. All preparations, all dispositions, all
merit, as unto righteousness and justification, are excluded from the
Gentiles; for in all of them there is more or less a following after
righteousness, which is denied of them all. Only by faith in him who
justifies the ungodly, they attain righteousness, or they attained the
righteousness of faith. For to attain righteousness by faith, and to
attain the righteousness which is of faith, are the same. Wherefore, all
things that are comprised any way in following after righteousness, such as
are all our duties and works, are excluded from any influence into our
justification. And this is expressed to declare the sovereignty and
freedom of the grace of God herein, — namely, that we are justified freely
by his grace, — and that on our part all boasting is excluded. Let men
pretend what they will, and dispute what they please, those who attain unto
righteousness and justification before God, when they follow not after
righteousness, they do it by the gratuitous imputation of the righteousness
of another unto them.
It may be it will be said: “It is true in the time of their
heathenism they did not at all follow after righteousness, but when
the truth of the gospel was revealed unto them, then they followed after
righteousness, and did attain it.” But, — 1. This is directly to
contradict the apostle, in that it says that they attained not
righteousness but only as they followed after righteousness; whereas he
affirms the direct contrary. 2. It takes away the distinction which he
puts between them and Israel, — namely, that the one followed after
righteousness, and the other did not. 3. To follow after righteousness,
in this place, is to follow after a righteousness of our own: “To establish
their own righteousness,” chap. x. 3. But
this is so far from being a means of attaining righteousness, as that it is
the most effectual obstruction thereof.
If, therefore, those who have no righteousness of their
own, who are so far from it that they never endeavoured to attain it, do
yet by faith receive that righteousness wherewith they are justified before
God, they do so by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto them;
or let some other way be assigned.
In the other side of the instance, concerning Israel, some
must hear, whether they will or not, that wherewith they are not
pleased.
Three things are expressed of them:— 1. Their attempt. 2.
Their success. 3. The reason of it.
1. Their attempt or endeavour was in this, that
they “followed after the law of righteousness.” Διώκω, the word whereby their endeavour is expressed,
signifies that which is earnest, diligent, and sincere. By it does the
apostle declare what his [endeavour] was, and what ours ought to be, in the
duties and exercise of gospel obedience, Phil. iii. 12.
They were not indiligent in this matter, but “instantly
served God day and night.” Nor were they hypocritical; for the apostle
bears them record in this matter, that “they had a zeal of God,” Rom. x.
2. And that which they thus endeavoured after was νόμος δικαιοσύνης, — “the law of righteousness,” that law
which prescribed a perfect personal righteousness before God; “the things
which if a man do them, he shall live in them,” chap. x. 5.
Wherefore, the apostle has no other respect unto the ceremonial law in this
place but only as it was branched out from the moral law by the will of
God, and as the obedience unto it belonged thereunto. When he speaks of it
separately, he calls it “the law of commandments contained in ordinances;”
but it is nowhere called “the law of righteousness,” the law whose
righteousness is fulfilled in us, chap. viii. 4.
Wherefore, the following after this law of righteousness was their
diligence in the performance of all duties of obedience, according unto the
directions and precepts of the moral law.
2. The issue of this attempt is, that they
“attained not unto the law of righteousness,” εἰς νόμον
δικαιοσύνης οὐκ ἔφθασε, — that is, they attained not unto a
righteousness before God hereby. Though this was the end of the law,
namely, a righteousness before God, wherein a man might live, yet could
they never attain it.
3. An account is given of the reason of their
failing in attaining that which they so earnestly endeavoured after.
And this was in a double mistake that they were under; — first, In the
means of attaining it; secondly, In the righteousness itself
that was to be sought after. The first is declared, chap. ix. 32, “Because not by faith, but
as it were by the works of the law.” Faith and works are the two only ways
whereby righteousness may be attained, and they are opposite and
inconsistent; so that none does or can seek after righteousness by them
both. They will not be mixed and made one entire means of attaining
righteousness. They are opposed as grace and works; what is of the one is
not of the other, chap. xi. 6. Every composition of them
in this matter is, “Male sarta gratia nequicquam coit et
rescinditur.” And the reason is, because the righteousness which
faith seeks after, or which is attainable by faith, is that which is given
to us, imputed unto us, which faith does only receive. It receives “the
abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness.” But that which is
attainable by works is our own, inherent in us, wrought out by us, and not
imputed unto us; for it is nothing but those works themselves, with respect
unto the law of God.
And if righteousness before God be to be obtained alone by
faith, and that in contradiction unto all works, — which if a man do them,
according unto the law, “he shall even live in them,” — then is it by faith
alone that we are justified before God, or, nothing else on our part is required thereunto. And of what nature this righteousness
must be is evident.
Again: if faith and works are opposed as contrary and
inconsistent, when considered as the means of attaining righteousness or
justification before God, as plainly they are, then is it impossible we
should be justified before God by them in the same sense, way, and manner.
Wherefore, when the apostle James affirms that a man is justified by works,
and not by faith only, he cannot intend our justification before God, where
it is impossible they should both concur; for not only are they declared
inconsistent by the apostle in this place, but it would introduce several
sorts of righteousness into justification, that are inconsistent and
destructive of each other. This was the first mistake of the Jews, whence
this miscarriage ensued, — they sought not after righteousness by faith,
but as it were by the works of the law.
Their second mistake was as unto the righteousness
itself whereon a man might be justified before God; for this they judged
was to be their own righteousness, chap. x. 3.
Their own personal righteousness, consisting in their own duties of
obedience, they looked on as the only righteousness whereon they might be
justified before God. This, therefore, they went about to establish, as
the Pharisee did, Luke
xviii. 11, 12: and this mistake, with their design thereon, “to
establish their own righteousness,” was the principal cause that made them
reject the righteousness of God; as it is with many at this day.
Whatever is done in us, or performed by us, as obedience
unto God, is our own righteousness. Though it be done in faith, and
by the aids of God’s grace, yet is it subjectively ours, and, so far
as it is a righteousness, it is our own. But all righteousness whatever,
which is our own, is so far diverse from the righteousness by which we are
to be justified before God, as that the most earnest endeavour to establish
it, — that is, to render it such as by which we may be justified, — is an
effectual means to cause us to refuse a submission unto, and an acceptance
of, that whereby alone we may be so.
This ruined the Jews, and will be the ruin of all that
shall follow their example in seeking after justification; yet is it not
easy for men to take any other way, or to be taken off from this. So the
apostle intimates in that expression, “They submitted not themselves unto
the righteousness of God.” This righteousness of God is of that nature
that the proud mind of man is altogether unwilling to bow and submit itself
unto; yet can it no otherwise be attained, but by such a submission or
subjection of mind as contains in it a total renunciation of any
righteousness of our own. And those who reproach others for affirming that
men endeavouring after morality, or moral righteousness, and resting
therein, are in no good way for the participation of the grace
of God by Jesus Christ, do expressly deride the doctrine of the apostle;
that is, of the Holy Ghost himself.
Wherefore, the plain design of the apostle is, to declare
that not only faith and the righteousness of it, and a righteousness of our
own by works, are inconsistent, that is, as unto our justification before
God; but also, that the intermixture of our own works, in seeking after
righteousness, as the means thereof, does wholly divert us from the
acceptance of or submission unto the righteousness of God. For the
righteousness which is of faith is not our own; it is the righteousness of
God, — that which he imputes unto us. But the righteousness of works is
our own, — that which is wrought in us and by us. And as works have no
aptitude nor meekness in themselves to attain or receive a righteousness
which, because it is not our own, is imputed unto us, but are repugnant
unto it, as that which will cast them down from their legal dignity of
being our righteousness; so faith has no aptitude nor meekness in itself to
be an inherent righteousness, or so to be esteemed, or as such to be
imputed unto us, seeing its principal faculty and efficacy consist in
fixing all the trust, confidence, and expectation of the soul, for
righteousness and acceptation with God, upon another.
Here was the ruin of those Jews: they judged it a better, a
more probable, yea, a more righteous and holy way for them, constantly to
endeavour after a righteousness of their own, by duties of obedience unto
the law of God, than to imagine that they could come to acceptance with God
by faith in another. For tell them, and such as they, what you please, if
they have not a righteousness of their own, that they can set upon its
legs, and make to stand before God, the law will not have its
accomplishment, and so will condemn them.
To demolish this last sort of unbelief, the apostle grants
that the law must have its end, and be completely fulfilled, or there is no
appearing for us as righteous before God; and withal shows them how this is
done, and where alone it is to be sought after: for “Christ,” says he, “is
the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,”
Rom. x. 4. We need not trouble ourselves
to inquire in what various senses Christ may be said to be τέλος νόμου, — “the end,” the complement, the perfection,
“of the law.” The apostle sufficiently determines his intention, in
affirming not absolutely that he is the end of the law, but he is so εἰς δικαιοσύνην, “for righteousness,” unto every one that
believes. The matter in question is a righteousness unto justification
before God. And this is acknowledged to be the righteousness which the law
requires. God looks for no righteousness from us but what is prescribed in
the law. The law is nothing but the rule of righteousness, — God’s
prescription of a righteousness, and all the duties of it, unto us. That
we should be righteous herewith before God was the first,
original end of the law. Its other ends at present, of the conviction of
sin, and judging or condemning for it, were accidental unto its primitive
constitution. This righteousness which the law requires, which is all and
only that righteousness which God requires of us, the accomplishment of
this end of the law, the Jews sought after by their own personal
performance of the works and duties of it. But hereby, in the utmost
of their endeavours, they could never fulfil this righteousness, nor attain
this end of the law; which yet if men do not they must perish for ever.
Wherefore, the apostle declares, that all this is done
another way; that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled, and its end,
as unto a righteousness before God, attained; and that is in and by Christ.
For what the law required, that he accomplished; which is accounted unto
every one that believes.
Herein the apostle issues the whole disquisition about a
righteousness wherewith we may be justified before God, and, in particular,
how satisfaction is given unto the demands of the law. That which we could
not do, — that which the law could not effect in us, in that it was weak
through the flesh, — that which we could not attain by the works and duties
of it, — that Christ has done for us; and so is “the end of the law
for righteousness unto every one that believeth.”
The law demands a righteousness of us; the accomplishment
of this righteousness is the end which it aims at, and which is necessary
unto our justification before God. This is not to be attained by any
works of our own, by any righteousness of our own. But the Lord Christ
is this for us, and unto us; which, how he is or can be but by the
imputation of his obedience and righteousness in the accomplishment of the
law, I cannot understand; I am sure the apostle does not declare.
The way whereby we attain unto this end of the law, which
we cannot do by our utmost endeavours to establish our own righteousness,
is by faith alone, for “Christ is the end of the law for
righteousness unto every one that believeth.” To mix any thing with faith
herein, as it is repugnant unto the nature of faith and works, with respect
unto their aptitude and meekness for the attaining of a righteousness, so
it is as directly contradictory unto the express design and words of the
apostle as any thing that can be invented.
Let men please themselves with their distinctions, which I
understand not (and yet, perhaps, should be ashamed to say so, but that I
am persuaded they understand them not themselves by whom they are used), or
with cavils, objections, feigned consequences, which I value not; here I
shall forever desire to fix my soul, and herein to acquiesce, — namely,
that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that doth
believe.” And I do suppose, that all they who understand
aright what it is that the law of God does require of them, how needful it
is that it be complied withal, and that the end of it be accomplished, with
the utter insufficiency of their own endeavours unto those ends, will, at
least when the time of disputing is over, betake themselves unto the same
refuge and rest.
1 Cor. i. 30. Christ, how of God made
righteousness unto us — Answer of Bellarmine unto this testimony removed — That of
Socinus disproved — True sense of the
words evinced
The next place I shall consider in the epistles of this
apostle is, —
1 Cor. i. 30. “But of him are ye in
Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and
sanctification, and redemption.”
The design of the apostle in these words is to manifest,
that whatever is wanting unto us on any account that we may please God,
live unto him, and come to the enjoyment of him, that we have in and, by
Jesus Christ; and this on the part of God from mere free and sovereign
grace, as verses
26–29 do declare. And we have all these things by virtue of our
insition or implantation in him: ἐξ αὐτοῦ, —
“from,” “of,” or “by him.” He by his grace is the principal, efficient
cause hereof. And the effect is, that we are “in Christ Jesus,” — that is,
ingrafted in him, or united unto him, as members of his mystical body;
which is the constant sense of that expression in the Scripture. And the
benefits which we receive hereby are enumerated in the following words.
But, first, the way whereby we are made partakers of them, or they are
communicated unto us, is declared: “Who of God is made unto us.” It is so
ordained of God, that he himself shall be made or become all this unto us:
Ὃς ἐγενήθη ἡμῖν ἀπὸ Θεοῦ, where ἀπό denotes the efficient cause, as ἐξ did before. But how is Christ thus made unto us of
God, or what act of God is it that is intended thereby? Socinus says it is “a general act of the
providence of God, whence it is come to pass, or is so fallen out, that one
way or other the Lord Christ should be said to be all this unto us.” But
it is an especial ordinance and institution of God’s sovereign grace and
wisdom, designing Christ to be all this unto us and for us, with actual
imputation thereon, and nothing else, that is intended. Whatever interest,
therefore, we have in Christ, and whatever benefit we have by him, it all
depends on the sovereign grace and constitution of God, and
not on any thing in ourselves. Whereas, then, we have no righteousness of
our own, he is appointed of God to be our “righteousness,” and is made so
unto us: which can be no otherwise, but that his righteousness is made
ours; for he is made it unto us (as he is likewise the other things
mentioned) so as that all boasting, that is in ourselves, should be utterly
excluded, and that “he that glorieth should glory in the Lord,” verses 29–31. Now, there is such a
righteousness, or such a way of being righteous, whereon we may have
somewhat to glory, Rom. iv. 2, and which does not exclude
boasting, chap. iii. 27. And this
cannot possibly be but when our righteousness is inherent in us; for that,
however it may be procured, or purchased, or wrought in us, is yet our
own, so far as any thing can be our own whilst we are creatures. This
kind of righteousness, therefore, is here excluded. And the Lord Christ
being so made righteousness unto us of God as that all boasting and
glorying on our part, or in ourselves, may be excluded, — yea, being made
so for this very end, that so it should be, — it can be no otherwise but by
the imputation of his righteousness unto us; for thereby is the grace of
God, the honour of his person and mediation exalted, and all occasion of
glorying in ourselves utterly prescinded. We desire no more from this
testimony, but that whereas we are in ourselves destitute of all
righteousness in the sight of God, Christ is, by a gracious act of divine
imputation, made of God righteousness unto us, in such a way as that all
our glorying ought to be in the grace of God, and the righteousness of
Christ himself. Bellarmine attempts three
answers unto this testimony, the two first whereof are coincident; and, in
the third, being on the rack of light and truth, he confesses, and grants
all that we plead for. 1. He says, “That Christ is said to be our
righteousness, because he is the efficient cause of it, as God is said to
be our strength; and so there is in the words a metonymy of the effect for
the cause.” And I say it is true, that the Lord Christ by his Spirit is
the efficient cause of our personal, inherent righteousness. By his grace
it is effected and wrought in us; he renews our natures into the image of
God, and without him we can do nothing: so that our habitual and actual
righteousness is from him. But this personal righteousness is our
sanctification, and nothing else. And although the same internal
habit of inherent grace, with operations suitable thereunto, be
sometimes called our sanctification, and sometimes our
righteousness, with respect unto those operations, yet is it never
distinguished into our sanctification and our righteousness. But his being
made righteousness unto us in this place is absolutely distinct from his
being made sanctification unto us; which is that inherent righteousness
which is wrought in us by the Spirit and grace of Christ. And his working
personal righteousness in us, which is our sanctification, and the
imputation of his righteousness unto us, whereby we are made righteous
before God, are not only consistent, but the one of them cannot be without
the other.
2. He pleads, “That Christ is said to be made
righteousness unto us, as he is made redemption. Now, he is our
redemption, because he has redeemed us. So is he said to be made
righteousness unto us, because by him we become righteous;” or, as another
speaks, “because by him alone we are justified.” This is the same plea
with the former, — namely, that there is a metonymy of the effect for the
cause in all these expressions; yet what cause they intend it
to be who expound the words, “By him alone we are justified,” I do not
understand. But Bellarmine is approaching
yet nearer the truth: for as Christ is said to be made of God redemption
unto us, because by his blood we are redeemed, or freed from sin, death,
and hell, by the ransom he paid for us, or have redemption through his
blood, even the forgiveness of sins; so he is said to be made righteousness
unto us, because through his righteousness granted unto us of God (as God’s
making him to be righteousness unto us, and our becoming the righteousness
of God in him, and the imputation of his righteousness unto us, that we may
be righteous before God, are the same), we are justified.
His third answer, as was before observed, grants the whole
of what we plead; for it is the same which he gives unto Jer. xxiii. 6: which place he conjoins
with this, as of the same sense and importance, giving up his whole cause
in satisfaction unto them, in the words before described, lib. ii. cap. 10.
Socinus prefaces his
answer unto this testimony with an admiration that any should make use of
it, or plead it in this cause, it is so impertinent unto the purpose. And,
indeed, a pretended contempt of the arguments of his adversaries is the
principal artifice he makes use of in all his replies and evasions; wherein
I am sorry to see that he is followed by most of them who, together with
him, do oppose the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. And so of
late the use of this testimony, which reduced Bellarmine to so great a strait, is admired at on
the only ground and reason wherewith it is opposed by Socinus. Yet are his exceptions unto it such as that I
cannot also but a little, on the other hand, wonder that any learned man
should be troubled with them, or seduced by them; for he only pleads, “That
if Christ be said to be made righteousness unto us because his
righteousness is imputed unto us, then is he said to be made wisdom unto us
because his wisdom is so imputed, and so of his sanctification; which none
will allow: yea, he must be redeemed for us, and his redemption be imputed
unto us.” But there is nothing of force nor truth in this pretence: for it
is built only on this supposition, that Christ must be made unto us of God
all these things in the same way and manner; whereas they are of such
different natures that it is utterly impossible he should so be. For
instance, he is made sanctification unto us, in that by his Spirit and
grace we are freely sanctified; but he cannot be said to be made redemption
unto us, in that by his Spirit and grace we are freely redeemed. And if he
is said to be made righteousness unto us, because by his Spirit and grace
he works inherent righteousness in us, then is it plainly the same with his
being made sanctification unto us. Neither does he himself believe that
Christ is made all these things unto us in the same way and
manner; and therefore does he not assign any special way whereby he is so
made them all, but clouds it in an ambiguous expression, that he becomes
all these things unto us in the providence of God. But ask him in
particular, how Christ is made sanctification unto us, and he will tell you
that it was by his doctrine and example alone, with some such general
assistance of the Spirit of God as he will allow. But now, this is no way
at all whereby Christ was made redemption unto us; which being a thing
external, and not wrought in us, Christ can be no otherwise made redemption
unto us than by the imputation unto us of what he did that we might be
redeemed, or reckoning it on our account; — not that he was redeemed for
us, as he childishly cavils, but that he did that whereby we are redeemed.
Wherefore, Christ is made of God righteousness unto us in such a way and
manner as the nature of the thing does require. Say some, “It is because
by him we are justified.” Howbeit the text says not that by him we are
justified, but that he is of God made righteousness unto us; which is not
our justification, but the ground, cause, and reason whereon we are
justified. Righteousness is one thing, and justification is another.
Wherefore we must inquire how we come to have that righteousness whereby we
are justified; and this the same apostle tells us plainly is by imputation:
“Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousness,” Rom. iv.
6. It follows, then, that Christ being made unto us of God
righteousness, can have no other sense but that his righteousness is
imputed unto us, which is what this text does undeniably confirm.
2 Cor. v. 21. In what sense Christ knew
no sin — Emphasis in that expression — How he was made sin for us — By the
imputation of sin unto him — Mistakes of some about this expression — Sense
of the ancients — Exception of Bellarmine
unto this testimony answered, with other reasonings of his to the same
purpose — The exceptions of others also removed
2 Cor. v. 21. The truth pleaded for is
yet more emphatically expressed: “For he has made him to be sin for us, who
knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” The
paraphrase of Austin on these words gives
the sense of them: “Ipse peccatum ut nos justitia, non
nostra sed Dei, non in nobis sed in ipso; sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed
nostrum, non in se, sed in nobis constitutum,” Enchirid. ad Laurent., cap.
iv. And the words of Chrysostom
upon this place, unto the same purpose, have been cited before at
large.
To set out the greatness of the grace of God in our
reconciliation by Christ, he describes him by that paraphrasis, τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν, — “who knew no sin,” or “who knew
not sin.” He knew sin in the notion or understanding of its nature, and he
knew it experimentally in the effects which he underwent and suffered; but
he knew it not, — that is, was most remote from it, — as to its commission
or guilt. So that “he knew no sin,” is absolutely no more but “he did no
sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” as it is expressed, 1
Pet. ii. 22; or that he was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate
from sinners,” Heb. vii. 26.
Howbeit, there is an emphasis in the expression, which is not to be
neglected: for as it is observed by Chrysostom, as containing an auxesis (οὐχὶ τὸν μὴ ἁμαρτάνοντα μόνον λέγει ἀλλὰ τὸν μήδε γνόντα
ἁμαρτίαν), and by sundry learned persons after him; so those who
desire to learn the excellency of the grace of God herein, will have an
impression of a sense of it on their minds from this emphatical expression,
which the Holy Ghost chose to make use of unto that end; and the
observation of it is not to be despised.
“He has made him to be sin;” “That is,” say many
expositors, “a sacrifice for sin.” “Quemadmodum oblatus est
pro peccatis, non immerito peccatum factus dicitur, quia et bestia in lege
quæ pro peccatis offerabatur, peccatum nuncupatur,” Ambrose in locum. So the sin and trespass-offering
are often expressed by חַטָּאת and אָשָׁם, — “the sin” and “trespass,” or “guilt.” And I
shall not contend about this exposition, because that signified in it is
according unto the truth. But there is another more proper signification
of the word: ἁμαρτία being put for ἁμαρτωλός, — “sin,” for a “sinner,” (that is,
passively, not actively; not by inhesion, but imputation);
for this the phrase of speech and force of the antithesis seem to require.
Speaking of another sense, Estius himself on the place
adds, as that which he approves: “Hic intellectus
explicandus est per commentarium Græcorum Chrysostomi et cæterorum; quia
peccatum emphatic ὧς
interpretantur magnum peccatorem; ac si dicat apostolus, nostri causa
tractavit eum tanquam ipsum peccatum, ipsum scelus, id est, tanquam hominem
insigniter sceleratum, ut in quo posuerit iniquitates omnium
nostrum.” And if this be the interpretation of the Greek
scholiasts, as indeed it is, Luther was not the
first who affirmed that Christ was made the greatest sinner, — namely, by
imputation. But we shall allow the former exposition, provided that the
true notion of a sin-offering, or expiatory sacrifice, be admitted: for
although this neither was nor could consist in the transfusion of the
inherent sin of the person into the sacrifice, yet did it so in the
translation of the guilt of the sinner unto it; as is fully declared,
Lev. xvi. 20, 21. Only I must say,
that I grant this signification of the word to avoid contention; for
whereas some say that ἁμαρτία signifies sin, and a
sacrifice for sin, it cannot be allowed. חָטָא, in
Kal, signifies “to err, to sin, to transgress the law of God.” In Piel it
has a contrary signification, — namely, “to cleanse from sin,” or “to make
expiation of sin.” Hence חַטָּאת is most frequently
used with respect unto its derivation from the first conjugation, and
signifies “sin,” “transgression,” and “guilt;” but sometimes with respect
unto the second, and then it signifies “a sacrifice for sin, to make expiation of it.” And so it is rendered by the LXX.,
sometimes by ἱλασμός, Ezek. xliv.
27, sometimes ἐξιλασμός, Exod. xxx. 10, Ezek. xliii.
22, a “propitiation,” a “propitiatory sacrifice;” sometimes by
ἁγνισμα, Num. xix. 19,
and ἁγνισμός, “purification,” or “cleansing.” But
ἁμαρτία, absolutely, does nowhere, in any good
author, nor in the Scripture, signify a sacrifice for sin, unless it may be
allowed to do so in this one place alone. For whereas the LXX. do render
חַטָּאת constantly by ἁμαρτία, where it signifies sin; where it denotes an
offering for sin, and they retain that word, they do it by περὶ ἁρματίας, an elliptical expression, which they
invented for that which they knew ἁμαρτία of itself
neither did nor could signify, Lev.
iv. 3, 14, 32, 35; v. 6–11; vi. 30; viii. 2. And they never
omit the preposition unless they name the sacrifice; as μόσχος τῆς ἁμαρτίας. This is observed also by the apostle
in the New Testament; for twice, expressing the sin-offering by this word,
he uses that phrase περὶ ἁρματίας, Rom.
viii. 3, Heb. x. 6; but nowhere uses ἁμαρτία to that purpose. If it be, therefore, of that
signification in this place, it is so here alone. And whereas some think
that it answers “piaculum” in the Latin, it is also
a mistake; for the first signification of ἁμαρτία is
confessed to be sin, and they would have it supposed that thence it is
abused to signify a sacrifice for sin. But “piaculum” is properly a sacrifice, or any thing whereby
sin is expiated, or satisfaction is made for it. And very rarely it is
abused to denote such a sin or crime as deserves pubic expiation, and is
not otherwise to be pardoned; so Virgil, —
“Distulit in seram commissa piacula mortem.”
Æn. vi., 569.
But we shall not contend about words, whilst we can agree
about what is intended.
The only inquiry is, how God did make him to be sin? “He
has made him to be sin;” so that an act of God is intended. And this is
elsewhere expressed by his “laying all our iniquities upon him,” or causing
them to meet on him, Isa. liii. 6.
And this was by the imputation of our sins unto him, as the sins of the
people were put on the head of the goat, that they should be no more
theirs, but his, so as that he was to carry them away from them. Take sin
in either sense before mentioned, either of a sacrifice for sin, or a
sinner, and the imputation of the guilt of sin antecedently unto the
punishment of it, and in order whereunto, must be understood. For in every
sacrifice for sin there was an imposition of sin on the beast to be
offered, antecedent unto the sacrificing of it, and therein its suffering
by death. Therefore, in every offering for sin, he that brought it was to
“put his hand on the head of it,” Lev. i. 4. And
that the transferring of the guilt of sin unto the offering was thereby
signified, is expressly declared, Lev. xvi.
21. Wherefore, if God made the Lord Christ a sin-offering for
us, it was by the imputation of the guilt of sin unto him antecedently unto
his suffering. Nor could any offering be made for sin, without a typical
translation of the guilt of sin unto it. And, therefore, when an offering
was made for the expiation of the guilt of an uncertain murder, those who
were to make it by the law, — namely, the elders of the city that was next
unto the place where the man was slain, — were not to offer a sacrifice,
because there was none to confess guilt over it, or to lay guilt upon it;
but whereas the neck of a heifer was to be stricken off, to declare the
punishment due unto blood, they were to wash their hands over it to testify
their own innocence, Deut. xxi.
1–8. But a sacrifice for sin without the imputation of guilt
there could not be. And if the word be taken in the second sense, —
namely, for a sinner, that is, by imputation, and in God’s esteem, — it
must be by the imputation of guilt; for none can, in any sense, be
denominated a sinner from mere suffering. None, indeed, do say that Christ
was made sin by the imputation of punishment unto him, which has no proper
sense; but they say sin was imputed unto him as unto punishment: which is
indeed to say that the guilt of sin was imputed unto him; for the guilt of
sin is its respect unto punishment, or the obligation unto punishment which
attends it. And that any one should be punished for sin without the
imputation of the guilt of it unto him, is impossible; and, were it
possible, would be unjust: for it is not possible that any one should be
punished for sin properly, and yet that sin be none of his. And if it be
not his by inhesion, it can be his no other way but by imputation. One may
suffer on the occasion of the sin of another that is no way made his, but
he cannot be punished for it; for punishment is the recompense of sin on
the account of its guilt. And were it possible, where is the righteousness
of punishing any one for that which no way belongs unto him? Besides,
imputation of sin, and punishing, are distinct acts, the one preceding the
other; and therefore the former is only of the guilt of sin: wherefore, the
Lord Christ was made sin for us, by the imputation of the guilt of our sins
unto him.
But it is said, that if “the guilt of sin were imputed unto
Christ, he is excluded from all possibility of merit, for he suffered but
what was his due; and so the whole work of Christ’s satisfaction is
subverted. This must be so, if God in judgment did reckon him guilty and a
sinner.” But there is an ambiguity in these expressions. If it be meant
that God in judgment did reckon him guilty and a sinner inherently in his
own person, no such thing is intended. But God laid all our sins on him,
and in judgment spared him not, as unto what was due unto them. And so he
suffered not what was his due upon his own account, but what
was due unto our sin: which it is impiety to deny; for if it were not so,
he died in vain, and we are still in our sins. And as his
satisfaction consists herein, nor could be without it, so does it not in
the least derogate from his merit. For supposing the infinite dignity of
his person, and his voluntary susception of our sin to answer for it, which
altered not his state and condition, his obedience therein was highly
meritorious.
In answer hereunto, and by virtue hereof, we are made “the
righteousness of God in him.” This was the end of his being made sin for
us. And by whom are we so made? It is by God himself: for “it is God that
justifieth,” Rom. viii. 33; it is God who “imputeth
righteousness,” chap. iv. 6. Wherefore it is the act of
God in our justification that is intended; and to be made the righteousness
of God is to be made righteous before God, though emphatically expressed by
the abstract for the concrete, to answer what was said before of Christ
being made sin for us. To be made the righteousness of God is to be
justified; and to be made so in him, as he was made sin for us, is to be
justified by the imputation of his righteousness unto us, as our sin was
imputed unto him.
No man can assign any other way whereby he was made sin,
especially his being made so by God, but by God’s laying all our iniquities
upon him, — that is, imputing our sin unto him. How, then, are we made the
righteousness of God in him? “By the infusion of a habit of grace,”
say the Papists generally. Then, by the rule of antithesis, he must be
made sin for us by the infusion of a habit of sin; which would be a
blasphemous imagination. “By his meriting, procuring, and purchasing
righteousness for us,” say others. So, possibly, we might be made
righteous by him; but so we cannot be made righteous in him.
This can only be by his righteousness as we are in him, or united unto him.
To be righteous in him is to be righteous with his righteousness, as we
are one mystical person with him. Wherefore, —
To be made the righteousness of God in Christ, as he was
made sin for us, and because he was so, can be no other but to be made
righteous by the imputation of his righteousness unto us, as we are in him
or united unto him. All other expositions of these words are both jejune
and forced, leading the mind from the first, plain, obvious sense of
them.
Bellarmine excepts unto
this interpretation, and it is his first argument against the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ, lib. ii. cap. 7, De
Justificatione, “Quinto refellitur quoniam si vere
nobis imputetur justitia Christi ut per eam justi habeamur ac censeremur,
ac si proprie nostra esset intrinseca formalisque justitia, profecto non
minus justi haberi et censeri deberemus quam ipse Christus: proinde
deberemus dici atque haberi redemptores, et salvatores mundi, quod
est absurdissimum.” So full an
answer has been returned hereunto, and that so frequently, by Protestant
divines, as that I would not have mentioned it, but that divers among
ourselves are pleased to borrow it from him and make use of it. “For,” say
they, “if the righteousness of Christ be imputed unto us so as thereby to
be made ours, then are we as righteous as Christ himself, because we are
righteous with his righteousness.” Ans. 1. These things are
plainly affirmed in the Scripture, that, as unto ourselves and in
ourselves, “we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are
as filthy rags,” Isa. lxiv. 6, on the one hand; and that
“in the Lord we have
righteousness and strength; in the Lord we are justified and do glory,”
Isa. xlv. 24, 25, on the other; — that
“if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves:” and yet we are “the
righteousness of God in Christ.” Wherefore these things are consistent,
whatever cavils the wit of men can raise against them; and so they must be
esteemed, unless we will comply with Socinus’s rule of interpretation, — namely, that where any
thing seems repugnant unto our reason, though it be never so expressly
affirmed in the Scripture, we are not to admit of it, but find out some
interpretation, though never so forced, to bring the sense of the words
unto our reason. Wherefore, — 2. Notwithstanding the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ unto us, and our being made righteous
therewith, we are sinners in ourselves (the Lord knows greatly so, the best
of us); and so cannot be said to be as righteous as Christ, but only to be
made righteous in him who are sinners in ourselves. 3. To say that we
are as righteous as Christ, is to make a comparison between the
personal righteousness of Christ and our personal righteousness, — if the
comparison be of things of the same kind. But this is foolish and impious:
for, notwithstanding all our personal righteousness, we are sinful; he knew
no sin. And if the comparison be between Christ’s personal, inherent
righteousness, and righteousness imputed unto us, inhesion and imputation
being things of diverse kinds, it is fond and of no consequence. Christ
was actively righteous; we are passively so. When our sin was imputed unto
him, he did not thereby become a sinner as we are, actively and inherently
a sinner; but passively only, and in God’s estimation. As he was made sin,
yet knew no sin; so we are made righteous, yet are sinful in ourselves. 4.
The righteousness of Christ, as it was his personally, was the
righteousness of the Son of God, in which respect it had in itself an
infinite perfection and value; but it is imputed unto us only with
respect unto our personal want, — not as it was satisfactory for all, but
as our souls stand in need of it, and are made partakers of it. There is,
therefore, no ground for any such comparison. 5. As unto what is added by
Bellarmine, that we may hereon be said to
be redeemers and saviours of the world, the absurdity of the
assertion falls upon himself; we are not concerned in it. For he affirms
directly, lib. i., De Purgator., cap. 14, that
“a man may be rightly called his own redeemer and saviour;” which he
endeavours to prove from Dan. iv. And some of his church affirm
that the saints may be called the redeemers of others, though improperly.
But we are not concerned in these things; seeing from the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, it follows only that those unto whom it is imputed
are redeemed and saved, not at all that they are redeemers and saviours.
It belongs also unto the vindication of this testimony to show the vanity
of his seventh argument in the same case, because that also is made use of
by some among ourselves; and it is this: “If by the righteousness of Christ
imputed unto us, we may be truly said to be righteous, and the sons of God;
then may Christ, by the imputation of our unrighteousness, be said to be a
sinner, and a child of the devil.” Ans. 1. That which the
Scripture affirms concerning the imputation of our sins unto Christ is,
that “he was made sin for us.” This the Greek expositors, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Œcumenius, with many others, take for “a sinner.”
But all affirm that denomination to be taken from imputation only:
he had sin imputed unto him, and underwent the punishment due unto it; as
we have righteousness imputed unto us, and enjoy the benefit of it. 2. The
imputation of sin unto Christ did not carry along with it any thing of the
pollution or filth of sin, to be communicated unto him by
transfusion, — a thing impossible; so that no denomination can
thence arise which should include in it any respect unto them. A thought
hereof is impious, and dishonourable unto the Son of God. But his being
made sin through the imputation of the guilt of sin, is his honour and
glory. 3. The imputation of the sin of fornicators, idolaters, adulterers,
etc., such as the Corinthians were before their conversion unto Christ,
does not on any ground bring him under a denomination from those sins. For
they were so in themselves actively, inherently, subjectively; and thence
were so called. But that he who knew no sin, voluntarily taking on him to
answer for the guilt of those sins, — which in him was an act of
righteousness, and the highest obedience unto God, — should be said to be
an idolater, etc., is a fond imagination. The denomination of a
sinner from sin inherent, actually committed, defiling the soul, is a
reproach, and significative of the utmost unworthiness; but even the
denomination of a sinner by the imputation of sin, without the least
personal guilt or defilement being undergone by him unto whom it is
imputed, in an act of the highest obedience, and tending unto the greatest
glory of God, is highly honourable and glorious But, — 4. The imputation
of sin unto Christ was antecedent unto any real union between him
and sinners, whereon he took their sin on him as he would, and
for what ends he would; but the imputation of his righteousness unto
believers is consequential in order of nature unto their union with him,
whereby it becomes theirs in a peculiar manner: so as that there is not a
parity of reason that he should be esteemed a sinner, as that they should
be accounted righteous. And, — 5. We acquiesce in this, that on the
imputation of sin unto Christ, it is said that “God made him to be sin for
us,” which he could not be, but thereby, — and he was so by an act
transient in its effects, for a time only, that time wherein he underwent
the punishment due unto it; but on the imputation of his righteousness unto
us, we are “made the righteousness of God,” with an everlasting
righteousness, that abides ours always. 6. To be a child of the devil
by sin, is to do the works of the devil, John viii.
44; but the Lord Christ, in taking our sins upon him, when
imputed unto him, did the work of God in the highest act of holy obedience,
evidencing himself to be the God of God thereby, and destroying the work of
the devil. So foolish and impious is it to conceive that any absolute
change of state or relation in him did ensue thereon.
That by “the righteousness of God,” in this place, our own
faith and obedience according to the gospel, as some would have it, are
intended, is so alien from the scope of the place and sense of the words,
as that I shall not particularly examine it. The righteousness of God is
revealed to faith, and received by faith; and is not therefore faith
itself. And the force of the antithesis is quite perverted by this
conceit; for where is it in this, — that he was made sin by the imputation
of our sin unto him, and we are made righteousness by the imputation of our
own faith and obedience unto ourselves? But as Christ had no concern in
sin but as God made him sin, — it was never in him inherently; so have we
no interest in this righteousness, — it is not in us inherently, but only
is imputed unto us. Besides, the act of God in making us righteous is his
justifying of us. But this is not by the infusion of the habit of faith
and obedience, as we have proved. And what act of God is intended by them
who affirm that the righteousness of God which we are made is our own
righteousness, I know not. The constitution of the gospel law it cannot
be; for that makes no man righteous. And the persons of believers are the
object of this act of God, and that as they are considered in Christ.
Gal. ii. 16
Gal. ii. 16. The epistle of the same
apostle unto the Galatians is wholly designed unto the vindication of the
doctrine of justification by Christ, without the works of the law, with the
use and means of its improvement. The sum of his whole design is laid down
in the repetition of his words unto the apostle Peter, on the occasion of
his failure, there related, chap. ii. 16,
“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; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
That which he does here assert, was such a known, such a
fundamental principle of truth among all believers, that their conviction
and knowledge of it was the ground and occasion of their transition and
passing over from Judaism unto the gospel, and faith in Jesus Christ
thereby.
And in the words, the apostle determines that great
inquiry, how or by what means a man is or may be justified before God? The
subject spoken of is expressed indefinitely: “A man,” — that is, any man, a
Jew, or a Gentile; a believer, or an unbeliever; the apostle that spoke,
and they to whom he spoke, — the Galatians to whom he wrote, who also for
some time had believed and made profession of the gospel.
The answer given unto the question is both negative
and positive, both asserted with the highest assurance, and as the
common faith of all Christians, but only those who had been carried aside
from it by seducers. He asserts that this is not, this cannot be, “by the
works of the law.” What is intended by “the law,” in these disputations of
the apostle, has been before declared and evinced. The law of Moses is
sometimes signally intended, — not absolutely, but as it was the present
instance of men’s cleaving unto the law of righteousness, and not
submitting themselves thereon unto the righteousness of God. But that the
consideration of the moral law, and the duties of it, is in this argument
anywhere excepted by him, is a weak imagination, — yea, it would except the
ceremonial law itself; for the observation of it, whilst it was in force,
was a duty of the moral law.
And the works of the law are the works and duties of
obedience which this law of God requires, performed in the manner that it
prescribes, — namely, in faith, and out of love unto God above all; as has
been proved. To say that the apostle excludes only works absolutely
perfect, which none ever did or could perform since the entrance of
sin, is to suppose him to dispute, with great earnestness and many
arguments, against that which no man asserted, and which he does not once
mention in all his discourse. Nor can he be said to exclude only works
that are looked on as meritorious, seeing he excludes all works,
that there may be no place for merit in our justification; as has also been
proved. Nor did these Galatians, whom he writes unto, and convinces them
of their error, look for justification from any works but such as they
performed then, when they were believers. So that all sorts of
works are excluded from any interest in our justification. And so much
weight does the apostle lay on this exclusion of works from our
justification, as that he affirms that the admittance of it overthrows the
whole gospel, verse 21. “For,” says he,
“if righteousness be by the law, then Christ is dead in vain;” and it is
dangerous venturing on so sharp a fence.
Not this or that sort of works; not this or that manner of
the performance of them; not this or that kind of interest in our
justification; but all works, of what sort soever, and however performed,
are excluded from any kind of consideration in our justification, as our
works or duties of obedience. For these Galatians, whom the apostle
reproves, desired no more but that, in the justification of a believer,
works of the law, or duties of obedience, might be admitted into a
conjunction or copartnership with faith in Christ Jesus; for that they
would exclude faith in him, and assign justification unto works without it,
nothing is intimated, and it is a foolish imagination. In opposition
hereunto he positively ascribes our justification unto faith in Christ
alone. “Not by works, but by faith,” is by faith alone. That the
particles ἐὰν μή are not exceptive but adversative,
has not only been undeniably proved by Protestant divines, but is
acknowledged by those of the Roman church who pretend unto any modesty in
this controversy. The words of Estius on this
place deserve to be transcribed: “Nisi per fidem Jesu
Christi; sententiam reddit obscuram particula nisi” (so the Vulgar
Latin renders ἐὰν μή, instead of “sed” or “sed tantum”) “quæ si proprie ut Latinis auribus sonat accipiatur, exceptionem
facit ab eo quod præcedit, ut sensus sit hominem non justificari ex
operibus Legis nisi fidees in Christum ad ea opera accedat, quæ si
accesserit justificari eum per legis opera. Sed cum hic sensus
justificationem dividat, partim eam tribuens operibus legis, partim fidei
Christi, quod est contra definitam et absolutam apostoli sententiam,
manifestum est, interpretationem illam tanquam apostolico sensui et scopo
contrariam omnino repudiandam esse. Verum constat voculam ‘nisi’
frequenter in Scripturis adversative sumi, ut idem valeat quod ‘sed
tantum’.” So he according to his usual candour and ingenuity.
It is not probable that we shall have an end of contending
in this world, when men will not acquiesce in such plain determinations of
controversies given by the Holy Ghost himself.
The interpretation of this place, given as the meaning of
the apostle, — that men cannot be justified by those works which they
cannot perform, that is, works absolutely perfect; but may be so, and are
so, by those which they can and do perform, if not in their own strength,
yet by the aid of grace; and that faith in Christ Jesus, which the apostle
opposes absolutely unto all works whatever, does include in it all those
works which he excludes, and that with respect unto that end or effect with
respect whereunto they are excluded; cannot well be supposed to be suitable
unto the mind of the Holy Ghost.
Eph. ii.
8–10. Evidence of this testimony — Design of the apostle from
the beginning of the chapter — Method of the apostle in the declaration of
the grace of God — Grace alone the cause of deliverance from a state of sin
— Things to be observed in the assignation of the causes of spiritual
deliverances — Grace, how magnified by him — Force of the argument and
evidence from thence — State of the case here proposed by the apostle —
General determination of it, “By grace are ye saved” — What is it to be
saved, inquired into — The same as to be justified, but not exclusively —
The causes of our justification declared positively and negatively — The
whole secured unto the grace of God by Christ, and our interest therein
through faith alone — Works excluded — What works? — Not works of the law
of Moses — Not works antecedent unto believing — Works of true believers —
Not only in opposition to the grace of God, but to faith in us — Argument
from those words — Reason whereon this exclusion of works is founded — To
exclude boasting on our part — Boasting, wherein it consists — Inseparable
from the interest of works in justification — Danger of it — Confirmation
of this reason, obviating an objection — The objection stated — If we be
not justified by works, of what use are they? answered
Eph. ii.
8–10. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any
man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto
good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in
them.”
Unless it had seemed good unto the Holy Ghost to have
expressed beforehand all the evasions and subterfuges which the wit of man
in after ages could invent, to pervert the doctrine of our justification
before God, and to have rejected them, it is impossible they could have
been more plainly prevented than they are in this context. If we may take
a little unprejudiced consideration of it, I suppose what is affirmed will
be evident.
It cannot be denied but that the design of the apostle,
from the
beginning of this chapter unto the end of verse 11, is to
declare the way whereby lost and condemned sinners come to be delivered,
and translated out of that condition into an estate of acceptance with
God, and eternal salvation thereon. And therefore, in the first place,
he fully describes their natural state, with their being obnoxious
unto the wrath of God thereby; for such was the method of this apostle, —
unto the declaration of the grace of God in any kind, he did usually, yea,
constantly, premise the consideration of our sin, misery, and ruin.
Others, now, like not this method so well. Howbeit this hinders not but
that it was his. Unto this purpose he declares unto the Ephesians that
they “were dead in trespasses and sins,” — expressing the power that sin
had on their souls as unto spiritual life, and all the actions of it; but
withal, that they lived and walked in sin, and on all accounts were the
“children of wrath,” or subject and liable unto eternal condemnation,
verses 1–3. What such persons can do
towards their own deliverance, there are many terms found out to express,
all passing my understanding, seeing the entire design of the apostle is to
prove that they can do nothing at all. But another cause, or other causes
of it, he finds out, and that in direct, express opposition unto any thing
that may be done by ourselves unto that end: Ὁ δὲ Θεὸς
πλούσιος ὢν ἐν ἐλέει, verse 4. It is
not a work for us to undertake; it is not what we can contribute any thing
unto: “But God, who is rich in mercy.” The adversative includes an
opposition unto every thing on our part, and encloses the whole work to
God. Would men have rested on this divine revelation, the church of God
had been free from many of those perverse opinions and wrangling disputes
which it has been pestered withal. But they will not so easily part with
thoughts of some kind of interest in being the authors of their own
happiness. Wherefore, two things we may observe in the apostle’s
assignation of the causes of our deliverance from a state of sin, and [of
our] acceptance with God:—
1. That he assigns the whole of this work absolutely unto
grace, love, and mercy, and that with an
exclusion of the consideration of any thing on our part; as we shall see
immediately, verses 5,
8.
2. He magnifies this grace in a marvellous manner.
For, — First, He expresses it by all names and titles whereby it is
signified; as ἔλος, ἀγάπη,
χάρις, χρηστότης, — “mercy,”
“love,” “grace,” and “kindness:” for he would have us to look only unto
grace herein. Secondly, He ascribes such adjuncts, and gives such
epithets, unto that divine mercy and grace, which is the sole cause of our
deliverance, in and by Jesus Christ, as rendered it singular, and herein
solely to be adored: πλούσιος ἐν ἐλέει, διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην· ὑπερβάλλων πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος· —
“rich in mercy;” “great love wherewith he loved us;” “the exceeding riches
of his grace in his kindness,” verses
4–7. It cannot reasonably be denied but that the apostle does
design deeply to affect the mind and heart of believers with a sense of the
grace and love of God in Christ, as the only cause of their justification
before God. I think no words can express those conceptions of the mind
which this representation of grace does suggest. Whether they think it any
part of their duty to be like-minded, and comply with the apostle in this
design, who scarce ever mention the grace of God, unless it be in a way of
diminution from its efficacy, and unto whom such ascriptions unto it as are
here made by him are a matter of contempt, is not hard to judge.
But it will be said, “These are good words, indeed, but
they are only general; there is nothing of argument in all this adoring of
the grace of God in the work of our salvation.” It may be so, it seems, to
many; but yet, to speak plainly, there is to me more argument in this
one consideration, — namely, of the ascription made in this cause
unto the grace of God in this place, — than in a hundred sophisms,
suited neither unto the expressions of the Scripture nor the experience of
them that do believe. He that is possessed with a due apprehension of the
grace of God, as here represented, and under a sense that it was therein
the design of the Holy Ghost to render it glorious and alone to be trusted
unto, will not easily be induced to concern himself in those additional
supplies unto it from our own works and obedience which some would suggest
unto him. But we may yet look farther into the words.
The case which the apostle states, the inquiry which
he has in hand, whereon he determines as to the truth wherein he instructs
the Ephesians, and in them the whole church of God, is, how a lost,
condemned sinner may come to be accepted with God, and thereon saved? And
this is the sole inquiry wherein we are, or intend in this controversy to
be, concerned. Farther we will not proceed, either upon the invitation or
provocation of any. Concerning this, his position and determination is,
“That we are saved by grace.”
This first he occasionally interposes in his
enumeration of the benefits we receive by Christ, verse 5. But
not content therewith, he again directly asserts it, verse
8, in the same words; for he seems to have considered how slow
men would be in the admittance of this truth, which at once deprives them
of all boastings in themselves.
What it is that he intends by our being saved must
be inquired into. It would not be prejudicial unto, but rather advance the
truth we plead for, if, by our being saved, eternal salvation were
intended. But that cannot be the sense of it in this place, otherwise than
as that salvation is included in the causes of it, which are effectual in
this life. Nor do I think that in that expression, “By grace are ye
saved,” our justification only is intended, although it be so principally.
Conversion unto God and sanctification are also included
therein, as is evident from verses 5,
6; and they are no less of sovereign grace than is our
justification itself. But the apostle speaks of what the Ephesians, being
now believers, and by virtue of their being so, were made partakers of in
this life. This is manifest in the whole context; for having, in the
beginning of the chapter, described their condition, what it was, in common
with all the posterity of Adam, by nature, verses
1–3, he moreover declares their condition in particular, in
opposition to that of the Jews, as they were Gentiles, idolaters, atheists,
verses 11, 12. Their present delivery
by Jesus Christ from this whole miserable state and condition, — that which
they were under in common with all mankind, and that which was a peculiar
aggravation of its misery in themselves, — is that which he intends by
their being “saved.” That which was principally designed in the
description of this state is, that therein and thereby they were liable
unto the wrath of God, guilty before him, and obnoxious unto his judgment.
This he expresses in the declaration of it, verse 3, —
answerable unto that method and those grounds he everywhere proceeds on, in
declaring the doctrine of justification. Rom. iii.
19–24; Tit. iii.
3–5. From this state they had deliverance by faith in Christ
Jesus; for unto as many as receive him, power is given to be the sons of
God, John i. 12. “He that believeth on him
is not condemned;” that is, he is saved, in the sense of the apostle in
this place, John iii. 18. “He that believeth on the
Son hath everlasting life” (is saved); “and he that believeth not the Son,
the wrath of God abideth on him,” verse 36. And
in this sense, “saved,” and “salvation,” are frequently used in the
Scripture. Besides, he gives us so full a description of the salvation
which he intends, from Eph. ii. 13 unto
the end of the chapter, that there can be no doubt of it. It is our being
“made nigh by the blood of Christ,” verse 13; our
“peace” with God by his death, verses 14,
15; our “reconciliation” by the blood of the “cross,” verse
16; our “access unto God;” and all spiritual
privileges thereon depending, verses
18–20, etc.
Wherefore, the inquiry of the apostle, and his
determination thereon, is concerning the causes of our justification
before God. This he declares, and fixes both positively and negatively.
Positively, — 1. In the supreme moving cause on the part of
God; this is that free, sovereign grace and love of his, which he
illustrates by its adjuncts and properties before mentioned. 2. In the
meritorious procuring cause of it; which is Jesus Christ in the work
of his mediation, as the ordinance of God for the rendering this grace
effectual unto his glory, verses 7, 13,
16. 3. In the only means or instrumental cause on our
part; which is faith: “By grace are ye saved through faith,” verse
8. And lest he should seem to derogate any thing from the grace
of God, in asserting the necessity and use of faith, he adds that
epanorthosis, “And that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” The
communication of this faith unto us is no less of grace than is the
justification which we obtain thereby. So has he secured the whole work
unto the grace of God through Christ; wherein we are interested by faith
alone.
But not content herewith, he describes this work
negatively, or adds an exclusion of what might be pretended to have
a concernment therein. And therein three things are stated distinctly:— 1.
What it is he so excludes. 2. The reason whereon he does
so. 3. The confirmation of that reason, wherein he obviates an
objection that might arise thereon:—
1. That which he excludes is works: “Not of works,”
verse 9. And what works he intends, at
least principally, himself declares. “Works,” say some, “of the
law, the law of Moses.” But what concernment had these Ephesians
therein, that the apostle should inform them that they were not justified
by those works? They were never under that law, never sought for
righteousness by it, nor had any respect unto it, but only that they were
delivered from it. But it may be he intends only works wrought in the
strength of our own natural abilities, without the aids of grace, and
before believing. But what were the works of these Ephesians antecedent
unto believing, he before and afterwards declares. For, “being dead in
trespasses and sins,” they “walked according to the course of this world in
the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the
mind,” verses 1–3. It is certain enough that
these works have no influence into our justification; and no less certain
that the apostle had no reason to exclude them from it, as though any could
pretend to be advantaged by them, in that which consists in a deliverance
from them. Wherefore, the works here excluded by the apostle are those
works which the Ephesians now performed, when they were believers,
quickened with Christ; even the “works which God has before
ordained that we should walk in them,” as he expressly declared, verse
10. And these works he excludes, not only in opposition unto
grace, but in opposition unto faith also: “Through faith; not of works.”
Wherefore he does not only reject their merit, as inconsistent with grace,
but their co-interest on our part with, or subsequent interest unto
faith, in the work of justification before God.
If we are saved by grace, through faith in Christ,
exclusively unto all works of obedience whatever, then cannot such works be
the whole or any part of our righteousness unto the justification of
life: wherefore, another righteousness we must have, or perish for
ever. Many things I know are here offered, and many distinctions coined,
to retain some interest of works in our justification before God; but
whether it be the safest way to trust unto them, or unto this plain,
express, divine testimony, will not be hard for any to determine, when they
make the case their own.
2. The apostle adds a reason of this exclusion of works:
“Not of works, lest any man should boast.” God has ordained the order and
method of our justification by Christ in the way expressed, that no man
might have ground, reason, or occasion to glory or boast in or of himself.
So it is expressed, 1 Cor. i. 21, 30, 31;
Rom. iii. 27. To exclude all glorying or
boasting on our part is the design of God. And this consists in an
ascription of something unto ourselves that is not in others, in order unto
justification. And it is works alone that can administer any occasion of
this boasting: “For if Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to
glory,” chap. iv. 2. And it is excluded alone by
the “law of faith,” chap. iii. 27;
for the nature and use of faith is to find righteousness in another. And
this boasting all works are apt to beget in the minds of men, if applied
unto justification; and where there is any boasting of this nature, the
design of God towards us in this work of his grace is frustrated what lies
in us.
That which I principally insist on from hence is, that
there are no boundaries fixed in Scripture unto the interest of
works in justification, so as no boasting should be included in them. The
Papists make them meritorious of it, — at least of our second
justification, as they call it. “This,” say some, “ought not to be
admitted, for it includes boasting. Merit and boasting are inseparable.”
Wherefore, say others, they are only “causa sine qua
non,” they are the condition of it; or they are our
evangelical righteousness before God, whereon we are evangelically
justified; or they are a subordinate righteousness whereon we obtain
an interest in the righteousness of Christ; or are comprised in the
condition of the new covenant whereby we are justified; or are
included in faith, being the form of it, or of the essence of it,
one way or other: for herein men express themselves in great variety. But so long as our works are hereby asserted in order
unto our justification, how shall a man be certain that they do not include
boasting, or that they do express the true sense of these words, “Not of
works, lest any man should boast?” There is some kind of ascription unto
ourselves in this matter; which is boasting. If any shall say that they
know well enough what they do, and know that they do not boast in what they
ascribe unto works, I must say that in general I cannot admit it; for the
Papists affirm of themselves that they are most remote from boasting, yet I
am very well satisfied that boasting and merit are inseparable. The
question is, not what men think they do? but, what judgment the Scripture
passes on what they do? And if it be said, that what is in us is also of
the grace and gift of God, and is so acknowledged, which excludes all
boasting in ourselves; I say it was so by the Pharisee, and yet was he a
horrible boaster. Let them, therefore, be supposed to be wrought in us in
what way men please, if they be also wrought by us, and so be the “works of
righteousness which we have done,” I fear their introduction into our
justification does include boasting in it, because of this assertion of the
apostle, “Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Wherefore, because
this is a dangerous point, unless men can give us the direct, plain,
indisputable bounds of the introduction of our works into our
justification, which cannot include boasting in it, it is the safest course
utterly to exclude them, wherein I see no danger of any mistake in these
words of the Holy Ghost, “Not of works, lest any man should boast;” for if
we should be unadvisedly seduced into this boasting, we should lose all the
benefits which we might otherwise expect by the grace of God.
3. The apostle gives another reason why it cannot be of
works, and withal obviates an objection which might arise from what he had
declared, Eph. ii. 10, “For we are his workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained
that we should walk in them.” And the force of his reason, which the
causal conjunction intimates the introduction of, consists in this:— that
all good works, — those concerning which he treats, evangelical works, —
are the effects of the grace of God in them that are in Christ Jesus, and
so are truly justified antecedently in order of nature unto them. But that
which he principally designed in these words was that which he is still
mindful of, wherever he treats of this doctrine, — namely, to obviate an
objection that he foresaw some would make against it; and that is this, “If
good works be thus excluded from our justification before God, then of what
use are they? we may live as we list, utterly neglect them, and yet be
justified.” And this very objection do some men continue to manage with
great vehemency against the same doctrine. We meet with nothing in this
cause more frequently, than that “if our justification before
God be not of works, some way or other, if they be not antecedaneously
required whereunto, if they are not a previous condition of it, then there
is no need of them, — men may safely live in an utter neglect of all
obedience unto God.” And on this theme men are very apt to enlarge
themselves, who otherwise give no great evidences of their own evangelical
obedience. To me it is marvellous that they heed not unto what party they
make an accession in the management of this objection, — namely, unto that
of them who were the adversaries of the doctrine of grace taught by the
apostle. It must be elsewhere considered. For the present, I shall say no
more but that, if the answer here given by the apostle be not satisfactory
unto them, — if the grounds and reasons of the necessity and use of good
works here declared be not judged by them sufficient to establish them in
their proper place and order, — I shall not esteem myself obliged to
attempt their farther satisfaction.
Phil. iii. 8,
9. Heads of argument from this testimony — Design of the
context — Righteousness the foundation of acceptance with God — A twofold
righteousness considered by the apostle — Opposite unto one another, as
unto the especial end inquired after — Which of these he adhered unto, his
own righteousness, or the righteousness of God; declared by the apostle
with vehemency of speech — Reasons of his earnestness herein — The turning
point whereon he left Judaism — The opposition made unto this doctrine by
the Jews — The weight of the doctrine, and unwillingness of men to receive
it — His own sense of sin and grace — Peculiar expressions used in this
place, for the reasons mentioned, concerning Christ; concerning all things
that are our own — The choice to be made on the case stated, whether we
will adhere unto our own righteousness, or that of Christ’s, which are
inconsistent as to the end of justification — Argument from this place —
Exceptions unto this testimony, and argument from thence, removed — Our
personal righteousness inherent, the same with respect unto the law and
gospel — External righteousness only required by the law, an impious
imagination — Works wrought before faith only rejected — The exception
removed — Righteousness before conversion, not intended by the
apostle
Phil. iii. 8,
9. “Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the
excellency of the knowledge 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
although it be of great importance, I shall be the more brief in the
consideration of it, because it has been lately pleaded and vindicated by
another, whereunto I do not expect any tolerable reply. For what has since
been attempted by one, it is of no weight; he is in this matter οὔτε τρίτος οὔτε τέτατρος. 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, is, in an especial manner, to declare
what it is on the account whereof we are accepted with God, and have
thereon cause to rejoice. This he fixes in general in an interest in, and
participation of, Christ by faith, in opposition unto all legal
privileges and advantages, wherein the Jews, whom he reflected upon,
did boast and rejoice: “Rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in
the flesh,” verse 3.
2. He supposes that unto that acceptance before God
wherein we are to rejoice, there is a righteousness necessary; and,
whatever it be, [it] 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,” etc. And an intermediate righteousness between these
he acknowledges not.
4. Placing the instance in himself, he declares
emphatically (so as there is scarce a greater πάθος,
or vehemency of speech, in all his writings) which of these 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 righteousness. 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 controversy that ever was in the world was debated. So he
expresses it, Gal. ii. 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 unto 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 perverted from the simplicity of the gospel. This greatly affected his
holy soul, and he takes notice of it in most of his epistles. (3.) The
weight of the doctrine itself, with that unwillingness 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 innumerable 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 wherewithal of the excellency of the grace of God and the
righteousness 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 mentions not only the
knowledge of him, but τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως, —
“the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord,” — with an
emphasis in every word. And those other redoubled expressions, “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 acquiescence 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 things that are our
own, that are not Christ, whether privileges or duties, however good,
useful, excellent 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 [them], calling them σκύβαλα, — “dog’s
meat,” — to be left for them whom he calls “dogs;” that is, evil workers of
the concision, or the wicked Jews who adhered pertinaciously unto the
righteousness of the law, Phil. iii. 2.
This account of the earnestness of the apostle 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 inquiry is, what
any person, who desires acceptance with God, or a righteousness
whereon he may be justified before him, ought to betake himself unto. One
of the ways proposed he must close withal. Either he must comply with the
apostle in his resolution to reject 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 apostle’s 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 choose for himself. In the meantime, 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 imputes unto us, Rom. iv. 6, or the
abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness thereby which we receive,
chap. v. 17), are opposite and
inconsistent in the work of justification before God, then are we justified
by faith alone, through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto
us. The consequent is plain, from the removal of all other ways, causes,
means, and conditions of it, as inconsistent with it. But the antecedent
is expressly the apostle’s: “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 expresses the state of the person that is to be justified before
God; whereunto is opposed to be found in ourselves. And according unto
these different states does 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 entitle us unto the benefits of Christ’s 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 controversy wherein they are engaged. (2.) If
the gospel righteousness intended be his own personal righteousness and
obedience, there is some want of consideration in affirming that he did
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 righteousness
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, — does not seem a proper
interpretation of his words; and it shall be immediately disproved. (3.)
That our personal gospel righteousness does entitle us unto the benefits of
Christ’s righteousness, — that is, as unto our justification before 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 testimonies, and inconsistent with
the freedom of the grace of God in our justification, as proposed in the
Scripture, has 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 expressly contradictory unto that of the
apostle, Tit. iii. 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
apostle rejects, he intends only his righteousness ἐκ
νόμου, or “by the works of the law.” But this was only
an outward, external righteousness, consisting in the observation of
rites and ceremonies, without respect unto the inward frame or obedience 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. ii. 13. 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 external 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 another consideration,
and, together with faith, are the condition of justification.
Ans. 1. That, in the matter of our justification,
the apostle opposes 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, —
namely, that works are of two sorts, whereof one is to be excluded
from any interest in our justification, but not the other; neither does he
anywhere 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 expresses, in this rejection, his own righteousness, — 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 conversion, and
that which he had by faith in Christ Jesus. In the first state, he
considers the privileges of it, and declares what judgment he made
concerning them upon the revelation of Jesus Christ unto him: ἥγημαι, says 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 privileges, was
inconsistent with faith in Christ Jesus.” Secondly, he proceeds to give an account of himself and his thoughts, as unto his present
condition. For it might be supposed that although he had parted with all
his legal privileges for Christ, yet now, being united unto him by faith,
he had something of his own wherein he might rejoice, 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 engaged in, with respect unto the ends inquired
after, Phil. iii. 8: Ἀλλὰ
μενοῦνγε καὶ ἡγοῦμαι. The bringing over of what was affirmed before
concerning his Judaical privileges into this verse, is an effect of a very
superficiary consideration of the context. For, — (1.) There is a plain
αὕξησις in these words, Ἀλλὰ
μενοῦνγε καὶ. He could not more plainly express the heightening 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 ἥγημαι, [which] respects what was past, into ἡγοῦμαι, wherein he has 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 privileges, he adds his
judgment concerning his own present personal righteousness. But whereas it
might be objected, that, rejecting all both before and after conversion, he
had nothing left to rejoice in, to glory in, to give him acceptance with
God; he assures us of the contrary, — 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 of
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 quænam
illa justitia sit qua nitendum coram Deo, nimirum quæ per fidem
apprehenditur, at hæc imputata est: Causam etiam ostendit cur jure nostra
fiat, nimirum quia nos Christi sumus et in Christo comperimur; quia igitur
insiti sumus in corpus ejus et coalescimus cum illo in unam personam, ideo
ejus justitia nostra reputatur,” De Justif. Habit. cap. xxxviii. For whereas some begin to
interpret our being “in Christ,” and being “found in him,” so as to intend
no more but our profession of the faith of the gospel, the faith of the
catholic 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 are alone intended in
that distinction, so far as it has 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 is not required by that law which enjoins us
to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and our
neighbour as ourselves, they shall be attended unto. (4.) The apostle in
this case rejects all the “works of righteousness which we have done,”
Tit. iii. 5; but our evangelical
righteousness consists in the works of righteousness which we do. (5.) He
disclaims all that is our own. And if the evangelical righteousness
intended be our own, he sets up another in opposition unto it; and which,
therefore, is not our own, but as it is imputed unto us. And I shall yet
add some other reasons which render this pretence useless, or show the
falseness of it:—
(1.) Where the apostle does not distinguish or limit what
he speaks of, what ground have we to distinguish or limit his assertions?
“Not by works,” says 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 contrary. But by what warrant? (2.) The
works which they pretend to be excluded, as wherein our own righteousness
that is rejected does 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 hypocritical from
our justification? Whoever 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 than any others, as
being better and more praiseworthy than they. (4.) The apostle elsewhere
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 forgiveness of sins. (5.) The state of the
question which he handles in his Epistle unto the Galatians, was expressly
about the works of them that did believe; for he does not dispute 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
joined 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 considers this
testimony in three places, lib. i. cap. 18, lib. i. cap.
19, lib. v. 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: He says, — (1.) “That the righteousness which is by the
law, and which is opposed unto the righteousness which is by faith, is not
the righteousness written in the law, or which the law requires, but a
righteousness wrought without the aid of grace, by the knowledge of the law
alone.” (2.) “That the righteousness which is by the faith of Christ is
‘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 righteousness
ζημίαν καὶ σκύβαλα, — ‘loss and dung.’ ” But he
labours 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 expressly
contradictory unto the apostle, Rom. ix. 31; x. 5. In both
places he declares the righteousness of the law to be the righteousness
that the law requires. (2.) The works which he excludes, he calls “the
works of righteousness that we have done,” Tit. iii. 5,
which are the works that the law requires. Unto the second, I say,
— (1.) That the substance of it is, that the apostle should profess, “I
desire to be found in Christ, not having my own righteousness, but having
my own righteousness;” 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 unto 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 join 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 trial 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. iv. 6;
that which we receive by way of gift, chap. v. 17.
(3.) That by “the righteousness which is through the faith of Christ;” our
own inherent righteousness is not intended, is evident from hence, that the
apostle excludes all his own righteousness, as and when he was found in
Christ; that is, whatever 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 does not, nor do we say
that he does, call our inherent righteousness “dung;” but only that he
“counts” it so. (2.) He does not account it so absolutely, which he is most
remote from; but only in comparison with Christ. (3.) He does not esteem it
so in itself; 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. lxiv. 6; and בֶגֶד עִדִּים is an expression of as much contempt as
σκύβαλα.
3. 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.) Whatever the apostle excludes, he
does it absolutely, and with all respects; 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
ourselves. [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.
XIX. Objections against the doctrine of justification by the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ — Personal holiness and obedience
not obstructed, but furthered by it
Objections against the doctrine of justification by the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ — Nature of these objections —
Difficulty in discerning aright the sense of some men in this argument —
Justification by works, the end of all declension from the righteousness of
Christ — Objections against this doctrine derived from a supposition
thereof alone — First principal objection: Imputed righteousness overthrows
the necessity of a holy life — This objection, as managed by them of the
church of Rome, an open calumny — How insisted on by some among ourselves —
Socinus’s fierceness in this charge —
His foul dishonesty therein — False charges on men’s opinions making way
for the rash condemnation of their persons — Iniquity of such censures —
The objection rightly stated — Sufficiently answered in the previous
discourses about the nature of faith, and force of the moral law — The
nature and necessity of evangelical holiness elsewhere pleaded — Particular
answers unto this objection — All who profess this doctrine do not
exemplify it in their lives — The most holy truths have been abused — None
by whom this doctrine is now denied exceeds them in holiness by whom it is
formerly professed, and the power of it attested — The contrary doctrine
not successful in the reformation of the lives of men — The best way to
determine this difference — The one objection managed against the doctrine
of the apostle in his own days — Efficacious prejudices against this
doctrine in the minds of men — The whole doctrine of the apostle liable to
be abused — Answer of the apostle unto this objection — He never once
attempts to answer it by declaring the necessity of personal righteousness,
or good works, unto justification before God — He confines the cogency of
evangelical motives unto obedience only unto believers — Grounds of
evangelical holiness asserted by him, in compliance with his doctrine of
justification:— 1. Divine ordination — Exceptions unto this ground removed.
2. Answer of the apostle vindicated — The obligation of the law unto
obedience — Nature of it, and consistency with grace — This answer of the
apostle vindicated — Heads of other principles that might be pleaded to the
same purpose
That which
remains to put an issue to this discourse is the consideration of some
things that in general are laid in objection against the truth
pleaded for. Many things of that nature we have occasionally met withal,
and already removed; yea, the principal of those which at present are most
insisted on. The testimonies of Scripture urged by those of the Roman
church for justification by works, have all of them so fully and frequently
been answered by Protestant divines, that it is altogether needless to
insist again upon them, unless they had received some new enforcement;
which of late they have not done. That which, for the most part, we have
now to do withal are rather sophistical cavils, from supposed absurd
consequences, than real theological arguments. And some of those who would
walk with most wariness between the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ and justification by our own works, either are in such a slippery
place that they seem sometimes to be on the one side, sometimes on the
other; or else to express themselves with so much caution, as it is very
difficult to apprehend their minds. I shall not, therefore, for the future
dare to say that this or that is any man’s opinion, though it appear unto
me so to be, as clear and evident as words can express it; but that this or
that opinion, let it be maintained by whom it will, I approve or
disapprove, this I shall dare to say. And I will say, also, that the
declination that has been from the common doctrine of justification before
God on the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, does daily proceed
towards a direct assertion of justification by works; nor, indeed, has it
where to rest until it comes unto that bottom. And this is more clearly
seen in the objections which they make against the truth than in what they
plead in defence of their own opinions: for herein they speak as yet
warily, and with a pretence of accuracy in avoiding extremes; but in the
other, or their objections, they make use of none but what are easily
resolved into a supposition of justification by works in the grossest sense
of it. To insist on all particulars were endless; and, as was said, most
of those of any importance have already occasionally been spoken unto.
There are, therefore, only two things which are generally pleaded by all
sorts of persons, Papists, Socinians, and others with whom here we have to
do, that I shall take notice of. The first and fountain of all others is,
that the doctrine of justification by the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ does render our personal righteousness
needless, and overthrows all necessity of a holy life. The other is,
that the apostle James, in his epistle, does plainly ascribe our
justification unto works; and what he affirms there is inconsistent with
that sense of those many other testimonies of Scripture which we plead
for.
For the first of these, although those who oppose the truth
we contend for do proceed on various different and contradictory principles
among themselves, as to what they exalt in opposition unto it, yet do they
all agree in a vehement urging of it. For those of the church of Rome who
renewed this charge, invented of old by others, it must be acknowledged by
all sober men, that, as managed by them, is an open calumny: for the wisest
of them, and those whom it is hard to conceive but that they knew the
contrary, as Bellarmine, Vasquez, Suarez, do
openly aver that Protestant writers deny all inherent righteousness (Bellarmine excepts Bucer and Chemnitius);
that they maintain that men may be saved, although they live in all manner
of sin; that there is no more required of them but that they believe that
their sins are forgiven; and that whilst they do so, although they give
themselves up unto the most sensual vices and abominations, they may be
assured of their salvation.
“Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum!”
So will men, out of a perverse zeal to promote their own
interest in the religion they profess, wilfully give up themselves unto the
worst of evils, such as false accusation and open calumny; and of no other
nature are these assertions, which none of the writings or preachings of
those who are so charged did ever give the least countenance unto. Whether
the forging and promulgation of such impudent falsehoods be an expedient to
obtain justification by works in the sight of God, they who continue in
them had best consider. For my part, I say again, as I suppose I have said
already, that it is all one to me what religion men are of who can justify
themselves in such courses and proceedings. And for those among ourselves
who are pleased to make use of this objection, they either know what the
doctrine is which they would oppose, or they do not. If they do not, the
wise man tells them that “he who answers a matter before he hear it, it is
folly and shame unto him.” If they do understand it, it is evident that
they use not sincerity but artifices and false pretences, for advantage, in
their handling of sacred things; which is scandalous to religion. Socinus fiercely manages this charge
against the doctrine of the Reformed churches, De Servat. par. iv., cap. 1; and he made it
the foundation whereon, and the reason why, he opposed the doctrine of the
imputation of the satisfaction of Christ, if any such
satisfaction should be allowed; which yet he peremptorily denies. And he
has written a treatise unto the same purpose, defended by Schlichtingius against Meisnerus. And he takes the same [dis]honest
course herein that others did before him; for he charges it on the divines
of the Protestant churches, that they taught that God justifies the
ungodly, — not only those that are so, and whilst they are so, but although
they continue so; that they required no inherent righteousness or holiness
in any, nor could do so on their principles, seeing the imputed
righteousness of Christ is sufficient for them, although they live in sin,
are not washed nor cleansed, nor do give up themselves unto the ways of
duty and obedience unto God, whereby he may be pleased, and so bring in
libertinism and antinomianism into the church. And he thinks it a
sufficient confutation of this doctrine, to allege against it that “neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,” etc., “shall inherit the
kingdom of God.” And these are some of those ways which have rendered the
management of controversies in religion scandalous and abominable, such as
no wise or good man will meddle withal, unless compelled for the necessary
service of the church; for these things are openly false, and made use of
with a shameful dishonesty, to promote a corrupt design and end. When I
find men at this kind of work, I have very little concernment in what they
say afterwards, be it true or false. Their rule and measure is what serves
their own end, or what may promote the design and interest wherein they are
engaged, be it right or wrong. And as for this man, there is not any
article in religion (the principal whereof are rejected by him) on whose
account he does with more confidence adjudge us unto eternal ruin, than he
does on this of the satisfaction of Christ, and the imputation of it unto
them that do believe. So much darkness is there remaining on the minds of
the most of men, — so many inveterate prejudices on various occasions are
they pestered withal, especially if not under the conduct of the same
enlightening Spirit, — that some will confidently condemn others unto
eternal flames for those thing whereon they place, on infallible grounds,
their hopes of eternal blessedness, and know that they love God and live
unto him on their account. But this wretched advantage of condemning all
them to hell who dissent from them is greedily laid hold of by all sorts of
persons, for they thereby secretly secure their own whole party in the
persuasion of eternal salvation, be they otherwise what they will; for if
the want of that faith which they profess will certainly damn men whatever
else they be, and how good soever their lives be, many will easily suffer
themselves to be deceived with a foolish sophism, that then that faith
which they profess will assuredly save them, be their lives what they
please, considering how it falls in with their inclinations. And hereby they may happen also to frighten poor, simple people
into a compliance with them, whilst they peremptorily denounce damnation
against them unless they do so. And none, for the most part, are more
fierce in the denunciation of the condemnatory sentence against others for
not believing as they do, than those who so live as that, if there be any
truth in the Scripture, it is not possible they should be saved themselves.
For my part, I believe that, as to Christians in outward profession, all
unregenerate unbelievers who obey not the gospel shall be damned, be they
of what religion they will, and none else; for all that are born again, do
truly believe and obey the gospel, shall be saved, be they of what religion
they will as unto the differences that are at this day among Christians.
That way wherein these things are most effectually promoted is, in the
first place, to be embraced by every one that takes care of his own
salvation. If they are in any way or church obstructed, that church or way
is, so far as it does obstruct them, to be forsaken; and if there be any
way of profession, or any visible church state, wherein any thing or things
absolutely destructive of or inconsistent with these things are made
necessary unto the professors of it, in that way, and by virtue of it, no
salvation is to be obtained. In other things, every man is to walk
according unto the light of his own mind; for whatever is not of faith is
sin. But I return from this digression, occasioned by the fierceness of
him with whom we have to do.
For the objection itself that has fallen under so perverse
a management, so far as it has any pretence of sobriety in it, is this and
no other: “If God justify the ungodly merely by his grace, through faith in
Christ Jesus, so as that works of obedience are not antecedently necessary
unto justification before God, nor are any part of that righteousness
whereon any are so justified, then are they no way necessary, but men may
be justified and saved without them.” For it is said that there is no
connection between faith unto justification, as by us asserted, and the
necessity of holiness, righteousness, or obedience, but that we are by
grace set at liberty to live as we list; yea, in all manner of sin, and yet
be secured of salvation: for if we are made righteous with the
righteousness of another, we have no need of any righteousness of our own.
And it were well if many of those who make use of this plea would
endeavour, by some other way, also to evidence their esteem of these
things; for to dispute for the necessity of holiness, and live in the
neglect of it, is uncomely.
I shall be brief in the answer that here shall be returned
unto this objection; for, indeed, it is sufficiently answered or obviated
in what has been before discoursed concerning the nature of that
faith whereby we are justified, and the continuation of the moral
law in its force, as a rule of obedience unto all believers. An
unprejudiced consideration of what has been proposed on these
heads will evidently manifest the iniquity of this charge, and how not the
least countenance is given unto it by the doctrine pleaded for. Besides, I
must acquaint the reader that, some while since, I have published an entire
discourse concerning the nature and necessity of gospel holiness, with the
grounds and reasons thereof, in compliance with the doctrine of
justification that has now been declared. Nor do I see it necessary to add
any thing thereunto, nor do I doubt but that the perusal of it will
abundantly detect the vanity of this charge. Dispensation of the Holy
Spirit, chap. v. Some few
things may be spoken on the present occasion:—
1. It is not pleaded that all who do profess, or have in
former ages professed, this doctrine, have exemplified it in a holy
and fruitful conversation. Many, it is to be feared, have been found
amongst them who have lived and died in sin. Neither do I know but that
some have abused this doctrine to countenance themselves in their sins and
neglect of duty. The best of holy things or truths cannot be secured from
abuse, so long as the sophistry of the old serpent has an influence on the
lusts and depraved minds of men. So was it with them of old who turned the
grace of God into lasciviousness; or, from the doctrine of it, countenanced
themselves in their ungodly deeds. Even from the beginning, the whole
doctrine of the gospel, with the grace of God declared therein, was so
abused. Neither were all that made profession of it immediately rendered
holy and righteous thereby. Many from the first so walked as to make it
evident that their belly was their god, and their end destruction. It is
one thing to have only the conviction of truth in our minds; another
to have the power of it in our hearts. The former will only produce
an outward profession; the latter effect an inward renovation of our souls.
However, I must add three things unto this concession:—
(1.) I am not satisfied that any of those who at present
oppose this doctrine do, in holiness or righteousness, in the exercise of
faith, love, zeal, self-denial, and all other Christian graces, surpass
those who, in the last ages, both in this and other nations, firmly adhered
unto it, and who constantly testified unto that effectual influence which
it had into their walking before God. Nor do I know that any can be named
amongst us, in the former ages, who were eminent in holiness (and many such
there were), who did not cordially assent unto that imputation of the
righteousness of Christ which we plead for. I doubt not in the least but
that many who greatly differ from others in the explication of this
doctrine, may be and are eminently holy, at least sincerely so; which is as
much as the best can pretend unto. But it is not comely to find some
others who give very little evidence of their “diligent
following after that holiness without which no man shall see God,”
vehemently declaiming against that doctrine as destructive of holiness,
which was so fruitful in it in former days.
(2.) It does not appear as yet, in general, that an attempt
to introduce a doctrine contrary unto it has had any great success
in the reformation of the lives of men. Nor has personal righteousness or
holiness as yet much thrived under the conduct of it, as to what may be
observed. It will be time enough to seek countenance unto it, by
declaiming against that which has formerly had better effects, when it has
a little more commended itself by its fruits.
(3.) It were not amiss if this part of the controversy
might, amongst us all, be issued in the advice of the apostle James, chap. ii. 18, “Show me thy faith
without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.” Let us all
labour that fruits may thus far determine of doctrines, as unto their use
unto the interest of righteousness and holiness; for that faith which does
not evidence itself by works, that has not this ἔνδειξιν, this index which James calls for, whereby it may
be found out and examined, is of no use nor consideration herein.
2. The same objection was from the beginning laid against
the doctrine of the apostle Paul, the same charge was managed against it;
which sufficiently argues that it is the same doctrine which is now
assaulted with it. This himself more than once takes notice of, Rom.
iii. 31, “Do we make void the law through faith?” It is an
objection that he anticipates against his doctrine of the free
justification of sinners, through faith in the blood of Christ. And the
substance of the charge included in these words is, that he destroyed the
law, took off all obligation unto obedience, and brought in Antinomianism.
So again, chap. vi. 1, “What shall we say then?
Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” Some thought this the
natural and genuine consequence of what he had largely discoursed
concerning justification, which he had now fully closed; and some think so
still: “If what he taught concerning the grace of God in our justification
be true, it will not only follow that there will be no need of any
relinquishment of sin on our part, but also a continuance in it must needs
tend unto the exaltation of that grace which he had so extolled.” The same
objection he repeats again, verse 15, “What
then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?”
And in sundry other places does he obviate the same objection, where he
does not absolutely suppose it, especially Eph. ii. 9,
10. We have, therefore, no reason to be surprised with, nor
much to be moved at, this objection and charge; for it is no other but what
was insinuated or managed against the doctrine of the apostle himself,
whatever enforcements are now given it by subtlety of arguing or rhetorical
exaggerations. However, evident it is, that there are
naturally in the minds of men efficacious prejudices against this part of
the mystery of the gospel, which began betimes to manifest themselves, and
ceased not until they had corrupted the whole doctrine of the church
herein: and it were no hard matter to discover the principal of them, were
that our present business; however, it has in part been done before.
3. It is granted that this doctrine, both singly by
itself, or in conjunction with whatever else concerns the grace of God by
Christ Jesus, is liable unto abuse by them in whom darkness and the
love of sin are predominant; for hence, from the very beginning of our
religion, some fancied unto themselves that a bare assent unto the gospel
was that faith whereby they should be saved, and that they might be so
however they continued to live in sin and a neglect of all duties of
obedience. This is evident from the epistles of John, James, and Jude, in
an especial manner. Against this pernicious evil we can give no relief,
whilst men will love darkness more than light, because their deeds are
evil. And it would be a fond imagination in any, to think that their
modellings of this doctrine after this manner will prevent future abuse.
If they will, it is by rendering it no part of the gospel; for that which
is so was ever liable to be abused by such persons as we speak of.
These general observations being premised, which are
sufficient of themselves to discard this objection from any place in the
minds of sober men, I shall only add the consideration of what answers the
apostle Paul returns unto it, with a brief application of them unto our
purpose.
The objection made unto the apostle was, that he made
void the law, that he rendered good works needless; and that, on
the supposition of his doctrine, men might live in sin unto the
advancement of grace. And as unto his sense hereof we may observe, —
1. That he never returns that answer unto it, no not once,
which some think is the only answer whereby it may be satisfied and
removed, — namely, the necessity of our own personal righteousness and
obedience or works, in order unto our justification before God. For
that by “faith without works,” he understands faith and works, is an
unreasonable supposition. If any do yet pretend that he has given any such
answer, let them produce it; as yet it has not been made to appear. And is
it not strange, that if this indeed were his doctrine, and the contrary a
mistake of it, — namely, that our personal righteousness, holiness, and
works, had an influence into our justification, and were in any sort our
righteousness before God therein, — that he who, in an eminent manner,
everywhere presses the necessity of them, shows their true nature and use,
both in general and in particular duties of all sorts, above any of the
writers of the New Testament, should not make use of this
truth in answer unto an objection wherein he was charged to render them all
needless and useless? His doctrine was urged with this objection, as
himself acknowledged; and on the account of it rejected by many, Rom. x. 3, 4; Gal. ii.
18. He did see and know that the corrupt lusts and depraved
affections of the minds of many would supply them with subtle arguing
against it; yea, he did foresee, by the Holy Spirit, as appears in many
places of his writings, that it would be perverted and abused. And surely
it was highly incumbent on him to obviate what in him lay these evils, and
so state his doctrine upon this objection as that no countenance might ever
be given unto it. And is it not strange that he should not on this
occasion, once at least, somewhere or other, give an intimation that
although he rejected the works of the law, yet he maintained the
necessity of evangelical works, in order unto our justification before
God, as the condition of it, or that whereby we are justified according
unto the gospel? If this were indeed his doctrine, and that which would so
easily solve this difficulty and answer this objection, as both of them are
by some pretended, certainly neither his wisdom nor his care of the church
under the conduct of the infallible Spirit, would have suffered him to omit
this reply, were it consistent with the truth which he had delivered. But
he is so far from any such plea, that when the most unavoidable occasion
was administered unto it, he not only waives any mention of it, but in its
stead affirms that which plainly evidences that he allowed not of it. See
Eph. ii. 9, 10. Having positively
excluded works from our justification, — “Not of works, lest any man should
boast,” — it being natural thereon to inquire, “To what end do works serve?
Or is there any necessity of them?” Instead of a distinction of works
legal and evangelical in order unto our justification, he asserts the
necessity of the latter on other grounds, reasons, and motives, manifesting
that they were those in particular which he excluded; as we have seen in
the consideration of the place. Wherefore, — that we may not forsake his
pattern and example in the same cause, seeing he was wiser and holier, knew
more of the mind of God, and had more zeal for personal righteousness and
holiness in the church, than we all, — if we are pressed a thousand times
with this objection, we shall never seek to deliver ourselves from it, by
answering that we allow these things to be the condition or causes of our
justification, or the matter of our righteousness before God, seeing he
would not so do.
2. We may observe, that in his answer unto this objection,
whether expressly mentioned or tacitly obviated, he insists not anywhere
upon the common principle of moral duties, but on those motives and reasons
of holiness, obedience, good works alone, which are peculiar
unto believers. For the question was not, whether all mankind were obliged
unto obedience unto God, and the duties thereof, by the moral law?
but, whether there were an obligation from the gospel upon believers unto
righteousness, holiness, and good works, such as was suited to affect and
constrain their minds unto them? Nor will we admit of any other state of
the question but this only: whether, upon the supposition of our
gratuitous justification through the imputation of the righteousness
of Christ, there are in the gospel grounds, reasons, and motives, making
necessary, and efficaciously influencing the minds of believers unto
obedience and good works? For those who are not believers, we have nothing
to do with them in this matter, nor do plead that evangelical grounds and
motives are suited or effectual to work them unto obedience: yea, we know
the contrary, and that they are apt both to despise them and abuse them.
See 1 Cor. i. 23,
24; 2 Cor. iv. 4. Such persons are under the
law, and there we leave them unto the authority of God in the moral law.
But that the apostle does confine his inquiry unto believers, is evident in
every place wherein he makes mention of it: Rom. vi. 2,
3, “How shall we, that are dead unto sin, live any longer
therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ,” etc.; Eph. ii. 10, “For we are the workmanship
of God, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” Wherefore, we shall not
at all contend what cogency unto duties of holiness there is in gospel
motives and reasons unto the minds of unbelievers, whatever may be the
truth in that case; but what is their power, force, and efficacy, towards
them that truly believe.
3. The answers which the apostle returns positively unto
this objection, wherein he declares the necessity, nature, ends, and use of
evangelical righteousness and good works, are large and many, comprehensive
of a great part of the doctrine of the gospel. I shall only mention the
heads of some of them, which are the same that we plead in the vindication
of the same truth:—
(1.) He pleads the ordination of God: “God has
before ordained that we should walk in them,” Eph. ii. 10.
God has designed, in the disposal of the order of the causes of salvation,
that those who believe in Christ should live in, walk in, abound in good
works, and all duties of obedience unto God. To this end are precepts,
directions, motives, and encouragements, everywhere multiplied in the
Scripture. Wherefore, we say that good works, — and that as they include
the gradual progressive renovation of our natures, our growth and increase
in grace, with fruitfulness in our lives, — are necessary from the
ordination of God, from his will and command. And what need there any
farther dispute about the necessity of good works among them that know what
it is to believe, or what respect there is in the souls and
consciences of believers unto the commands of God?
“But what force,” say some, “is in this command or
ordination of God, when notwithstanding it, and if we do not apply
ourselves unto obedience, we shall be justified by the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, and so may be saved without them?” I say, —
First, as was before observed, That it is believers alone
concerning whom this inquiry is made; and there is none of them but will
judge this a most unreasonable and senseless objection, as that which
arises from an utter ignorance of their state and relation unto God. To
suppose that the minds of believers are not as much and as effectually
influenced with the authority and commands of God unto duty and obedience,
as if they were all given in order unto their justification, is to consider
neither what faith is, nor what it is to be a believer, nor what is the
relation that we stand in unto God by faith in Christ Jesus, nor what are
the arguments or motives wherewith the minds of such persons are
principally affected and constrained. This is the answer which the apostle
gives at large unto this exception, Rom. vi. 2,
3. Secondly, The whole fallacy of this exception is, —
First, In separating the things that God has made inseparable; these are,
our justification and our sanctification. To suppose that the one of these
may be without the other, is to overthrow the whole gospel. Secondly, In
compounding those things that are distinct, — namely, justification and
eternal actual salvation; the respect of works and obedience being not the
same unto them both, as has been declared. Wherefore, this imagination,
that the commands of God unto duty, however given, and unto what ends
soever, are not equally obligatory unto the consciences of believers, as if
they were all given in order unto their justification before God, is an
absurd figment, and which all of them who are truly so defy. Yea, they
have a greater power upon them than they could have if the duties required
in them were in order to their justification, and so were antecedent
thereunto; for thereby they must be supposed to have their efficacy upon
them before they truly believe. For to say that a man may be a true
believer, or truly believe, in answer unto the commands of the gospel, and
not be thereon in the same instant of time absolutely justified, is not to
dispute about any point of religion, but plainly to deny the whole truth of
the gospel. But it is faith alone that gives power and efficacy unto
gospel commands effectually to influence the soul unto obedience.
Wherefore, this obligation is more powerfully constraining as they are
given unto those that are justified, than if they were given them in order
unto their justification.
(2.) The apostle answers, as we do also, “Do we then make
void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” For
although the law is principally established in and by the
obedience and sufferings of Christ, Rom. viii. 3, 4; x. 3, 4,
yet is it not, by the doctrine of faith and the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ unto the justification of life, made void as unto
believers. Neither of these does exempt them from that obligation
unto universal obedience which is prescribed in the law. They are still
obliged by virtue thereof to “love the Lord their God with all their
hearts, and their neighbours as themselves.” They are, indeed, freed from
the law, and all its commands unto duty as it abides in its first
considerations “Do this, and live;” the opposite whereunto is, “Cursed is
every one that continueth not in all things written in the law to do them.”
For he that is under the obligation of the law, in order unto
justification and life, falls inevitably under the curse of it upon the
supposition of any one transgression. But we are made free to give
obedience unto it on gospel motives, and for gospel ends; as the apostle
declares at large, chap. vi. And the obligation of it is
such unto all believers as that the least transgression of it has
the nature of sin. But are they hereon bound over by the law unto
everlasting punishment? Or, as some phrase it, “will God damn them that
transgress the law?” without which all this is nothing. I ask, again, what
they think hereof; and upon a supposition that he will do so, what they
farther think will become of themselves? For my part, I say, No; even as
the apostle says, “There is no condemnation unto them that are in Christ
Jesus.” “Where, then,” they will say, “is the necessity of obedience from
the obligation of the law, if God will not damn them that transgress it?”
And I say, It were well if some men did understand what they say in these
things, or would learn, for a while at least, to hold their peace. The law
equally requires obedience in all instances of duty, if it require any at
all. As unto its obligatory power, it is capable neither of dispensation
nor relaxation, so long as the essential differences of good and evil do
remain. If, then, none can be obliged unto duty by virtue of its commands,
but that they must on every transgression fall under its curse, either it
obliges no one at all, or no one can be saved. But although we are freed
from the curse and condemning power of the law by Him who has made an end
of sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness; yet, whilst we are
“viatores,” in order unto the accomplishment of God’s design for the
restoration of his image in us, we are obliged to endeavour after all that
holiness and righteousness which the law requires of us.
(3.) The apostle answers this objection, by discovering the
necessary relation that faith has unto the death of Christ, the grace of
God, with the nature of sanctification, excellency, use, and advantage of
gospel holiness, and the end of it in God’s appointment. This
he does at large in the whole
sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and that with this
immediate design, to show the consistency of justification by faith alone
with the necessity of personal righteousness and holiness. The due
pleading of these things would require a just and full exposition of that
chapter, wherein the apostle has comprised the chief springs and reasons of
evangelical obedience. I shall only say, that those unto whom the reasons
of it, and motives unto it, therein expressed, — which are all of them
compliant with the doctrine of justification by the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, — are not effectual unto their own personal
obedience, and do not demonstrate an indispensable necessity of it, are so
unacquainted with the gospel, the nature of faith, the genius and
inclination of the new creature (for, let men scoff on whilst they please,
“he that is in Christ Jesus is a new creature”), the constraining efficacy
of the grace of God, and love of Christ, of the economy of God in the
disposition of the causes and means of our salvation, as I shall never
trouble myself to contend with them about these things.
Sundry other considerations I thought to have added unto
the same purpose, and to have showed, — 1. That to prove the necessity of
inherent righteousness and holiness, we make use of the
arguments which are suggested unto us in the Scripture. 2. That we
make use of all of them in the sense wherein, and unto the ends for which,
they are urged therein, in perfect compliance with what we teach concerning
justification. 3. That all the pretended arguments or motives for
and unto evangelical holiness, which are inconsistent with the imputation
of the righteousness of Christ, do indeed obstruct it and evert it. 4.
That the holiness which we make necessary unto the salvation of them that
believe is of a more excellent, sublime, and heavenly nature, in its
causes, essence, operations, and effects, than what is allowed or believed
by the most of those by whom the doctrine of justification is opposed. 5.
That the holiness and righteousness which is pleaded for by the Socinians
and those that follow them, does in nothing exceed the righteousness of the
scribes and Pharisees; nor upon their principles can any man go beyond
them. But whereas this discourse has already much exceeded my first
intention, and that, as I said before, I have already at large treated on
the doctrine of the nature and necessity of evangelical holiness, I shall
at present omit the farther handling of these things, and acquiesce in the
answers given by the apostle unto this objection.
Chapter XX. The doctrine of the apostle James concerning faith and
works — Its agreement with that of St Paul
Seeming difference, no real contradiction, between the apostles
Paul and James, concerning justification — This granted by all — Reasons of
the seeming difference — The best rule of the interpretation of places of
Scripture wherein there is an appearing repugnancy — The doctrine of
justification according unto that rule principally to be learned from the
writings of Paul — The reasons of his fulness and accuracy in the teaching
of that doctrine — The importance of the truth; the opposition made unto
it, and abuse of it — The design of the apostle James — Exceptions of some
against the writings of St Paul, scandalous and unreasonable — Not, in this
matter, to be interpreted by the passage in James insisted on, chap.
ii. — That there is no repugnancy between the doctrine of the
two apostles demonstrated — Heads and grounds of the demonstration — Their
scope, design, and end, not the same — That of Paul; the only case stated
and determined by him — The design of the apostle James; the case proposed
by him quite of another nature — The occasion of the case proposed and
stated by him — No appearance of difference between the apostles, because
of the several cases they speak unto — Not the same faith intended by them
— Description of the faith spoken of by the one, and the other — Bellarmine’s arguments to prove true justifying
faith to be intended by James, answered — Justification not treated of by
the apostles in the same manner, nor used in the same sense, nor to the
same end — The one treats of justification, as unto its nature and causes;
the other, as unto its signs and evidence — Proved by the instances
insisted on — How the Scripture was fulfilled, that Abraham believed in
God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness, when he offered his son
on the altar — Works the same, and of the same kind, in both the apostles —
Observations on the discourse of James — No conjunction made by him between
faith nor works in our justification, but an opposition — No distinction of
a first and second justification in him — Justification ascribed by him
wholly unto works — In what sense — Does not determine how a sinner may be
justified before God; but how a professor may evidence himself so to be —
The context opened from verse
14, to the end of the chapter
The seeming
difference that is between the apostles Paul and James in what they
teach concerning faith, works, and justification, requires our
consideration of it; for many do take advantage, from some words and
expressions used by the latter, directly to oppose the doctrine
fully and plainly declared by the former. But whatever is of that
nature pretended, has been so satisfactorily already answered and removed
by others, as that there is no great need to treat of it again. And
although I suppose that there will not be an end of contending and writing
in these causes, whilst we “know but in part, and prophesy but in part;”
yet I must say that, in my judgment, the usual solution of this
appearing difficulty, — securing the doctrine of justification by faith,
through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, from any concernment
or contradiction in the discourse of St James, chap. ii. 14, to the end, — has
not been in the least impeached, nor has had any new difficulty put upon
it, in some late discourses to that purpose. I should, therefore, utterly
forbear to speak any thing thereof, but that I suppose it will be expected
in a discourse of this nature, and do hope that I also may contribute some
light unto the clearing and vindication of the truth. To this purpose it
may be observed, that, — 1. It is taken for granted, on all hands, that
there is no real repugnancy or contradiction between what is delivered by
these two apostles; for if that were so, the writings of one of them must
be pseudepistolæ, or falsely ascribed unto them whose names they
bear, and uncanonical, — as the authority of the Epistle of James has been
by some, both of old and of late, highly but rashly questioned. Wherefore,
their words are certainly capable of a just reconciliation. That we cannot
any of us attain thereunto, or that we do not agree therein, is from the
darkness of our own minds, the weakness of our understandings, and, with
too many, from the power of prejudices.
2. It is taken also for granted, on all other occasions,
that when there is an appearance of repugnancy or contradiction in any
places of Scripture, if some, or any of them, do treat directly,
designedly, and largely about the matter concerning which there is a
seeming repugnancy or contradiction; and others, or any other, speak of the
same things only “obiter,” occasionally,
transiently, in order unto other ends; the truth is to be learned, stated,
and fixed from the former places: or the interpretation of those places
where any truth is mentioned only occasionally with reference
unto other things or ends, is, as unto that truth, to be taken from and
accommodated unto those other places wherein it is the design and purpose
of the holy penman to declare it for its own sake, and to guide the
faith of the church therein. And there is not a more rational and natural
rule of the interpretation of Scripture among all them which are by common
consent agreed upon.
3. According unto this rule, it is unquestionable that the
doctrine of justification before God is to be learned from the writings of
the apostle Paul, and from them is light to be taken into all other places
of Scripture where it is occasionally mentioned. Especially it is so,
considering how exactly this doctrine represents the whole scope of
the Scripture, and is witnessed unto by particular testimonies occasionally
given unto the same truth, without number: for it must be acknowledged that
he wrote of this subject of our justification before God, on purpose to
declare it for its own sake, and its use in the church; and that he does it
fully, largely, and frequently, in a constant harmony of expressions. And
he owns those reasons that pressed him unto fulness and accuracy herein, —
(1.) The importance of the doctrine itself. This he declares to be
such as that thereon our salvation does immediately depend; and that it was
the hinge whereon the whole doctrine of the gospel did turn, — “Articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiæ,” Gal. ii. 16–21;
v. 4, 5. (2.) The plausible and dangerous opposition that
was then made unto it. This was so managed, and that with such specious
pretences, as that very many were prevailed on and turned from the truth by
it (as it was with the Galatians), and many detained from the faith of the
gospel out of a dislike unto it, Rom. x. 3,
4. What care and diligence this requires in the declaration of
any truth, is sufficiently known unto them who are acquainted with these
things; what zeal, care, and circumspection it stirred up the apostle unto,
is manifest in all his writings. (3.) The abuse which the corrupt
nature of man is apt to put upon this doctrine of grace, and which some did
actually pervert it unto. This also himself takes notice of, and
thoroughly vindicates it from giving the least countenance unto such
wrestings and impositions. Certainly, never was there a greater necessity
incumbent on any person fully and plainly to teach and declare a doctrine
of truth, than was on him at that time in his circumstances, considering
the place and duty that he was called unto. And no reason can be imagined
why we should not principally, and in the first place, learn the truth
herein from his declaration and vindication of it, if withal we do indeed
believe that he was divinely inspired, and divinely guided to reveal the
truth for the information of the church.
As unto what is delivered by the apostle James, so far as
our justification is included therein, things are quite
otherwise. He does not undertake to declare the doctrine of our
justification before God; but having another design in hand, as we shall
see immediately, he vindicates it from the abuse that some in those days
had put it unto, as other doctrines of the grace of God, which they turned
into licentiousness. Wherefore, it is from the writings of the apostle
Paul that we are principally to learn the truth in this matter; and unto
what is by him plainly declared is the interpretation of other places to be
accommodated.
4. Some of late are not of this mind; they contend
earnestly that Paul is to be interpreted by James, and not on the contrary.
And unto this end they tell us that the writings of Paul are obscure, that
sundry of the ancients take notice thereof, that many take occasion of
errors from them, with sundry things of an alike nature, indeed scandalous
to Christian religion; and that James, writing after him, is presumed to
give an interpretation unto his sayings; which are therefore to be
expounded and understood according unto that interpretation. Ans.
First, As to the vindication of the writings of St Paul, which begin now to
be frequently reflected on with much severity (which is one effect of the
secret prevalence of the Atheism of these days), as there is no need of it,
so it is designed for a more proper place. Only I know not how any person
that can pretend the least acquaintance with antiquity, can plead a passage
out of Irenæus, wherein he was evidently
himself mistaken, or a rash word of Origen, or
the like, in derogation from the perspicuity of the writings of this
apostle, when they cannot but know how easy it were to overwhelm them with
testimonies unto the contrary from all the famous writers of the church in
several ages. And as (for instance in one) Chrysostom in forty places gives an account why
some men understood not his writings, which in themselves were so
gloriously evident and perspicuous; so for their satisfaction, I shall
refer them only unto the preface unto his exposition of his epistles: of
which kind they will be directed unto more in due season. But he needs not
the testimony of men, nor of the whole church together, whose safety and
security it is to be built on that doctrine which he taught. In the
meantime, it would not be unpleasant to consider (but that the perverseness
of the minds of men is rather a real occasion of sorrow) how those who have
the same design do agree in their conceptions about his writings: for some
will have it, that if not all, yet the most of his epistles were written
against the Gnostics, and in the confutation of their error; others, that
the Gnostics took the occasion of their errors from his writings. So bold
will men make with things divine to satisfy a present interest.
Secondly, This was not the judgment of the ancient
church for three or four hundred years; for whereas the
epistles of Paul were always esteemed the principal treasure of the church,
the great guide and rule of the Christian faith, this of James was scarce
received as canonical by many, and doubted of by the most, as both Eusebius and Jerome do
testify.
Thirdly, The design of the apostle James is not at all to
explain the meaning of Paul in his epistles, as is pretended; but only to
vindicate the doctrine of the gospel from the abuse of such as used their
liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, and, turning the grace of God into
lasciviousness, continued in sin, under a pretence that grace had abounded
unto that end.
Fourthly, The apostle Paul does himself, as we have
declared, vindicate his own doctrine from such exceptions and abuses
as men either made at it, or turned it into. Nor have we any other
doctrine in his epistles than what he preached all the world over, and
whereby he laid the foundation of Christian religion, especially among the
Gentiles.
These things being premised, I shall briefly evidence that
there is not the least repugnancy or contradiction between what is declared
by these two apostles as unto our justification, with the causes of it.
And this I shall do, — 1. By some general considerations of the nature and
tendency of both their discourses. 2. By a particular explication of the
context in that of St James. And under the first head I shall manifest, —
(1.) That they have not the same scope, design, or end, in their
discourses; that they do not consider the same question, nor state the same
case, nor determine on the same inquiry; and therefore, not speaking “ad idem,” unto the same thing, do not contradict one
another. (2.) That as faith is a word of various signification in the
Scripture, and does, as we have proved before, denote that which is of
diverse kinds, they speak not of the same faith, or faith of the same kind;
and therefore there can be no contradiction in what the one ascribes unto
it and the other derogates from it, seeing they speak not of the same
faith. (3.) That they do not speak of justification in the same sense, nor
with respect unto the same ends. (4.) That as unto works, they both intend
the same, namely, the works of obedience unto the moral law.
(1.) As to the scope and design of the
apostle Paul, the question which he answers, the case which he proposes and
determines upon, are manifest in all his writings, especially his Epistles
unto the Romans and Galatians. The whole of his purpose is, to declare how
a guilty, convinced sinner comes, through faith in the blood of Christ, to
have all his sins pardoned, to be accepted with God, and obtain a right
unto the heavenly inheritance; that is, be acquitted and justified in the
sight of God. And as the doctrine hereof belonged eminently unto the gospel, whose revelation and declaration unto the
Gentiles was in a peculiar manner committed unto him; so, as we have newly
observed, he had an especial reason to insist much upon it from the
opposition that was made unto it by the Jews and judaizing Christians, who
ascribed this privilege unto the law, and our own works of obedience in
compliance therewithal. This is the case he states, this the question he
determines, in all his discourses about justification; and in the
explication thereof declares the nature and causes of it, as also
vindicates it from all exceptions. For whereas men of corrupt minds, and
willing to indulge unto their lusts (as all men naturally desire nothing
but what God has made eternally inconsistent, — namely, that they may live
in sin here, and come to blessedness hereafter), might conclude that if it
were so as he declared, that we are justified freely, through the grace of
God, by the imputation of a righteousness that originally and inherently is
not our own, then was there no more required of us, no relinquishment of
sin, no attendance unto the duties of righteousness and holiness; he
obviates such impious suggestions, and shows the inconsequence of them on
the doctrine that he taught. But this he does not do in any place by
intimating or granting that our own works of obedience or righteousness are
necessary unto, or have any causal influence into, our justification
before God. Had there been a truth herein, were not a supposition thereof
really inconsistent with the whole of his doctrine, and destructive of it,
he would not have omitted the plea of it, nor ought so to have done, as we
have showed. And to suppose that there was need that any other should
explain and vindicate his doctrine from the same exceptions which he takes
notice of, by such a plea as he himself would not make use of, but rejects,
is foolish and impious.
The apostle James, on the other hand, had no such scope or
design, or any such occasion for what he wrote in this matter. He does not
inquire, or give intimation of any such inquiry; he does not state the case
how a guilty, convinced sinner, whose mouth is stopped as unto any plea or
excuse for himself, may come to be justified in the sight of God; that is,
receive the pardon of sins and the gift of righteousness unto life. To
resolve this question into our own works, is to overthrow the whole gospel.
But he had in hand a business quite of another nature; for, as we have
said, there were many in those days who professed the Christian religion,
or faith in the gospel, whereon they presumed that as they were already
justified, so there was nothing more needful unto them that they might be
saved. A desirable estate they thought they had attained, suited unto all
the interest of the flesh, whereby they might live in sin and neglect of
all duty of obedience, and yet be eternally saved. Some suppose that this pernicious conceit was imbibed by them from the
poisonous opinions that some had then divulged, according as the apostle
Paul foretold that it would come to pass, 2 Tim. iv.
1–4: for it is generally conceived that Simon Magus and his followers had by this time infected the
minds of many with their abominations; and amongst them this was one, and
not the least pernicious, that by faith was intended a liberty from the law
and unto sin, or unto them that had it, the taking away of all difference
between good and evil; which was afterward improved by Basilides, Valentinus, and the rest of the Gnostics. Or, it
may be, it was only the corruption of men’s hearts and lives that prompted
them to seek after such a countenance unto sin. And this latter I judge it
was. There were then among professed Christians, such as the world now
swarms withal, who suppose that their faith, or the religion which they
profess, be it what it will, shall save them, although they live in
flagitious wickedness, and are utterly barren as unto any good works or
duties of obedience. Nor is there any other occasion of what he writes
intimated in the epistle; for he makes no mention of seducers, as John does
expressly and frequently, some while after. Against this sort of persons,
or for their conviction, he designs two things, — First, In general, to
prove the necessity of works unto all that profess the gospel or faith in
Christ thereby. Second, To evidence the vanity and folly of their pretence
unto justification, or that they were justified and should be saved by that
faith that was indeed so far from being fruitful in good works, as that it
was pretended by them only to countenance themselves in sin. Unto these
ends are all his arguings designed, and no other. He proves effectually
that the faith which is wholly barren and fruitless as unto obedience, and
[by] which men pretended to countenance themselves in their sins, is not
that faith whereby we are justified, and whereby we may be saved, but a
dead carcase, of no use nor benefit; as he declares by the conclusion of
his whole dispute, in the last verse of the
chapter. He does not direct any how they may be justified
before God, but convinces some that they are not justified by trusting unto
such a dead faith; and declares the only way whereby any man may really
evidence and manifest that he is so justified indeed. This design of his
is so plain as nothing can be more evident; and they miss the whole scope
of the apostle who observe it not in their expositions of the context.
Wherefore, the principal design of the apostles being so distant, there is
no repugnancy in their assertions, though their words make an appearance
thereof; for they do not speak “ad idem,” nor of
things “eodem respectu.” James does not once
inquire how a guilty, convinced sinner, cast and condemned by the law, may
come to be justified before God; and Paul speaks to nothing else.
Wherefore, apply the expressions of each of them unto their
proper design and scope, — as we must do, or we depart from all sober rules
of interpretation, and render it impossible to understand either of them
aright, — and there is no disagreement, or appearance of it, between
them.
(2.) They speak not of the same faith. Wherefore,
there can be no discrepancy in what one ascribes unto faith and the other
denies concerning it, seeing they understand not the same thing thereby;
for they speak not of the same faith. As if one affirms that fire will
burn, and another denies it, there is no contradiction between them, whilst
one intends real fire, and the other only that which is
painted, and both declare themselves accordingly. For we have
proved before that there are two sorts of faith wherewith men are
said to believe the gospel, and make profession thereof; as also that that
which belongs unto the one does not belong unto the other. None, I
suppose, will deny but that by “faith,” in the matter of our justification,
St Paul intends that which is κύριος, or properly so
called. The “faith of God’s elect,” “precious faith,” “more precious than
gold,” “the faith that purifieth the heart, and worketh by love,” “the
faith whereby Christ dwelleth in us, and we abide in him, whereby we live
to God,” “a living faith,” is that alone which he intends. For all these
things, and other spiritual effects without number, does he ascribe unto
that faith which he insists on, to be on our part the only means of our
justification before God. But as unto the faith intended by the apostle
James, he assigns nothing of all this unto it; yea, the only argument
whereby he proves that men cannot be saved by that faith which he treats
of, is that nothing of all this is found in it. That which he intends is,
what he calls it, a dead faith, a carcase without breath, the
faith of devils, a wordy faith, that is no more truly what it
is called, than it is true charity to send away naked and hungry persons
without relief, but not without derision. Well may he deny justification
in any sense unto this faith, however boasted of, when yet it may be justly
ascribed unto that faith which Paul speaks of.
Bellarmine uses several
arguments to prove that the faith here intended by James is justifying
faith considered in itself; but they are all weak to contempt, as being
built on this supposition, that true justifying faith is nothing but a real
assent unto the catholic doctrine or divine revelation: De Justificat. lib. i. cap. 15. His first is,
“That James calls it ‘faith’ absolutely, whereby always in the Scripture
true faith is intended.” Ans. 1. James calls it a dead faith, the
faith of devils, and casts all manner of reproach upon it; which he would
not have done on any duty or grace truly evangelical. 2. Every faith that
is true as unto the reality of assent which is given by it unto the truth,
is neither living, justifying, nor saving; as has been proved.
3. They are said to have faith absolutely, or absolutely to believe, who
never had that faith which is true and saving, John ii.
23; Acts viii. 13. Secondly, He urges,
“That in the same place and chapter he treats of the faith of Abraham, and
affirms that it wrought with his works, chap. ii. 22,
23; but this a vain shadow of faith does not do: it was
therefore true faith, and that which is most properly called so, that the
apostle intends.” Ans. This pretence is indeed ridiculous; for the
apostle does not give the faith of Abraham as an instance of that faith
which he had treated with so much severity, but of that which is directly
contrary unto it, and whereby he designed to prove that the other faith
which he had reflected on was of no use nor advantage unto them that had
it; for this faith of Abraham produced good works, which the other was
wholly without. Thirdly, He urges verse 24, “ ‘Ye
see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only;’ for
the faith that James speaks of justifies with works, but a false faith, the
shadow of a faith, does not so: it is therefore true, saving faith whereof
the apostle speaks.” Ans. He is utterly mistaken: for the apostle
does not ascribe justification partly to works, and partly to faith; but he
ascribes justification, in the sense by him intended, wholly to works, in
opposition to that faith concerning which he treats. For there is a plain
antithesis in the words between works and faith as unto justification, in
the sense by him intended. A dead faith, a faith without works, the faith
of devils, is excluded from having any influence into justification.
Fourthly, He adds, “That the apostle compares this faith without works unto
a rich man that gives nothing unto the poor, verse 16; and a
body without a spirit, verse 26:
wherefore, as that knowledge whereby a rich man knows the wants of the poor
is true and real, and a dead body is a body; so is faith without works true
faith also, and as such is considered by St James.” Ans. These
things do evidently destroy what they are produced in the confirmation of,
only the cardinal helps them out with a little sophistry; for whereas the
apostle compares this faith unto the charity of a man that gives nothing to
the poor, he suggests in the room thereof his knowledge of their poverty.
And his knowledge may be true, and the more true and certain it is, the
more false and feigned is the charity which he pretends in these words,
“Go, and be fed and clothed.” Such is the faith the apostle speaks of.
And although a dead body is a true body, — that is, as unto the matter or
substance of it, a carcase, — yet is it not an essential part of a living
man. A carcase is not of the same nature or kind as is the body of a
living man. And we assert no other difference between the faith spoken of
by the apostle and that which is justifying, than what is between a dead,
breathless carcase, and a living animated body, prepared and fitted for all vital acts. Wherefore, it is evident beyond all
contradiction, if we have not a mind to be contentious, that what the
apostle James here derogates from faith as unto our justification, it
respects only a dead, barren, lifeless faith, such as is usually pretended
by ungodly men to countenance themselves in their sins. And herein the
faith asserted by Paul has no concern. The consideration of the present
condition of the profession of faith in the world, will direct us unto the
best exposition of this place.
(3.) They speak not of justification in the same
sense nor unto the same end; it is of our absolute justification before
God, — the justification of our persons, our acceptance with him, and the
grant of a right unto the heavenly inheritance, — that the apostle Paul
does treat, and thereof alone. This he declares in all the causes of it;
all that on the part of God, or on our part, concurs thereunto. The
evidence, the knowledge, the sense, the fruit, the manifestation of it in
our own consciences, in the church, unto others that profess the faith, he
treats not of; but speaks of them separately as they occur on other
occasions. The justification he treats of is but one, and at once
accomplished before God, changing the relative state of the person
justified; and is capable of being evidenced various ways, unto the glory
of God and the consolation of them that truly believe. Hereof the apostle
James does not treat at all; for his whole inquiry is after the nature
of that faith whereby we are justified, and the only way whereby it may
be evidenced to be of the right kind, such as a man may safely trust unto.
Wherefore, he treats of justification only as to the evidence and
manifestation of it; nor had he any occasion to do otherwise. And this is
apparent from both the instances whereby he confirms his purpose. The
first is that of Abraham, verse
21–23: for he says, that by Abraham’s being justified by works,
in the way and manner wherein he asserts him so to have been, “the
Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was
imputed unto him for righteousness.” And if his intention were to prove
that we are justified before God by works, and not by faith, because
Abraham was so, the testimony produced is contrary, yea, directly
contradictory, unto what should be proved by it; and accordingly is alleged
by Paul to prove that Abraham was justified by faith without works, as the
words do plainly import. Nor can any man declare how the truth of this
proposition, “Abraham was justified by works,” (intending absolute
justification before God,) was that wherein that Scripture was fulfilled,
“Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness;”
especially considering the opposition that is made both here and elsewhere
between faith and works in this matter. Besides, he asserts that Abraham
was justified by works then when he had offered his son on the altar; the
same we believe also, but only inquire in what sense he was so
justified: for it was thirty years or thereabout after it was testified
concerning him that “he believed God, and it was imputed unto him for
righteousness;” and when righteousness was imputed unto him he was
justified; and twice justified in the same sense, in the same way, with the
same kind of justification, he was not. How, then, was he justified by
works when he offered his son on the altar? He that can conceive it to be
any otherwise but that he was by his work, in the offering of his son,
evidenced and declared in the sight of God and man to be justified,
apprehends what I cannot attain unto, seeing that he was really justified
long before; as is unquestionable and confessed by all. He was, I say,
then justified in the sight of God in the way declared, Gen. xxii. 12; and gave a signal
testimony unto the sincerity of his faith and trust in God, manifesting the
truth of that Scripture, “He believed God, and it was imputed unto him for
righteousness.” And, in the quotation of this testimony, the apostle
openly acknowledges that he was really accounted righteous, had
righteousness imputed unto him, and was justified before God (the reasons
and causes whereof he therefore considers not), long before that
justification which he ascribes unto his works; which, therefore, can be
nothing but the evidencing, proving, and manifestation of it: whence also
it appears of what nature that faith is whereby we are justified, the
declaration whereof is the principal design of the apostle. In brief, the
Scripture alleged, that “Abraham believed, and it was imputed unto him for
righteousness,” was fulfilled when he was justified by works on the
offering of his son on the altar, either by the imputation of
righteousness unto him, or by a real efficiency or working
righteousness in him, or by the manifestation and evidence of his former
justification, or some other way must be found out. First, That it was not
by imputation, or that righteousness unto the justification of life was not
then first imputed unto him, is plain in the text; for it was so imputed
unto him long before, and that in such a way as the apostle proves thereby
that righteousness is imputed without works. Secondly, That he was not
justified by a real efficiency of a habit of righteousness in him,
or by any way of making him inherently righteous who was before
unrighteous, is plain also; because he was righteous in that sense long
before, and had abounded in the works of righteousness unto the praise of
God. It remains, therefore, that then, and by the work mentioned, he was
justified as unto the evidencing and manifestation of his faith and
justification thereon. His other instance is of Rahab; concerning whom he
asserts that she was “justified by works, when she had received the
messengers, and sent them away.” But she received the spies “by faith,” as
the Holy Ghost witnesses, Heb. xi. 31;
and therefore had true faith before their coming; and if so
was really justified: for that any one should be a true believer and yet
not be justified, is destructive unto the foundation of the gospel. In
this condition she received the messengers, and made unto them a full
declaration of her faith, Josh. ii.
9–11. After her believing and justification thereon, and after
the confession she had made of her faith, she exposed her life by
concealing and sending of them away. Hereby did she justify the sincerity
of her faith and confession; and in that sense alone is said to be
“justified by works.” And in no other sense does the apostle James, in
this place, make mention of justification; which he does also only
occasionally.
(4.) As unto “works,” mentioned by both apostles, the
same works are intended, and there is no disagreement in the least
about them; for as the apostle James intends by works duties of obedience
unto God, according to the law, — as is evident from the whole first part
of the chapter, which gives occasion unto the discourse of faith and works,
— so the same are intended by the apostle Paul also, as we have proved
before. And as unto the necessity of them in all believers, as unto other
ends, so as evidences of their faith and justification, it is no less
pressed by the one than the other; as has been declared.
These things being in general premised, we may observe some
things in particular from the discourse of the apostle James, sufficiently
evidencing that there is no contradiction therein unto what is delivered by
the apostle Paul concerning our justification by faith, and the imputation
of righteousness without works, nor to the doctrine which from him we have
learned and declared; as, — 1. He makes no composition or
conjunction between faith and works in our justification, but opposes
them the one to the other; asserting the one and rejecting the other, in
order unto our justification. 2. He makes no distinction of a first
and second justification, of the beginning and continuation of
justification, but speaks of one justification only; which is our first
personal justification before God. Neither are we concerned in any other
justification in this cause whatever. 3. That he ascribes this
justification wholly unto works, in contradistinction unto faith, as
unto that sense of justification which he intended, and the faith whereof
he treated. Wherefore, — 4. He does not at all inquire or determine how a
sinner is justified before God, but how professors of the gospel can prove
or demonstrate that they are so, and that they do not deceive themselves by
trusting unto a lifeless and barren faith. All these things will be
farther evidenced in a brief consideration of the context itself; wherewith
I shall close this discourse.
In the
beginning of the chapter unto verse 14, he reproves those unto
whom he wrote for many sins committed against the law, the rule of their
sins and obedience, or at least warns them of them; and having
showed the danger they were in hereby, he discovers the root and principal
occasion of it, verse 14; which was no other but a vain
surmise and deceiving presumption that the faith required in the gospel was
nothing but a bare assent unto the doctrine of it, whereon they were
delivered from all obligation unto moral obedience or good works, and
might, without any danger unto their eternal state, live in whatever sins
their lusts inclined them unto, chap. iv. 1–4; v. 1–6. The
state of such persons, which contains the whole cause which he speaks unto,
and which gives rule and measure unto the interpretation of all his future
arguing, is laid down, verse 14, “What
doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he has faith, and have not
works? Can faith save him?” Suppose a man, any one of those who are
guilty of the sins charged on them in the foregoing verses, do yet say, or
boast of himself, that he has faith; that he makes profession of the
gospel; that he has left either Judaism or Paganism, and betaken himself to
the faith of the gospel; and therefore, although he be destitute of good
works and live in sin, he is accepted with God, and shall be saved; — will,
indeed, this faith save him? This, therefore, is the question proposed, —
Whereas the gospel says plainly, that “he who believeth shall be saved,”
whether that faith which may and does consist with an indulgence unto sin,
and a neglect of duties of obedience, is that faith whereunto the promise
of life and salvation is annexed? And thereon the inquiry proceeds, How
any man, — in particular, he who says he has faith, — may prove and
evidence himself to have that faith which will secure his salvation? And
the apostle denies that this is such a faith as can consist without works,
or that any man can evidence himself to have true faith any otherwise but
by works of obedience only; and in the proof hereof does his whole
ensuing discourse consist. Not once does he propose unto consideration the
means and causes of the justification of a convinced sinner before God, nor
had he any occasion so to do; so that his words are openly wrested when
they are applied unto any such intention.
That the faith which he intends and describes is altogether
useless unto the end pretended to be attainable by it, — namely, salvation,
— he proves in an instance of, and by comparing it with, the love or
charity of an alike nature, verses 15,
16, “If a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily
food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and
filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to
the body; what does it profit?” This love or charity is not that gospel
grace which is required of us under that name; for he who behaves himself
thus towards the poor, the love of God dwells not in him, 1 John iii. 17. Whatever name it may
have, whatever it may pretend unto, whatever it may be
professed or accepted for, love it is not, nor has any of the effects of
love; it is neither useful nor profitable. Hence the apostle infers,
verse 17, “Even so faith, if it has not
works, is dead, being alone.” For this was that which he undertook to
prove; — not that we are not justified by faith alone, without works,
before God; but that the faith which is alone, without works, is dead,
useless, and unprofitable.
Having given this first evidence unto the conclusion
which, “in thesi,” he designed to prove, he
re-assumes the question and states it “in
hypothesi,” so as to give it a more full demonstration, verse
18, “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show
me thy faith without thy works,” (that is, which is without works, or by
thy works,) “and I will show thee my faith by my works.” It is plain,
beyond denial, that the apostle does here again propose his main question
only on a supposition that there is a dead, useless faith; which he had
proved before. For now all the inquiry remaining is, how true faith, or
that which is of the right gospel kind, may be showed, evidenced, or
demonstrated, so as that their folly may appear who trust unto any other
faith whatever? Δεῖξόν μοι τὴν πίστιν σου, —
“Evidence or demonstrate thy faith to be true by the only means
thereof, which is works.” And therefore although he say, “Thou hast
faith,” — that is, “Thou professest and boastest that thou hast that faith
whereby thou mayest be saved,” — “and I have works,” he does not say, “Show
me thy faith by thy works, and I will show thee my works by my faith,”
which the antithesis would require; but, “I will show thee my faith by my
works,” because the whole question was concerning the evidencing of faith
and not of works.
That this faith, which cannot be evidenced by works, which
is not fruitful in them, but consists only in a bare assent unto the truth
of divine revelation, is not the faith that does justify or will save us,
he farther proves, in that it is no other but what the devils
themselves have; and no man can think or hope to be saved by that which
is common unto them with devils, and wherein they do much exceed them,
verse 19, “Thou believest there is one
God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” The belief of
one God is not the whole of what the devils believe, but is singled out as
the principal, fundamental truth, and on the concession whereof an assent
unto all divine revelation does necessarily ensue. And this is the second
argument whereby he proves an empty, barren faith to be dead and
useless.
The second confirmation being given unto his principal
assertion, he restates it in that way, and under those terms, wherein he
designed it unto its last confirmation: “But wilt thou know, O vain man,
that faith without works is dead?” verse 20. And
we may consider in the words, — First, The person with whom he deals, whose
conviction he endeavoured: him he calls a vain man; —
not in general, as every man living is altogether vanity, but as one who in
an especial manner is vainly puffed up in his own fleshly mind, — one that
has entertained vain imaginations of being saved by an empty profession of
the gospel, without any fruit of obedience. Secondly, That which he
designs with respect unto this vain man is his conviction, — a
conviction of that foolish and pernicious error that he had imbibed: “Wilt
thou know, O vain man?” Thirdly, That which alone he designed to convince
him of is, that “faith without works is dead;” — that is, the faith
which is without works, which is barren and unfruitful, is dead and
useless. This is that alone, and this is all, that he undertakes to prove
by his following instances and arguing; neither do they prove any more. To
wrest his words to any other purpose, when they are all proper and suited
unto what he expresses as his only design, is to offer violence unto
them.
This, therefore, he proves by the consideration of the
faith of Abraham, verse 21, “Was not Abraham our father
justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?”
Some things must be observed to clear the mind of the apostle herein; as, —
1. It is certain that Abraham was justified many years before the work
instanced in was performed; for long before was that testimony given
concerning him, “He believed in the Lord, and he counted it unto him for
righteousness:” and the imputation of righteousness upon believing is all
the justification we inquire after or will contend about. 2. It is certain
that, in the relation of the story here repeated by the apostle, there is
not any one word spoken of Abraham’s being then justified before
God, by that or any other work whatever. But, 3. It is plain and
evident that, in the place related unto, Abraham was declared to be
justified by an open attestation unto his faith and fear of God as
sincere, and that they had evidenced themselves so to be in the sight of
God himself; which God condescends to express by an assumption of human
affections, Gen. xxii. 12, “Now I know that thou
fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from
me.” That this is the justification which the apostle intends, cannot be
denied but out of love to strife; and this was the manifestation and
declaration of the truth and sincerity of his faith whereby he was
justified before God. And hereby the apostle directly and undeniably
proves what he produces this instance for, — namely, that “faith without
works is dead.” 4. It is no less evident that the apostle had not spoken
any thing before as unto our justification before God, and the means
thereof; and is therefore absurdly imagined here to introduce it in the
proof of what he had before asserted, which it does not prove at all. 5.
The only safe rule of interpreting the meaning of the apostle, next unto
the scope and design of his present discourse, which he makes
manifest in the reiterated proposition of it, is the scope of the places,
[and the] matter of fact, with its circumstances, which he refers unto and
takes his proof from. And they were plainly these, and no other:— Abraham
had been long a justified believer; for there were thirty years, or
thereabout, between the testimony given thereunto, Gen. xv., and
the story of sacrificing his son, related Gen. xxii. All
this while he walked with God, and was upright in a course of holy,
fruitful obedience; yet it pleased God to put his faith, after many others,
unto a new, his greatest, his last trial. And it is the way of God, in the
covenant of grace, to try the faith of them that believe, by such ways as
seem meet unto him. Hereby he manifests how precious it is (the trial of
faith making it appear to be “more precious than gold,” 1
Pet. i. 7), and raises up glory unto himself; which is in the
nature of faith to give unto him, Rom. iv. 20.
And this is the state of the case as proposed by the apostle, — namely, how
it may be tried whether the faith which men profess be genuine, precious,
“more precious than gold,” of the right nature with that whereunto the
gospel promise of salvation is annexed. Secondly, This trial was made by
works, or by one signal duty of obedience prescribed unto him for
that very end and purpose; for Abraham was to be proposed as a pattern unto
all that should afterwards believe. And God provided a signal way for the
trial of his faith, — namely, by an act of obedience, which was so far from
being enjoined by the moral law, that it seemed contrary unto it. And if
he be proposed unto us as a pattern of justification by works in the sight
of God, it must be by such works as God has not required in the moral law,
but such as seem to be contrary thereunto. Nor can any man receive any
encouragement to expect justification by works, by telling him that Abraham
was justified by works, when he offered up his only son to God; for it will
be easy for him to say, that as no such work was ever performed by him, so
none such was ever required of him. But, Thirdly, Upon Abraham’s
compliance with the command of God, given him in the way of trial, God
himself ἀνθρωποπαθῶς declares the sincerity of
his faith and his justification thereon, or his gracious acceptance of
him. This is the whole design of the place which the apostle traduces into
his purpose; and it contains the whole of what he was to prove, and no
more. Plainly it is granted in it that we are not justified by our works
before God, seeing he instances only in a work performed by a justified
believer many years after he was absolutely justified before God. But this
is evidently proved hereby, — namely, that “faith without works is dead;”
seeing justifying faith, as is evident in the case of Abraham, is that, and
that alone, which brings forth works of obedience: for on such a faith
alone is a man evidenced, declared, and pronounced to be justified or accepted with God. Abraham was not then first justified; he
was not then said to be justified; — he was declared to be justified, and
that by and upon his works: which contains the whole of what the apostle
intends to prove.
There is, therefore, no appearance of the least
contradiction between this apostle and Paul, who professedly asserts that
Abraham was not justified before God by works; for James only
declares that by the works which he performed after he was justified he was
manifested and declared so to be. And that this was the whole of his
design he manifests in the next verse, where he declares what he had proved
by this instance, verse 22, “Seest thou how faith wrought
with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?” Two things he
enforces as proved unto the conviction of him with whom he had to do:— 1.
That true faith will operate by works; so did Abraham’s, — it was effective
in obedience. 2. That it was made perfect by works; that is, evidenced so
to be, — for τέλειος, τελειοῦμαι, does nowhere in the Scripture signify the
internal, formal perfecting of any thing, but only the external complement
or perfection of it, or the manifestation of it. It was complete as unto
its proper effect, when he was first justified; and it was now manifested
so to be. See Matt. v. 48; Col. iv. 12;
2 Cor. xii. 9. “This,” says the
apostle, “I have proved in the instance of Abraham, — namely, that it is
works of obedience alone that can evince a man to be justified, or to have
that faith whereby he may be so.” He adds, in the confirmation of what he
had affirmed, verse 23, “And the Scripture was
fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him
for righteousness, and he was called The friend of God.”
Two things the apostle affirms herein:— 1. That the
Scripture mentioned was fulfilled. It was so in that justification by
works which he ascribes unto Abraham. But how this Scripture was herein
fulfilled, either as unto the time wherein it was spoken, or as unto the
thing itself, any otherwise but as that which is therein asserted was
evidenced and declared, no man can explain. What the Scripture affirmed so
long before of Abraham was then evidenced to be most true, by the works
which his faith produced; and so that Scripture was accomplished. For
otherwise, supposing the distinction made between faith and works by
himself, and the opposition that he puts between them, adding thereunto the
sense given of this place by the apostle Paul, with the direct importance
of the words, and nothing can be more contradictory unto his design
(namely, if he intended to prove our justification before God by works)
than the quotation of this testimony. Wherefore, this Scripture was [not],
nor can be, otherwise fulfilled by Abraham’s justification by works, but
only that by and upon them he was manifested so to be. 2. He adds, that
hereon he was called “The friend of God.” So he is, Isa.
xli. 8 ; as also, 2 Chron. xx.
7. This is of the same importance with his being justified by
works: for he was not thus called merely as a justified person, but as one
who had received singular privileges from God, and answered them by a holy
walking before him. Wherefore, his being called “The friend of God,” was
God’s approbation of his faith and obedience; which is the justification by
works that the apostle asserts.
Hereon he makes a double conclusion (for the instance of
Rahab being of the same nature, and spoken unto before, I shall not insist
again upon it):— 1. As unto his present argument, verse 24.
2. As unto the whole of his design, verse 26. The
first is, “That by works a man is justified, and not by faith only;” — “Ye
see then, you whom I design to convince of the vanity of that imagination,
that you are justified by a dead faith, a breathless carcase of faith, a
mere assent unto the truth of the gospel, and profession of it, consistent
with all manner of impiety, and wholly destitute of good fruits: you may
see what faith it is that is required unto justification and salvation.
For Abraham was declared to be righteous, to be justified, on that faith
which wrought by works, and not at all by such a faith as you
pretend unto.” A man is justified by works, as Abraham was when he
had offered up his son to God; that is, what he really was by faith long
before, as the Scripture testifies, was then and thereby evidenced and
declared. And, therefore, let no man suppose that by the faith which they
boasted of, any one is or can be justified, seeing that whereon Abraham was
declared to be so, was that which evidenced itself by its fruits. 2. He
lays down that great conclusion; which he had evinced by his whole
disputation, and which at first he designed to confirm, verse
26, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith
without works is dead also.” A breathless carcase and an unworking faith
are alike, as unto all the ends of natural or spiritual life. This was
that which the apostle designed from the beginning to convince vain and
barren professors of; which, accordingly, he has given sufficient reason
and testimony for.
Indexes
Index of Scripture References
Index of Citations
- Ambrose: Psalm 119:
1
- Anselm: Cur Deus-homo?:
1
- Anselm: Prayers and Meditations:
1
- Antidot. Animæ:
1
- Augustine: Contra Julian:
1
- Augustine: De Spiritu et Littera:
1
- Augustine: Enchiridion ad Laurentium:
1
2
- Augustine: Epistles:
1
2
- Bellarmine: Disputationes Roberti Bellarmini de Controversiis Christianæ Fidei:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
- Bernard: Epistles:
1
2
- Bernard: Sermons:
1
2
- Budæus: F. de Adopt. De Arrogatione Loquens:
1
- Chrysostom: Homilies on Matthew:
1
- Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians:
1
- Cicero: De Natura Deorum:
1
- Clarkson: The Practical Divinity of the Papists Discovered to be Destructive of Christianity and Men’s Souls:
1
- Council of Trent:
1
- Cyprian: Epistles:
1
- Cyril of Alexandria: Commentary on John:
1
- Davenant: De Justif. Habit.:
1
- Episcopius: Disputationes Theologicæ:
1
- Eusebius: Demonstratio Evangelica:
1
- Feuardentius: Dialog:
1
- Gregory: Job:
1
- Grotius: Præfat. ad lib. de Satisfact.:
1
- Hosius: De Expresso Dei Verbo:
1
- Irenæus: Contra Hæreses:
1
- Jackson:
1
- Jacomb: Romans Chapter viii., 1–4:
1
- Jerome: Dialogue against the Pelagians:
1
- Jerome: Isaiah:
1
- Le Blanc: Thes. De Usu et Acceptatione Vocis, Justificandi:
1
- Leo: Epistles:
1
- Leo: Sermons:
1
2
- Livy: De Bello Punico:
1
2
- Luther: Epistles:
1
- Maimonides: De Fundamentis Legis:
1
- Mathetes: Epistle to Diognetus:
1
- Monatcutus: Origin. Ecclesiast.:
1
- Owen: Discourse on the Holy Spirit:
1
- Owen: Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews:
1
- Owen: On Communion with God:
1
2
3
- Pighius: Controversiarum quibus nunc exagitatur Christi fides:
1
- Pliny the Elder: Historia Naturalis:
1
- Polandus: Methodus in adjuvandis morientibus:
1
- Prosper: Responsiones ad Capitula Gallorum:
1
- Quintilian: Institutio Oratorio:
1
- Schlichtingius: Disputation pro Socino contra Meisnerum:
1
2
3
- Seneca: Ad Mart.:
1
- Seneca: Epistle 31, On Siren Songs:
1
- Smalcius: Adversus Franzius:
1
- Socinus: De Jesu Christo Servatore:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
- Socinus: De Justificat.:
1
- Socinus: Miscellan.:
1
- Southey: Life of Wesley:
1
- Taulerus: Meditations of the Life of Christ:
1
- Theodoret: Eranistes etoi Polymorphos:
1
- Vasquez: :
1
- Vasquez: Commentariorum ac disputationem in primam partem Sancti Thomæ:
1
2
3
Index of Names
Index of Greek Words and Phrases
Index of Hebrew Words and Phrases
- אֲשֶׁר לאֹ־גָזֹלֲתִּי אָז אָשִׁיב:
1
- אֵת עֲוֹן כֻּלָּנוּ:
1
- אַךְ בַּיהוָה לִי צְדָקוֹת:
1
- אַל־יַחֲשָׁב־לִי אַדֹנִי עָוֹן:
1
- אָנֹכִי אֶעֶרְבֶנּוּ:
1
- אָשֵׁם:
1
- אָשָׁם:
1
2
3
4
- בֶגֶד עִדִּים:
1
- דִּבְרֵי שַׁאֲגָתִי:
1
- דָּם לוֹ:
1
- הִנֵּה־נָא עָרַכְּתִּי מִשְׁפָּט יָדַעְתִּי כִּי־אֲנִי אֶצְדָּק:
1
- הִצְדִּיק:
1
2
3
- הִרְשִׁעַ:
1
- הִתְעָרֶב נָא:
1
- וְהִצְדִּיקוּ אֶת־הַצַּדִּיק:
1
- וְהִצְדַּקְתִּיו:
1
- וְהִרְשִׁיעוּ אֶת־הָרָשָׁע:
1
- וְחָטָאתִי לְךָ כָּל־הַיָּמִים:
1
- וְנָתַן אֹתָם עַל־רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר:
1
- וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ:
1
- וַעֲוֹנֹתָם הוּא יִסְבֹּל:
1
2
- וַתֵּחָשֶב לוֹ לִצְדָקָה:
1
- וּלְהַצְדִּיק צַדִּיק:
1
- וּמַה־נִּצְטַדָּק:
1
- וּמַצְדִּיקֵי הָרַבִּים:
1
- חִנָּם:
1
- חִצְטַדָּק:
1
- חַטָּאִים:
1
2
3
- חַטָּאת:
1
2
3
4
- חָטָא:
1
- חָלִילָה לִּי אִם־אַצְדִּיק אֶתְבֶם:
1
- חָשַב:
1
- חֻקֶּים:
1
- יְהוָה צִדְקֵנוּ:
1
- יַצְדִּיק:
1
- כָּל־צִדְקֹתֵינוּ:
1
- לְהַרְשׁיעַ רָשָׁע:
1
- לֹא־אַצְדִּיק רָשָׁע:
1
- מִדָּמִים:
1
- מִשְׁפַּט־מָוֶת לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה:
1
- מִשְׁפָּת:
1
- מִשְׁפָּתִים:
1
- מַצְדִּיק רָשָׁע וּמַרְשִׁעַ צַדִּיק:
1
- עֲוֹן חַטָּאתִי:
1
- עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים:
1
2
- עֵרָבוֹן:
1
- עַנִי וָרָשׁ הַצְדִּיקוּ:
1
- עָוֹן:
1
- עָרַב:
1
2
3
- צִדְקָתְךָ לְבַדֶּךָ:
1
- צֶדֶק עֹלָמִים:
1
- צָדַק:
1
2
- קָרוֹב מַצְדִּקִי:
1
- תּוֹרָה:
1
2
3
Index of Latin Words and Phrases
- alter qui satisfecit; quia caput et corpus unus est Christus.:
1
- interpretantur magnum peccatorem; ac si dicat apostolus, nostri causa tractavit eum tanquam ipsum peccatum, ipsum scelus, id est, tanquam hominem insigniter sceleratum, ut in quo posuerit iniquitates omnium nostrum:
1
- , quæ erant nostra fecit sua:
1
- Ad me recipio, faciet, aut faciam:
1
- Aliquid adhærebit:
1
- Amisso articulo justificationis, simul amissa est tota doctrina Christiana.:
1
- An, quicunque aut propinquitate, aut affinitate, regiam aut aliquibus ministeriis contigissent, alienæ culpæ rei trucidarentur:
1
- Articulus stantis aut cadentis eccleseæ:
1
- Articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiæ:
1
2
- Audimus vocem corporis ex ore capitis. Ecclesia in illo patiebatur, quando pro ecclesia patiebatur:
1
- Caput nostrum Dominus Jesus Christus omnia in se corporis sui membra transformans, quod olim in psalmo eructaverit, id in supplicio crucis sub redemptorum suorum voce clamavit:
1
- Christus:
1
- Christus in vita passivam habuit actionem; in morte passionem activam sustinuit; dum salutem operaretur in medio terræ:
1
- Christus omnia mundi peccata in se recepit, tantumque pro illis ultro sibi assumpsit dolerem cordis, ac si ipse ea perpetrasset;:
1
- Conditio:
1
- Conscientia mea meruit damnationem, et pœnitentia mea non sufficit ad satisfactionem; set certum est quod misericordia tua superat omnem offensionem;:
1
- Credisne te non posse salvari nisi per mortem Christi? Respondet infirmus, ‘Etiam.’ Tum dicit illi, Age ergo dum superest in te anima, in hâc solâ morte fiduciam tuam constitue; in nullâ aliâ re fiduciam habe, huic morti te totum committe, hâc solâ te totum contege totum immisce te in hac morte, in hac morte totum te involve. Et si Dominus te voluerit judicare, dic, ‘Domine, mortem Domini nostri Jesu Christi objicio inter me et tuum judicium, aliter tecum non contendo.’ Et si tibi dixerit quia peccator es, dic, ‘Mortem Domini nostri Jesu Christi pono inter me et peccata :
1
- Cum dies judicii aut dormitionis advenerit, omnes manus dissolventur; quibus dicitur in alio loco, confortamini manus dissolutæ; dissolventur autem manus, quia nullum opus dignum Dei justitia reperiatur, et non justificabitur in conspectu ejus omnis vivens, unde propheta dicit in psalmo, ‘Si :
1
- Cum duo nobis peperisse Christum dixerimus, impunitatem et præmium, illud satisfactioni, hoc merito Christi distinctè tribuit vetus ecclesia. Satisfactio consistit in peccatorum translatione, meritum in perfectissimæ obedientiæ pro nobis præstitæ imputatione:
1
- Cum duo nobis peperisse Christum dixerimus, impunitatem et præmium, illud satisfctioni, hoc merito Christi distincte tribuit vetus ecclesia. Satisfactio consistit in meritorum translatione, meritum in perfectissimæ obedientiæ pro nobis præstitiæ imputatione:
1
- Cum fides imputatur nobis pro justitia ideo imputatur, quia nec ipsa fides justitia est, nec verè in se eam continet:
1
- Cum servus pecuniam pro libertate pactus est, et ob eam rem, reum dederit:
1
- Damni:
1
- De bono patientiæ; justus autem adhuc justiora faciat, similiter et qui sanctus sanctiora:
1
- Deinde dicitur Christus justitia nostra, quoniam satisfecit patri pro nobis, et eam satisfactionem ita nobis donat et communicat, cum nos justificat, ut nostra satisfactio et justitia dici possit:
1
- Dissimulare non possumus, hanc vel primam doctrinæ Christianæ partem (de justificatione) obscuratam :
1
- Distulit in seram commissa piacula mortem:
1
- Domine Jesu, conjunge, obsecro, obsequium meum cum omnibus quæ tu egisti, et passus es ex tam perfecta charitate et obedientia. Et cum divitiis satisfactionum et meritorum dilectionis, patri æterno, illud offere digneris.:
1
- Donum, donum gratuitum; beneficium, id quod Deus gratificatur:
1
- Ecce clamat sub molibus iniquitatum suarum. Circumspexit se, circumspexit vitam suam, vidit illam undique flagitiis coopertam; quacunque respexit, nihil in se boni invenit: et cum tanta et tam multa peccata undique videret, tanquam expavescens, exclamavit, ‘Si iniquitates observaris Domine, quis sustinebit?’ Vidit enim prope totam vitam humanam circumlatrari peccatis; accusari omnes conscientias cogitationius suis; non inveniri cor castum præsumens de justitia; quod quia inveniri non potest, præsumat ergo omnium cor de misericordi Domini Dei sui, et dicat Deo, ‘Si iniquitates observaris Domine, Domine quis sustinebit?’ Quæ autem est spes? quoniam apud te propitiatio est:
1
- Ego quidem etiamsi non semel sed sæpius id :
1
- Eramus enim omnes ille unus homo:
1
- Ex gratia:
1
- Ex injuria:
1
2
- Ex justitia:
1
2
- Ex mera gratia:
1
- Ex voluntaria sponsione:
1
2
- Fecistis probè, incertior sum multo, quam dudum:
1
- Fide, ex fide, per fidem:
1
- Forisfacio:
1
- Hæc tua, tuorumque sententia, adeo fœda et execrabilis est, ut pestilentiorem :
1
- Hactenus:
1
- Hactenus de imputatione justitiæ Christi; sine qua nemo unquam aut salvatus est, aut salvari queat:
1
- Hic docet apostolus quænam illa justitia sit qua nitendum coram Deo, nimirum quæ per fidem apprehenditur, at hæc imputata est: Causam etiam ostendit cur jure nostra fiat, nimirum quia nos Christi sumus et in Christo comperimur; quia igitur insiti sumus in corpus ejus et coalescimus cum illo in unam personam, ideo ejus justitia nostra reputatur:
1
- Hic intellectus explicandus est per commentarium Græcorum Chrysostomi et cæterorum; quia peccatum emphatic :
1
- Hoc in me situm est:
1
- Hoc modo non esset absurdum, si quis diceret nobis imputari Christi justitiam et merita, cum nobis donantur et applicantur, ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissimus:
1
- Homo siquidem qui debuit; homo qui solvit. Nam ‘si unus,’ inquit, ‘pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt;’ ut videlicet satisfactio unius omnibus imputetur, sicut omnium peccata unus ille portavit: nec alter jam inveniatur, qui forisfecit,:
1
- Ideo se humanæ imfirmitati virtus divina conseruit, ut dum Deus sua facit esse quæ nostra sunt, nostra faceret esse quæ sua sunt:
1
- Imputare:
1
- Imputare aut reputare quidquam alicui, est idem atque inter ea quæ sunt ipsius, et ad eum pertinent, connumerare et recensere:
1
- In carne sua omnem carnem suscepit, crucifixus, omnem carnem crucifixit in se:
1
- In quo omnes peccaverunt:
1
- In quo, si subtilius aliquanto quam opus esse videretur, quædam a nobis disputata sunt:
1
- In vobis situm est:
1
- Inhærens justitia ita reddit animam justam et sanctam ac proinde filiam Dei, ut hoc ipso reddat eam heredem, et dignam æterna gloria; imo ipse Deus efficere non potest ut hujusmodi justus dignus non sit æterna beatitudine:
1
- Injuriarum:
1
- Ipse peccatum ut nos justitia, nec nostra sed Dei, nec in nobis sed in ipso; sicut ipse peccatum, non suum sed nostrum, nec in se sed in nobis constitutum:
1
- Ipse peccatum ut nos justitia, non nostra sed Dei, non in nobis sed in ipso; sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum, non in se, sed in nobis constitutum:
1
- Is qui adoptat rogatur, id est, interrogatur, an velit eum quem adopturus sit, justum sibi filium esse. Justum:
1
- Ita vocatur quia Dominus per manum ejus judicium et justitiam faciet Israeli:
1
- Itaque non quia utrumque Scripture dicat, propterea hæc inter se non pugnare concludendum est; sed potius quia hæc inter se pugnant, ideo alterutrum a Scriptura non dici statuendum est:
1
- Jam vero manifestum est, Christum quia homo natus fuerat, et quidem, ut inquit Paulus, factus sub lege, legi divinæ inquam, quæ æterna et immutabilis est, non minus quam cæteri homines obnoxium fuisse. Alioqui potuisset Christus æternam Dei legem negligere, sive etiam universam si voluisset infringere, quod impium est vel cogitare. Immo ut supra alicubi explicatum fuit, nisi ipse Christus legi divinæ servandæ obnoxius fuisset, ut ex Pauli verbis colligitur, non potuisset iis, qui ei legi servandæ obnoxii sunt, opem ferre et eos ad immortalitatis firmam spem traducere. Non differebat igitur hac quidem ex parte Christus, quando homo natus erat, a cæteris hominibus. Quocirca nec etiam pro aliis, magis quam quilibet alius homo, legem divinam conservando satisfacere potuit, quippe qui ipse eam servare omnino debuit:
1
- Justificari:
1
- Justificat ergo nos Deus Pater bonitate suâ gratuitâ, qua nos in Christo complectitur, dum eidem insertos innocentiâ et justitiâ Christi nos induit; quæ una et vera et :
1
- Justificatio:
1
- Justificetur adhuc:
1
- Magister Sententiarum:
1
- Magno authori imputata:
1
- Male sarta gratia nequicquam coit et rescinditur:
1
- Mercaturam quandam docere nos Paulus videtur. Abundatis, inquit, vos pecunia, et estis inopes justitiæ; contra, illi abundant justitia et sunt inopes pecuniæ; fiat quædam commutatio; date vos piis egentibus pecuniam quæ vobis affluit, et illis deficit; sic futurum est, ut illi vicissim justitiam suam qua abundant, et qua vos estis destituti, vobis communicent.:
1
- Mi dulcis frater, disce Christum et hunc crucifixum, disce ei cantare, et de teipso desperans dicere ei; tu Domine Jesu es justitia mea, ego autem sum peccatum tuum; tu assumpsisti meum, et dedisti mihi tuum; assumpsisti quod non eras, et dedisti mihi quod non eram. Ipse suscepit te et peccata tua fecit sua, et suam justitiam fecit tuam; maledictus qui hæc non credit!:
1
- Mirum:
1
- Modus in omnibus rebus optimus:
1
- Nam ‘si unus pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt,’ ut videlicet satisfactio :
1
- Natura sic apparet vitiata, ut hoc majoris vitii sit non videre:
1
- Ne quisquam putaret hic apostolum ea lege dixisse neminem justificari, quæ in sacramentis veteribus multa continet figurata præcepta, unde etiam est ista circumcisio carnis, continuo subjunxit, quam dixerit legem et ait; ‘per legem cognitio peccati.’:
1
- Nec enim ut per Christi justitiam justificemur, opus est ut illius justitia, nostra fiat justitia; sed sufficit ut Christi justitia sit causa nostræ justificationis; et hactenus possumus tibi concedere, Christi justitiam esse nostram justitiam, quatenus nostrum in bonum justitiamque redundat; verum tu proprie nostram, id est, nobis attributam ascriptamque intelligis:
1
- Nemo absolvitur se judice:
1
- Nemo ergo sibi arroget, nemo de meritis glorietur, nemo de potestate se jactet, omnes speremus per Dominum Jesum misericordiam invenire, quoniam omnes ante tribunal ejus stabimus. De illo veniam, de illo indulgentiam postulabo. Quænam spes alia peccatoribus?:
1
- Nisi per fidem Jesu Christi; sententiam reddit obscuram particula nisi:
1
- Nocturni lemures, portentaque Thessala,:
1
- Nollem dictum:
1
- Non esset:
1
- Non igitur illam acquisiverat ante mortem:
1
- Non solum illa opera legis quæ sunt in veteribus sacramentis, et nunc revelato testamento novo non observantur a Christianis, sicut est circumcisio præputii, et sabbati carnalis vacatio; et a quibusdam escis abstinentia, et pecorum in sacrificiis immolatio, et neomenia et azymum, et cætera hujusmodi, verum etiam illud quod in lege dictum est, ‘Non concupisces,’ quod utique et Christianis nullus ambigit esse dicendum, non justificat hominem, nisi per fidem Jesu Christi, et gratiam Dei per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum:
1
- Nos omnes portabat Christus; qui et peccata nostra portabet:
1
- Nostram causam sustinebat, qui nostram sibi carnem aduniverat, et ita nobis arctissimo vinculo conjunctus, et :
1
- Nostris eam criminibus urgemus, culpamque nostram illi imputamus:
1
- Opera bona non faciunt justum, sed justificatus facit bona opera:
1
- Opportuna loca dividenda præfectis esse ac suæ quique partis tutandæ reus sit:
1
- Optime de pessimis meruisti, ad quos pervenerit incorrupta rerum fides, magno authori suo imputata:
1
- Paulus agit de operibus et perfectis in hoc dicto, ideo enim adjecit, sine operibus legis, ut indicaretur loqui eum de operibus a lege requisitis, et sic de perpetua et perfectissima divinorum præceptorum obedientia sicut lex requirit. Cum autem talem obedientiam qualem lex requirit nemo præstare possit, ideo subjecit apostolus nos justificari fide, id est, fiduciâ et obedientiâ ea quantum quisque præstare potest, et quotidie quam maximum præstare studet, et connititur. Sine operibus legis, id est, etsi interim perfecte totam legem sicut debebat complere nequit:
1
- Peccatum Adami ita posteris omnibus imputatur, ac si omnes idem peccatum patravissent:
1
- Peccavimus in primo homine quando ille peccavit, et illa ejus prævaricatio nostra etiam prævaricatio fuit. Non enim vere per Adami inobedientiam constitueremur peccatores, nisi inobedientia illius nostra etiam inobedientia esset:
1
- Precibus aut pretio ut in aliquâ parte hæreant:
1
- Propter fidem:
1
- Propter incertitudinem propriæ justitiæ, et periculum inanis gloriæ, tutissimum est fiduciam totam in solâ misericordiâ Dei et benignitate reponere:
1
- Propter relationem fœderalem:
1
- Propter relationem naturalem:
1
- Quæ vetera nunc sunt, fuerunt olim nova, et quædam in usu perquam recentia; ut, Messala primus reatum, munerarium Augustus primus, dixerat:
1
- Quandoquidem peccatum Adæ multum abire non potest, obsecro te Pater cœlestis, ut ipsum in me vindices. Ego enim omnia illius peccata in me recipio. Si hæc iræ tempestas, propter me orta est, mitte me in mare amarissimæ passionis;:
1
- Quemadmodum oblatus est pro peccatis, non immerito peccatum factus dicitur, quia et bestia in lege quæ pro peccatis offerabatur, peccatum nuncupatur:
1
- Quemadmodum prævaricatione primi hominis ut in primitiis generis nostri, morti addicti fuimus; eodem modo per obedientiam et justitiam Christi, in quantum seipsum legi subjecit, quamvis legis author esset, benedictio et vivificatio quæ per Spiritum est, ad totam nostram penetravit naturam:
1
- Qui justus est, justificetur adhuc:
1
- Quid potest esse omnis justitia nostra coram Deo? nonne juxta prophetam velut ‘pannus menstruatæ’ reputabitur; et si districtè judicetur, injustitia invenietur omnis justitia nostra, et minus habens:
1
- Quinto refellitur quoniam si vere nobis imputetur justitia Christi ut per eam justi habeamur ac censeremur, ac si proprie nostra esset intrinseca formalisque justitia, profecto non minus justi haberi et censeri deberemus quam ipse Christus: proinde deberemus dici atque haberi redemptores, et salvatores mundi, quod :
1
- Quit mirum si in nostra persona constitutus, nostram carnem indutus:
1
- Quod in ejus caput sit:
1
- Quod si ergo justi effecti sumus per vitam illius, causa nulla relicta fuit cur pro nobis moreretur; quia justitia Dei non patitur ut puniat justos. At punivit nos in Christo, seu quod idem valet punivit Christum pro nobis, et loco nostri, posteaquam ille sancte vixisset, ut certum est e Scriptura. Ergo non sumus justi effecti per sanctam vitam Christi. Item, Christus mortuus est ut justitiam illam Dei nobis acquireret:
1
- Quomodo ergo dicit, ‘Delictorum meorum?’ nisi quia pro delictis nostris ipse precatur; et delicta nostra delicta sua fecit, ut justitiam suam nostram justitiam faceret;:
1
- Quoniam quidem inquit (apostolus) Deus erat in Christo, mundum reconcilians sibi, non imputans hominibus sua delicta, et deposuit apud nos verbum reconciliationis; in illo ergo justificamur coram Deo, non in nobis; non nostrâ sed illius justitiâ, quæ nobis cum illo jam communicantibus imputatur. Propriæ justitiæ inopes, extra nos, in illo docemur justitiam quærere. Cum inquit, ui peccatum non noverat, pro nobis peccatum fecit; hoc est, hostiam peccati expiatricem, ut nos efficeremur justitia Dei in ipso, non nostrâ, sed Dei justitiâ justi efficimur in Christo; quo jure? Amicitiæ, quæ communionem omnium inter amicos facit, juxta vetus et celebratissimum proverbium; Christo insertis, conglutinatis, et unitis, et sua nostra facit, suas divitias nobis communicat, suam justitiam inter Patris judicium et nostram injustitiam interponit, et sub ea veluti sub umbone ac clypeo a divina, quam commeruimus, ira nos abscondit, tuetur ac protegit; imo eandem nobis impertit et nostram facit, qua tecti ornatique audacter et secure jam divino nos sistamus tribunali et judicio: justique non solum appareamus, sed etiam simus. Quemadmodum enim unius delicto peccatores nos etiam factos affirmat apostolus: ita unius Christi justitiam in justificandis nobis omnibus efficacem esse; et sicut per inobedientiam unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi, sic per obedientiam unius justi (inquit) constituentur multi. Hæc est Christi justitia, ejus obedientia, qua voluntatem Patris sui perfecit in omnibus; sicut contrà nostra injustitia est nostra inobedientia, et mandatorum Dei prævaricatio. In Christi autem obedientia quod nostra collocatur justitia inde est, quod nobis illi incorporatis, ac si nostra esset, accepta ea fertur: ut eâ ipsâ etiam nos justi habeamur. Et velut ille quondam Jacob, quum nativitate primogenitus non esset, sub habitu fratris occultatus, atque ejus veste indutus, quæ odorem optimum spirabat, seipsum insinuavit patri, ut sub aliena persona benedictionem primogenituræ acciperet: ita et nos sub Christi primogeniti fratris nostri preciosa puritate delitescere, bono ejus odore fragrare, ejus perfectione vitia nostra sepeliri et obtegi, atque ita nos piissimo Patri ingerere, ut justitiæ benedictionem ab eodem assequamur, necesse est.” :
1
- Reatus:
1
- Recapitulans universum hominum genus in se ab initio usque ad finem, recapitulatus est et mortem ejus:
1
- Reus:
1
- Sacra verba in alium sensum, quam verba sonant, per inusitatos etiam tropos quandoque explicantur:
1
- Se quidem :
1
- Si obedientia vitæ Christi nobis ad justitiam imputaretur, non fuit opus Christum pro nobis mori; mori enim necesse fuit pro nobis injustus:
1
- Somnia, terrores magici, miracula, sagæ:
1
- Sponsor fœderis appellatur Jesus, quod nomine Dei nobis, spoponderit, id est fidem fecerit, Deum fœderis promissiones servaturum. Non vero quasi pro nobis spoponderit Deo, nostrorumve debitorum solutionem in se receperit. Nec enim nos misimus Christum sed Deus, cujus nomine Christus ad nos venit, fœdus nobiscum panxit, ejusque promissiones ratas fore spopondit et in se recepti; ideoque nec sponsor simpliciter, sed fœderis sponsor nominatur; spopondit autem Christus pro fœderis :
1
- Spopondit Christus; id est, nos certos promissi fecit, non solis verbis, sed perpetua vitæ sanctitate, morte ob id tolerata et miraculis plurimis:
1
- Sunt opera nostra, id est, ut dictum fuit, obedientia quam Christo præstamus, licet nec efficiens nec meritoria, tamen causa est (ut vocant) sine quâ non, justificationis coram Deo, atque æternæ nostræ.:
1
- Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum!:
1
- Tria considero in quibus tota spes mea consistit, charitatem adoptionis, veritatem promissionis, potestatem redditionis. Murmuret jam quantum voluerit insipiens cogitatio mea, dicens: Quis enim es tu, et quanta est illa gloria, quibusve meritis hanc obtinere speras? Et ego fiducialiter respondebo: Scio cui credidi, et certus sum, quia in charitate nimia adoptavit me, quia verax in promissione, quia potens in exhibitione: licet enim ei facere quod voluerit. Hic est funiculus triplex qui difficilè rumpitur, quem nobis a patria nostra in hunc carcerem usque dimissum firmiter, obsecro, teneamus: ut ipse nos sublevet, ipse nos trahat et pertrahat usque ad conspectum gloriæ magni Dei: qui est benedictus in sæcula. Amen.:
1
- Tu hinc o rosea martyrum turba offer pro me, nunc et in hora mortis meæ, merita, fidelitatum, constantiæ, et pretiosi sanguinis, cum sanguine agni immaculati, pro omnium salute effusi.:
1
- Tu nosti, Domine, quam sanctæ, quam innocentes, quam puræ ab omni fraude et rapina quas ad te expando manus; quam justa, quam immaculata labia et ab omni mendacio libera, quibus tibi ut mihi miserearis preces fundo;:
1
- Unum bonum est, quod beatæ vitæ causa et firmamentum est, sibi fidere:
1
- Ut autem reparet omnium vitam, recepit omnium causam; at sicut per unius reatum omnes facti fuerunt peccatores, ita per unius innocentiam omnes fierent innocentes; inde in homines manaret justitia, ubi est humana suscepta natura:
1
- Ut cavendum est ne vitæ sanctitatem atque innocentiam effectum justificationis nostræ coram Deo esse credamus, neque illam nostræ coram Deo justificationis causam efficientem aut impulsivam esse affirmemus; set tantummodo causam sine quâ eam justificationem nobis non contingere decrevit Deus.:
1
- Ut sæpe diximus omnis justitia humana injustitia esse convincitur si distincte judicetur:
1
- Verba delictorum meorum:
1
- Vide, quomodo quæ Christi sunt cum iis quæ sunt Adami conferantur, cum morbo medicina, cum vulnere emplastrum, cum peccato justitia, cum execratione benedictio, cum condemnatione remissio, cum transgressione obedientia, cum morte vita, cum inferis regnum, Christus cum Adam, homo cum homine:
1
- Virtutem:
1
- absolutissima et perfectissima:
1
- absurdum, si quis diceret nobis imputari Christi justitiam et merita; cum nobis donentur et applicentur; ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissemus:
1
- ad idem:
1
2
3
- ad ravim:
1
- alienæ culpæ reus:
1
2
3
- capite diminutus:
1
- causæ sine quibus non:
1
- causa:
1
- causa per quam:
1
- causa sine qua non:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
- condemnare:
1
- conditio personæ:
1
- crimen:
1
- crimini obnoxious:
1
- damni:
1
- de congruo et condigno:
1
- debiti:
1
- dignitas pœnæ:
1
2
- dignitas pœnæ propter culpam:
1
- dignitatem pœnæ:
1
- divini veritate, non tantum quatenus id firmum ratumque fore verbis perpetuo testatus est; sed etiam quatenus muneris sui fidem, maximis rerum ipsarum comprobavit documentis, cum perfecta vitæ innocentia et sanctitate, cum divinis plane quæ patravit, operibus; cum mortis adeo truculentæ, quam pro doctrinæ suæ veritate subiit, perpessione:
1
- eo quad:
1
- eo quod:
1
- eodem respectu:
1
- errorem post homines natos in populo. Dei extitisse non credam:
1
- est absurdissimum:
1
- et quod horret animus cogitare, filius diaboli:
1
- ex communi jure:
1
- ex condigno:
1
2
- ex congruo:
1
2
- ex fide:
1
- ex gratia:
1
- ex injuria:
1
2
- ex justitia:
1
2
3
4
5
- ex justitia :
1
- ex mera gratia:
1
2
3
4
5
- ex operibus:
1
- ex professo:
1
- ex voluntaria sponsione:
1
- existimatio magnificè sentiens de Dei potentia, justitia, bonitate, et si quid promiserit in eo præstando constantia:
1
- extra oleas:
1
- fœda, execranda, pernitiosa, detestanda:
1
- fidejussor:
1
- fundamentaliter ex compacto, ex voluntaria sponsione:
1
- fundamentum:
1
- gratiam gratum facientem:
1
- gratiosa divinæ mentis æstimatio, quâ credentem in Filium suum, eo loco reputat ac si perfectè justus esset, ac legi et voluntati ejus per omnia :
1
- gratiosa donatio:
1
- gratis dictum:
1
2
- gratis per gratiam:
1
- idem:
1
- imputare:
1
2
- in hypothesi:
1
- in infinitum:
1
- in rerum nature:
1
- in sacris monumentis scriptum extaret, non idcirco tamen ita prorsus rem se habere crederem, ut vos opinamini; cum enim id omnino fieri non possit non secus atque in multis aliis Scripturæ Testimoniis, una cum cæteris omnibus facio; aliquâ, quæ minus incommoda videretur, interpretatione adhibitâ, eum sensum ex ejusmodi verbis elicerem qui sibi constaret;:
1
- in thesi:
1
- inanem sine mente sonum:
1
- indignum esse, qui propriis meritis regnum cœlorum obtineret; set Dominum Deum suum qui illud duplici jure obtineat, et Patris hæreditate, et passionis merito, altero contentum esse, alterum sibi donare; ex cujus dono illud sibi merito vendicet, hacque fiducia fretus minime confundatur; neque enim oleum misericordiæ nisi in vase fiduciæ poni; hanc hominis fiduciam esse a se deficientis et innitentis domino suo; alioquin propriis meritis fidere, non fidei esse sed perfidiæ; peccata deleri per Dei indulgentiam, ideoque credere nos debere peccata deleri non posse nisi ab eo cui soli peccavimus, et in quem peccatum non cadit, per quem solum nobis peccata condonentur;:
1
- iniquitates attendas Domine, quis sustinebit,’:
1
- injuriarum:
1
- instrumentum, aut formam, aut modum actionis:
1
- intelligo, non verum, ut aliqui censent, sed omnibus partibus, ut ita dicam, filiationis, veri filii vicem obtinentem, naturalis et legitimi filii loco sedentem:
1
- ipsi viderint:
1
- ipso facto:
1
2
3
- judicium:
1
- jus:
1
2
- jus in judicio auferre:
1
- juste agere:
1
- justificatio:
1
- justificationes:
1
- justifico:
1
- justitia operum:
1
- justos ex injustis:
1
- justum:
1
2
- justum censere, declarare pronuntiare:
1
- justum esse:
1
- justus censeri, pro justo haberi:
1
- justus filius:
1
2
- magis quam illustratam a scholasticis, spinosis plerisque quæstionibus, et definitionibus, secundum quas nonnulli magno supercilio primam in omnibus autoritatem arrogantes:
1
- malis inventis pejora addere:
1
- materia probabili:
1
- mea.’ Si dixerit tibi quod meruisti damnationem; dic, ‘Domine, mortem Domini nostri Jesu Christi obtendo inter te et mala merita mea, ipsiusque merita offero pro merito quod ego debuissem habere nec habeo.’ Si dixerit quod tibi est iratus, dic, ‘Domine, mortem Domini Jesu Christi oppono inter me et iram tuam;’:
1
- meritum de congruo:
1
- meritum ex condigno:
1
- mutatis mutandis:
1
- nemo unquam Deo acceptam :
1
- non propriæ sed :
1
- nulla pietatis commendatione, nullo laudato prioris vitæ exemplo commendatos; imo ut plerumque videmus, per vagabundos, et contentionum zeli carnalis plenos homines, alios ex castris, aulis, ganeis, prolatam esse. Scrupuli ab excellenti viro propositi, inter oper. Socin.:
1
- nullum omnino locum invenire putuerunt, ubi legeretur Christi justitiam nobis imputari ad justitiam; vel nos justos esse per Christi justitiam nobis imputatam:
1
- obiter:
1
- obligatio ad pœnam:
1
2
- obligatio ad pœnam, propter culpam, aut admissam in se, aut imputatum, justè aut injustè:
1
- obligationem ad pœnam:
1
- officii ex sponsione:
1
- omnes gentes exinde ab Adam dispersas, et generationem hominum in semet ipso recapitulatus est; unde a Paulo typus futuri dictus est ipse Adam:
1
- opera nostra justa facta ex fide:
1
- pœnæ:
1
2
- pœnæ propter crimen:
1
- pene solus legi dignus.:
1
- per fidem:
1
- per gratiam Dei:
1
- perfecta est, quæ Dei sustinere conspectum potest, ita unam pro nobis sisti oportet tribunali divini judicii et veluti causæ nostræ intercessorem eidem repræsentari: qua subnixi etiam hic obtineremus remissionem peccatorum nostrorum assiduam: cujus puritate velatæ non imputantur nobis sordes nostræ, imperfectionum immunditiæ, sed veluti sepultæ conteguntur, ne in judicium Dei veniant: donec confecto in nobis, et plane extincto veteri homine, divina bonitas nos in beatam pacem cum novo Adam recipiat;:
1
- perfugium animæ:
1
- piaculum:
1
2
- piratica, musica:
1
- porro alicui videri posset, cur divinus author de Christi sacerdotio, in superioribus et in sequentibus agens, derepente eum sponsorem fœderis non vero sacerdotem vocet? Cur non dixerit ‘tanto præstantioris fœderis factus est sacerdos Jesus?’ Hoc enim plane requirere videtur totus orationis contextus. Credibile est in voce sponsionis sacerdotium quoque Christi intelligi. Sponsoris enim non est alieno nomine quippiam promittere, et fidem suam pro alio interponere; sed etiam, si ita res ferat, alterius nomine id quod spopondit præstare. In rebus quidem humanis, si id non præstet is pro quo sponsor fidejussit; hic vero propter contrariam causam (nam prior hic locum habere non potest), nempe quatenus ille pro quo spopondit Christus per ipsum Christum promissa sua nobis exhibet; qua in re præcipue Christi sacerdotium continetur:
1
- pro crimine:
1
- promissi:
1
- propter fidem:
1
- propter relationem fœderalem:
1
- propter relationem naturalem:
1
- propterea:
1
2
- quæ si proprie ut Latinis auribus sonat accipiatur, exceptionem facit ab eo quod præcedit, ut sensus sit hominem non justificari ex operibus Legis nisi fidees in Christum ad ea opera accedat, quæ si accesserit justificari eum per legis opera. Sed cum hic sensus justificationem dividat, partim eam tribuens operibus legis, partim fidei Christi, quod est contra definitam et absolutam apostoli sententiam, manifestum est, interpretationem illam tanquam apostolico sensui et scopo contrariam omnino repudiandam esse. Verum constat voculam ‘nisi’ frequenter in Scripturis adversative sumi, ut idem valeat quod ‘sed tantum’:
1
- quamvis servus ab alio manusmissus est, reus tamen obligabitur:
1
- quatenus:
1
- quoad reatum culpæ:
1
- quoad reatum pœnæ:
1
- quovis modo:
1
2
- reatus:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
- reatus culpæ:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
- reatus pœnæ:
1
2
3
4
5
6
- rei:
1
- reputare:
1
2
3
- reputare, imputare, acceptum ferre, tribuere, assignare, ascribere:
1
- rerum natura:
1
- retulit; nimirum rectè. Propter virtutem enim jure landamur, et in virtute rectè gloriamur, quod non contingeret, si donum a Deo, non a nobis haberemus:
1
- reus:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
- satisdationibus obnoxius:
1
- secundum fidem:
1
- secundum opera:
1
2
- sed:
1
- sed tantum:
1
- semper paruisset:
1
- sine quibus non:
1
2
- sponsio, expromissio, fidejussio:
1
- sponsor:
1
- sponsor, fidejussor, præs:
1
- sponsor, vas, præs, fidejussor:
1
- sponsorem, expromissorem:
1
- statu viatorum:
1
- status:
1
- status, fortuna, dignitas, causa, pactum initum:
1
- subjecta capacia auditionis evangelicæ:
1
- subjectum capax:
1
- subjectum capax justificationis:
1
2
3
- ubi fides?:
1
- ubi pudor, :
1
- unius omnibus imputetur, sicut omnium peccata unus ille portavit:
1
- vindicta noxæ:
1
- virtute fœderis evangelici:
1
- vola manûs:
1
- voti debitor:
1
Index of Pages of the Print Edition