Copyright © Monergism Books

The Sufficiency of Jesus Christ Alone:

Classic Essays on the Doctrine of Justification

edited by John Hendryx

Table of Contents

Preface

Justification

Justification is by Grace Alone by John Calvin

Of Justification by Martin Luther

Justification by Faith Alone by Jonathan Edwards

Justified! by J. C. Ryle

The Alien Righteousness by B. B. Warfield

Discourse on Justification by Faith by Jonathan Dickinson

Free Justification by Octavius Winslow

Anothers' Righteousness For Us by Horatius Bonar

Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine Concerning Justification by Robert Traill

Of Justification by Herman Witsius

The Doctrine of Justification Opened and Applied by Walter Marshall

Justification by William Ames

Antidote to the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent on the Doctrine of Justification by John Calvin (1547)

Justification by Faith by Charles Hodge

Part I: Justification

Part II: The Demands Of The Law Are Satisfied By What Christ Has Done.

Part III: The righteousness of Christ the true ground of our justification

Stand Before God by Augustus Toplady

The Everlasting Righteousness by Horatius Bonar

The Doctrine of Justification by A. W. Pink

Of Grace as it Reigns in our Justification by Abraham Booth

Our Righteousness is Not in Ourselves by John Calvin

Of Justification by Faith by John Calvin

Faith and Justification by Theodore Beza

A Treatise On Justification by Faith by Archibald Alexander

Justification Before God by William Bates

Justification by Faith—Illustrated by Abram's Righteousness by C. H. Spurgeon

Justification: Forensic or Moral? by Francis Turretin (1623-1687)

The Doctrine of Justification by Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583)

Justification by Louis Berkhof

The Imputation of Christ's Righteousnesss

Imputation by B. B Warfield

Christ Rightly and Properly Said to Have Merited Grace & Salvation For Us by John Calvin

The Immediate and Only Ground of Justification: The Imputed Righteousness of Christ by James Buchanan (1804-1870)

Nine Strong Consolations of Imputed Righteousness by Thomas Brooks

Imputation of Sin to Christ and the Imputation of His Righteousness to His People by John Brine (1703–1765)

A Discourse on Imputed Righteousness Defended by William Romaine

Imputation by Caspar Wistar Hodge From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Two Kinds of Righteousness by Martin Luther

Active/Passive Obedience of Christ

The Active Obedience of Christ by J. Gresham Machen

Christ's Active Obedience by John Calvin

The Active and Passive Obedience of Christ by Loraine Boettner

The Imputation of the Obedience of Christ unto the Law Declared and Indicated by John Owen

Of the Active Obedience of Christ in His State of Humiliation by John Gill

Jesus Satisfies Both the Law’s Demands and it's Curses by John Colquhoun

Do This and Live by John Hendryx

Is There More than One Way to God? by John Hendryx

Sanctification as it Relates to Justfication

Justification and Sanctification: How to they Differ? by J. C. Ryle

Sanctification & Justification by Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)

The Difference Between Justification & Sanctification; Or, Righteousness Imputed & Grace Imparted by Ralph Erskine (1685-1752)

Faith and Works by J. Gresham Machen

Reconciling Paul and James by William Pemble (1591-1623)

Copyright

Preface

"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." - Isaiah 53:11

The central difference between biblical and non-biblical views of salvation is that the former believes Jesus Christ is sufficient to save to the uttermost while the later believes that while Jesus is necessary, he is not sufficient. To clarify what I mean, both Roman Catholics and other synergists, would rightly anathematize anyone who claims one can be saved without the grace of God. But this was never what the debate was about between us. The Reformers never claimed Rome believed you can be saved apart from grace. The debate of the Reformation was never ever about the necessity of grace, it was always about the sufficiency of grace. This is the essence of the difference between synergists and those who affirm that justification is by Christ ALONE. There is nothing more essential to our position and this is what sets it apart from other all other types of theology. What we mean by the word "sufficient" is that Jesus Christ meets all the conditions for us that are necessary for our salvation. It further means what Jesus does for us on the cross meets all of God's requirements for us, including giving us a new heart to believe and obey (Ezekiel 36:26). In other words, we believe the Bible plainly teaches that, apart from grace, sinners are unable to obey the gospel, any more than the law, without Christ implanting a new heart in us. The old one will not do. What Jesus did for us in his life, death and resurrection is not only necessary, but completely sufficient to save us. This was the point of the Reformation's affirmation of the principle of Solus Christus, or Christ alone. God's love for His own is unconditional so He makes sure the job gets done.

Anticipating some objections to this consider that after the fall, God did not change His holy standard and requirement for perfection toward us simply because we are no longer able to draw from our natural resources to obey the terms of the gospel. In other words, God indeed commands us to do that which we are not able to do. How can this be we ask? Because the Scriptures declare that the purpose of the divine legislation is not to show our ability but our moral inability: "For through the law we become conscious of sin." (Rom 3:19, 20) This is why Augustine prayed that God would grant what he commanded. Without the Holy Spirit, none of us understands or loves the gospel or any spiritual truth (1 Cor 2:14) but this does not stop God from calling us to repent and believe the gospel. This imperative to believe remains our responsibility in spite of our moral inability to obey its humbling terms. But the word of the gospel is because of His great love for us in our woeful state, He does for us, in Christ, what we were unable to do for ourselves. In Christ full obedience to all the prescriptions of the divine law were met, making available a perfect righteousness before the law that is imputed to those who put their trust in him. Likewise Christ's obedience in bearing all the sanctions imposed by that law against us because of our sin and rebellion is very the ground of God’s justification of sinners (Rom. 5:9).

Good works are the necessary result of Christ saving us, not the cause. Christ alone is our righteousness. I will leave you with a few choice quotes on justification here for your edification.

Those whom, God effectually calls he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God

Westminster Confession of Faith (11.1)

"Our sins, when laid upon Christ, were yet personally ours, not his; so his righteousness, when put upon us, is yet personally his, not ours."

- John Bunyan

Justification is a judicial act of God, in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner

L. Berkhof Systematic Theology (pg. 513)

Scripture, when it treats of justification by faith, leads us in a very different direction. Turning away our view from our own works, it bids us look only to the mercy of God and the perfection of Christ. The order of justification which it sets before us is this: first, God of his mere gratuitous goodness is pleased to embrace the sinner, in whom he sees nothing that can move him to mercy but wretchedness, because he sees him altogether naked and destitute of good works. He, therefore, seeks the cause of kindness in himself, that thus he may affect the sinner by a sense of his goodness, and induce him, in distrust of his own works, to cast himself entirely upon his mercy for salvation. This is the meaning of faith by which the sinner comes into the possession of salvation, when, according to the doctrine of the Gospel, he perceives that he is reconciled by God; when, by the intercession of Christ, he obtains the pardon of his sins, and is justified; and, though renewed by the Spirit of God, considers that, instead of leaning on his own works, he must look solely to the righteousness which is treasured up for him in Christ.

- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (3.11.16)

"Jesus lived the life we should have lived, and died the death we should have died!" - Dr. Tim Keller

"...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... 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." - John Owen

The righteousness which is of the law (Lev 18:5 & Rom. 10:5) is a righteousness which is based upon and demands perfect and entire obedience to all the commands of God's law (Wilckens). Thanks be to God who sent His Son Jesus who did this very thing... "fulfilling the law" for us (living the life we should have lived), and dying the death we deserve, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves. "...Law righteousness" (Rom 10:5) comes through human performance or activity as its basis or ground, but the "righteousness by faith" (Rom 10:6) is a righteousness that is exclusive of human endeavor and is received through faith." (Guy Waters)

Justification Is by Grace Alone

John Calvin

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: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. - Gal. 2:15-16

Thus far, we have expounded why Paul, addressing the subject of the ceremonies, types and shadows which were practised before the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, reaches the general conclusion that a man cannot be justified or acceptable in God’s sight unless he observes the whole law. Now, at first, we might consider these things to be two separate issues; however, as we have been saying, Paul has to draw us back to basics in order to expose the folly of believing that we can obtain favour in God’s eyes through our own merit. Now, we have already discussed the reason why Paul adds the word ‘law’. For however much it may be commonly held that a good man can earn favour and acceptance with God, men are very seriously mistaken in such matters. Indeed, whatever we may have done, we cannot Win God’s favour, because he deserves the very best of all that is in our power. There is, therefore, no merit possible on our part (if, indeed, we may call it that), unless we fulfil the terms of the covenant he made with us, when he said that whosoever keeps the law shall obtain life and salvation (Lev. 18:5). When God uttered these words, he was prepared to accept our total obedience as worthy of salvation, but this does not, in fact, imply that we can, therefore, merit favour, for none of us have done our duty (as we shall see hereafter). Thus, the promise would have been forfeited, or at least without effect in that it would never apply to anyone, had not God sent the remedy — that is to say, unless, despite our unrighteousness, he forgave our sins, and accepted us as righteous. When Paul says that we cannot be justified by the works of the law, he means that if we claim to merit grace and salvation because God has promised that those who observe the law will be accounted as righteous, we are completely mistaken; for no one keeps the law perfectly. We must realise that we all stand guilty before God and have the sentence of condemnation hanging over our heads.

In order to express this fact more clearly, Paul draws a comparison between the Jews and the Gentiles. He says that even though they were ‘Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles’ they realised that they could only be acceptable to God by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. For, although all men have fallen in Adam and therefore have no individual merit, it appeared that the Jews had a special privilege, in as much as God had adopted them as his own children and called them his servants. Yet, this is where the Jews went wrong. For when the Scriptures speak of ‘the uncircumcision’, they refer to the pollution which indwells us from Adam, and places us all under condemnation from our mother’s womb. But the Jews believed that God had freed them from this curse upon mankind and therefore they boasted. Whilst it is true that great honour was conferred upon them, which they should have valued above all earthly good — for God had chosen them to be his people and his inheritance — yet they ought to have humbly acknowledged that in their own selves they were unworthy. Indeed, we also are used to adopting such a presumptuous attitude when we experience the grace of God; likewise the Jews, for the most part, wrongly believed they were superior to everyone else. They thought God had found something about them that made him prefer them to those he had rejected. This arrogance brought with it wicked ingratitude, for they did not attribute to God all the good things they had received from his hand, but were puffed up with pride, as if God thought they were better or more worthy of eternal salvation than the Gentiles.

To extinguish all such presumption, Paul begins his argument thus: ‘we who are Jews by nature . . .’ It appears that he is saying, ‘Yes, it is true that we have been shown greater grace than the Gentiles, whom God did not accept into his church’. But when he speaks like this he does not, in fact, intend to give the Jews occasion for pride; rather, he is spreading before them the things they have freely received from God to teach them that they have no grounds for boasting. In the Epistle to the Romans, Paul makes two statements which at first sight seem contradictory, yet which are in perfect harmony. On the one hand he asks, ‘Do we not have more privileges than the Gentiles?’, and he answers, ‘Yes. For we were chosen to be his people; he gave us circumcision as a sign and seal that we are his children; he made a covenant with us; he promised to send us the Redeemer of the world. Thus, if we consider the mercies that God has showered upon us, we have been blessed indeed, and exalted far above all other peoples.’ Here Paul magnifies the goodness of God towards them (Rom. 3:1-2). However, later he asks the same question (What advantage have the Jews?), but answers, ‘None at all’ (Rom. 3:9-10). ‘For we are all under God’s curse. If the Gentiles are to be condemned, then we are to be condemned twice as much, for they have the excuse of ignorance. Nevertheless, they cannot escape God, but will perish although they have never had any instruction or knowledge of doctrine. It follows, then, that we will be condemned by the law, because God has taught us and yet we have not stopped sinning or transgressing his righteous laws, so that now we are plunged into greater and deeper condemnation than even Gentiles and unbelievers’, he says. Thus, the Jews were distinct from the Gentiles — not because they were more worthy or more righteous, but simply because God chose them out of his free bounty.

In the same way, the children born to believers are no better than the children of other Gentiles or even of Turks when it comes to their nature. For we are all part of a corrupt and accursed mass whom God has condemned, so that none of us may exalt ourselves and think ourselves of more worth than our friends. However, Paul declares that our children are sanctified, that they are not stained in the same way as those born to unbelievers or pagans (1 Cor. 7:14). It would seem that there are some contradictions here. Yet the whole hangs together very well, because, as for our natures, we are all tainted and corrupted, with only one exception [Christ]. Yet there is such a thing as a supernatural gift, that is, a privilege that God confers in order that the children of believers are dedicated to him, and he recognises and accepts them as his own. This is why the children of the church today are regarded as the people of God and amongst the number of the elect, just as under the law the Jews were separated from the rest of the world. This explains why Paul says, ‘We are Jews and not sinners of the Gentiles’. By ‘sinners’, he means those who continue in their filth and have not been washed by the grace of God. In deed, circumcision itself was a sign and a testimony to the fact that God accepted the family of Abraham and the race that descended from him as his own familiar and special people. In old times, this is what distinguished the Jews from unbelievers; for, although they were of equal status as children of Adam, yet God had chosen some and left others as strangers to his family. If we ask why this should be, the answer can only be purely because of God’s grace, since the Jews themselves were not outstanding in any way.

Let us now follow the argument that Paul is constructing here. He says, ‘Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.’ In saying this, Paul demonstrates that whatever grace they had received from God, they were not at liberty to trust in man or in themselves as if they deserved this from God. No, rather, they had to seek refuge in his free bounty, recognising that salvation is in Jesus Christ alone, who came to rescue from perdition those who were already lost. This is confirmed in that other passage, where it says that he ‘came and preached peace to you which were afar off and to them that were nigh’ (Eph. 2:17). Jesus Christ is that peace, for it is through him that God can love us and receive us in mercy. This is not only true for those who were previously far away like the Gentiles, but also for the children of Abraham, despite the dignity and nobility they already possessed (for this was not theirs by nature). Paul says that the Jews who had been converted to Christianity knew that they could not be justified by the works of the law, but only by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and he makes a comparison between the two in order to show that we cannot be justified by grace unless we actually renounce all personal merit.

This is well worthy of our attention. For indeed, even the Papists profess to be justified by faith, but this is only half of the truth and it is the rest of the picture which spoils the whole. Sure enough, they are persuaded of the fact that a man cannot be accounted righteous before God unless Jesus is the Mediator and unless that person rests upon him for salvation. The Papists know this only too well, and yet they so often say, ‘We are justified by faith but not by faith alone.’ This is the point with which they take issue, and this is the principal matter upon which we differ. Paul, however, shows their folly when he says, ‘but by faith’, for this expression implies that all that men bring to God to please him is rejected. The door is, therefore, tight shut to all merit, for Paul declares that the only way to come to God is through faith. We will soon see more clearly why Paul draws a comparison with the law as if here are two opposites. The law presupposes that if we fulfil what God requires of us we will be found good servants and he will give us the reward he has promised; faith, on the other hand, presupposes that we are poor, lost, condemned souls and that we are to find in Jesus Christ what we so desperately need.

Take this as an example: there are two men seeking food and shelter. One has money and wishes to be treated in accordance with his means. They both ask for something to eat, but the second man is poor and does not have a penny, so he begs for alms. They both have something in common, for they both seek food, but the first has money with which to satisfy his host. Thus, after eating and drinking well and being courteously entertained, the host, for his part, will be happy to receive his payment, no longer thinking that his guest is in any way indebted to him. Why? Well, he has been satisfied and has even gained from it. But the life of the poor man who asks for alms depends upon the one who can provide him with food and shelter, for he can give him nothing in return. In the same way, if we seek to be justified by the law we must deserve that justification; for then God will receive from us and we from him in a reciprocal manner. Is such a thing possible? Not at all, as we shall examine in more detail later. We must, therefore, conclude that we cannot obtain righteousness by the law, and that if we believe we can make God our debtor, we will only provoke his wrath. The only option is to come as poor beggars, that we may be justified by faith. Not as if faith were a virtue proceeding from us, but we must come humbly, confessing that we cannot obtain salvation except as a free gift. This, then, is why the law is put in opposition to faith. Paul is showing us that all who claim to be acceptable to God by their merits are turning their back upon the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. We shall study this at greater length hereafter.

A man may raise this objection: the law was given by God, so therefore it cannot be placed in opposition to faith, which also proceeds from God. The answer to this is simple. God made both the day and the night, water and fire, cold and heat. Surely, the day is not in opposition to the night, but rather God in his goodness and wisdom has arranged that they appear in a suitable order; man has the brightness of the sun in which to do his work by day, and by night the sun hides itself away so that man may take his rest. Therefore, although day differs from night, there is no disharmony between them. The same applies to fire and water. Every created thing has its function — and fire and water complement each other very well; however, if we were to mix them together, then they would indeed clash! This is true of the law and the gospel. Those who believe that we are justified by the law as well as the gospel are confusing everything; it is as if they are crashing heaven and earth together! In short, it would be easier to mix fire and water than to say this: that we can merit a measure of the grace of God and yet also need the aid of the Lord Jesus Christ. If we consider what the law is and why it was given, we will discover that there is no discrepancy with the gospel, nor with faith, but that there is perfect harmony between them. This objection is thus dealt with. If we say that both faith and the law proceed from God, we are right; but we must give some thought (as we will do shortly) to the reason why God originally instituted them both.

Let us return to Paul’s words — he says that we can only be justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. When he speaks of justification, he means being accounted righteous in the sight of God. This expression needs to be understood because it is dealing with the whole subject of how we are saved. We would be miserable creatures indeed if, having lived a long life in this world, someone were to ask us the way of salvation and we did not know how to respond! Many fools have feasted on the bread of God without knowing how to be acceptable to him. This is why we ought to be all the more attentive to what Paul is telling us here. He says that we are justified. How? Are we already righteous — are we blameless? Not at all, but God accepts us. The word ‘justification’ points us to that favour which God bestows upon us when we become his children and he our Father. You may ask, why do the Scriptures use the word ‘justify’ when it seems so inappropriate? We could just as well say that God loves us, that he takes pity on us, that he desires to be our Father and Saviour — why not use these expressions instead of speaking of justification? The Scriptures do not refer to it without good reason.

If we analyse salvation in its most basic sense, we will say that we are saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, this does not imply knowledge of our miserable condition by nature or of the remedy that we need to apply. For in order to put our trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, we must acknowledge that by the sin of Adam, as well as by our own iniquities, we are altogether lost. We ought to have already discovered this for ourselves. We will never understand that our sins condemn us in God’s sight, unless we know that we need to be put right with him. In other words, we will not be aware of the righteousness of God if we simply say, ‘We are saved by grace and by faith.’ For God cannot once deny himself, since he embodies sovereign justice; he is all purity and perfection and, therefore, he detests what is evil. Yet we are totally corrupt and there is only wickedness in us; it follows, therefore, that God must hate us. However, if he hates us, woe unto us, for we are damned. This is why we need to be justified before we can be pleasing to God. This means we must be cleansed from our sins and transgressions; otherwise, we could never appreciate God’s mercy (as I have said). If we acknowledge that we are sinners, we will realise that God hates sin, and yet though he hates it he has nevertheless provided a way to save us — by forgiving our sins, and by cleansing and purging us from them through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, who gives us spiritual cleansing. God washes us clean in order that he might receive us, so that sharing in his love, we may be assured of our salvation. This is why the Scriptures use the word ‘justification’.

Papists may debate over its meaning like foolish beasts. ‘What!’, they say, ‘Justified by faith? Faith does not make a person perfect — how, then, can it justify us?’ They do not realise that the justification spoken of in the Scriptures refers to God covering our sins (as I have been saying) and, by virtue of his sufferings and death, cancelling them in and through the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Whatever others may say, it is written that we are accounted righteous in God’s sight when he remits and pardons our sins. In fact, Paul speaks of this in the fourth chapter to the Romans, where he says: ‘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’ (Rom. 4:6-7; Psa. 32:1). Again, in another passage he says, ‘For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin’; (this means that he received all the condemnation due to us for our sins), ‘that we might be made the righteousness of God in him’ (2 Cor. 5:21). Thus, we, being joined and united to his person and to his body, are accounted righteous, because his obedience was so perfect that it was sufficient to cleanse and remove our sins. We have now dealt with the meaning of the term ‘justification’.

Turning our attention to the expression ‘faith’, Paul states here that they have ‘believed’ in Jesus Christ. If we were to ask a fool what he considers faith to be, he might well say ‘belief, but he clearly would not understand what either word means. Are we happy to be as ignorant as such fools? Let us firstly point out that the Lord Jesus is the object of both our faith and our belief. Is salvation through faith? Yes, if we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us consider for a moment why the Lord Jesus Christ is set before us as the one in whom we must rest all our faith. It is simply because we find in him all we need for our justification. We have already said that we are accounted righteous in God’s sight when he has forgiven our sins and no longer calls them into account. And how does this happen, if not by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for our cleansing? By his sufferings and death, he made satisfaction for our sins and appeased the wrath of God against us. We must seek no further means of payment, other than the sacrifice made by God’s only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. It is he who is called God’s beloved Son (Matt. 3:17), so that we might be beloved in him; he is called the Righteous One (Isa. 53:11), so that we may partake of his righteousness; and he is called the Holy One (Luke 1:35), so that we may be sanctified in him. This is why our attention is drawn to the Lord Jesus Christ when we consider ‘faith’.

However, the Papists form their own opinions on the subject, revealing by what they claim that they have never experienced what it is to believe. ‘What!’, they say, ‘is it possible for a man to be justified by faith alone, seeing that even devils themselves believe?’ This is indeed true, and James uses this argument (Jas. 2:20); however, we also see him scorning those who vainly and frivolously said they were Christians and had faith, and yet showed no fruit. The Papists have strayed even further, in that they say faith means believing in God, and that the subject of our faith is God, when by belief they mean a mere imagining that there is a God somewhere who has created the world and who now controls it. They remain at this point, asleep in their ignorance, and yet do not hesitate to call themselves good Christians and good Catholics, as they say, although they are altogether ignorant. Therefore, we should not be surprised if, devoid of discernment or intelligence, they fight against the doctrine contained in Holy Scripture, or when they deny, with incorrigible obstinacy, that man is saved by faith alone. They do not even know what faith is. How carefully, therefore, must we heed the words of Paul here which tell us that if we do not look to Jesus Christ, we cannot know what faith really is. Without him, we cannot know remission of sins, how to approach God, how to put our trust in him, or to call upon him. Neither will we know what it is to have peace of conscience, or the hope of eternal life. All this is beyond our reach until we are introduced to Jesus Christ and until we have looked to him and cast ourselves upon him. This kind of faith brings grace: when we recognise that we are wretched creatures, and abominable in God’s sight, seeking the remedy in the Lord Jesus Christ. We must accept that he offered himself for us in order to redeem us from the curse under which we lived, and that he has washed us in his blood. By his obedience, he has cancelled all our transgressions so that we can be assured that God accepts and receives us as his children. This is how we can understand this passage.

Having stated that he, and all the Jews that had been converted to Christianity had been saved by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul adds the following: ‘for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified’. We have heard this before in application to those of his own nation, but here he proclaims it in a more general sense to the whole world. When he says, ‘no flesh’, he primarily implies that there is no difference between the Jews and the Gentiles when it comes to the way of salvation. Although the Jews had been circumcised, chosen as God’s inheritance and sanctified by him, nevertheless, they could have no hope of salvation except through God’s pure grace alone. See how they are set at the same level as the Gentiles, having the same status. Paul seeks to expel all pride that men may have about their own virtues. Indeed, many of us know ourselves to be so depraved that we cannot possibly attribute any honour to ourselves, as if we should deserve anything at God’s hand. Those who are drunk or debauched or who have given themselves over to all kinds of evil feel too ashamed to elevate themselves or to boast that they can persuade God to save them by their merits or good works. In fact, they hide themselves even from other people because they are ashamed of their baseness. But the bigoted, who make a show of their ‘holiness’ before men, are so hardened that they deceive themselves into thinking they deserve paradise — as if God were indebted to them! These hypocrites, though utterly depraved and full of ambition, avarice, wickedness and such like things, because of all their manipulations and pretences, believe that God sees nothing wrong with their corrupt practices and even persuade themselves that he will accept them because of their merits! Those who regularly attend Mass, running from the alehouse to the chapel, buying pardons and other such things, observing fasts and feast days — they are puffed up with vain pride and believe that God owes them something. By saying ‘no flesh’, Paul declares that it is pointless to separate ourselves from one another here below, as if one is just and the other unjust. We must all humble ourselves and judge ourselves, knowing that all our virtues are but filthy rags in God’s sight, even the very best that we can do. For even if a man were perfectly righteous in our estimation, because he never harmed anyone, or because he could resist all kinds of evil and was chaste and sober — in short, though he were reputed to be an angel — yet within, there would be nothing but corruption. How is this possible? Well, we must never judge by the appearance, for all that glitters (as the proverb says) is not gold. We cannot judge what is sin or virtue without first looking within. For if a man does not ascribe to God what is rightfully his, he is not robbing men of their honour, but God. Thus, however much men might praise and commend him, he is full of pride and ambition, and nothing will humble him except coming to know the Lord Jesus Christ.

So then, even those who make a good outward show of religion shall be condemned before God. Hence, Paul intends to stop men from trusting in their own merits. But there is yet more. For when he says, ‘no flesh’, he not only refers to men whom God has given over, who have not been renewed by his Holy Spirit, but he also includes believers. For although God’s Spirit dwells within us after he has led us to a knowledge of the gospel and grafted us into the body of the Lord Jesus Christ — although, I say, God’s Spirit dwells within us, we are all included in this word ‘flesh’ because of what we are by nature. Thus, when Paul declares here that ‘no flesh shall be justified’, he means that unbelievers are condemned in Adam and remain condemned, and that believers, because they will always be imperfect and have many spots and blemishes, are condemned as much as the others. Indeed, this condemnation is a general one, for whoever seeks to be justified by the works of the law will always find himself guilty — yes, even the holiest person that ever existed. Let us take Abraham as an example of perfection, or David, who abounded in all virtues, or Noah, Job, and Daniel, whom Ezekiel names as three righteous men (Ezek. 14:14). They all fall into the same category as men who could only be justified in God’s sight through grace.

Now then, I ask you all, where do we stand? Those who say that they will be justified by their merits, or ‘meritorious works’ as they call them, have they not been driven to excessive pride by the devil? For who can match David, or Noah, or Abraham, or Daniel? Surely, even those who have done well in God’s school, and who are fired by true zeal in giving themselves totally to God, are convinced that they are still far from having reached the standard set by David, or even Noah or Daniel! Knowing this, therefore, we can see that the Holy Spirit is here casting down those who exalt themselves overmuch, to convince us that we have not the merest drop of righteousness, so that we seek all that pertains to our salvation in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now we understand what the statement implies when it says that ‘no flesh shall be justified’. It is as if Paul were saying that, when it comes to our nature, we are only evil within, despite what appears to be the case outwardly. We may be greatly praised and respected by the world; we may be surrounded by vain flattery; but until God works in us to change us, we are full of filth. Indeed, all the virtues that men exalt are nothing short of vices that will lead men to destruction and plunge them into hell. For even those who have been renewed by the grace of God, and who have learnt to obey him by doing the things which God loves and cherishes, even they can bring nothing to God that can settle their accounts with him. They will always be in debt because all the good gifts they have proceed from God; also, even such men are corrupt through sin and infirmity. Thus, we must be stripped of all trust in our own righteousness. For, from the greatest to the least of us, we are all condemned. If we seek justification by the law, we are greatly deceived — we will never find it.

Now we can understand much more clearly the truth of what I have been saying concerning the Lord Jesus Christ as a refuge for those who are convinced of their spiritual need. This means that the only real preparation for belief in Jesus Christ is to be touched with a real, vivid sense and awareness of our sins. This is why Christ said: ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest . . . and ye shall find rest unto your souls’ (Matt. 11:28-29). Elsewhere, the Scripture clearly says that he was sent ‘to preach good tidings unto the meek.. . to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound’ (Isa. 61:1). Therefore, those who take pleasure in their sins will never come to the Lord Jesus Christ. They may boast that they have faith, for many mockers of God profane this word, holy as it is. Everyone wishes to be thought of as a Christian, and no matter how depraved they are, they will say that they believe as much as any other. But when a man speaks in this manner, it is evidence enough that he has not one drop of faith. When true believers say, ‘I believe’, they express it in great weakness, knowing that had not God taken pity on them, even the little they had would have been taken from them. Those who loudly boast that they have complete faith are nothing but dogs and swine, who have never once tasted true religion nor the fear of God. The term ‘faith’ will always be shamefully defiled by these dogs, who do nothing other than mock God. They cannot discern between good and evil, and are so foolish as to wallow in their own sins. Take a drunkard, for example, who is past shame; after drinking to excess, he longs to remain in his intoxicated state. Then there are the whoremongers, perjurers, blasphemers, and suchlike — all of whom claim to have faith; but for all that, it is certain that they are not ready to meet the Lord Jesus Christ. Why not? Because they do not realise that they can only be justified by grace. Let us remember, however, that to be thoroughly persuaded that we cannot be justified by the law, we must set God before us on his judgment throne and summon ourselves before him every morning and evening, knowing that we must give an account of our whole lives. Also, we must realise that we would be sent to the pit a hundred thousand times if God did not pity us and raise us up in his infinite mercy Then we will know that we cannot be justified by the law, for we are all under condemnation every time we compare ourselves with God. We need to have such fear, that we cannot find rest until the Lord Jesus Christ has saved us. See, therefore, how good it is for us to be heavy laden, that is to say, to hate our sins and to be in such anguish over them that we feel surrounded by the pains of death, so that we seek God in order that he might ease us of our burden. We must, however, seek him in the knowledge that we cannot obtain salvation, full or in part, unless it is granted to us as a gift. Paul is not saying that we may find something of what we lack in Jesus Christ, and supply the rest ourselves. He says we cannot be counted righteous through our own merits, or works, but only through faith.

Let us, therefore, understand that there is no salvation whatsoever outside of Jesus Christ, for he is the beginning and the end of faith, and he is all in all. Let us continue in humility, knowing that we can only bring condemnation upon ourselves; therefore, we need to find all that pertains to salvation in the pure and free mercy of God. We must be able to say that we are saved through faith. God the Father has appointed his Son the Lord Jesus Christ that he might be both the author and finisher of our salvation. We are to deny ourselves and give ourselves to him wholly and completely, that all the praise might belong to him.

Now let us fall before the majesty of our great God, acknowledging our sins, and asking that he would make us increasingly aware of them, that we may hate them more and more, and grow in repentance (a grace that we need to exercise all our lives). May we learn so to magnify his grace, as it is shown to us in the Lord Jesus Christ, that we might be completely taken up with it; and may we not only do so with our lips, but place our entire trust in him. May we grow in that trust until we are gathered up into our eternal home, where we shall receive faith’s reward. May he not only grant this grace to us, but to all peoples, etc.

Of Justification

by Martin Luther

292 It is impossible for a papist to understand this article: 'I believe the forgiveness of sins.' For the papists are drowned in their opinions, as I also was when among them, of the cleaving to our inherent righteousness. The Scripture names the faithful, saints and people of God, It is a sin and shame that we would forget this glorious and comfortable name and title. But the papists are such direct sinners, that they will not be reckoned sinners; and again, they will neither be holy nor held so to be. And in this sort it goes on with them untoward and crosswise, so that they neither believe the Gospel which comforts, nor the law which punishes, But here one may say: the sins which we daily commit, offend and anger God; how then can we be holy? Answer: A mother's love to her child is much stronger than the distaste of the scurf upon the child's head. Even so, God's love towards us is far stronger than our uncleanness. Therefore, though we be sinners, yet we lose not thereby our childhood, neither do we fall from grace by reason of our sins. Another may say: we sin without ceasing, and where sin is, there the Holy Spirit is not; therefore we are not holy, because the Holy Spirit is not in us, which makes holy. Answer: The text says plainly: 'The Holy Ghost shall glorify me.' Now where Christ is, there is the Holy Spirit. Now Christ is in the faithful, although they have and feel and confess sins, and with sorrow of heart complain thereof, therefore sins do not separate Christ from those that believe. The God of the Turks helps no longer or further, as they think, than as they are godly people; in like manner also the God of the papists, So when Turk and papist begin to feel their sins and unworthiness, as in time of trial and temptation, or in death, then they tremble and despair. But a true Christian says: 'I believe in Jesus Christ my Lord and Savor,' who gave himself for my sins, and is at God's right hand, and intercedes for, me; fall I into sin, as, alas! oftentimes I do, I am sorry for it; I rise again, and am an enemy unto sin. So that we plainly see, the true Christian faith is far different from the faith and religion of the pope and Turk. But human strength and nature are not able to accomplish this true Christian faith without the Holy Spirit. It can do no more than take refuge in its own deserts.

293 All men, indeed, are not alike strong, so that in some, many faults, weaknesses, and offenses, are found; but these do not hinder them of sanctification, if they sin not of evil purpose and premeditation, but only out of weakness. For a Christian, indeed, feels the lusts of the flesh, but he resists them, and they have not dominion over him; and although, now and then, he stumbles and falls into sin, yet it is forgiven him, when he rises again, and holds on to Christ, who will not 'That the lost sheep be hunted away, but be sought after'.

294 Why do Christians make use of their natural wisdom and understanding, seeing it must be set aside in matters of Faith, as not only not understanding them, but also as striving against them. Answer: The natural wisdom of a human creature in matters of faith, until he be regenerate and born anew, is altogether darkness, knowing nothing in divine cases. But in a faithful person, regenerate and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, through the Word, it is a fair and glorious instrument, and work of God: for even as all God's gifts, natural instruments, and expert faculties, are hurtful to the ungodly, even so are they wholesome and saving to the good and godly. The understanding, through faith, receives life from. faith; that which was dead, is made alive again; like as our bodies, in light day, when it is clear and bright, are better disposed, rise, move, walk, etc. more readily and safely than they do in the dark night, so it is with human reason, which strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it. So the tongue, which before blasphemed God, now lauds, extols, and praises God and his grace, as my tongue, now it is enlightened, is now another manner of tongue than it was in Popedom; a regeneration done by the Holy Ghost through the Word. A sanctified and upright-Christian says: My wife, my children, my art, my wisdom, my money and wealth, help and avail me nothing in heaven; yet I cast them not away nor reject them when God bestows. such benefits upon me, but part and separate the substance from the vanity and foolery which cleave thereunto. Gold is and remains gold as well when a strumpet carries it about her, as when 'tis with an honest, good, and godly woman. The body of a strumpet is even as well God's creature, as the body of an honest matron. In this manner ought we to part and separate vanity and folly from the thing and substance, or from the creature given and God who created it.

295 Upright and faithful Christians ever think they are not faithful, nor believe as they ought; and therefore they constantly strive, wrestle, and are diligent to keep and to increase faith, as good workmen always see that something is wanting in their workmanship. But the botchers think that nothing is wanting in what they do, but that everything is well and complete. Like as the Jews conceive they have the Ten Commandments at their fingers' end, whereas, in truth, they neither learn nor regard them.

296 Truly it is held for presumption in a human creature that he dare boast of his own proper righteousness of faith; 'tis a hard matter for a man to say: I am the child, of God, and am comforted and solaced through the immeasurable grace and mercy of my heavenly. Father. To do this from the heart, is not in every man's power. Therefore no man is able to teach pure and aright, touching faith, nor to reject the righteousness of works, without sound practice and experience. St. Paul was well exercised in this art; he speaks more vilely of the law than any arch heretic can speak of the sacrament of the altar, of baptism, or than the Jews have spoken thereof; for he names the law, the ministration of death, the ministration of sin, and the ministration of condemnation; yea, he holds all the works of the law, and what the law requires, without Christ, dangerous and hurtful, which Moses, if he had then lived, would doubtless have taken very ill at Paul's hands. It was, according to human reason, spoken too scornfully.

297 Faith and hope are variously distinguishable. And, first, in regard of the subject, wherein everything subsists: faith consists in a person's understanding, hope in the will; these two cannot be separated; they are like the two cherubim over the mercy-seat. Secondly, in regard of the office: faith indites, distinguishes, and teaches, and is the knowledge and acknowledgment; hope admonishes, awakens, hears, expects, and suffers. Thirdly, in regard to the object: faith looks to the word or promise, which is truth; but hope to that which the Word promises, which is the good or benefit. Fourthly, in regard of order, in degree: faith is first, and before all adversities and trouble, and is the beginning of life (Hebrews 11). But hope follows after, and springs up in trouble (Romans 5). Fifthly, by reason of the contrariety: faith fights against error and heresies; it proves and judges spirits and doctrines. But hope strives against troubles and vexations, and among the evil it expects good. Faith, in divinity, is the wisdom and providence, and belongs to the doctrine. But hope is the courage and joyfulness in divinity, and pertains to admonition. Faith is the dialectica, for it is altogether prudence and wisdom; hope is the rhetorca, an elevation of the heart and mind. As wisdom without courage is futile, even so faith without hope is nothing worth; for hope endures and overcomes misfortune and evil. And as a joyous valor without understanding is but rashness, so hope without faith is spiritual presumption. Faith is the key to the sacred Scriptures, the right Cabala, or exposition, which one receives of tradition, as the prophets left this doctrine to their disciples. 'Tis said St. Peter wept whenever he thought of the gentleness with which Jesus taught. Faith is given from one to another, and remains continually in one school. Faith is not a quality, as the schoolmen say, but a gift of God.

298 Everything that is done in the world is done by hope. No husbandman would sow one grain of corn, if he hoped not it would grow up and become seed; no bachelor would marry a wife, if he hoped not to have children; no merchant or tradesman would set himself to work, if he did not hope to reap benefit thereby, etc. How much more, then, does hope urge us on to everlasting life and salvation?

299 Faith's substance is our will; its manner is, that we take hold on Christ by divine instinct; its final cause and fruit, that it purifies the heart, makes us children of God, and brings with it the remission of sins.

300 Adam received the promise of the woman's seed ere he had done any work or sacrifice, to the end God's truth might stand fast — namely, that we are justified before God altogether without works, and obtain forgiveness of sins merely by grace. Whoso is able to believe this well and steadfastly, is a doctor above all the doctors in the world.

301 Faith is not only necessary, that thereby the-ungodly may become justified and saved before God, and their hearts be settled in peace, but it is necessary in every other respect. St. Paul says: 'Now that we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.'

302 Joseph of Arimathea had a faith in Christ, like as the apostles had; he thought Christ would have been a worldly and temporal potentate; therefore he took care of him as of a good friend, and buried him honorably. He believed not that Christ should rise again from death, and become a spiritual and everlasting king. When Abraham shall rise again at the last day, then he will chide us for our unbelief, and will say: I had not the hundredth part of the promises which ye have, and yet I believed. That example of Abraham exceeds all human natural reason, who, overcoming the paternal love he bore towards his only son Isaac, was all obedient to God, and, against the law of nature, would have sacrificed that son. What, for the space of three days, he felt in his breast, how his heart yearned and panted, what hesitations and trials he had, cannot be expressed.

304 All heretics have continually failed in this one point, that they do not rightly understand or know the article of justification. If we had not this article certain and clear, it were impossible we could criticize the pope's false doctrine of indulgences and other abominable errors, much less be able to overcome greater spiritual errors and vexations. If we only permit Christ to be our Savior, then we have won, for he is the only girdle which clasps the whole body together, as St. Paul excellently teaches. If we look to the spiritual birth and substance of a true Christian, we shall soon extinguish all deserts of good works; for they serve us to no use, neither to purchase sanctification, nor to deliver us from sin, death, devil or hell. Little children are saved only by faith without any good works; therefore faith alone justifies. If God's power be awe to effect that in one, then he is also able to accomplish it in all; for the power of the child effects it not, but the power of faith; neither is it done through the child's weakness or disability; for then that weakness would be merit of itself, or equivalent to merit. It is a mischievous thing that we miserable, sinful wretches will upbraid God, and hit him in the teeth with our works, and think thereby to be justified before him; but God will not allow it.

305 This article, how we are saved, is the chief of the whole Christian doctrine, to which all divine disputations must be directed. All the prophets were chiefly engaged upon it, and sometimes much perplexed about it. For when this article is kept fast and sure by a constant faith, then all other articles draw on softly after, as that of the Holy Trinity, etc. God has declared no article so plainly and openly as this, that we are saved only by Christ; though he speaks much of the Holy Trinity, yet he dwells continually upon this article of the salvation of our souls; other articles are of great weight, but this surpasses all.

306 A capuchin says: wear a gray coat and a hood, a rope round thy body, and sandals on thy feet. A cordelier says: put on a black hood; an ordinary papist says: do this or that work, hear mass, pray, fast, give alms, etc. But a true Christian says: I am justified and saved only by faith in Christ, without any works or merits of my own; compare these together, and judge which is the true righteousness.

307 Christ says: 'The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak': St. Paul also says: the spirit willingly would give itself wholly unto God, would trust in him, and be obedient; but natural reason and understanding, flesh and blood, resist and will not go forward. Therefore our Lord God must needs have patience and bear with us. God will not put out the glimmering flax; the faithful have as yet but only the first fruits of the spirit; they have not the fulfilling, but the tenth.

308 I well understand that St. Paul was also weak in faith, whence he boasted, and said: 'I am a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ.' An angel stood by him at sea, and comforted him, and when he came to Rome, he was comforted as he saw the brethren come out to meet him. Hereby we see what the communion and company does of such as fear God. The Lord commanded the disciples to remain together in one place, before they received the Holy Ghost, and to comfort one another; for Christ well knew that adversaries would assault them.

309 A Christian must be well armed, grounded, and furnished with sentences out of God's word, that so he may stand and defend religion and himself against the devil, in case he should be asked to embrace another doctrine.

310 When at the last day we shall live again, we shall blush for shame, and say to ourselves: 'fie on thee, in that thou hast not been more courageous, bold, and strong to believe in Christ, and to endure all manner of adversities, crosses, and persecutions, seeing his glory is so great. If I were now in the world, I would not stick to suffer ten thousand times more.'

311 Although a man knew, and could do as much as the angels in heaven, yet all this would not make him a Christian, unless he knew Christ and believed in him. God says: 'Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might; let not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him that glorieth, glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord, which doth exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness,' etc.

312 The article of our justification before God is as with as on who is born heir to all his. father's goods, and comes not thereunto by deserts, but naturally, of ordinary course. But yet, meantime, his father admonishes him to do such and such things, and promises him gifts to make him the more willing. As when he says to him: if thou wilt be good, be obedient, study diligently, then I will buy thee a fine coat; or, come hither to me, and I will give thee an apple. In such sort does he teach his son industry; though the whole inheritance belongs unto him of course, yet will he make him, by promises, pliable and willing to do what he would have done. Even so God deals with us; he is loving unto us with friendly and sweet words, promises us spiritual and temporal blessings, though everlasting life is presented unto those who believe in Christ, by mere grace and mercy, gratis, without any merits, works, or worthinesses. And this ought we to teach in the church and in the assembly of God, that God will have upright and good works, which he has commended, not such as we ourselves take in hand, of our own choice and devotion, or well meaning, as the friars and priests teach in Popedom, for such works are not pleasing to God, as Christ says: 'In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of me', etc. We must teach of good works, yet always so that the article of justification remain pure and unfalsified. For Christ neither can nor will endure any beside himself; he will have the bride alone; he is full of jealousy. Should we teach: if thou believest, thou shalt be saved, whatsoever thou doest; that were stark naught; for faith is either false and reigned, or, though it be upright, yet is eclipsed, when people wittingly and wilfully sin against God's command. And the Holy Spirit, which is given to the faithful, departs by reason of evil works done against the conscience, as the example of David sufficiently testifies.

313 As to ceremonies and ordinances, the kingdom of love must have precedence and government, and not tyranny. It must be a willing, not a halter love; it must altogether be directed and construed for the good and profit of the neighbor; and the greater he that governs, the more he ought to serve according to love.

314 The love towards our neighbor must be like the pure and chaste love between bride and bridegroom where all faults are connived at and borne with, and only the virtues regarded.

315 Believest thou? then thou wilt speak boldly. Speakest thou boldly? then thou must suffer. Sufferest thou? then thou shalt be comforted. For faith, the confession thereof, and the cross, follow one upon another. Give and it shall be given unto you: this is a fine maxim, and makes people poor and rich; it is that which maintains my house. I would not boast, but I well know what I give away in the year. If my gracious lord and master, the prince elector, should give a gentleman two thousand florins, this should hardly answer to the cost of my housekeeping for one year; and yet I have but three hundred florins a year, but God blesses these, and makes them suffice.

316 There is in Austria a monastery, which, in former times, was very rich, and remained rich so long as it was charitable to the poor; but when it ceased to give, then it became indigent, and is so to this day. Not long since, a poor man went there and solicited alms, which was denied him; he demanded the cause why they refused to give for God's sake? The porter of the monastery answered: We are become poor; whereupon the mendicant said: the cause of your poverty is this: ye had formerly in this monastery two brethren, the one named Date (give), and the other Dabitur (it shall be given you). The former ye thrust out; the other went away of himself. We are bound to help one's neighbor three manner of ways-with giving, lending, and selling. But no man gives; everyone scrapes and claws all to himself; each would willingly steal, but give nothing, and lend but upon usury. No man sells unless he can overreach his neighbor; therefore is Dabitur gone, and our Lord God will bless us no more so richly. Beloved, he that desires to have anything, must also give; a liberal hand was never in want, or empty.

317 Desert is a work nowhere to be found, for Christ gives a reward by reason, of the promise. If the prince elector should say to me; Come to the court, and I will give thee one hundred florins, I perform a work in going to the court, yet I receive not the gift by reason of my work in going thither, but by reason of the promise the prince made me. I marvel at the madness and bitterness of Wetzell, in undertaking to write so much against the Protestants, assailing us without rhyme or reason, and, as we say, getting a case out of a hedge; as where he rages against this principle of ours, that the works and acts of a farmer, husbandman, or any other good and godly Christian, if done in faith, are far more precious in the sight of God, than all the works of monks, friars, nuns, etc. This poor, ignorant fellow gets very angry against us, regarding not the works which God has commanded and imposed upon each man in his vocation, state, and calling. 'He heeds only superstitious practices, devised for show and effect, which God neither commands nor approves of.

318 St. Paul, in his epistles, wrote of good works and virtues more energetically and truthfully than all the philosophers; for he extols highly the works of godly Christians, in their respective vocations and callings. Let Wetzell know that David's wars and battles were more pleasing to God than the fastings and prayings even of the holiest of the old monks, setting aside altogether the works of the monks of our time, which are simply ridiculous.

319 I never Work better than when I am inspired by anger; when I am angry, I can write, pray, and preach well, for then my whole temperament is quickened, my Understanding sharpened, and all mundane vexations and temptations depart.

320 Dr. Justus Jonas asked me if the thoughts and words of the prophet Jeremiah were Christianlike, when he cursed the day of his birth. I said: We must now and then wake up our Lord God with such words. Jeremiah had cause to murmur in this way. Did not our Savior Christ say: 'O faithless and perverse generation! How long shall I be with you, and suffer you?' Moses also took God in hand, where he said: 'Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant? Have I conceived all this people? Have I begotten them?'A man mast needs be plunged in bitter affliction when in his heart he means good, and yet is not regarded. I can never get rid of these cogitations, wishing I had never begun this business with the pope. So, too, I desire myself rather dead than to hear or see God's Word and his servants contemned; but 'tis the frailty of our nature to be thus discouraged.

321 They who condemn the movement of anger against antagonists, are theologians who deal in mere speculations; they play with words, and occupy themselves with subtleties, but when they are aroused, and take a. real interest in the matter, they are touched sensibly.

322 'In quietness and in confidence shall be your strength.' 'This sentence I expounded thus: If thou intendest to vanquish the greatest, the most abominable and wickedest enemy, who is able to do thee mischief both in body and soul, and against whom thou preparest all sorts of weapons, but canst not overcome; then know that there is a sweet and loving physical herb to serve thee, named Patientia. Thou wilt say: How may I attain this physic? Take unto thee faith, which says: no creature can do me mischief without the will of God. In case thou receivest hurt and mischief by thine enemy, this is done by the sweet and gracious will of God, in such sort that the enemy hurts himself a thousand times more than he does thee. Hence flows unto me, a Christian, the love which says: I will, instead of the evil which mine enemy does unto me, do him all the good I can; I will heap coals of fire upon his head. This is the Christian armor and weapon, wherewith to beat and overcome those enemies that seem to be like huge mountains. In a word, love teaches to suffer and endure all things.

323 A certain honest and God-forbearing man at Wittenberg, told me, that though he lived peaceably with every one, hurt no man, was ever quiet, yet many people were enemies unto him. I comforted him in this manner: Arm thyself with patience, and be not angry though they hate thee; what offense, I pray, do we give the devil? What ails him to be so great an enemy unto us? only because he has not that which God has; I know no other cause of his vehement hatred towards us. If God give thee to eat, eat; if he cause thee to fast, be resigned thereto; gives he thee honors? take them; hurt or shame? endure it; casts he thee into prison? murmur not; will he make thee a king? obey him; casts he thee down again? heed it not.

324 Patience is the most excellent of the virtues, and, in Sacred Writ, highly praised and recommended by the Holy Ghost. The learned heathen philosophers applaud it, but they do not know its genuine basis, being without the assistance of God. Epictetus, the wise and judicious Greek, said very well: 'Suffer and abstain.'

325 It was the custom of old, in burying the dead, to lay their heads towards the sun-rising, by reason of a spiritual mystery and signification therein manifested; but this was not an enforced law. So all laws and ceremonies should be free in the Church, and not be done on compulsion, being things which neither justify nor condemn in the sight of God, but are observed merely for the sake of orderly discipline.

326 The righteousness of works and hypocrisy, are the most mischievous diseases born in us, and not easily expelled, especially when they are confirmed and settled upon us by use and practice; for all mankind will have dealings with Almighty God, and dispute with him, according: to their human natural understanding, and will make satisfaction to God for their sins, with their own strength and self-chosen works. For my part, I have so often deceived our Lord God by promising to be upright and good, that I will promise no more. but will only pray for a happy hour, when it shall please God to make me good. A popish priest once argued with me in this manner: Evil works are damned, therefore good works justify. I answered: This your argument is nothing worth; it concludes not ratione contrariorum; the things are not in connection; evil works are evil in complete measure, bemuse they proceed from a heart that is altogether spoiled and evil; but good works, yea, even in an upright Christian, are incompletely good; for they proceed out of a weak obedience but little recovered and restored. Whoso can say from his heart: I am a sinner, but God is righteous; and who, at the point of death, from his heart can say; Lord Jesus Christ, I commit my spirit into thy hands, may assure himself of true righteousness, and that he is not of the number, of those that blaspheme God, in relying upon their own works and righteousness.

Justification by Faith Alone

by Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)

Dated November, 1734 - Prepared from 2 Sermons

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." --  Romans 4:5

Subject: We are justified only by faith in Christ, and not by any manner of goodness of our own.

The following things may be noted in this verse:

1. That justification respects a man as ungodly. This is evident by these words — that justifieth the ungodly, which cannot imply less than that God, in the act of justification, has no regard to anything in the person justified, as godliness or any goodness in him, but that immediately before this act, God beholds him only as an ungodly creature, so that godliness in the person to be justified is not so antecedent to his justification as to be the ground of it. When it is said that God justifies the ungodly, it is as absurd to suppose that our godliness, taken as some goodness in us, is the ground of our justification, as when it is said that Christ gave sight to the blind to suppose that sight was prior to, and the ground of, that act of mercy in Christ. Or as, if it should be said that such an one by his bounty has made a poor man rich, to suppose that it was the wealth of this poor man that was the ground of this bounty towards him, and was the price by which it was procured.

2. It appears, that by him that worketh not, in this verse, is not meant one who merely does not conform to the ceremonial law, because he that worketh not, and the ungodly, are evidently synonymous expressions, or what signify the same, as appears by the manner of their connection. If not, to what purpose is the latter expression, the ungodly, brought in? The context gives no other occasion for it, but to show that by the grace of the gospel, God in justification has no regard to any godliness of ours. The foregoing verse is, “Now to him that worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” In that verse, it is evident that gospel grace consists in the reward being given without works, and in this verse, which immediately follows it, and in sense is connected with it, gospel grace consists in a man’s being justified as ungodly. By which it is most plain, that by him that worketh not, and him that is ungodly, are meant the same thing, and that therefore not only works of the ceremonial law are excluded in this business of justification, but works of morality and godliness.

It is evident in the words, that by the faith here spoken of, by which we are justified, is not meant the same thing as a course of obedience or righteousness, since the expression by which this faith is here denoted, is believing on him that justifies the ungodly. — They that oppose the Solifidians, as they call them, greatly insist on it, that we should take the words of Scripture concerning this doctrine in their most natural and obvious meaning, and how do they cry out, of our clouding this doctrine with obscure metaphors, and unintelligible figures of speech? But is this to interpret Scripture according to its most obvious meaning, when the Scripture speaks of our believing on him that justifies the ungodly, or the breakers of his law, to say that the meaning of it is performing a course of obedience to his law, and avoiding the breaches of it? Believing on God as a justifier, certainly is a different thing from submitting to God as a lawgiver, especially believing on him as a justifier of the ungodly, or rebels against the lawgiver.

4. It is evident that the subject of justification is looked upon as destitute of any righteousness in himself, by that expression, it is counted, or imputed to him for righteousness. — The phrase, as the apostle uses it here and in the context, manifestly imports that God of his sovereign grace is pleased in his dealings with the sinner, so to regard one that has no righteousness, that the consequence shall be the same as if he had. This however may be from the respect it bears to something that is indeed righteous. It is plain that this is the force of the expression in the preceding verses. In the last verse but one, it is manifest, the apostle lays the stress of his argument for the free grace of God — from that text of the Old Testament about Abraham — on the word counted or imputed. This is the thing that he supposed God to show his grace in, viz. in his counting something for righteousness, in his consequential dealings with Abraham, that was no righteousness in itself. And in the next verse, which immediately precedes the text, “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt,” the word there translated reckoned, is the same that in the other verses is rendered imputed and counted, and it is as much as if the apostle had said, “As to him that works, there is no need of any gracious reckoning or counting it for righteousness, and causing the reward to follow as if it were a righteousness. For if he has works, he has that which is a righteousness in itself, to which the reward properly belongs.” This is further evident by the words that follow, Rom. 4:6, “Even as David also described the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.” What can here be meant by imputing righteousness without works, but imputing righteousness to him that has none of his own? Verse 7, 8, “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.” How are these words of David to the apostle’s purpose? Or how do they prove any such thing, as that righteousness is imputed without works, unless it be because the word imputed is used, and the subject of the imputation is mentioned as a sinner, and consequently destitute of a moral righteousness? For David says no such thing, as that he is forgiven without the works of the ceremonial law. There is no hint of the ceremonial law, or reference to it, in the words. I will therefore venture to infer this doctrine from the words, for the subject of my present discourse, viz.

That we are justified only by faith in Christ, and not by any manner of virtue or goodness of our own.

Such an assertion as this, I am sensible, many would be ready to call absurd, as betraying a great deal of ignorance, and containing much inconsistency, but I desire everyone’s patience till I have done.

In handling this doctrine, I would:

I. Explain the meaning of it, and show how I would be understood by such an assertion.

II. Proceed to the consideration of the evidence of the truth of it.

III. Show how evangelical obedience is concerned in this affair.

IV. Answer objections.

V. Consider the importance of the doctrine.

I. I would explain the meaning of the doctrine, or show in what sense I assert it, and would endeavor to evince the truth of it, which may be done in answer to these two inquiries, viz. 1.What is meant by being justified? 2. What is meant when it is said, that this is “by faith alone, without any manner of virtue or goodness of our own?”

First, I would show what justification is, or what I suppose is meant in Scripture by being justified.

A person is to be justified, when he is approved of God as free from the guilt of sin and its deserved punishment, and as having that righteousness belonging to him that entitles to the reward of life. That we should take the word in such a sense, and understand it as the judge’s accepting a person as having both a negative and positive righteousness belonging to him, and looking on him therefore as not only free from any obligation to punishment, but also as just and righteous and so entitled to a positive reward, is not only most agreeable to the etymology and natural import of the word, which signifies to pass one for righteous in judgment, but also manifestly agreeable to the force of the word as used in Scripture.

Some suppose that nothing more is intended in Scripture by justification, than barely the remission of sins. If so, it is very strange, if we consider the nature of the case. For it is most evident, and none will deny, that it is with respect to the rule or law of God we are under, that we are said in Scripture to be either justified or condemned. Now what is it to justify a person as the subject of a law or rule, but to judge him as standing right with respect to that rule? To justify a person in a particular case, is to approve of him as standing right, as subject to the law in that case, and to justify in general is to pass him in judgment, as standing right in a state correspondent to the law or rule in general. But certainly, in order to a person’s being looked on as standing right with respect to the rule in general, or in a state corresponding with the law of God, more is needful than not having the guilt of sin. For whatever that law is, whether a new or an old one, doubtless something positive is needed in order to its being answered. We are no more justified by the voice of the law, or of him that judges according to it, by a mere pardon of sin, than Adam, our first surety, was justified by the law, at the first point of his existence, before he had fulfilled the obedience of the law, or had so much as any trial whether he would fulfill it or no. If Adam had finished his course of perfect obedience, he would have been justified, and certainly his justification would have implied something more than what is merely negative. He would have been approved of, as having fulfilled the righteousness of the law, and accordingly would have been adjudged to the reward of it. So Christ, our second surety (in whose justification all whose surety he is, are virtually justified), was not justified till he had done the work the Father had appointed him, and kept the Father’s commandments through all trials, and then in his resurrection he was justified. When he had been put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, 1 Pet. 3:18, then he that was manifest in the flesh was justified in the Spirit, 1 Tim. 3:16. But God, when he justified him in raising him from the dead, did not only release him from his humiliation for sin, and acquit him from any further suffering or abasement for it, but admitted him to that eternal and immortal life, and to the beginning of that exaltation that was the reward of what he had done. And indeed the justification of a believer is no other than his being admitted to communion in the justification of this head and surety of all believers: for as Christ suffered the punishment of sin, not as a private person, but as our surety. So when after this suffering he was raised from the dead, he was therein justified, not as a private person, but as the surety and representative of all that should believe in him. So that he was raised again not only for his own, but also for our justification, according to the apostle, Rom. 4:25, “Who was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification.” And therefore it is that the apostle says, as he does in Rom. 8:34, “Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again.”

But that a believer’s justification implies not only remission of sins, or acquittal from the wrath due to it, but also an admittance to a title to that glory which is the reward of righteousness, is more directly taught in the Scriptures, particularly in Rom. 5:1, 2, where the apostle mentions both these as joint benefits implied in justification: “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” So remission of sin, and inheritance among them that are sanctified, are mentioned together as what are jointly obtained by faith in Christ, Acts 26:18, “That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified through faith that is in me.” Both these are without doubt implied in that passing from death to life, which Christ speaks of as the fruit of faith, and which he opposes to condemnation, John 5:24, “Verily I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

I proceed now,

Secondly, to show what is meant when it is said, that this justification is by faith only, and not by any virtue or goodness of our own.

This inquiry may be subdivided into two, viz.

1. How it is by faith. 2. How it is by faith alone, without any manner of goodness of ours.

1. How justification is by faith. — Here the great difficulty has been about the import and force of the particle by, or what is that influence that faith has in the affair of justification that is expressed in Scripture by being justified by faith.

Here, if I may humbly express what seems evident to me, though faith be indeed the condition of justification so as nothing else is, yet this matter is not clearly and sufficiently explained by saying that faith is the condition of justification, and that because the word seems ambiguous, both in common use, and also as used in divinity. In one sense, Christ alone performs the condition of our justification and salvation. In another sense, faith is the condition of justification, and in another sense, other qualifications and acts are conditions of salvation and justification too. There seems to be a great deal of ambiguity in such expressions as are commonly used (which yet we are forced to use), such as condition of salvation, what is required in order to salvation or justification, the terms of the covenant, and the like, and I believe they are understood in very different senses by different persons. And besides, as the word condition is very often understood in the common use of language, faith is not the only thing in us that is the condition of justification. For by the word condition, as it is very often (and perhaps most commonly) used, we mean anything that may have the place of a condition in a conditional proposition, and as such is truly connected with the consequent, especially if the proposition holds both in the affirmative and negative, as the condition is either affirmed or denied. If it be that with which, or which being supposed, a thing shall be, and without which, or it being denied, a thing shall not be, we in such a case call it a condition of that thing. But in this sense faith is not the only condition of salvation and justification. For there are many things that accompany and flow from faith, with which justification shall be, and without which, it will not be, and therefore are found to be put in Scripture in conditional propositions with justification and salvation, in multitudes of places. Such are love to God, and love to our brethren, forgiving men their trespasses, and many other good qualifications and acts. And there are many other things besides faith, which are directly proposed to us, to be pursued or performed by us, in order to eternal life, which if they are done, or obtained, we shall have eternal life, and if not done, or not obtained, we shall surely perish. And if faith was the only condition of justification in this sense, I do not apprehend that to say faith was the condition of justification, would express the sense of that phrase of Scripture, of being justified by faith. There is a difference between being justified by a thing, and that thing universally, necessarily, and inseparably attending justification: for so do a great many things that we are not said to be justified by. It is not the inseparable connection with justification that the Holy Ghost would signify (or that is naturally signified) by such a phrase, but some particular influence that faith has in the affair, or some certain dependence that effect has on its influence.

Some, aware of this, have supposed that the influence or dependence might well be expressed by faith’s being the instrument of our justification, which has been misunderstood, and injuriously represented, and ridiculed by those that have denied the doctrine of justification by faith alone, as though they had supposed faith was used as an instrument in the hand of God, whereby he performed and brought to pass that act of his, viz. approving and justifying the believer. Whereas it was not intended that faith was the instrument wherewith God justifies, but the instrument wherewith we receive justification: not the instrument wherewith the justifier acts in justifying, but wherewith the receiver of justification acts in accepting justification. But yet, it must be owned, this is an obscure way of speaking, and there must certainly be some impropriety in calling it an instrument wherewith we receive or accept justification. For the very persons who thus explain the matter, speak of faith as being the reception or acceptance itself, and if so, how can it be the instrument of reception or acceptance? Certainly there is a difference between the act and the instrument. Besides, by their own descriptions of faith, Christ, the mediator, by whom and his righteousness by which we are justified, is more directly the object of this acceptance and justification, which is the benefit arising therefrom more indirectly. Therefore, if faith be an instrument, it is more properly the instrument by which we receive Christ, than the instrument by which we receive justification.

But I humbly conceive we have been ready to look too far to find out what that influence of faith in our justification is, or what is that dependence of this effect on faith, signified by the expression of being justified by faith, overlooking that which is most obviously pointed forth in the expression, viz. that (there being a mediator that has purchased justification) faith in this mediator is that which renders it a meet and suitable thing, in the sight of God, that the believer, rather than others, should have this purchased benefit assigned to him. There is this benefit purchased, which God sees it to be a more meet and suitable thing that it should be assigned to some rather than others, because he sees them differently qualified: that qualification wherein the meetness to this benefit, as the case stands, consists, is that in us by which we are justified. If Christ had not come into the world and died, etc. to purchase justification, no qualification whatever in us could render it a meet or fit thing that we should be justified. But the case being as it now stands, viz. that Christ has actually purchased justification by his own blood for infinitely unworthy creatures, there may be certain qualifications found in some persons, which, either from the relation it bears to the mediator and his merits, or on some other account, is the thing that in the sight of God renders it a meet and condecent thing, that they should have an interest in this purchased benefit, and of which if any are destitute, it renders it an unfit and unsuitable thing that they should have it. The wisdom of God in his constitutions doubtless appears much in the fitness and beauty of them, so that those things are established to be done that are fit to be done, and that these things are connected in his constitution that are agreeable one to another. — So God justifies a believer according to his revealed constitution, without doubt, because he sees something in this qualification that, as the case stands, renders it a fit thing that such should be justified: whether it be because faith is the instrument, or as it were the hand, by which he that has purchased justification is apprehended and accepted, or because it is the acceptance itself, or whatever else. To be justified, is to be approved of God as a proper subject of pardon, with a right to eternal life. Therefore, when it is said that we are justified by faith, what else can be understood by it, than that faith is that by which we are rendered approvable, fitly so, and indeed, as the case stands, proper subjects of this benefit?

This is something different from faith being the condition of justification, though inseparably connected with justification. So are many other things besides faith, and yet nothing in us but faith renders it meet that we should have justification assigned to us: as I shall presently show in answer to the next inquiry, viz.

2. How this is said to be by faith alone, without any manner of virtue or goodness of our own. This may seem to some to be attended with two difficulties, viz. how this can be said to be by faith alone, without any virtue or goodness of ours, when faith itself is a virtue, and one part of our goodness, and is not only some manner of goodness of ours, but is a very excellent qualification, and one chief part of the inherent holiness of a Christian? And if it be a part of our inherent goodness or excellency (whether it be this part or any other) that renders it a condecent or congruous thing that we should have this benefit of Christ assigned to us, what is this less than what they mean who talk of a merit of congruity? And moreover, if this part of our Christian holiness qualifies us, in the sight of God, for this benefit of Christ, and renders it a fit or meet thing, in his sight, that we should have it, why not other parts of holiness, and conformity to God, which are also very excellent, and have as much of the image of Christ in them, and are no less lovely in God’s eyes, qualify us as much, and have as much influence to render us meet, in God’s sight, for such a benefit as this? Therefore I answer,

When it is said, that we are not justified by any righteousness or goodness of our own, what is meant is that it is not out of respect to the excellency or goodness of any qualifications or acts in us whatsoever, that God judges it meet that this benefit of Christ should be ours. It is not, in any wise, on account of any excellency or value that there is in faith, that it appears in the sight of God a meet thing, that he who believes should have this benefit of Christ assigned to him, but purely from the relation faith has to the person in whom this benefit is to be had, or as it unites to that mediator, in and by whom we are justified. Here, for the greater clearness, I would particularly explain myself under several propositions,

(1.) It is certain that there is some union or relation that the people of Christ stand in to him, that is expressed in Scripture, from time to time, by being in Christ, and is represented frequently by those metaphors of being members of Christ, or being united to him as members to the head, and branches to the stock, and is compared to a marriage union between husband and wife. I do not now pretend to determine of what sort this union is. Nor is it necessary to my present purpose to enter into any manner of disputes about it. If any are disgusted at the word union, as obscure and unintelligible, the word relation equally serves my purpose. I do not now desire to determine any more about it, than all, of all sorts, will readily allow, viz. that there is a peculiar relation between true Christians and Christ, which there is not between him and others, and which is signified by those metaphorical expressions in Scripture, of being in Christ, being members of Christ, etc.

(2.) This relation or union to Christ, whereby Christians are said to be in Christ (whatever it be), is the ground of their right to his benefits. This needs no proof: the reason of the thing, at first blush, demonstrates it. It is exceeding evident also by Scripture, 1 John 5:12, “He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son, hath not life.” 1 Cor. 1:30, “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us — righteousness.” First we must be in him, and then he will be made righteousness or justification to us. Eph. 1:6, “Who hath made us accepted in the beloved.” Our being in him is the ground of our being accepted. So it is in those unions to which the Holy Ghost has thought fit to compare this. The union of the members of the body with the head, is the ground of their partaking of the life of the head. It is the union of the branches to the stock, which is the ground of their partaking of the sap and life of the stock. It is the relation of the wife to the husband, that is the ground of her joint interest in his estate: they are looked upon, in several respects, as one in law. So there is a legal union between Christ and true Christians, so that (as all except Socinians allow) one, in some respects, is accepted for the other by the supreme Judge.

(3.) And thus it is that faith is the qualification in any person that renders it meet in the sight of God that he should be looked upon as having Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness belonging to him, viz. because it is that in him which, on his part, makes up this union between him and Christ. By what has been just now observed, it is a person’s being, according to scripture phrase, in Christ, that is the ground of having his satisfaction and merits belonging to him, and a right to the benefits procured thereby. The reason of it is plain: it is easy to see how our having Christ’s merits and benefits belonging to us, follows from our having (if I may so speak) Christ himself belonging to us, or our being united to him. And if so, it must also be easy to see how, or in what manner, that in a person, which on his part makes up the union between his soul and Christ, should be the things on the account of which God looks on it as meet that he should have Christ’s merits belonging to him. It is a very different thing for God to assign to a particular person a right to Christ’s merits and benefits from regard to a qualification in him in this respect, from his doing it for him out of respect to the value or loveliness of that qualification, or as a reward of its excellency.

As there is nobody but what will allow that there is a peculiar relation between Christ and his true disciples, by which they are in some sense in Scripture said to be one. So I suppose there is nobody but what will allow, that there may be something that the true Christian does on his part, whereby he is active in coming into this relation or union: some uniting act, or that which is done towards this union or relation (or whatever any please to call it) on the Christian’s part. Now faith I suppose to be this act.

I do not now pretend to define justifying faith, or to determine precisely how much is contained in it, but only to determine thus much concerning it, viz. That it is that by which the soul, which before was separate and alienated from Christ, unites itself to him, or ceases to be any longer in that state of alienation, and comes into that forementioned union or relation to him, or, to use the scripture phrase, it is that by which the soul comes to Christ, and receives him. This is evident by the Scriptures using these very expressions to signify faith. John 6:35-39, “He that cometh to me, shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me, shall never thirst. But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me and believe not. All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” Verse 40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up the last day.” — John 5:38-40, “Whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the Scriptures, for — they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life.” Verse 43, 44, “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another?” — John 1:12, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” If it be said that these are obscure figures of speech, which however they might be well understood of old among those who commonly used such metaphors, are with difficulty understood now. I allow, that the expressions of receiving Christ and coming to Christ, are metaphorical expressions. If I should allow them to be obscure metaphors, yet this much at least is certainly plain in them, viz. that faith is that by which those who before were separated, and at a distance from Christ (that is to say, were not so related and united to him as his people are), cease to be any longer at such a distance, and come into that relation and nearness, unless they are so unintelligible, that nothing at all can be understood by them.

God does not give those that believe a union with or an interest in the Savior as a reward for faith, but only because faith is the soul’s active uniting with Christ, or is itself the very act of unition, on their part. God sees it fit, that in order to a union being established between two intelligent active beings or persons, so as that they should be looked upon as one, there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive the other, as actively joining themselves one to another. God, in requiring this in order to an union with Christ as one of his people, treats men as reasonable creatures, capable of act and choice, and hence sees it fit that they only who are one with Christ by their own act, should be looked upon as one in law. What is real in the union between Christ and his people, is the foundation of what is legal: that is, it is something really in them, and between them, uniting them, that is the ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as one by the judge. And if there be any act or qualification in believers of that uniting nature, that it is meet on that account the judge should look upon them and accept them as one, no wonder that upon the account of the same act or qualification, he should accept the satisfaction and merits of the one for the other, as if these were their own satisfaction and merits. This necessarily follows, or rather is implied.

And thus it is that faith justifies, or gives an interest in Christ’s satisfaction and merits, and a right to the benefits procured thereby, viz. as it thus makes Christ and the believer one in the acceptance of the supreme Judge. It is by faith that we have a title to eternal life, because it is by faith that we have the Son of God, by whom life is. The apostle John in these words, 1 John 5:12, “He that hath the Son hath life,” seems evidently to have respect to those words of Christ, of which he gives an account in his gospel, chap. 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life.” And where the Scripture speaks of faith as the soul’s receiving or coming to Christ, it also speaks of this receiving, coming to, or joining with Christ, as the ground of an interest in his benefits. To as many as received him, “to them gave he power” to become the sons of God. Ye will not come unto me, “that ye might have life.” And there is a wide difference between its being suitable that Christ’s satisfaction and merits should be theirs who believe, because an interest in that satisfaction and merit is a fit reward of faith — or a suitable testimony of God’s respect to the amiableness and excellency of that grace — and its being suitable that Christ’s satisfaction and merits should be theirs, because Christ and they are so united, that in the eyes of the Judge they may be looked upon and taken as one.

Although, on account of faith in the believer, it is in the sight of God fit and congruous, both that he who believes should be looked upon as in Christ, and also as having an interest in his merits, in the way that has been now explained. Yet it appears that this is very wide from a merit of congruity, or indeed any moral congruity at all to either. There is a twofold fitness to a state. I know not how to give them distinguishing names, otherwise than by calling the one a moral, and the other a natural fitness. A person has a moral fitness for a state, when his moral excellency commends him to it, or when his being put into such a good state is but a suitable testimony of regard to the moral excellency, or value, or amiableness of any of his qualifications or acts. A person has a natural fitness for a state, when it appears meet and condecent that he should be in such a state or circumstances, only from the natural concord or agreeableness there is between such qualifications and such circumstances: not because the qualifications are lovely or unlovely, but only because the qualifications and the circumstances are like one another, or do in their nature suit and agree or unite one to another. And it is on this latter account only that God looks on it fit by a natural fitness, that he whose heart sincerely unites itself to Christ as his Savior, should be looked upon as united to that Savior, and so having an interest in him, and not from any moral fitness there is between the excellency of such a qualification as faith, and such a glorious blessedness as the having an interest in Christ. God’s bestowing Christ and his benefits on a soul in consequence of faith, out of regard only to the natural concord there is between such a qualification of a soul, and such a union with Christ, and interest in him, makes the case very widely different from what it would be, if he bestowed this from regard to any moral suitableness. For, in the former case, it is only from God’s love of order that he bestows these things on the account of faith: in the latter, God does it out of love to the grace of faith itself. — God will neither look on Christ’s merits as ours, nor adjudge his benefits to us, till we be in Christ. Nor will he look upon us as being in him, without an active unition of our hearts and souls to him, because he is a wise being, and delights in order and not in confusion, and that things should be together or asunder according to their nature. His making such a constitution is a testimony of his love of order. Whereas if it were out of regard to any moral fitness or suitableness between faith and such blessedness, it would be a testimony of his love to the act or qualification itself. The one supposes this divine constitution to be a manifestation of God’s regard to the beauty of the act of faith. The other only supposes it to be a manifestation of his regard to the beauty of that order that there is in uniting those things that have a natural agreement and congruity, and unition of the one with the other. Indeed a moral suitableness or fitness to a state includes a natural. For, if there be a moral suitableness that a person should be in such a state, there is also a natural suitableness, but such a natural suitableness, as I have described, by no means necessarily includes a moral.

This is plainly what our divines intend when they say, that faith does not justify as a work, or a righteousness, viz. that it does not justify as a part of our moral goodness or excellency, or that it does not justify as man was to have been justified by the covenant of works, which was, to have a title to eternal life given him of God, in testimony of his pleasedness with his works, or his regard to the inherent excellency and beauty of his obedience. And this is certainly what the apostle Paul means, when he so much insists upon it, that we are not justified by works, viz. that we are not justified by them as good works, or by any goodness, value, or excellency of our works. For the proof of this I shall at present mention but one thing, and that is, the apostle from time to time speaking of our not being justified by works, as the thing that excludes all boasting, Eph. 2:9, Rom. 3:27, and chap. 4:2. Now which way do works give occasion for boasting, but as good? What do men use to boast of, but of something they suppose good or excellent? And on what account do they boast of anything, but for the supposed excellency that is in it?

From these things we may learn in what manner faith is the only condition of justification and salvation. For though it be not the only condition, so as alone truly to have the place of a condition in a hypothetical proposition, in which justification and salvation are the consequent. Yet it is the condition of justification in a manner peculiar to it, and so that nothing else has a parallel influence with it, because faith includes the whole act of unition to Christ as a Savior. The entire active uniting of the soul, or the whole of what is called coming to Christ, and receiving of him, is called faith in Scripture. However other things may be no less excellent than faith, yet it is not the nature of any other graces or virtues directly to close with Christ as a mediator, any further than they enter into the constitution of justifying faith, and do belong to its nature.

Thus I have explained my meaning, in asserting it as a doctrine of the gospel, that we are justified by faith only, without any manner of goodness of our own.

I now proceed,

II. To the proof of it, which I shall endeavor to produce in the following arguments.

First, such is our case, and the state of things, that neither faith, nor any other qualifications, or act or course of acts, does or can render it suitable that a person should have an interest in the Savior, and so a title to his benefits, on account of an excellency therein, or any other way, than as something in him may unite him to the Savior. It is not suitable that God should give fallen man an interest in Christ and his merits, as a testimony of his respect to anything whatsoever as a loveliness in him, and that because it is not meet, till a sinner is actually justified, than anything in him should be accepted of God, as any excellency or amiableness of his person. Or that God, by any act, should in any manner or degree testify any pleasedness with him, or favor towards him, on the account of anything inherent in him, and that for two reasons:

1. The nature of things will not admit of it. And this appears from the infinite guilt that the sinner till justified is under, which arises from the infinite evil or heinousness of sin. But because this is what some deny, I would therefore first establish that point, and show that sin is a thing that is indeed properly of infinite heinousness, and then show the consequence that it cannot be suitable, till the sinner is actually justified, that God should by any act testify pleasedness with or acceptance of any excellency or amiableness of his person.

That the evil and demerit of sin is infinitely great, is most demonstrably evident, because what the evil or iniquity of sin consists in, is the violating of an obligation, or doing what we should not do. Therefore by how much the greater the obligation is that is violated, by so much the greater is the iniquity of the violation. But certainly our obligation to love or honor any being is great in proportion to the greatness or excellency of that being, or his worthiness to be loved and honored. We are under greater obligations to love a more lovely being than a less lovely. If a being be infinitely excellent and lovely, our obligations to love him are therein infinitely great. The matter is so plain, it seems needless to say much about it.

Some have argued exceeding strangely against the infinite evil of sin, from its being committed against an infinite object, that then it may as well be argued, that there is also an infinite value or worthiness in holiness and love to God, because that also has an infinite object. Whereas the argument, from parity of reason, will carry it in the reverse. The sin of the creature against God is ill-deserving in proportion to the distance there is between God and the creature. The greatness of the object, and the meanness of the subject, aggravates it. But it is the reverse with regard to the worthiness of the respect of the creature of God. It is worthless (and not worthy) in proportion to the meanness of the subject. So much the greater the distance between God and the creature, so much the less is the creature’s respect worthy of God’s notice or regard. The unworthiness of sin or opposition to God rises and is great in proportion to the dignity of the object and inferiority of the subject. But on the contrary, the value of respect rises in proportion to the value of the subject, and that for this plain reason, viz. that the evil of disrespect is in proportion to the obligation that lies upon the subject to the object, which obligation is most evidently increased by the excellency and superiority of the object. But on the contrary, the worthiness of respect to a being is in proportion to the obligation that lies on him who is the object (or rather the reason he has), to regard the subject, which certainly is in proportion to the subject’s value or excellency. Sin or disrespect is evil or heinous in proportion to the degree of what it denies in the object, and as it were takes from it, viz. its excellency and worthiness of respect. On the contrary, respect is valuable in proportion to the value of what is given to the object in that respect, which undoubtedly (other things being equal) is great in proportion to the subject’s value, or worthiness of regard, because the subject in giving his respect, can give no more than himself. So far as he gives his respect, he gives himself to the object, and therefore his gift is of greater or lesser value in proportion to the value of himself.

Hence (by the way) the love, honor, and obedience of Christ towards God, has infinite value, from the excellency and dignity of the person in whom these qualifications were inherent. The reason why we needed a person of infinite dignity to obey for us, was because of our infinite comparative meanness, who had disobeyed, whereby our disobedience was infinitely aggravated. We needed one, the worthiness of whose obedience might be answerable to the unworthiness of our disobedience, and therefore needed one who was as great and worthy as we were unworthy.

Another objection (that perhaps may be thought hardly worth mentioning) is, that to suppose sin to be infinitely heinous, is to make all sins equally heinous: for how can any sin be more than infinitely heinous? But all that can be argued hence is, that no sin can be greater with respect to that aggravation, the worthiness of the object against whom it is committed. One sin cannot be more aggravated than another in that respect, because the aggravation of every sin is infinite, but that does not hinder that some sins may be more heinous than others in other respects: as if we should suppose a cylinder infinitely long, cannot be greater in that respect, viz. with respect to the length of it. But yet it may be doubled and trebled, and make a thousand-fold more, by the increase of other dimensions. Of sins that are all infinitely heinous, some may be more heinous than others, as well as of divers punishments that are all infinitely dreadful calamities, or all of them infinitely exceeding all finite calamities, so that there is no finite calamity, however great, but what is infinitely less dreadful, or more eligible than any of them. Yet some of them may be a thousand times more dreadful than others. A punishment may be infinitely dreadful by reason of the infinite duration of it, and therefore cannot be greater with respect to that aggravation of it, viz. its length of continuance, but yet may be vastly more terrible on other accounts.

Having thus, as I imagine, made it clear that all sin is infinitely heinous, and consequently that the sinner, before he is justified, is under infinite guilt in God’s sight, it now remains that I show the consequence, or how it follows from hence, that it is not suitable that God should give the sinner an interest in Christ’s merits, and so a title to his benefits, from regard to any qualification, or act, or course of acts in him, on the account of any excellency or goodness whatsoever therein, but only as uniting to Christ; or (which fully implies it) that it is not suitable that God, by any act, should, in any manner or degree, testify any acceptance of, or pleasedness with anything, as any virtue, or excellency, or any part of loveliness, or valuableness in his person, until he is actually already interested in Christ’s merits. From the premises it follows, that before the sinner is already interested in Christ, and justified, it is impossible God should have any acceptance of, or pleasedness with the person of the sinner, as in any degree lovely in his sight, or indeed less the object of his displeasure and wrath. For, by the supposition, the sinner still remains infinitely guilty in the sight of God, for guilt is not removed but by pardon. But to suppose the sinner already pardoned, is to suppose him already justified, which is contrary to the supposition. But if the sinner still remains infinitely guilty in God’s sight, that is the same thing as still to be beheld of God as infinitely the object of his displeasure and wrath, or infinitely hateful in his eyes. If so, where is any room for anything in him, to be accepted as some valuableness or acceptability of him in God’s sight, or for any act of favor of any kind towards him, or any gift whatsoever to him, in testimony of God’s respect to and acceptance of something of him lovely and pleasing? If we should suppose that a sinner could have faith, or some other grace in his heart, and yet remain separate from Christ, and that he is not looked upon as being in Christ, or having any relation to him, it would not be meet that such true grace should be accepted of God as any loveliness of his person in the sight of God. If it should be accepted as the loveliness of the person, that would be to accept the person as in some degree lovely to God. But this cannot be consistent with his still remaining under infinite guilt, or infinite unworthiness in God’s sight, which that goodness has no worthiness to balance. — While God beholds the man as separate from Christ, he must behold him as he is in himself, and so his goodness cannot be beheld by God, but as taken with his guilt and hatefulness, and as put in the scales with it. So his goodness is nothing, because there is a finite on the balance against an infinite whose proportion to it is nothing. In such a case, if the man be looked on as he is in himself, the excess of the weight in one scale above another, must be looked upon as the quality of the man. These contraries being beheld together, one takes from another, as one number is subtracted from another, and the man must be looked upon in God’s sight according to the remainder. For here, by the supposition, all acts of grace or favor, in not imputing the guilt as it is, are excluded, because that supposes a degree of pardon, and that supposes justification, which is contrary to what is supposed, viz. that the sinner is not already justified. Therefore things must be taken strictly as they are, and so the man is still infinitely unworthy and hateful in God’s sight, as he was before, without diminution, because his goodness bears no proportion to his unworthiness, and therefore when taken together is nothing.

Hence may be more clearly seen the force of that expression in the text, of believing on him that justifieth the ungodly. For though there is indeed something in man that is really and spiritually good, prior to justification, yet there is nothing that is accepted as any godliness or excellency of the person, till after justification. Goodness or loveliness of the person in the acceptance of God, in any degree, is not to be considered as prior but posterior in the order and method of God’s proceeding in this affair. Though a respect to the natural suitableness between such a qualification, and such a state, does go before justification, yet the acceptance even of faith as any goodness or loveliness of the believer, follows justification. The goodness is on the forementioned account justly looked upon as nothing, until the man is justified: And therefore the man is respected in justification, as in himself altogether hateful. Thus the nature of things will not admit of a man having an interest given him in the merits or benefits of a Savior, on the account of anything as a righteousness, or a virtue, or excellency in him.

2. A divine constitution antecedent to that which establishes justification by a Savior (and indeed to any need of a Savior), stands in the way of it, viz. that original constitution or law which man was put under, by which constitution or law the sinner is condemned, because he is a violator of that law, and stands condemned, till he has actually an interest in the Savior, through whom he is set at liberty from that condemnation. But to suppose that God gives a man an interest in Christ in reward for his righteousness or virtue, is inconsistent with his still remaining under condemnation till he has an interest in Christ, because it supposes, that the sinner’s virtue is accepted, and he accepted for it, before he has an interest in Christ, inasmuch as an interest in Christ is given as a reward of his virtue. But the virtue must first be accepted, before it is rewarded, and the man must first be accepted for his virtue before he is rewarded for it with so great and glorious a reward. For the very notion of a reward, is some good bestowed in testimony of respect to and acceptance of virtue in the person rewarded. It does not consist with the honor of the majesty of the King of heaven and earth, to accept of anything from a condemned malefactor, condemned by the justice of his own holy law, till that condemnation be removed. And then, such acceptance is inconsistent with, and contradictory to such remaining condemnation, for the law condemns him that violates it, to be totally rejected and cast off by God. But how can a man continue under this condemnation, i. e. continue utterly rejected and cast off by God, and yet his righteousness or virtue be accepted, and he himself accepted on the account of it, so as to have so glorious a reward as an interest in Christ bestowed as a testimony of that acceptance?

I know that the answer will be that we now are not subject to that constitution which mankind were at first put under, but that God, in mercy to mankind, has abolished that rigorous constitution, and put us under a new law, and introduced a more mild constitution, and that the constitution or law itself not remaining, there is no need of supposing that the condemnation of it remains, to stand in the way of the acceptance of our virtue. And indeed there is no other way of avoiding this difficulty. The condemnation of the law must stand in force against a man, till he is actually interested in the Savior who has satisfied and answered the law, so as effectually to prevent any acceptance of his virtue, either before, or in order to such an interest, unless the law or constitution itself be abolished. But the scheme of those modern divines by whom this is maintained, seems to contain a great deal of absurdity and self-contradiction. They hold that the old law given to Adam, which requires perfect obedience, is entirely repealed, and that instead of it we are put under a new law, which requires no more than imperfect sincere obedience, in compliance with our poor, infirm, impotent circumstances since the fall, whereby we are unable to perform that perfect obedience that was required by the first law. For they strenuously maintain, that it would be unjust in God to require anything of us that is beyond our present power and ability to perform, and yet they hold, that Christ died to satisfy for the imperfections of our obedience, that so our imperfect obedience might be accepted instead of perfect. Now, how can these things hang together? I would ask what law these imperfections of our obedience are a breach of? If they are a breach of no law, then they are not sins, and if they be not sins, what need of Christ’s dying to satisfy for them? But if they are sins, and so the breach of some law, what law is it? They cannot be a breach of their new law, for that requires no other than imperfect obedience, or obedience with imperfections. They cannot be a breach of the old law, for that they say is entirely abolished, and we never were under it, and we cannot break a law that we never were under. They say it would not be just in God to exact of us perfect obedience, because it would not be just in God to require more of us than we can perform in our present state, and to punish us for failing of it. Therefore by their own scheme, the imperfections of our obedience do not deserve to be punished. What need therefore of Christ’s dying to satisfy for them? What need of Christ’s suffering to satisfy for that which is no fault, and in its own nature deserves no suffering? What need of Christ’s dying to purchase that our imperfect obedience should be accepted, when according to their scheme it would be unjust in itself that any other obedience than imperfect should be required? What need of Christ’s dying to make way for God’s accepting such an obedience, as it would in itself be unjust in him not to accept? Is there any need of Christ’s dying to persuade God not to do unjustly? If it be said that Christ died to satisfy that law for us, that so we might not be under that law, but might be delivered from it, that so there might be room for us to be under a more mild law, still I would inquire, What need of Christ’s dying that we might not be under a law that (according to their scheme) it would in itself be unjust that we should be under, because in our present state we are not able to keep it? What need of Christ’s dying that we might not be under a law that it would be unjust that we should be under, whether Christ died or no?

Thus far I have argued principally from reason, and the nature of things: — I proceed now to the

Second argument, which is that this is a doctrine which the Holy Scriptures, the revelation that God has given us of his mind and will — by which alone we can never come to know how those who have offended God can come to be accepted of him, and justified in his sight — is exceeding full. The apostle Paul is abundant in teaching, that “we are justified by faith alone, without the works of the law.” (Rom. 3:28; 4:5; 5:1; Gal. 2:16; 3:8; 3:11; 3:24) There is no one doctrine that he insists so much upon, and that he handles with so much distinctness, explaining, giving reasons and answering objections.

Here it is not denied by any, that the apostle does assert that we are justified by faith, without the works of the law, because the words are express. But only it is said that we take his words wrong, and understand that by them that never entered into his heart, in that when he excludes the works of the law, we understand him of the whole law of God, or the rule which he has given to mankind to walk by: whereas all that he intends is the ceremonial law.

Some that oppose this doctrine indeed say that the apostle sometimes means that it is by faith, i.e. a hearty embracing the gospel in its first act only, or without any preceding holy life, that persons are admitted into a justified state. But say they, it is by a persevering obedience that they are continued in a justified state, and it is by this that they are finally justified. But this is the same thing as to say, that a man on his first embracing the gospel is conditionally justified and pardoned. To pardon sin is to free the sinner from the punishment of it, or from that eternal misery that is due it. Therefore if a person is pardoned, or freed from this misery, on his first embracing the gospel, and yet not finally freed, but his actual freedom still depends on some condition yet to be performed, it is inconceivable how he can be pardoned otherwise than conditionally: that is, he is not properly actually pardoned, and freed from punishment, but only he has God’s promise that he shall be pardoned on future conditions. God promises him, that now, if he perseveres in obedience, he shall be finally pardoned or actually freed from hell, which is to make just nothing at all of the apostle’s great doctrine of justification by faith alone. Such a conditional pardon is no pardon or justification at all any more than all mankind have, whether they embrace the gospel or no. For they all have a promise of final justification on conditions of future sincere obedience, as much as he that embraces the gospel. But not to dispute about this, we will suppose that there may be something or other at the sinner’s first embracing the gospel, that may properly be called justification or pardon, and yet that final justification, or real freedom from the punishment of sin, is still suspended on conditions hitherto unfulfilled. Yet they who hold that sinners are thus justified on embracing the gospel, suppose that they are justified by this, no otherwise than as it is a leading act of obedience, or at least as virtue and moral goodness in them, and therefore would be excluded by the apostle as much as any other virtue or obedience, if it be allowed that he means the moral law, when he excludes works of the law. And therefore, if that point be yielded, that the apostle means the moral, and not only the ceremonial, law, their whole scheme falls to the ground.

And because the issue of the whole argument from those texts in St. Paul’s epistles depends on the determination of this point, I would be particular in the discussion of it.

Some of our opponents in this doctrine of justification, when they deny that by the law the apostle means the moral law or the whole rule of life which God has given to mankind, seem to choose to express themselves thus: that the apostle only intends the Mosaic dispensation. But this comes to just the same thing as if they said that the apostle only means to exclude the works of the ceremonial law. For when they say that it is intended only that we are not justified by the works of the Mosaic dispensation, if they mean anything by it, it must be, that we are not justified by attending and observing what is Mosaic in that dispensation, or by what was peculiar to it, and wherein it differed from the Christian dispensation, which is the same as that which is ceremonial and positive, and not moral, in that administration. So that this is what I have to disprove, viz. that the apostle, when he speaks of works of the law in this affair, means only works of the ceremonial law, or those observances that were peculiar to the Mosaic administration.

And here it must be noted, that nobody controverts it with them, whether the works of the ceremonial law be not included, or whether the apostle does not particularly argue against justification by circumcision, and other ceremonial observances. But all in question is whether when he denies justification by works of the law, he is to be understood only of the ceremonial law, or whether the moral law be not also implied and intended. And therefore those arguments which are brought to prove that the apostle meant the ceremonial law, are nothing to the purpose, unless they prove that the apostle meant those only.

What is much insisted on is that it was the judaizing Christians being so fond of circumcision and other ceremonies of the law, and depending so much on them, which was the very occasion of the apostle’s writing as he does against justification by the works of the law. But supposing it were so, that their trusting in works of the ceremonial law were the sole occasion of the apostle’s writing (which yet there is no reason to allow, as may appear afterwards), if their trusting in a particular work, as a work of righteousness, was all that gave occasion to the apostle to write, how does it follow, that therefore the apostle did not upon that occasion write against trusting in all works of righteousness whatsoever? Where is the absurdity of supposing that the apostle might take occasion, from his observing some to trust in a certain work as trusting in any works of righteousness at all, and that it was a very proper occasion too? Yea, it would have been unavoidable for the apostle to have argued against trusting in a particular work, in the quality of a work of righteousness, which quality was general, but he must therein argue against trusting in works of righteousness in general. Supposing it had been some other particular sort of works that was the occasion of the apostle’s writing, as for instance, works of charity, and the apostle should hence take occasion to write to them not to trust in their works, could the apostle by that be understood of no other works besides works of charity? Would it have been absurd to understand him as writing against trusting in any work at all, because it was their trusting to a particular work that gave occasion to his writing?

Another thing alleged, as an evidence that the apostle means the ceremonial law — when he says, we cannot be justified by the works of the law — is that he uses this argument to prove it, viz. that the law he speaks of was given so long after the covenant with Abraham, in Gal. 3:17, “And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul.” But, say they, it was only the Mosaic administration, and not the covenant of works, that was given so long after. But the apostle’s argument seems manifestly to be mistaken by them. The apostle does not speak of a law that began to exist four hundred and thirty years after. If he did, there would be some force in their objection, but he has respect to a certain solemn transaction, well known among the Jews by the phrase “the giving of the law,” which was at Mount Sinai (Exo. 19, 20) consisting especially in God’s giving the ten commandments (which is the moral law) with a terrible voice, which law he afterwards gave in tables of stone. This transaction the Jews in the apostle’s time misinterpreted. They looked upon it as God’s establishing that law as a rule of justification. Against this conceit of theirs the apostle brings this invincible argument, viz. that God would never go about to disannul his covenant with Abraham, which was plainly a covenant of grace, by a transaction with his posterity, that was so long after it, and was plainly built upon it. He would not overthrow a covenant of grace that he had long before established with Abraham, for him and his seed (which is often mentioned as the ground of God’s making them his people), by now establishing a covenant of works with them at Mount Sinai, as the Jews and judaizing Christians supposed.

But that the apostle does not mean only works of the ceremonial law, when he excludes works of the law in justification, but also of the moral law, and all works of obedience, virtue, and righteousness whatsoever, may appear by the following things.

1. The apostle does not only say that we are not justified by the works of the law, but that we are not justified by works, using a general term, as in our text, “to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth,” etc.; and in the 6th verse, “God imputeth righteousness without works;” and Rom. 11:6, “And if by grace, then is it 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.” So, Eph. 2:8, 9, “For by grace are ye saved, through faith, — not of works;” by which, there is no reason in the world to understand the apostle of any other than works in general, as correlates of a reward, or good works, or works of virtue and righteousness. When the apostle says, we are justified or saved not by works, without any such term annexed, as the law, or any other addition to limit the expression, what warrant have any to confine it to works of a particular law or institution, excluding others? Are not observances of other divine laws works, as well as of that? It seems to be allowed by the divines in the Arminian scheme, in their interpretation of several of those texts where the apostle only mentions works, without any addition, that he means our own good works in general. But then, they say, he only means to exclude any proper merit in those works. But to say the apostle means one thing when he says, we are not justified by works, and another when he says, we are not justified by the works of the law, when we find the expressions mixed and used in the same discourse, and when the apostle is evidently upon the same argument, is very unreasonable. It is to dodge and fly from Scripture, rather than open and yield ourselves to its teachings.

2. In the third chapter of Romans, our having been guilty of breaches of the moral law, is an argument that the apostle uses, why we cannot be justified by the works of the Old Testament, that all are under sin: “There is none righteous, no not one: their throat is as an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit: their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; and their feet swift to shed blood.” And so he goes on, mentioning only those things that are breaches of the moral law. And then when he has done, his conclusion is, in the 19th and 20th verses, “Now we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore, by the deeds of the law, shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” This is most evidently his argument, because all had sinned (as it was said in the 9th verse), and been guilty of those breaches of the moral law that he had mentioned (and it is repeated over again, verse 23), “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” therefore none at all can be justified by the deeds of the law. Now if the apostle meant only, that we are not justified by the deeds of the ceremonial law, what kind of arguing would that be, “Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet are swift to shed blood?” therefore they cannot be justified by the deeds of the Mosaic administration. They are guilty of the breaches of the moral law, and therefore they cannot be justified by the deeds of the ceremonial law! Doubtless, the apostle’s argument is that the very same law they have broken, can never justify them as observers of it, because every law necessarily condemns it violators. And therefore our breaches of the moral law argue no more, than that we cannot be justified by that law we have broken.

And it may be noted, that the apostle’s argument here is the same that I have already used, viz. that as we are in ourselves, and out of Christ, we are under the condemnation of that original law or constitution that God established with mankind. And therefore it is no way fit that anything we do, any virtue or obedience of ours, should be accepted, or we accepted on the account of it.

3. The apostle, in all the preceding part of this epistle, wherever he has the phrase, the law, evidently intends the moral law principally. As in the 12th verse of the foregoing chapter: “For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law.” It is evidently the written moral law the apostle means, by the next verse but one, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law;” that is, the moral law that the Gentiles have by nature. And so the next verse, “Which show the work of the law written in their hearts.” It is the moral law, and not the ceremonial, that is written in the hearts of those who are destitute of divine revelation. And so in the 18th verse, “Thou approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law.” It is the moral law that shows us the nature of things, and teaches us what is excellent, 20th verse, “Thou hast a form of knowledge and truth in the law.” It is the moral law, as is evident by what follows, verse 22, 23, “Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law, dishonourest thou God?” Adultery, idolatry, and sacrilege, surely are the breaking of the moral, and not the ceremonial law. So in the 27th verse, “And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?” i.e. the Gentiles, that you despise because uncircumcised, if they live moral and holy lives, in obedience to the moral law, shall condemn you though circumcised. And so there is not one place in all the preceding part of the epistle, where the apostle speaks of the law, but that he most apparently intends principally the moral law. And yet when the apostle, in continuance of the same discourse, comes to tell us, that we cannot be justified by the works of the law, then they will needs have it, that he means only the ceremonial law. Yea, though all this discourse about the moral law, showing how the Jews as well as Gentiles have violated it, is evidently preparatory and introductory to that doctrine, Rom. 3:20, “That no flesh,” that is, none of mankind, neither Jews nor Gentiles, “can be justified by the works of the law.”

4. It is evident that when the apostle says, we cannot be justified by the works of the law, he means the moral as well as ceremonial law, by his giving this reason for it, that “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” as Rom. 3:20, “By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Now that law by which we come to the knowledge of sin, is the moral law chiefly and primarily. If this argument of the apostle be good, “that we cannot be justified by the deeds of the law, because it is by the law that we come to the knowledge of sin;” then it proves that we cannot be justified by the deeds of the moral law, nor by the precepts of Christianity; for by them is the knowledge of sin. If the reason be good, then where the reason holds, the truth holds. It is a miserable shift, and a violent force put upon the words, to say that the meaning is, that by the law of circumcision is the knowledge of sin, because circumcision signifying the taking away of sin, puts men in mind of sin. The plain meaning of the apostle is that as the law most strictly forbids sin, it tends to convince us of sin, and bring our own consciences to condemn us, instead of justifying of us: that the use of it is to declare to us our own guilt and unworthiness, which is the reverse of justifying and approving of us as virtuous or worthy. This is the apostle’s meaning, if we will allow him to be his own expositor. For he himself, in this very epistle, explains to us how it is that by the law we have the knowledge of sin, and that it is by the law’s forbidding sin, Rom. 7:7, “I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” There the apostle determines two things: first, that the way in which “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” is by the law’s forbidding sin, and secondly, which is more directly still to the purpose, he determines that it is the moral law by which we come to the knowledge of sin. “For,” says he, “I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Now it is the moral, and not the ceremonial law, that says, “Thou shalt not covet.” Therefore, when the apostle argues that by the deeds of the law no flesh living shall be justified, because by the law is the knowledge of sin, his argument proves (unless he was mistaken as to the force of his argument), that we cannot be justified by the deeds of the moral law.

5. It is evident that the apostle does not mean only the ceremonial law, because he gives this reason why we have righteousness, and a title to the privilege of God’s children, not by the law, but by faith, “that the law worketh wrath.” Rom. 4:13-16, “For the promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed through the law, but through righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace.” Now the way in which the law works wrath, by the apostle’s own account, in the reason he himself annexes, is by forbidding sin, and aggravating the guilt of the transgression. “For,” says he, “where no law is, there is no transgression:” And so, Rom. 7:13, “That sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” If, therefore, this reason of the apostle be good, it is much stronger against justification by the moral law than the ceremonial law. For it is by transgressions of the moral law chiefly that there comes wrath: for they are most strictly forbidden, and most terribly threatened.

6. It is evident that when the apostle says, we are not justified by the works of the law, that he excludes all our own virtue, goodness, or excellency, by that reason he gives for it, viz. “That boasting might be excluded.” Rom. 3:26, 27, 28, “To declare, I say, 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.” Eph. 2:8, 9, “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.” Now what are men wont to boast of, but what they esteem their own goodness or excellency? If we are not justified by works of the ceremonial law, yet how does that exclude boasting, as long as we are justified by our own excellency, or virtue and goodness of our own, or works of righteousness which we have done?

But it is said, that boasting is excluded, as circumcision was excluded, which was what the Jews especially used to glory in, and value themselves upon, above other nations.

To this I answer, that the Jews were not only used to boast of circumcision, but were notorious for boasting of their moral righteousness. The Jews of those days were generally admirers and followers of the Pharisees, who were full of their boasts of their moral righteousness; as we may see by the example of the Pharisee mentioned in the 18th of Luke, which Christ mentions as describing the general temper of that sect: “Lord,” says he, “I thank thee, that I am not as other men, an extortioner, nor unjust, nor an adulterer.” The works that he boasts of were chiefly moral works: he depended on the works of the law for justification. And therefore Christ tells us, that the publican, that renounced all his own righteousness, “went down to his house justified rather than he.” And elsewhere, we read of the Pharisees praying in the corners of the streets, and sounding a trumpet before them when they did alms. But those works which they so vainly boasted of were moral works. And not only so, but what the apostle in this very epistle condemns the Jews for, is their boasting of the moral law. Rom. 2:22, 23, “Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, do thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law, dishonourest thou God?” The law here mentioned that they made their boast of, was that of which adultery, idolatry, and sacrilege, were the breaches, which is the moral law. So that this is the boasting which the apostle condemns them for. And therefore, if they were justified by the works of this law, then how comes he to say that their boasting is excluded? And besides, when they boasted of the rites of the ceremonial law, it was under a notion of its being a part of their own goodness or excellency, or what made them holier and more lovely in the sight of God than other people. If they were not justified by this part of their own supposed goodness or holiness, yet if they were by another, how did that exclude boasting? How was their boasting excluded, unless all goodness or excellency of their own was excluded

7. The reason given by the apostle why we can be justified only by faith, and not by the works of the law, in the 3d chapter of Galations viz. “That they that are under the law, are under the curse,” makes it evident that he does not mean only the ceremonial law. In that chapter the apostle had particularly insisted upon it, that Abraham was justified by faith, and that it is by faith only, and not by the works of the law, that we can be justified, and become the children of Abraham, and be made partakers of the blessing of Abraham: and he gives this reason for it in the 10th verse: “For as many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” It is manifest that these words, cited from Deuteronomy, are spoken not only with regard to the ceremonial law, but the whole law of God to mankind and chiefly the moral law, and that all mankind are therefore as they are in themselves under the curse, not only while the ceremonial law lasted, but now since that has ceased. And therefore all who are justified, are redeemed from that curse, by Christ’s bearing it for them; as in verse 13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” Now therefore, either its being said that he is cursed who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them, is a good reason why we cannot be justified by the works of that law of which it is so said, or it is not: if it be, then it is a good reason why we cannot be justified by the works of the moral law, and of the whole rule which God has given to mankind to walk by. For the words are spoken of the moral as well as the ceremonial law, and reach every command or precept which God has given to mankind, and chiefly the moral precepts, which are most strictly enjoined, and the violations of which in both the New Testament and the Old, and in the books of Moses themselves, are threatened with the most dreadful curse.

8. The apostle in like manner argues against our being justified by our own righteousness, as he does against being justified by the works of the law; and evidently uses the expressions, of our own righteousness, and works of the law, promiscuously, and as signifying the same thing. It is particularly evident by Rom. 10:3, “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” Here it is plain that the same thing is asserted as in the two last verses but one of the foregoing chapter, “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? because they sought it, not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.” And it is very unreasonable, upon several accounts, to suppose that the apostle, by their own righteousness, intends only their ceremonial righteousness. For when the apostle warns us against trusting in our own righteousness of justification, doubtless it is fair to interpret the expression in an agreement with other scriptures. Here we are warned, not to think that it is for the sake of our own righteousness that we obtain God’s favor and blessing: as particularly in Deu. 9:4-6, “Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the Lord thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the Lord hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord doth drive them out from before thee. Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations, the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which he sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Understand therefore, that the Lord thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it, for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiff-necked people.” None will pretend that here the expression thy righteousness, signifies only a ceremonial righteousness, but all virtue or goodness of their own — yea, and the inward goodness of the heart, as well as the outward goodness of life; which appears by the beginning of the 5th verse, “Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thy heart;” and also by the antithesis in the 6th verse, “Not for thy righteousness, for thou art a stiff-necked people.” Their stiff-neckedness was their moral wickedness, obstinacy, and perverseness of heart. By righteousness, therefore, on the contrary, is meant their moral virtue, and rectitude of heart and life. This is what I would argue from hence, that the expression of our own righteousness, when used in Scripture with relation to the favor of God — and when we are warned against looking upon it as that by which that favor, or the fruits of it, are obtained — does not signify only a ceremonial righteousness, but all manner of goodness of our own.

The Jews also, in the New Testament, are condemned for trusting in their own righteousness in this sense, Luke 18:9, etc. “And he spake this parable unto certain that trusted in themselves that they were righteous.” This intends chiefly a moral righteousness, as appears by the parable itself, in which we have an account of the prayer of the Pharisee, wherein the things that he mentions as what he trusts in, are chiefly moral qualifications and performances, viz. that he was not an extortioner, unjust, nor an adulterer, etc.

But we need not go to the writings of other penmen of the Scripture. If we will allow the apostle Paul to be his own interpreter, he — when he speaks of our own righteousness as that by which we are not justified or saved — does not mean only a ceremonial righteousness, nor does he only intend a way of religion and serving God, of our own choosing, without divine warrant or prescription. But by our own righteousness he means the same as a righteousness of our own doing, whether it be a service or righteousness of God’s prescribing, or our own unwarranted performing. Let it be an obedience to the ceremonial law, or a gospel obedience, or what it will: if it be a righteousness of our own doing, it is excluded by the apostle in this affair, as is evident by Tit. 3:5, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done.” — But I would more particularly insist on this text; and therefore this may be the

9th argument: that the apostle, when he denies justification by works, works of the law, and our own righteousness, does not mean works of the ceremonial law only. Tit. 3:3-7, “For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward men appeared, 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.” Works of righteousness that we have done are here excluded, as what we are neither saved nor justified by. The apostle expressly says, we are not saved by them, and it is evident that when he says this, he has respect to the affair of justification. And that he means, we are not saved by them in not being justified by them, as by the next verse but one, which is part of the same sentence, “That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

It is several ways manifest, that the apostle in this text, by “works of righteousness which we have done,” does not mean only works of the ceremonial law. It appears by the 3d verse, “For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.” These are breaches of the moral law, that the apostle observes they lived in before they were justified: and it is most plain that it is this which gives occasion to the apostle to observe, as he does in the 5th verse, that is was not by works of righteousness which they had done, that they were saved or justified.

But we need not go to the context, it is most apparent from the words themselves, that the apostle does not mean only works of the ceremonial law. If he had only said, it is not by our own works of righteousness. What could we understand by works of righteousness, but only righteous works, or, which is the same thing, good works? And not say, that it is by our own righteous works that we are justified, though not by one particular kind of righteous works, would certainly be a contradiction to such an assertion. But, the works are rendered yet more strong, plain, and determined in their sense, by those additional words, which we have done, which shows that the apostle intends to exclude all our own righteous or virtuous works universally. If it should be asserted concerning any commodity, treasure, or precious jewel, that it could not be procured by money, and not only so, but to make the assertion the more strong, it should be asserted with additional words, that it could not be procured by money that men possess, how unreasonable would it be, after all, to say that all that was meant was, that it could not be procured with brass money.

And what renders the interpreting of this text, as intending works of the ceremonial law, yet more unreasonable, is that these works were indeed no works of righteousness at all, but were only falsely supposed to be so by the Jews. And this our opponents in this doctrine also suppose is the very reason why we are not justified by them, because they are not works of righteousness, or because (the ceremonial law being now abrogated) there is no obedience in them. But how absurd is it to say, that the apostle, when he says we are not justified by works of righteousness that we have done, meant only works of the ceremonial law, and that for that very reason, because they are not works of righteousness? To illustrate this by the forementioned comparison: If it should be asserted, that such a thing could not be procured by money that men possess, how ridiculous would it be to say, that the meaning only was, that it could not be procured by counterfeit money, and that for that reason, because it was not money. What Scripture will stand before men, if they will take liberty to manage Scripture thus? Or what one text is there in the Bible that may not at this rate be explained all away, and perverted to any sense men please?

But further, if we should allow that the apostle intends only to oppose justification by works of the ceremonial law in this text, yet it is evident by the expression he uses, that he means to oppose it under that notion, or in that quality, of their being works of righteousness of our own doing. But if the apostle argues against our being justified by works of the ceremonial law, under the notion of their being of that nature and kind, viz. works of our own doing, then it will follow that the apostle’s argument is strong against, not only those, but all of that nature and kind, even all that are of our own doing.

If there were not other text in the Bible about justification but this, this would clearly and invincibly prove that we are not justified by any of our own goodness, virtue, or righteousness, or for the excellency or righteousness of anything that we have done in religion, because it is here so fully and strongly asserted. But this text abundantly confirms other texts of the apostle, where he denies justification by works of the law. No doubt can be rationally made, but that the apostle, when he shows, that God does not save us by “works of righteousness that we have done,” verse 5, and that so we are “justified by grace,” verse 7, herein opposing salvation by works, and salvation by grace — means the same works as he does in other places, where he in like manner opposes works and grace, as in Rom. 11:6, “And if by grace, then it is 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.” And the same works as in Rom. 4:4, “Now to him that worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” And the same works that are spoken of in the context of the 24th verse of the foregoing chapter, which the apostle there calls “works of the law, being justified freely by his grace.” And of the 4th chapter, 16th verse, “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace.” Where in the context the righteousness of faith is opposed to the righteousness of the law: for here God’s saving us according to his mercy, and justifying us by grace, is opposed to saving us by works of righteousness that we have done. In the same manner as in those places, justifying us by his grace, is opposed to justifying us by works of the law.

10. The apostle could not mean only works of the ceremonial law, when he says, we are not justified by the works of the law, because it is asserted of the saints under the Old Testament as well as New. If men are justified by their sincere obedience, it will then follow that formerly, before the ceremonial law was abrogated, men were justified by the works of the ceremonial law, as well as the moral. For if we are justified by our sincere obedience, then it alters not the case, whether the commands be moral or positive, provided they be God’s commands, and our obedience be obedience to God. And so the case must be just the same under the Old Testament, with the works of the moral law and ceremonial, according to the measure of the virtue of obedience there was in either. It is true, their obedience to the ceremonial law would have nothing to do in the affair of justification, unless it was sincere, and so neither would the works of the moral law. If obedience was the thing, then obedience to the ceremonial law, while that stood in force, and obedience to the moral law, had just the same sort of concern, according to the proportion of obedience that consists in each. As now under the New Testament, if obedience is what we are justified by, that obedience must doubtless comprehend obedience to all God’s commands now in force, to the positive precepts of attendance on baptism and the Lord’s supper, as well as moral precepts. If obedience be the thing, it is not because it is obedience to such a kind of commands, but because it is obedience. So that by this supposition, the saints under the Old Testament were justified, at least in part, by their obedience to the ceremonial law.

But it is evident that the saints under the Old Testament were not justified, in any measure, by the works of the ceremonial law. This may be proved, proceeding on the foot of our adversaries’ own interpretation of the apostle’s phrase, “the works of the law,” and supposing them to mean by it only the works of the ceremonial law. To instance in David, it is evident that he was not justified in any wise by the works of the ceremonial law, by Rom. 4:6-8, “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.” It is plain that the apostle is here speaking of justification, from the preceding verse, and all the context; and the thing spoken of, viz. forgiving iniquities and covering sins, is what our adversaries themselves suppose to be justification, and even the whole of justification. This David, speaking of himself, says (by the apostle’s interpretation) that he had without works. For it is manifest that David, in the words here cited, from the beginning of the 32d Psalm, has a special respect to himself: he speaks of his own sins being forgiven and not imputed to him: as appears by the words that immediately follow, “When I kept silence, my bones waxed old; through my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid; I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.” Let us therefore understand the apostle which way we will respecting works, when he says, “David describes the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputes righteousness without works,” whether of all manner of works, or only works of the ceremonial law, yet it is evident at least, that David was not justified by works of the ceremonial law. Therefore here is the argument: if our own obedience be that by which men are justified, then under the Old Testament, men were justified partly by obedience to the ceremonial law (as has been proved). But the saints under the Old Testament were not justified partly by the works of the ceremonial law. Therefore men’s own obedience is not that by which they are justified.

11. Another argument that the apostle, when he speaks of the two opposite ways of justification, one by the works of the law, and the other by faith, does not mean only the works of the ceremonial law, may be taken from Rom. 10:5, 6. “For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doth those things, shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith, speaketh on this wise,” etc. — Here two things are evident.

(1) That the apostle here speaks of the same two opposite ways of justification, one by the righteousness which is of the law, the other by faith, that he had treated of in the former part of the epistle. And therefore it must be the same law that is here spoken of. The same law is here meant as in the last verses of the foregoing chapter, where he says, the Jews had “not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it, not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law;” as is plain, because the apostle is still speaking of the same thing. The words are a continuation of the same discourse, as may be seen at first glance, by anyone that looks on the context.

(2.) It is manifest that Moses, when he describes the righteousness which is of the law, or the way of justification by the law, in the words here cited, “He that doth those things, shall live in them,” does not speak only, nor chiefly, of the works of the ceremonial law; for none will pretend that God ever made such a covenant with man, that he who kept the ceremonial law should live in it, or that there ever was a time, that it was chiefly by the works of the ceremonial law that men lived and were justified. Yea, it is manifest by the forementioned instance of David, mentioned in the 4th of Romans, that there never was a time wherein men were justified in any measure by the works of the ceremonial law, as has been just now shown. Moses therefore, in those words which, the apostle says, are a description of the righteousness which is of the law, cannot mean only the ceremonial law. And therefor it follows, that when the apostle speaks of justification by the works of the law, as opposite to justification by faith, he does not mean only the ceremonial law, but also the works of the moral law, which are the things spoken of by Moses, when he says, “He that doth those things, shall live in them.” And these are the things which the apostle in this very place is arguing that we cannot be justified by, as is evident by the last verses of the preceding chapter; “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it, not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law,” etc. And in the 3d verse of this chapter, “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”

And further, how can the apostle’s description that he here gives from Moses, of this exploded way of justification by the works of the law, consist with the Arminian scheme, of a way of justification by the virtue of a sincere obedience, that still remains as the true and only way of justification under the gospel? It is most apparent that it is the design of the apostle to give a description of both the legal rejected and the evangelical valid ways of justification, in that wherein they are distinguished the one from the other. But how is it, that “he who doth those things, shall live in them,” that wherein the way of justification by the works of the law is distinguished from that in which Christians under the gospel are justified, according to their scheme. For still, according to them, it may be said, in the same manner, of the precepts of the gospel, he that does these things, shall live in them. The difference lies only in the things to be done, but not at all in that the doing of them is not the condition of living in them, just in the one case, as in the other. The words, “He that does them, shall live in them,” will serve just as well for a description of the latter as the former. By the apostle’s saying, the righteousness of the law is described thus, he that doth these things, shall live in them. But the righteousness of faith saith thus, plainly intimates that the righteousness of faith saith otherwise, and in an opposite manner. Besides, if these words cited from Moses are actually said by him of the moral law as well as ceremonial, as it is most evident they are, it renders it still more absurd to suppose them mentioned by the apostle, as the very note of distinction between justification by a ceremonial obedience, and a moral sincere obedience, as the Arminians must suppose.

Thus I have spoken to a second argument, to prove that we are not justified by any manner of virtue or goodness of our own, viz. that to suppose otherwise, is contrary to the doctrine directly urged, and abundantly insisted on, by the apostle Paul in his epistles.

I now proceed to a

Third argument, viz. that to suppose that we are justified by our own sincere obedience, or any of our own virtue or goodness, derogates from gospel grace.

That scheme of justification that manifestly takes from, or diminishes the grace of God, is undoubtedly to be rejected; for it is the declared design of God in the gospel to exalt the freedom and riches of his grace, in that method of justification of sinners, and way of admitting them to his favor, and the blessed fruits of it, which it declares. The Scripture teaches, that the way of justification appointed in the gospel covenant is appointed for that end, that free grace might be expressed, and glorified, Rom. 4:16, “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace.” The exercising and magnifying of free grace in the gospel contrivance for the justification and salvation of sinners, is evidently the chief design of it. And this freedom and riches of grace in the gospel is everywhere spoken of in Scripture as the chief glory of it. Therefore that doctrine which derogates from the free grace of God in justifying sinners, as it is most opposite to God’s design, so it must be exceedingly offensive to him.

Those who maintain, that we are justified by our own sincere obedience, pretend that their scheme does not diminish the grace of the gospel; for they say, that the grace of God is wonderfully manifested in appointing such a way and method of salvation by sincere obedience, in assisting us to perform such an obedience, and in accepting our imperfect obedience, instead of perfect.

Let us therefore examine that matter, whether their scheme of a man’s being justified by his own virtue and sincere obedience, does derogate from the grace of God or no, or whether free grace is not more exalted in supposing, as we do, that we are justified without any manner of goodness of our own. In order to this, I will lay down the self-evident

Proposition, that whatsoever that be by which the abundant benevolence of the giver is expressed, and gratitude in the receiver is obliged, that magnifies free grace. This I suppose none will ever controvert or dispute. And it is not much less evident, that it does both show a more abundant benevolence in the giver when he shows kindness without goodness or excellency in the object, to move him to it, and that it enhances the obligation to gratitude in the receiver.

1. It shows a more abundant goodness in the giver, when he shows kindness without any excellency in our persons or actions that should move the giver to love and beneficence. For it certainly shows the more abundant and overflowing goodness, or disposition to communicate good, by how much the less loveliness or excellency there is to entice beneficence. The less there is in the receiver to draw goodwill and kindness, it argues the more of the principle of goodwill and kindness in the giver. One that has but a little of a principle of love and benevolence, may be drawn to do good, and to show kindness, when there is a great deal to draw him, or when there is much excellency and loveliness in the object to move goodwill. When he whose goodness and benevolence is more abundant, [he] will show kindness where there is less to draw it forth. For he does not so much need to have it drawn from without, he has enough of the principle within to move him of itself. Where there is most of the principle, there it is most sufficient for itself, and stands in least need of something without to excite it. For certainly a more abundant goodness more easily flows forth with less to impel or draw it, than where there is less, or, which is the same thing, the more anyone is disposed of himself, the less he needs from without himself, to put him upon it, or stir him up to it. And therefore his kindness and goodness appears the more exceeding great, when it is bestowed without any excellency or loveliness at all in the receiver, or when the receiver is respected in the gift, as wholly without excellency. And much more still when the benevolence of the giver not only finds nothing in the receiver to draw it, but a great deal of hatefulness to repel it. The abundance of goodness is then manifested, not only in flowing forth without anything extrinsic to put it forward, but in overcoming great repulsion in the object. And then does kindness and love appear most triumphant, and wonderfully great, when the receiver is not only wholly without all excellency or beauty to attract it, but altogether, yea, infinitely vile and hateful.

2. It is apparent also that it enhances the obligation to gratitude in the receiver. This is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, that the less worthy or excellent the object of benevolence, or the receiver of kindness is, the more he is obliged, and the greater gratitude is due. He therefore is most of all obliged, that receives kindness without any goodness or excellency in himself, but with a total and universal hatefulness. And as it is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, so it is agreeable to the Word of God. How often does God in the Scripture insist on this argument with men, to move them to love him, and to acknowledge his kindness? How much does he insist on this as an obligation to gratitude, that they are so sinful, and undeserving, and ill-deserving?

Therefore it certainly follows, that the doctrine which teaches that God, when he justifies a man, and shows him such great kindness as to give him a right to eternal life, does not do it for any obedience, or any manner of goodness of his, but that justification respects a man as ungodly, and wholly without any manner of virtue, beauty, or excellency. I say, this doctrine does certainly more exalt the free grace of God in justification, and man’s obligation to gratitude for such a favor, than the contrary doctrine, viz. that God, in showing this kindness to man, respects him as sincerely obedient and virtuous, and as having something in him that is truly excellent and lovely, and acceptable in his sight, and that this goodness or excellency of man is the very fundamental condition of the bestowment of that kindness on him, or of distinguishing him from others by that benefit.

But I hasten to a

Fourth argument for the truth of the doctrine: that to suppose a man is justified by his own virtue or obedience, derogates from the honor of the Mediator, and ascribes that to man’s virtue which belongs only to the righteousness of Christ: It puts man in Christ’s stead, and makes him his own savior, in a respect in which Christ only is his Savior. And so it is a doctrine contrary to the nature and design of the gospel, which is to abase man, and to ascribe all the glory of our salvation to Christ the Redeemer. It is inconsistent with the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, which is a gospel doctrine.

Here I would explain what we mean by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Prove the thing intended by it to be true. Show that this doctrine is utterly inconsistent with the doctrine of our being justified by our own virtue or sincere obedience.

1. I would explain what we mean by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Sometimes the expression is taken by our divines in a larger sense, for the imputation of all that Christ did and suffered for our redemption, whereby we are free from guilt, and stand righteous in the sight of God, and so implies the imputation both of Christ’s satisfaction and obedience. But here I intend it in a stricter sense, for the imputation of that righteousness or moral goodness that consists in the obedience of Christ. — And by that righteousness being imputed to us, is meant no other than this, that the righteousness of Christ is accepted for us, and admitted instead of that perfect inherent righteousness which ought to be in ourselves. Christ’s perfect obedience shall be reckoned to our account, so that we shall have the benefit of it, as though we had performed it ourselves. And so we suppose that a title to eternal life is given us as the reward of this righteousness. The Scripture uses the word impute in this sense, viz. for reckoning anything belonging to any person, to another person’s account: As Phm. 18, “If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account.”

The opposers of this doctrine suppose that there is an absurdity in supposing that God imputes Christ’s obedience to us. It is to suppose that God is mistaken, and thinks that we performed that obedience which Christ performed. But why cannot that righteousness be reckoned to our account, and be accepted for us, without any such absurdity? Why is there any more absurdity in it, than in a merchant’s transferring debt or credit from one man’s account to another, when one man pays a price for another, so that it shall be accepted as if that other had paid it? Why is there any more absurdity in supposing that Christ’s obedience is imputed to us, than that his satisfaction is imputed? If Christ has suffered the penalty of the law in our stead, then it will follow, that his suffering that penalty is imputed to us, that is, accepted for us, and in our stead, and is reckoned to our account, as though we had suffered it. But why may not his obeying the law of God be as rationally reckoned to our account, as his suffering the penalty of the law? Why may not a price to bring into debt, be as rationally transferred from one person’s account to another, as a price to pay a debt? Having thus explained what we mean by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, I proceed,

2. To prove that the righteousness of Christ is thus imputed.

(1.) There is the very same need of Christ’s obeying the law in our stead, in order to the reward, as of his suffering the penalty of the law in our stead, in order to our escaping the penalty, and the same reason why one should be accepted on our account, as the other. There is the same need of one as the other, that the law of God might be answered: one was as requisite to answer the law as the other. It is certain, that was the reason why there was need that Christ should suffer the penalty for us, even that the law might be answered. For this the Scripture plainly teaches. This is given as the reason why Christ was made a curse for us, that the law threatened a curse to us, Gal. 3:10, 13. But the same law that fixes the curse of God as the consequence of not continuing in all things written in the law to do them (verse 10) has as much fixed doing those things as an antecedent of living in them (as verse 12). There is as much connection established in one case as in the other. There is therefore exactly the same need, from the law, of perfect obedience being fulfilled in order to our obtaining the reward, as there is of death being suffered in order to our escaping the punishment, or the same necessity by the law, of perfect obedience preceding life, as there is of disobedience being succeeded by death. The law is, without doubt, as much of an established rule in one case as in the other.

Christ by suffering the penalty, and so making atonement for us, only removes the guilt of our sins, and so sets us in the same state that Adam was in the first moment of his creation, and it is no more fit that we should obtain eternal life only on that account, than that Adam should have the reward of eternal life, or of a confirmed and unalterable state of happiness, the first moments of his existence, without any obedience at all. Adam was not to have the reward merely on account of his being innocent. If [that were] so, he would have had it fixed upon him at once, as soon as ever he was created, for he was as innocent then as he could be. But he was to have the reward on account of his active obedience: not on account merely of his not having done ill, but on account of his doing well.

So on the same account we have not eternal life merely as void of guilt, which we have by the atonement of Christ, but on the account of Christ’s active obedience, and doing well. — Christ is our second federal head, and is called the second Adam (1 Cor. 15:22), because he acted that part for us, which the first Adam should have done. When he had undertaken to stand in our stead, he was looked upon and treated as though he were guilty with our guilt. By his bearing the penalty, he did as it were free himself from this guilt. But by this the second Adam did only bring himself into the state in which the first Adam was on the first moment of his existence, viz. a state of mere freedom from guilt, and hereby indeed was free from any obligation to suffer punishment. But this being supposed, there was need of something further, even a positive obedience, in order to his obtaining, as our second Adam, the reward of eternal life.

God saw meet to place man first in a state of trial, and not to give him a title to eternal life as soon as he had made him, because it was his will that he should first give honor to his authority, by fully submitting to it, in will and act, and perfectly obeying his law. God insisted upon it, that his holy majesty and law should have their due acknowledgment and honor from man, such as became the relation he stood in to that Being who created him, before he would bestow the reward of confirmed and everlasting happiness upon him. Therefore God gave him a law that he might have opportunity, by giving due honor to his authority in obeying it, to obtain this happiness. It therefore became Christ — seeing that, in assuming man to himself, he sought a title to this eternal happiness for him after he had broken the law — that he himself should become subject to God’s authority, and be in the form of a servant, that he might do that honor to God’s authority for him, by his obedience, which God at first required of man as the condition of his having a title to that reward. Christ came into the world to render the honor of God’s authority and law consistent with the salvation and eternal life of sinners. He came to save them, and yet withal to assert and vindicate the honor of the lawgiver, and his holy law. Now, if the sinner, after his sin was satisfied for, had eternal life bestowed upon him without active righteousness, the honor of his law would not be sufficiently vindicated. Supposing this were possible, that the sinner could himself, by suffering, pay the debt, and afterwards be in the same state that he was in before his probation, that is to say, negatively righteous, or merely without guilt. If he now at last should have eternal life bestowed upon him, without performing that condition of obedience, then God would recede from his law, and would give the promised reward, and his law never have respect and honor shown to it, in that way of being obeyed. But now Christ, by subjecting himself to the law, and obeying it, has done great honor to the law, and to the authority of God who gave it. That so glorious a person should become subject to the law, and fulfill it, has done much more to honor it, than if mere man had obeyed it. It was a thing infinitely honorable to God, that a person of infinite dignity was not ashamed to call him his God, and to adore and obey him as such. This was more to God’s honor than if any mere creature, of any possible degree of excellence and dignity, had so done.

It is absolutely necessary, that in order to a sinner’s being justified, the righteousness of some other should be reckoned to his account. For it is declared that the person justified is looked upon as (in himself) ungodly, but God neither will nor can justify a person without a righteousness. For justification is manifestly a forensic term, as the word is used in Scripture, and a judicial thing, or the act of a judge. So that if a person should be justified without a righteousness, the judgment would not be according to truth. The sentence of justification would be a false sentence, unless there be a righteousness performed, that is, by the judge, properly looked upon as his. To say that God does not justify the sinner without sincere, though an imperfect obedience, does not help the case, for an imperfect righteousness before a judge is no righteousness. To accept of something that falls short of the rule, instead of something else that answers the rule, is no judicial act, or act of a judge, but a pure act of sovereignty. An imperfect righteousness is no righteousness before a judge: For “righteousness (as one observes) is a relative thing, and has always relation to a law. The formal nature of righteousness, properly understood, lies in a conformity of actions to that which is the rule and measure of them.” Therefore that only is righteousness in the sight of a judge that answers the law. The law is the judge’s rule. If he pardons and hides what really is, and so does not pass sentence according to what things are in themselves, he either does not act the part of a judge, or else judges falsely. The very notion of judging is to determine what is, and what is not in anyone’s case. The judge’s work is twofold: it is to determine first what is fact, and then whether what is in fact be according to rule, or according to the law. If a judge has no rule or law established beforehand, by which he should proceed in judging, he has no foundation to go upon in judging, he has no opportunity to be a judge, nor is it possible that he should do the part of a judge. To judge without a law, or rule by which to judge, is impossible. For the very notion of judging is to determine whether the object of judgment be according to rule. Therefore God has declared that when he acts as a judge, he will not justify the wicked, and cannot clear the guilty, and, by parity of reason, cannot justify without righteousness.

And the scheme of the old law’s being abrogated, and a new law introduced, will not help at all in this difficulty. For an imperfect righteousness cannot answer the law of God we are under, whether that be an old or a new one, for every law requires perfect obedience to itself. Every rule whatsoever requires perfect conformity to itself, [and] it is a contradiction to suppose otherwise. For to say, that there is a law that does not require perfect obedience to itself, is to say that there is a law that does not require all that it requires. That law that now forbids sin, is certainly the law that we are now under (let that be an old or a new one), or else it is not sin. That which is not forbidden, and is the breach of no law, is no sin. But if we are now forbidden to commit sin, then it is by a law that we are now under. For surely we are neither under the forbiddings nor commanding of a law that we are not under. Therefore, if all sin is now forbidden, then we are now under a law that requires perfect obedience, and therefore nothing can be accepted as a righteousness in the sight of our Judge, but perfect righteousness. So that our Judge cannot justify us, unless he sees a perfect righteousness in some way belonging to us, either performed by ourselves, or by another, and justly and duly reckoned to our account.

God does, in the sentence of justification, pronounce a man perfectly righteous, or else he would need a further justification after he is justified. His sins being removed by Christ’s atonement, is not sufficient for his justification. For justifying a man, as has been already shown, is not merely pronouncing him innocent, or without guilt, but standing right with regard to the rule that he is under, and righteous unto life. But this, according to the established rule of nature, reason, and divine appointment, is a positive, perfect righteousness.

As there is the same need that Christ’s obedience should be reckoned to our account, as that his atonement should, so there is the same reason why it should. As if Adam had persevered, and finished his course of obedience, we should have received the benefit of his obedience, as much as now we have the mischief of his disobedience. So in like manner, there is reason that we should receive the benefit of the second Adam’s obedience, as of his atonement of our disobedience. Believers are represented in Scripture as being so in Christ, as that they are legally one, or accepted as one, by the Supreme Judge. Christ has assumed our nature, and has so assumed all, in that nature that belongs to him, into such an union with himself, that he is become their Head, and has taken them to be his members. And therefore, what Christ has done in our nature, whereby he did honor to the law and authority of God by his acts, as well as the reparation to the honor of the law by his sufferings, is reckoned to the believer’s account: so as that the believer should be made happy, because it was so well and worthily done by his Head, as well as freed from being miserable, because he has suffered for our ill and unworthy doing.

When Christ had once undertaken with God to stand for us, and put himself under our law, by that law he was obliged to suffer, and by the same law he was obliged to obey. By the same law, after he had taken man’s guilt upon him, he himself being our surety, could not be acquitted till he had suffered, nor rewarded till he had obeyed. But he was not acquitted as a private person, but as our Head, and believers are acquitted in his acquittal. Nor was he accepted to a reward for his obedience, as a private person, but as our Head, and we are accepted to a reward in his acceptance. The Scripture teaches us, that when Christ was raised from the dead, he was justified, which justification, as I have already shown, implies both his acquittal from our guilt, and his acceptance to the exaltation and glory that was the reward of his obedience. But believers, as soon as they believe, are admitted to partake with Christ in this his justification. Hence we are told, that he was “raised again for our justification,” (Rom. 4:25) which is true, not only of that part of his justification that consists in his acquittal, but also his acceptance to his reward. The Scripture teaches us, that he is exalted, and gone to heaven to take possession of glory in our name, as our forerunner, Heb. 6:20. We are as it were, both raised up together with Christ, and also made to sit together with Christ in heavenly places, and in him, Eph. 2:6.

If it be objected here, that there is this reason, why what Christ suffered should be accepted on our account, rather than the obedience he performed, that he was obliged to obedience for himself, but was not obliged to suffer but only on our account. To this I answer that Christ was not obliged, on his own account, to undertake to obey. Christ in his original circumstances, was in no subjection to the Father, being altogether equal with him. He was under no obligation to put himself in man’s stead, and under man’s law, or to put himself into any state of subjection to God whatsoever. There was a transaction between the Father and the Son, that was antecedent to Christ’s becoming man, and being made under the law, wherein he undertook to put himself under the law, and both to obey and to suffer. In [this] transaction these things were already virtually done in the sight of God, as is evident by this: that God acted on the ground of that transaction, justifying and saving sinners, as if the things undertaken had been actually performed long before they were performed indeed. And therefore, without doubt, in order to estimate the value and validity of what Christ did and suffered, we must look back to that transaction, wherein these things were first undertaken, and virtually done in the sight of God, and see what capacity and circumstances Christ acted in them. We shall find that Christ was under no manner of obligation, either to obey the law, or to suffer its penalty. After this he was equally under obligation to both, for henceforward he stood as our surety or representative. And therefore this consequent obligation may be as much of an objection against the validity of his suffering the penalty, as against his obedience. But if we look to that original transaction between the Father and the Son, wherein both these were undertaken and accepted as virtually done in the sight of the Father, we shall find Christ acting with regard to both as one perfectly in his own right, and under no manner of previous obligation to hinder the validity of either.

(2.) To suppose that all Christ does is only to make atonement for us by suffering, is to make him our Savior but in part. It is to rob him of half his glory as a Savior. For if so, all that he does is to deliver us from hell: he does not purchase heaven for us. The adverse scheme supposes that he purchases heaven for us, in that he satisfies for the imperfections of our obedience and so purchases that our sincere imperfect obedience might be accepted as the condition of eternal life, and so purchases an opportunity for us to obtain heaven by our own obedience. But to purchase heaven for us only in this sense, is to purchase it in no sense at all. For all of it comes to no more than a satisfaction for our sins, or removing the penalty by suffering in our stead. For all the purchasing they speak of, that our imperfect obedience should be accepted, is only his satisfying for the sinful imperfection of our obedience, or (which is the same thing) making atonement for the sin that our obedience is attended with. But that is not purchasing heaven, merely to set us at liberty again, that we may go and get heaven by what we do ourselves. All that Christ does is only to pay a debt for us. There is no positive purchase of any good. We are taught in Scripture that heaven is purchased for us. It is called the purchased possession, Eph. 1:14. The gospel proposes the eternal inheritance, not to be acquired, as the first covenant did, but as already acquired and purchased. But he that pays a man’s debt for him, and so delivers him from slavery, cannot be said to purchase an estate for him, merely because he sets him at liberty, so that henceforward he has an opportunity to get an estate by his own hand labor. So that according to this scheme, the saints in heaven have no reason to thank Christ for purchasing heaven for them, or redeeming them to God, and making them kings and priests, as we have an account that they do, in Rev. 5:9, 10.

(3.) Justification by the righteousness and obedience of Christ, is a doctrine that the Scripture teaches in very full terms, Rom. 5:18, 19, “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 all be made righteous.” Here in one verse we are told that we have justification by Christ’s righteousness, and that there might be no room to understand the righteousness spoken of, merely of Christ’s atonement by his suffering the penalty. In the next verse it is put in other terms, and asserted that it is by Christ’s obedience we are made righteous. It is scarcely possible anything should be more full and determined. The terms, taken singly, are such as fix their own meaning, and taken together, they fix the meaning of each other. The words show that we are justified by that righteousness of Christ which consists in his obedience, and that we are made righteous or justified by that obedience of his, that is, his righteousness, or moral goodness before God.

Here possibly it may be objected, that this text means only, that we are justified by Christ’s passive obedience.

To this I answer, whether we call it active or passive, it alters not the case as to the present argument, as long as it is evident by the words that it is not merely under the notion of an atonement for disobedience, or a satisfaction for unrighteousness, but under the notion of a positive obedience, and a righteousness, or moral goodness, that it justifies us, or makes us righteous. Because both the words righteousness and obedience are used, and used too as the opposites to sin and disobedience, and an offense. “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 to justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners; so, by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteousness.” Now, what can be meant by righteousness, when spoken of as the opposite to sin, or moral evil, but moral goodness? What is the righteousness that is the opposite of an offense, but the behavior that is well pleasing? And what can be meant by obedience, when spoken of as the opposite of disobedience, or going contrary to a command, but a positive obeying and an actual complying with the command? So that there is no room for any invented distinction of active and passive, to hurt the argument from this scripture. For it is evident by it, as anything can be, that believers are justified by the righteousness and obedience of Christ, under the notion of his moral goodness; — his positive obeying, and actual complying with the commands of God, and that behavior which, because of its conformity to his commands, was well-pleasing in his sight. This is all that ever any need to desire to have granted in this dispute.

By this it appears, that if Christ’s dying be here included in the words righteousness and obedience, it is not merely as a propitiation, or bearing a penalty of a broken law in our stead, but as his voluntary submitting and yielding himself to those sufferings, was an act of obedience to the Father’s commands, and so was a part of his positive righteousness, or moral goodness.

Indeed all obedience considered under the notion of righteousness, is something active, something done in voluntary compliance with a command; whether it may be done without suffering, or whether it be hard and difficult. Yet as it is obedience, righteousness, or moral goodness, it must be considered as something voluntary and active. If anyone is commanded to go through difficulties and sufferings, and he, in compliance with this command, voluntarily does it, he properly obeys in so doing; and as he voluntarily does it in compliance with a command, his obedience is as active as any whatsoever. It is the same sort of obedience, a thing of the very same nature, as when a man, in compliance with a command, does a piece of hard service, or goes through hard labor; and there is no room to distinguish between such obedience of it, as if it were a thing of quite a different nature, by such opposite terms as active and passive: all the disobeying an easy command and a difficult one. But is there from hence any foundation to make two species of obedience, one active and the other passive? There is no appearance of any such distinction ever entering into the hearts of any of the penmen of Scripture.

It is true, that of late, when a man refuses to obey the precept of a human law, but patiently yields himself up to suffer the penalty of the law, it is called passive obedience. But this I suppose is only a modern use of the word obedience. Surely it is a sense of the word that the Scripture is a perfect stranger to. It is improperly called obedience, unless there be such a precept in the law, that he shall yield himself patiently to suffer, to which his so doing shall be an active voluntary conformity. There may in some sense be said to be a conformity of the law in a person’s suffering the penalty of the law. But no other conformity to the law is properly called obedience to it, but an active voluntary conformity to the precepts of it. The word obey is often found in Scripture with respect to the law of God to man, but never in any other sense.

It is true that Christ’s willingly undergoing those sufferings which he endured, is a great part of that obedience or righteousness by which we are justified. The sufferings of Christ are respected in Scripture under a twofold consideration, either merely as his being substituted for us, or put into our stead, in suffering the penalty of the law. And so his sufferings are considered as a satisfaction and propitiation for sin, or as he, in obedience to a law or a command of the Father, voluntarily submitted himself to those sufferings, and actively yielded himself up to hear them. So they are considered as his righteousness, and a part of his active obedience. Christ underwent death in obedience to the command of the Father, Psa. 40:6-8, “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire, mine ears hast thou opened: burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” John 10:17-18, “I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” John 18:11, “The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” And this is part, and indeed the principal part, of that active obedience by which we are justified.

It can be no just objection against this, that the command of the Father to Christ that he should lay down his life was no part of the law that we had broken, and therefore, that his obeying this command could be no part of that obedience that he performed for us, because we needed that he should obey no other law for us, but only that which we had broken or failed of obeying. For although it must be the same legislative authority, whose honor is repaired by Christ’s obedience, that we have injured by our disobedience, yet there is no need that the law which Christ obeys should be precisely the same that Adam was to have obeyed, in that sense, that there should be no positive precepts wanting, nor any added. There was wanting the precept about the forbidden fruit, and there was added the ceremonial law. The thing required was perfect obedience. It is no matter whether the positive precepts that Christ was to obey, were much more than equivalent to what was wanting, because infinitely more difficult, particularly the command that he had received to lay down his life, which was his principal act of obedience, and which, above all other, is concerned in our justification. As that act of disobedience by which we fell, was disobedience to a positive precept that Christ never was under, viz. That of abstaining from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so that act of obedience by which principally we are redeemed is obedience to a positive precept, that should try both Adam’s and Christ’s obedience. Such precepts are the greatest and most proper trial of obedience, because in them, the mere authority and will of the legislator is the sole ground of the obligation (and nothing in the nature of the things themselves), and therefore they are the greatest trial of any persons’ respect to that authority and will.

The law that Christ was subject to, and obeyed, was in some sense the same that was given to Adam. There are innumerable particular duties required by the law only conditionally, and in such circumstances, are comprehended in some great and general rule of that law. Thus, for instance, there are innumerable acts of respect and obedience to men, which are required by the law of nature (which was a law given to Adam), which yet are not required absolutely, but upon many prerequisite conditions: as that there be men standing in such relations to us, and that they give forth such commands, and the like. So many acts of respect and obedience to God are included, in like manner, in the moral law conditionally, or such and such things being supposed: as Abraham’s going about to sacrifice his son, the Jews’ circumcising their children when eight days old, and Adam’s not eating the forbidden fruit. They are virtually comprehended in the great general rule of the moral law, that we should obey God, and be subject to him in whatsoever he pleases to command us. Certainly the moral law does as much require us to obey God’s positive commands, as it requires us to obey the positive commands of our parents. And thus all that Adam, and all that Christ was commanded, even his observing the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish worship, and his laying down his life, was virtually included in this same great law.

It is no objection against the last-mentioned thing, even in Christ’s laying down his life, it being included in the moral law given to Adam, because that law itself allowed of no occasion for any such thing. For the moral law virtually includes all right acts, on all possible occasions, even occasions that the law itself allows not. Thus we are obliged by the moral law to mortify our lusts, and repent of our sins, though that law allows of no lust to mortify, or sin to repent of.

There is indeed but one great law of God, and that is the same law that says, “if thou sinnest, thou shalt die;” and “curses is every one that continues not in all things contained in this law to do them.” All duties of positive institution are virtually comprehended in this law: and therefore, if the Jews broke the ceremonial law, it exposed them to the penalty of the law, or covenant of works, which threatened, “thou shalt surely die.” The law is the eternal and unalterable rule of righteousness between God and man, and therefore is the rule of judgment, but which all that a man does shall be either justified or condemned; and no sin exposes to damnation, but by the law. So now he that refuses to obey the precepts that require an attendance on the sacraments of the New Testament, is exposed to damnation, by virtue of the law or covenant of works. It may moreover be argued that all sins whatsoever are breaches of the law or covenant of works, because all sins, even breaches of the positive precepts, as well as others, have atonement by the death of Christ. But what Christ died for, was to satisfy the law, or to bear the curse of the law; as appears by Gal. 3:10-13 and Rom. 7:3, 4.

So that Christ’s laying down his life might be part of that obedience by which we are justified, though it was a positive precept not given to Adam. It was doubtless Christ’s main act of obedience, because it was obedience to a command that was attended with immensely the greatest difficulty, and so to a command that was the greatest trial of his obedience. His respect shown to God in it, and his honor to God’s authority, was proportionably great. It is spoken of in Scripture as Christ’s principal act of obedience. Phil. 2:7, 8, “But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.” And it therefore follows from what has been already said, that it is mainly by this act of obedience that believers in Christ also have the reward of glory, or come to partake with Christ in his glory. We are as much saved by the death of Christ, as his yielding himself to die was an act of obedience, as we are as it was a propitiation for our sins. For as it was not only the only act of obedience that merited, he having performed meritorious acts of obedience through the whole course of his life, so neither was it the only suffering that was propitiatory; all his sufferings through the whole course of his life being propitiatory, as well as every act of obedience meritorious. Indeed this was his principal suffering, and it was as much his principal act of obedience.

Hence we may see how that the death of Christ did not only make atonement, but also merited eternal life, and hence we may see how by the blood of Christ, we are not only redeemed from sin, but redeemed unto God. Therefore the Scripture seems everywhere to attribute the whole of salvation to the blood of Christ. This precious blood is as much the main price by which heaven is purchased, as it is the main price by which we are redeemed from hell. The positive righteousness of Christ, or that price by which he merited, was of equal value with that by which he satisfied, for indeed it was the same price. He spilled his blood to satisfy, and by reason of the infinite dignity of his person, his sufferings were looked upon as of infinite value, and equivalent to the eternal sufferings of a finite creature. And he spilled his blood out of respect to the honor of God’s majesty, and in submission to his authority, who had commanded him so to do. His obedience therein was of infinite value, both because of the dignity of the person that performed it, and because he put himself to infinite expense to perform it, whereby the infinite degree of his regard to God’s authority appeared.

One would wonder what Arminians mean by Christ’s merits. They talk of Christ’s merits as much as anybody, and yet deny the imputation of Christ’s positive righteousness. What should there be than anyone should merit or deserve anything by, besides righteousness or goodness? If anything that Christ did or suffered, merited or deserved anything, it was by virtue of the goodness, or righteousness, or holiness of it. If Christ’s sufferings and death merited heaven, it must be because there was an excellent righteousness and transcendent moral goodness in that act of laying down his life. And if by that excellent righteousness he merited heaven for us, then surely that righteousness is reckoned to our account, that we have the benefit of it, or, which is the same thing, it is imputed to us.

Thus, I hope, I have made it evident, that the righteousness of Christ is indeed imputed to us.

3. I proceed now to the third and last thing under this argument: That this doctrine, of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, is utterly inconsistent with the doctrine of our being justified by our own virtue or sincere obedience. If acceptance to God’s favor, and a title to life, be given to believers as the reward of Christ’s obedience, then it is not given as the reward of our own obedience. In what respect soever Christ is our Savior, that doubtless excludes our being our own saviors in that same respect. If we can be our own saviors in the same respect that Christ is, it will thence follow, that the salvation of Christ is needless in that respect, according to the apostle’s reasoning, Gal. 5:4, “Christ is rendered of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law.” Doubtless, it is Christ’s prerogative to be our Savior in that sense wherein he is our Savior. And therefore, if it be by his obedience that we are justified, then it is not by our own obedience.

Here perhaps it may be said, that a title to salvation is not directly given as the reward of our obedience. For that is not by anything of ours, but only by Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness, but yet an interest in that satisfaction and righteousness is given as a reward of our obedience.

But this does not at all help the case. For this is to ascribe as much to our obedience as if we ascribed salvation to it directly, without the intervention of Christ’s righteousness. For it would be as great a thing for God to give us Christ, and his satisfaction and righteousness, in reward for our obedience, as to give us heaven immediately. It would be as great a reward, and as great a testimony of respect to our obedience. And if God gives as great a thing as salvation for our obedience, why could he not as well give salvation itself directly? Then there would have been no need of Christ’s righteousness. And indeed if God gives us Christ, or an interest in him, properly in reward for our obedience, he does really give us salvation in reward for our obedience: for the former implies the latter. Yea, it implies it, as the greater implies the less. So that indeed it exalts our virtue and obedience more, to suppose that God gives us Christ in reward of that virtue and obedience, than if he should give salvation without Christ.

The thing that the Scripture guards and militates against, is our imagining that it is our own goodness, virtue, or excellency, that instates us in God’s acceptance and favor. But to suppose that God gives us an interest in Christ in reward for our virtue, is as great an argument that it instates us in God’s favor, as if he bestowed a title to eternal life as its direct reward. If God gives us an interest in Christ as a reward of our obedience, it will then follow, that we are instated in God’s acceptance and favor by our own obedience, antecedent to our having an interest in Christ. For a rewarding anyone’s excellency, evermore supposes favor and acceptance on the account of that excellency. It is the very notion of a reward, that it is a good thing, bestowed in testimony of respect and favor for the virtue or excellency rewarded. So that it is not by virtue of our interest in Christ and his merits, that we first come into favor with God, according to this scheme. For we are in God’s favor before we have any interest in those merits, in that we have an interest in those merits given as a fruit of God’s favor for our own virtue. If our interest in Christ be the fruit of God’s favor, then it cannot be the ground of it. If God did not accept us, and had no favor for us for our own excellency, he never would bestow so great a reward upon us, as a right in Christ’s satisfaction, and righteousness. So that such a scheme destroys itself. For it supposes that Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness are necessary for us to recommend us to the favor of God, and yet supposes that we have God’s favor and acceptance before we have Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness, and have these given as a fruit of God’s favor.

Indeed, neither salvation itself, nor Christ the Savior, are given as a reward of anything in man: They are not given as a reward of faith, nor anything else of ours: We are not united to Christ as a reward of our faith, but have union with him by faith, only as faith is the very act of uniting or closing on our part. As when a man offers himself to a woman in marriage, he does not give himself to her as a reward of her receiving him in marriage. Her receiving him is not considered as a worthy deed in her, for which he rewards her by giving himself to her. But it is by her receiving him that the union is made, by which she has him for her husband. It is on her part the unition itself. By these things it appears how contrary to the gospel of Christ their scheme is, who say that faith justifies as a principle of obedience, or as a leading act of obedience, or (as others) the sum and comprehension of all evangelical obedience. For by this, the obedience or virtue that is in faith gives it its justifying influence, and that is the same thing as to say, that we are justified by our own obedience, virtue, or goodness.

Having thus considered the evidence of the truth of the doctrine, I proceed now to the

III. Thing proposed, viz. “To show in what sense the acts of a Christian life, or of evangelical obedience, may be looked upon to be concerned in this affair.”

From what has been said already, it is manifest that they cannot have any concern in this affair as good works, or by virtue of any moral goodness in them: not as works of the law, or as that moral excellency, or any part of it, which is the fulfillment of that great, universal, and everlasting law or covenant of works which the great lawgiver has established, as the highest and unalterable rule of judgment, which Christ alone answers, or does anything towards it.

It having been shown out of the Scripture, that it is only by faith, or the soul’s receiving and uniting to the Savior who has wrought our righteousness, that we are justified. It therefore remains, that the acts of a Christian life cannot be concerned in this affair any otherwise than as they imply, and are the expressions of faith, and may be looked upon as so many acts of reception of Christ the Savior. But the determining what concerns acts of Christian obedience can have in justification in this respect, will depend on the resolving of another point, viz. whether any other act of faith besides the first act, has any concern in our justification, or how far perseverance in faith, or the continued and renewed acts of faith, have influence in this affair. And it seems manifest that justification is by the first act of faith, in some respects, in a peculiar manner, because a sinner is actually and finally justified as soon as he has performed one act of faith, and faith in its first act does, virtually at least, depend on God for perseverance, and entities to this among other benefits. But yet the perseverance of faith is not excluded in this affair. It is not only certainly connected with justification, but it is not to be excluded from that on which the justification of a sinner has a dependence, or that by which he is justified.

I have shown that the way in which justification has a dependence on faith is, that it is the qualification on which the congruity of an interest in the righteousness of Christ depends, or wherein such a fitness consists. But the consideration of the perseverance of faith cannot be excluded out of this congruity or fitness. For it is congruous that he that believes in Christ should have an interest in Christ’s righteousness, and so in the eternal benefits purchased by it, because faith is that by which the soul has union or oneness with Christ. There is a natural congruity in it, that they who are one with Christ should have a joint interest with him in his eternal benefits. But yet this congruity depends on its being an abiding union. As it is needful that the branch should abide in the vine, in order to its receiving the lasting benefits of the root, so it is necessary that the soul should abide in Christ, in order to its receiving those lasting benefits of God’s final acceptance and favor. John 15:6, 7, “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth, as a branch. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.” John 15:9, 10, “Continue ye in my love. If ye keep (or abide in) my commandments, ye shall abide in my love: even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.” There is the same reason why it is necessary that the union with Christ should remain, as why it should be begun: why it should continue to be, as why it should once be. If it should be begun without remaining, the beginning would be in vain. In order to the soul’s being now in a justified state, and now free from condemnation, it is necessary that it should now be in Christ, and not merely that it should once have been in him. Rom. 8:1, “There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” The soul is saved in Christ, as being now in him, when the salvation is bestowed, and not merely as remembering that it once was in him. Phil. 3:9, “That I may 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.” 1 John 2:28, “And now, little children, abide in him; that when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.” In order for people to be blessed after death, it is necessary not only that they should once be in him, but that they should die in him. Rev. 14:13, “Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord.” And there is the same reason why faith, the uniting qualification, should remain in order to the union’s remaining, as why it should once be, in order to the union’s once being.

So that although the sinner is actually and finally justified on the first act of faith, yet the perseverance of faith, even then, comes into consideration, as one thing on which the fitness of acceptance to life depends. God in the act of justification, which is passed on a sinner’s first believing, has respect to perseverance, as being virtually contained in that first act of faith, and it is looked upon, and taken by him that justifies, as being as it were a property in that faith. God has respect to the believer’s continuance in faith, and he is justified by that, as though it already were, because by divine establishment it shall follow, and it being by divine constitution connected with that first faith, as much as if it were a property in it, it is then considered as such, and so justification is not suspended. But were it not for this, it would be needful that it should be suspended, till the sinner had actually persevered in faith.

And that it is so, that God in the act of final justification which he passes at the sinner’s conversion, has respect to perseverance in faith, and future acts of faith, as being virtually implied in the first act, is further manifest by this, viz. That in a sinner’s justification, at his conversion there is virtually contained a forgiveness as to eternal and deserved punishment, not only of all past sins, but also of all future infirmities and acts of sin that they shall be guilty of, because that first justification is decisive and final. And yet pardon, in the order of nature, properly follows the crime, and also follows those acts of repentance and faith that respect the crime pardoned, as is manifest both from reason and Scripture. David, in the beginning of Psalm 32 speaks of the forgiveness of sins which were doubtless committed long after he was first godly, as being consequent on those sins, and on his repentance and faith with respect to them, and yet this forgiveness is spoken of by the apostle in the 4th of Romans, as an instance of justification by faith. Probably the sin David there speaks of is the same that he committed in the matter of Uriah, and so the pardon the same with that release from death or eternal punishment, which the prophet Nathan speaks of, 2 Sam. 12:13, “The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.” Not only does the manifestation of this pardon follow the sin in the order of time, but the pardon itself, in the order of nature, follows David’s repentance and faith with respect to this sin. For it is spoken of in Psalm 32 as depending on it.

But inasmuch as a sinner, in his first justification, is forever justified and freed from all obligation to eternal punishment, it hence of necessity follows, that future faith and repentance are beheld, in that justification, as virtually contained in that first faith and repentance. Because repentance of those future sins, and faith in a Redeemer, with respect to them, or at least, the continuance of that habit and principle in the heart that has such an actual repentance and faith in its nature and tendency, is now made sure by God’s promise. — If remission of sins committed after conversion, in the order of nature, follows that faith and repentance that is after them, then it follows that future sins are respected in the first justification, no otherwise than as future faith and repentance are respected in it. And future repentance and faith are looked upon by him that justifies, as virtually implied in the first repentance and faith, in the same manner as justification from future sins is virtually implied in the first justification, which is the thing that was to be proved.

And besides, if no other act of faith could be concerned in justification but the first act, it will then follow that Christians ought never to seek justification by any other act of faith. For if justification is not to be obtained by after acts of faith, then surely it is not a duty to seek it by such acts. And so it can never be a duty for persons after they are once converted, by faith to seek God, or believingly to look to him for the remission of sin, or deliverance from the guilt of it, because deliverance from the guilt of sin, is part of what belongs to justification. And if it be not proper for converts by faith to look to God through Christ for it, then it will follow that it is not proper for them to pray for it. For Christian prayer to God for a blessing, is but an expression of faith in God for that blessing: prayer is only the voice of faith. But if these things are so, it will follow that the petition in the Lord’s prayer, forgive us our debts, is not proper to be put up by the disciples of Christ, or to be used in Christian assemblies, and that Christ improperly directed his disciples to use that petition, when they were all of them, except Judas, converted before. The debt that Christ directs his disciples to pray for the forgiveness of, can mean nothing else but the punishment that sin deserves, or the debt that we owe to divine justice, the ten thousand talents we owe our Lord. To pray that God would forgive our debts, is undoubtedly the same thing as to pray that God would release us from obligation to due punishment. But releasing from obligation to the punishment due to sin, and forgiving the debt that we owe to divine justice, is what appertains to justification.

Then to suppose that no after acts of faith are concerned in the business of justification, and so that it is not proper for any ever to seek justification by such acts, would be forever to cut off those Christians that are doubtful concerning their first act of faith, from the joy and peace of believing. As the business of a justifying faith is to obtain pardon and peace with God by looking to God, and trusting in him for these blessings, so the joy and peace of that faith is in the apprehension of pardon and peace obtained by such a trust. This a Christian that is doubtful of his first act of faith cannot have from that act, because, by the supposition, he is doubtful whether it be an act of faith, and so whether be did obtain pardon and peace by that act. The proper remedy, in such a case, is now by faith to look to God in Christ for these blessings, but he is cut off from this remedy, because he is uncertain whether he his warrant so to do. For he does not know but that he has believed already, and if so, then he has no warrant to look to God by faith for these blessings now, because, by the supposition, no new act of faith is a proper means of obtaining these blessings. So he can never properly obtain the joy of faith, for there are acts of true faith that are very weak, and the first act may be so as well as others. It may be like the first motion of the infant in the womb: it may be so weak an act, that the Christian, by examining it, may never be able to determine whether it was a true act of faith or no. It is evident from fact, and abundant experience, that many Christians are forever at a loss to determine which was their first act of faith. And those saints who have had a good degree of satisfaction concerning their faith, may be subject to great declensions and falls, in which case they are liable to great fears of eternal punishment. The proper way of deliverance, is to forsake their sin by repentance, and by faith now to come to Christ for deliverance from the deserved eternal punishment. But this it would not be, if deliverance from that punishment was not this way to be obtained.

But what is a still more plain and direct evidence of what I am now arguing for, is that the act of faith which Abraham exercised in the great promise of the covenant of grace that God made to him, of which it is expressly said, Gal. 3:6, “It was accounted to him for righteousness” — the grand instance and proof that the apostle so much insists upon throughout Romans 4, and Galatians 3, to confirm his doctrine of justification by faith alone — was not Abraham’s first act of faith, but was exerted long after he had by faith forsaken his own country, Heb. 11:8, and had been treated as an eminent friend of God.

Moreover, the apostle Paul, in Philippians 3, tells us how earnestly he sought justification by faith, or to win Christ and obtain that righteousness which was by the faith of him, in what he did after his conversion. Phil. 3:8, 9, “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.” And in the two next verses he expresses the same thing in other words, and tells us how he went through sufferings, and became conformable to Christ’s death, that he might be a partaker with Christ in the benefit of his resurrection, which the same apostle elsewhere teaches us, is especially justification. Christ’s resurrection was his justification. In this, he that was put to death in the flesh, was justified by the Spirit, and he that was delivered for our offenses, rose again for our justification. And the apostle tells us in the verses that follow in that third chapter of Philippians, that he thus sought to attain the righteousness which is through the faith of Christ, and so to partake of the benefit of his resurrection, still as though he had not already attained, but that he continued to follow after it.

On the whole, it appears that the perseverance of faith is necessary, even to the congruity of justification, and that not the less, because a sinner is justified, and perseverance promised, on the first act of faith. But God, in that justification, has respect, not only to the past act of faith, but to his own promise of future acts, and to the fitness of a qualification beheld as yet only in his own promise. And that perseverance in faith is thus necessary to salvation, not merely as a sine qua non, or as a universal concomitant of it, but by reason of such an influence and dependence, seems manifest by many Scriptures, I would mention two or three — Heb. 3:6, “Whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence, and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.” Verse 14, “For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end.” Heb. 6:12, “Be ye followers of them, who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” Rom. 11:20, “Well, because of unbelief they were broken off; but thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear.”

And, as the congruity to a final justification depends on perseverance in faith, as well as the first act, so oftentimes the manifestation of justification in the conscience, arises a great deal more from after acts, than the first act. All the difference whereby the first act of faith has a concern in this affair that is peculiar, seems to be, as it were, only an accidental difference, arising from the circumstance of time, or its being first in order of time, and not from any peculiar respect that God has to it, or any influence it has of a peculiar nature, in the affair of our salvation.

And thus it is that a truly Christian walk, and the acts of an evangelical, child-like, believing obedience, are concerned in the affair of our justification, and seem to be sometimes so spoken of in Scripture, viz. as an expression of a persevering faith in the Son of God, the only Savior. Faith unites to Christ, and so gives a congruity to justification, not merely as remaining a dormant principle in the heart, but as being and appearing in its active expressions. The obedience of a Christian, so far as it is truly evangelical, and performed with the Spirit of the Son sent forth into the heart, has all relation to Christ the Mediator, and is but an expression of the soul’s believing unition to Christ. All evangelical works are works of that faith that worketh by love, and every such act of obedience, wherein it is inward, and the act of the soul, is only a new effective act of reception of Christ, and adherence to the glorious Savior. Hence that of the apostle, Gal. 2:20, “I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life that I now live in the flesh, is by the faith of the Son of God.” And hence we are directed, in whatever we do, whether in word or deed, to do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Col. 3:17.

And that God in justification has respect, not only to the first act of faith, but also to future persevering acts, as expressed in life, seems manifest by Rom. 1:17, “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.” And Heb. 10:38, 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 who draw back unto perdition, but of them that believe, to the saving of the soul.”

So that, as was before said of faith, so may it be said of a child-like believing obedience: it has no concern in justification by any virtue or excellency in it, but only as there is a reception of Christ in it. And this is no more contrary to the apostle’s frequent assertion of our being justified without the works of the law, than to say that we are justified by faith. For faith is as much a work, or act of Christian obedience, as the expressions of faith, in spiritual life and walk. And therefore, as we say that faith does not justify as a work, so we say of all these effective expressions of faith.

This is the reverse of the scheme of our modem divines, who hold that faith justifies only as an act or expression of obedience. Whereas, in truth, obedience has no concern in justification, any otherwise than as an expression of faith.

I now proceed to the

IV. Thing proposed, viz. To answer objections.

Object. 1. We frequently find promises of eternal life and salvation, and sometimes of justification itself, made to our own virtue and obedience. Eternal life is promised to obedience, in Rom. 2:7, “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory, honor, and immortality, eternal life:” And the like in innumerable other places. And justification itself is promised to that virtue of a forgiving spirit or temper in us, Mat. 6:14, “For, if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” All allow that justification in great part consists in the forgiveness of sins.

To this I answer,

1. These things being promised to our virtue and obedience, argues no more, than that there is a connection between them and evangelical obedience, which, I have already observed, is not the thing in dispute. All that can be proved by obedience and salvation being connected in the promise, is that obedience and salvation are connected in fact, which nobody denies, and whether it be owned or denied, is, as has been shown, nothing to the purpose. There is no need that an admission to a title to salvation should be given on the account of our obedience, in order to the promises being true. If we find such a promise, that he that obeys shall be saved, or he that is holy shall be justified, all that is needful, in order to such promises being true, is that it be really so: that he that obeys shall be saved, and that holiness and justification shall indeed go together. That proposition may be a truth, that he that obeys shall be saved, because obedience and salvation are connected together in fact, and yet an acceptance to a title to salvation not be granted upon the account of any of our own virtue or obedience. What is a promise, but only a declaration of future truth, for the comfort and encouragement of the person to whom it is declared? Promises are conditional propositions, and, as has been already observed, it is not the thing in dispute, whether other things besides faith may not have the place of the condition in such propositions wherein pardon and salvation are the consequent.

2. Promises may rationally be made to signs and evidences of faith, and yet the thing promised not be upon the account of the sign, but the thing signified. Thus, for instance, human government may rationally make promises of such and such privileges to those that can show such evidences of their being free of such a city, or members of such a corporation, or descended of such a family, when it is not at all for the sake of that which is the evidence or sign, in itself considered, that they are admitted to such a privilege, but only and purely for the sake of that which it is an evidence of. And though God does not stand in need of signs to know whether we have true faith or not, yet our own consciences do, so that it is much for our comfort that promises are made to signs of faith. Finding in ourselves a forgiving temper and disposition, may be a most proper and natural evidence to our consciences, that our hearts have, in a sense of our own utter unworthiness, truly closed and fallen in with the way of free and infinitely gracious forgiveness of our sins by Jesus Christ, whence we may be enabled, with the greater comfort, to apply to ourselves the promises of forgiveness by Christ.

3. It has been just now shown, how that acts of evangelical obedience are indeed concerned in our justification itself, and are not excluded from that condition that justification depends upon, without the least prejudice to that doctrine of justification by faith, without any goodness of our own, that has been maintained. Therefore it can be no objection against this doctrine, that we have sometimes in Scripture promises of pardon and acceptance made to such acts of obedience.

4. Promises of particular benefits implied in justification and salvation, may especially be fitly made to such expressions and evidences of faith as they have a peculiar natural likeness and suitableness to. As forgiveness is promised to a forgiving spirit in us, obtaining mercy is fitly promised to mercifulness in us, and the like, and that upon several accounts, they are the most natural evidences of our heart’s closing with those benefits by faith. For they do especially show the sweet accord and consent that there is between the heart and these benefits, and by reason of the natural likeness that there is between the virtue and the benefit, the one has the greater tendency to bring the other to mind. The practice of the virtue tends the more to renew the sense, and refresh the hope of the blessing promised, and also to convince the conscience of the justice of being denied the benefit, if the duty be neglected. Besides the sense and manifestation of divine forgiveness in our own consciences — yea, and many exercises of God’s forgiving mercy (as it respects God’s fatherly displeasure), granted after justification, through the course of a Christian’s life — may be given as the proper rewards of a forgiving spirit, and yet this not be at all to the prejudice of the doctrine we have maintained, as will more fully appear, when we come to answer another objection hereafter to be mentioned.

Object. 2. Our own obedience, and inherent holiness, is necessary to prepare men for heaven, and therefore is doubtless what recommends persons to God’s acceptance, as the heirs of heaven.

To this I answer,

1. Our own obedience being necessary, in order to a preparation for an actual bestowment of glory, is no argument that it is the thing upon the account of which we are accepted to a right to it. God may, and does do many things to prepare the saints for glory, after he has accepted them as the heirs of glory. A parent may do much to prepare a child for an inheritance in its education, after the child is an heir. Yea, there are many things necessary to fit a child for the actual possession of the inheritance, yet not necessary in order to its having a right to the inheritance.

2. If everything that is necessary to prepare men for glory must be the proper condition of justification, then perfect holiness is the condition of justification. Men must be made perfectly holy, before they are admitted to the enjoyment of the blessedness of heaven, for there must in no wise enter in there any spiritual defilement. And therefore, when a saint dies, he leaves all his sin and corruption when he leaves the body.

Object. 3. Our obedience is not only indissolubly connected with salvation, and preparatory to it, but the Scripture expressly speaks of bestowing eternal blessings as rewards for the good deeds of the saints. Mat. 10:42, “Whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, he shall in no wise lose his reward.” 1 Cor 3:8, “Every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor.” And in many other places. This seems to militate against the doctrine that has been maintained, two ways: (1.) The bestowing a reward, carries in it a respect to a moral fitness in the thing rewarded to the reward. The very notion of a reward being a benefit bestowed in testimony of acceptance of, and respect to, the goodness or amiableness of some qualification or work in the person rewarded. Besides, the Scripture seems to explain itself in this matter, in Rev. 3:4, “Thou hast a few names, even in Sardis, which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white; for they are worthy.” This is here given as the reason why they should have such a reward, “because they were worthy;” which, though we suppose it to imply no proper merit, yet it at least implies a moral fitness, or that the excellency of their virtue in God’s sight recommends them to such a reward, which seems directly repugnant to what has been supposed, viz. that we are accepted, and approved of God, as the heirs of salvation, not out of regard to the excellency of our own virtue or goodness, or any moral fitness therein to such a reward, but only on account of the dignity and moral fitness of Christ’s righteousness. (2.) Our being eternally rewarded for our own holiness and good works, necessarily supposes that our future happiness will be greater or smaller, in some proportion as our own holiness and obedience is more or less, and that there are different degrees of glory, according to different degrees of virtue and good works, is a doctrine very expressly and frequently taught us in Scripture. But this seems quite inconsistent with the saints all having their future blessedness as a reward of Christ’s righteousness. For if Christ’s righteousness be imputed to all, and this be what entitles each one to glory, then it is the same righteousness that entitles one to glory which entitles another. But if all have glory as the reward of the same righteousness, why have not all the same glory? Does not the same righteousness merit as much glory when imputed to one as when imputed to another?

In answer to the first part of this objection, I would observe, that it does not argue that we are justified by our good deeds, that we shall have eternal blessings in reward for them. For it is in consequence of our justification, that our good deeds become rewardable with spiritual and eternal rewards. The acceptableness, and so the rewardableness, of our virtue, is not antecedent to justification, but follows it, and is built entirely upon it, which is the reverse of what those in the adverse scheme of justification suppose, viz. that justification is built on the acceptableness and rewardableness of our virtue. They suppose that a saving interest in Christ is given as a reward of our virtue, or (which is the same thing), as a testimony of God’s acceptance of our excellency in our virtue. But the contrary is true: that God’s respect to our virtue as our amiableness in his sight, and his acceptance of it as rewardable, is entirely built on our interest in Christ already established. So that the relation to Christ, whereby believers in scripture language are said to be in Christ, is the very foundation of our virtues and good deeds being accepted of God, and so their being rewarded. For a reward is a testimony of acceptance. For we, and all that we do, are accepted only in the beloved, Eph. 1:6. Our sacrifices are acceptable, only through our interest in him, and through his worthiness and preciousness being, as it were, made ours. 1 Pet. 2:4, 5, “To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious. Ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” Here being actually built on this stone, precious to God, is mentioned as all the ground of the acceptableness of our good works to God, and their becoming also precious in his eyes. So, Heb. 13:21, “Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ.” And hence we are directed, whatever we offer to God, to offer it in Christ’s name, as expecting to have it accepted no other way, than from the value that God has to that name. Col. 3:17, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.” To act in Christ’s name, is to act under him as our head, and as having him to stand for us, and represent us to God-ward.

The reason of this may be seen from what has been already said, to show it is not meet that anything in us should be accepted of God as any excellency of our persons, until we are actually in Christ, and justified through him. The loveliness of the virtue of fallen creatures is nothing in the sight of God, till he beholds them in Christ, and clothed with his righteousness. 1. Because till then we stand condemned before God, by his own holy law, to his utter rejection and abhorrence. And, 2. Because we are infinitely guilty before him, and the loveliness of our virtue bears no proportion to our guilt, and must therefore pass for nothing before a strict judge. And, 3. Because our good deeds and virtuous acts themselves are in a sense corrupt, and the hatefulness of the corruption of them, if we are beheld as we are in ourselves, or separate from Christ, infinitely outweighs the loveliness of the good that is in them. So that if no other sin was considered but only that which attends the act of virtue itself, the loveliness vanishes into nothing in comparison of it, and therefore the virtue must pass for nothing, out of Christ. Not only are our best duties defiled, in being attended with the exercises of sin and corruption which precede, follow, and are intermingled with them, but even the holy acts themselves, and the gracious exercises of the godly, are defective. Though the act most simply considered is good, yet take the acts in their measure and dimensions, and the manner in which they are exerted, and they are sinfully defective: there is that defect in them that may well be called the corruption of them. That defect is properly sin, an expression of a vile sinfulness of heart and what tends to provoke the just anger of God, not because the exercises of love and other grace is not equal to God’s loveliness. For it is impossible the love of creatures (men or angels) should be so, but because the act is so very disproportionate to the occasion given for love or other grace, considering God’s loveliness, the manifestation that is made of it, the exercises of kindness, the capacity of human nature, and our advantages (and the like) together. — A negative expression of corruption may be as truly sin, and as just cause of provocation, as a positive. Thus if a worthy and excellent person should, from mere generosity and goodness, exceedingly lay out himself, and with great expense and suffering save another’s life, or redeem him from some extreme calamity, and if that other person should never thank him for it, or express the least gratitude any way, this would be a negative expression of his ingratitude and baseness. But [it] is equivalent to an act of ingratitude, or positive exercise of a base unworthy spirit, and is truly an expression of it, and brings as much blame as if he by some positive act had much injured another person. And so it would be (only in a lesser degree) if the gratitude was but very small, bearing no proportion to the benefit obligation. As if, for so great and extraordinary a kindness, he should express no more gratitude than would have been becoming towards a person who had only given him a cup of water when thirsty, or shown him the way in a journey when at a loss, or had done him some such small kindness. If he should come to his benefactor to express his gratitude, and should do after this manner, he might truly be said to act unworthily and odiously, he would show a most ungrateful spirit. His doing after such a manner might justly be abhorred by all, and yet the gratitude, that little there is of it, most simply considered, and so far as it goes, is good. And so it is with respect to our exercise of love, and gratitude, and other graces, towards God. They are defectively corrupt and sinful, and take them as they are, in their manner and measure, might justly be odious and provoking to God, and would necessarily be so, were we beheld out of Christ. For in that this defect is sin, it is infinitely hateful, and so the hatefulness of the very act infinitely outweighs the loveliness of it, because all sin has infinite hatefulness and heinousness. But our holiness has but little value and loveliness, as has been elsewhere demonstrated.

Hence, though it be true that the saints are rewarded for their good works, yet it is for Christ’s sake only, and not for the excellency of their works in themselves considered, or beheld separately from Christ. For so they have no excellency in God’s sight, or acceptableness to him, as has now been shown. It is acknowledged that God, in rewarding the holiness and good works of believers, does in some respect give them happiness as a testimony of his respect to the loveliness of their holiness and good works in his sight. For that is the very notion of a reward. But it is in a very different sense from what would have been if man had not fallen, which would have been to bestow eternal life on man, as a testimony of God’s respect to the loveliness of what man did, considered as in itself, and as in man separately by himself, and not beheld as a member of Christ. In which sense also, the scheme of justification we are opposing necessarily supposes the excellency of our virtue to be respected and rewarded. For it supposes a saving interest in Christ itself to be given as a reward of it.

Two things come to pass, relating to the saints’ reward for their inherent righteousness, by virtue of their relation to Christ. 1. The guilt of their persons is all done away, and the pollution and hatefulness that attends and is in their good works, is hid. 2. Their relation to Christ adds a positive value and dignity to their good works in God’s sight. That little holiness, and those faint and feeble acts of love, and other grace, receive and exceeding value in the sight of God, by virtue of God’s beholding them as in Christ, and as it were members of one so infinitely worthy in his eyes, and that because God looks upon the persons as of greater dignity on this account. Isa. 43:4, “Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou has been honorable.” God, for Christ’s sake, and because they are members of his own righteous and dear Son, sets an exceeding value upon their persons. Hence it follows, that he also sets a great value upon their good acts and offerings. The same love and obedience in a person of greater dignity and value in God’s sight, is more valuable in his eyes than in one of less dignity. Love is valuable in proportion to the dignity of the person whose love it is, because so far as anyone gives his love to another, he gives himself, in that he gives his heart. But this is a more excellent offering, in proportion as the person whose self is offered is more worthy. Believers are become immensely more honorable in God’s esteem by virtue of their relation to Christ, than man would have been considered as by himself, though he had been free from sin: as a mean person becomes more honorable when married to a king. Hence God will probably reward the little weak love, and poor and exceeding imperfect obedience of believers in Christ, with more glorious reward than he would have done Adam’s perfect obedience. According to the tenor of the first covenant, the person was to be accepted and rewarded, only for the work’s sake. But by the covenant of grace, the work is accepted and rewarded, only for the person’s sake: the person being beheld antecedently as a member of Christ, and clothed with his righteousness. So that though the saints’ inherent holiness is rewarded, yet this very reward is indeed not the less founded on the worthiness and righteousness of Christ. None of the value that their works have in his sight, nor any of the acceptance they have with him, is out of Christ, and out of his righteousness. But his worthiness as mediator is the prime and only foundation on which all is built, and the universal source whence all arises. God indeed does great things out of regard to the saints’ loveliness, but it is only as a secondary and derivative loveliness. When I speak of a derivative loveliness, I do not mean only, that the qualifications themselves accepted as lovely, are derived from Christ, from his power and purchase, but that the acceptance of them as a loveliness, and all the value that is set upon them, and all their connection with the reward, is founded in, and derived from, Christ’s righteousness and worthiness.

If we suppose that not only higher degrees of glory in heaven, but heaven itself, is in some respect given in reward for the holiness and good works of the saints, in this secondary and derivative sense, it will not prejudice the doctrine we have maintained. It is no way impossible that God may bestow heavens’ glory wholly out of respect to Christ’s righteousness, and yet in reward for man’s inherent holiness, in different respects, and different ways. It may be only Christ’s righteousness that God has respect to, for its own sake, the independent acceptableness and dignity of it being sufficient of itself to recommend all that believe in Christ to a title to this glory. So it may be only by this that persons enter into a title to heaven, or have their prime right to it. Yet God may also have respect to the saints’ own holiness, for Christ’s sake, and as deriving a value from Christ’s merit, which he may testify in bestowing heaven upon them. The saints being beheld as members of Christ, their obedience is looked upon by God as something of Christ’s: it being the obedience of the members of Christ, as the sufferings of the members of Christ are looked upon, in some respect, as the sufferings of Christ. Hence the apostle, speaking of his sufferings, says, Col. 1:24, “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh.” To the same purpose is Mat. 25:35, etc. I was hungry, naked, sick, and in prison, etc. And so that in Rev. 11:8 “And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.”

By the merit and righteousness of Christ, such favor of God towards the believer may be obtained, as that God may hereby be already, as it were, disposed to make them perfectly and eternally happy. But yet this does not hinder, but that God in his wisdom may choose to bestow this perfect and eternal happiness in this way, viz. in some respect as a reward of their holiness and obedience. It is not impossible but that the blessedness may be bestowed as a reward for that which is done after that an interest is already obtained in that favor, which (to speak of God after the manner of men) disposes God to bestow the blessedness. Our heavenly Father may already have that favor for a child, whereby he may be thoroughly ready to give the child an inheritance, because he is his child, which he is by the purchase of Christ’s righteousness, and yet that the Father may choose to bestow the inheritance on the child in a way of reward for his dutifulness, and behaving in a manner becoming a child. And so great a reward may not be judged more than a meet reward for his dutifulness, but that so great a reward is judged meet, does not arise from the excellency of the obedience absolutely considered, but from his standing in so near and honorable a relation to God, as that of a child, which is obtained only by the righteousness of Christ. And thus the reward, and the greatness of it, arises properly from the righteousness of Christ, though it be indeed in some sort the reward of their obedience. As a father might justly esteem the inheritance no more than a meet reward for the obedience of his child, and yet esteem it more than a meet reward for the obedience of a servant. The favor whence a believer’s heavenly Father bestows the eternal inheritance, and his title as an heir, is founded in that relation he stands in to him as a child, purchased by Christ’s righteousness: though he in wisdom chooses to bestow it in such a way, and therein to testify his acceptance of the amiableness of his obedience in Christ.

Believers having a title to heaven by faith antecedent to their obedience, or its being absolutely promised to them before, does not hinder but that the actual bestowment of heaven may also be a testimony of God’s regard to their obedience, though performed afterwards. Thus it was with Abraham, the father and pattern of all believers. God bestowed upon him that blessing of multiplying his seed as the stars of heaven, and causing that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed, in reward for his obedience in offering up his son Isaac, Gen. 22:16, 17, 18, “And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and they seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.” And yet the very same blessings had been from time to time promised to Abraham, in the most positive terms, and the promise, with great solemnity, confirmed and sealed to him, as Gen. 12:2, 3; chap. 13:16; chap. 15:1, 4-7, etc. Gen. 17 throughout; chap. 18:10, 18.

From what has been said we may easily solve the difficulty arising from that text in Rev. 3:4, “They shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy;” which is parallel with that text in Luke 20:35, “But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead.” I allow (as in the objection) that this worthiness does doubtless denote a moral fitness to the reward, or that God looks on these glorious benefits as a meet testimony of his regard to the value which their persons and performances have in his sight.

1. God looks on these glorious benefits as a meet testimony of his regard to the value which their persons have in his sight. But he sets this value upon their persons purely for Christ’s sake. They are such jewels, and have such preciousness in his eyes, only because they are beheld in Christ, and by reason of the worthiness of the head they are the members of, and the stock they are grafted into. And the value that God sets upon them on this account is so great, that God thinks meet, from regard to it, to admit them to such exceeding glory. The saints, on account of their relation to Christ, are such precious jewels in God’s sight, that they are thought worthy of a place in his own crown. Mal. 3:17; Zec. 9:16. So far as the saints are said to be valuable in God’s sight, on whatever account, so far may they properly be said to be worthy, or meet for that honor which is answerable to the value or price which God sets upon them. A child or wife of a prince is worthy to be treated with great honor. Therefore if a mean person should be adopted to be a child of a prince, or should be espoused to a prince, it would be proper to say, that she was worthy of such and such honor and respect. There would be no force upon the words in saying that she ought to have such respect paid her, for she is worthy, though it be only on account of her relation to the prince that she is so.

2. From the value God sets upon their persons, for the sake of Christ’s worthiness, he also sets a high value on their virtue and performances. Their meek and quiet spirit is of great price in his sight. Their fruits are pleasant fruits, their offerings are an odor of sweet smell to him, and that because of the value he sets on their persons, as has been already observed and explained. This preciousness or high valuableness of believers is a moral fitness to a reward. Yet this valuableness is all in the righteousness of Christ, that is the foundation of it. The thing respected is not excellency in them separately by themselves, or in their virtue by itself, but the value in God’s account arises from other considerations, which is the natural import of Luke 20:35, “They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world,” etc. and Luke 21:36, “That ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.” 2 Thes. 1:5, “That ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer.”

There is a vast difference between this scheme, and what is supposed in the scheme of those that oppose the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This lays the foundation of first acceptance with God, and all actual salvation consequent upon it, wholly in Christ and his righteousness. On the contrary, in their scheme, a regard to man’s own excellency or virtue is supposed to be first, and to have the place of the first foundation in actual salvation, though not in that ineffectual redemption, which they suppose common to all. They lay the foundation of all discriminating salvation in man’s own virtue and moral excellency. This is the very bottom stone in this affair, for they suppose that it is from regard to our virtue, that even a special interest in Christ itself is given. The foundation being thus contrary, the whole scheme becomes exceeding diverse and contrary. The one is an evangelical scheme, the other a legal one. The one is utterly inconsistent with our being justified by Christ’s righteousness, the other not at all.

From what has been said, we may understand, not only how the forgiveness of sin granted in justification is indissolubly connected with a forgiving spirit in us, but how there may be many exercises of forgiving mercy granted in reward for our forgiving those who trespass against us. For none will deny but that there are many acts of divine forgiveness towards the saints, that do not presuppose an unjustified state immediately preceding that forgiveness. None will deny, that saints who never fell from a justified state, yet commit many sins which God forgives afterwards, by laying aside his fatherly displeasure. This forgiveness may be in reward for our forgiveness, without any prejudice to the doctrine that has been maintained, as well as other mercies and blessings consequent on justification.

With respect to the second part of the objection, that relates to the different degrees of glory, and the seeming inconsistency there is in it, that the degrees of glory in different saints should be greater or lesser according to their inherent holiness and good works, and yet, that everyone’s glory should be purchased with the price of the very same imputed righteousness, — I answer that Christ, by his righteousness, purchased for everyone complete and perfect happiness, according to his capacity. But this does not hinder but that the saints, being of various capacities, may have various degrees of happiness, and yet all their happiness be the fruit of Christ’s purchase. Indeed it cannot be properly said, that Christ purchased any particular degree of happiness, so that the value of Christ’s righteousness in the sight of God, is sufficient to raise a believer so high in happiness, and no higher, and so that if the believer were made happier, it would exceed the value of Christ’s righteousness. But in general, Christ purchased eternal life, or perfect happiness for all, according to their several capacities. The saints are as so many vessels of different sizes, cast into a sea of happiness, where every vessel is full: this Christ purchased for all. But after all, it is left to God’s sovereign pleasure to determine the largeness of the vessel. Christ’s righteousness meddles not with this matter. Eph 4:4, 5, 6, 7, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” etc. — “But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.” God may dispense in this matter according to what rule he pleases, not the less for what Christ has done: he may dispense either without condition, or upon what condition he pleases to fix. It is evident that Christ’s righteousness meddles not with this matter, for what Christ did was to fulfill the covenant of works, but the covenant of works did not meddle at all with this. If Adam had persevered in perfect obedience, he and his posterity would have had perfect and full happiness. Everyone’s happiness would have so answered his capacity, that he would have been completely blessed. But God would have been at liberty to have made some of one capacity, and other of another, as he pleased. — The angels have obtained eternal life, or a state of confirmed glory, by a covenant of works, whose condition was perfect obedience. But yet some are higher in glory than others, according to the several capacities that God, according to his sovereign pleasure, has given them. So that it being still left with God, notwithstanding the perfect obedience of the second Adam, to fix the degree of each one’s capacity by what rule he pleases, he has been pleased to fix the degree of capacity, and so of glory, by the proportion of the saints’ grace and fruitfulness here. He gives higher degrees of glory, in reward for higher degrees of holiness and good works, because it pleases him, and yet all the happiness of each saint is indeed the fruit of the purchase of Christ’s obedience. If it had been but one man that Christ had obeyed and died for, and it had pleased God to make him a very large capacity, Christ’s perfect obedience would have purchased that his capacity should be filled, and then all his happiness might properly be said to be the fruit of Christ’s perfect obedience. Though, if he had been of a less capacity, he would not have had so much happiness by the same obedience, and yet would have had as much as Christ merited for him. Christ’s righteousness meddles not with the degree of happiness, any otherwise than as he merits that it should be full and perfect, according to the capacity. So it may be said to be concerned in the degree of happiness, as perfect is a degree with respect to imperfect, but it meddles not with degrees of perfect happiness.

This matter may be yet better understood, if we consider that Christ and the whole church of saints are, as it were, one body, of which he is the Head, and they members, of different place and capacity. Now the whole body, head, and members, have communion in Christ’s righteousness: they are all partakers of the benefit of it. Christ himself the Head is rewarded for it, and every member is partaker of the benefit and reward. But it does by no means follow, that every part should equally partake of the benefit, but every part in proportion to its place and capacity. The Head partakes of far more than other parts, and the more noble members partake of more than the inferior. As it is in a natural body that enjoys perfect health, the head, and the heart, and lungs, have a greater share of this health. They have it more seated in them, than the hands and feet, because they are parts of greater capacity, though the hands and feet are as much in perfect health as those nobler parts of the body. So it is in the mystical body of Christ: all the members are partakers of the benefit of the Head, but it is according to the different capacity and place they have in the body. God determines that place and capacity as he pleases. He makes whom he pleases the foot, and whom he pleases the hand, and whom he pleases the lungs, etc. 1 Cor 12:18, “God hath set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.” God efficaciously determines the place and capacity of every member, by the different degrees of grace and assistance in the improvement of it in this world. Those that he intends for the highest place in the body, he gives them most of his Spirit, the greatest share of the divine nature, the Spirit and nature of Christ Jesus the Head, and that assistance whereby they perform the most excellent works, and do most abound in them.

Object. 4. It may be objected against what has been supposed (viz. that rewards are given to our good works, only in consequence of an interest in Christ, or in testimony of God’s respect to the excellency or value of them in his sight, as built on an interest in Christ’s righteousness already obtained). That the Scripture speaks of an interest in Christ itself, as being given out of respect to our moral fitness. Mat. 10:37, 38, 39, “He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me: he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me: he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me: he that findeth his life, shall lose it,” etc. Worthiness here at least signifies a moral fitness, or an excellency that recommends. And this place seems to intimate as though it were from respect to a moral fitness that men are admitted even to an union with Christ, and interest in him. Therefore this worthiness cannot be consequent on being in Christ, and by the imputation of his worthiness, or from any value that is in us, or in our actions in God’s sight, as beheld in Christ.

To this I answer, that though persons when they are accepted, are not accepted as worthy, yet when they are rejected, they are rejected as unworthy. He that does not love Christ above other things, but treats him with such indignity, as to set him below earthly things, shall be treated as unworthy of Christ. His unworthiness of Christ, especially in that particular, shall be marked against him, and imputed to him. And though he be a professing Christian, and live in the enjoyment of the gospel, and has been visibly ingrafted into Christ, and admitted as one of his disciples, as Judas was, yet he shall be thrust out in wrath, as a punishment of his vile treatment of Christ. The forementioned words do not imply that if a man does love Christ above father and mother, etc. that he would be worthy. The most they imply is that such a visible Christian shall be treated and thrust out as unworthy. He that believes is not received for the worthiness or moral fitness of faith, but yet the visible Christian is cast out by God, for the unworthiness and moral unfitness of unbelief. A being accepted as one of Christ’s, is not the reward of believing, but being thrust out from being one of Christ’s disciples, after a visible admission as such, is properly a punishment of unbelief. John 3:18,19, “He that believeth on him, is not condemned; but he that believeth not, is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” Salvation is promised to faith as a free gift, but damnation is threatened to unbelief as a debt, or punishment due to unbelief. They who believed while in the wilderness, did not enter into Canaan, because of the worthiness of their faith. But God swore in his wrath, that they that believed not should not enter in, because of the unworthiness of their unbelief. Admitting a soul to an union with Christ is an act of free and sovereign grace, but excluding at death, and at the day of judgment, those professors of Christianity who have had the offers of a Savior, and enjoyed great privileges as God’s people, is a judicial proceeding, and a just punishment of their unworthy treatment of Christ. The design of this saying of Christ is to make them sensible of the unworthiness of their treatment of Christ, who professed him to be their Lord and Savior, and set him below father and mother, etc. and not to show the worthiness of loving him above father and mother. If a beggar should be offered any great and precious gift, but as soon as offered, should trample it under his feet, it might be taken from him, as unworthy to have it. Or if a malefactor should have his pardon offered him, that he might be freed from execution, and should only scoff at it, his pardon might be refused him, as unworthy of it. Though if he had received it, he would not have had it for his worthiness, or as being recommended to it by his virtue. For his being a malefactor supposes him unworthy, and its being offered him to have it only on accepting, supposes that the king looks for no worthiness, nothing in him for which he should bestow pardon as a reward. This may teach us how to understand Acts 13:46, “It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken unto you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.”

Object. 5. It is objected against the doctrine of justification by faith alone, that repentance is evidently spoken of in Scripture as that which is in a special manner the condition of remission of sins: but remission of sins is by all allowed to be that wherein justification does (at least) in great part consist.

But it must certainly arise from a misunderstanding of what the Scripture says about repentance, to suppose that faith and repentance are two distinct things, that in like manner are the conditions of justification. For it is most plain from the Scripture, that the condition of justification, or that in us by which we are justified, is but one, and that isfaith. Faith and repentance are not two distinct conditions of justification, nor are they two distinct things that together make one condition of justification. But faith comprehends the whole of that by which we are justified, or by which we come to have an interest in Christ, and there is nothing else that has a parallel concern with it in the

affair of our salvation. And this the divines on the other side themselves are sensible of, and therefore they suppose that the faith the apostle Paul speaks of, which he says we are justified by alone, comprehends in it repentance.

And therefore, in answer to the objection, I would say that when repentance is spoken of in Scripture as the condition of pardon, thereby is not intended any particular grace, or act, properly distinct from faith, that has a parallel influence with it in the affair of our pardon or justification. But by repentance is intended nothing distinct from active conversion (or conversion actively considered), as it respects the term from which. Active conversion is a motion or exercise of the mind that respects two terms, viz. sin and God, and by repentance is meant this conversion, or active change of the mind, so far as it is conversant about the term from which or about sin. This is what the word repentance properly signifies: a change of the mind, or, which is the same thing, the turning or the conversion of the mind. Repentance is this turning, as it respects what is turned from. Acts 26:19. — “Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I showed unto them of Damascus and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the  aaaaaGentiles, that they should repent, and turn to God.” Both these are the same turning, but only with respect to opposite terms. In the former is expressed the exercise of mind about sin in this turning: in the other, the exercise of mind towards God.

If we look over the Scriptures that speak of evangelical repentance, we shall presently see that repentance is to be understood in this sense, as Mat. 9:13, “I am nota  come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Luke 13:3, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” And chap. 15:7, 10, “There is joy in heaven over one sinner

that repenteth,” i. e. over one sinner that is converted. Acts 11:18, “Then hath God alsoto the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” This is said by the Christians of the circumcision at Jerusalem, upon Peter’s giving an account of the conversion of Cornelius and his family, and their embracing the gospel, though Peter had said nothing expressly about their sorrow for sin. And again, Acts 17:30, “But now commandeth all men every where to          "repent.” And Luke 16:30, “Nay, father Abraham, but if one went to them frothe dead, they would repent.” 2 Pet. 3:9, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” It is plain that in these and other places,

by repentance is meant conversion.

Now it is true, that conversion is the condition of pardon and justification. But if it be so, how absurd is it to say, that conversion is one condition of justification, and faith another, as though they were two distributively distinct and parallel conditions?  Conversion is the condition of justification, because it is that great change by which we are brought from sin to Christ, and by which we become believers in him: agreeable to Mat. 21:32, “And ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.” When we are directed to repent, that our sins may be blotted out, it is as much as to say, let your minds and hearts be changed, that your sins may be blotted out. But if it

be said, let your hearts be changed, that you may be justified, and believe, that you may be justified, does it therefore follow, that the heart being changed is one condition ofjustification, and believing another? But our minds must be changed, that we may believe, and so may be justified.

And besides, evangelical repentance, being active conversion, is not to be treated of as a particular grace, properly and entirely distinct from faith, as by some it seems to have been. What is conversion, but the sinful, alienated soul’s closing with Christ, or th sinner’s being brought to believe in Christ? That exercise of soul in conversion that respects sin, cannot be excluded out of the nature of faith in Christ: there is something in

faith, or closing with Christ, that respects sin, and that is evangelical repentance. That repentance which in Scripture is called, repentance for the remission of sins, is that very principle or operation of the mind itself that is called faith, so far as it is conversant about sin. Justifying faith in a Mediator is conversant about two things. It is conversant about sin or evil to be rejected and to be delivered from, and about positive good to be accepted and obtained by the Mediator. As conversant about the former of these, it is

evangelical repentance, or repentance for remission of sins. Surely they must be veryignorant, or at least very inconsiderate, of the whole tenor of the gospel, who think that the repentance by which remission of sins is obtained, can be completed as to all that is essential to it, without any respect to Christ, or application of the mind to the Mediator, who alone has made atonement for sin. — Surely so great a part of salvation as remission of sins, is not to be obtained without looking or coming to the great and only Savior. It is true, repentance, in its more general abstracted nature, is only a sorrow for sin, and forsaking of it, which is a duty of natural religion. But evangelical repentance, for repentance for remission of sins, has more than this essential to it: a dependence of

soul on the Mediator for deliverance from sin, is of the essence of it.

That justifying repentance has the nature of faith, seems evident by Acts 19:4, “Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on ChristJesus.” The latter words, “saying unto the people, that they should believe on him,” etc.

are evidently exegetical of the former, and explain how he preached repentance for the remission of sins. When it is said, that he preached repentance for the remission of sin, saying that they should believe on Christ, it cannot be supposed but that his saying, that they should believe on Christ, was intended as directing them what to do that they might obtain the remission of sins. So 2 Tim. 2:25, “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if Godperadventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” That acknowledging of the truth which there is in believing, is here spoken of as

what is retained in repentance. And on the other hand, that faith includes repentance in its nature, is evident by the apostle’s speaking of sin as destroyed in faith, Gal. 2:18. — In the preceding verses the apostle mentions an objection against the doctrine of justification by faith alone, viz. that it tends to encourage men in sin, and so to make Christ the minister of sin. This objection he rejects and refutes with this, “If I build again the things that I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” If sin be destroyed by faith, it must be by repentance of sin included in it. For we know that it is our repentance of sin, or the ìåôáíïéá, or turning of the mind from sin, that is our destroying our sin.

That in justifying faith which directly respects sin, or the evil to be delivered from by the Mediator, is as follows: a sense of our own sinfulness, and the hatefulness of it, and a hearty acknowledgment of its desert of the threatened punishment, looking to the free mercy of God in a Redeemer, for deliverance from it and its punishment.

Concerning this, here described, three things may be noted: 1. That it is the very same with that evangelical repentance to which remission of sins is promised in Scripture. 2. That it is of the essence of justifying faith, and is the same with that faith, so far as it is conversant about evil to be delivered from by the Mediator. 3. That this is indeed the proper and peculiar condition of remission of sins.

1. All of it is essential to evangelical repentance, and is indeed the very thing meant by that repentance, to which remission of sins is promised in the gospel. As to the former part of the description, viz. a sense of our own sinfulness, and the hatefulness of it, and a hearty acknowledgment of its desert of wrath, none will deny it to be included in repentance. But this does not comprehend the whole essence of evangelical repentance. But what follows does also properly and essentially belong to its nature, looking to the free mercy of God in a Redeemer, for deliverance from it, and the punishment of it. That

repentance to which remission is promised, not only always has this with it, but it is contained in it, as what is of the proper nature and essence of it: and respect is ever had to this in the nature of repentance, whenever remission is promised to it. And it is especially from respect to this in the nature of repentance, that it has that promise made to it. If this latter part be missing, it fails of the nature of that evangelical repentance to which remission of sins is promised. If repentance remains in sorrow for sin, and does not reach to a looking to the free mercy of God in Christ for pardon, it is not that which is the condition of pardon, neither shall pardon be obtained by it. Evangelical repentance is an humiliation for sin before God. But the sinner never comes and humbles himself before God in any other repentance, but that which includes hoping in his mercy for remission. If sorrow be not accompanied with that, there will be no coming to God in it, but a flying further from him. There is some worship of God in justifying repentance, but that is not in any other repentance which has not a sense of and faith in the divine mercy to forgive sin, Psa. 130:4, “There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.” The promise of mercy to a true penitent, in Pro. 28:13 is expressed in these terms, “Whoso confesseth and forsaketh his sins, shall have mercy.” But there is faith in God’s mercy in that confessing. The psalmist (Psalm 32) speaking of the blessedness of the man whose transgression is forgiven — and whose sin is covered, to whom the Lord imputes not sin — says that while he kept silence his bones waxed old, but he

acknowledged his sin unto God: his iniquity he did not hide. He said he would confess  his transgression to the Lord, and then God forgave the iniquity of his sin. The manner of expression plainly holds forth, that then he began to encourage himself in the mercy of God, but his bones waxed old while he kept silence. And therefore the apostle Paul, in the 4th of Romans, brings this instance, to confirm the doctrine of justification by faith alone, that he had been insisting on. When sin is aright confessed to God, there is always faith in that act. That confessing of sin which is joined with despair, as in Judas, is not

the confession to which the promise is made. In Acts 2:38, the direction given to those who were pricked in their heart with a sense of the guilt of sin, was to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins. Being baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins, implied faith in Christ for the remission of sins. Repentance for the remission of sins was typified of old by the priest’s confessing the sins of the people over the scapegoat, laying his hands on him, Lev. 16:21, denoting it is that repentance and confession of sin only that obtains remission, which is made over

Christ the great sacrifice, and with dependence on him. Many other things might be produced from the Scripture, that in like manner confirm this point, but these may be sufficient.

2. All the forementioned description is of the essence of justifying faith, and not different from it, so far as it is conversant about sin, or the evil to be delivered from by the Mediator. For it is doubtless of the essence of justifying faith, to embrace Christ as a Savior from sin and its punishment, and all that is contained in that act is contained in the nature of faith itself. But in the act of embracing Christ as a Savior from our sin and its punishment, is implied a sense of our sinfulness, and a hatred for our sins, or a rejecting them with abhorrence, and a sense of our desert of punishment. Embracing Christ as a Savior from sin, implies the contrary act, viz. rejecting sin. If we fly to the light to be delivered from darkness, the same act is contrary to darkness, viz. a rejecting of it. In proportion to the earnestness with which we embrace Christ as a Savior from sin,  in the same proportion is the abhorrence with which we reject sin, in the same act. Yea, suppose there be in the nature of faith, as conversant about sin, no more than the hearty embracing of Christ as a Savior from the punishment of sin, this act will imply in it the whole of the above-mentioned description. It implies a sense of our own sinfulness. Certainly in the hearty embracing of a Savior from the punishment of our sinfulness, there is the exercise of a sense that we are sinful. We cannot heartily embrace Christ as a Savior from the punishment of that which we are not sensible we are guilty of. There is also in the same act, a sense of our desert of the threatened punishment. We cannot heartily embrace Christ as a Savior from that which we are not sensible that we have deserved. For if we are not sensible that we have deserved the punishment, we shall not be sensible that we have any need of a Savior from it, or, at least, shall not be convinced but that God who offers the Savior, unjustly makes him needful, and we cannot heartily embrace such an offer. And further, there is implied in a hearty embracing Christ as a Savior from punishment, not only a conviction of conscience, that we have deserved the punishment, such as the devils and damned have, but there is a hearty acknowledgment of it, with the submission of the soul, so as with the accord of the heart, to own that God might be just in the punishment. If the heart rises against the act or judgment of God, in holding us obliged to the punishment, when he offers us his Son as a Savior from the punishment, we cannot with the consent of the heart receive him in that character. But if persons thus submit to the righteousness of so dreadful a punishment of sin, this carries in it a hatred of sin.

That such a sense of our sinfulness, and utter unworthiness, and desert of punishment, belongs to the nature of saving faith, is what the Scripture from time to time holds forth, as particularly in Mat. 15:26-28. “But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master’s table. Then Jesus answered, and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith.” — And Luke 7:6-9. “The centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself, for I am not worthy that thou shouldst

enter under my roof. Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee; but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed: for I also am a man set under authority,” etc. — “When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” And also verse 37, 38. “And behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster-box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash

his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.” Together with verse 50. “He said unto the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.”

These things do not necessarily suppose that repentance and faith are words of just the same signification. For it is only so much in justifying faith as respects the evil to be delivered from by the Savior, that is called repentance. Besides, both repentance and faith take them only in their general nature, [and] are entirely distinct. Repentance is a sorrow for sin, and forsaking of it, and faith is a trusting in God’s sufficiency and truth. But faith and repentance, as evangelical duties, or justifying faith, and repentance for remission of sins, contain more in them, and imply a respect to a mediator, and involve

each other’s nature: *2* though they still bear the name of faith and repentance, from those general moral virtues — that repentance, which is a duty of natural religion, and that faith, which was a duty required under the first covenant — that are contained in this evangelical act, which severally appear, when this act is considered with respect to its different terms and objects.

It may be objected here that the Scripture sometimes mentions faith and repentance together, as if they were entirely distinct things, as in Mark 1:15, “Repent ye, and believe the gospel.” But there is not need of understanding these as two distinct conditions of salvation, but the words are exegetical one of another. It is to teach us after what manner we must repent, viz. as believing the gospel, and after what manner we must believe the gospel, viz. as repenting. These words no more prove faith and repentance to be entirely distinct, than those fore-mentioned, Mat. 21:32. “And ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterwards, that ye might believe him.” Or those, 2 Tim. 2:25. “If peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” The apostle, in Acts 19:4 seems to have reference to these words of John the Baptist, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe,” etc. where the latter words, as we have already observed, are to explain how he preached repentance.

Another Scripture where faith and repentance are mentioned together, is Acts 20:21. “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance towards God, and faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ.” It may be objected, that in this place, faith and repentance are not only spoken of as distinct things, but having distinct objects.

To this I answer, that faith and repentance, in their general nature, are distinct things, and repentance for the remission of sins, or that in justifying faith that respects the evil to be delivered from, so far as it regards that term, which is what especially denominates it repentance, has respect to God as the object, because he is the Being offended by sin, and to be reconciled, but that in this justifying act, whence it is denominated faith, does more especially respect Christ. But let us interpret it how we will, the objection of faith being here so distinguished from repentance, is as much of an objection against the scheme of those that oppose justification by faith alone, as against this scheme. For they hold that the justifying faith the apostle Paul speaks of, includes repentance, as has been already observed.

3. This repentance that has been described, is indeed the special condition of remission of sins. This seems very evident by the Scripture, as particularly, Mark 1:4. “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins.” So, Luke 3:3, “And be came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins.” Luke 24:47, “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations.” Acts 5:31, “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance unto Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” Acts 2:38. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” And, chap. 3:19. “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” The like is evident by Lev. 26:40-42; Job. 33:27, 28; Psa. 32:5; Pro. 28:13; Jer. 3:13. And 1 John 1:9 and other places.

And the reason may be plain from what has been said. We need not wonder that what in faith especially respects sin, should be especially the condition of remission of sins, or that this motion or exercise of the soul, as it rejects and flies from evil and embraces Christ as a Savior from it, should especially be the condition of being free from that evil: in like manner, as the same principle or motion, as it seeks good, and cleaves to Christ as the procurer of that good, should be the condition of obtaining that good. Faith with respect to good is accepting and with respect to evil it is rejecting. Yea this rejecting evil is itself an act of acceptance. It is accepting freedom or separation from that evil, and this freedom or separation is the benefit bestowed in remission. No wonder that what in faith immediately respects this benefit, and is our acceptance of it, should be the special condition of our having it. It is so with respect to all the benefits that Christ has purchased. Trusting in God through Christ for such a particular benefit that we need, is the special condition of obtaining that benefit. When we need protection from enemies, the exercise of faith with respect to such a benefit, or trusting in Christ for protection from enemies, is especially the way to obtain that particular benefit, rather than trusting in Christ for something else, and so of any other benefit that might be mentioned. So prayer (which is the expression of faith) for a particular mercy needed, is especially the way to obtain that mercy. *3*  — So that no argument can be drawn from hence against the doctrine of justification by faith alone. And there is that in the nature of repentance, which peculiarly tends to establish the contrary of justification by works. For nothing so much renounces our own worthiness and excellency, as repentance. The very nature of it is to acknowledge our own utter sinfulness and unworthiness, and to renounce our own goodness and all confidence in self; and so to trust in the propitiation of the Mediator, and ascribe all the glory of forgiveness to him.

Object. 6. The last objection I shall mention, is that paragraph in the 3d chapter of James, where persons are said expressly to be justified by works: Jam. 2:21. “Was not Abraham our father justified by works?” Verse 24. “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” Verse 25. “Was not Rahab the harlot justified by works?”

In answer to this objection, I would,

1. Take notice of the great unfairness of the divines that oppose us, in the improvement they make of this passage against us. All will allow, that in that proposition of St. James, “By works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” one of the terms, either the word faith, or else the word justify, is not to be understood precisely in the same sense as the same terms when used by St. Paul, because they suppose, as well as we, that it was not the intent of the apostle James to contradict St. Paul in that doctrine of justification by faith alone, in which he had instructed the churches. But if we understand both the terms, as used by each apostle, in precisely the same sense, then what one asserts is a precise, direct, and full contradiction of the other: the one affirming and the other denying the very same thing. So that all the controversy from this text comes to this, viz. which of these two terms shall be understood in a diversity from St. Paul. They say that it is the word faith, for they suppose that when the apostle Paul uses the word, and makes faith that by which alone we are justified, that then by it is understood a compliance with and practice of Christianity in general, so as to include all saving Christian virtue and obedience. But as the apostle James uses the word faith in this place, they suppose thereby is to be understood only an assent of the understanding to the truth of gospel doctrines, as distinguished from good works, and that may exist separate from them, and from all saving grace. We, on the other hand, suppose that the word justify is to be understood in a different sense from the apostle Paul. So that they are forced to go as far in their scheme, in altering the sense of terms from Paul’s use of them, as we. But yet at the same time that they freely vary the sense of the former of them, viz. faith, yet when we understand the latter, viz. justify, in a different sense from St. Paul, they exclaim against us. What necessity of framing this distinction, but only to serve an opinion? At this rate a man may maintain anything, though never so contrary to Scripture, and elude the clearest text in the Bible! Though they do not show us why we have not as good warrant to understand the word justify in a diversity from St. Paul, as they the word faith. If the sense of one of the words must be varied on either scheme, to make the apostle James’s doctrine consistent with the apostle Paul’s, and if varying the sense of one term or the other be all that stands in the way of their agreeing with either scheme, and if varying the sense of the latter be in itself as fair as of the former, then the text lies as fair for one scheme as the other, and can no more fairly be an objection against our scheme than theirs. And if so, what becomes of all this great objection from this passage in James?

2. If there be no more difficulty in varying the sense of one of these terms than another, from anything in the text itself, so as to make the words suit with either scheme, then certainly that is to be chosen that is most agreeable to the current of Scripture, and other places where the same matter is more particularly and fully treated of, and therefore that we should understand the word justify in this passage of James, in a sense in some respects diverse from that in which St. Paul uses it. For by what has been already said, it may appear, that there is no one doctrine in the whole Bible more fully asserted, explained, and urged, than the doctrine of justification by faith alone, without any of our own righteousness.

3. There is a very fair interpretation of this passage of St. James, no way inconsistent with this doctrine of justification, which I have shown that other scriptures abundantly teach, which the words themselves will as well allow of, as that which the objectors put upon them, and much better agrees with the context: and that is, that works are here spoken of as justifying as evidences. A man may be said to be justified by that which clears him, or vindicates him, or makes the goodness of his cause manifest. When a person has a cause tried in a civil court, and is justified or cleared, he may be said in different senses to be justified or cleared, by the goodness of his cause, and by the goodness of the evidences of it. He may be said to be cleared by what evidences his cause to be good, but not in the same sense as he is by that which makes his cause to be good. That which renders his cause good, is the proper ground of his justification. It is by that that he is himself a proper subject of it, but evidences justify, only as they manifest that his cause is good in fact, whether they are of such a nature as to have any influence to render it so or no. It is by works that our cause appears to be good, but by faith our cause not only appears to be good, but becomes good, because thereby we are united to Christ. That the word justify should be sometimes understood to signify the former of these, as well as the latter, is agreeable to the use of the word in common speech: as we say such an one stood up to justify another, i.e. he endeavored to show or manifest his cause to be good. — And it is certain that the word is sometimes used in this sense in Scripture, when speaking of our being justified before God: as where it is said, we shall be justified by our words, Mat. 12:37. “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” It cannot be meant that men are accepted before God on the account of their words. For God has told us nothing more plainly, than that it is the heart that he looks at, and that when he acts as judge towards men, in order to justifying or condemning, he tries the heart, Jer. 11:20. “But, O Lord of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them; for unto thee have I revealed my cause.” Psa. 7:8, 9, “The Lord shall judge the people: judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me. O let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just; for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins.” Verse 11, “God judgeth the righteous.” And many other places to the like purpose. And therefore men can be justified by their words, no otherwise than as evidences or manifestations of what is in the heart. And it is thus that Christ speaks of the words in this very place, as is evident by the context, Mat. 12:34, 35. “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart,” etc. The words, or sounds themselves, are neither parts of godliness nor evidences of godliness, but as signs of what is inward.

God himself, when he acts towards men as judge, in order to a declarative judgment, makes use of evidences, and so judges men by their works. And therefore, at the day of judgment, God will judge men according to their works. For though God will stand in no need of evidence to inform him what is right, yet it is to be considered that he will then sit in judgment, not as earthly judges do, to find out what is right in a cause, but to declare and manifest what is right. And therefore that day is called by the apostle, “the day of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God,” Rom. 2:5.

To be justified, is to be approved of and accepted, but a man may be said to be approved and accepted in two respects: the one is to be approved really, and the other to be approved and accepted declaratively. Justification is twofold: it is either the acceptance and approbation of the judge itself, or the manifestation of that approbation by a sentence or judgment declared by the judge, either to our own consciences or to the world. If justification be understood in the former sense, for the approbation itself, that is only that by which we become fit to be approved. But if it be understood in the latter sense, for the manifestation of this approbation, it is by whatever is a proper evidence of that fitness. In the former, only faith is concerned, because it is by that only in us that we become fit to be accepted and approved. In the latter, whatever is an evidence of our fitness, is alike concerned. And therefore, take justification in this sense, and then faith, and all other graces and good works, have a common and equal concern in it. For any other grace, or holy act, is equally an evidence of a qualification for acceptance or approbation, as faith.

To justify has always, in common speech, signified indifferently, either simply approbation, or testifying that approbation: sometimes one, and sometimes the other; because they are both the same, only as one is outwardly what the other is inwardly. So we, and it may be all nations, are wont to give the same name to two things, when one is only declarative of the other. Thus sometimes judging, intends only judging in our thoughts; at other times, testifying and declaring judgment. So such words as justify, condemn, accept, reject, prize, slight, approve, renounce, are sometimes put for mental acts, at other times, for an outward treatment. So in the sense in which the apostle James seems to use the word justify for manifestative justification, a man is justified not only by faith, but also by works: as a tree is manifested to be good, not only by immediately examining the tree, but also by the fruit, Pro. 20:11, “Even a child is known by his doing, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.”

The drift of the apostle does not require that he should be understood in any other sense; for all that he aims at, as appears by a view of the context, is to prove that good works are necessary. The error of those that he opposed was this: that good works were not necessary to salvation, that if they did but believe that there was but one God, and that Christ was the Son of God and the like, and were baptized, they were safe, let them live how they would, which doctrine greatly tended to licentiousness. The evincing the contrary of this is evidently the apostle’s scope.

And that we should understand the apostle, of works justifying as an evidence, and in a declarative judgment, is what a due consideration of the context will naturally lead us to. — For it is plain, that the apostle is here insisting on works, in the quality of a necessary manifestation and evidence of faith, or as what the truth of faith is made to appear by: as Jam. 2:18, “Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.” And when he says, verse 26, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” It is much more rational and natural to understand him as speaking of works, as the proper signs and evidences of the reality, life, and goodness of faith. Not that the very works or actions done are properly the life of faith, as the spirit in the body, but it is the active, working nature of faith, of which the actions or works done are the signs, that is itself the life and spirit of faith. The sign of a thing is often in scripture language said to be that thing; as it is in that comparison by which the apostle illustrates it. Not the actions themselves of a body, are properly the life or spirit of the body, but the active nature, of which those actions or motions are the signs, is the life of the body. That which makes men pronounce anything to be alive is that they observe it has an active operative nature, which they observe no otherwise than by the actions or motions which are the signs of it. It is plainly the apostle’s aim to prove, that if faith has not works, it is a sign that it is not a good sort of faith, which would not have been to his purpose if it was his design to show that it is not by faith alone, though of a right sort, that we have acceptance with God, but that we are accepted on the account of obedience as well as faith. It is evident, by the apostle’s reasoning, that the necessity of works, is not from their having a parallel concern in our salvation with faith. But he speaks of works only as related to faith, and expressive of it, which, after all, leaves faith the alone fundamental condition, without anything else having a parallel concern with it in this affair; and other things conditions, only as several expressions and evidences of it.

That the apostle speaks of works justifying only as a sign, or evidence, and in God’s declarative judgment, is further confirmed by Jam. 2:21, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?” Here the apostle seems plainly to refer to that declarative judgment of God concerning Abraham’s sincerity, manifested to him, for the peace and assurance of his own conscience, after his offering up Isaac his son on the altar, Gen. 22:12, “Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.” But here it is plain, and expressed in the very words of justification or approbation, that this work of Abraham offering up his son on the altar, justified him as an evidence. When the apostle James says, we are justified by works, he may and ought to be understood in a sense agreeable to the instance he brings for the proof of it: but justification in that instance appears by the works of justification themselves, to be by works as an evidence. And where this instance of Abraham’s obedience is elsewhere mentioned, in the New Testament, it is mentioned as a fruit and evidence of his faith. Heb. 11:17, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises, offered up his only-begotten son.”

And in the other instance which the apostle mentions, Jam. 2:25. “Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?” The apostle refers to a declarative judgment, in that particular testimony which was given of God’s approbation of her as a believer, in directing Joshua to save her when the rest of Jericho was destroyed, Jos. 6:25, “And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father’s household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day: because she hid the messengers which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.” This was accepted as an evidence and expression of her faith. Heb. 11:31, “By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.” The apostle in saying, “Was not Rahab the harlot justified by works?” by the manner of his speaking has reference to something in her history. But we have no account in her history of any other justification of her but this.

4. If, notwithstanding, any choose to take justification in St. James’s precisely as we do in Paul’s epistles, for God’s acceptance or approbation itself, and not any expression of that approbation, what has been already said concerning the manner in which acts of evangelical obedience are concerned in the affair of our justification, affords a very easy, clear, and full answer. For if we take works as acts or expressions of faith, they are not excluded. So a man is not justified by faith only, but also by works; i.e. he is not justified only by faith as a principle in the heart, or in its first and more immanent acts, but also by the effective acts of it in life, which are the expressions of the life of faith, as the operations and actions of the body are of the life of that; agreeable to Jam. 2:26.

What has been said in answer to these objections, may also, I hope, abundantly serve for an answer to another objection, often made against this doctrine, viz. that it encourages licentiousness in life. For, from what has been said, we may see that the Scripture doctrine of justification by faith alone, without any manner of goodness or excellency of ours, does in no wise diminish either the necessity or benefit of a sincere evangelical universal obedience. Man’s salvation is not only indissolubly connected with obedience, and damnation with the want of it, in those who have opportunity for it, but depends upon it in many respects. It is the way to salvation, and the necessary preparation for it. Eternal blessings are bestowed in reward for it, and our justification in our own consciences and at the day of judgment depends on it, as the proper evidence of our acceptable state; and that even in accepting of us as entitled to life in our justification, God has respect to this, as that on which the fitness of such an act of justification depends: so that our salvation does as truly depend upon it, as if we were justified for the moral excellency of it. And besides all this, the degree of our happiness to all eternity is suspended on, and determined by, the degree of this. So that this gospel-scheme of justification is as far from encouraging licentiousness, and contains as much to encourage and excite to strict and universal obedience, and the utmost possible eminency of holiness, as any scheme that can be devised, and indeed unspeakably more.

I come now to the

V. And last thing proposed, which is, to consider the “importance of this doctrine.”

I know there are many that make as though this controversy was of no great importance: that it is chiefly a matter of nice speculation, depending on certain subtle distinctions, which many that make use of them do not understand themselves: that the difference is not of such consequence as to be worth being zealous about: and that more hurt is done by raising disputes about it than good.

Indeed I am far from thinking that it is of absolute necessity that persons should understand, and be agreed upon, all the distinctions needful particularly to explain and defend this doctrine against all cavils and objections. Yet all Christians should strive after an increase of knowledge, and none should content themselves without some clear and distinct understanding in this point. But we should believe in the general, according to the clear and abundant revelations of God’s word, that it is none of our own excellency, virtue, or righteousness, that is the ground of our being received from a state of condemnation into a state of acceptance in God’s sight, but only Jesus Christ, and his righteousness and worthiness, received by faith. This I think to be of great importance, at least in application to ourselves, and that for the following reasons.

First, the Scripture treats of this doctrine, as a doctrine of very great importance. That there is a certain doctrine of justification by faith, in opposition to justification by the works of the law, which the Apostle Paul insists upon as of the greatest importance, none will deny, because there is nothing in the Bible more apparent. The apostle, under the infallible conduct of the Spirit of God, thought it worth his most strenuous and zealous disputing about and defending. He speaks of the contrary doctrine as fatal and ruinous to the souls of men, in the latter end of the ninth chapter of Romans, and beginning of the tenth. He speaks of it as subversive of the gospel of Christ, and calls it another gospel, and says concerning it: if anyone, “though an angel from heaven, preach it, let him be accursed;” Gal. 1:6-9 compared with the following part of the epistle. Certainly we must allow the apostles to be good judges of the importance and tendency of doctrines, at least the Holy Ghost in them. And doubtless we are safe, and in no danger of harshness and censoriousness, if we only follow him, and keep close to his express teachings, in what we believe and say of the hurtful and pernicious tendency of any error. Why are we to blame for saying what the Bible has taught us to say, or for believing what the Holy Ghost has taught us to that end that we might believe it?

Second, the adverse scheme lays another foundation of man’s salvation than God has laid. I do not now speak of that ineffectual redemption that they suppose to be universal, and what all mankind are equally the subjects of. But I say, it lays entirely another foundation of man’s actual, discriminating salvation, or that salvation, wherein true Christians differ from wicked men. We suppose the foundation of this to be Christ’s worthiness and righteousness. On the contrary, that scheme supposes it to be man’s own virtue, even so, that this is the ground of a saving interest in Christ itself. It takes away Christ out of the place of the bottom stone, and puts in men’s own virtue in the room of him, so that Christ himself in the affair of distinguishing, actual salvation, is laid upon this foundation. And the foundation being so different, I leave it to everyone to judge whether the difference between the two schemes consists only in punctilios of small consequence. The foundations being contrary, makes the whole scheme exceeding diverse and opposite: the one is a gospel scheme, the other a legal one.

Third, it is in this doctrine that the most essential difference lies between the covenant of grace and the first covenant. The adverse scheme of justification supposes that we are justified by our works, in the very same sense wherein man was to have been justified by his works under the first covenant. By that covenant our first parents were not to have had eternal life given them for any proper merit in their obedience, because their perfect obedience was a debt that they owed God. Nor was it to be bestowed for any proportion between the dignity of their obedience, and the value of the reward, but only it was to be bestowed from a regard to a moral fitness in the virtue of their obedience, to the reward of God’s favor. A title to eternal life was to be given them, as a testimony of God’s pleasedness with their works, or his regard to the inherent beauty of their virtue. And so it is the very same way that those in the adverse scheme suppose that we are received into God’s special favor now, and to those saving benefits that are the testimonies of it. I am sensible the divines of that side entirely disclaim the popish doctrine of merit, and are free to speak of our utter unworthiness, and the great imperfection of all our services. But after all, it is our virtue, imperfect as it is, that recommends men to God, by which good men come to have a saving interest in Christ, and God’s favor, rather than others. These things are bestowed in testimony of God’s respect to their goodness. So that whether they will allow the term merit or no, yet they hold, that we are accepted by our own merit, in the same sense, though not in the same degree, as under the first covenant.

But the great and most distinguishing difference between that covenant and the covenant of grace is, that by the covenant of grace we are not thus justified by our own works, but only by faith in Jesus Christ. It is on this account chiefly that the new covenant deserves the name of a covenant of grace, as is evident by Rom. 4:16: “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace.” And chap. 3:20, 24, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight… Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.” And Rom. 11:6, “And 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.” Gal. 5:4, “Whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace.” And therefore the apostle, when in the same epistle to the Galatians, speaking of the doctrine of justification by works as another gospel, adds, “which is not another,” Gal. 1:6, 7. It is no gospel at all: it is law. It is no covenant of grace, but of works. It is not an evangelical, but a legal doctrine. Certainly that doctrine wherein consists the greatest and most essential difference between the covenant of grace and the first covenant, must be a doctrine of great importance. That doctrine of the gospel by which above all others it is worthy of the name gospel, is doubtless a very important doctrine of the gospel.

Fourth, this is the main thing for which fallen men stood in need of divine revelation, to teach us how we who have sinned may come to be again accepted of God, or, which is the same thing, how the sinner may be justified. Something beyond the light of nature is necessary to salvation chiefly on this account. Mere natural reason afforded no means by which we could come to the knowledge of this: it depending on the sovereign pleasure of the Being that we had offended by sin. This seems to be the great drift of that revelation which God has given, and of all those mysteries it reveals, all those great doctrines that are peculiarly doctrines of revelation, and above the light of nature. It seems to have been very much on this account, that it was requisite that the doctrine of the Trinity itself should be revealed to us. That by a discovery of the concern of the several divine persons in the great affair of our salvation, we might the better understand and see how all our dependence in this affair is on God, and our sufficiency all in him, and not in ourselves: that he is all in all in this business, agreeable to 1 Cor. 1:29-31, “That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” What is the gospel, but only the glad tidings of a new way of acceptance with God unto life, a way wherein sinners may come to be free from the guilt of sin, and obtain a title to eternal life? And if, when this way is revealed, it is rejected, and another of man’s devising be put in the room of it, without doubt, it must be an error of great importance, and the apostle might well say it was another gospel.

Fifth, the contrary scheme of justification derogates much from the honor of God and the Mediator. I have already shown how it diminishes the glory of the Mediator, in ascribing that to man’s virtue and goodness, which belongs alone to his worthiness and righteousness. By the apostle’s sense of the matter it renders Christ needless, Gal. 5:4, “Christ is become of no effect to you, whosoever of you are justified by the law.” If that scheme of justification be followed in its consequences, it utterly overthrows the glory of all the great things that have been contrived, and done, and suffered in the work of redemption. Gal. 2:21, “If righteousness come by the law, Christ is dead in vain.” It has also been already shown how it diminishes the glory of divine grace (which is the attribute God has especially set himself to glorify in the work of redemption), and so that it greatly diminishes the obligation to gratitude in the sinner that is saved. Yea, in the sense of the apostle, it makes void the distinguishing grace of the gospel, Gal. 5:4, “Whosoever of you are justified by the law, are fallen from grace.” It diminishes the glory of the grace of God and the Redeemer, and proportionably magnifies man. It makes the goodness and excellency of fallen man to be something, which I have shown are nothing. I have also already shown, that it is contrary to the truth of God in the threatening of his holy law, to justify the sinner for his virtue. And whether it were contrary to God’s truth or no, it is a scheme of things very unworthy of God. It supposes that God, when about to lift up a poor, forlorn malefactor, condemned to eternal misery for sinning against his Majesty, and to make him unspeakably and eternally happy, by bestowing his Son and himself upon him, as it were, sets all this to sale, for the price of his virtue and excellency. I know that those we oppose acknowledge, that the price is very disproportionate to the benefit bestowed, and say, that God’s grace is wonderfully manifested in accepting so little virtue, and bestowing so glorious a reward for such imperfect righteousness. But seeing we are such infinitely sinful and abominable creatures in God’s sight, and by our infinite guilt have brought ourselves into such wretched and deplorable circumstances — and all our righteousnesses are nothing, and ten thousand times worse than nothing (if God looks upon them as they be in themselves — is it not immensely more worthy of the infinite majesty and glory of God, to deliver and make happy such wretched vagabonds and captives, without any money or price of theirs, or any manner of expectation of any excellency or virtue in them, in any wise to recommend them? Will it not betray a foolish, exalting opinion of ourselves, and a mean one of God, to have thought of offering anything of ours, to recommend us to the favor of being brought from wallowing, like filthy swine, in the mire of our sins, and from the enmity and misery of devils in the lowest hell, to the state of God’s dear children, in the everlasting arms of his love in heavenly glory, or to imagine that that is the constitution of God, that we should bring our filthy rags, and offer them to him as the price of this?

Sixth, the opposite scheme does most directly tend to lead men to trust in their own righteousness for justification, which is a thing fatal to the soul. This is what men are of themselves exceedingly prone to do (and that though they are never so much taught the contrary), through the partial and high thoughts they have of themselves, and their exceeding dullness of apprehending any such mystery as our being accepted for the righteousness of another. But this scheme does directly teach men to trust in their own righteousness for justification, in that it teaches them that this is indeed what they must be justified by, being the way of justification that God himself has appointed. So that if a man had naturally no disposition to trust in his own righteousness, yet if he embraced this scheme, and acted consistent with it, it would lead him to it. But that trusting in our own righteousness, is a thing fatal to the soul, is what the Scripture plainly teaches us. It tells us that it will cause that Christ shall profit us nothing, and be of no effect to us, Gal. 5:2-4. For though the apostle speaks there particularly of circumcision, yet it is not merely being circumcised, but trusting in circumcision as a righteousness, that the apostle has respect to. He could not mean that merely being circumcised would render Christ of no profit or effect to a person, for we read that he himself, for certain reasons, took Timothy and circumcised him, Acts 16:3. And the same is evident by the context, and by the rest of the epistle. And the apostle speaks of trusting in their own righteousness as fatal to the Jews, Rom 9:31, 32, “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law; for they stumbled at that stumbling stone.” Together with Rom. 10:3, “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” And this spoken of as fatal to the Pharisees, in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, which Christ spoke to them in order to reprove them for trusting in themselves that they were righteous. The design of the parable is to show them, that the very publicans shall be justified, rather than they, as appears by the reflection Christ makes upon it, Luke 18:14, “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other;” that is, this and not the other. The fatal tendency of it might also be proved from its inconsistency with the nature of justifying faith, and with the nature of that humiliation that the Scripture often speaks of as absolutely necessary to salvation. But these Scriptures are so express, that it is needless to bring any further arguments.

How far a wonderful and mysterious agency of God’s Spirit may so influence some men’s hearts, that their practice in this regard may be contrary to their own principles, so that they shall not trust in their own righteousness, though they profess that men are justified by their own righteousness — or how far they may believe the doctrine of justification by men’s own righteousness in general, and yet not believe it in a particular application of it to themselves — or how far that error which they may have been led into by education, or cunning sophistry of others, may yet be indeed contrary to the prevailing disposition of their hearts, and contrary to their practice — or how far some may seem to maintain a doctrine contrary to this gospel doctrine of justification, that really do not, but only express themselves differently from others, or seem to oppose it through their misunderstanding of our expressions, or we of theirs, when indeed our real sentiments are the same in the main — or may seem to differ more than they do, by using terms that are without a precisely fixed and determinate meaning — or to be wide in their sentiments from this doctrine, for want of a distinct understanding of it: whose hearts, at the same time, entirely agree with it, and if once it was clearly explained to their understandings, would immediately close with it, and embrace it. How far these things may be, I will not determine, but am fully persuaded that great allowances are to be made on these and such like accounts, in innumerable instances. Though it is manifest from what has been said, that the teaching and propagating contrary doctrines and schemes, is of a pernicious and fatal tendency.

An Alien Righteousness

by B. B. Warfield

Phil. 3:9:—“And be found in Him, not having a righteousness of mine own, even that which is of the law,

but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.”

“When we attempt to gain an apprehension of Paul’s doctrine of salvation on the ground of an alien righteousness,” remarks Professor George B. Stevens, “we must bear in mind that Paul was waging an intense polemic—the great conflict of his life.” The remark is true enough in itself, but will scarcely warrant Professor Stevens’ inference from it, namely, that we must be careful therefore not to take Paul’s statements in this matter au pied de la lettre; that we must expect (and will find) a certain exaggeration in his language at this polemic point, a certain one-sidedness in his assertions; and be, therefore, prepared to tone down the extremity of his statements to more reasonable proportions. From this warning of Professor Stevens’ we may, perhaps, learn this much, however: that Paul’s statements at this point are radical and leave little room for that nice balancing so dear to the hearts of so-called “moderate” thinkers, by which they would fain retain some room for glorying in the flesh while yet joining in the universal song of the saints of God, Gloria Deo Soli.

It is clear, at once, that the forms of Paul’s language at least do not easily lend themselves to the notion that, though Divine aid is requisite to salvation, yet the fundamental movement (hereunto must be of man’s own making; or even that, though salvation is predominatingly from God, yet this is not to the exclusion of the necessity on man’s part of at least assent and consent to the Divine working; that if the basis of the Divine acceptance of man is to be found in the work of Christ, at least, faith is demanded of man as the condition on the performance of which alone will this acceptance be accorded to him. It is something like this that Professor Stevens wishes to reserve to man as his part in salvation. And it is in his effort to rescue this to man from the obviously unwilling hands of Paul that he is led to remark that Paul’s language must be interpreted as that of a headlong controversialist, who in his zeal falls into “a certain one-sidedness” in his representations, and keys his reasonings so high that they must be taken rather as “purposely one-sided argumenta ad hominem” and do not fairly set forth perhaps Paul’s whole thought on the subject. Whence, we saw it seems perfectly clear that, the language of Paul, taken as it stands, excludes even so much of a human element lying at the basis of salvation. What he says—whatever he means is obviously that our own righteousness in every item and degree of it—is wholly excluded from the ground of our salvation; and the righteousness provided by God in Christ is the sole ground of our acceptance in His sight. According to his express statements, at least, we are saved entirely on the ground of an alien righteousness and not at all on the ground of anything we are or have done, or can do,—be it even so small a matter as believing.

For the rest, true as it is that in this matter Paul was involved in an ineradicable conflict with the Judaizers—in what may be with good right called indeed “the conflict of his life”—it is very easy to press beyond the mark in our estimate of the effect of this conflict upon his thought or even upon his language. After all, Paul’s interest in the ground of human salvation was a positive one, rather than a negative one. In the providence of God he was led to develop his doctrine of salvation for the benefit of his disciples in conflict with Judaizers; and we view it to-day in the forms of statement given it under the necessities of that controversy. But there is no reason to believe that he would not have taught precisely that same doctrine of salvation, though, doubtless, in different forms of statement, had he been required to meet erroneous teaching of a totally different kind, proceeding from a wholly different quarter—that is, if we really believe that the essence of his doctrine is the truth of God, given him by revelation, and not merely his personal position assumed to hold standing ground for himself as a determined opponent of the old Jewish party in the Church. In other words, the conflict with the Judaizers was not first with Paul and his doctrine of salvation second, either in time or importance; but, on the contrary, his doctrine of salvation was first and his controversy with the Judaizers both subsequent and consequent to it. He did not hold this doctrine of salvation because he polemicized the Judaizers, but he polemicized the Judaizers because he held this doctrine of salvation. He did not attain this doctrine of salvation then in controversy with the Judaizers, but he controverted the Judaizers because their teaching impinged on this precious doctrine. Though, therefore, the forms in which he states the doctrine in these epistles take shape from the fact that he is rebutting, the assaults on it and the subtle undermining of it derived from the conceptions of the Judaizers, the doctrine stated is prior in the order of time and thought in his mind to the rise of the danger to it which he is repelling in these expressions. The interest and importance of this to us is that it thereby is brought to our clear consciousness that Paul’s fundamental interest in this matter turns not on the violence of his conflict with the Judaizers but on the profundity of his conviction of the truth of his position. Whenever he replies to the Judaizers’ assault in whatever sharpness of rebuke and keenness of polemic thrust, his primary interest is not in silencing his opponents but in upholding his teaching.

We could not have a better illustration of this than in the passage now before us. The whole of it is suffused with an emotion which is far deeper and far purer than polemic zeal. Nowhere do Paul’s polemics burn more fiercely. Nowhere is his language sharper or his expressions more “extreme.” But nowhere is it clearer that his heart is set on higher things than on the refutation of errorists whom he would correct; and nowhere is it less legitimate to pare down his expressions to the level of mere controversial violence. The Apostle as he opened the third chapter of this Epistle was contemplating drawing it to a close. “Finally, my brethren,” he says, using the familiar formula for introducing the concluding words,— “finally, my brethren,” he says, closing the letter, as is his wont, with some striking fundamental thought that would abide in the mind of his readers as a last message to their souls,—”finally, my brethren, let your joy be in the Lord.” This is no mere formula of farewell, as some, misled by the “rejoice”—which is to be sure an ordinary formula of epistolary salutation—have imagined. The conception of Christian rejoicing is a fundamental note of this letter, and here it has all the emphasis that this gives it. And it is not merely the idea of rejoicing that is here emphatic, but the added idea of rejoicing “in the Lord.” “Finally, my brethren,” says the Apostle, “let your joy be in the Lord.” Ah, this is where the Apostle’s heart is as he opens this paragraph—this is the thought he would leave with his readers. “Let your joy be in the Lord” not in yourselves, but in the Lord. We should say, perhaps, rather, Let your boast be in the Lord; let your glorying be only in the Lord. It means fundamentally the same thing. The Apostle would bring his letter to a close by reminding his readers of the very core of the saving proclamation. They are saved—not self-saving souls. Let them rejoice, let them continually joy, in the Lord!

This is not a new theme with the Apostle. It is rather one of his favourite subjects, (his of boasting in Christ Jesus. He is conscious that he harps on it. But he is not ashamed of harping on it; it is the heart of the Gospel and he is not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ. But he makes a quasi-apology for so harping on it. “I know this is repetitious,” he says at once, “but I like to say it, and it may be useful to you. “To write the same things to you, to me on the one hand is not irksome, but to you on the other it is safe.” It is a joy to Paul to cry over and over and over again, “Let your joy be in the Lord”; in Him only put your boasting; in Him alone do your glorying; and it is a safe thing to impress on his readers. At the mention of this, the floods of polemics rush in. Paul remembers those who were endangering the purity of this attitude of dependence on the Lord alone in his flocks, and remembering them, what can he do but burst out with renewed warnings?

So the letter does not close, after all, at this point, but instead, we have the sharp exhortation, “Mark ye the dogs! Mark ye the evil workers! Mark ye the concision!” Why does his polemic burn so hotly against these men? Simply because they endangered that attitude which he was impressing on his readers, and in which the whole Gospel consisted for him—the attitude of entire dependence on Christ to the exclusion of everything in themselves. Accordingly his rapid and clearly cut speech leaps at once into the reason: “Mark ye the concision,—the concision I say, the mere imitation; for we are the circumcision, the real sealed ones to God, who worship by the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh.”

We do not need to follow the subsequent turns of the polemic into which the Apostle here enters. It is enough for us to note that the language abundantly confirms the interpretation of the drift of the paragraph and the intent of its opening words on which we have insisted. Paul exhorts his readers “to let their joy be in the Lord,” and he repudiates the concision on the express ground that their claims are antagonistic to a purely spiritual worship, to boasting in Christ Jesus alone and the withdrawal of all confidence from the flesh. This is that to which the Apostle is engaged in exhorting his readers therefore boasting in Christ Jesus alone and the removal of all confidence in the flesh. We all know how richly he develops this idea in the following words enumerating his own high claims in the flesh and asserting roundly that all of them are but as refuse to him in the matter of salvation. Christ Jesus is all. The language of our text is but the elaboration of this vital idea in other and more precise language. All that he is, all that he has sought after, all that he has done,—though from a fleshly point of view far superior to what most men can appeal to—all, all, he counts (not merely useless but) loss, all one mass of loss, to be cast, away and buried in the sea, “that he may gain Christ and be found in Him.” On the one side stand all human works—they are all loss. On the other hand stands Christ—He is all in all. That is the contrast. And this is the contrast re-expressed more formally in our text: “not having my own righteousness that is out of law, but that, which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness that is from God on faith.”

The contrast is between the righteousness which a man can make for himself and the righteousness that God gives him. And the contrast is absolute. On the one, in the height and the breadth of its whole idea—we cannot exaggerate here— Paul pours contempt, as a basis or, nay, even the least part of the basis, of salvation. On the other, exclusively, he bases the totality of salvation. The outcome is, that not merely polemically but fundamentally, he founds salvation solely on an alien righteousness, with the express exclusion of every item of our own righteousness. The whole contents of the passage demands this as Paul’s fundamental thought.

Now, it is not necessary for us, on this occasion, to stop to analyze in its details Paul’s thought; to show by detailed exposition how utterly the righteousness rejected by him is rejected and how exclusively the righteousness laid hold of by him is trusted in, and how completely the ground of our trust is cleansed by Paul from every scintilla of human works. It will suffice for the present to accept the discrimination he makes in the large and to try to realize how fully to him the totality of the Gospel lay just in this discrimination. The Gospel, to Paul, consists precisely in this: that we do nothing to earn our salvation or to secure it for ourselves. God in Christ does it all.

It is easy, of course, to brand such an assertion as immoral. Men were not slow to brand it as immoral in Paul’s day, and men are not slow to brand it as immoral (“unethical” is their way of phrasing it) to-day. “What,” they say, “we are to do nothing! Christ does it all! Nothing depends on us! Not even our believing! Then, let us eat, drink and be merry!” They do not stop to consider that the repetition against those who draw this doctrine from Paul’s leaching, of precisely the same charge that was urged against Paul, is the last thing which could be needed to prove that Paul has not been misunderstood when he is interpreted as advancing by set purpose just this doctrine. Paul does not meet the charge by explaining that he wishes his words concerning the exclusion of all our righteousness from the ground of salvation to be taken cum grano salis; but by explaining that, being saved not indeed “out of works” but certainly “unto good works,” we cannot walk in sin and yet be saved. This positing of a new antithesis, not out of works but unto good works, clinches the essence of his doctrine, and may be adopted by us as the sole defence it needs against the accusations of men.

You remember how Mr. J. A. Kroude in a famous essay adduced as a speaking evidence of the “immorality of Evangelicalism,” the well-known revival hymn beginning:

“Nothing either great or small,

Nothing, sinner, no;

Jesus did it, did it all.

Long, long, ago.”

What was particularly offensive to him was the assertion that

“Doing is a deadly thing,

Doing ends in death”;

And the consequent exhortation

“Cast your deadly doing down,

Down at Jesus’ feet,

Stand in Him, in Him alone,

Gloriously complete.”

It is, nevertheless, the very cor cordis of the Gospel that is here brought under fire. The one antithesis of all the ages is that between the rival formulae: Do this and live, and, Live and do this; Do and be saved, and Be saved and do. And the one thing that determines whether we trust in God for salvation or would fain save ourselves is, how such formulae appeal to us. Do we, like the rich young ruler, feel that we must “do some good thing” in order that we may be saved? Then, assuredly, we are not yet prepared to trust our salvation to Christ alone—to sell all that we have and follow Him. Just in proportion as we are striving to supplement or to supplant His perfect work, just in that proportion is our hope of salvation resting on works, and not on faith. Ethicism and solafideanism—these are the eternal contraries, mutually exclusive. It must be faith or works; it can never be faith and works. And the fundamental exhortation which we must ever be giving our souls is clearly expressed in the words of the hymn, “Cast your deadly doing down.” Only when that is completely done is it really Christ Only, Christ All in All, with us; only then, do we obey fully Paul’s final exhortation: “Let your joy be in the Lord.” Only then do we renounce utterly “our own righteousness, that out of law,” and rest solely on “that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness of God on faith.”

Justified!

by J. C. Ryle

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."--Romans 5:1

The word which forms the title of this paper is one of deep importance in religion. It has within it the foundation of sound soulsaving Christianity. It contains the true secret of inward and spiritual comfort. Happy is the man who can use the language of St. Paul, and say from his heart, “Being justified by faith, I have peace with God through Jesus Christ.”

I wish to set before every reader of these pages a few thoughts about justification and peace with God. It is a subject we can never understand too well. Before we leave this world let us take care that we see clearly what it is to be “justified.” To die ignorant about this is to be ruined to all eternity. We had better never have been born.

There are four things which I propose to bring before you, in order to throw light on the whole subject.

I. Let me show you the chief privilege of a true Christian: “He has peace with God.”

II. Let me show you the fountain from which that privilege flows: “He is justified.”

III. Let me show you the rock from which that fountain springs: “Jesus Christ.”

IV. Let me show you the hand by which the privilege is made our own: “Faith.”

Upon each of these four points I have something to say. May the Holy Ghost make the whole subject peacegiving to some souls?

I. First of all, let me show the chief privilege of a true Christian: He has peace with God.

When the apostle St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, he used five words which the wisest of the heathen could never have used. Socrates, and Plato, and Aristotle, and Cicero, and Seneca were wise men. On many subjects they saw more clearly than most people in the present day. They were men of mighty minds, and of a vast range of intellect. But not one of them could have said as the Jewish apostle did, “We have peace with God” (Rom. v. 1).

When St. Paul used these words, he spoke not for himself only, but for all true Christians. Some of them no doubt have a greater sense of this privilege than others. All of them find an evil principle within, warring against their spiritual welfare day by day. All of them find their adversary, the devil, waging an endless battle with their souls. All of them find that they must endure the enmity of the world. But all, notwithstanding, to a greater or less extent, “have peace with God.”

This peace with God is a calm, intelligent sense of friendship with the Almighty Lord of heaven and earth. He that has it, feels as if there was no barrier and separation between himself and his holy Maker. He can think of himself as under the eye of an allseeing Being, and yet not feel afraid. He can believe that this allseeing Being beholds him, and yet is not displeased.

Such a man can see death waiting for him, and yet not be greatly moved. He can look back on the many sins of a misspent life and not feel afraid. He can go down into the cold river—close his eyes on all he has on earth—launch forth into a world unknown, and take up his abode in the silent grave—and yet feel peace. Reader, can you?

Such a man can look forward to the resurrection and the judgment, and yet not be greatly moved. He can see with his mind’s eye the great white throne—the assembled world—the open books—the listening angels—the Judge Himself, and yet feel peace. Reader, can you?

Such a man can think of eternity, and yet not be greatly moved. He can imagine a neverending existence in the presence of God, and of the Lamb—an everlasting Sunday—a perpetual communion, and yet feel peace. Reader, can you?

I know of no happiness compared to that which this peace affords. A calm sea after a storm—a blue sky after a black thundercloud—health after sickness—light after darkness—rest after toil—all, all are beautiful and pleasant things. But none, none of them all can give more than a feeble idea of the comfort which those enjoy who have been brought into the state of peace with God. It is “a peace which passeth all understanding “(Phil. iv. 7).

It is the want of this very peace which makes many in the world unhappy. Thousands have everything that is thought able to give pleasure, and yet are never satisfied. Their hearts are always aching. There is a constant sense of emptiness within. And what is the secret of all this? They have no peace with God.

It is the desire of this very peace which makes many a heathen do much in his idolatrous religion. Hundreds have been seen to mortify their bodies, and vex their own flesh in the service of some wretched image which their own hands had made. And why? Because they hungered after peace with God.

It is the possession of this very peace on which the value of a man’s religion depends. Without it there may be everything to please the eye, and gratify the ear—forms, ceremonies, services, and sacraments—and yet no good done to the soul. The grand question that should try all is the state of a man’s conscience. Is it peace? Has he peace with God?

This is the very peace about which I address you this day. Have you got it? Do you feel it? Is it your own?

If you have it, you are truly rich. You have that which will endure for ever. You have treasure which you will not lose when you die and leave the world. You will carry it with you beyond the grave. You will have it and enjoy it to all eternity. Silver and gold you may have none. The praise of man you may never enjoy. But you have that which is far better than either, if you have peace with God.

If you have it not, you are truly poor. You have nothing which will last—nothing which will wear nothing—which you can carry with you when your turn comes to die. Naked you came into this world, and naked in every sense you will go forth. Your body may be carried to the grave with pomp and ceremony. A solemn service may be read over your coffin. A marble monument may be put up in your honour. But after all it will be a pauper’s funeral, if you die without peace with God.

Remember my warning. Number up your possessions. Take account of all your property. Consider what you have. You may have youth, and health, and riches, and rank; you may have money, and lands, and houses, and horses, and carriages; you may have honour, love, obedience, troops of friends. It is well. Be thankful for it all. But have you peace? I ask again, Have you peace? Let conscience speak, and give an answer.

II. Let me show you, in the next place, the fountain from which true peace is drawn. That fountain is justification.

The peace of the true Christian is not a vague, dreamy feeling, without reason and without foundation. He can show cause for it. He builds upon solid ground. He has peace with God, because he is justified.

Without justification it is impossible to have real peace. Conscience forbids it. Sin is a mountain between a man and God, and must be taken away. The sense of guilt lies heavy on the heart, and must be removed. Unpardoned sin will murder peace. The true Christian knows all this well. His peace arises from a consciousness of his sins being forgiven, and his guilt being put away. His house is not built on sandy ground. His well is not a broken cistern, which can hold no water. He has peace with God, because he is justified.

He is justified, and his sins are forgiven. However many, and however great, they are cleansed away, pardoned, and wiped out. They are blotted out of the book of God’s remembrance. They are sunk into the depths of the sea. They are cast behind God’s back. They are searched for and not found. They are remembered no more. Though they may have been like scarlet, they are become as white as snow; though they may have been red like crimson, they are as wool. And so he has peace.

He is justified and counted righteous in God’s sight. The Father sees no spot in him, and reckons him innocent. He is clothed in a robe of perfect righteousness, and may sit down by the side of angels without feeling ashamed. The holy law of God, which touches the thoughts and intents of men’s hearts, cannot condemn him. The devil, the accuser of the brethren, can lay nothing to his charge, to prevent his full acquittal. And so he has peace.

Is he not naturally a poor, weak, erring, defective sinner? He is. None knows that better than he does himself. But notwithstanding this, he is reckoned complete, perfect, and faultless before God, for he is justified.

Is he not naturally a debtor? He is. None feels that more deeply than he does himself. He owes ten thousand talents, and has nothing of his own to pay. But his debts are all paid, settled, and crossed out for ever, for he is justified.

Is he not naturally liable to the curse of a broken law? He is. None would confess that more readily than he would himself. But the demands of the law have been fully satisfied, the claims of justice have been met to the last tittle, and he is justified.

Does he not naturally deserve punishment? He does. None would acknowledge that more fully than he would himself. But the punishment has been borne. The wrath of God against sin has been made manifest. Yet he has escaped, and is justified.

Do you know anything of all this? Are you justified? Do you feel as if you were pardoned, forgiven, and accepted before God? Can you draw near to Him with boldness and say, “Thou art my Father and my Friend, and I am Thy reconciled child?” Oh, believe me, you will never taste true peace until you are justified

Where are your sins? Are they removed and taken away from off your soul? Have they been reckoned for, and accounted for, in God’s presence? Oh, be very sure these questions are of the most solemn importance! A peace of conscience not built on justification is a perilous dream. From such a peace the Lord deliver you!

Go with me in imagination to some of our great London hospitals. Stand with me there by the bedside of some poor creature in the last stage of an incurable disease. He lies quiet perhaps, and makes no struggle. He does not complain of pain perhaps, and does not appear to feel it. He sleeps, and is still. His eyes are closed. His head reclines on his pillow. He smiles faintly, and mutters something. He is dreaming of home, and his mother, and his youth. His thoughts are far away.—But is this health? Oh, no, no! It is only the effect of opiates. Nothing can be done for him. He is dying daily. The only object is to lessen his pain. His quiet is an unnatural quiet. His sleep is an unhealthy sleep. Reader, you see in that man’s case a vivid likeness of peace without justification. It is a hollow, deceptive, unhealthy thing. Its end is death.

Go with me in imagination to some lunatic asylum. Let us visit some case of incurable delusion. We shall probably find someone who fancies that he is rich and noble, or a king. See how he will take the straw from off the ground, twist it round his head, and call it a crown. Mark how he will pick up stones and gravel, and call them diamonds and pearls. Hear how he will laugh, and sing, and appear to be happy in his delusions.—But is this happiness? Oh, no! We know it is only the result of ignorant insanity. Reader, you see in that man’s case another likeness of peace built on fancy, and not on justification. It is a senseless, baseless thing. It has neither root nor life.

Settle it in your mind that there can be no peace with God, unless we feel that we are justified. We must know what is become of our sins. We must have a reasonable hope that they are forgiven, and put away. We must have the witness of our conscience that we are reckoned not guilty before God. Without this it is vain to talk of peace. We have nothing but the shadow and imitation of it. “There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked” (Isa. lvii. 21).

Did you ever hear the sound of the trumpets which are blown before the judges, as they come into the city to open the assize? Did you ever reflect how different are the feelings which these trumpets awaken in the minds of different men? The innocent man, who has no cause to be tried, hears them unmoved. They proclaim no terrors to him. He listens and looks on quietly, and is not afraid. But often there is some poor wretch waiting his trial in a silent cell, to whom those trumpets are a knell of despair. They tell him that the day of trial is at hand. Yet a little time and he will stand at the bar of justice, and hear witness after witness telling the story of his misdeeds. Yet a little time, and all will be over—the trial, the verdict, and the sentence—and there will remain nothing for him but punishment and disgrace. No wonder the prisoner’s heart beats when he hears that trumpet’s sound!

There is a day fast coming when all who are not justified shall despair in like manner. The voice of the archangel and the trump of God shall scatter to the winds the false peace which now buoys up many a soul. The day of judgment shall convince thousands of self-willed people, too late, that it needs something more than a few beautiful ideas about God’s love and mercy to reconcile a man to his Maker, and to deliver his guilty soul from hell. No hope shall stand in that awful day but the hope of the justified man. No peace shall prove solid, substantial, and unbroken, but the peace which is built on justification.

Is this peace your own? Rest not, rest not, if you love life, till you know and feel that you are a justified man. Think not that this is a mere matter of names and words. Flatter not yourself with the idea that justification is an “abstruse and difficult subject,” and that you may get to heaven well enough without knowing anything about it. Make up your mind to the great truth that there can be no heaven without peace with God, and no peace with God without justification. And then give your soul no rest till you are a justified man.

III. Let me show you, in the third place, the rock from which justification and peace with God flow. That rock is Christ.

The true Christian is not justified because of any goodness of his own. His peace is not to be traced up to any work that he has done. It is not purchased by his prayers and regularity, his repentance and his amendment, his morality and his charity. All these are utterly unable to justify him. In themselves they are defective in many things, and need a large forgiveness. And as to justifying him, such a thing is not to be named. Tried by the perfect standard of God’s law the best of Christians is nothing better than a justified sinner, a pardoned criminal. As to merit, worthiness, desert, or claim upon God’s mercy, he has none. Peace built on any such foundations as these is utterly worthless. The man who rests upon them is miserably deceived.

Never were truer words put on paper than those which Richard Hooker penned on this subject years ago. Let those who would like to know what English clergymen thought in olden times, mark well what he says: “If God would make us an offer thus large, ‘Search all the generation of men since the fall of your father, Adam, and find one man that hath done any one action which hath past from him pure, without any stain or blemish at all—and for that one man’s one only action, neither man nor angel shall find the torments which are prepared for both;’ do you think this ransom, to deliver man and angels, would be found among the sons of men? The best things we do have somewhat in them to be pardoned. How then can we do anything meritorious and worthy to be rewarded?” To these words I desire entirely to subscribe. I believe that no man can be justified by his works before God in the slightest possible degree. Before man he may be justified. His works may evidence his Christianity. Before God he cannot be justified by anything that he can do. He will be always defective, always imperfect, always shortcoming, always far below the mark, so long as he lives. It is not by works of his own that anyone ever has peace and is a justified man.

But how then is a true Christian justified? What is the secret of that peace and sense of pardon which he enjoys? How can we understand a holy God dealing with a sinful man as with one innocent, and reckoning him righteous notwithstanding his many sins?

The answer to all these questions is short and simple. The true Christian is counted righteous for the sake of a Divine Saviour, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He is justified because of the death and atonement of Christ. He has peace because Christ died for his sins according to the Scripture. This is the key that unlocks the mighty mystery. Here the great problem is solved, how God can be just and yet justify the ungodly. The life and death of the Lord Jesus explain all. “He is our peace “(Ephes. ii. 14).

Christ has stood in the place of the true Christian. He has become his surety and his substitute. He has undertaken to bear all that was to be borne, and to do all that was to be done. Hence the true Christian is a justified man.

Christ has suffered for sins, the just for the unjust. He has endured our punishment in His own body on the cross. He has allowed the wrath of God, which we deserved, to fall on His own head. Hence the true Christian is a justified man.

Christ has paid the debt the Christian owed, by His own blood. He has reckoned for it, and discharged it to the uttermost farthing by His own precious death. God is a just God, and will not require His debts to be paid twice over. Hence the true Christian is a justified man.

Christ has obeyed the law of God perfectly. The prince of this world could find no fault in Him. By so fulfilling it He brought in an everlasting righteousness, in which all His people are clothed in the sight of God. Hence the true Christian is a justified man.

Christ, in one word, has lived for the true Christian. Christ has died for him. Christ has gone to the grave for him. Christ has risen again for him. Christ has ascended up on high for him, and gone into heaven to intercede for his soul. Christ has done all, paid all, and suffered all that was needful for his redemption. Hence arises the true Christian’s justification—hence his peace. In himself there is nothing, but in Christ he has all things that his soul can require.

Who can tell the blessedness of the exchange that takes place between the true Christian and the Lord Jesus Christ! Christ’s righteousness is placed upon him, and his sins are placed upon Christ. Christ has been reckoned a sinner for his sake, and now he is reckoned innocent for Christ’s sake. Christ has been condemned for his sake, though there was no fault in Him—and now he is acquitted for Christ’s sake, though he is covered with sins, faults, and shortcomings. Here is wisdom indeed! God can now be just and yet pardon the ungodly. Man can feel that he is a prisoner, and yet have a good hope of heaven and feel peace within. Who among men could have imagined such a thing? Who ought not to admire it when he hears it?

We read in British history of a Lord Nithsdale, who was sentenced to death for a great political crime. He was closely confined in prison after his trial. The day of his execution was fixed. There seemed no chance of escape. And yet before the sentence was carried into effect he contrived to escape through the skill and affection of his wife. She brought him a woman’s clothes into the cell where he lay. She disguised him in them and made him appear like her own maidservant. She then went out of the prison with him following as her attendant, and though he passed through guards and keepers, none detected him. Who would not admire the skill and the love of such a wife as this?

But we read in Gospel history of a display of love, compared to which the love of Lady Nithsdale is nothing. We read of Jesus the Son of God coming down to a world of sinners, who neither cared for Him before He came, nor honoured Him when He appeared. We read of Him going down to the prisonhouse, and submitting to be bound, that we, the poor prisoners, might be able to go free. We read of Him becoming obedient to death—and that the death of the cross that we, the unworthy children of Adam, might have a door opened to life everlasting. We read of Him being content to bear our sins and carry our transgressions, that we might wear His righteousness, and walk in the light and liberty of the sons of God.

This may well be called a “love that passeth knowledge!” In no way could free grace ever have shown so brightly as in the way of justification by Christ (Ephes. iii. 19).

This is the old way by which alone the children of Adam, who have been justified from the beginning of the world, have found their peace. From Abel downwards, no man or woman has ever had one drop of mercy, excepting through Christ. To Him every altar that was raised before the time of Moses was intended to point. To Him every sacrifice and ordinance of the Jewish law was meant to direct the children of Israel. Of Him all the prophets testified. In a word, if you lose sight of justification by Christ, a large part of the Old Testament Scripture will become a tangled maze.

This, above all, is the way of justification which exactly meets the wants and requirements of human nature. There is a conscience left in man, although he is a fallen being. There is a dim sense of his own need, which in his better moments will make itself heard, and which nothing but Christ can satisfy. So long as his conscience is not hungry, any religious toy will satisfy a man’s soul and keep him quiet. But once let his conscience become hungry, and nothing will quiet him but food, and no food but Christ.

There is something within a man, when his conscience is really awake, which whispers, “there must be a price paid for my soul, or no peace.” At once the Gospel meets him with Christ. Christ has already paid a ransom for his redemption. Christ has given Himself for him. Christ has redeemed him from the curse of the law, being made a curse for him (Gal. ii. 20; iii. 13).

There is something within a man, when his conscience is really awake, which whispers,” I must have some righteousness or title to heaven, or no peace. At once the Gospel meets him with Christ. He has brought in an everlasting righteousness. He is the end of the law for righteousness. His name is called, The Lord our Righteousness. God 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; Rom. x. 4; Jer. xxiii. 6).

There is something within a man, when his conscience is really awake, which whispers, “there must be punishment and suffering because of my sins, or no peace.” At once the Gospel meets him with Christ. Christ hath suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, to bring him to God. He bore our sins in His own body on the tree. By His stripes we are healed (1 Peter ii. 24).

There is something within a man, when his conscience is really awake, which whispers, “I must have a priest for my soul, or no peace.” At once the Gospel meets him with Christ. Christ is sealed and appointed by God the Father to be the Mediator between Himself and man. He is the ordained Advocate for sinners. He is the accredited Counsellor and Physician of sick souls. He is the Great High Priest, the Almighty Absolver, the Gracious Confessor of heavyladen sinners (1 Tim. ii. 5; Heb. viii. 1).

This is the one true way of peace—justification by Christ. Beware lest any turn you out of this way and lead you into any of the false doctrines of the Church of Rome. Alas, it is wonderful to see how that unhappy Church has built a house of error hard by the house of truth! Hold fast the truth of God about justification, and be not deceived. Listen not to anything you may hear about other mediators and helpers to peace. Remember there is no mediator but one—Jesus Christ; no purgatory for sinners but one—the blood of Christ; no sacrifice for sin but one—the sacrifice once made on the cross; no works that can merit anything—but the work of Christ; no priest that can truly absolve—but Christ. Stand fast here, and be on your guard. Give not the glory due to Christ to another.

What do you know of Christ? I doubt not you have heard of Him by the hearing of the ear. You know His name. You are acquainted, perhaps, with the story of His life and death. But what experimental knowledge have you of Him? What practical use do you make of Him? What dealings and transactions have there been between your soul and Him?

Oh, believe me, there is no peace with God excepting through Christ! Peace is His peculiar gift. Peace is that legacy which he alone had power to leave behind Him when He left the world. All other peace besides this is a mockery and a delusion. When hunger can be relieved without food, and thirst quenched without drink, and weariness removed without rest, then, and not till then, will men find peace without Christ.

Is this peace your own? Bought by Christ with His own blood, offered by Christ freely to all who are willing to receive it—is this peace your own? Oh, rest not rest not till you can give a satisfactory answer to my question—Have you peace? Are you justified?

IV. Let me show you, in the last place, the hand by which the privilege of peace is received.

I ask your special attention to this part of our subject. There is scarcely any point in Christianity so important as the means by which Christ, justification, and peace, become the property of a man’s soul. Many, I fear, would go with me so far as I have gone in this paper, but here would part company. Let us endeavour to lay hold firmly on the truth.

The means, by which a man obtains an interest in Christ and all His benefits, is simple faith. There is but one thing needful in order to be justified by His blood, and have peace with God. That one thing is to believe on Him. This is the peculiar mark of a true Christian. He believes on the Lord Jesus for His salvation. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” “Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (Acts xvi. 31; John iii. 16).

Without this faith it is impossible to be saved. A man may be moral, amiable, goodnatured, and respectable. But if he does not believe on Christ, he has no pardon, no justification, no title to heaven. “He that believeth not is condemned already.” “He that believeth not the Son shall not see life: but the wrath of God abideth on him.” “He that believeth not, shall be damned “(John iii. 18, 36; Mark xvi. 16).

Beside this faith nothing whatever is needed for a man’s justification. Beyond doubt, repentance, holiness, love, humility, prayerfulness, will always be seen in the justified man. But they do not in the smallest degree justify him in the sight of God. Nothing joins a man to Christ, nothing justifies, but simple faith. “To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” “We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Rom. iv. 5; iii. 28).

Having this faith, a man is at once completely justified. His sins are at once removed. His iniquities are at once put away. The very hour that he believes he is reckoned by God entirely pardoned, forgiven, and a righteous man. His justification is not a future privilege, to be obtained after a long time and great pains. It is an immediate present possession. Jesus says, “He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life.” Paul says, “By Him all that, believeth are justified from all things “(John vi. 47; Acts xiii. 39).

I need hardly say that it is of the utmost importance to have clear views about the nature of true saving faith. It is constantly spoken of as the distinguishing characteristic of New Testament Christians. They are called “believers.” In the single Gospel of John, “believing” is mentioned eighty or ninety times. There is hardly any subject about which so many mistakes are made. There is none about which mistakes are so injurious to the soul. The darkness of many a sincere inquirer may be traced up to confused views about faith. Let us try to get a distinct idea of its real nature.

True saving faith is not the possession of everybody. The opinion that all who are called Christians are, as a matter of course, believers, is a most mischievous delusion. A man may be baptized, like Simon Magus, and yet have no part or lot in Christ. The visible Church contains unbelievers as well as believers. “All men have not faith”(2 Thess. iii. 2).

True saving faith is not a mere matter of feeling. A man may have many good feelings and desires in his mind towards Christ, and yet they may all prove as temporary and shortlived as the morning cloud and the early dew. Many are like the stonyground hearers, and “hear the word with joy.” Many will say under momentary excitement, “I will follow Thee whithersoever Thou goest” (Matt. viii. 19).

True saving faith is not a bare assent of the intellect to the fact that Christ died for sinners. This is not a whit better than the faith of devils. They know who Jesus is. They believe, and they do more, they tremble (James ii. 19).

True saving faith is an act of the whole inner man. It is an act of the head, heart, and will, all united and combined. It is an act of the soul, in which, seeing his own guilt, danger, and helplessness—and seeing at the same time Christ offering to save him—a man ventures on Christ—flees to Christ—receives Christ as his only hope—and becomes a willing dependent on Him for salvation. It is an act which becomes at once the parent of a habit. He that has it may not always be equally sensible of his own faith, but in the main he lives by faith, and walks by faith.

True faith has nothing whatever of merit about it, and in the highest sense cannot be called a work. It is but laying hold of a Saviour’s hand, leaning on a husband’s arm, and receiving a physician’s medicine. It brings with it nothing to Christ but a sinful man’s soul. It gives nothing, contributes nothing, pays nothing, performs nothing. It only receives, takes, accepts, grasps, and embraces the glorious gift of justification which Christ bestows, and by renewed daily acts enjoys that gift.

Of all Christian graces, faith is the most important. Of all it is the simplest in reality. Of all it is the most difficult to make men understand in practice. The mistakes into which men fall about it are endless. Some who have no faith never doubt for a moment that they are believers. Others, who have faith, can never be persuaded that they are believers at all. But nearly every mistake about faith may be traced up to the old root of natural pride. Men will persist in sticking to the idea that they are to pay something of their own in order to be saved. As to a faith which consists in receiving only, and paying nothing at all, it seems as if they could not understand it.

Saving faith is the hand of the soul. The sinner is like a drowning man at the point of sinking. He sees the Lord Jesus Christ holding out help to him. He grasps it and is saved. This is faith.

Saving faith is the eye of the soul. The sinner is like the Israelite bitten by the fiery serpent in the wilderness, and at the point of death. The Lord Jesus Christ is offered to him as the brazen serpent, set up for his cure. He looks and is healed. This is faith.

Saving faith is the mouth of the soul. The sinner is starving for want of food, and sick of a sore disease. The Lord Jesus Christ is set before him as the bread of life, and the universal medicine. He receives it, and is made well and strong. This is faith.

Saving faith is the foot of the soul. The sinner is pursued by a deadly enemy, and is in fear of being overtaken. The Lord Jesus Christ is put before him as a strong tower, a hiding place, and a refuge. He runs into it and is safe. This is faith.

If you love life, cling fast hold to the doctrine of justification by faith. If you love inward peace, let your views of faith be very simple. Honour every part of the Christian religion. Contend to the death for the necessity of holiness. Use diligently and reverently every appointed means of grace; but do not give to these things the office of justifying your soul in the slightest degree. If you would have peace, remember that faith alone justifies, and that not as a meritorious work, but as the act that joins the soul to Christ. Believe me, the crown and glory of the Gospel is “justification by faith without the deeds of the law.”

No doctrine can be imagined so beautifully simple as justification by faith. It is not a dark mysterious truth, intelligible to none but the great, the rich, and the learned. It places eternal life within the reach of the most unlearned, and the poorest in the land. It must be of God.

No doctrine can be imagined so glorifying to God. It honours all His attributes, justice, mercy, and holiness. It gives the whole credit of the sinner’s salvation to the Saviour He has appointed. It honours the Son, and so honours the Father that sent Him. It gives man no partnership in his redemption, but makes salvation to be wholly of the Lord. It must be of God.

No doctrine can be imagined so calculated to put man in his right place. It shows him his own sinfulness, and weakness, and inability to save his soul by his own works. It leaves him without excuse if he is not saved at last. It offers to him peace and pardon without money and without price. It must be of God.

No doctrine can be imagined so comforting to a brokenhearted and penitent sinner. It brings to such an one glad tidings. It shows him that there is hope even for him. It tells him though he is a great sinner, there is ready for him a great Saviour; and though he cannot justify himself, God can and will justify him for the sake of Christ. It must be of God.

No doctrine can be imagined so satisfying to a true Christian. It supplies him with a solid ground of comfort—the finished work of Christ. If anything was left for the Christian to do, where would his comfort be? He would never know that he had done enough, and was really safe. But the doctrine that Christ undertakes all, and that we have only to believe and receive peace, meets every fear. It must be of God.

No doctrine can be imagined so sanctifying. It draws men by the strongest of all cords, the cord of love. It makes them feel they are debtors, and in gratitude bound to love much, when much has been forgiven. Preaching up works never produces such fruit as preaching them down. Exalting man’s goodness and merits never makes men so holy as exalting Christ. The fiercest lunatics at Paris became gentle, mild, and obedient, when Abby Pinel gave them liberty and hope. The free grace of Christ will produce far greater effects on men’s lives than the sternest commands of law. Surely the doctrine must be of God.

No doctrine can be imagined so strengthening to the hands of a minister. It enables him to come to the vilest of men and say, “There is a door of hope even for you.” It enables him to feel, “While life lasts there are no incurable cases among the souls under my charge.” Many a minister by the use of this doctrine can say of souls, “I found them in the state of nature. I beheld them pass into the state of grace. I watched them moving into the state of glory.” Truly this doctrine must be of God.

No doctrine can be imagined that wears so well. It suits men when they first begin, like the Philippian jailer, crying, “What shall I do to be saved?” It suits them when they fight in the forefront of the battle. Like the apostle Paul, they say, “The life that I live, I live by the faith of the Son of God.” It suits them when they die, as it did Stephen when he cried, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Yes: many an one has opposed the doctrine fiercely while he lived, and yet on his deathbed has gladly embraced justification by faith, and departed saying that “he trusted in nothing but Christ.” It must be of God.

Have you this faith? Do you know anything of simple childlike confidence in Jesus? Do you know what it is to rest your soul’s hopes wholly on Christ? Oh, remember that where there is no faith, there is no interest in Christ; where there is no interest in Christ, there is no justification; where there is no justification, there can be no peace with God; where there is no peace with God, there is no heaven! And what then? There remains nothing but hell.

And now let me commend the solemn matters we have been considering to your serious and prayerful attention. I invite you to begin by meditating calmly on peace with God—on justification—on Christ—on faith. These are not mere speculative subjects, fit for none but retired students. They lie at the very root of Christianity. They are bound up with life eternal. Bear with me for a few moments, while I add a few words in order to bring them home more closely to your heart and conscience.

1. Let me, then, for one thing, request every reader of this paper to remember its title.

Are you justified? Have you peace with God? You have heard of it. You have read of it. You know there is such a thing. You know where it is to be found. But do you possess it yourself? Is it yet your own? Oh, deal honestly with yourself, and do not evade my question! Are you justified? Have you peace with God?

I do not ask whether you think it an excellent thing, and hope to procure it at some future time before you die. I want to know about your state now. Today, while it is called today, I ask you to deal honestly with my question. Are you justified? Have you peace with God?

May the question ring in your ears, and never leave you till you can give it a satisfactory answer! May the Holy Spirit of God so apply it to your heart that you may be able to say boldly before you die, “Being justified by faith, I have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

2. In the next place, let me offer a solemn warning to every reader of this paper who knows that he has not peace with God.

You are not justified! You have not peace! Consider for a moment how fearfully great is your danger! You and God are not friends. The wrath of God abideth on you. God is angry with you every day. Your ways, your words, your thoughts, your actions, are a continual offence to Him. They are all unpardoned and unforgiven. They cover you from head to foot. They provoke Him every day to cut you off. The sword that the reveller of old saw hanging over his head by a single hair is but a faint emblem of the danger of your soul. There is but a step between you and hell.

You are not justified! You have not peace! Consider for a moment how fearfully great is your folly! There sits at the right hand of God a mighty Saviour, able and willing to give you peace, and you do not seek Him. For ten, twenty, thirty, and perhaps forty years He has called to you, and you have refused His counsel. He has cried, “Come to Me,” and you have practically replied, “I will not.” He has said, “My ways are ways of pleasantness,” and you have constantly said, “I like my own sinful ways far better.”

And after all, for what have you refused Christ? For worldly riches, which cannot heal a broken heart; for worldly business, which you must one day leave; for worldly pleasures, which do not really satisfy; for these things, and such as these, you have refused Christ. Is this wisdom, is this fairness, is this kindness to your soul?

I do beseech you to consider your ways. I mourn over your present condition with especial sorrow. I grieve to think how many are within a hair’s breadth of some crushing affliction, and yet utterly unprepared to meet it. Fain would I draw near to everyone, and cry in his ear, “Seek Christ! Seek Christ, that you may have peace within and a present help in trouble.” Fain would I persuade every anxious parent and wife and child to become acquainted with Him, who is a brother born for adversity, and the Prince of Peace a friend that never fails nor forsakes, and a husband that never dies.

May God the Spirit apply this warning to some reader’s soul! May some who began to read this paper in thoughtlessness find it a word in season, and be led into the way of peace!

3. Let me, in the next place, offer an affectionate entreaty to all who want peace and know not where to find it.

You want peace! Then seek it without delay from Him who alone is able to give it—Christ Jesus the Lord. Go to Him in humble prayer, and ask Him to fulfil His own promises and look graciously on your soul. Tell Him you have read His compassionate invitation to the labouring and heavyladen. Tell Him that this is the plight of your soul, and implore Him to give you rest. Do this, and do it without delay.

Seek Christ Himself, and do not stop short of personal dealings with Him. Rest not in regular attendance on Christ’s ordinances. Be not content with becoming a communicant and receiving the Lord’s Supper. Think not to find solid peace in this way. You must see the King’s face, and be touched by the golden sceptre. You must speak to the Physician, and open your whole case to Him. You must be closeted with the Advocate, and keep nothing back from Him. Oh, reader, remember this. Many are shipwrecked just outside the harbour. They stop short in means and ordinances, and never go straight and direct to Christ. “He that drinks of this water shall thirst again.” Christ Himself can alone satisfy the soul.

Seek Christ, and wait for nothing. Wait not till you feel you have repented enough. Wait not till your knowledge is increased. Wait not till you have been sufficiently humbled because of your sins. Wait not till you have no ravelled tangle of doubts and darkness and unbelief all over your heart. Seek Christ just as you are. You will never be better by keeping away from Him. From the bottom of my heart I subscribe to old Traill’s opinion, “It is impossible that people should believe in Christ too soon.” Alas! it is not humility, but pride and ignorance that make so many anxious souls hang back from closing with Jesus. They forget that the more sick a man is the more need he has of the physician. The more bad a man feels his heart, the more readily and speedily ought he to flee to Christ.

Seek Christ, and do not fancy you must sit still. Let not Satan tempt you to suppose that you must wait in a state of passive inaction, and not strive to lay hold upon Jesus. How you can lay hold upon Him I do not pretend to explain. But I am certain it is better to struggle towards Christ and strive to lay hold, than to sit still with our arms folded in sin and unbelief. Better perish striving to lay hold on Jesus, than perish in indolence and sin. Well says old Traill, of those who tell us they are anxious but cannot believe in Christ: “This pretence is as inexcusable as if a man wearied with a journey, and not able to go one step further, should argue, ‘I am so tired that I am not able to lie down,’ when indeed he can neither stand nor go.”

May God the Spirit apply this invitation to some reader’s soul! May it be the means of leading some weary soul into the way of peace.

4. Let me, in the next place, offer some encouragement to those who have good reason to hope they have peace with God, but are troubled by doubts and fears.

You have doubts and fears! But what do you expect? What would you have? Your soul is married to a body full of weakness, passions, and infirmities. You live in a world that lies in wickedness, a world in which the great majority do not love Christ. You are constantly liable to the temptations of the devil. That busy enemy, if he cannot shut you out of heaven, will try hard to make your journey uncomfortable. Surely these things ought all to be considered.

Believing reader, so far from being surprised that you have doubts and fears, I should suspect the reality of your peace if you had none. I think little of that grace which is accompanied by no inward conflict. There is seldom life in the heart when all is still, quiet, and one way of thinking. Believe me, a true Christian may be known by his warfare as well as by his peace. These very doubts and fears which now distress you are tokens of good. They satisfy me that you have really got something which you are afraid to lose.

Believing reader, I advise you to beware that you do not help Satan by becoming an unjust accuser of yourself, and an unbeliever in the reality of God’s work of grace. I advise you to pray for more knowledge of your own heart, of the fulness of Jesus, and of the devices of the devil. Let doubts and fears drive you to the throne of grace, stir you up to more prayer, send you more frequently to Christ. But do not let doubts and fears rob you of your peace. Believe me, you must be content to go to heaven as a sinner saved by grace. And you must not be surprised to find daily proof that you really are a sinner so long as you live.

May the Holy Spirit apply this word of encouragement to some reader’s soul! May it be the means of establishing the feet of some doubting brother in the way of peace.

5. Let me, in the last place, offer some counsel to all who have peace with God, and desire to keep up a lively sense of it.

It must never be forgotten that a believer’s sense of his own justification and acceptance with God admits of many degrees and variations. At one time it may be bright and clear; at another dull and dim. At one time it may be high and full, like the floodtide; at another low, like the ebb. Our justification is a fixed, changeless, immovable thing. But our sense of justification is liable to many changes.

What, then, are the best means of preserving in a believer’s heart the lively sense of justification which is so precious to the soul that knows it? I offer a few hints to believers. But such as they are I offer them, though I lay no claim to infallibility.

To keep up a lively sense of peace, there must be constant looking to Jesus. As the pilot keeps his eye on the mark by which he steers, so must we keep our eye on Christ.

There must be constant communion with Jesus. We must use Him daily as our soul’s Physician and High Priest. There must be daily conference, daily confession, and daily absolution.

There must be constant watchfulness against the enemies of your soul. He that would have peace must be always prepared for war.

There must be a constant following after holiness in every relation of life—in our tempers, in our tongues, abroad and at home. A small speck on the lens of a telescope is enough to prevent our seeing distant objects clearly. A little dust will soon make a watch go incorrectly.

There must be a constant labouring after humility. Pride goes before a fall. Selfconfidence is often the mother of sloth, of hurried Biblereading, and sleepy prayers. Peter first said he would never forsake his Lord, though all others did; then he slept when he should have prayed; then He denied Him three times, and only found wisdom after bitter weeping.

There must be constant boldness in confessing our Lord before men. Them that honour Christ, Christ will honour with much of His company. When the disciples forsook our Lord they were wretched and miserable. When they confessed Him before the Council, they were filled with “joy and the Holy Ghost.”

There must be constant diligence about means of grace, and good works. Here are the ways in which Jesus loves to walk. No disciple must expect to see much of his Master, who does not delight in public worship, Biblereading, private prayer, and constant efforts to mend the world.

Lastly, there must be constant jealousy over our own souls, and frequent selfexamination. We must be careful to distinguish between justification and sanctification. We must beware that we do not make a Christ of holiness.

I lay these hints before you. I might easily add to them. But I am sure they are among the first things to be attended to by believers, if they wish to keep up a lively sense of their own justification and acceptance with God.

Reader, I conclude all by expressing my heart’s desire and prayer that you may know what it is to have true peace in your soul.

If you never had peace yet, may it be recorded in the book of God that this year you sought peace in Christ and found it!

If you have tasted peace already, may your sense of peace mightily increase!

A Discourse on Justification by Faith

by Jonathan Dickinson

ROMANS iii. 25.—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.

THE glorious transaction of our redemption by Jesus Christ, is the just surprise and wonder of the reasonable creation. The angels desire to look into these things; and man, who is immediately interested herein, has especial reason to adore the amazing love, that shines with such lustre in his deliverance from death and hell. And what brightens the glory of this stupendous work, and gives us occasion of the highest exercise of gratitude, is the infinite price, by which our salvation is purchased. For thus saith the Scripture—"We are redeemed, not by corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." And God hath purchased his church with his own blood. Thus the price of our deliverance bears proportion to the degree of our misery and guilt. When these were so aggravated, that all the angels in heaven were insufficient for our rescue; when no created wisdom could invent an effectual expedient; when no created power was equal to the vast design; God our Saviour looked, and there was none to help; and wondered that there was none to uphold. He therefore himself interposed, and his own arm brought salvation. According to the appointment of God the Father, our Lord-Redeemer has undertaken to be a propitiation for us, that through faith in the merits of his blood, we may be interested in his righteousness, and obtain the remission of our sins; as we are instructed in the words of our text;

In which we may note the following particulars:

1. Observe the person here spoken of, represented by the relative whom, which leads us to the last words of the foregoing verse—"Jesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation."

2. We may observe the character here attributed to this person, that is, a propitiation or atonement. The Greek word here rendered propitiation, is very emphatical, and signifies one person's being substituted in the room and place of another, to bear his guilt, or to discharge his debt; and thereby to make atonement or satisfaction on his account. By which is exhibited to us, how the Lord Jesus Christ undertook to become a curse for us, to bear our sins in his own body on the tree, that he might thereby expiate our guilt, pacify offended justice, and reconcile us to God.

3. We are here shown the divine appointment of this glorious person to be a propitiation for us. "Whom God hath set forth," proposed or ordained. This merciful provision of God for our recovery from ruin by the atonement of Christ, is the fruit and consequence of the eternal covenant of redemption, or counsel of peace between them both. God the Father, as the first in order in the blessed Trinity, is represented as proposing or appointing, and God the Son as undertaking this glorious work. Whereby is not only shown how the operations of this blessed Three in One do follow the order of their personality, but also how God the Father, as sustaining the character of supreme in the economy of redemption, demands satisfaction to offended justice, and has allotted this way of obtaining it, by Christ's being a propitiation for us, that in this way "he might be just, and yet the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

4. Here is pointed out to us the means or method of our getting actually interested in this propitiation, "through faith in his blood." It is through a believing acceptance of, and dependence upon the death and sacrifice of the Redeemer, that we are to partake of the benefits of his atonement. His satisfaction is sufficient for all, but actually applied, and effectual to none but the believer.

5. We may note the blessed fruit and consequence of an interest in this propitiation of Christ; "the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." All the sins committed before justification, while God so patiently exercised his forbearing goodness to the guilty sinner, are fully remitted and for ever done away, through the merits of this atonement, upon the first exercise of a true faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, insomuch that the sinner is at once reconciled to God, and instated in his favour.

But there are three things here, that more especially demand our attention, and which I shall endeavour more distinctly to consider:

First, What is implied in our Lord Jesus Christ's being a propitiation for us.

Secondly, What we are to understand by that faith in him, by means of which we are interested in this propitiation.

Thirdly, How faith in Christ operates or influences to bring about our remission and justification in the sight of God. As to the nature of justification, I shall have occasion to consider that in my next discourse, and therefore pass it at present.— Here,

I. Then, I am to show what is implied in Christ's being a propitiation for us.—And that I may illustrate this in the most familiar and perspicuous manner I am capable of, I shall endeavour to be somewhat particular and progressive in my attempts to explain it.—Now,

1. This implies, or rather presupposes the guilty condemned state of apostate man, and our utter inability to recover ourselves. The apostasy of Adam, I mean the guilt thereby contracted, was, by a just imputation, transmitted to all his natural posterity, so that we are all become guilty before God. And the contagion or pollution, contracted by the apostasy, being also propagated to the miserable progeny of a condemned rebel, hence all our affections and passions are corrupted and defiled, and our conversation being a stream from this polluted fountain, is become irregular and sinful, whereby we have lost the favour of God, and are the objects of his righteous displeasure. This is plainly the case of the whole world of mankind, while in a state of nature. This fatal fruit of the fall does indeed seem one of the darkest dispensations of providence, and is what carnal reason is exceedingly apt to cavil at. But I think I have given such answers to the chief objections made against it, in my discourse on this subject, as may justly quiet our minds, and silence all our opposition.

This, then, being our distressed case, whither could we flee for help? It is evident to every one's observation, that we cannot come up to that unspotted obedience, which God has the justest claim to from a rational creature; that our best duties and most careful observances of the law of nature, are sadly defiled with sin; that we have vicious habits and inclinations, which we cannot conquer; and that our carnal minds are enmity against God, are not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. Whence it is certain, we are so far from being capable of atoning for our apostasy, that we are utterly incapable to live up to the law of nature, had that breach been made up.

If any will suppose, that our repentance would have been sufficient to have appeased the divine displeasure, without any other satisfaction: I would ask them how they can be certain of this. I would desire them to show what necessary connexion there is between the sorrow of guilty rebels for their sins, and the favour of an offended God, without a satisfaction or atonement. And I would inquire, whether they have this good news for the fallen angels. It would be such glad tidings, as I dare say, they had never heard since their first apostasy. But were even this supposed, still I inquire, how would that afford any relief in our case? For we are naturally incapable of a true repentance, by any power of our own, as much as of making a strict and adequate atonement. We are too much in love with sin, to loath and abhor it, as of ourselves. The habits of sin too intimately adhere to our souls, to be wholly subdued and forsaken, by any attempts or resolutions of ours. And can we please God with a partial and insincere repentance, which is all we can pretend to? Can God be deceived, or will he be mocked? No, surely! We can neither discharge the debt already contracted, nor avoid running further into debt every day.

2. This also implies or presupposes that divine justice demanded satisfaction for our offences, in order to our reconciliation unto God. I shall not undertake to determine whether the punishment of sin be indispensably necessary from the nature of God; and naturally results from his essential righteousness and purity, absolutely considered. It is indeed certain, that holiness and justice are essential perfections in God; that he is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity; and that his justice being infinite, must be inflexible. But, mankind not having adequate ideas of these divine perfections, we may err in our reasonings and deductions from them. However, I think we may safely affirm that God's requiring satisfaction for sin, is agreeable to his rectoral holiness and governing justice; and that as he is the supreme Judge and Governor of the world, he justly requires sin should be punished; that by this he may illustrate and vindicate his own holiness, and convince the world, that the "righteous Lord loveth righteousness;" and that "the wicked his soul hateth." Psal. xi. 5, 7. That by this he may testify his adherence to his own laws; and let the world see, "that Heaven and earth shall sooner pass away, than one jot or tittle shall pass from them." Matt. v. 18. That by this he may discover the value he puts upon the obedience of his creatures; and show that their observance of his law is not a vain thing for them, because it is their life. Deut. xxxii. 47. And that by this he may assert his own sovereignty; and the world may see, that "verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth." Psal. lviii. 11. I might add, by this he also brandishes a flaming sword against the impiety of future transgressors; and discovers, that "to him belongeth vengeance and recompense." Deut. xxxii. 35. The truth of God does certainly make satisfaction for sin necessary. He threatened death as the consequence of the fall. Gen. ii. 17. And his word is immutable, like his infinite nature. Hath he said it, and will he not do it? What he has spoken, he is able also to perform; and being the God of truth, will he not bring it to pass? In a word, God's actually requiring satisfaction for sin, is a fact abundantly confirmed in the Scriptures; and therefore cannot but be owned a reality. Among the multitudes of Scriptures that might be cited in this case, you may consider these that follow. Exod. xxxiv. 7. "That will by no means clear the guilty." Josh. xxvi. 19. "He is an holy God, he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins." Rom. iii. 5, 6 "Is God unrighteous, who taketh vengeance . I speak as a man, far be it: For how then shall God judge the world?" Which shows, that as God is judge of the world, it is a righteous thing for him to take vengeance. Rom. iii, 26. "To declare at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Which shows, that the satisfaction of Christ was requisite, in order to God's being just, in the justifying of sinners; and that it would not have been agreeable, to his justice, to have saved them without satisfaction. Rom, vi. 23. "The wages of sin is death." This is so, both from the justice and law of God.

3. This implies, that the blessed Redeemer undertook to represent poor guilty criminals; and to give himself a ransom for them. This is a doctrine discoverable only by revelation; and I can no ways explain it, but by showing in what light the Scriptures set this before us. And in those blessed oracles, God the Father is exhibited as admitting, by virtue of his supremacy in the dispensation of man's redemption, the transferring our sin and punishment to the Mediator; and accordingly as sending him to undertake our salvation. Thus, John iii. 16, 17. "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." Rom, viii. 3. "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." 2 Cor. v. 21. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew' no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 1 John iv. 9, 10. "In this was manifested the love of God towards us; because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God: but that he loved us; and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." The Scriptures also represent the Lord Jesus Christ, as freely and voluntarily consenting to undertake this great work; unto which he could be liable to no constraint. Mark x. 45. "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister; and to give his life a ransom for many." John x. 17, 18. "I lay down my life that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me; but I lay it down of myself; I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." Tit, ii. 14. "Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity." Heb. x. 7. "Then said I, Lo, I come, in the volume of the book it is written of me, to do thy will, O God." The Scriptures do moreover set forth the Redeemer, in the quality of our surety and representative, in this wonderful transaction. Heb. viii. 22. "By so much, was Jesus made a surety of a better testament." 1 Pet. ii. 24. "Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to sin, might live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed." 1 Pet. iii. 18. " For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit." In which texts, the substitution of the Lord Jesus Christ in our room and stead is clearly and strongly expressed, in his bearing our sins, and suffering for us, and the like expressions are very numerous throughout the New Testament. I will only add, that the Scriptures represent the sufferings of Christ, and his obedience unto the death, as a proper sacrifice and atonement for us, and as the purchase of our redemption. Isa. liii. 10. "When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed." Eph. v. 2. "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us; and given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour." Heb. iii. 17. "That he might be a merciful and faithful high priest, in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." See also 1 Cor. vi. 20. Tit. ii. 14, with many other passages to the same purpose, which frequently occur in the sacred pages. Let men therefore strain their wits as much as they can, to put false glosses upon these and such like texts of Scripture, there is nothing more certain, than that the proper satisfaction and atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ for the sins of the world, is in the strongest, most plain and familiar terms, repeatedly asserted in the word of God. If we have any regard at all to the way of salvation proposed in the gospel, we must expect redemption through the alone merits of his life and death; and depend upon him as our ransom, as the propitiation for our sins, and the Lord our righteousness.

I am aware, that there are some difficulties in the way of this doctrine, which the carnal mind is ready to stumble at. It is an objection against this, that it is not just, to accept of and punish the innocent instead of the guilty. To which I answer:

It must be granted, that in human judicatures this would be most unjust, thus to transfer capital punishment; because no man has power to dispose of his own life at pleasure, nor power to give his life for another, be sure not the just for the unjust. Neither hath the civil magistrate power thus to sacrifice a good man for a bad, though even with his own consent; because it would be highly injurious to the community to cut off the innocent and valuable member, and to spare the guilty criminal as a pest and nuisance to society. But these reasons do not affect the case now before us. Our Redeemer had power to lay down his life, and power to take it up again. As he was the Lord from heaven, he had the absolute property and disposal of his own life. And he has declared himself the Son of God with power, by his resurrection from the dead. And instead of this being injurious to the community, it has brought most glorious advantages to us, both with respect to the present and future world. I may add to this, that our blessed Saviour, did not finally perish; as a substitute must do, in capital punishments among men. No; he underwent but a short temporary death, and received his life again, with greatest advantage. From whence it appears, that those objections, which would be just in other cases, can have no place here. The character and quality of the substitute, and the absolute sovereignty of the supreme Judge, render the case exempt from all the rules of human judicatures. It is true indeed, that the justice of God could not have demanded satisfaction from the Redeemer, if he had not voluntarily made himself responsible for us: but Christ having a more absolute and sovereign disposal of his own life, than any man can have of his estate, he might as freely offer it, and God the Father as justly accept itj in satisfaction for our sins, as any man can be accepted as surety for another man's debt.

It may also be objected, that this seems derogatory to the goodness of God, to have penal satisfaction lead the way to the exercise of mercy; and that this represents the divine Being too like the most merciless of human creatures, who have such an appetite to revenge, as cannot be satisfied without blood: whereas it would seem more agreeable to infinite goodness, to pardon freely.

I answer, the mistake lies in the objector, and he only, I think, has unworthy notions of God, To imagine the death of Christ flowed from an irregular appetite to vengeance, is indeed to measure the divine perfections by our depraved lusts and passions. But to suppose, that God's demand of satisfaction arises from, or at least is consonant to, the infinite purity of his nature, whereby he cannot look upon sin with approbation, but testifies his abhorrence of it to all the rational world: to suppose that the righteous Governor of the world, should inflict punishments, as well as bestow rewards, according to the rectitude and equity of his own glorious nature: to suppose, that this glorious lawgiver should insist upon maintaining the honour of his own laws, whereby he has determined to govern the world; this is not to entertain thoughts in any respect unworthy of infinite grace and goodness. The goodness of God does hereby shine in its brightest lustre, that he is willing to save poor guilty rebels at such an infinite expense; and that in such an admirable method, mercy and truth meet together, righteousness and peace kiss each other.

4. Christ's being a propitiation for us does also imply, that God did accept of the passive obedience of Christ, together with his active, as sufficient satisfaction to the demands of justice. "Jesus Christ hath made reconciliation for the sins of the people." Heb. ii. 17. And he has reconciled the world to God, that their trespasses are not imputed. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. Thus peace is made with God, and we reconciled to him by his cross, the enmity being slain. Eph. ii. 15, 16. So that the imputation of the obedience of Christ, does fully and perfectly acquit the believer from the guilt of sin, the empire of Satan, the curse of the law, and the damnation of hell. God has received satisfaction from the surety; and therefore will demand no more from the principal debtor.

Thus I have briefly considered what is implied in Christ's being a propitiation for us; and have endeavoured to confirm each particular, by full and clear testimonies from the, word of God. From this view of the case, it appears to me as reasonable, to call the whole of divine Revelation into question, as to doubt of this great article, Christ's having made a proper satisfaction and atonement by his blood, for the sins of his people.

Now of the things of which I have spoken, this is the sum. That by our first apostasy we have violated the fundamental laws of nature, have been traitors and rebels to the Sovereign of the world, have plunged ourselves into guilt, debased and polluted all the noble faculties of our souls; and separated between our God and us; whereby we are not only become guilty, but impotent and helpless: that the Supreme Governor of the world, willing to assert the infinite purity and holiness of his nature, and his eternal and immutable antipathy to sin and sinners, has testifier the value he puts upon his righteous laws, and upon the observance of them; has vindicated his sovereign dominion, and the truth of his threatenings; and has set before the rational world the dreadful consequences of rebelling against him; by insisting upon a satisfaction to his offended justice; that when we were utterly incapable to make atonement, by any thing less than eternal sufferings, the great God, as Supreme Judge and Arbiter of his own laws and affairs of government, was pleased of his infinite goodness and compassion, so far to relax the threatening, as in our stead to accept of a surety in the person of his dear Son; who was with his own voluntary consent appointed by the Father to work out our redemption, by taking upon him our sin and guilt, bearing our punishment, and fulfilling the law for us, and thereby purchasing our acquittance from death and hell, and recovery of life and happiness. The blessed fruit of his mediation is, that there is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus; but whoso hath the Son, hath life, life everlasting.

Thus I am prepared to take notice, in what way we may hope for the benefits of this redemption; which brings me to consider,

II. What are we to understand by that faith in Christ, through which we have an interest in this propitiation. And it may be proper to take notice, that a saving faith is variously described in the Holy Scriptures. Particularly,

1. It is sometimes described, as an assent of the mind to the gospel revelation of Christ, Thus, Mark i, 15, "Repent ye, and believe the gospel." So, 1 John v. 1. "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God," And, Rom. x. 9. "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus; and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." In these and many other like passages of Scripture, a saving faith is proposed as an act of the understanding; and as an assent unto, or belief of the truth of the gospel.

2. Faith is sometimes described in Scripture, as a consent of the will to the gospel offer of salvation by Christ. Thus, John i. 12. "To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God; even to them that believe on his name." And, John vi. 35. "He that Cometh unto me, shall never hunger; and he that believeth in me, shall never thirst," So, Col. ii. 6. "As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him." In which texts we find, that receiving Christ, and believing on his name, and coming to him, and believing in him, are terms of the same significancy: and all of these expressions imply a willingness to obtain the salvation by Christ, upon his own terms.

3. Faith is also described in Scripture, as a confiding in and depending upon the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. Thus, Eph. i. 12. "That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ." Phil. iii. 9. "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." 2 Tim. i. 12. "For I know whom I have believed; and am persuaded, that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day." In which texts, faith is considered as our trusting in Christ, hoping to be found in him, relying upon his righteousness, and committing our souls to him.

By this it appears, that faith is sometimes described by one of its essential properties, and sometimes by another: but we must always remember, that when it is described by one of these properties, the other two are not excluded, but included; and that therefore each of these descriptions, if duly considered, will amount to the same thing.

If we, for example, consider faith as an assent to the gospel revelation concerning Christ, which, by the way, is the primary signification of the word faith, it will necessarily include in it a consent to what we believe, and an affiance in him on whom we believe. For this assent, or belief of the truth, must be supposed such a strong and thorough persuasion as will have a proper and effectual influence upon our minds. A mere doctrinal belief, or speculative opinion, cannot be recommended in Scripture as a saving faith. And this being supposed, that we have a firm realizing belief, and a lively impression, that Christ is the Saviour of the world, that his righteousness imputed to us is the only ground of our justification, that without this we must inevitably perish, and that he is both able and willing to save us; it will necessarily excite in us earnest desires after an interest in him, after union and communion with him, and bring us to place our hope and confidence in him only for salvation. We may have, as most of the professing world have, a disciplinary or notional belief of the truth of the gospel, that will produce no proper effect upon our souls, but will leave us, against the conviction of conscience, to neglect an offered Saviour, indulge our lusts, and perish in them. But though such a dead faith will profit us nothing, yet we cannot but esteem the Lord Jesus Christ to be precious, we cannot but choose him for our portion, and depend upon him to do all in us and for us, if we have lively and clear impressions of the truth of what the gospel reports concerning him. Though a careless indifferent or unsteady assent unto the gospel revelation, will not bring us off from our lusts and sinful pleasures, from our own righteousness and self-sufficiency, to receive Christ and depend upon him; yet a full realizing and hearty assent to this will bring us to consent to the offers of the gospel, and to place our confidence in the only object of our hope. Thus we see, that this first description of faith includes the other two, and if we distinctly consider them also, we shall find the same conclusion.

A consent, for instance, to the offers of Christ and his salvation in the gospel, necessarily implies an assent to the truth of the gospel. For it is impossible that we should, with our wills, concur to any proposal, that our understandings are not convinced of the truth of It implies also a dependence upon Christ for salvation. For it is impossible to consent to receive Christ for our Saviour, and not depend upon him as such.

The same thing may also be observed, with respect to trusting in Christ, the last description of faith. For we cannot depend upon Christ, and confide in him, unless we assent to the gospel revelation, and consent to accept him as our Saviour. Upon the whole, these several descriptions of faith, do mutually imply and involve each other, and all of them do always belong to the essence of a saving faith; which makes way for this general description:—

Faith in Christ is such an assent to the Christian revelation, as brings us heartily and fully to receive him as he is therein exhibited to us, and to depend on him only for salvation upon gospel terms.

Here let it be distinctly observed,

1. Faith in Jesus Christ necessarily implies an assent to the gospel revelation. I am not now considering how far God may discover his salvation to the heathen world, who are strangers to the gospel. As on the one hand, I would not limit the Holy One of Israel, who may, for aught I know, reveal his Son in an extraordinary manner to some that never heard of the gospel; so on the other hand, I would leave secret things to God, unto whom they belong. The business now before me is to consider a saving faith, as it relates to us, who dwell under gospel light, and are arrived at an age of consideration and observation. And in that view of the case, a hearty assent to the truths revealed in the gospel, is certainly essential to a true faith in Christ.

Unto this assent it is necessary, that we have a knowledge of the doctrines of the gospel, and of the way of salvation therein proposed. "How shall they call upon him, in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him, of whom they have not heard?" Rom. x. 14. Faith always follows the understanding, and cannot go before it. It is impossible to believe strictly and properly, what we do not in some respect understand. We may, indeed, in the general, believe that to be the truth, the special nature of which we neither understand nor believe. We may, for instance, believe the doctrine of the Trinity to be an undoubted truth, though we can neither understand, nor believe the particular modes, or manner how the divine Being is One in Three, and Three in One. In such cases, we can believe no more than what our understanding represents to us, from the word of God, as reasonable and credible. This being applied to the present case, makes it evident, that they who remain grossly ignorant of the doctrine of Christ, and the method of salvation, proposed in the gospel, cannot concur in it, nor comply with it. Ignorance here slays men in the dark, and makes them incapable of any benefit by an offered Saviour. We must therefore first know all that is really necessary to be believed; upon which account knowledge is sometimes in Scripture put for faith. Thus, John xvii. 3, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." And, 1 Cor. ii. 2, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Though men may be capable of faith in Christ without brightness of parts, or eminent degrees of knowledge, either in polemical or systematical divinity, as it is called; yet it is needful that they be acquainted with the principal doctrines of Christianity, such as relate to the one only Mediator, Jesus Christ, his person, offices and benefits, his incarnation, life, sufferings and death, his resurrection, ascension, and intercession; and such as relate to their own lost estate, and necessary dependence upon his righteousness and grace for justification and life, in order to their believing in Christ.

Moreover it is also needful, that we heartily receive this revelation for divine truth, when we do understand it. It is necessary, that we receive it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the word of God, in order that it should effectually work in us, as in them that believe. 1 Thess. ii. 13. It is not sufficient to believe this from the bias of education, or because we have been early and all along taught these doctrines. Alas, we should have been likely to have had the same faith in Mahomet, if we had been as early and constantly instructed in the Koran. It is not sufficient to have an implicit belief of these truths, to take them upon, trust from any man or society of men whatsoever; this is to depend upon other men's faith, and have none of our own. It is not sufficient inconsiderately to take these things for granted, without making particular and due inquiry; this may possibly amount to opinion, but not to faith. Nor is it sufficient to give a cold and inactive assent to the gospel, though founded upon the best evidence, and most rational argumentation; for this will not effectually convince us of our absolute necessity of Christ, nor of his sufficiency to supply all our wants. But we must receive the testimony of God concerning his Son, and assent to the gospel report as the truth of God, as that upon which our eternal welfare depends, and as that which we are above all things in the world concerned about. If it be objected, that this will yet fall short of true faith; that the devils themselves give as firm an assent to the truth of the gospel as we can do—"they believe and tremble"—I grant that a bare assent to the gospel, separately considered, if never so steady and strong and rational, is not a saving faith; but yet it is always an essential part of it, though faith, as I before observed, has more implied in it; which brings me to consider,

2. That a saving faith does also imply a receiving the Lord Jesus Christ, as offered in the gospel. This, as I showed before, is given as a description of faith, John i. 12. By which we are to understand, a hearty desire of an interest in Christ, and a sincere willingness to comply with the offers he makes of himself and his saving benefits, upon gospel terms.

This necessarily supposes, that we have an impressed sense of our necessity of an interest in Christ. Sinners are but hardly brought to embrace an offered Saviour. The most of the world are quiet and secure in a state of guilt, without any just apprehension of their danger, and without any serious concern about the welfare of their immortal souls. These go their way to their farms and merchandise, and excuse themselves from coming to Christ—they have something else to do. And as to others that are under some conviction of their sin and danger, they are ready to fly to any other refuge than the Saviour Christ, and to quiet their consciences with their good purposes or performances; until they are brought to see, that "in vain is salvation hoped for, from the hills and from the multitude of mountains;" that they have no where to go for salvation but to Christ alone, for he and he only hath the words of eternal life. These two things are essentially necessary to a true faith in Christ, a lively sense of our own emptiness, and inability to help ourselves, and a like sense of the sufficiency of Christ to relieve us. By the former we discover the last necessity of some remedy, beyond what we can possibly provide for our distressed souls. By the latter, the only door of hope is set open to us; and by both, we are made willing to comply with the blessed proposals of life and peace in the gospel, and submit to the terms whereon they are offered. While sinners can think themselves "rich, and increased in goods, and that they have need of nothing," they will set no special value by an offered Saviour. They must see themselves "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked," before they will repair to him, for "gold tried in the fire, that they may be rich; for white raiment that they may be clothed; and for eye-salve, that they may see." And this is the great reason of the unsuccessfulness of gospel ordinances, and of the unpersuadableness of the greatest part of the world to come unto Christ, that they might have life. They are insensible of their undone miserable state while at a distance from him: "The whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." They can rest quiet in their present attainments, and will therefore look no further. They will never come to Christ, till they are first brought to utterly despair of all help in themselves. And when they are even brought to this, it will have no better effect, than to fill them with horror and amazement, unless they have also a discovery that there is help to be had; that there is hope for their souls, from the sufficiency of redeeming love. But when they have both these discoveries, they cannot but see their necessity of Christ; and whatever else they want, they cannot but be willing to receive him upon any terms.

Moreover, this receiving of Christ does also suppose our complying with him as our King, as well as our Saviour. It is true, that sinners under a sense of their misery and danger do, in the first place, desire salvation from the wrath to come, of which they have awful apprehensions, and therefore repair to Christ for deliverance. But this is only a legal work. If they rest here, they will never be interested in Christ and his saving benefits. A true evangelical faith excites an earnest desire of salvation from the power and pollution of sin, as well as from guilt and danger. The believer desires Christ to save him from his sins, and not in them; he desires that Christ may reign in his heart, and that his whole man, in all its powers, may be subjected to him. There is no man willing to perish; destruction from God would be a terror to the worst of men, if realized; and since they know that there is no way of salvation but by Christ, they desire by him a salvation from hell, yet, however, it is with a reservation of their lusts and sinful pleasures, which they cannot part with. But this is very far short of a genuine saving faith, which receives a whole Christ with our whole heart; Christ in all his offices, as well as with all his benefits; the grace of Christ for our sanctification, as well as his righteousness for our justification. As a true penitent looks upon his sins as his greatest burden, and groans after deliverance from the pollution and dominion of them, so the true believer values an interest in Christ upon this account, that he may break the yoke, and destroy the empire of his lusts: that the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, may make him free from the law of sin and death. Thus faith receives Christ as our Prince and Saviour. And this is the constant language of a true faith. Isaiah xxxiii. 22. "The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King: he will save us."

I add to this, that it is also necessary unto a receiving of Christ, that we most earnestly endeavour in the use of all appointed means to obtain an interest in him upon his own terms. If ever we receive Christ at all, it must be in that way. We are not to wait in an idle unconcernedness for the operations of the Holy Spirit to compel us to come to Christ—no, but with an humble sense of our own impotency, and with a dependence on the spirit of grace, we must seek and strive, and lay ourselves out with unwearied diligence in the methods of duty prescribed in the gospel, to obtain an interest in Christ and his salvation. Receiving of Christ is indeed a metaphorical expression, that denotes an active acceptation, and it would be an abuse of it, to imagine from it that we are to sit still, without care or pains, until this glorious gift be thrust into our hands; but we must put ourselves into the way where it is offered, if we ever hope to receive it. And it may be depended upon, that Christ will never bestow himself upon any, but those who are first brought to think an interest in him worth seeking after. He is said to "walk in the midst of the golden candlesticks," Rev. i. 13, thereby intimating, that he is to be found in the way of his own ordinances. And we are directed, if we would find him, to go our way forth, by the footsteps of the flock, Cant. i. 8, that is, in the way in which all true believers have sought, and in which they have found communion with him. In this way we must seek grace to receive the Lord Jesus Christ, and in this way we must exercise that grace, when we have obtained it. If we be partakers of Christ at all, it must be by an active reception, by a faith accompanied with earnest diligent seeking him in the ways of God's appointment; for the neglect of duty is not a receiving, but a rejecting of Christ, and a practical declaration, that we "will none of him," that we "will not have this man to rule over us." The act of faith by which we receive the Lord Jesus Christ, is indeed distinct from the duties of religious worship; but as faith must be obtained in a way of duty, so it is necessarily productive of a life of duty in all that have it. The faith therefore, which I am describing, though in its nature distinct from diligence in duty, yet implies this as necessary, both to its being and operations. And thus I am prepared to take notice of the other thing contained in the description of this grace.

3. That faith in Jesus Christ does also imply a depending upon him, and him only, for salvation. That is, it implies a believing in him, as the author of our eternal salvation, as "the Lord our righteousness," as "the fountain of life," and of all our grace. It implies, that we "look to him," to do all in us, and all for us, and that we bring both our persons and services to God "in his name," pleading the merits of his cross, and his perfect righteousness, as our only title to the divine favour.

But that we may have a just view of what is signified by our depending upon Christ, it must be premised—That it is necessary in order to this, that we heartily renounce all dependence on ourselves, upon what we have done, are doing, or can do, as to justifying us in the sight of God, and procuring our acceptance with him. We must indeed be diligent in duty—we must endeavour to be found "walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless." It is in vain to hope for salvation in any other way, than that of diligent seeking and striving for it. But then, when we have done all, we must not only see ourselves to be unprofitable servants, but to have fallen infinitely short of the demands of justice, and therefore to have no claim to the least favour from the hands of God. We must be sensible, that "all our righteousnesses are but filthy rags;" that there is so much sinful imperfection cleaving to our best duties, as might justly condemn both us and them; that the "iniquity of our holy things" might "separate between God and us," and that our very tears of repentance want washing in the blood of Christ. Thus, while engaged in a most diligent application to duty, and in a most strict life of religion, we must at the same time cast our best performances at the foot of Christ, and account all that we are, have and can do, "but dung, that we may win Christ." Phil. iii. 7. We shall otherwise build upon the sand, and our hopes will fall in the day of trial.

Our depending upon the Lord Jesus Christ does also suppose, that we actually and sincerely place all our hopes of acceptance with God, upon what he hath done and suffered for us. We are, by our sins, become guilty before God, and under a sentence of condemnation, and the blood of Christ is the only atonement to expiate this guilt, and to free us from the damning power of the law. We have forfeited all title to future happiness, and Christ's obedience unto the death, is the only purchase of our eternal salvation, by which we may hope for it, or lay claim to it. Now a saving faith is such an effectual apprehension of this as causes us to disclaim all other pretensions to God's favour, to "make mention of Christ's righteousness and that only," as the price of our pardon and happiness, and to expect, that "being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." The sum of the matter is, all our hope of pardon and justification is from the merits of the cross and obedience of Christ; all our hope of salvation is from Christ's having fulfilled all righteousness for us, and it is through receiving him by faith, that we are interested in this righteousness, and in the way of depending upon this righteousness, that we claim the favour of God. Faith looks upon Christ as our Redeemer, and expects "justification from God freely by his grace, through the redemption that there is in Christ." By faith we consider him as our only hope, our only help, and our only salvation, and rely upon him accordingly. As faith empties us of ourselves, and shows us that we are lost and undone, notwithstanding any thing we do or can do; so it discovers an abundant fulness and sufficiency in Christ, upon which we may safely trust, and venture our eternal interests. It shows us, that although we can do nothing ourselves, which will procure the favour of God, or entitle us to it, yet Christ has done enough for us, to reconcile us to God, and to answer all the demands of justice. Thus by faith we rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. We go forth unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach; and go up from the wilderness, leaning upon our beloved.

If any should now inquire—What place is there for good works, if we are to have all our dependence upon what Christ has done and suffered for us? I answer, we must depend upon him in the way of a carefulness to maintain good works. Tit. iii. 8. And we can safely depend upon him in no other way. All other dependence, exclusive of this care of exemplary living, is not faith, but presumption. "For faith without works is dead." Though we are justified by faith without the deeds of the law, Rom. iii. 28; yet the faith by which we are justified, is never, in case of opportunity, without the deeds of the law, though in truth animated by gospel motives, and springing from evangelical principles. They that have faith unfeigned dwelling in them, will live godly in Christ Jesus. Faith alone justifies, by receiving and depending upon the righteousness of Christ for justification; but the faith which justifies is never alone. For being thereby united to Christ as a branch to the vine, we shall bring forth fruit, much fruit, whereby our heavenly Father is glorified. It is a sanctifying faith, as well as a justifying.

Thus I have endeavoured briefly to set in view the nature and properties of a true saving faith. I have shown that the essence of a true faith consists in a hearty assent to the gospel revelation concerning Christ; in a hearty consent to the gospel offer of Christ, his offices and benefits; and in a hearty dependence upon what Christ has done and suffered for us, as the ground of our pardon and justification, and the price of eternal salvation. I have shown that our assent to the gospel revelation supposes a sufficient knowledge of the way of salvation therein revealed, for faith must follow the understanding, and cannot go before it; and that it supposes a reception of this revelation for divine truth, when we do understand it; for our faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God. I have shown that our consent to the gospel offer, or our receiving of Christ upon gospel terms, supposes such a sense of our necessity of an interest in Christ, as makes us earnestly desire, and cheerfully comply with any terms of obtaining it; for we shall never accept an offered Saviour upon his own terms, as long as we can do without him; that it supposes we accept him as our King, as well as our Saviour, for he must save us from our sins, and not in them; and it supposes that we receive him in the use of means, and not in the neglect of them, for the neglect of duty is a practical rejection of Christ. I have shown that our dependence upon Christ supposes that we renounce all confidence in ourselves, in any thing we do or can do; for he will be a complete Saviour, and the only Saviour, or none at all; and that it supposes we place all our confidence in his active and passive obedience; for he is the Lord our righteousness, and in him shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.

And now I am prepared to consider,

III. How faith in Christ is concerned in bringing about our remission and justification in the sight of God. And I shall endeavour to explain this, by observing,

1. Negatively, that faith does not reconcile us to God, considered subjectively, or as it is our own act. The act of believing is no more a condition of our justification, than the act of repenting, or the exercise of any other grace or duty. There are no works of righteousness which we have done, or can do, that will save us, whether they be considered as our legal or evangelical righteousness. Our legal righteousness, or deeds of the law, cannot save us, because they cannot atone for our past offences, nor can they in any instance come up to the demands of the law, but in every thing fall short of the perfection thereby required. Nor may we imagine, that our evangelical righteousness or obedience to the gospel can save us, because that would be to place merit in our repenting and believing, and to set our faith in the room of Christ's obedience, which is the only price of our justification. Though we are said to be justified by faith, we are no where said to be justified for it. This act of ours, as well as all others, is very imperfect, and accompanied with much sinful unbelief at the best, therefore stands in need of pardon itself, and so cannot possibly merit our salvation.

But now I would say affirmatively,

2. Faith justifies us, as it is the instituted means of our obtaining an interest in what Christ has done and suffered for us. "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Rom. x. 10. We are espoused by faith to Christ, and in this way his benefits are dispensed to us. The Lord Jesus Christ has performed a perfect obedience for us, as I have particularly shown above, and has purchased salvation for all that are interested in that obedience. He has done and suffered all that the law required of us. He has fully answered its penal demands. He has been made sin for us, who knew no sin. He has borne our sins in his own body upon the cross. He has undergone the wrath of God, as well as of men and devils, for our sakes, that he might propitiate an offended God, and pay the debt which our sins had contracted. He has obeyed the whole preceptive part of the law; been perfect in his compliance with all its commands, and fulfilled all righteousness, that he might entitle us to the eternal inheritance and purchase salvation for us. And all this he has done in the capacity of our surety. It is in our name, place, and stead that he has wrought out this perfect righteousness. An interest in him does therefore' invest us with this righteousness, and make it as much ours, and pleadable by us, as if it had been in fact personally performed by ourselves.

Now it is by faith that we obtain an actual interest in him, and so are clothed upon with his righteousness, and in that respect we are justified by faith. The gospel proclaims the happy tidings of Christ and redemption; faith assents to, and entertains this blessed proclamation. The gospel makes a free tender of purchased salvation to sinners, sensible of their need of it, and willing to accept it; faith complies with the offer, and readily embraces a tendered Saviour. The gospel proposes Christ's righteousness, and that only, for our justification; faith makes us "esteem all things but loss and dung, that we may win Christ, and be found in him." The gospel requires a life of holy obedience unto God, as a proper fruit and evidence of faith, as a testimony of our acceptance of this offered Saviour, and our gratitude to him. Unfeigned faith produces this happy effect wherever it is. Faith purifies the heart, and works by love. So that faith is in every thing a compliance with what the gospel requires to the constituting and determining us justified persons. Christ is the end of the law, for righteousness, to every one that beheveth. He that is once brought to live by the faith of the Son of God, is no longer under the law, but under grace; no longer considered as in Adam, by whose disobedience he was made a sinner, but as in Christ, by whose obedience he is made righteous. And thus faith brings us pardon and salvation, as it unites us to Christ, interests us in his perfect obedience, and makes his righteousness ours. Whence the righteousness of God is said to be "revealed from faith to faith." Rom. i. 17. And we are told, that "the righteousness of God is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe." Rom. iii. 22.

3. Faith has the promise of Christ's continual intercession for us. Our highest attainments in faith and holiness, are accompanied with many imperfections. In many things we all offend. And as we are daily chargeable with new sins, we stand in daily need of renewed pardon and justification; upon which account Jesus Christ, the righteous, is represented as our advocate with the Father, to procure this for us; and to bestow it upon us, 1 John ii. 1. The apostle puts an emphasis on Christ's intercession, Rom. viii. 34, "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." Now being interested in Christ by faith, we have an interest in his intercession: and by the efficacy of his intercession, the believer obtains a renewed pardon of his daily transgressions, and a confirmed pardon of all his trespasses. We have, through faith renewedly exercised, a claim to have all our new sins pardoned, and blotted out, by a fresh application of Christ's blood, an imputation of his righteousness. The believer is made accepted in the Beloved; and by virtue of his advocacy, the prayer of faith receives an answer of peace. "Wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost, that come to God by him, seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them." Heb. vii. 25.

I shall now proceed to make some practical improvement of what hath been said.

USE 1. This administers matter of conviction and awakening, to all that rest in a state of unbelief. If we are interested in the propitiation of Christ, by faith in his blood, what must be the case of those who are destitute of a saving faith? We are told, John iii. 18, 36, that they are condemned already, that they shall not see life; but the wrath, of God abideth on them. Which awful consideration might justly startle and surprise the securest sinners; and put them upon the most solicitous inquiry after Christ and an interest in him by faith. Can you esteem it a trifling concern, whether you are saved, or damned; whether you are by faith partakers of the salvation Christ has purchased, or whether you are by your unbelief shut out of the glories of the heavenly world, and left to lament your misery and loss with most amazing horror, to all eternity? Remember, that if you continue and die in unbelief, your misery must bear proportion to the mercy you have abused and forfeited; and it would have been better for you never to have heard of a Saviour, than to perish in your sins, from under gospel light and grace. This will be your condemnation, that light is come into the world, and you have chosen darkness rather than light; because your deeds are evil. John iii. 19. You have the revelation of this salvation; and the continued offers of it, upon most easy and honourable terms. You have it pressed upon you, by repeated inculcation, in the ordinances of the gospel: and how aggravated will your guilt be, if you set light by this precious Saviour, and reject his salvation! O that neglectful sinners might therefore be awakened out of their security, to see their misery and danger, before it be too late; before the things of their peace are hidden from their eyes; and before the offers of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, be forever past! O foolish unbelievers, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you! O the astonishing folly of Christ-despisers, and gospel-neglecters, who notwithstanding you are brought in view of the heavenly Canaan, will after all perish in the wilderness; and have your final lot assigned you among hypocrites and unbelievers! O how can you rest thus contented in an estate of unbelief, until you provoke God to swear in his wrath, that you shall never enter into his rest! Had you not better accept the Saviour now, than to have him your angry judge at last, and reject you with a "verily, I know you not!" Had you not better hearken to the offers of mercy now, than to have the gospel itself, and all the ordinances of salvation you have ever enjoyed, rise up in judgment against you, to aggravate your condemnation! But alas! till your eyes are opened, to see your sin and danger, you will not come unto Christ, that you might have life: you will rather run the venture of eternal perdition, than accept of this precious Saviour and his great salvation, though so freely offered. This seems to be the case of the greatest part of the gospelized world. And they must be left to the consequences of their unhappy choice. They must find, by sad experience, the dreadful effects of neglecting so great salvation, before they will receive conviction.

USE 2. Let all be exhorted to make it their concern to obtain a true faith in Jesus Christ, by which alone they can be justified in the sight of God. What has been said already, gives full evidence, that this is an affair of everlasting importance, a concern, that your eternity depends upon; and that you may expect to rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory, or mourn bitterly, with the sharpest accents of horror and agony, according to your compliance with, or rejection of this gospel exhortation. It is founded on Scripture calls and precepts, enforced with the most solemn and affecting sanctions, both of promises and threatenings. You have many examples, both to encourage and to warn you. You are invited to be followers of them, who through faith and patience do inherit the promises. And to a care of obtaining like precious faith with them, you are strongly excited, by the endearing attractions of Christ's infinite love, in his giving himself for and to his people. I therefore beseech you, brethren, by the mercies of God our Saviour, that you come unto Christ as to a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious. To this you are also most awfully warned by the awakening alarms of your guilt and danger. Take heed therefore, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. It is high time to fly from the impending storm, to this hope set before you. Be prevailed with to take hold of this instruction, and not let it go, but to keep it; for it is your life.

Labour after an effectual sense of the infinite importance of a saving faith in Christ. Get it impressed upon your mind, that you must believe in Christ, or perish without remedy. Do not put off this eternal concern; but think of it now, and think of it solemnly, as you must think of it, when you come to your final trial. Let this consideration lie down and rise with you; "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned."

Labour after a lively impression of your incapacity to produce this important grace in yourselves. Keep up a constant remembrance, that flesh and blood cannot reveal this to you: but our Father which is in heaven. Let the humbling thought bring you to God's footstool; and make you deeply sensible that you lie at his mercy, unable to help yourselves, arid unworthy of divine relief.

Let a discovery of this your distressed case quicken you to greater diligence in seeking the influence of the blessed Spirit, to work this faith in you. Be importunate in prayer, and in all ways of duty, to have the good pleasure of God's goodness, and the work of faith with power wrought in your souls.

And labour to exercise faith in Christ. Though you cannot work this grace in yourselves, yet if ever you obtain it, you yourselves must use and exercise it. The principle is from God, but the act must be your own. If God bring you to exercise this grace, you must be "made willing in the day of his power," and act with your free consent. This is his commandment, the great command of the gospel, that you should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ. It is therefore your duty to believe, and by consequence to labour to believe in Christ; and if God gives you the grace to do so, it will be by quickening and strengthening you in the way of your prayers and your endeavours. Labour therefore to comply with the gracious offer and call of the gospel, to see your perishing condition without Christ, and to realize his ability and readiness to help and save you. Contemplate his infinite excellencies and complete sufficiency for you; and endeavour, looking to God for his gracious assistance, to choose Christ for your Saviour and portion, to prefer an interest in him above all the world, to rely upon him as the author of your eternal salvation, and to plead his righteousness before God as your only claim to mercy. In a word, endeavour to accept him upon his own terms; and be earnest with God in your continual supplications, for grace to help you that you may indeed "receive Christ Jesus the Lord, and walk in him." Though you are without strength, yet through Christ strengthening you, you can do all things. And you should attempt, in his strength, to do what otherwise you are utterly insufficient for.

USE 3. Let all be exhorted to the utmost care and caution, that they be not deceived in this momentous affair, and that they do not take up with a false and counterfeit faith, which will issue in a fatal and eternal disappointment of all their expectations. Multitudes have been, and we may be deceived; and it is impossible to imagine the confusion that will cover us, if we are too late convinced of our mistake, and ashamed of our hope.

See that you evidence to yourselves the sincerity of your faith, by an earnest desire after Christ for your portion, and by the highest esteem for him. If you have a true faith, you will have the Lord Jesus Christ represented to you as the "chief among ten thousand, altogether lovely;" and will certainly value him accordingly. Hence it is said, "unto you that believe Christ is precious." 1 Pet. ii. 7.

Evidence the sincerity of your faith by a universal hatred of sin, and by an earnest, constant endeavour after the victory over all your lusts, without any reserve. We are told, that "faith purifies the heart." Acts xv. 9. And that "whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." J John iii. 9.

Evidence the truth of your faith by a life of universal holiness, by a careful constant endeavour after conformity to the whole revealed will of God, by purity of heart and hands. Walk in all the ways of God and godliness, in all the duties of religion, and in all the duties of each relation which God has placed you in; and endeavour to approve yourselves to a pure and holy God, in the discharge of them all. You may depend upon it, that no other evidence of sincerity without this can stand you in stead. Resolve then as he, James ii. 18. "I will show my faith by my works."

Evidence the truth of your faith by having your affections weaned from the world, and by seeking the things which are above, where Christ Jesus sits at the right hand of God. If you are true believers, you "look not at the things that are seen and temporal; but at those which are unseen and eternal." You are looking upon all the affairs of time, but as trifling and vain, compared to the concerns of a future and everlasting world. For "this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." 1 John v. 4. Faith worketh by love, not to the world, or the things of it, but to God, and the things of God. Love not the world, therefore, or the things of the world; for if you love the world, the love of the Father is not in you.

Finally,—Evidence the sincerity of your faith by an habitual subjection of soul to the Lord Jesus Christ, and fervent applications unto him, to work in and for you the good pleasure of his will. Commit the whole concern of your salvation to him. Look to him in a way of constant earnest prayer and active diligence, for all supplies of grace. Whatever darkness, whatever deadness, whatever afflictions or temptations you may meet with, still repair to him, that you may "obtain mercy, and find grace to help in a time of need," that "of his fulness you may receive even grace for grace." You cannot trust too little to yourselves, nor too much to him in the way of duty. Resolve therefore constantly to come, empty and self-insufficient, to him, and "open your mouth wide, that he may fill it." If you thus "believe in him, you shall never be confounded." I conclude with these words of the apostle, 1 John iii. 21—24. "Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God. And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments, dwelleth in him, and he in him; and hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us."

Free Justification

by Octavius Winslow

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. Romans 8:30

And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. Romans 8:30

And having chosen them, he called them to come to him. And he gave them right standing with himself, and he promised them his glory. Romans 8:30

Such is the third link in this golden chain of heavenly truth. Those whom God appoints unto salvation, he as certainly calls by his effectual grace; and those whom he thus calls by his Spirit, he as certainly justifies through his Son. As we are not composing a treatise on the doctrine of Justification, we must assume it as divinely revealed, restricting ourselves, in the present instance, to a simple and brief presentation of the truth, as it forms an essential step in the believer's progress from condemnation to glory. "Whom he called, them he also justified."

Of the necessity of justification, we need not speak at great length. If there is no condemnation where justification is attained, it follows that where there is not the condition of justification, the law must be left to take its full effect. But the very provision proves the necessity. Had it been possible for our fallen race to have recovered their former state of holiness and consequent Divine acceptance by an expedient of their own invention, do we think that God would have provided a way of justification so costly or so stupendous as that which the Gospel reveals? The utter incapacity of the sinner to justify himself, left the way open for the display of God's infinite wisdom, holiness, and grace. The theater was prepared for the development of his great and grand expedient of justifying the sinner, and yet remaining truly, unbendingly, and unimpeachably just. But not upon man's inability to justify himself rests alone the necessity of a Divine method of justification, but mainly upon the nature of God's moral government. As a holy God, he can only consistently pardon and justify upon the basis of a righteousness which fully sustains the purity of his nature, the majesty of his law, and the glory of his entire moral government. Here are the two extremes of being- the holy, condemning Lord God, and the unholy and condemned sinner. It is proposed that they should meet as upon an equal footing, and that perfect reconciliation and peace should eternally be established between them. But upon what basis? Without a mediating plan, how shall this be effected? God is under a most free necessity to maintain the dignity of his throne, the holiness of his nature, and the righteousness of his law. If he would justify the sinner upon the ground of mere mercy, apart from a full satisfaction to the Divine government, what would become of his justice and his holiness? and with what truth could it be affirmed that "he is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot (not will not, but cannot) look on iniquity?" If, then, man is saved, if the sinner is justified, if the condemned is acquitted, it is most clear that it must be upon the basis of an atonement that should not compromise the righteousness of the Divine government, but should so harmonize all the attributes of God, so meet all the claims of justice and holiness and truth, as shall enable Mercy to walk upon the high battlements of his grace, waving her olive-branch of peace in view of a revolted and guilty world. Such an expedient has been devised, such a basis has been provided, such an atonement has been made. We now approach nearer to the subject before us.

The term is forensic- employed in judicial affairs, transacted in a court of judicature. We find an illustration of this in God's Word- "If there be a controversy between men, and they come into judgment, that the judge may judge them, then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked." It is clear from this passage that the word stands opposed to a state of condemnation, and in this sense it is employed in the text under consideration. To justify, in its proper and fullest sense, is to release from all condemnation. Now it is important that we do not mix up this doctrine, as the Church of Rome has done, with other and kindred doctrines. We must clearly distinguish it from that of sanctification. Closely connected as they are, they yet entirely differ. The one is a change of state, the other a change of condition. By the one we pass from guilt to righteousness, by the other we pass from sin to holiness. In justification we are brought near to God; in sanctification we are made like God. The one places in before him in a condition of non-condemnation; the other transforms us into his image. Yet the Church of Rome blends the two states together, and in her formularies teaches an imputed sanctification, just as the Bible teaches an imputed justification. It is to be distinguished, too, from pardon. Justification is a higher act. By the act of pardon we are saved from hell; but by the decree of justification, we are brought to heaven. The one discharges the soul from punishment; the other places in its hand a title-deed to glory. But the main question relates to the method of God's justification. And this is a point of vital moment. The Lord Jesus Christ is emphatically the justification of all the predestined and called people of God. "By him all that believe are justified from all things." "Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." The antecedent step was to place himself in the exact position of his church. In order to do this, it was necessary that he should be made under the law; for as the Son of God, he was above the law, and could not therefore be amenable to its precept. But when he became the Son of man, it was as though the sovereign of a vast empire had relinquished his regal character for the condition of the subject. He, who was superior to all law, by his mysterious incarnation placed himself under the law. He who was the King of Glory, became by his advent the lowest of subjects. "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem those who were under the law." What a stoop was this! What a descending of the Son of God from the height of his glory! The King of kings, the Lord of lords, consenting to be brought under his own law, a subject to himself, the law-Giver becoming the law-Fulfiller. Having thus humbled himself, he was prepared, as the sacrificial Lamb, to take up and bear away the sins of his people. The prophecy that predicted that he should "bear their iniquities," and that he should "justify many," received in him its literal and fullest accomplishment. Thus upon Jesus were laid all the iniquities, and with the iniquities the entire curse, and added to the curse, the full penalty belonging to the Church of God. This personal and close contact with sin affected not his moral nature; for that was essentially sinless, and could receive no possible taint from his bearing our iniquity. He was accounted "accursed," even as was Israel's goat, when upon its head Aaron laid the sins of the people; but as that imputation of sin could not render the animal to whom it was transferred morally guilty, though by the law treated as such, so the bearing of sin by Christ could not for a single instant compromise his personal sanctity. With what distinctness has the Spirit revealed, and with what strictness has he guarded, the perfect sinlessness of the atoning Savior! "He has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Oh, blessed declaration to those who not only see the sin that dwells in them, but who trace the defilement of sin in their holiest things, and who lean alone for pardon upon the sacrifice of the spotless Lamb of God! To them, how encouraging and consolatory the assurance that there is a sinless One who, coming between a holy God and their souls, is accepted in their stead, and in whom they are looked upon as righteous! And this is God's method of justification. By a change of place with the Church, Christ becomes the "Lord our Righteousness," and we are "made the righteousness of God in him."

There is the transfer of sin to the innocent, and in return, there is the transfer of righteousness to the guilty. In this method of justification no violence whatever is done to the moral government of God. So far from a shade obscuring its glory, that glory beams forth with an effulgence which must have remained forever veiled, but for the redemption of man by Christ. God never appears so like himself as when he sits in judgment upon the person of a sinner, and determines his standing before him upon the ground of that satisfaction to his law rendered by the Son of God in the room and stead of the guilty. Then does he appear infinitely holy, yet infinitely gracious; infinitely just, yet infinitely merciful. Love, as if it had long been panting for an outlet, now leaps forth and embraces the sinner; while justice, holiness, and truth gaze upon the wondrous spectacle with infinite complacence and delight. And shall we not pause and bestow a thought of admiration and gratitude upon him, who was constrained to stand in our place of degradation and woe, that we might stand in his place of righteousness and glory? What wondrous love! What stupendous grace! that he should have been willing to have taken upon him our sin, and curse, and woe. The exchange to him how humiliating! He could only raise us, by himself stooping. He could only emancipate us, by wearing our chain. He could only deliver us from death, by himself dying. He could only invest us with the spotless robe of his pure righteousness, by wrapping around himself the leprous mantle of our sin and curse. Oh, how precious ought he to be to every believing heart! What affection, what service, what sacrifice, what devotion, he deserves at our hands! Lord, incline my heart to yield itself supremely to you!

But in what way does this great blessing of justification become ours? In other words, what is the instrument by which the sinner is justified? The answer is at hand. "Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus: whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood." Faith, and faith alone, makes this righteousness of God ours. "By him all that believe are justified." And why is it solely and exclusively by faith? The answer is again at hand "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace." Were justification through any other medium than by believing, then the perfect freeness of the blessing would not be secured. The expressions are, "Justified freely by his grace;" that is, gratuitously- absolutely for nothing. Not only was God in no sense whatever bound to justify the sinner; but the sovereignty of his law, as well as the sovereignty of his love, alike demanded that, in extending to the sinner the greatest boon of his government, he should do so upon no other principle than as a perfect act of grace on the part of the Giver, and as a perfect gratuity on the part of the recipient having "nothing to pay." Therefore, whatever is associated with faith in the matter of the sinner's justification- whether it be Baptism, or any other rite, or any work or condition performed by the creature- renders the act entirely void and of none effect. The justification of the believing sinner is as free as the God of love and grace can make it.

Yet more: Faith is not only the instrument by which we receive a free grace justification, but it harmonizes the outward act of God with the inward feelings of the believing heart. Thus in justification the heart of the Justifier and the heart of the justified beat in the most perfect and holy unison. It is not a stupendous act on the part of God meeting no response on the part of man. Oh no! the believer's heart flows out in gratitude after God's heart, traveling towards him in the mightiness and majesty of its saving love; and thus both meet in Christ, the one Mediator between God and man. Here the believer is conscious of a vital union with his justifying Lord. He feels he is one with Christ. The righteousness wrought out, is by faith wrought in, and that faith is the uniting grace of a real, personal union between the justified soul, and a risen, living Savior. "He that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit." Oh close and blessed union! Justified by God, accepted in Christ, condemnation there cannot be. I stand in the Divine presence as Joshua stood before the Lord, or as the woman stood before the Savior, charged, accused, guilty; but I am in the presence of him who, though now he sits upon the throne as my Judge, once hung upon the cross as my Savior. And, investing me with his own spotless robe, he proceeds to pronounce the sentence- "No Condemnation!" "These things write I unto you that your joy may be full."

In conclusion, while this subject, as we thus see, lays the basis of the deepest joy, it is equally promotive of the highest holiness. Some have thought that a link were lacking in the chain of truth we are contemplating, because no specific mention is made of sanctification. But this is not really the case. The apostle does not deem it necessary to say that, he "whom God justifies he also sanctifies," simply because in the preceding verse he had already in the strongest manner affirmed that God's people were predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son. And what were this but the very highest order of sanctification? No sinner can be pardoned and justified without the implantation in his soul by the Holy Spirit of the germ of holiness; so that the "path of the just is as the shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day." Fully and freely, and forever justified, Oh, how powerful the motive to yield ourselves unto God! "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."

We must learn to discriminate between our justified state, and the existence of indwelling sin. The one does not necessarily involve the present annihilation of the other. And by not clearly discerning the difference, many of God's people are exposed to great distress of mind. Let us, to illustrate the case, suppose an act of free pardon transmitted from the sovereign to a condemned criminal, slowly sinking beneath the ravages of a fatal disease. He passes out of his cell, delivered indeed from a humiliating and painful death, but bearing with him a hidden worm that feeds at the very root of the vital principle. Thus is it with the justified. They have "no condemnation" written as with beams of light upon their tranquil brow. Yet they bear about within their souls a moral disease, which shall not cease to work and distress until they lay down the body of sin and death, and wake up perfected in the likeness of their Lord.

Anothers Righteousness For Us

Horatius Bonar

The awakened conscience of the sixteenth century betook itself to "the righteousness of God."

There it found refuge, at once from condemnation and from impurity.

Only by "righteousness" could it he pacified, and nothing less than that which is divine could meet the case.

At the cross this "righteousness" was found; human, yet divine: provided for man and presented to him by God for relief of conscience and justification of life. On the one word, "It is finished," as on a heavenly resting place, weary souls sat down and were refreshed. The voice from the tree did not summon them to do, but to be satisfied with what was done. Millions of bruised consciences there found healing and peace.

Belief in that finished work brought the sinner into favor with God, and it did not leave him in uncertainty as to this. The justifying work of Calvary was God's way, not only of bringing pardon, but of securing certainty. It was the only perfect thing which had ever been presented to God in man's behalf; and so extraordinary was this perfection that it might he used by man in his transactions with God as if it were his own.

The knowledge of this sure justification was life from the dead to multitudes. All over Europe, from the Apennines to the Grampians, from the Pyrenees to the Carpathians, went the glad tidings that man is justified freely, and that God wishes him to know that he is justified. It was not merely a new thought for man's intellect, but a new discovery for his soul (1) as to the true source of spiritual health, namely, the setting of a man's conscience right with God; and (2) as to the continuation of that health, namely, the keeping of the conscience right.

The fruit of this was not merely a healthy personal religion, but a renovated intellect and a noble literature, and, above all, a pure worship. It was an era of resurrection. The graves were opened, and the congregation of the dead became the Church of the living. Christendom awoke and arose. The resurrection dew fell far and wide, and it has not yet ceased to fall.

For ages, Christianity had grovelled in the dust, smothered with semi–pagan rites, ready to die-if not already dead-bound hand and foot by a semi–idolatrous priesthood; unable to do aught for a world which it had been sent to regenerate. Now, "it was lifted up from the Earth, and made to stand upon its feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it."

A new conscience was born, and with a new conscience came new life and power. Nothing had been seen like this since the age of the apostles.

The doctrine of another's righteousness reckoned to us for justification before God is one of the links that knit together the first and the sixteenth centuries, the Apostles and the Reformers. The creeds of the Reformation overleap fifteen centuries and land us at once in the Epistle to the Romans. Judicial and moral cleansing was what man needed. In that epistle we have both the imputed and imparted righteousness-not the one without the other; both together, and inseparable, but each in its own order, the former the root or foundation of the latter.

It was not Martin Luther merely who took up the old watchword, "The just shall live by faith," and thus found the answer of a good conscience toward God. To thousands of hearts it came like a voice from Heaven, they knew not how. Sunshine from above had fallen upon one grand text, the text which the age needed. Men recognized the truth thus supernaturally lighted up. "The nations came to its light, and kings to the brightness of its rising." The inquiring men of that age, though not borrowing from each other, betook themselves to this truth and text. From every kingdom of Europe came the same voice, and every Protestant Confession bore witness to the unanimity of awakened Christendom. The longneeded, long–missing truth had been found; and Eureka! was the cry of gladness announcing the discovery.

Our fathers saw that this truth was the basis of all real spiritual life. That which was superficial, and morbid, and puny, and second rate, might do with some less deep, less broad foundation; but all that is healthy, and noble and daring and happy and successful in religion must rest here: "The just shall live by faith."

Religion is fashionable in our age. But is it that which sprang up, after centuries of darkness, among our fathers in Europe? Is it that of the apostles and prophets? Is it the calm yet thorough religion which did such great deeds in other days? Has it gone deep into the conscience? Has it filled the heart? Has it pervaded the man? Or has it left the conscience unpacified, the heart unfilled, the man unchanged, save with some external appliances of religiousness which leave him hollow as before? There is at this moment many an aching spirit, bitterly conscious of this hollowness. Merely understanding the doctrine, the profession, the good report of others, the bustle of work will not fill the soul. God himself must be there with his covering righteousness, his cleansing blood, his quickening Spirit. Without this, religion is but a shell; holy services are dull and irksome. Joy in God, which is the soul and essence of worship, is unknown. Sacraments, prayer meetings, religious services, labors of charity and will not make up for the living God.

How much of unreality there may be in the religious life of our age, it is for each individual to determine for himself that he may not be deceived nor lose his reward. All unreality is weakness as well as irksomeness; the sooner that we are stripped of unreality the better, both for peace and for usefulness.

Men with their feet firmly set on Luther's rock, "the righteousness of God," filled with the Spirit, and pervaded with the peace of God do the great things in the church; others do the little.

The men of robust spiritual health are they who, like Luther, have made sure of their filial relationship to God. They shrink from no battle nor succumb to any toil. The men who go to work with an unascertained relationship give way in the warfare and faint under the labor: their life is not perhaps a failure or defeat, but it is not a victory; it is not a triumph.

"We do not war after the flesh" (2 Corinthians 10:3), and "our weapons are not carnal" (2 Corinthians 10:4). Our battle is not fought in the way that the old man would have us to fight it. It is "the fight of faith" (1 Timothy 6:12). It is not by doubting but by believing that we are saved; it is not by doubting but by believing that we overcome. Faith leads us first of all to Abel's "more excellent sacrifice" (Hebrews 11:4). By faith we quit Ur and Egypt and Babylon, setting our face to the eternal city (Hebrews 11:16). By faith we offer up our Isaacs, and worship "leaning on the top of our staff," and "give commandment concerning our bones." By faith we choose affliction with the people of God and despise Egypt's treasures. By faith we keep our passover, pass through the Red Sea, overthrow Jerichos, subdue kingdoms, work righteousness, stop the mouths of lions, quench the violence of fire, turn to flight the armies of the aliens, and refuse deliverance in the day of trial, that we may obtain a better resurrection (Hebrews 11:35).

It is "believing" from first to last. We begin, we go on, we end in faith. The faith that justifies is the faith that overcomes (1 John 5:4). By faith we obtain the "good report" both with God and man. By faith we receive forgiveness; by faith we live; by faith we work, and endure, and suffer; by faith we win the crown-a crown of righteousness which shall be ours in the day of the appearing of him who is our righteousness.

The Grange, Edinburgh

November 1872

Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine Concerning Justification

Robert Traill

YOUR earnest desire of information about some difference amongst Nonconformists in London, whereof you hear so much by flying reports, and profess you know so little of the truth thereof, is the cause of this writing. You know, that not many months ago there was fair-like appearance of unity betwixt the two most considerable parties on that side; and their differences having been rather in practice than principle, about church-order and communion, seemed easily reconcilable, where a spirit of love, and of a sound mind, was at work. But how short was the calm! For quickly arose a greater storm from another quarter; and a quarrel began upon higher points, even on no less than the doctrine of the grace of God in Jesus Christ, and the justification of a sinner by faith alone. Some think, that the re-printing of Dr. Crisp’s book gave the first rise to it. But we must look farther back for its true spring. It is well known, but little considered, what a great progress Arminianism had made in this nation before the beginning of the civil war. And surely it hath lost little since it ended. What can be the reason why the very parliaments in the reign of James I. and Charles I. were so alarmed with Arminianism, as may be read in history, and is remembered by old men; and that now for a long time there hath been no talk, no fear of it; as if Arminianism were dead and buried, and no man knows where its grave is? Is not the true reason to be found in its universal prevailing in the nation? But that which concerneth our case, is, that the middle way betwixt the Arminians and the Orthodox, had been espoused, and strenuously defended and promoted by some Nonconformists, of great note for piety and parts; and usually such men that are for middle ways in points of doctrine, have a greater kindness for that extreme they go half-way to, than for that which they go half-way from. And the notions thereof were imbibed by a great many students, who laboured (through the iniquity of the times) under the great disadvantage of the want of grave and sound divines, to direct and assist their studies at universities; and therefore contented themselves with studying such English authors as had gone in a path untrod, both by our predecessors, and by the Protestant universities abroad.

These notions have been preached, and wrote against, by several divines amongst themselves; and the different opinions have been, till of late, managed with some moderation; to which our being all borne down by persecution, did somewhat contribute.

It is a sad, but true observation, that no contentions are more easily kindled, more fiercely pursued, and more hardly composed, than those of divines; sometimes from their zeal for truth, and sometimes from worse principles, that may act in them, as well as in other men.

The subject of the controversy is, about the justifying grace of God in Jesus Christ. Owned it is by both; and both fear it be abused: either by turning it into wantonness,—hence the noise of Antinomianism; or by corrupting it with the mixture of works,—hence the fears, on the other side, of Arminianism. Both parties disown the name cast upon them. The one will not be called Arminians: and the other hate both name and thing of Antinomianism truly so called. Both sometimes say the same thing, and profess their assent to the doctrinal articles of the Church of England, to the Confession of Faith and Catechisms composed at Westminster, and to the Harmony of the Confessions of all the reformed churches, in these doctrines of grace. And, if both be candid in this profession, it is very strange that there should be any controversy amongst them.

Let us therefore, first, take a view of the parties, and then of their principles. As to the party suspected of Antinomianism and Libertinism in this city, it is plain, that the churches wherein they are concerned, are more strict and exact in trying of them that offer themselves unto their communion, as to their faith and holiness, before their admitting them; in the engagements laid on them to a gospel-walking at their admission, and in their inspection over them afterwards. As to their conversations, they are generally of the more regular and exact frame; and the fruits of holiness in their lives, to the praise of God, and honour of the gospel, cannot with modesty be denied. Is it not unaccountable, to charge a people with licentiousness, when the chargers cannot deny, and some cannot well bear the strictness of their walk? It is commonly said, that it is only their principles, and the tendency of them to loose walking, that they blame. But, waving that at present, it seems not fair to charge a people with licentious doctrines, when the professors thereof are approved of for their godliness; and when they do sincerely profess, that their godliness began with, and is promoted by the faith of their principles. Let it not be mistaken, if I here make a comparison betwixt Papists and Protestants. The latter did always profess the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This was blasphemy in the Papist’s ears. They still did, and do cry out against it, as a licentious doctrine, and destructive of good works. Many sufficient answers have been given unto this unjust charge. But to my purpose: The wonder was, that the Papists were not convinced by the splendid holiness of the old believers, and by the visible truth of their holy practice; and their professing, that as long as they lived in the blindness and darkness of popery, they were profane; and that as soon as God revealed the gospel to them, and had wrought in them the faith thereof, they were sanctified, and led other lives. So witnessed the noble Lord Cobham, who suffered in King Henry V.’s time, above an hundred years before Luther. His words at his examination before the Archbishop of Canterbury, and his clergy, were these: "As for that virtuous man, Wickliff, (for with his doctrine he was charged), whose judgment ye so highly disdain; I shall say of my part, both before God and man, that before I knew that despised doctrine of his, I never abstained from sin; but since I learned therein to fear my Lord God, it hath otherwise, I trust, been with me. So much grace could I never find in all your glorious instructions." (Fox’s Book of Martyrs, vol. i. p. 640, col. 2. edit. 1664). And since I am on that excellent book, I entreat you to read Mr. Patrick Hamilton’s little treatise, to which Frith doth preface, and Fox doth add some explication (vol. ii. p. 181-192), where ye will find the old plain Protestant truth about law and gospel, delivered without any school-terms. To this, add, in your reading, in the same volume (p. 497-509. "Heresies and errors falsely charged on Tindal’s writings’’), where we will see the old faith of the saints in its simplicity, and the old craft and cunning of the Anti-christian party, in slandering the truth. I must, for my part, confess, that these plain declarations of gospel-truth have a quite other favour with me, than the dry insipid accounts thereof given by pretenders to human wisdom.

But passing these things, let us look to principles, and that with respect to their native and regular influence on sanctification. And I am willing that that should determine the matter, next to the consonancy of the principles themselves to the word of God. It can be no doctrine of God, that is not according to godliness. Some think, that if good works, and holiness, and repentance, be allowed no room in justification, that there is no room left for them in the world, and in the practice of believers. So hard seems it to be to some, to keep in their eye the certain fixed bounds betwixt justification and sanctification. There is no difference betwixt a justified and a sanctified man; for he is always the same person that partakes of these privileges. But justification and sanctification differ greatly, in many respects; as is commonly known. But to come a little closer:

The party here suspected of Antinomianism, do confidently protest, before God, angels, and men, That they espouse no new doctrine about the grace of God and justification, and the other coincident points, but what the reformers at home and abroad did teach, and all the Protestant churches do own. And that in sum is: "That a law-condemned sinner is freely justified by God’s grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ; that he is justified only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to him by God of his free grace, and received by faith alone as an instrument; which faith is the gift of the same grace." For guarding against licentiousness, they constantly teach, out of God’s word, "That without holiness no man can see God: That all that believe truly on Jesus Christ, as they are justified by the sprinkling of his blood, so are they sanctified by the effusion of his Spirit: that all that boast of their faith in Christ, and yet live after their own lusts, and the course of this world, have no true faith at all; but do, in their profession, and contradicting practice, blaspheme the name of God, and the doctrine of his grace; and continuing so, shall perish with a double destruction, beyond that of the openly profane, that make no profession." And when they find any such in their communion, which is exceeding rarely, they cast them out as dead branches. They teach, "That as the daily study of sanctification is a necessary exercise to all that are in Christ; so the rule of their direction therein, is the holy spotless law of God in Christ’s hand: That the Holy Ghost is the beginner and advancer of this work, and faith in Jesus Christ the great mean thereof: That no man can be holy till he be in Christ, and united to him by faith; and that no man is truly in Christ, but he is thereby sanctified. They preach the law, to condemn all flesh out of Christ, and to shew thereby to people the necessity of betaking themselves to him for salvation." See the savoury words of blessed Tindal, called the apostle of England, in his letter to John Frith, written Jan. 1533, (Book of Martyrs, vol. ii. p. 308). "Expound the law truly, and open the veil of Moses, to condemn all flesh, and prove all men sinners, and all deeds under the law, before mercy have taken away the condemnation thereof, to be sin, and damnable; and then as a faithful minister, set abroach the mercy of our Lord Jesus, and let the wounded consciences drink of the water of him. And then shall your preaching be with power, and not as the hypocrites. And the Spirit of God shall work with you; and all consciences shall bear record unto you, and feel that it is so. And all doctrine that casteth a mist on these two, to shadow and hide them, I mean the law of God, and mercy of Christ, that resist you with all your power." And so do we.

What is there in all this to be offended with? Is not this enough to vindicate our doctrine from any tendency to licentiousness? I am afraid that there are some things wherein we differ more than they think fit yet to express. And I shall guess at them.

1. The first is about the imputed righteousness of Christ. This righteousness of Christ, in his active and passive obedience, hath been asserted by Protestant divines, to be not only the procuring and meritorious cause of our justification; for this the Papists own; but the matter; as the imputation of it is the form of our justification: though I think that our logical terms are not so adapted for such divine mysteries. But whatever propriety or impropriety be in such school terms, the common Protestant doctrine hath been, that a convinced sinner seeking justification, must have nothing in his eye but this righteousness of Christ, as God proposeth nothing else to him; and that God in justifying a sinner, accepts him in this righteousness only, when he imputes it to him.

Now, about the imputed righteousness of Christ some say, "That it belongs only to the person of Christ: he was under the law, and bound to keep it for himself; that he might be a fit Mediator, without spot or blemish. That it is a qualification in the Mediator, rather than a benefit acquired by him, to be communicated to his people." For they will not allow "this personal righteousness of Christ to be imputed to us any otherwise than in the merit of it, as purchasing for us a more easy law of grace; in the observation whereof they place all our justifying righteousness:" understanding hereby "our own personal inherent holiness, and nothing else." They hold, "That Christ died to merit this of the Father, to-wit that we might be justified upon easier terms under the gospel, than those of the law of innocency. Instead of justification by perfect obedience, we are now to be justified by our own evangelical righteousness, made up of faith, repentance, and sincere obedience." And if we hold not with them in this, they tell the world we are enemies to evangelical holiness, slighting the practice of all good works, and allowing our hearers to live as they list. Thus they slander the preachers of free grace, because we do not place justification in our own inherent holiness; but in Christ’s perfect righteousness, imputed to us upon our believing in him. Which faith, we teach, purifies the heart, and always inclines to holiness of life. Neither do we hold any faith to be true and saving, that doth not shew itself by good works; without which no man is, or can be justified, either in his own conscience, or before men. But it doth not hence follow that we cannot be justified in the sight of God by faith only, as the apostle Paul asserts the latter, and the apostle James the former, in a good agreement.

2. There appears to be some difference, or misunderstanding of one another, about the true notion and nature of justifying faith. Divines commonly distinguish betwixt the direct act of faith, and the reflex act. The direct act is properly justifying and saving faith; by which a lost sinner comes to Christ, and relies upon him for salvation. The reflex act is the looking back of the soul upon a former act of faith. A rational creature can reflect upon his own acts, whether they be acts of reason, faith, or unbelief.

A direct act of saving faith, is that by which a lost sinner goes out of himself to Christ for help, relying upon him only for salvation. A reflex act ariseth from the sense that faith gives of its own inward act, upon a serious review. The truth and sincerity of which is further cleared up to the conscience, by the genuine fruits of an unfeigned faith, appearing to all men in our good lives, and holy conversation. But for as plain as these things be, yet we find we are frequently mistaken by others: and we wonder at the mistake; for we dare not ascribe to some learned and good men, the principles of ignorance, or wilfulness, from whence mistakes in plain cases usually proceed. When we do press sinners to come to Christ by a direct act of faith, consisting in an humble reliance upon Him for mercy and pardon; they will under. stand us, whether we will or not, of a reflex act of faith, by which a man knows and believes, that his sins are pardoned, and that Christ is his: when they might easily know that we mean no such thing. Mr. Walter Marshall, in his excellent book, lately published, hath largely opened this, and the true controversy of this day, though it be eight or nine years since he died.

3. We seem to differ about the interest, and room, and place, that faith hath in justification. That we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ, is so plainly a New Testament truth, that no man pretending never so barely to the Christian name, denies it. The Papists own it; and the Socinians, and Arminians, and all, own it. But how different are their senses of it! And indeed you cannot more speedily and certainly judge of the spirit of a man, than by his real inward sense of this phrase, (if you could reach it), A sinner is justified by faith in Jesus Christ. Some say, That faith in Jesus Christ justifies as it is a work, by the to credere; as if it came in the room of perfect obedience, required by the law. Some, that faith justifies, as it is informed and animated by charity. So the Papists, who plainly confound justification and sanctification. Some say that faith justifies, as it is a fulfilling of the condition of the new covenant, "If thou believest, thou shalt be saved." Nay, they will not hold there; but they will have this faith to justify, as it hath a principle and fitness in it to dispose to sincere obedience. The plain old Protestant doctrine is, That the place of faith in justification is only that of a hand or instrument, receiving the righteousness of Christ, for which only we are justified. So that though great scholars do often confound themselves and others, in their disputations about faith’s justifying a sinner; every poor plain believer hath the marrow of this mystery feeding his heart; and he can readily tell you, That to be justified by faith, is to be justified by Christ’s righteousness, apprehended by faith.

4. We seem to misunderstand one another about the two Adams, and especially the latter. (See Rom. 5:12. to the end.) In that excellent scripture a comparison is instituted, which if we did duly understand, and agree in, we should not readily differ in the main things of the gospel. The apostle there tell us, that the first Adam stood in the room of all his natural posterity. He had their stock in his hand. While he stood they stood in him; when he fell, they fell with him. By his fall he derived sin and death to all them that spring from him by natural generation. This is the sad side. But he tells us in opposition thereto, and in comparing therewith, that Christ, the second man, is the new head of the redeemed world. He stands in their room: his obedience is theirs; and he communicates to his spiritual offspring the just contrary to what the first sinful Adam doth to his natural offspring; righteousness instead of guilt and sin, life instead of death, justification instead of condemnation, and eternal life instead of hell deserved. So that I think the 3d, 4th, and 5th chapters of the epistle to the Romans, for the mystery of justification; and the 6th, 7th, and 8th, for the mystery of sanctification deserve our deep study. But what say others about Christ’s being the second Adam? We find them unwilling to speak of it; and when they do, it is quite alien from the scope of the apostle in that chapter. Thus to us they seem to say, "That God as a rector, ruler, governor, hath resolved to save men by Jesus Christ: That the rule of this government is the gospel, as a new law of grace: That Jesus Christ is set at the head of this rectoral government: That in that state he sits in glory, ready and able, out of his purchase and merits, to give justification and eternal life to all that can bring good evidence of their having complied with the terms and conditions of the law of grace." Thus they antedate the last day, and hold forth Christ as a Judge, rather than a Saviour. Luther was wont to warn people of this distinction frequently, in his comment on the epistle to the Galatians. And no other headship to Christ do we find some willing to admit, but what belongs to his kingly office. As for his suretiship, and being the second Adam, and a public person, some treat it with contempt. I have heard that Dr Thomas Goodwin was in his youth an Arminian, or at least inclining that way; but was by the Lord’s grace brought off, by Dr Sibbs clearing up to him this same point, of Christ’s being the head and representative of all his people. Now, though we maintain stedfastly this headship of Jesus Christ, yet we say not, that there is an actual partaking of his fulness of grace, till we be in him by faith; though this faith is also given us on Christ’s behalf, (Phil. 1:29), and we believe through grace, (Acts 18:27). And we know no grace, we can call nothing grace, we care for no grace, but what comes from this head, the Saviour of the body. But so much shall serve to point forth the main things of difference and mistakes.

Is it not a little provoking that some are so captious that no minister can preach in the hearing of some, "of the freedom of God’s grace; of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness; of sole and single believing on him for righteousness and eternal life; of the impossibility of a natural man’s doing any good work before he be in Christ; of the impossibility of the mixing of man’s righteousness and works with Christ’s righteousness in the business of justification, and several other points," but he is immediately called or suspected to be an Antinomian? If we say that faith in Jesus Christ is neither work, nor condition, nor qualification, in justification, but is a mere instrument, receiving (as an empty hand receiveth the freely given alms) the righteousness of Christ; and that, in its very act, it is a renouncing of all things but the gift of grace: the fire is kindled. So that it is come to that, as Mr. Christopher Fowler said, "that he that will not be Antichristian must be called an Antinomian." Is there a minister in London who did not preach, some twenty, some thirty years ago, according to their standing, that same doctrine now by some called Antinomian? Let not Dr. Crisp’s book be looked upon as the standard of our doctrine. There are many good things in it, and also many expressions in it that we generally dislike. It is true that Mr. Burgess and Mr. Rutherford wrote against Antinomianism, and against some that were both Antinomians and Arminians. And it is no less true that they wrote against the Arminians, and did hate the new scheme of divinity, so much now contended for, and to which we owe all our present contentions. I am persuaded, that if these godly and sound divines were on the present stage, they would be as ready to draw their pens against two books lately printed against Dr. Crisp, as ever they were ready to write against the doctor’s book. Truth is to be defended by truth; but error is often and unhappily opposed by error under truth’s name.

But what shall we do in this case? What shall we do for peace with our brethren? Shall we lie still under their undeserved reproaches, and, for keeping the peace, silently suffer others to beat us unjustly? If it were our own personal concern, we should bear it: if it were only their charging us with ignorance, weakness, and being unstudied divines (as they have used liberally to call all that have not learned, and dare not believe their new divinity), we might easily pass it by, or put it up. But when we see the pure gospel of Christ corrupted, and an Arminian gospel new vampt, and obtruded on people, to the certain peril of the souls of such as believe it, and our ministry reflected upon, which should be dearer to us than our lives, can we be silent? As we have a charge from the Lord, to deliver to oar people what we have received from him, so, as he calls and enables, we are not to give place by subjection, not for an hour, to such as creep in, not only to spy out, but to destroy, not so much the gospel-liberty as the gospel-salvation we have in Christ Jesus, and to bring as back under the yoke of legal bondage. And indeed the ease in that epistle to the Galatians and ours has a great affinity.

Is it desired that we should forbear to make a free offer of God’s grace in Christ to the worst of sinners? This cannot be granted by us, for this is the gospel "faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation" (and therefore worthy of all our preaching of it), "that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, and the chief of them," (1 Tim. 1:15). This was the apostolic practice, according to their Lord’s command (Mark 16:15, 16; Luke 24:47). They began at Jerusalem, where the Lord of life was wickedly slain by them; and yet life in and through his blood was offered to, and accepted and obtained by, many of them. Every believer’s experience witnesseth to this, that every one that believes on Jesus Christ acts that faith as the chief of sinners. Every man that seeth himself rightly thinks so of himself, and therein thinks not amiss. God only knoweth who is truly the greatest sinner, and every humbled sinner will think that he is the man.

Shall we tell men, that unless they be holy, they must not believe on Jesus Christ? that they must not venture on Christ for salvation till they be qualified and fit to be received and welcomed by him? This were to forbear preaching the gospel at all, or to forbid all men to believe on Christ. For never was any sinner qualified for Christ. He is well qualified for us (1 Cor. 1:30); but a sinner out of Christ hath no qualification for Christ but sin and misery. Whence should we have any better, but in and from Christ? Nay, suppose an impossibility, that a man were qualified for Christ, I boldly assert that such a man would not, nor could ever believe on Christ,—for faith is a lost, helpless, condemned sinner’s casting himself on Christ for salvation, and the qualified man is no such person.

Shall we warn people that they should not believe on Christ too soon? It is impossible that they should do it too soon. Can a man obey the great gospel-command too soon? (1 John 3:23), or do the great work of God too soon? (John 6:28, 29). A man may too soon think that he is in Christ, and that is when it is not so indeed; and this we frequently teach. But this is but an idle dream, and not faith. A man may too soon fancy that he hath faith; but I hope he cannot act faith too soon. If any should say, a man may be holy too soon, how would that saying be reflected upon? And yet it is certain that though no man can be too soon holy (because he cannot too soon believe on Christ, which is the only spring of true holiness), yet he may, and many do, set about the study of that he counts holiness too soon; that is, before "the tree be changed," (Matt. 12:33, 34, 35); before he have "the new heart," (Ezek. 36:26, 27), and the "Spirit of God dwelling in him," which is only got by faith in Christ (Gal. 3:14); and therefore all this man’s studying of holiness is not only vain labour, but acting of sin. And if this study, and these endeavours, be managed as commonly they are, to obtain justification before God, they are the more wicked works still. And because this point is needful to be known, I would give you some testimonies for it. Doctrine of the Church of England, in her thirty-nine articles, Art. 13,—"Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school-authors say) deserve grace of congruity. Yea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin." So Confession of Faith, chap. 16, art. 7. Calvin. Instit. lib. 3, cap. 15, sect. 6,—"They (saith he, speaking of the Popish schoolmen) have found out I know not what moral good works, whereby men are made acceptable to God before they are ingrafted into Christ. As if the scripture lied when it said, ‘They are all in death who have not the Son,’ (1 John 5:12). If they be in death, how can they beget matter of life? As if it were of no force, ‘Whatsoever is not of faith is sin;’ as if ‘evil trees could bring forth good fruit.’" Read the rest of that section. On the contrary, the Council of Trent, sess. 6, canon 7, say boldly, "Whosoever shall say that all works done before justification, howsoever they be done, are truly sin, and deserve the hatred of God, let him be anathema." And to give you one more bellowing of the beast, wounded by the light of the gospel, see the same Council, sess. 6, canon 11, "Si quis dixerit, Gratiam qua justificamur, esse tantum favorem Dei, anathema sit." This is fearful blasphemy, saith Dr. Downham, bishop of Londonderry,, in his orthodox book of justification, lib. 3, cap. 1, where he saith, "That the Hebrew words which in the Old Testament ‘signify the grace of God,’ do always signify ‘favour,’ and never ‘grace inherent.’ And above fifty testimonies may be brought from the New Testament, to prove that by ‘God’s grace’ his ‘favour’ is still meant." But what was good Church of :England doctrine at and after the Reformation, cannot now go down with some Arminianizing nonconformists.

If, then, nothing will satisfy our quarrelling brethren but either silence as to the main points of the gospel which we believe, and live by the faith of, and look to be saved in,—which we have for many years preached, with some seals of the Holy Ghost in converting sinners unto God, and in building them up in holiness and comfort, by the faith and power of them,—which also we vowed to the Lord to preach to all that will hear us, as long as we live, in the day when we gave up ourselves to serve God with our spirit in the gospel of his Son: if either this silence, or the swallowing down of Arminian schemes of the gospel, contrary to the New Testament, and unknown to the reformed churches in their greatest purity, be the only terms of peace with our brethren, we must then maintain our peace with God and our own consciences, in the defence of plain gospel truth, and our harmony with the reformed churches, and in the comfort of these bear their enmity. And though it be usual with them to vilify and contemn such as differ from them, for their fewness, weakness, and want of learning, yet they might know that the most learned and godly in the Christian world have maintained and defended the same doctrine we stand for for some ages. The grace of God will never want, for it can and will furnish defenders of it. England hath been blessed with a Bradwardine, an Archbishop of Canterbury, against the Pelagians; a Twiss and Ames against the Arminians. And though they that contend with us would separate their cause altogether from that of these two pests of the Church of Christ, I mean Pelagius and Arminius, yet judicious observers cannot but already perceive a coincidency, and do fear more, when either the force of argument shall drive them out of their lurking-holes, or when they shall think fit to discover their secret sentiments, which yet we but guess at. Then, as we shall know better what they would be at, so it is very like that they will then find enemies in many whom they have seduced by their craft, and do yet seem to be in their camp; and will meet with opposers, both at home and abroad, that they think not of.

Our doctrine of the justification of a sinner by the free grace of God in Jesus Christ, however it be misrepresented and reflected upon, is yet undeniably recommended by four things.

1. It is a doctrine savoury and precious unto all serious godly persons. Dr Ames’s observation holds good as to all the Arminian divinity, that it is contra communem sensum fidelium; "against the common sense of believers." And though this be an argument of little weight with them that value more the judgment of the scribes, and the wise, and disputers of this world, (1 Cor. 1:18, 19, 20, 21), than of all the godly; yet the Spirit of God by John gives us this same argument, "They are of the world; therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error;" (1 John 4:5, 6). How evident is it that several who, by education, or an unsound ministry, having had their natural enmity against the grace of God strengthened, when the Lord by his Spirit hath broke in upon their hearts, and hath raised a serious soul-exercise about their salvation; their turning to God in Christ, and their turning from Arminianism, hath begun together? And some of the greatest champions for the grace of God have been persons thus dealt with, as we might instance. And as it is thus with men at their conversion, so is it found afterward that still as it is well with them in their inner man, so doth the doctrine of grace still appear more precious and savoury. On the other part, all the ungodly and unrenewed have a dislike and disrelish of this doctrine, and are all for the doctrine of doing, and love to hear it; and, in their sorry exercise, are still for doing their own business in salvation; though they be nothing, and can do nothing, but sin, and destroy themselves.

2. It is that doctrine only by which a convinced sinner can be dealt with effectually. When a man is awakened, and brought to that, that all must be brought to, or to worse: "What shall I do to be saved?" we have the apostolic answer to it, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house;" (Acts 16:30, 31). This answer is so old, that with many it seems out of date. But it is still, and will ever be, fresh, and new, and savoury, and the only resolution of this grand case of conscience, as long as conscience and the world lasts. No wit or art of man will ever find a crack or flaw in it, or devise another or a better answer; nor can any but this alone heal rightly the wound of an awakened conscience. Let us set this man to seek resolution in this case of some masters in our Israel. According to their principles, they must say to him, "Repent, and mourn for your known sins, and leave them and loathe them, and God will have mercy on you." "Alas! (saith the poor man) my heart is hard, and I cannot repent aright; yea, I find my heart more hard and vile than when l was secure in sin." If you speak to this man of qualifications for Christ, he knows nothing of them; if of sincere obedience, his answer is native and ready, "Obedience is the work of a living man, and sincerity is only in a renewed soul." Sincere obedience is therefore as impossible to a dead unrenewed sinner as perfect obedience is. Why should not the right answer be given, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved?" Tell him what Christ is, what he hath done and suffered to obtain eternal redemption for sinners, and that according to the will of God and his Father. Give him a plain downright narrative of the gospel-salvation wrought out by the Son of God; tell him the history and mystery of the gospel plainly. It may be the Holy Ghost will work faith thereby, as he did in those first-fruits of the Gentiles, (Acts 10:41). If he ask what warrant he hath to believe on Jesus Christ? tell him that he hath utter indispensable necessity for it, for without believing on him he must perish eternally; that he hath God’s gracious offer of Christ and all his redemption, with a promise that upon accepting the offer by faith, Christ and salvation with him is his; that he hath God’s express commandment to believe on Christ’s name (1 John 3:23); and that he should make conscience of obeying it as well as any command in the moral law. Tell him of Christ’s ability and good-will to save; that no man was ever rejected by him that cast himself upon him; that desperate cases are the glorious triumphs of his art of saving. Tell him that there is no midst between faith and unbelief; that there is no excuse for neglecting the one, and continuing in the other; that believing on the Lord Jesus for salvation is more pleasing to God than all obedience to his law; and that unbelief is the most provoking to God, and the most damning to man, of all sins. Against the greatness of his sins, the curse of the law, and the severity of God as Judge, there is no relief to be held forth to him but the free and boundless grace of God in the merit of Christ’s satisfaction by the sacrifice of himself. If he should say, What is it to believe on Jesus Christ? As to this, I find no such question in the word, but that all did some way understand the notion of it: the Jews that did not believe on him (John 6:28, 29, 30); the chief priests and Pharisees (John 7:48); the blind man (John 9:35). When Christ asked him, "Believest thou on the Son of God?" he answered, "Who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?" Immediately, when Christ had told him (ver. 37), he saith not, What is it to believe on him? but, "Lord, I believe," and worshipped him; and so both professed and acted faith in him. So the father of the lunatic (Mark 9:23, 24); and the eunuch (Acts 8:37). They all, both Christ’s enemies and his disciples, knew that faith in him was a believing that the man Jesus of Nazareth was the Sort of God, the Messiah, and Saviour of the world, so as to receive and look for salvation in his name (Acts 4:12). This was the common report published by Christ and his apostles and disciples, and known by all that heard it. If he yet ask, What he is to believe? you tell him that he is not called to believe that he is in Christ, and that his sins are pardoned, and he a justified man, but that he is to believe God’s record concerning Christ; and "this record is, that God giveth (that is, offereth) to us eternal life in his Son Jesus Christ," (1 John 5:10, 11, 12); and that all that with the heart believe this report, and rest their souls on these glad tidings, shall be saved, (Rom. 10:9, 10, 11). And thus he is to "believe, that he may be justified," (Gal. 2:16). If he still say that this believing is bard, this is a good doubt, but easily resolved. It bespeaks a man deeply humbled. Any body may see his own impotence to obey the law of God fully; but few find the difficulty of believing. For his resolution, ask him, what it is he finds makes believing difficult to him? Is it unwillingness to be justified and saved? Is it unwillingness to be so saved by Jesus Christ, to the praise of God’s grace in him, and to the voiding of all boasting in himself? This he will surely deny. Is it a distrust of the truth of the gospel-record? This he dare not own. Is it a doubt of Christ’s ability or good-will to save? This is to contradict the testimony of God in the gospel. Is it because he doubts of an interest in Christ and his redemption? You tell him that believing on Christ makes up the interest in him. If he say that he cannot believe on Jesus Christ, because of the difficulty of the acting this faith, and that a divine power is needful to draw it forth, which he finds not; you tell him, that believing in Jesus Christ is no work; but a resting on Jesus Christ; and that this pretence is as unreasonable as that if a man wearied with a journey, and who is not able to go one step further, should argue, "I am so tired that I am not able to lie down," when indeed he can neither stand nor go. The poor wearied sinner can never believe on Jesus Christ till he finds he can do nothing for himself, and in his first believing doth always apply himself to Christ for salvation, as a man hopeless and helpless in himself. And by such reasonings with him from the gospel, the Lord will (as he hath often done) convey faith, and joy, and peace, by believing.

3. This doctrine of free justification by faith alone, hath this advantage, That it suits all men’s spirits and frame in their serious approaches to God in worship. Men may think and talk boldly of inherent righteousness, and of its worth and value; of good works, and frames, and dispositions: but when men present themselves before the Lord, and have any discoveries of his glory, all things in themselves will disappear, and be looked upon as nothing. Zophar, though the hottest speaker of Job’s friends, did yet speak rightly to him, "For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure, and I am clean in thine eyes. But, Oh that God would speak!" (Job 11:4, 5). And so Job found it, when God displayed his glory to him, and that only in the works of creation and providence, (chap. 38, 39): He then changed his note, (Job 40:4, 5, and 42:2-6). So was it with Isaiah, (chap 6:5), till pardoning grace was imparted to him. No man can stand before this holy Lord God, with any peace and comfort, unless he have God himself to stay upon. His grace and mercy in Jesus Christ, can only preserve a man from being consumed; and the faith of it from being confounded. Hence we see the difference betwixt men’s frame in their disputes and doctrine about these points, and their own sense and pleadings with God in prayer.

4. This doctrine of justification by faith without any mixtures of man, (however, and by what names and titles soever they be dignified or distinguished), hath this undoubted advantage, That it is that which all not judicially hardened and blinded do, or would or must betake themselves unto, when dying. How loath would men be to plead that cause on a deathbed, which they so stoutly stand up for with tongue and pen, when at ease, and that evil day far away? They seem to be jealous, lest God’s grace and Christ’s righteousness have too much room, and men’s works too little, in the business of justification. But was there ever a sensible dying person exercised with this jealousy as to himself? Even bloody Stephen Gardiner, when a-dying, could answer Dr. Day, Bishop of Chichester, who offered comfort to him by this doctrine, "What, my Lord, will you open that gap now? Then, farewell altogether. To me, and such other in my case, you may speak it; but open this window to the people, then farewell altogether;" (Book of Martyrs, vol. iii. p. 450). In which words, he bewrayed a conviction of the fitness of the doctrine to dying persons, and his knowledge that it tended to the destroying the kingdom of Antichrist. As Fox, in the same Book of Martyrs, (vol. ii. p. 46), gives this as the reason of Luther’s success against Popery, above all former attempts of preceding witnesses. "But (saith he) Luther gave the stroke, and plucked down the foundation, and all by opening one vein, long hid before, wherein lieth the touchstone of all truth and doctrine, as the only principal origin of our salvation; which is, our free justification, by faith only, in Christ the Son of God." Consider how it is with the most holy and eminent saints when dying. Did ye ever see or hear any boasting of their works and performances? They may, and do own, to the praise of his grace, what they have been made to be, what they have been helped to do or suffer for Christ’s sake. But when they draw near to the awful tribunal, what else is in their eye and heart, but only free grace, ransoming blood, and a well-ordered covenant in Christ the Surety? They cannot bear to hear any make mention to them of their holiness, their own grace and attainments. In a word, the doctrine of conditions, qualifications, and rectoral government, and the distribution of rewards and punishments, according to the new law of grace, will make but an uneasy bed to a dying man’s conscience; and will leave him in a very bad condition at present, and in dread of worse, when he is feeling, in his last agonies, that the wages of sin is death, if he cannot by faith add, "But the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord," (Rom. 6:23). He is a wise and happy man that anchors his soul on that rock, at which he can ride out the storm of death. Why should men contend for that in their life, that they know they must renounce at their death? or neglect that truth now, that they must betake themselves unto then? Why should a man build a house, which he must leave in a storm, or be buried in its ruins? Many architects have attempted to make a sure house of their own righteousness: but it is without a foundation; and must fall, or be thrown down sorrowfully by the foolish builder; which is the better way. It is a great test of the truth of the doctrine about the way of salvation, when it is generally approved of by sensible dying men. And what the universal sense of all such in this case is, as to the righteousness of Christ, and their own, is obvious to any man. He was an ingenuous Balaamite, who being himself a Papist, said to a Protestant, "Our religion is best to live in, yours best to die in."

But notwithstanding of these great advantages (and they are but a few of many) that this doctrine is attended with, there are not a few disadvantages it labours under; which though they are rather to its commendation than reproach, yet they do hinder its welcome and reception. As,

1. This doctrine is a spiritual mystery, and lieth not level to a natural understanding, (1 Cor. 2:10, 14). Working for life, a man naturally understands; but believing for life, he understands not. To mend the old man, he knows; but to put on the new man by faith, is a riddle to him. The study of holiness, and to endeavour to square his life according to God’s law, he knows a little of, though he can never do it; but to draw sanctification from Christ by faith, and to walk holily, in and through the force of the Spirit of Christ in the heart by faith, is mere canting to him. A new life he understands a little; but nothing of a new birth and regeneration, he never saw himself stark dead. Nay, not only it is unknown to the natural man, but he is by his natural state an enemy to it. He neither doth, nor can know it, nor approve of it, (1 Cor. 2:14). "Wisdom (that is, Christ’s way of saving men revealed in the gospel) is justified of all her children," and of them only, (Matt. 11:19, Luke 7:29, 30, 35). This enmity in men to the wisdom of God, is the cause not only of this contempt of its ministry, but is a temptation to many ministers to patch up and frame a gospel that is more suited to, and taking with, and more easily understood by such , men, than the true gospel of Christ is. This Paul complains of in others, and vindicates himself from, (1 Cor. 1:17, and 2:2). He warns others against it, (Col. 2:8; 2 Cor. 11:3, 4; Gal. 1:6, 7, 8, 9). And it is certain, that doing for life is more suited to corrupt nature, than believing is.

2. Our opposers in this doctrine have the many for them, and against us; as they of old boasted (John 7:48). This they have no ground to glory in, though they do; nor we to be ashamed of the truth, because we cannot vie in numbers with them. With our opposers are all these sorts, (and they make a great number); though I do not say or think, that all our opposers are to be ranked in any of these lists; for some, both godly and learned, may mistake us, and the truth, in this matter. 1. They have all the ignorant people, that know nothing either of law or gospel. They serve God, (they say, but most falsely); and hope that God will be merciful to them, and save them. To all such, both the clear explication of God’s law, and the mysteries of the gospel, are strange things. Yet sincere obedience they love to hear of; for all of them think there is some sincerity in their hearts, and that they can do somewhat. But of faith in Christ they have no knowledge; except by faith you understand a dream of being saved by Jesus Christ, though they know nothing of him, or of his way of saving men, nor of the way of being saved by him. 2. All formalists are on their side; people that place their religion in trifles, because they are strangers to the substance thereof. 3. All proud secure sinners are against us, that go about with the Jews, "to establish their own righteousness," (Rom. 10:3). The secure are whole, and see no need of the physician; the proud have physic at home, and despise that that came down from heaven. 4. All the zealous devout people in a natural religion, are utter enemies to the gospel. By a natural religion, I mean that that is the product of the remnants of God’s image in fallen man, a little improved by the light of God’s word. All such cannot endure to hear, that God’s law must be perfectly fulfilled in every tittle of it, or no man can be saved by doing; that they must all perish for ever, that have not the righteousness of a man that never sinned, who is also God over all blessed for ever, to shelter and cover them from a holy God’s anger, and to render them accepted of him: that his righteousness is put on by the grace of God, and a man must betake himself to it, and receive it as a naked blushing sinner: that no man can do any thing that is good, till gospel-grace renew him, and make him first a good man. This they will never receive, but do still think that a man may grow good by doing good.

3. Natural reason is very fertile in its objections and cavils against the doctrine of the grace of God; and especially when this corrupt reason is polished by learning and strong natural parts. When there are many to broach such doctrine, and many so disposed to receive it, is it any wonder that the gospel-truth makes little progress in the world? Nay, were it not for the divine power that supports it, and the promises of its preservation, its enemies are so many and strong, and true friends so few and feeble, we might fear its perishing from the earth. But we know it is impossible. And if the Lord have a design of mercy to these nations, and hath a vein of his election to dig up amongst us, we make no doubt, but the glory of Christ, as a crucified Saviour, shall yet be displayed in the midst of us, to the joy of all that love his salvation, and to the shame of others, (Isa. 66:5).

4. I might add the great declension of some of the reformed churches from the purity and simplicity of that doctrine they were first planted in. The new methodists about the grace of God, had too great an increase in the French churches. And, which was very strange, this declension advanced amongst them, at the same time, when Jansenism was spreading amongst many of the church of Rome: so that a man might have seen Papists growing better in their doctrine, and Protestants growing worse. (See Mr. Gale’s Idea of Jansenism, with Dr. Owen’s preface.) What there is of this amongst us in England, I leave the reader to Mr. Jenkin’s Celeusma, and to the Naked Truth, part 4. And if there be any warping toward Arminian doctrine by some on our side, in order to ingratiate themselves with that church that hath the secular advantages to dispense, and to make way for some accommodation with them, I had rather wait in fear till a further discovery of it, than offer to guess at.

5. Lastly, It is no small disadvantage this doctrine lies under from the spirit of the day we live in. A light, frothy, trifling temper, prevails generally; doctrines of the greatest weight are talked of and treated about, with a vain unconcerned frame of spirit; as if men contended rather about opinions and school-points, than about the oracles of God, and matters of faith. But if men’s hearts were seen by themselves; if sin were felt; if men’s consciences were enlivened; if God’s holy law were known in its exactness and severity, and the glory and majesty of the lawgiver shining before men’s eyes; if men were living as leaving time, and launching forth into eternity, the gospel-salvation by Jesus Christ would be more regarded.

Object. 1. Is there not a great decay amongst professors in real practical godliness? Are we like the old Protestants, or the old Puritans? I answer, That the decay and degeneracy is great, and heavily to be bewailed. But what is the cause? and what will be its cure? Is it because the doctrine of morality, and virtue, and good works, is not enough preached? This cannot be: for there hath been for many years a public ministry in the nation, that make these their constant themes. Yet the land is become as Sodom for all lewdness; and the tree of profaneness is so grown, that the sword of the magistrate hath not yet been able to lop off any of its branches. Is it because men have too much faith in Christ? or too little? or none at all? Would not faith in Christ increase holiness? did it not always so? and will it not still do it? Was not the holiness of the first Protestants eminent and shining? and yet they generally put assurance in the definition of their faith. We cannot say that gospel-holiness hath prospered much by the correction or mitigation of that harsh-like definition. The certain spring of this prevailing wickedness in the land, is people’s ignorance and unbelief of the gospel of Christ; and that grows by many prophets that speak lies to them in the name of the Lord.

Object. 2. But do not some abuse the grace of the gospel, and turn it into wantonness? Answer. Yes; some do, ever did, and still will do so. But it is only the ill-understood and not believed doctrine of grace that they abuse. The grace itself no man can abuse; for its power prevents its abuse. Let us see how Paul, that blessed herald of this grace, (as he was an eminent instance of it,) dealeth with this objection, (Rom. 6:1). What doth he to prevent this abuse? Is it by extenuating what he had said, chap. 5:20, that "grace abounds much more, where sin had abounded?" Is it by mincing grace smaller, that men may not choke upon it, or surfeit by it? Is it by mixing something of the law with it, to make it more wholesome? No: but only by plain asserting the power and influence of this grace, wherever it really is; as at length in that chapter. This grace is all treasured up in Christ Jesus, offered to all men in the gospel, poured forth by our Lord in the working of faith; and drunk in by the elect in the exercise of faith, and becomes in them a living spring, which will and must break out and spring up in all holy conversation. He exhorts them to drink in more and more of this grace by faith. And as for such as pretend to grace, and live ungodly, the Spirit of God declares they are void of grace, which is always fruitful in good works, (2 Peter 2. and Jude’s epistle). The apostle orders the churches to cast such out (1 Cor. 5., 2 Tim. 3:5), and to declare to them as Peter did to a professor, that "they have no part nor portion in this matter, for their heart is not right in the sight of God," (Acts 8:20, 21), though the doctrine be right, that they hypocritically profess.

But if our brethren will not forbear their charge of Antinomianism, we entreat them that they will give it in justly. As, 1. On them that say that the sanction of the holy law of God is repealed, so that no man is now under it, either to be condemned for breaking it or to be saved by keeping it, which to us is rank Antinomianism and Arminianism both, yea, that it doth not now require perfect holiness. But indeed what can it require? for it is no law if its sanction be repealed. 2. On them let the charge lie that are ungodly under the name of Christianity. And both they and we know where to find such true Antinomians in great abundance, who yet are never called by that name. And is it not somewhat strange, that men who have so much zeal against an Antinomian principle, have so much kindness for true Antinomians in practice? 3. Let him be called by this ugly name that judgeth not the holy law and word of God written in the Old and New Testament to be a perfect rule of life to all believers, and saith not that all such should study conformity thereunto, (Rom. 12:2.) 4. That encourageth himself in sin, and hardeneth himself in impenitence by the doctrine of the gospel. No man that knows and believes the gospel can do so. What some hypocrites may do is nothing to us who disown all such persons and practices, and own no principle that can really encourage the one or influence the other. 5. That thinketh holiness is not necessary to all that would be saved. We maintain, not only that it is necessary to, but that it is a great part of salvation. 6. Whoever thinks that when a believer comes short in obeying God’s law, he sins not, and that he ought not to mourn because of it as provoking to God and hurtful to the new creation in him, and that he needs not renew the exercise of faith and repentance for repeated washing and pardoning. Lastly, That say that a sinner is actually justified before he be united to Christ by faith. It is strange that such as are charged with this, of all men, do most press on sinners to believe on Jesus Christ, and urge the damnation threatened in the gospel upon all unbelievers. That there is a decreed justification from eternity, particular and fixed as to all the elect, and a virtual perfect justification of all the redeemed in and by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Isaiah 53:11, Rom. 4:25, Heb. 9:26, 28, and 10:14). is not yet called in question by any amongst us; and more is not craved but that a sinner, for his actual justification, must lay hold on and plead this redemption in Christ’s blood by faith.

But, on the other hand, we glory in any name of reproach (as the honourable reproach of Christ) that is cast upon us for asserting the absolute boundless freedom of the grace of God, which excludes all merit, and everything like it; the absoluteness of the covenant of grace, (for the covenant of redemption was plainly and strictly a conditional one, and the noblest of all conditions was in it. The Son of God’s taking on him man’s nature, and offering it in sacrifice, was the strict condition of all the glory and reward promised to Christ and his seed, Isaiah 53:10, 11), wherein all things are freely promised, and that faith that is required for sealing a man’s interest in the covenant is promised in it, and wrought by the grace of it (Eph. 2:8). That faith at first is wrought by, and acts upon a full and absolute offer of Christ, and of all his fulness; an offer that hath no condition in it, but that native one to all offers, acceptance: and in the very act of this acceptance, the accepter doth expressly disclaim all things in himself, but sinfulness and misery. That faith in Jesus Christ doth justify (although by the way it is to be noted, that it is never written in the word, that faith justifieth actively, but always passively, that a man is justified by faith, and that God justifieth men by and through faith; yet admitting the phrase) only as a mere instrument receiving that imputed righteousness of Christ for which we are justified; and that this faith, in the office of justification, is neither condition nor qualification, nor our gospel-righteousness, but in its very act a renouncing of all such pretences.

We proclaim the market of grace to be free, (Isa. 55:1, 2, 3). It is Christ’s last offer and lowest, (Rev. 22:17). If there be any price or money spoke of, it is no price, no money. And where such are the terms and conditions, if we be forced to call them so, we must say, that they look liker [i.e., more like] a renouncing, than a boasting of any qualifications or conditions. Surely the terms of the gospel-bargain are, God’s free giving, and our free taking and receiving.

We are not ashamed of teaching the ineffectualness of the law, and all the works of it, to give life; either that of justification, or of regeneration and sanctification, or of eternal life: That the law of God can only damn all sinners; that it only rebukes, and thereby irritates and increases sin; and can never subdue it till gospel-grace come with power upon the heart; and then when the law is written in the heart, it is copied out in the life.

That we call men to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, in that case the first Adam brought them to, and left them in; in that case that the law finds and leaves them in, guilty, filthy, condemned: out of which case they can only be delivered by Christ, and by believing on him.

That we tell sinners, that Jesus Christ will surely welcome all that come to him; and, as he will not cast them out for their sinfulness in their nature and by-past life, so neither for their misery, in the want of such qualifications and graces that he only can give.

That we do hold forth the propitiation in Christ’s blood, as the only thing to be in the eye of a man that would believe on Christ unto justification of life; and that by this faith alone a sinner is justified, and God is justified in doing so.

That God "justifieth the ungodly," (Rom. 4:5), neither by making him godly before he justify him, nor leaving him ungodly after he hath justified him; but that the same grace that justifies him, doth immediately sanctify him.

If for such doctrine we be called Antinomians, we are bold to say, that there is some ignorance of, or prejudice at the known Protestant doctrine, in the hearts of the reproachers.

That there are some things we complain of. As, 1. That they load their brethren so grievously with unjust calumnies, either directly or by consequence, as when they preach up holiness, and the necessity of it, as if it were their proper doctrine, and disowned by us, when they cannot but know in their consciences that there is no difference betwixt them and us about the nature and necessity of holiness, but only about its spring and place in salvation. We derive it from Jesus Christ and faith in him, and know assuredly that it can spring from nothing else. We place it betwixt justification and glory, and that is its scripture-place, and no where else can it be found or stand, let them try it as much and as long as they will.

2. That they seem very zealous against Antinomianism, and forget the other extreme of Arminianism, which is far more common, as dangerous, and far more natural to all men. For though there have been, and may be this day, some true Antinomians, either through ignorance, or weakness, reeling to that extreme, or by the heat of contention with, and hatred of Arminianism, (as it is certain some very good and learned men have inclined to Arminianism, through their hatred of Antinomianism, and have declared so much); and some may, and do corrupt the doctrine of the gospel, through the unrenewedness of their hearts, yet how destructive soever this abuse may be to the souls of the seduced, such an appearance of Antinomianism is but a meteor or comet that will soon blaze out, and its folly will be quickly hissed off the stage. But the principles of Arminianism are the natural dictates of a carnal mind, which is enmity both to the law of God and to the gospel of Christ; and, next to the dead sea of Popery (into which all this stream runs), have, since Pelagius to this day, been the greatest plague of the church of Christ, and it is like will be till his second coming.

3. We do also justly complain, that, in their opposing of true Antinomian errors, and particularly the alleged tenets of Dr. Crisp, they hint that there is a party of ministers and professors that defend them; whereas we can defy them to name one minister, in London at least, that doth so.

4. That expressions capable of a good sense are strenuously perverted, contrary to the scope of the writer or speaker. But this and such like are the usual methods of unfair contenders. Were the like methods taken on the other side, how many Popish, Arminian, yea and Socinian expressions, might be published? If any gospel-truth be preached or published, that reflects on the idol of self-righteousness, and justification thereby, it is soon quarrelled with. But reproaches cast on the free grace of God, and the imputed righteousness of Christ are with them, if not approved, yet but venial, well-meant mistakes. Let men’s stated principles be known, and their expressions explained accordingly, or mistakes and contentions will be endless.

5. We do also complain, that love to peace hath made many grave and sound divines forbear to utter their minds freely in public on these points: whereby the adverse party is emboldened; and such ministers as dare not purchase peace by silence, when so great truths are undermined, are exposed as a mark. But we do not question but these worthy brethren, when they shall see the points of controversy accurately stated (as they may shortly), will openly appear on truth’s side, as we know their hearts are for it.

Lastly, We complain, that the scheme of the gospel contended for by our opposers, is clouded, vailed, and darkened by school terms; new, uncouth, and unscriptural phrases; whereby as they think to guard themselves against opposition, so they do increase the jealousies of their brethren, and keep their principles from the knowledge of ordinary people, who are as much concerned in those points as any scholar or divine.

This controversy looks like a very bad omen. We thought we might have healed our old breaches, in smaller things; and, behold, a new one is threatened in the greatest matters. We did hope, that the good old Protestant doctrine had been rooted and riveted in the hearts of all the ministers on our side; but now we find the contrary, and that the sour leaven of Arminianism works strongly. Their advocates do not yet own the name; but the younger sort are more bold and free: and with them no books or authors are in esteem and use, but such as are for the new rational method of divinity. (Rational is a fitter commendation of a philosopher, than of a divine: and yet it is somewhat better applied to a divine, than to divinity; for true divinity hath a higher and nobler original than man’s reason, even divine revelation; and it eau never be rightly learned by them that have no higher principle in them than reason, even the teaching of the Holy Ghost.) But for Luther, Calvin, Zanchy, Twisse, Ames, Perkins, and divines of their spirit and stamp, they are generally neglected and despised.

We were in hope, that after the Lord had so signally appeared for his truth and people, in preserving both, under the rage of that Antichristian spirit of persecution and apostasy to gross Popery, that wrought so mightily under the two last reigns, and when he had given us the long-desired mercy of a legal establishment of our gospel-liberty in this, that all hearts and hands should have been unanimously employed in the advancing of the work of Christ. But we find, that as we have for a long time lost, in a great measure, the power, we are now in no small danger of losing also the purity of the gospel. And without them what signifies liberty!

It is undoubted that the devil designs the obstructing of the course of the gospel; and in this he hath often had the service of the tongues and pens of good men, as well as of bad. Yet we are not without hope, that the Lord, in his wisdom and mercy, will defeat him; and that these contentions may yet have good fruit and a good issue.

For furthering of this good end, let me request a few things of my brethren. 1. Let us not receive reports suddenly of one another. In times of contention, many false reports are raised, and rashly believed. This is both the fruit and the fuel of contention. For all the noise of Antinomianism, I must declare, that I do not know (and I have both opportunity and inclination to inquire) any one Antinomian minister or Christian in London, who is really such as their reproachers paint them out, or such as Luther and Calvin wrote against.

2. Let us make Christ crucified our great study, as Christians; and the preaching of him our main work, as ministers. Paul determined to know nothing else, (1 Cor. 2:2). But many manage the ministry, as if they had taken up a contrary determination, even to know any thing, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified, We are amazed to see so many ashamed of the cross of Christ, and to behave as if they accounted the tidings of salvation by the slain Son of God, an old antiquated story, and unfit to be daily preached. And what comes in the room thereof, is not unknown, nor is it worth the mentioning. For all things that come in Christ’s room, and justle him out, either of hearts or pulpits, are alike abominable to a Christian. How many sermons may a man hear, and read when printed, yea, and books written, about the way to heaven, wherein is hardly the name of Jesus Christ! And if he be named, it is the name of Christ as a Judge and Lawgiver, rather than that of a Saviour. And as little room hath Christ in many men’s prayers; except it be in the conclusion. When we cannot avoid the observing of those sad things, let it be a sharp spur to us, to preach Christ more, to pray more in his name, and to live more to his praise. Let us not be deceived with that pretence, That Christ may be preached, when he is not named. The preaching of the gospel is the naming of Christ, and so called, (Rom. 15:20). And Paul was to "bear Christ’s name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel," (Acts 9:15).

3. Let us study hard, and pray much, to know the truth, and to cleave unto it. It is an old observation, Ante Pelagium securius loquebantur patres: "Before Pelagius even the fathers spoke more carelessly;" meaning well, and fearing no mistakes in their hearers. Now, it is not so; the more careful should we be in our doctrine. Let us search our own consciences, and see how we ourselves are justified before God. So Paul argued, Gal. 2:15,16. And let us bring forth that doctrine to our people, that we find in our Bibles, and have felt the power of upon our own hearts.

4. Let us not run into extremes, upon the right or left hand, through the heat of contention; but carefully keep the good old way of the Protestant doctrine, wherein so many thousands of saints and martyrs of Jesus have lived holily, and died happily, who never heard of our new schemes and notions.

And, for this end, let us take and cleave to the test of the Assembly’s Confession of Faith and Catechisms. More we own not ourselves, more we crave not of our brethren; and because we deal fairly and openly, I shall set it down verbatim. (Conf. chap. xi. Of Justification). Art. 1. "Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous: not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone: not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience, to them as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God."

Art. 2. "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love."

Art. 3. "Christ, by his obedience and faith, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, in as much as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners."

Art. 4. "God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth in due time actually apply Christ unto them."

Art. 5. "God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified. And although they can never fall from the state of justification; yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance."

Art. 6. "The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament." This is the whole chapter exactly.

Larger Catechism.—"Q. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God? Ans. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works, that are the fruits of it,—nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification,—but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness."

Let these weighty words be but heartily assented to in their plain and native sense, and we are one in this great point of justification. But can any considering man think that the new scheme, of a real change, repentance, and sincere obedience, as necessary to be found in a person that may lawfully come to Christ for justification; of faith’s justifying, as it is the spring of sincere obedience; of a man’s being justified by, and upon his coming up to the terms of the new law of grace (a new word, but of an old and ill meaning); can any man think that this scheme and the sound words of the Reverend Assembly do agree? Surely, if such a scheme had been offered to that grave, learned, and orthodox synod, it would have had a more severe censure passed upon it than I am willing to name.

Do not we find, in our particular dealings with souls, the same principles I am now opposing?

When we deal with the carnal, secure, careless sinners (and they are a vast multitude), and ask them a reason of that hope of heaven they pretend to, is not this their common answer: "I live inoffensively. I keep God’s law as well as I can; and wherein I fail, I repent, and beg God’s mercy for Christ’s sake. My heart is sincere, though my knowledge and attainments be short of others?" If we go on to inquire further, What acquaintance they have with Jesus Christ? what application their souls have made to him? what workings of faith on him? what use they have made of his righteousness for justification, and his Spirit for sanctification? what they know of living by faith in Jesus Christ? we are barbarians to them. And in this sad state many thousands in England live, and die, and perish eternally. Yet so thick is the darkness of the age, that many of them live here and go hence with the reputation of good Christians, and some of them may have their funeral sermon and praises preached by an ignorant, flattering minister, though it may be the poor creatures never did, in the whole course of their life, nor at their death, employ Jesus Christ so much for an entry to heaven, purchased by his blood, and only accessible by faith in him, as a poor Turk doth Mahomet, for a room in his beastly paradise. How common and fearful a thing is this in this land and city!

When we come to deal with a poor awakened sinner, who seeth his lost state, and that he is condemned by the low of God, we find the same principles working in him; for they are natural, and therefore universal in all men, and hardly rooted out of any. We find him sick and wounded; we tell him where his help lies, in Jesus Christ; what his proper work is, to apply to him by faith. What is his answer? "Alas !" saith the man, "I have been and I am so vile a sinner, my heart is so bad, and so full of plagues and corruptions, that I cannot think of believing on Christ. But if I had but repentance, and some holiness in heart and life, and such and such gracious qualifications, I would then believe,"—when indeed this his answer is as full of nonsense, ignorance, and pride as words can contain or express. They imply, 1. "If I were pretty well recovered, I would employ the Physician, Christ. 2. That there is some hope to work out these good things by myself, without Christ. 3. And when I come to Christ with a price in my hand, I shall be welcome. 4. That I can come to Christ when I will." So ignorant are people naturally of faith in Jesus Christ; and no words or warnings repeated, nor plainest instructions, can beat into men’s heads and hearts that the first coming to Christ by faith, or believing on him, is not a believing we shall be saved by him, but a believing on him, that we may be saved by him. And it is less to be wondered at that ignorant people do not, when so many learned men will not, understand it.

When we deal with a proud, self-righteous hypocrite, we find the same principles of enmity against the grace of the gospel. A profane person is not so enraged at the rebukes of sin from the law, as these Pharisees are at the discovery of their ruin by unbelief. They cannot endure to have their idol of self-righteousness touched, neither by the spirituality of God’s law, that condemns all men, and all their works, while out of Christ; nor by the gospel, which reveals another righteousness than their own, by which they must be saved: but they will have God’s ark of the covenant to stand as a captive in the temple of their Dagon of self-righteousness, until the vengeance of God’s despised covenant overthrow both the temple, and idol, and worshippers.

There is not a minister that dealeth seriously with the souls of men, but he finds an Arminian scheme of justification in every unrenewed heart. And is it not sadly to be bewailed that divines should plead that same cause that we daily find the devil pleading in the hearts of all natural men? and that instead of "casting down" (2 Cor. 10:4, 5), they should be making defences for such "strongholds" as must either be levelled with the dust, or the rebel that holds them out must eternally perish?

It is no bad way of studying the gospel, and of attaining more light into it, that may be used in dealing particularly with the consciences of all sorts of men, as we have occasion. More may be learned this way than out of many large books. And if ministers would deal more with their own consciences, and the consciences of others, in and about these points that are most properly cases of conscience, we should find an increase of gospel-light, and a growing fitness to preach aright, as Paul did: "By manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor. 4:2).

Let us keep up, in our hearts and doctrine, a reverent regard of the holy law of God, and suffer not a reflecting, disparaging word or thought of it. The great salvation is contrived with a regard to it; and the satisfaction given to the law by the obedience and death of Christ our surety, hath made it glorious and honourable, more than all the holiness of mints on earth, or of the glorified in heaven, and than all the torments of the damned in hell, though they do also magnify the law and make it honourable. But if men will teach that the law, and obedience unto it, whether perfect or sincere, is the righteousness we must be found in, and stand in, in our pleading for justification, they "neither understand what they say, nor whereof they affirm," (1 Tim. 1:7). They "become debtors to it," and "Christ profits them nothing," (Gal. 2:21, and 5:2, 5). And we know what will become of that man that hath his debts to the law to pay, and hath no interest in the surety’s payment. Yet many such offer their own silver, which, whatever coin of man be upon it, is reprobate, and rejected both by law and gospel.

Let us carefully keep the bounds clear betwixt the law and gospel, which, "whosoever doth, is a right perfect divine," saith blessed Luther, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians,—a book that hath more plain sound gospel than many volumes of some other divines. Let us keep the law as far from the business of justification as we would keep condemnation, its contrary; for the law and condemnation are inseparable, but by the intervention of Jesus Christ our surety (Gal. 3:10-14). But in the practice of holiness, the fulfilled law given by Jesus Christ to believers as a rule is of great and good use to them, as hath been declared:

Lastly, Be exact in your communion and church-administrations. If any walk otherwise than it becometh the gospel—if any abuse the doctrine of grace to licentiousness, draw the rod of discipline against them the more severely, that ye know so many wait for your halting, and are ready to speak evil of the ways and truths of God.

The wisdom of God sometimes orders the different opinions of men about his truth, for the clearing and confirming of it, while each side watch the extremes that others may be in hazard of running into. And if controversy be fairly and meekly managed this way, we may differ, and plead our opinions, and both love and edify them we oppose, and may be loved and edified by them in their opposition.

I know no fear possesseth our side but that of Arminianism. Let us be fairly secured from that, and as we ever hated true Antinomianism, so we are ready to oppose it with all our might. But having such grounds of jealousy as I have named (and it is well known that I have not named all), men will allow us to fear that this noise of Antinomianism is raised, and any advantage they have by the rashness and imprudence of some ignorant men is improved to a severe height by some, on purpose to shelter Arminianism in its growth, and to advance it further amongst us, which we pray and hope the Lord will prevent.

Yours, ROB. TRAILL.

POSTSCRIPT.

THIS paper presented to thee, was in its first design intended as a private letter to a particular brother, as the title bears. How it comes to be published, I shall not trouble the world with an account of. I think that Dr Owen’s excellent book of Justification, and Mr. Marshall’s book of the Mystery of Sanctification by Faith in Jesus Christ, are such vindications and confirmations of the Protestant doctrine against which I fear no effectual opposition. Dr. Owen’s name is so savoury and famous, his soundness in the faith, and ability in learning for its defence, so justly reputed, that no sober man will attempt him. Mr. Marshall was a holy retired person, and is only known to the most of us by his book published lately. The book is a deep, practical, well-jointed discourse, and requires a more than ordinary attention in the reading of it with profit; and if it be singly used, I look upon it as one of the most useful books the world hath seen for many years. Its excellency is, that it leads the serious reader directly to Jesus Christ, and cuts the sinews and overturns the foundation of the new divinity, by the same argument of gospel-holiness by which many attempt to overturn the old; and as it hath already the seal of high approbation by many judicious ministers and Christians that have read it, so I fear not but it will stand firm as a rock against all opposition, and will prove good seed, and food, and light, and life, to many hereafter.

All my design in publishing this is, plainly and briefly to give some information to ordinary plain people, who either want time or judgment to peruse large and learned tractates about this point of justification, wherein every one is equally concerned.

The theme of justification hath suffered greatly by this, that many have employed their heads and pens who never had their hearts and consciences exercised about it; and they must be frigid and dreaming speculations that all such are taken up with whose consciences are not enlivened with their personal concern in it.

These things are undoubted: 1. That as it is a point of highest concern to every man, so it is to the whole doctrine of Christianity. All the great fundamentals of Christian truth centre in this of justification. The Trinity of persons in the Godhead; the incarnation of the only begotten of the Father; the satisfaction paid to the law and justice of God, for the sins of the world, by his obedience and sacrifice of himself in that flesh he assumed; and the divine authority of the scriptures, which reveal all this, are all straight lines of truth that centre in this doctrine of the justification of a sinner by the imputation and application of that satisfaction. No justification without a righteousness; no righteousness can be but what answers fully and perfectly the holy law of God; no such righteousness can be performed but by a divine person; no benefit can accrue to a sinner by it unless it be some way his, and applied to him; no application can be made of this but by faith in Jesus Christ. And as the connection with, and dependence of this truth upon, the other great mysteries of divine truth is evident in the plain proposal of it, so the same hath been sadly manifest in this, that the forsaking of the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ’s righteousness, hath been the first step of apostasy in many, who have not stopped till they revolted from Christianity itself, Hence so many Arminians, and their chief leaders too, turned Socinians. From denying justification by Christ’s righteousness, they proceeded to the denying of his satisfaction; from the denial of his proper satisfaction, they went on to the denying of the divinity of his person; and that man’s charity is excessive that will allow to such blasphemers of the Son of God. the name of Christians. Let not then the zeal of any so fundamental a point of truth as that is of the justification of a sinner by faith in Christ be charged with folly. It is good to be always zealously affected in a good thing, and this is the best of things.

2. It is undoubted that there is a mystery in this matter of justification. As it is God’s act, it is an act of free grace and deep wisdom. Herein justice and mercy kiss one another in saving the sinner. Here appears God-man with the righteousness of God, and this applied and imputed to sinful men. Here man’s sin and misery are the field in which the riches of God’s grace in Christ are displayed. Here the sinner is made righteous by the righteousness of another, and obtains justification through this righteousness, though he pays and gives nothing for it. God declares him righteous, or justifies him freely; and yet he is well paid for it by the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24, 25, 26). It is an act of justice and mercy both when God justifies a believer on Jesus Christ. And must there not then be a great mystery in it? Is not every believer daily admiring the depth of this way of God? This mystery is usually rather darkened than illustrated by logical terms used in the handling of it. The only defence that good and learned men have for the use of them is (and it hath great weight), that the craft of adversaries doth constrain them to use such terms, to find them out or hedge them in. It is certain that this mystery is as plainly revealed in the word, as the Holy Ghost thought fit to do in teaching the heirs of this grace; and it were well if men did contain themselves within these bounds.

3. It is certain that this doctrine of justification proposed in the word, hath been very differently understood and expressed by men that profess that God’s word is the only rule of their thoughts and words about the things of the Spirit of God. It hath been, and will be still a stone of stumbling, as our Lord Jesus Christ himself was, and is, (Rom. 9:32, 33; 1 Pet. 2:7, 8).

4. That whatever variety and differences there be in men’s notions and opinions (and there is a great deal) about justification, they are all certainly reducible to two; one of which is every man’s opinion. And they are, that the justification of a sinner before God, is either on the account of a righteousness in and of ourselves, or on the account of a righteousness in another, even Jesus Christ, who is "Jehovah our righteousness." Law and gospel, faith and works, Christ’s righteousness and our own, grace and debt, do equally divide all in this matter. Crafty men may endeavour to blend and mix these things together in justification, but it is a vain attempt. It is not only most expressly rejected in the gospel, which peremptorily determines the contrariety, inconsistency, and incompatibility betwixt these two; but the nature of the things in themselves, and the sense and conscience of every serious person, do witness to the same, that our own righteousness, and Christ’s righteousness, do comprehend all the pleas of men to justification (one or other of them every man in the world stands upon); and that they are inconsistent with, and destructive one of another, in justification. If a man trusts to his own righteousness, he rejects Christ’s; if he trusts to Christ’s righteousness, he rejects his own. If he will not reject his own righteousness, as too good to be renounced, if he will not venture on Christ’s righteousness, as not sufficient alone to bear him out, and bring him safe off at God’s bar, he is in both a convicted unbeliever. And if he endeavour to patch up a righteousness before God, made up of both, he is still under the law, and a despiser of gospel-grace, (Gal. 2:21). That righteousness that justifies a sinner, consists in aliquo indivisibili, and this every man finds when the case is his own, and he serious about it.

5. These different sentiments about justification, have been at all times managed with a special acrimony. They that are for the righteousness of God by faith in Jesus Christ, look upon it as the only foundation of all their hopes for eternity, and therefore cannot but be zealous for it. And the contrary side are as hot for their own righteousness, the most admired and adored Diana of proud mankind, as if it were an image fallen down from Jupiter; when it is indeed the idol that was cast out of heaven with the devil, and which he hath ever since been so diligent to set up before sinful men to be worshipped, that he might bring them into the same condemnation with himself, for, by true sin and false righteousness he hath "deceived the whole world," (Rev. 12:9).

6. As the Holy Ghost speaking in the scriptures, is the supreme and infallible judge and determiner of all truth, so where he doth particularly, and on purpose, deliver any truth, there we are specially to attend and learn. And though, in most points of truth, he usually teacheth us by a bare authoritative narration, yet, in some points, which his infinite wisdom foresaw special opposition to, he doth not only declare, but debate and determine the truth. And the instances are two especially. One is about the divinity of Christ’s person, and dignity of his priesthood; reasoned, argued, and determined, in the epistle to the Hebrews. The other is about justification by faith, exactly handled in the epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians. In the former of these two, the doctrine of free justification is taught us most formally and accurately. And though we find no charge against that church in Paul’s time, or in his epistle for their departing from the truth in this point; yet the wisdom of the Holy Ghost is remarkable in this, that this doctrine should be so plainly asserted, and strongly proved, in an epistle to that church, the pretended successors whereof have apostatized from that faith, and proved the main assertors of that damnable error of justification by works. That to the Galatians is plainly written, to cure a begun, and obviate a full apostasy from the purity of the gospel, in the point of justification by faith, without the works of the law. And from these two epistles, if we be wise, we must learn the truth of this doctrine, and expound all other scriptures, in a harmony with what is there so setly determined, as in foro contradictorio.

7. Lastly, It is not to be denied, or concealed, that on each side, some have run into extremes, which the generality do not own, but are usually loaded with. The Papists run high for justification by works, yet even some of them, in the Council of Trent, discoursed very favourably of justification by faith. The Arminians have qualified a little the grossness of the Popish doctrine in this article, and some since have essayed to qualify that of the Arminians, and to plead the same cause more finely. Again, some have run into the other extreme, as appeared in Germany a little after the Reformation, and, some such there have been always, and in all places where the gospel hath shined, and these were called Antinomians. But how unjustly this hateful name is charged upon the orthodox preachers and sincere believers of the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith only, who keep the gospel-midst betwixt these two rocks, is the design of this paper to discover. What we plead for, is in sum, that Jesus Christ our Saviour is "the fountain opened in the house of David for sin and for uncleanness," wherein only men can be washed in justification and sanctification, and that there is no other fountain of man’s devising, nor of God’s declaring, for washing a sinner first, so as to make him fit and meet to come to this, to wash, and to be clean.

As for inherent holiness, is it not sufficiently secured by the Spirit of Christ received by faith, the certain spring and cause of it: by the word of God; the plain and perfect rule of it, by the declared necessity of it to all them that look to be saved, and to justify the sincerity of a man’s faith, unless we bring it in to justification, and thereby make our own pitiful holiness sit on the throne of judgment, with the precious blood of the Lamb of God?

Though I expect that a more able hand will undertake an examination of the new divinity; yet, to fill up a little room, I would speak somewhat to their Achillean argument, that is so much boasted of, and so frequently insisted on by them, as their shield and spear. Their argument is this, that Christ’s righteousness is our legal righteousness, but our own is our evangelical righteousness; that is, when a sinner is charged with sin against the holy law of God, he may oppose Christ’s righteousness as his legal defence; but against the charge of the gospel, especially for unbelief, he must produce his faith, as his defence or righteousness against that charge.

With a great deference to such worthy divines as have looked on this as an argument of weight, I shall, in a few words, essay to manifest that this is either a saying the same in other odd words, that is commonly taught by us, or a sophism, or a departing from the Protestant doctrine about justification.

1. This argument concerns not at all the justification of a sinner before God. For this end, no more is needful, than to consider what this charge is, against whom it is given, and by whom. The charge is said to be given in by God, and a charge of unbelief, or disobeying the gospel. But against whom? Is it against a believer or unbeliever? and these two divide all mankind. If it be against a believer, it is a false charge, and can never be given in by the God of truth. For the believer is justified already by faith, and as to this charge he is innocent. And innocence is defence enough to a man falsely charged, before a righteous judge. Is this charge given in against an unbeliever? We allow it is a righteous charge. Ay, but say they, "Will Christ’s righteousness justify a man from this charge of gospel-unbelief?" The answer is plain. No, it will not, nor yet from any other charge whatsoever, either from law or gospel; for he hath nothing to do with Christ’s righteousness while an unbeliever. What then doth this arguing reprove? Is it, that no man’s faith in Christ’s righteousness can be justified in its sincerity before men, and in a man’s own conscience, but in and by the fruits of a true lively faith? In this they have no opposers that I know of. Or is it, that a man may have Christ’s righteousness for his legal righteousness, and yet be a rebel to the gospel, and a stranger to true holiness? Who ever affirmed it? Or is it, that this gospel-holiness is that which a man must not only have (for that we grant), but also may venture to stand in, and to be found in before God, and to venture into judgment with God upon, in his claim to eternal life? Then we must oppose them that think so, as we know their own consciences will when in any lively exercise. These plain principles of gospel-truth, while they remain, (and remain they will on their own foundation, when we are all in our graves, and our foolish contentions are buried), do overthrow this pretended charge. 1. That Christ’s righteousness is the only plea and answer of a sinner arraigned at God’s bar for life and death. 2. This righteousness is imputed to no man but a believer. 3. When it is imputed by grace, and applied by faith, it immediately and eternally becomes the man’s righteousness, before God, angels, men, and devils, (Rom. 8:33, 35, 38, 39). It is a righteousness that is never lost, never taken away, never ineffectual; answereth all charges, and is attended with all graces.

2. I would ask, what is that righteousness that justifies a man from the sin of unbelief? We have rejected the imaginary charge, let us now consider the real sin. Unbelief is the greatest sin against both law and gospel; more remotely against the law, which binds all men to believe God speaking, say what he will; more directly against the gospel, which tells us what we should believe, and commands us to believe. Let us put this case, (and it is pity the case is so rare, when the sin is so common), that a poor soul is troubled about the greatness of the sin of unbelief, in "calling God a liar," (1 John 5:10), in distrusting his faithful promise, in doubting Christ’s ability and good will to save, in standing aloof so long from Jesus Christ; as many of the elect are long in a state of unbelief till called; and the best of believers have unbelief in some measure in them, (Mark 9:24). Abraham’s faith staggered sometimes, (Gen. 12. and 20). What shall we say to a conscience thus troubled? Will any man. dare to tell him, that Christ’s righteousness is his legal righteousness against the charge of sins against the law; but for gospel-charges, he must answer them in his own name? I know our hottest opposers would abhor such an answer; and would freely tell such a man, that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin: and that his justification from his unbelief must be only in that righteousness which he so sinfully had rejected while in unbelief, and now lays hold on by faith.

3. But some extend this argument yet more dangerously; for they say, That not only men must have their faith for their righteousness against the charge of unbelief, but repentance against the charge of impenitence, sincerity against that of hypocrisy, holiness against that of unholiness, and perseverance as their gospel-righteousness, against the charge of apostasy. If they mean only, that these things are justifications and fruits of true faith, and of the sincerity of the grace of God in us; we do agree to the meaning; but highly dislike the expressions, as unscriptural and dangerous, tending to the dishonourlng of the righteousness of Christ, and to run men on the rocks of pride and self-righteousness, that natural corruption drives all men upon. But if they mean that, either jointly or separately, they are our righteousness before God; or that, either separate from, or mixed with Christ’s righteousness, they may be made our claim and plea for salvation; I must say, that it is dangerous doctrine; and its native tendency is, to turn Christ’s imputed righteousness out of the church, to destroy all the solid peace of believers, and to exclude gospel-justification out of this world, and reserve it to another, and that with a horrible uncertainty of any particular man’s partaking of it. But these blessed truths of God, and blessings of believers, stand on firmer foundations than heaven or earth, and will continue fixed against all the attempts of the gates of hell. Blessed be the rock, Christ, on which all is built; blessed be the new covenant, "ordered in all things and sure;" and "blessed is he that believeth; for there shall be a performance of those things which are told him from the Lord," (Luke 1:45.) Amen.

LONDON, Sept. 1. 1692.

Of Justification

by Herman Witsius

Excerpt from The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man BOOK III. CHAPTER VIII.

I. THAT faith which we have in the last chapter treated of as saving, is usually also called justifying in the divinity schools. And since justification is its first memorable effect, it will by no means be improper to speak of it now, and that with the greater accuracy, as it so nearly concerns the whole of religion, that we stumble not in explaining this article. The doctrine of justification diffuseth itself through the whole body of divinity, and if the foundation here is well laid, the whole building will be the more solid and grand; whereas a bad foundation or superstructure threatens a dreadful ruin. The pious Picardians, as they were called in Bohemia and Moravia, valued this article, at its true price, when in their confession of faith, Art. 6. speaking of justification, they thus write: "this sixth article is accounted with us the most principal of all, as being the sum of all Christianity and piety. Wherefore our divines teach and handle it with all diligence and application, and endeavour to instill it into all." Let us to the utmost of our power imitate them in this, beginning with its name.

II. To justify, in Hebrew qyd[h, in Greek dikaiwn, is very frequently and ordinarily used in a declarative sense, and signifies to account, declare, prove any one just. Which is manifest from those places of scripture, where it occurs, as the act of a judge, as Psalm 82.8. "do justice to (justify)the afflicted and needy;" and this is especially the case, when it is opposed to condemnation, as Deut. 25.1. Prov. 17.15. Isa. 5.22,23.

III. And doubtless this word has such a signification when God is said to be justified, as Psalm 51.4. "that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest;" that is, that thou mightest be declared, proved, acknowledged to be just, when thou pronouncest sentence. In like manner, Matt 11.19. "wisdom is justified of her children," that is, they who are truly regenerated of God by the Gospel, have accounted the wisdom of God, which the Scribes and Pharisees falsely accounted foolishness, to be, as it really is, the most consummate wisdom, and cleared it from the calumny of folly, with which it was branded. In the same sense it is said, Luke 7.29. "all the people and the publicans justified God."

IV. Nor can this word have any other than a forensic signification, when Christ is said to be justified, 1 Tim. 3.16. and still more fully Isa. 50.8. where the Lord himself thus speaketh: "he is near that justifieth me, who will contend with me? Let us stand together; who is mine adversary?" Almost in the same manner as the apostle speaks of the elect, Rom. 8.33,34. How was Christ justified? (1st.) When the Father declared that he was holy and without spot, according to his mind and will, and even such "in whom he was well pleased," Matt. 3.17. and 17.5. (2dly.) When he pronounced him innocent of all the crimes with which he was falsely accused, and for which he was unjustly condemned. (3dly.) When he declared, that he had made full satisfaction to his justice, and was no longer under the guilt of those sins which as Surety he took upon himself. The two former acts of justification respect Christ as man; the last as Mediator. And in this view he is called "the righteous or just servant of God," Isa. 53.11. not only as holy and without sin in himself, but as one who had also fulfilled all that righteousness to which he bound himself by his voluntary engagement, whereby, though he was the Son, yet he became the servant of God, and by his resurrection was declared to have performed the whole, and so was exalted to that state, that he might be able to justify many, or procure righteousness for many, by virtue of his own righteousness.

V. But we are not to imagine we have accomplished any great matter, when we have shewn that justification is often taken in a forensic or law sense. For scarce any who love to be called Christians, have such a bold front or stubborn mind as to deny it. Certainly the Popish doctors themselves generally own it; Bellarm. de justificat. Lib. 1. c. i. Becan. Sum. Theol. T. 2. Tract. 4. c. iii. Tirin. Controvers. 15. No. 1. Nor do they deny that Paul himself sometimes treats of justification in that sense: Estius in Comm. ad Rom. 2.13. observes, that to be justified there is the same thing as to be "adjudged, declared, accounted righteous, according, says he, to the most usual language of scripture." Which interpretation Ruardus Tapperus also approves, ad Art. 8. p. 32. I will do my townsman1 the honour to quote his words. "As to what was aforesaid, says he, it is to be considered, that in scripture, to be justified, not only signifies, to be endowed and adorned with righteousness; but sometimes also to be pronounced, declared, adjudged, allowed, and esteemed just or righteous. According to which interpretation, blessed Augustine explains the apostle Paul's expression. The doers of the law shall be justified, "that is, says he, shall be accounted and esteemed just." In like manner, Cornelius a Lapide on Rom. 8.33. "it is God that justifieth," thus comments; "it is God that acquits these elect persons, namely, his faithful people and true Christians, from their sins, and absolves from the charge brought against them by sin and the devil, and pronounces them just," or righteous. The state of the controversy therefore between us and the doctors of the church of Rome, is not whether justification be sometimes taken in a forensic or law sense: for that is confessed on both sides.

VI. What then? Are we thus to state the question, namely, whether the term to justify has always in scripture a forensic sense? But the most eminent Protestant divines do not affirm this, and therefore it would be too harsh and inhuman to charge them with prevarication on that account. Beza on Titus 3.7. thus comments; "I take the term justification in a large sense, as comprehending whatever we obtain from Christ, as well by imputation, as by the efficacy of the Spirit in our sanctification, that we may be artioi, that is, perfect and complete in him. Thus also the term justify is taken, Rom. 8.30." Much to the same purpose Thysius in synops. Purior. Theolog. Leyden. Disput. 23. sect. 3. Nor yet do we deny, that, on account of their very great and close connection, justification seems sometimes to comprise sanctification also, as a consequent, Rom. 8.30. Titus 3.7, &c. I shall add one testimony more, namely, Chamierus Panstrat. T. 3. Lib. 10, c. 1. No. 6. who speaks to this purpose: "We are not such ridiculous judges of words as not to know, nor such impertinent sophisters, as not to allow that the terms justification and sanctification, are put one for the other: yea, we know that they are called saints principally on this account, that in Christ they have remission of sin. And we read in the Revelations, 'let him that is righteous, be righteous still;' which can only be understood of the progress of inherent righteousness; and we deny not, that there may be a promiscuous use of the words perhaps in other places."

VII. And indeed this ingenuity of these very great men is not to be too much canvassed, who, though they have granted so much to their adversaries, have yet, in the main question, happily triumphed over them. Nevertheless we see no sufficient reasons why they should have been so liberal to them. There had been no violence put on the alleged passages, if in them the term justification should be taken in the sense in which Paul commonly takes it: nor doth it appear that all things would have flowed less agreeably.

VIII. What should hinder us from explaining Rom. 13.30. in this manner? Whom he did predestinate,that is, whom, by his most free and immutable decree, he has chosen to grace and glory, them he also called, that is, by his word and Spirit he sweetly invited, and powerfully drew them from a state of sin and misery to communion with Christ, and being endowed with faith, regenerated them: and whom he called, them he also justified; that is, as soon as they were united to Christ by the Holy Spirit and by faith, he, on the account of the merits of Christ, imputed to them, acquitted them from the guilt of sin, and adjudged them to have a right to all the good things of Christ, as well in grace as in glory: and whom he justified, them he also glorified; that is, he not only gave them a right, but also put them in actual possession of the greatest blessings, (1st.) By sanctifying them, and transforming them more and more to his own image, and making them partakers of a divine nature, which doubtless is a great degree of glory. (2dly.) By plentifully pouring in upon them the sweetest consolations of his Spirit, which are, as it were, the preludes of joy and gladness. (3dly.) and lastly, By making them perfectly happy, first in soul, and then in soul and body together.

IX. But we think it far more proper to comprise sanctification under glorification than to refer it to justification. For, it is familiar to the Holy Spirit, to delineate holiness under the names of beauty, ornament, and glory. Thus Psalm 103.5. holiness becometh thine house. Psalm 110.3. thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness. Nay, by the very term glory, holiness and righteousness are expressed, Psalm 45.13. the king's daughter is all glorious within: But what else is meant there by that glory, but the genuine holiness of believers? Or as Peter speaks, 1 Pet. 3.4. "the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price:" add Isa. 62.2. and the Gentiles shall see thy RIGHTEOUSNESS, and all kings thy GLORY; where these two words are used alternately one for the other: and justly, for the highest pitch of our glory consists in a perfect conformity to God, 1 John 3.2. But holiness is the image of God, Eph. 4.24. so that saints who accurately express, or resemble that image, are on that account called the glory of Christ, 2 Cor. 8.28. Why then should we not account our conformity to God in holiness as no contemptible first fruits of glory? Certainly Paul calls the progress made in sanctification, a transformation, or a being changed from GLORY to GLORY, 2 Cor. 3.18.

X. It is plain, that with the same propriety we may understand by justification, Titus 3.7. absolution from guilt, and an adjudging to eternal life. For the first work of a man who is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, is the work of faith, the infallible consequent of which is, the remission of sins; this is either succeeded by, or attended with, the hope of the inheritance of eternal life. What probable reason is there then to make us to depart from this sense? And if we would have sanctification contained in any of the words which the apostle makes use of, why shall we not rather refer it to regeneration, and the renewal of the Holy Ghost? For really, sanctification differs no otherways from the first regeneration and renovation than as the continuance of an act differs from the beginning of it. And we are sure, that the apostle exhorts the Romans who had been, for some time regenerated, to a progress in sanctification, when he writes, Rom. 12.2. be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds; and in like manner, Eph. 4.23. be renewed in the spirit of your mind. As the beginning of this renovation goes before justification strictly so called, so the progress of it serves to promote the certainty and the sense of justification; and in both respects it was excellently well said by the apostle that the elect are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, shed on them abundantly; that being thus justified by his grace, that is, acquitted from sin, and conscious to themselves of absolution, they might lawfully, yea, in full assurance, hope for the inheritance of eternal life.

XI. As to Rev. 22.11. he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; it does not appear that any fuller sense can be put on these words, than if we thus explain them: whoever is reputed righteous before God by faith on Christ, should think it his duty, or concern, to verify by his actions this his justification before men and to his own conscience; and so by faith and the exercise of it, and by studying the word of God, he may have a more abounding consolation concerning his righteousness. And by this reasoning too the forensic use of this term is still retained.

XII. Others also allege, 1 Cor. 6.11. "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." But even this testimony does not prove that justification is equivalent to sanctification, rather the contrary. For after the apostle had said that the Corinthians were washed, that is, delivered from the power of sin, he more particularly shews wherein that washing consisteth. Now the power of sin over man is twofold. (1st.) That it compels him to the servile works of wickedness. (2dly.) That it condemns him. The dominion is destroyed by sanctification: the power of condemning, by justification. Both these are bestowed on the Elect in the name of the Lord Jesus; that is, on account of his merits, and by his authority and will; and by the Spirit of our God, who is the author of sanctification, and sweetly insinuates the sentence of justification into the minds of believers. Both these benefits are sealed in baptism, to the washing of which there is here an evident allusion. Nor should it offend us, that sanctification is here put before justification; a diligent enquirer cannot but know that the scripture does not always exactly observe that order, as that things first in time are set in the first place. Thus even Peter puts vocation before election, 2 Pet. 1.10. Besides, justification consists of various articles, as we will shew more distinctly in its place.

XIII. However, I cannot conceal that there are two places in which the term justify may seem to denote something more than a mere declaration of righteousness, though that be also included. The first is, Isa. 53.11. "by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many." It is indeed true that our Lord Jesus Christ is constituted judge by the Father, and consequently empowered to absolve his Elect who are given him: but here he is not represented as a judge pronouncing sentence, but as the cause which, both by merit and efficacy, brings and gives to his own people that righteousness on account of which they may be absolved at the bar of God: and the unusual construction of the word with the particle of the dative case calls for our notice. It is therefore the same as if the prophet had said, he will make a righteousness unto many, that which he himself performed as the cause of righteousness, he will communicate to many: and thus dicaiwma his righteousness will redound to many, and unto justification of life, as the apostle speaks, Rom. 5.18. which I would have to be compared with this passage.

XIV. The other testimony I hinted at is, Dan. 12.3. where the faithful preachers of the Gospel are said to be justifying many. None doubts that it belongs to the office of the ministers of the Gospel to publish, in the name of God, absolution from sin to the contrite in heart. But the compass of their function is much more extensive, namely, that by their preaching, example, and prayers, they may bring as many as possible to such a state as remission of sins may be preached, and that with special application unto them, who by faith and repentance are reconciled unto God, and are diligent in the practice of holiness. The ministry of reconciliation with which they were entrusted comprises all this. They who are diligent in the performance of these things, are said to justify many, because they stir them up to repentance, which is the beginning of righteousness or holiness; to faith, whereby they lay hold on the righteousness of Christ, on account of which they may be pardoned; to the practice of a holy life, which when they prove by their works, they may obtain fuller assurance of their justification by the ministers in the name of God.

XV. We have been the fuller on the signification of this word justify, that, at the same time, we might shew the form of various testimonies of scripture, nothing being more pleasant and useful than the study of this. But when treating of justification we shall always take that term in the declarative sense. Which being observed once for all, let us now address ourselves to the more distinct examination of the thing itself.

XVI The declaration of God concerning men either regards some of their particular actions, or their whole state. The actions of men are considered, either in relation to the rule of the divine will, or in comparison with the actions of others, whether more or less evil. God pronounces absolutely on actions when he declares them either evil condemning man in them; as Nathan said to David in the name of God, 2 Sam. 12.9. "thou hast despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight:" or good, justifying a man in them; in which sense David, having his eyes intent on the justice of his cause against his enemies, prays, Psalm 7.8. "judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me." Thus God justified Job when he declared that he "spoke of him the thing which is right," Job 42.8.

XVII. The example of Phinehas is here very memorable, Paulm 106.30,31. "then stood up Phinehas and executed judgment; and so the plague was stayed. And that was accounted unto him for righteousness, unto all generations for ever more." The fact of Phinehas was thus: Zimri, one of the princes of the tribe of Simeon, brought into his tent, with an incredible impudence, Cozbi, a daughter of the king of Midian, in the sight of the princes of his people, with an intent to pollute her and himself with whoredom; while Moses, with the whole congregation, stood in tears, at the door of the tabernacle, to deprecate the vengeance of God already broke out. Phinehas, son of Eleazar, the high priest, and himself a priest, could not bear this sight; but being inflamed with a mighty zeal, and moved with the indignity of the action, rushed from amidst the congregation, and taking up a javelin, thrust them both through in the very act of their whoredom.

XVIII. There were many things in this action which, to outward appearance, were faulty. (1st.) Phinehas was a priest, whom it did not become to imbrue his hands in human blood. For if it brought guilt on a priest, to be expiated by sacrifice, to have touched a dead body, much more to have made a living man a dead carcase. (2dly.) He was none of the judges of Israel, whom Moses, at the command of God himself, deputed to punish the guilty, by hanging them up before the Lord, Numb. 25.4,5. (3dly.) He did not observe the due order or course of justice, because he began with the execution. (4thly.) The whole seemed to breathe an enraged passion of mind, rather than a zeal tempered with due lenity. For these reasons, Phinehas might be thought to have been guilty of a horrid murder; and on that account, to have forfeited the honour of the priesthood.

XIX. But it is plain, it appeared otherwise in the sight of God, who pronounced the action right, commending this zeal of his, and declaring, that he was so pleased with it, that therefore he averted his great wrath from the children of Israel. And Phinehas was so far from being divested of the priesthood on that account, that, on the contrary, God adjudged to him and his seed after him a perpetual priesthood, by a covenant of peace that was to last for ever, Numb. 25.11-13. And this is what David sings, "it was counted unto him for righteousness," that is, it was judged that he had acted in a due and regular manner, and was therefore more worthy of praise and reward, than of blame and punishment.

XX. And as this man was justified in that absolutely, so others are justified in their actions, comparatively, or when compared with the actions of others which are far worse. In this sense it is said, Jer. 3.11. "the backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah." That is, by her works hath shewed herself more righteous and innocent, professing according to the sentiments of her heart, and not acting so hypocritically and deceitfully, as the prevaricating and dissembling Judah, who would appear, as if she was converted to me, while in the mean time, she profanes my name. In like manner, Ezek. 16.31. "thou hast justified thy sisters in all thine abominations which thou hast done." Thou hast behaved in such a manner, that in comparison of thee, they may seem to be innocent.

XXI. Thus much for the declaration of God concerning the actions of men. On the other hand, his declaration as to their state is of several kinds. For either God considers them as they are in themselves, according to inherent qualities, either vicious through corrupt nature, or holy and laudable through reforming grace; or as they are reputed in Christ the surety.

XXII. God can neither consider nor declare men to be otherwise than as they really are. For his judgment is according to truth," Rom. 2.2. and therefore they, who are still under the dominion of sin, and walk with delight, according to their depraved lusts, are judged and declared by God to be unregenerate, wicked, and slaves of the devil, as they really are; for, "by no means does he clear the guilty," Exod. 34.7. but they who are regenerated by his grace, created anew after his image, and heartily give themselves up to the practice of sincere holiness, are by him absolved from the sin of profaneness, impiety, and hypocrisy, and are no longer looked upon as dead in sins, slaves to the devil, children of the world; but as true believers, his own children, restored to his image, and endowed with his life. It was thus he justified his servant Job, declaring, "that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God and escheweth evil," Job 1.8.

XXIII. And this is still the case of all believers. The devil indeed, who is the accuser of the brethren, frequently charges them with hypocrisy before God, as if they did not serve him in sincerity; and he not only thus accuses them before God, but he also disquiets their conscience, as if all their faith and piety were only a mask and outward shew, by which they have hitherto imposed not only on others, but also on themselves. In order to calm the consciences of believers, when thus shaken by the false accuser, they have need to be absolved from this accusation, and justified from this false testimony before God; which God also daily does, assuring the elect of the sincerity of their conversion, by the testimony of his Spirit, and thereby shewing, that "the praise of a true Jew is of him." Rom. 2.29. This justification is indeed very different from that other, of which we shall presently treat, wherein the person is absolved from sins, whereof he is really guilty, and which are forgiven him on Christ's account. In this we are speaking of he is acquitted of sins, which he is not chargeable with, and is declared not to have committed.

XXIV. The foundation of this justification can be nothing but inherent holiness and righteousness. For, as it is a declaration concerning a man, as he is in himself: by the regenerating and sanctifying grace of God, so it ought to have for its foundation, that which is found in man himself: He that doth righteousness is righteous, says John, 1 John 3.7. and Peter says, Acts 10.34,35. "of a truth, I perceive, that in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with God." And Luke in the name of God, gives this testimony to the parents of John the Baptist, that "they were righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless," Luke 1.6. But yet inherent righteousness is not the foundation of this justification, from its own worthiness, or because it is a holiness exactly commensurate with the rule of the law, but because it is the work of the Holy Spirit in the elect, which God cannot but acknowledge and delight in as his own, and because the failings with which it is always stained in this world are forgiven for Christ's sake.

XXV. In this sense we think the apostle James speaks of justification in that much controverted passage, James 2.21,24. where he declares, that "Abraham was not justified by faith only, but also by works," and insists upon it, that every man ought to be justified in this manner. For the scope of the apostle is to shew, that it is not sufficient for a Christian to boast of the remission of his sins, which indeed is obtained by faith only, but then it must be a living faith on Christ; but that besides he ought to labour after holiness, that being justified by faith only, that is, acquitted from the sins he had been guilty of, on account of Christ's satisfaction, apprehended by faith, he may likewise be justified by his works, that is, declared to be truly regenerated, believing and holy; behaving as becomes those who are regenerated, believing and holy. Thus our father Abraham behaved, who having been before now justified by faith only, that is, obtained the remission of his sins, was afterwards also justified by his works. For, when he offered up his son to God, then God said to him, "now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me," Gen. 22.12. And James insists upon it, that this last justification is so necessary to believers, that, if it be wanting, the first ought to be accounted only vain and imaginary.

XXVI. These things are evident from scripture: but lest any after the manner of the world should ridicule this, I inform the more unskillful, that this is no invention of mine, but that the most celebrated divines have, before me, spoken of such a "justification according to inherent righteousness and of works." Bucerus in altero Colloquio Ratisbonensi, p. 313. says, "we think that this begun righteousness is really a true and living righteousness, and a noble excellent gift of God; and that the new life in Christ consists in this righteousness, and that all the saints are also righteous by this righteousness, both before God and before, men, 'and that on account thereof the saints are also justified by a justification of works,' that is, are approved, commended and rewarded by God." Calvin teaches much the same, Instit. lib.3. c.17. §8. which concludes with these words, "The good works done by believers are counted righteous, or which is the same, are imputed for righteousness." The very learned. Ludovicus de Dieu has at large explained and proved this opinion, in Comment. ad Rom. 8.4. And he quotes, as agreeing with him herein, Daniel Colonius, formerly regent or professor of the French college at Leyden. The same is also maintained by the Rev. Dr. Peter de Witte, that very able defender of the truth, in Controversia de justificatione adversus Socinianos, And Triglandius explains the passage of James to the same purpose with us, making, use of the very same distinction of justification, Examine Apologiæ Remonstrantium, c.21. p.316.

XXVII. Let us now at length proceed to treat of the justification of man as a sinner, but considered as in Christ the Surety. As this subject is the foundation of all solid comfort, so it is full of mysteries and perplexed with many controversies: nevertheless it is clearly delivered in the scriptures, if men would only be satisfied with their simplicity, and not shut their eyes against the light, which, so freely shines upon them, nor give way to curious niceties, and the roving of a luxuriant fancy. We thus define the gospel justification of a sinner: "It is a judicial, but gracious act of God, whereby the elect and believing sinner, is absolved from the guilt of his sins, and hath a right to eternal life adjudged to him, on account of the obedience of Christ, received by faith."

XXVIII. This is evident, that all men, considered in themselves, are abominable sinners before God, and obnoxious to eternal death. Paul before proved both Jews and Gentiles to be all under sin; so that every month may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God, Rom. 3.9,19. But since, as we observed before, the judgment of God is always according to truth, it cannot be otherwise, but that God declare those who in themselves are sinners, and liable to death, to be really so in themselves. Yet the scripture declares, that God justifies sinners, that is, acquits them from sin and from being liable to eternal death, and adjudges them a right to eternal life. And unless this was the case, the salvation and hope of all mankind had been at an end. But certainly God does this agreeably to his truth and justice. It is therefore necessary, that they who are sinners in themselves appear in another light to a justifying God, namely, as considered in another, whose perfect righteousness may be so imputed to them, as in virtue thereof they may be reputed righteous. And this is the mystery of our justification in the faith of Christ.

XXIX. After all had sinned in Adam, and come short of the glory of God, the only begotten Son of God offered himself as Surety to the Father, and promised, that, at the time appointed, he would fulfill all the demands of the law for the elect. And he also executed this with all fidelity: he was born of a virgin, without any spot of sin, being conceived by the Holy Ghost, and endowed with original righteousness, in order to remove the guilt of original sin, and make up the defect of original righteousness which the elect are born without. Besides, from his very infancy, and through the whole course of his life, especially at the close thereof, he endured all manner of sufferings, both in soul and in body, humbling, nay, emptying himself, and being obedient to the Father unto death, even the death of the cross, that he might bear, in their stead, the punishment due to the sins of his chosen people; the dignity of the person who suffered, abundantly compensating what was wanting in the duration of the punishment, which otherwise must have been eternal. In fine, he fully performed for his people all that the law required, in order to obtain a right to eternal life. Had the elect themselves, in their own persons, performed what Christ did for them, there is no doubt but they would have obtained that for which they might have been justified by God, nay, and ought to have been so, at least according to the covenant.2

XXX. Moreover, since whatever of this kind Jesus performed, he did it by a voluntary undertaking, with the Father's approbation, in the room and stead of the elect, it is deservedly imputed to them, and declared to their account: just as what a surety pays for a debtor, or in his stead, is accounted as paid by him to the first creditor. Paul, in the fifth chapter of his epistle to the Romans, has handled this point in an excellent and divine manner: the sum of which is contained ver. 19. "as by one man's disobedience many were made [constituted] sinners; so by the obedience of one, shall many be made [constituted] righteous."

XXXI. Moreover, to set the ground of this imputation in a clearer light, we must observe that Christ, according to the eternal counsel of the Father, not only undertook all these things for the elect, and fulfilled them agreeable to his undertaking, but also, that the elect, before the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them for justification of life, are so closely united to him by faith, as to be one body, 1 Cor. 12.13. and which is still more indivisible, or indissoluble, one spirit with him, 1 Cor. 6.17. nor are they only united, but he and they are one, and that by such an unity or oneness, in which there is some faint resemblance of that most simple oneness, whereby the divine persons are one among themselves, John 17.22,23. But in virtue of this union or oneness, which the elect have with Christ by faith, they are accounted to have done and suffered whatever Christ did and suffered for them.

XXXII. Elect sinners, destitute of any righteousness of their own, that is, not having in themselves that for which they can have a right to eternal life, are by faith "found in Christ, having that righteousness which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith," Phil. 3.9. and that in this manner, namely, they are acquitted from obnoxiousness to eternal death, on account of the voluntary sufferings of Christ, which were completed by a most cruel and dreadful death. Original sin is pardoned, and the soul presented unspotted before God, on account of his most pure nativity, being conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin. Eternal life is adjudged to be communicated to them in certain degrees of it, on account of the most perfect obedience of his whole life. This is the sum of this mystery, which being comprehended in a few words, we have thought proper thus to lay before the reader's contemplation, as it were, in one view. But there are not a few things which require a fuller explication.

XXXIII. The JUDGE in this cause is God, Rom. 8.33. Isa. 43.25. For he is "that one law-giver, who is able to save and to destroy," Jam. 4.12. And as he alone has a right and power to inflict due punishment on the sinner, so likewise he alone has a right to acquit him; because he is "the judge of the whole world," Rom. 3.6.

XXXIV. What is in general said of God, essentially considered, is especially appropriated to the Father, hypostatically or personally, who is "the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus," Rom, 3.26, and "who was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them," 2 Cor. 5.19. Where the distinction made of God from Christ sufficiently shews, that God the Father is there meant. Reason also requires, that justification be especially ascribed to God the Father. For Jesus Christ, the Son of God, appears in judgment in behalf of the guilty, as Surety, as Advocate, and in fine, as furnishing them with those evident proofs, by which they may be able to demonstrate that divine justice has been satisfied for them. The Holy Ghost, by working faith in the guilty, makes them to lay hold on, and present the Surety and his satisfaction in judgment. And in this respect both stand on the side of the guilty. But the Father acts as judge, who righteously, and at the same time mercifully, absolves the guilty, on account of the satisfaction of the Son, apprehended by the power of the Holy Spirit.

XXXV. But a certain person has rashly asserted, that the Son and Holy Ghost cannot, for the reasons above mentioned, act the part of judge, and pronounce sentence. For, in, the economy of our salvation, the persons in the Trinity sustain various relations, which are to be reconciled with and not placed in opposition to each other. He who sometimes is described as Surety, is at other times represented as judge, John 5.22,27. And indeed Christ himself claims the power of forgiving sins, Mat. 9.2. And in the day of the general judgment, himself will peremptorily pronounce the justifying sentence upon the elect. Nor is it inconsistent for one and the same person to be both the meritorious cause of justification, and the advocate of the guilty, and at the same time the judge of the cause. All these relations agree in one Christ, and teach us that fullness of salvation which is to be found in him.

XXXVI. The Holy Ghost also hath his own proper parts in this matter, for it is he who brings in and seals that sentence of absolution pronounced in the court of heaven, to and upon the believing soul in the court of conscience, and so pacifies and cheers it; he shews it "the things that are freely given to it of God," 1 Cor. 2.12. and "bears witness with the spirit of believers," Rom. 8.16. that they are reconciled to God. Hence it appears, that none of the divine persons are to be excluded from pronouncing sentence.

XXXVII. That thing for which we are justified, and which some call the matter of our justification, is the perfect righteousness of Christ alone: this Christ finished for his elect, "for their sakes sanctifying himself," John 17.19. The Father imputes the same to his chosen people, as he imputed their sins to Christ: "he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," 2 Cor. 5.21. But it is impossible to explain how Christ was made sin for us, unless in that sense in which our sins are imputed to him, that he might suffer for them; and we are made righteousness in him in the same manner that his righteousness is imputed to us, that on account of it we may receive the crown. It is evident that in scripture, the righteousness of Christ is called our righteousness: for he is the Lord our righteousness, Jer. 23.6. He of God is made unto us righteousness, 1 Cor. 1.30. Now it is ours either inherently, or by imputation, for there can be no third way: it is not ours inherently; for in that sense Paul opposes it to ours, Phil. 3.9. nor does the nature of the thing admit that acts performed by Christ can inherently be ours. It therefore remains, that it is ours by imputation; God imputing to man righteousness without works, Rom. 4.6.

XXXVIII. Arminius by his subtlety, frames vain empty quibbles, when he contends that the righteousness of Christ cannot be imputed to us for righteousness, because it is his very righteousness; laying this down as a foundation, that which is imputed to us for righteousness is not properly our righteousness. Which none will admit, who has considered that every judgment of God is according to truth; whence it follows, that nothing can he imputed to any one for righteousness which is not really righteousness. But it is imputed to us, that is, put to our account, as if it was ours: for, though it was not performed by us, yet it was performed by Christ for us, and in our room. Nor in doing this, does God judge otherwise than as the thing is; for he judges not that we in our own person have fulfilled that righteousness, which is not true; but that Christ has so fulfilled it for us, as that by the merit thereof, we may justly he rewarded. This is so true, that it is the sum of the whole Gospel.

XXXIX. And whereas that righteousness of Christ is in every respect complete, and God has acknowledged, that full satisfaction was made to his law to the very utmost, when he raised Christ from the dead, and called him his righteous servant; it is not necessary that any thing to come from us should acquire either freedom from punishment or a right to life. I add, that it could not in justice be demanded of us. For as the least farthing cannot be demanded by the principal creditor after the surety has paid him in full for the debtor, it therefore appears, that they do injury, both to the satisfaction of Christ, and to the justice of God, who contend, that anything is to be done by men, that is, to be added to the merits of Christ, as the matter of our justification. For if, by the satisfaction of Christ, the demand of the law, which prescribes the condition of life, is perfectly fulfilled, nothing can, or ought to be joined thereto; that the glory may remain pure and entire to Christ alone. If there was but the least thing wanting in Christ's satisfaction, which the law required for righteousness, it would not deserve even the name of satisfaction; nor would Christ have merited any thing, either for himself or for us. For nothing is admitted in this judgment but what answers all the demands of the law.

XL. The scripture confirms this truth, when it sets the grace of Christ in diametrical opposition to our works, maintaining, that there can be no mixture of the one with the other. If righteousness comes by the law, saith the apostle, that is, if, by our works, we can acquire a right to life eternal, then Christ is dead in vain, Gal. 2.21. And more clearly, Rom. 11.6. "and if by grace, then it is 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." In order clearly to discern the force of the apostle's inference, it is to be observed, that there are but two ways by which we can come to the possession of salvation, according to the two covenants entered into between God and man. For, either one has a right to life, because he has fully satisfied the demand of the law, according to the covenant of works; and to him that thus worketh, is the reward reckoned of debt, Rom. 4.4. Or he hath a right to life, because the Surety of a better testament has made satisfaction for him, which, of pure grace and most unmerited favour, is imputed to him, who worketh not in order to acquire that right, ver. 5. according to the covenant of grace. As these covenants do, in the whole essence of them differ, and, in this respect, are contradistinguished from, and set in opposition to each others it is evident, they conjoin inconsistencies, who would join together our works with the grace of God, our righteousness with the righteousness of Christ, in the matter of justification.

XLI. And indeed the apostle expressly declares that there is nothing in us that can here come into the account, Rom. 3.24. justified freely by his grace. In respect of God it is of pure grace, which, as we just said, admits of no partnership with our works. In respect of us, it is freely, without any thing in us as the cause of it. For the adverb dwrean freely, signifies this: not so much hinting here that justification is a free gift, as the apostle calls it, Rom. 5.16. (for that the following words denote, th autw cariti by his grace,) as that there is nothing in us, by which to obtain it. The Greek word dwrean, freely, answers to the Hebrew snj, that is, without a cause, which, in that case is found to be false and feigned; as Psalm 69.4. they that hate me without a cause, which is the same thing as my lying enemies. The former is translated by the Septuagint, or Greek interpreters, miswnteV me dwrean. Just as John 15.25. emishsan me dwrean, they hated me without a cause. In like manner, Psalm 35.7. dwrean, without a cause have they hid for me their net into a pit. Where dwresn does not signify any donation or gift, but the absolute denial of any cause which could render a man deserving of such treatment. When the apostle therefore says, we are justified dwresn, freely, he teaches us that there is nothing in us, upon which to found the gracious sentence of our justification, or, for which we can be justified. Excellently well, says the Greek scholiast, dwrean twtezin aneu swn katorqwmatwn, freely, that is, without any merit in thee.

XLII. And this reason may be added, that nothing can avail in the business of justification but what is entirely perfect, and can answer the law of God in all things. For in justification there is a declaration of the righteousness of God, Rom. 3.25,26. But that requires the righteousness of the law to be fulfilled, Rom. 8.4. The righteousness of the law cannot be fulfilled, but by a perfect obedience. Chrysostom speaks finely on this place, "what is righteousness? It is the end, the scope, the righteous action. For, what does the law want, what does it always command. To be without sin." But no person pretends to this, but the presumptuous and the liar, 1 John 1.8. We therefore conclude, that a sinner cannot be justified by any act of his own.

XLIII. The Form of justification consists in these two acts. 1st. The discharging of unrighteousness. 2dly, The adjudging of righteousness.

XLIV. Unrighteousness or sin, has a double power over the sinner. 1st. A power of condemnation. 2dly. A power of dominion. The law defends both these powers: the former, by declaring him who sins to be guilty of death, Rom. 1.32. The other, by giving up the conquered, by a just sentence, to the conqueror, 2 Pet. 2.19. Wherefore it is said that the law is the strength off sin, 1 Cor. 15.56. Because sin has its power from the law, which pronounces the sinner accursed, and the servant of corruption. Nay, the most holy law of God itself, is called by Paul the law of sin and of death, Rom. 8.2. Not as if it allowed of any sin, much less commanded it; but because by its righteous sentence it gives up the sinner and his children to sin, that it may tyrannize over them as unworthy of the life of God both in holiness and glory. Now sin does this both by pushing the sinner on to further degrees of wickedness, and by hastening and aggravating his condemnation. Who can doubt but all these things are justly determined by God against the sinner? Why should not then this sentence, which is founded on the law of the covenant of works, be called a law? And seeing sin exercises, according to this law, a dominion over the sinner, and condemns him to death, very appositely and emphatically has Paul called it the law of sin and death. Sin therefore, in the judgment of God, insists upon two things against the sinner, that it may condemn him, and for ever have dominion over him; and alleges for itself the righteous law of God. And indeed the law, as long as satisfaction is not made to it, cannot, in this action, or process, condemn sin, that is, silence or extenuate its accusation, lay aside its claim, and pronounce it partial or unjust.

XLV. But now the satisfaction of Christ being substituted and apprehended by faith, by which the whole righteousness of the law is fulfilled, the man is then justified, and sin condemned, both its claims being rejected. God declares, (1st.) That there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, that all their sins are pardoned, and that none of them shall avail to condemnation; because the Surety has, in the fullest manner, undergone the punishment due to them. And in that respect, forgiveness of sin is called justification, Rom. 4.6,7. (2dly.) That sin shall no longer reign in their mortal body; for since Christ did also, of his own accord, subject himself to those laws which were the hand writing of sin; they are no longer under the law of sin, but under grace, Rom. 6.14. This justifying sentence of man, and condemning sentence of sin, are founded on the same law of God, which, if the satisfaction of Christ be set aside, is the law of sin and death; but if that satisfaction be supposed, it is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus delivering man with a liberal hand. For after Christ has once obeyed in the likeness of sinful flesh for the elect, God declares, that every thing was done which sin could possibly demand, according to the law, and pronounces a sentence of liberty from sin to those who by faith receive this grace of the Lord Christ, both with respect to its condemning and domineering power, as the apostle divinely illustrates, Rom. 8.1-3.

XLVI. This deliverance from the guilt and dominion of sin has, indeed, an indissoluble connection with happiness; therefore they, whose iniquities are forgiven, are declared blessed, Rom. 4.7. nevertheless this alone is not sufficient to happiness. For he who now is set free from sin, has not immediately a right to life: as is manifest in Adam while innocent, who, as long as he continued such, had no condemnation to fear, nevertheless had not yet acquired a right to eternal life. It is therefore necessary, that that right be also adjudged to man in justification. Which God does on account of a perfect obedience, agreeably to that promise of the law, the man that doth these things shall live in them, Lev. 18.5. But what Christ has done for his people, they are accounted, as we have already often said, to have done in their own person. And in this manner, "grace reigneth through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord," Rom. 5.21.

XLVII. The Mean by which we receive the righteousness of Christ, and justification depending thereon, is faith, and that only. For, if there was any thing besides faith, it would be our own works, proceeding from the other Christian virtues. But Paul will have them entirely excluded, Gal. 2.16 "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," Rom. 3.28. "therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." All the Christian virtues or graces are contained in these two, faith and love, which comprehend every affection of a pious soul. It is the property of love to giveup, and offer oneself and all he has to God: of faith to receive and accept of God freely giving himself to us. And therefore faith alone is adapted to receive and appropriate the righteousness of Christ, on account of which we are justified. And this is a truth so certain and clear, that not a few of the doctors of the school of Rome, and they the principal and of greatest reputation among them, have acknowledged it, from the very same passages of scripture which we have advanced. Titelmannus in his paraphrase on Gal. 2. says, "we then firmly believe, that none can be justified before God by the works of the law, but only by faith in Christ." Estius in like manner: "It is evident, that the particle but is in scripture often taken adversatively, to denote but only;" adding, that all the interpreters, both Greek and Latin, agree in this interpretation, and that it is gathered from what follows, and from Rom. 3.28. Sasbout is also express to the same purpose, who maintains, that Paul's expression is an Hebraism, and that, according to the Hebrews, the negative particle not is to be repeated from what went before. "A man is not justified by works, not but by faith." And he adds: "if you ask, whether it may be rightly concluded from that proposition, a man is not justified but by faith, therefore we are justified by faith alone? We are to say, it may." A little after he adds; "in this our day, the Catholic writers can, on no account, bear that proposition, imagining that there is poison concealed in that particle only, and therefore to be disused, Yet the ancients had no such aversion to that particle, nor Thomas Aquinas: if any, says he, were righteous under the old law, they were not righteous by the works of the law, but only by the faith of Jesus Christ. Paul's true meaning is, not unless by faith, that is, by no merits of our own." Thus Sasbout on Gal. 2.16.

XLVIII. But we are farther to enquire, how faith justifies. Not certainly in that sense, as if God graciously accepts the act of faith, and new gospel obedience flowing therefrom in the room of the perfect obedience, which, from the rigour of the law, we are bound to perform in order to justification: as the Socinians, and Curcellæus, who imitates them in this respect, explain it; understanding by faith the observance of the precepts of the Gospel, which God has prescribed by Christ. For this is to make void the whole Gospel. The Gospel has not substituted our faith, but Christ's obedience, by which the righteousness of the law is fulfilled, in the room of that perfect obedience, which the law required in order to justification. It is also false, that faith and new obedience are one and the same thing. I own that faith is a virtue or grace, commanded by the law of God, and that a believer, by his very believing, obeys God. I likewise confess, that we are to look upon nothing as a true and living faith, which is not fruitful in good works. But yet faith is one thing, and the obedience flowing from it quite another, especially in the matter of justification, of which we now speak, where Paul always contradistinguishes the obedience of all manner of works to faith. For it is a rash attempt to confine to a certain species or kind of works what the apostle says concerning them all in general. The force of truth extorted from Schlichtingius this assertion: "faith, in its strict and proper signification, bears the same relation to obedience as the cause to the effect, as the tree to the fruit, as the mother to the daughter," contra Meisnerum, p. 325. In fine, neither the truth nor the justice of God allow our faith and our obedience, which are imperfect, to be admitted as perfect. For, it is the will of God, that the righteousness of the law be fulfilled in our justification, and not that any thing be derogated from it, as we proved §XLII.

XLIX. Others think proper to say, that faith is here considered as a condition which the covenant of grace requires of us, in order to our justification. A certain learned divine of ours, in a volume of disputations lately published, speaks thus: "Nothing can be said with greater probability, simplicity, and more agreeable to scripture, than that justification is therefore ascribed to faith, because faith is the condition which the gospel requires of us in order to our being accounted righteous and innocent before God." And a little after; "yea, since we affirm that faith alone justifies, we do not intend, that the alone act of believing, taken precisely, as it is opposed to acts of love and hope, and distinguished from repentance, is the condition which the new covenant or the gospel requires, in order to obtain remission of sin, and be absolved from them on account of Christ. For, the hope of pardon, and love to God, sorrow also for sin, and purpose of a new life; in a word, all the acts, requisite to a genuine and serious conversion, are also somewhat necessary, and altogether prerequisite, in order for any to be received into the favour of God, and from thence forward to be accounted a justified person, yea, that a living faith that works by love, which we affirm alone to justify, includes and implies all these things." And the learned person imagines these are such truths, as the doctors both of the Romish and reformed schools receive with common consent. He also adds: "As often as the apostle affirms, that we are not justified by works, but by faith, he intends nothing else, but that none can, on any account, be justified by such observance of the law, as the legal covenant requires, in order to obtain life thereby, and escape the curse of God; but that God accounts as righteous, and out of mere grace, freely forgives all the sins of those, who with sincerity receive the gospel, and from faith perform obedience thereto." These things justly call for our animadversion.

L. 1st. With this very learned person's leave, I doubt whether he can persuade any who is not altogether unskilled in theological matters, that what he has proposed is the received opinion of the reformed school. I find nothing of this in their confessions and catechisms; but there is a great deal which does not differ much from the words of the learned person, in the writings of those, whose unhappy names and heretical principles, I from my very heart believe are detestable to him.

LI. 2dly. When the discourse is about the relation which faith bears to justification, the learned person does not seem with sufficient caution to repeat so often the act of believing. For it is well known that the reformed churches condemned Arminius and his followers, for saying, that faith comes to be considered in the matter of justification as a work or act of ours: whereas the Dutch confession speaks far more accurately; namely, that faith is here instead of an instrument, whereby we are joined together with Christ in a partnership or communion of all his benefits. I am well aware, that this is not very agreeable to the learned person, who maintains, that faith can be said to be the instrument of justification no other way but as it is a kind of condition, prerequisite on our part thereto. But when the Remonstrant apologists, in order to be relieved from that troublesome expression of our confessions, by their softening interpretations wrote, that faith is therefore said to be the instrument of justification, "as it is a work performed by us according to the command, and by the grace of God. For, a condition, so far as it is performed, may in some measure be said to become a mean or instrument, whereby we obtain the thing promised on such a condition," Apolog. p. 112.a. The Reformed protested, that they were displeased with this explication. They deny not, that our master, Christ himself says, John 6.29. that faith is a work: neither do they refuse that in the matter of justification, the apprehending and receiving Christ is an act of faith: and that faith ought to be so far considered as active. Yet they deny, that faith justifies as it is an act prescribed by God (for thus it would stand in the same relation with the other works enjoined by the law) but they affirm, that we are justified by that act, as by it we apprehend Christ, are united to him, and embrace his righteousness. Which they usually explain by this similitude; a beggar's stretching forth his hand, by which, at the command of a rich man, he receives the free gift of his charity, is the act of the beggar prescribed by the rich; but it does not enrich the beggar, as it is an act, but as by this means he applies the gift to himself, and appropriates, or makes it his own. These things are too evident to be obscured by any quibbles or subtleties whatever.

LII. 3dly. Nor do I think it an accurate way of speaking, that faith is the condition, which the gospel requireth of us in order to be accounted righteous and without guilt before God. The condition of justification, properly speaking, is perfect obedience only: this the law requires; nor does the gospel substitute any other: but declares that satisfaction has been made to the law by Christ our Surety; moreover, that it is the office of faith to accept that satisfaction offered to it, and by accepting appropriate the same. Which is quite a different thing from saying (as the Socinians and Remonstrants do, and which I know not whether the learned person would choose to say), that in the room of perfect obedience, which the law prescribed as the condition of justification, the gospel now requireth faith, as the condition of the same justification. Though some of the Reformed have said, that faith is a condition, sine qua non, without which we cannot be justified: yet they were far from being of opinion, that faith is a condition properly so called, on performing which, man should, according to the gracious covenant of God, have a right to justification as to a reward. This is very far from the mind of the truly reformed. See what the celebrated Triglandius has fully, solidly, and perspicuously reasoned against the subtle trifling of the Remonstrants in Examine Apologiæ, c. 20,21. and Isaac Junius in Antapologia, p. 236.

LIII. 4thly. Neither is it according to the mind of the reformed church, that the acts of hope and love, nay, all those which are required to a true and serious conversion, are included in justifying faith as justifying, and concur with faith, strictly so called, to justification. When the Remonstrants said in their confession, that "faith contains in its compass the whole of a man's conversion prescribed by the gospel: nay, the prescript of faith can here be considered in no other light, than as, by its natural propriety, it includes the obedience of faith, and is as a fruitful parent of good works, and the fountain and source of all Christian piety and holiness," c. 10. § 2,3. The Leyden professors in their censure remarked, "that the adversaries, who write in this manner, and throw off the mask, ascribe to faith the Socinian-Popish faith of justification, which Peter Bertius, a principal asserter of this, found to be the way to popery." And this assertion of theirs they make out by solid arguments. And when the Remonstrant apologist, foolishly said, that this his opinion differed not from the common doctrine of the reformed churches, the venerable Triglandius replied, that "it was clearer than noon day, that this was too barefaced an assertion." The whole comes to this, that no faith justifies, but that which is living and fruitful in good works; that acts of love and holiness are required, as fruits of faith, as testimonies of Christ dwelling in us, as marks of our regeneration, as what go before salvation, and without which there can be no full assurance of it. But that those acts of love, holiness, and conversion, concur with faith to justification, and are included in justifying faith, as such, is a strange way of speaking to reformed ears, nor agreeable to scripture, which always, in the matter of justification, sets faith in opposition to all works whatever.

LIV. 5thly. Some time ago I read in Socinus, before the sentiments of this celebrated person came to hand, the same exception which he makes, that, by the works which Paul excludes from justification, is understood the perfect observance of the law, such as the legal covenant requires. For thus he says de servat. P. 4. c. 11. "the works to which faith is opposed are not every kind of works, nor taken and considered in every light, but, as we have observed elsewhere, these works denote an absolute and perpetual observance and performance of the divine law, through the whole course of life." But our divines openly declared against this exposition; who contend that all works, however considered, are opposed to faith. The apostle's words are plain, he that worketh not, but believeth, and his mind or intention, as Lubbertus has learnedly observed, is to be considered from the state of the controversy, then in debate. But the state of the controversy was not, whether a man could be justified by a perfect observance of the law, if there was any one who could keep it perfectly? Which none in his senses will deny: or whether there are many, who, since Adam's first sin, have, for the whole of their life, done nothing amiss, but have attained to every perfection both of parts, degrees and perseverance? Which none in his right mind will affirm. But the matter in question was, whether the Jews could be justified by that observance of the law which they were able to perform. They certainly thought that they could be justified if they only observed the moral law to the utmost of their power, and gave these satisfactions for their failings which the ceremonial law had prescribed. But the apostle denies this, resting his argument on that maxim, that the righteousness which can be valid at God's tribunal, must be perfect in all its parts: but since none can pretend to any such works, he concludes, that no works, of what kind soever, can contribute any thing to obtain justification. The apostle, doubtless, excludes those works in which they commonly trusted, who endeavoured to establish their own righteousness. But it is not credible, that any of them could say, that he kept himself pure, through the whole course of his life from every even the least stain of sin. These things are evident.

LV. But I would not have it wrested to the worst sense, in that I have in some things compared the opinion of this celebrated person with that of Socinus and the Remonstrants. It was not with the view to rank a man, in other respects orthodox, and usefully employed in the service of the church of God, with those perverters of our faith. This of all things is farthest from my mind and manner: but my design was only to warn those under my care, and who may reap benefit by the very learned labours of this person, with considerable increase of knowledge, against these and the like expressions; in which, through a disgust for controversy, and a too eager desire of laying disputes aside, he seems to yield rather too much to our adversaries. Peace indeed is to be pursued, but by no means at the expense of truth.

LVI. The genuine opinion of the reformed is this: that faith justifies, as it is the bond of our strictest union with Christ, by which all things that are Christ's become also ours, as we explained §XXXI. Or, which is the same thing, as it is the acceptance of the gift offered, rendering the donation firm and irrevocable. And this is what the apostle intended when he wrote Rom. 4.5. that faith is counted for righteousness, that is, faith is judged to be that with which the right of demanding the reward is connected; a way of speaking borrowed from merchants, thus in the book of God's accompts is set down what he hath given to us, and what we are indebted to him. But when in the other page, our complete obedience, and the payment of the debt could not be inserted, what then is written there, viz. to balance the account? In the first place, our righteousness or the righteousness of Christ wrought out for us: then our faith3 by which we receive that righteousness offered to us, and present it to God as ours.

LVII. It is, moreover, to be observed, that justification, if we take in whatever can be comprised under that name, consists of various articles,4 or periods, which we will describe in the most pointed manner we can. And first, God's sentence of absolution regards either all the elect in general collected into one mystical body; or relates to each in particular. I observe two articles with respect to that general sentence: the first of which commenced immediately upon the fall; when Christ, having entered into suretiship engagements for elect sinners, obtained by his covenant, which the Father was assured he would most faithfully perform, that Satan should be condemned in the serpent, his right over man, which he acquired by wicked arts, be made void as to the elect: and the elect, on the other hand, who are comprehended under the seed of the woman, be declared, in Christ their head, no longer friends or subjects, but enemies and conquerors of the devil. For, all these things are contained in the first gospel promise; which presupposes that suretiship of Christ, whereby he took upon himself all the sins of the elect, and on account of which God declared, he never intended to exact them from any of his chosen; because, on admitting a Surety, the principal debtor is freed from all obligation to make satisfaction. And this is the first effect of Christ's suretiship, the declaration of that counsel of God, by which he had purposed to justify the ungodly; and not to impute sin to those who are inserted as heirs in the testament.

LVIII. The other article of this general justification relates to the time in which God declared that full satisfaction was made to his justice by a dying Christ. Of which Paul treats 2 Cor. 5.19. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. He, together and at once reconciled to himself the whole world of his elect; and declared that he would not impute their trespasses to any of them, on account of the perfect satisfaction of Christ. For, when he raised Christ from the dead, he gave him a discharge, in testimony that the payment was made; and when he rent the vail of the temple, he also tore the hand writing consisting in ordinances, which, till that time, loudly proclaimed that payment was not yet made. But who can doubt, that a creditor, tearing the hand writing or bond, and giving a discharge to the Surety, declares, he will not, and even in law cannot, demand any satisfaction of the principal debtor?

LIX. But justification is not confined to these bounds. Besides that general declaration of God, there is also another, applied to every believer in particular. And this again has its distinct articles. The first is, when the elect person, who is redeemed, regenerated and united to Christ by a living faith, is declared to have now actually passed from a state of condemnation and wrath, to a state of grace or favour. For, the elect sinner, though redeemed by Christ, and so far reconciled to God, as that he declares, he is never actually to be condemned; yet that right, purchased by Christ, is not applied to him till he is regenerated and united to Christ by faith. Till then he is in "the present evil world," Gal. 1.4; "alienated and an enemy, and under the power of darkness," Col. 1.13,21. But immediately, on his receiving Christ by faith, God declares in the court of heaven, that he is no longer under wrath, but under grace; though perhaps the justified person may yet be ignorant of it. And in this sense God is said to justify the ungodly, Rom. 4.5; him who is so in himself, and actually continues such till he is born again, when that faith is freely bestowed on him for which he is immediately justified.

LX. The second article is, when that sentence of God, which was pronounced in the court of heaven, is intimated and insinuated to the conscience by the Holy Spirit; so that the believer knows, feels, and experiences, that his sins are forgiven. To this David has an eye, Psalm 32.5. "and thou hast taken away, or thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin," that is, thou madest me to know and experience this, by speaking to my heart.

LXI. The third article is, when the sinner, being actively and passively justified, is admitted to familiar converse with God, and to the mutual participation of the most delightful friendship. For it may happen, that God may have removed the tokens of his anger from the elect sinner, and given him assurance of it, and yet not directly admit him to an intercourse of familiarity. In the same manner almost, as David had forgiven Absalom's parricide, and declared it by Joab, by ordering his return from Geshur to Jerusalem; yet he did not immediately admit him to court, much less to his presence chamber, and least of all to the kisses of his mouth, 2 Sam. 14. David himself is an example of this. Nathan had told him, in the name of God, "the Lord hath put away thy sin," 2 Sam. 13.13. and yet, for some time, he was racked with grievous sorrows, crying out from the bottom of a contrite heart, and a sense of broken bones; "have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness; according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions," Psalm 51.1. That is, as he explains it, ver. 12. "restore unto me the joy of thy salvation." This near and intimate access to God, as the author of his most joyful exultation, is the real declaration of his justification. And it is to be observed, that such a declaration is often repeated. For instance, when a believer happens to fall into some grievous sin, or into a languid and drowsy frame of soul, then his familiarity with God is not a little interrupted; but after he is roused out of that sin, or from that drowsy frame by the preventing grace of God, and has been sufficiently exercised with the stings of conscience, then God applies that general sentence of the pardon of all his sins, which was pronounced immediately upon his regeneration, to this particular act, or state, and suffers himself to be prevailed on at length to renew this most delightful friendship.

LXII. The fourth article is immediately after death; when God assigns to the soul, on its departure from the body, an eternal mansion in his own blessed habitation, Heb. 9.27. "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."

LXIII. The fifth and last article is at the last day, which is therefore called the day of judgment, Matt. 12.36. when the elect shall be publicly justified, and, in the view of the whole world, declared heirs of eternal life. Which justification indeed, may be called universal, as all those, who are to be justified, shall appear together before God's tribunal, nevertheless it will be most particular, as every one shall be recompensed according to his works; "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad," 2 Cor. 5.10.

LXIV. Let us briefly explain the whole manner of this justification in the next world. Christ, the judge, being delegated to that office by the Father, Acts 10.42. Acts 17,32. will pronounce two things concerning his elect. (1st.) That they are truly pious, righteous and holy. And so far this justification will differ from the former; for by that the ungodly is justified, Rom. 4.5. Whereas here, God, when he enjoins his angels to summon one of the parties to be judged, says, "gather my saints together," Psalm 50.5. if, as many suppose, these words refer to the last judgment. See Matt. 13.40,41,43.49. (2dly.) That they have a right to eternal life, Matt. 20.35.

LXV. The ground of the former declaration is inherent righteousness, graciously communicated to man by the Spirit of sanctification, and good works proceeding therefrom. For on no other account can any person be declared pious and holy, but because he is endowed with habitual holiness, and gives himself to the practice of godliness, Matt. 12.37. "by thy words thou shalt be justified," that is, be declared just or righteous, because words are indications of the mind, and signs either of the good or bad treasure of the heart; "when the Lord will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the heart; and then shall every man have praise of God," 1 Cor. 4.5.

LXVI. The foundation of the latter can be no other than the righteousness of Christ the Lord, communicated to them according to the free decree of election, which is succeeded by adoption, which gives them a right to take possession of the inheritance. The very sentence of the Judge himself leads us to this: come, ye blessed of my Father, whom, on my account, he freely loved (for, in Christ all the nations of the earth are blessed, Gen. 22.18. Eph. 1.3.), inherit, possess by hereditary right, as the adopted sons of God, who, because ye are sons, are also heirs, Rom. 8.17. "the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;" ordained for you from eternity, whose palace was fitted up in the beginning for that purpose, by the hands of God the Creator.

LXVII. Mean while, in this respect too, there will be room for mentioning good works, for they shall be produced, (1st.) As proofs of faith, of the union of believers with Christ, of their adoption, and of that holiness, without which none can see God, and of friendship with God, and brotherhood with Christ. (2dly.) As signs of that sacred hunger and thirst, with which they desired happiness, and of that strenuous endeavour, by which, not regarding the advantages of this life, and despising carnal pleasures, they had sought the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness; and it is inconsistent with the perfection of the infinitely holy God, to disappoint this hunger and thirst, and seeking after his kingdom. (3dly.) As effects of divine grace, to which, the communication of divine glory will answer, in the most wise proportion, when it shall come to crown his own gifts. For the more abundant measure of sanctification any one has obtained in this life, and the more he has gained by the talent entrusted to him, it is also credible, that the portion of glory will be the more exuberant, which the divine bounty hath appointed for him. And in this sense, we imagine, it is so often said in scripture, that every one shall be recompensed according to his works, not that these works are, on any account, the cause of any right they will have, to claim the reward; but as they are evidences of our adoption and of our seeking the chief good, and as they shew that proportion of grace, according to which the proportion of future glory will be dispensed.

LXVIII. In this judgment, therefore, there will also be grace mixed with justice. Justice will appear because none will be admitted to the possession of the kingdom of heaven, but he who can shew by undoubted evidences, that he is a partaker of Christ and his righteousness. Grace also will appear, because eternal happiness will be adjudged to him, who has done nothing to acquire a right to it; because works, stained with so many infirmities, as justly make believers themselves blush, will then be celebrated with so great an encomium by the Judge. And indeed the apostle does in express words make mention of the mercy that will be shewn on that day, 2 Tim. 1.18. "the Lord grant unto him, that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day." It is certainly true, that by mercy is there understood the reward of that mercy which Onesiphorus had shewn to Paul: but the reward of our mercy is not reckoned of debt, but of grace, Rom. 4.4. And as it is not merited on the part of him who receives it, so neither is it due from him who bestows it. For what doth God owe to man, but what he hath made himself a debtor to man by his gracious promises; or rather was willing to owe to his own goodness and truth, that man might expect from him a retribution for his holiness? Which debt is not opposed to, but supposes grace; it is to be derived from the "alone gracious will and truth of God the Father, who hath promised an unmerited reward to the labour of obedience which is the duty of all, and will have this to be only due on account of his promise." As becomes a reformed teacher to speak who returns to his sound mind.

LXIX. Whence it appears, that they do not speak right, who affirm, that in the last justification mere justice will take place without any mixture of grace. It is said indeed, Heb. 6.10. God is not unrighteous to forget your work, &c. But that the reward of our works is of mere justice, without any mixture of grace, is language which sounds harsh in reformed ears, and is diametrically repugnant to our catechism, quest. 63.5 Ludovicus de Dieu, on Luke 1.2,57. and on Luke 16.19. and on Rom. 3.4. has proved at large, that in the Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic languages, justice and truth denote one and the same notion, and generally are put one for the other. Thus hqrx, justice, or righteousness, when affirmed of God, in many places denotes his truth. But also tma truth, is translated by the Septuagint, dicaiosunh, justice, or righteousness, Gen. 24.49. Isa. 38.19. And Grævius has proved, that the same phraseology obtained among the ancient Greeks, in his Lectiones Hesiod. And what is more suitable than by the mammon of unrighteousness, Luke 16.9. to understand not the true riches, such as the spiritual and heavenly are, for ver. 11. the unrighteous mammon is opposed to the true riches. Is not that signification of the word clear from 1 John 1.9. "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins:" that is, faithful and true? For, who will say that God owes the pardon of sins in justice, without any mixture of grace, to him that confesseth them? So also in the place just quoted; God is not unrighteous, that is, deceives not in his gracious promises by which he has adjudged a reward of grace, to our labours of love. The celebrated Iac. Altingius gives us an excellent commentary on this place as follows: "the obligation to the reward depends on the truth of the promiser, who is a debtor to himself, that what he was once pleased, in the promise, to determine the consequence of the work and reward, might always please him in the performance: thus the just and righteous God forgives the sins of the penitent, 1 John 1.9. is the justifier of him that believeth," Rom. 3.26. And a little after: "every consideration of merit therefore is at an end: but a debt remains, which justice will have discharged in respect of what God has promised; who, on account of his truth, which is without repentance, or unchangeable, is debtor to himself to perform his promises, Rom. 3.3,4. Deut. 7.9. This is the justice meant in this place, and God is denied to be unrighteous to forget good works; though he has decreed and promised, out of mere grace and mercy, that recompence:" all this is judicious, solid, and orthodox.

LXX. This manifestation of mere justice is not more strongly concluded from that day being called the day of the righteous judgment, Rom. 2.5. For, (1st.) It is there called the day of wrath. And yet wrath will not he exercised only, without a manifestation of mercy. (2dly.) Even in the justification of a sinner, in this world, there is a declaration of the righteousness of God, Rom. 3.25; where notwithstanding, as Paul expressly affirms ver. 24. and all own, grace has the principal place: so also here grace reigneth through righteousness unto eternal life, Rom. 5.21. (3dly.) As God will justly inflict punishments on the impenitent, so in like manner, agreeably to his justice, he will distribute rewards, and shew grace to the godly, as we explained §LXVIII. Justice and grace are here not to be opposed but joined together.

LXXI. What is asserted Rom. 2.11. viz. that with God there is no respect of persons, is still less sufficient to confirm this opinion. For because God does all things without respect of persons, does it follow that he exercises no grace? When Peter took notice of the piety and faith of Cornelius, and said, Of a truth I perceive, that God is no respecter of persons, Acts 10.34. did he ever intend by these words to deny that grace was shewn to Cornelius? A non-respect of persons excludes, indeed, injustice, and the consideration of these things which ought to have no place in judgment; but it no ways excludes grace and mercy. These things have been so often confuted that there is no occasion to consider them again.

LXXII. It is a new opinion, and an extraordinary postulatum, to say, that the works of those who are to be justified, and according to which they shall be judged, will be "perfect, yea most perfect, that nothing may derogate from the righteousness of the judgment of that day." It is a certain truth, that the persons then to be justified, will be perfect: (1st.) In Christ, on account of his most perfect righteousness imputed to them, Col. 2.10. (2dly.) In themselves, being then perfectly sanctified: For they who died before that time are called just men made perfect, Heb. 12.23; and they who shall at that day be alive shall be changed, 1 Cor. 15.51,52. and doubtless obtain perfect holiness by that change which the others obtained at death. But that the works which they performed in this life, can then be said to be most perfect, is neither consonant with scripture nor reason.

LXXIII. The scripture declares, that the works which were done by believers in this life, were not without blemish; because they who performed them had the old man still remaining, who mixed and tainted them with some corruption of his own, Rom. 7.22-24. Gal. 5.15: This is without dispute. But the scripture no where says, that these works shall appear otherwise at the last judgment, than they did in this life; nay, it asserts the contrary, when it testifies, that every one shall be judged according to that he hath done in his body, 2 Cor. 5.10; but it is certain that the things done in the body were imperfect. It is also contrary to reason, to say that actions which were imperfect while they were performing, and actually existing, should be declared to be perfect when they were no more; and perfect not only in the estimation of God the Judge, but also by, I know not what, sanctification, really perfecting them when they had no further existence. No doubt habits which are holy when first infused, are perfected by a further sanctification; but that actions which were imperfect while they existed, should become perfect, after they have ceased to be, is inconceivable.

LXXIV. Seeing what we are taught in scripture concerning the perfection of believers by a progressive sanctification and the death of the body, regards their persons, about the perfection, of which, there is no dispute, it is erroneous to apply it to their antecedent works. That God refines those works like gold, purging away all their tin and dross, so as to be altogether pure in his eyes, is an unscriptural fancy. The passages, Isa 1.25. Zech 13.9. Mal. 3.3. do not treat of works but of persons, nor speak of their absolute perfection, nor have a reference to the day of the last judgment, but relate to the condition of the present life, as will plainly appear to any who will peruse them; and can therefore with no probability be wrested to this sense.

LXXV. Indeed the good works of those who die in the Lord are said to follow them, Rev. 14.13. but they are such as they were performed here; and they follow, not in themselves, but in their fruits and effects; in so far as God, in regard of their good works, does good to the pious even after death. For this end it is not requisite that they be perfect; it is sufficient that they be performed in faith, and by the Spirit of Christ. I do not remember that the scripture says, that good works shall rise with them. They who speak thus, mean no more, at least they ought to mean no more by that phrase, but that in the resurrection of the just, the pious shall rejoice in the gratuitous reward of their holiness. It is said indeed that he, who hath begun a good work in believers, "will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ," Phil. 1.6. But by a good work is there meant the communication of the grace of Christ revealed in the gospel, as appears from ver. 5. which God perfects in certain degrees, till the finishing hand is put to it at the last day. There is nothing in that passage relating to the perfection of our actions, which are already over and gone.

LXXVI. In the last place, if good works are there to appear perfect, there can be no reason why they should not be meritorious. For that is certainly meritorious which satisfies every demand of the law; if merit is to be ascribed to such a work, which when a man does, he is to live therein, according to the law of the covenant of works. It is not required to meritorious works, in the sense now in debate, that they are not due and properly our own, that is, that they are done in our own strength without the grace of God. For the Papists themselves readily acknowledge, that there are no such meritorious works. But by those meritorious works, which are the present subject of dispute, are understood such actions, on performing which one has a right to life. But the only or at least the principal reason, why our works are not meritorious, is what the catechism assigns,6 because they are imperfect and stained with sin.

LXXVII. Nor will the righteousness of the judgment of that day be in the least diminished, though the works of believers, by which they shall be judged, are imperfect. For, they will not be mentioned as the causes of their right to claim the reward, to which perfection is requisite; but as effects and signs of grace, and of union with Christ, and of a living faith, and of justification by faith, and of a right to life: for which their unfeigned sincerity is sufficient. We therefore conclude, that the justification in the next world is not to be so very much distinguished from the justification in this world.

LXXVIII. As this doctrine of free justification, on account of the righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith alone, is founded on clear testimonies of scripture; so it proves itself to every pious conscience, by its most excellent uses and fruits.

LXXIX. 1st. It tends much to display the glory of God, whose most exalted perfections shine forth with an eminent lustre in this matter. It sets forth the infinite goodness of God, by which he was inclined to procure salvation freely for lost and miserable man, "to the praise of the glory of his grace," Eph. 1.6. It displays also the strictest justice, by which he would not forgive even the smallest offence, but on condition of the sufficient engagement, or full satisfaction of the Mediator, "that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus," Rom. 3.26. It shews further the unsearchable wisdom of the Deity, which found out a way, for the exercise of the most gracious act of mercy, without injury to his strictest justice and infallible truth, which threatened death to the sinner: justice demanded that the soul that sinned should die, Rom. 1.32. Truth had pronounced, "cursed is he that continueth not in all things," Deut. 28.26. Goodness, in the mean time, was inclined to adjudge life to some sinners, but by no other way than what became the majesty of the most holy God. Here wisdom interposed, saying, "I will fully satisfy my goodness, and say to mine elect, I, even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, Isa. 43.25. Nor shall you, my justice and my truth, have any cause of complaint, because full satisfaction shall be made to you by a mediator." Hence the incredible philanthropy of the Lord Jesus shineth forth, who, though Lord of all, was made subject to the law, not to the obedience of it only, but also to the curse; "made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," 2 Cor. 5.21.

LXXX. Ought not the pious soul, who is deeply engaged in the devout meditation of these things, to break out into the praises of a justifying God, and sing with the church, Mic. 7.17. "who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by transgression!" "O! the purity of that holiness, which chose rather to punish the sins of the elect in his only begotten Son, than suffer them to go unpunished! O! the abyss of his love to the world, for which he spared not his dearest Son, in order to spare sinners! O! the depth of the riches of unsearchable wisdom, by which he exercises mercy towards the penitent guilty, without any stain to the honour of the most impartial Judge! O! the treasures of love in Christ, whereby he became a curse for us, in order to deliver us therefrom." How becoming the justified soul, who is ready to dissolve in the sense of this love, with full exultation to sing a new song, a song of mutual return of love to a justifying God?

LXXXI. 2dly. This doctrine is likewise calculated for the humility of the sinner, from whom it cuts off all boasting, that the glory may remain unstained to God alone. "What hast thou, O man, to boast of? What, wherewith thou canst stand before the tribunal of God? Good works? But all thy righteousnesses are as filthy rags, Isa. 64.6. If thou leanest on them, they are, Pope Adrian VI. himself being Judge, like the staff of a reed which shall break, and pierce thy leaning hand. Perhaps thou wilt boast of thy faith, as if by the excellency of that thou canst please God. But even that is like a shaken and shattered reed, to which thou canst not safely trust; and whatever it be, it is the gift of God, Phil. 1.29. Thou hast received; why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received? 1 Cor. 4.7. Thou hast nothing of thine own to present to God. Indeed thou hast a great deal of thine own, but it is either sin, or at least what is stained with sin; for which if thou hast deserved any thing, it is only hell, or that which is worse than hell, if any such thing can be. And canst thou, O most wretched creature, boast of any such vanity!" Rom. 3.27.

LXXXII. 3dly. It conduces above all to the consolation of the afflicted soul, bewailing his sins with godly sorrow; whom we may address in this manner, from the very genius, or nature of this doctrine. "Indeed, thy sins are both more numerous and greater, than thou canst either conceive or express: but behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world. Every thing in thee is infected with much sin: but thanks be to God, the cause of thy justification is not to be sought for in thee: we are justified freely by his grace. Thou hast to do with a most righteous judge, who will not clear the guilty: but behold Jesus the Surety, who, by a full expiation, has brought it to pass, that he can justify the ungodly, without any violation of his justice. Having such a leader and guardian, approach without fear to this judge, being assured, that Jesus thy patron or powerful friend will so plead thy cause, that thou shalt not be cast. Canst thou not yet venture? What should hinder? Do thy sins, thy nakedness and thy pollution affright thee? But take shelter behind Christ, hide thyself in his wounds, wrap thyself in his death and blood, receive, with the hand of faith, the offered fine linen, the righteousness of the saints. Is thy faith itself so weak that thou art ashamed and grieved? But again thanks be to God, that thou art not to be justified for thy faith, or for any worthiness that is in it, but if it is true and sincere, however weak, it is the band of thy union and communion with Christ. And being united to him, present thyself to God without fear, undauntedly also before the devil, and all who take pleasure to accuse thee. Humbly confess whatever sin may be objected against thee: but add, that they shall no doubt triumph in the judgment when they shall make it appear, that the merits and satisfaction of Christ are not sufficient to atone for and remove them, or thou not suffered to plead those merits of Christ in judgment. I challenge the devil and all his accomplices: Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, &c. Doest thou believe these things? Thou doest, but with faultering and hesitation. Fight manfully against all the temptations of unbelief, and even now, thou shalt receive that white stone, and new name written thereon, which none knoweth, but he who receiveth it; and the hidden manna, which having tasted, thou wilt enjoy thy life in patience, and death in desire." This is comfort indeed: they, who build not on these foundations, are certainly, like Job's friends, miserable comforters. It is memorable what the reverend Voetius, Disput. 2. p. 754. relates of John Frederic, duke of Saxony, who acquainted Luther that George, duke of Saxony, comforted his son John, in the agonies of death, with the righteousness of faith, desiring him to look to Christ alone, and disclaim his own merits and the invocation of saints. And when the wife of the aforesaid John (who was sister to Philip landgrave of Hesse) asked duke George, why these things were not thus publicly taught, made answer, O daughter, such things are to be said to the dying only. O the force of truth, breaking forth even from the breasts of those who are set against it.

LXXXIII. 4thly. This doctrine is exceedingly powerful to promote godliness. (1.) Because it lays, as a foundation, a submissive humility of soul, presuming nothing of itself, without which there is no holiness that deserves the name. (2.) Because we teach, that no faith justifies, but what is the fruitful parent of good works. And can any one really believe, that he, who is himself a most unworthy sinner, is, without any merit of his own, received into the favour of God, delivered from the expectation of hell, and favoured with the hope of a blessed eternity, and not, in every respect, and by all means be obedient to so benevolent a Lord? Can he believe, that God the Father spared not his own Son, that he might spare this slave: that God the Son bore so many things grievous to mention and hard to suffer, that he might procure pardon for the guilty, and a right to life: that God, the Holy Ghost, should enter his heart, as the messenger and earnest of so great a happiness, and love those so ardently, who had no love for him? Can he then provoke the Father by disobedience? Trample on the Son by his wickedness, and profane his blood? Can he grieve the Spirit the Comforter? Indeed, such a one knows not what faith is, who imagines, that it consists in a strong persuasion destitute of good works. (3dly.) Because it teacheth a sublime pitch of holiness, by which a person, laying aside every mercenary affection, can love God and virtue for itself, direct every thing to the glory of God alone, and securely trust him with the free reward of his works. Here now we appeal to the conscience of our adversaries, which is the safer way, whether that which we point out to our people, or what they would have theirs to walk in? We both agree, that without good works none shall be saved. Now whether is it safer to say, Do good works, with a presumption of merit; or, do them with all diligence and energy of soul; because you cannot be saved without them: yet, having done all, own thyself to be an unprofitable servant, and look for heaven as a free gift. If works merit nothing, doubtless he offends God who boasts of his merits. But if they deserve any thing, yet I, though performing them diligently, dare not arrogate any thing to myself from merit: of what detriment, pray, will that humility be? We conclude, that a doctrine, whose advantages are so many, and so considerable, cannot but be true.

Footnotes:

1. ENCHUSANO meo. For it seems Tapperus was born at Enkhuysen as well as Witsius.

2. That is, according to the Covenant of Works.

3. The author does not here mean, that faith, as an act of ours, justifies: for he has sufficiently explained himself on that head; he only mentions faith here as the instrument by which we lay hold on Christ's righteousness whereby our debt, both of duty and punishment, is fully paid.

4. The word articulus is of various significations; but it is plain from the sequel, that the author here uses it, for a moment or period, so that he here gives us a very distinct account of the Time of justification.

5. Question. 63. How is it, that our good works merit nothing, since God promises that he will give a reward for them both in this life and the life to come? Answer. That reward is not given out of merit but of grace.

6. Question. 62. Why cannot our good works be righteousness, or some part of righteousness before God? Answer. Because that righteousness, which must stand before the judgment of God, must be in all points perfect and agreeable to the law of God. But our works, even the best of them, are imperfect in this life, and defiled with sin.

The DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION OPENED AND APPLIED

Walter Marshall

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 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, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, / say, at this time His righteousness: that He might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus (Rom. 3:23-26).

The apostle having confuted and overthrown all justification, either of Jew or Gentile, by works, in the foregoing discourse, is now proving what he asserted (v. 21, 22): 'That 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,' showing that now in the gospel times there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, but that in the justification of both the righteousness of God without the law is manifested. This he proves by showing what the gospel teaches concerning the way of justification, for the gospel only reveals the righteousness of God (Rom. 1:16, 17): 'I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith.'

So the words are a declaration of the gospel way of justification by the righteousness of God, and that so clearly and fully, and the benefit spoken of so great and glorious, being the first benefit that we receive by union with Christ and the foundation of all other benefits, that my text is accounted to be evangelium evangelii, a principal part of the written gospel, as briefly and yet fully expressing this excellent point more than any other text.

Note in the words particularly the subject declared and explained, namely, justification of persons, or their being justified; and the meaning of it here is to be cleared and freed from all ambiguities and misunderstanding. Justification signifies 'making just' as sanctification is 'making holy', glorification 'making glorious'; but not making just by infusion of grace and holiness into a person, as the Papists teach, confounding justification and sanctification together, but making just in trial and judgement, by a radical sentence discharging guilt, freeing from blame and accusation - approving, judging, owning and pronouncing a person to be righteous. Use alters the signification. It is a juridical word, or law term and has reference to trial and judgement: 'With me it is a very small thing, that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgement; yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby justified: but He that judges me is the Lord' (1 Cor. 4:3, 4). And it is so opposed to condemnation in judgement: 'If there be a controversy between men, and they come into judgement, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked' (Deut. 25:1). And, 'By your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned' (Matt. 12:37 ). And it is opposed both to accusation and condemnation: 'Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? Who is he that condemns?' (Ram. 8:33, 34.) And so 'if I justify myself, my own mouth shall condemn me' (Job 9:20 ). 'I will maintain mine own ways before him . . . I have ordered my cause; I know that I shall be justified ... Who is he that will plead with me?' (Job 13:15-19.) Here justification is plainly opposed to the accusation or fault. And it is as plainly opposed to the passing sentence of condemnation: 'Do, and judge your servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head, and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness' (1 Kings 8:32). In this sense it is a sin to justify the wicked (Isa. 5:23 ; Prov. 17:15; Job 27:5). Actions must be existent already and brought to trial that they may be justified (Job 33:32; Isa. 43:9, 26).

Justice of righteousness consists not in the intrinsic nature of an action, but in its agreeableness to a rule of judgement, so that actions are called just and righteousness by an extrinsical denomination with relation to God's rule of judging. And this righteousness appears by trying the action according to the rule, and by making an estimate of it; which estimate is either approving or disapproving, justifying or condemning, finding it to be sin or no sin, or breach of the law. So we may say of the righteousness of persons with reference to such habits or actions. And because the righteousness of righteous persons appears when they are brought to trial and judgement, therefore they are said then to be in a special manner justified, as if they were then made righteous, that is, when their righteousness is declared: as Christ was said to be begotten the Son of God at the resurrection (Acts 13:33), because He was then declared to be the Son of God (Rom. 1:4). And in the same sense we that are adopted at present are said to 'wait for our adoption', that is, the manifestation of it (Rom. 8:23). And thus even God is said to be justified, when we judge of His actions as we ought to do and deem them to be righteous (Job. 32:2; Ps. 51:4; Luke 7:29), though nothing can be added to the infinite righteousness of God. And wisdom is said to be 'justified of her children' (Matt. 11:19). So justification is not a real change of a sinner in himself (though a real change is annexed to it) but only a relative change with reference to God's judgement. And thus the word is used in the text, and so also in matters of judicature throughout the Scripture. Yea, some contend against the Papists that it is nowhere in Scripture used otherwise, except by a trope borrowed from this as the proper sense. And in the text it is beyond all doubt meant of being deemed and accounted just in the sight of God; for such a justification is here only treated of as appears in the text (Rom. 3:19, 20). And I have been the longer explaining the sense of the word because the mistaking it, by reason of its composition, occasioned that popish error whereby the benefit signified by it is obscured, yea, overthrown, so that we had need to contend for the sense of the word.

In the text we have the eight following things:

1. The persons justified - (i) Sinners; (ii) Such sinners of all sorts that shall believe, whether Jews or Gentiles.

2. The justifier, or efficient cause -God.

3. The impulsive cause - grace.

4. The means effecting, or material cause - the redemption of Christ.

5. The formal cause - the remission of sins.

6. The instrumental cause - faith.

7. The time of declaring - the present time.

8. The end -that God may appear just.

From hence, therefore, will arise several useful observations, all tending to explain the nature of justification, which shall be laid down and cleared out of the text and confirmed particularly, and then I shall make use of them altogether.

I. They who are justified are sinners, such who are come short of the glory of God, that is, of God's approbation (John 5:44); of God's image of holiness (2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:24); of eternal happiness (1 Thess. 2:12; Rom. 5:2; 2 Cor. 4:17 ).

1. The law condemns all sinners and strikes them dead as with a thunderbolt (Rom. 3:20 ), and adjudges them to shame, confusion and misery, instead of glory and happiness, by the strict terms of it ( Rom. 2:6-12), which none fulfils, neither can do (Rom. 8:7) - neither Jews nor Gentiles. There is no hope, if free grace restore them not.

2. Christ came only to save sinners and died for this end: 'When we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly' (Rom. 5:6). And 'This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief' (1 Tim. 1:15). 'I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance' (Matt. 9:13). 'The Son of man is come to save that which was lost' (Matt. 18:11).

And God must be believed on to salvation, as a God that 'justifies the ungodly'. He must believe, as one that works not, on Him that justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5).

II. Sinners of all sorts, without difference, whether Jews or Gentiles, that believe are the subjects of this justification. This is the scope of the apostle, to show that whereas Jews and Gentiles were universally condemned by the light and law of nature, or the law written, so 'the righteousness of God is upon all them that believe' (Rom. 3:21, 22) without difference. This was a great point to be defended against the Jews in the apostle's time, who appropriated justification to themselves in a legal way, and to such as were proselytes to the law and circumcision, and therefore the apostle Paul vehemently urged it (Rom. 10:11, 12). And it was a point newly revealed to the apostles, that the Gentiles might be accepted without turning Jews, and much prized as a very glorious revelation (Acts 10:28, 45; Eph. 3:4, 5, 8; Col. 1: 25-27). And it is confirmed,

1. Because, notwithstanding the Jews' privilege of the law, by reason of breaking the law they had as much need of free justification as the Gentiles, and no worthiness above the Gentiles by their works, but were rather greater sinners (Rom. 2:23, 24). And when there is equal need and worth, God might righteously justify one as well as another (Rom. 3:9).

2. God is the God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews (Rom. 3:29), as He promised (Rom. 4:9, 12, 13; Gal. 3:8; Isa. 19:25 ; Zech. 14:9).

3. Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, that he might be the father of those that believe, though uncircumcised, that they might inherit the same blessing (Rom. 4:10-12).

4. This will appear further by showing that justification is only by faith and without dependence upon the law, merely by the righteousness of another, and so Jews and Gentiles are alike capable of it.

III. That the justifier, or efficient cause of justification is God. It is an act of God (Rom.8:33). It is God that justifies. He only can justify authoritatively and irreversibly.

1. Because He is the lawgiver, and has power to save and destroy (James 4:12). This case concerns God's law, and can only be tried at His tribunal. He is the judge of the world (Gen. 18:25). It is a small worthless thing to be justified by man, or by ourselves merely (1 Cor. 4:3, 4).

2. To Him the debt of suffering for sin and acting righteousness is owed and therefore He only can give a discharge for payment, or a release of the debtor (Ps. 51:4; Mark 2:7).

IV. 'God justifies souls freely by His grace, freely by His grace.' One of these expressions had been enough, but this redoubling it shows the importance of the truth, to quicken our attention the more. Here is the impulsive cause of justification and His free manner of bestowing it accordingly. And this signifies God's free undeserved favour, in opposition to any works of our own righteousness whereby it might be challenged as a debt to us: 'Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt' (Rom. 4:4). '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' (Rom. 11:6). 'By grace are you saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast' (Eph. 2:8, 9). 'Who has saved us, and called us with an 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. But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ' (2 Tim. 1:9, 10). Grace is mercy and love showed freely, out of God's proper motion showing mercy, because He will show mercy, and loving us, because He will love us (Rom. 9:15). And this is confirmed,

1. Because there was not, nor is anything in us, but what might move God to condemn us, for we have all sinned (Eph. 2:3; Ezek. 16:6).

2. Because God would take away boasting and have His grace glorified and exalted in our salvation. He will have all the praise and glory, though we have the blessedness. 'That in the ages to come, He might show the exceeding riches of His grace, in His kindness towards us, through Christ Jesus' (Eph. 2:7, 9; Rom. 3:27).

V. 'God justifies sinners through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood.' This is the effecting means, or material cause of our justification, namely, redemption and propitiation through the blood of Christ, which is the righteousness of God treasured up in Him.

By 'redemption' is meant properly such a deliverance as is made by paying a price, and so the words 'redeem' and 'redemption' are frequently used (Exod. 13:13; Num. 3: 48, 49, 51; Lev. 25:24, 51, 52; Jer. 32:7, 8; Neh. 5:8). From this proper signification it is borrowed to signify a deliverance without price (Luke 21:28; Eph. 1:14; 4:30), or rather, by a metonymy of the cause, put for the highest effect, the state of glory; so that the state of glory is called 'redemption', as being the completing and crowning effect of Christ's redemption; therefore it is called the 'purchased possession'.

By a 'propitiation' is meant that which appeases the wrath of God for sin and wins His favour. And this propitiation of Christ is two ways typified: first, in the propitiatory sacrifices, whose blood was shed; and, secondly , g propitiatory the mercy seat, which was called the propitiation, because it covered the ark wherein was the law, and the blood of the sacrifices for atonement was sprinkled by the high priest before it. And this mercy-seat was a sign of God's favourableness to a sinful people in residing among them (Heb. 9:5).

Now this doctrine appears confirmed for these reasons:

1. Because Christ, by the will of God, gave Himself a ransom for us to redeem us from sin and punishment, wrath and curse. 'He gave Himself for us, to redeem us from all iniquity' (Titus 2:14 ). He gave Himself to death for us, was delivered for our offences; His death was the price of our redemption, that we might be justified in God's sight. God gave Him up to death, He spared Him not, that He might be made righteousness. 'He gave His own life a ransom for many' (1 Cor. 1:30; Matt. 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:6). 'He bought us with this price' (1 Cor. 6:20 ). 'He redeemed us not with silver and gold, but with His precious blood, as of a lamb without spot' (1 Peter 1:18, 19; 2 Peter 2:1; Rev. 5:9). 'He suffered the penalty due to us for sin' (1 Peter 2:24). 'He bare our sins in His own body on the tree' (Gal. 3:13). 'He was made a curse for us,' and in this way redeemed us from the curse of the law and, that He might be made a curse, He was made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21; Isa. 53:5, 6). He subjected Himself to the law, in active as well as passive obedience (Gal. 4:4), and obeyed His Father even to death, doing and suffering at His commandment (John 14:31; Heb. 10:7), and His obedience was for our justification. Compare Romans 5:19 with Philippians 3:8, 9. So Christ satisfied both our debt of righteousness and debt of punishment, for our faultiness, taint of sin and want of righteousness, as well as for our guilt and obnoxiousness to punishment, that we might be free from wrath and deemed righteous in God's sight. His suffering was the consummating act of redemption, and so all is attributed to it (Heb. 2:9, 10) - even to His blood, though other doings and sufferings concur (2 Cor. 8:9). We are righteous by Him as we were guilty by Adam (Rom. 5:12 ).

2. God accepted this price as a satisfaction to His justice, which He showed in raising Christ from the dead and so accepting Him for all our sins: 'He was justified in the

Spirit' (1 Tim. 3:16), for us, 'raised for our justification' (Rom. 4:25). 'It is God that justifies: who is he that condemns? Is it Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen from the dead' (Rom. 8:33, 34). And 'By one offering He has perfected for ever them that are sanctified' (Heb. 10:14). And 'This sacrifice was a sweet-smelling savour to God' (Eph. 5:2). If Christ had sunk under the weight of our sins and had not been raised, the payment had not been finished and so the debt not discharged: 'of righteousness, because I go to my Father' (John 16:10 ).

3. This redemption is in Christ, as to the benefit of it, so that it cannot be had except we be in Christ and have Christ; so the text expresses and shows that He is the propitiation and, as such, He is our righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30). We have redemption and righteousness in Him (Eph. 1:7; 2 Cor. 5:21 ), and therein our freedom from condemnation (Rom. 8:1). Christ died that His seed might be justified (Isa. 53:10, 11) - those that are in Him by spiritual regeneration (1 Cor. 4:15).

VI. 'The formal cause of justification, or that wherein it consists, is the remission of sin, that is, not only the guilt and punishment is removed, but the fault; because it is a pardon grounded on justice, which clears the fault also. By Him we are justified from all things that the law charges us with' (Acts 13:39). In men, subject to a law, there is no middle condition between not imputing sin and imputing righteousness, and so these terms are used as equivalent: 'Through this man is preached the forgiveness of sins; and by Him all that believe are justified' (Acts 13:38, 39; Rom. 4:6-8; 2 Cor. 5:19, 21; Rom. 5:17). This is through the bloodshed of Christ (Eph. 1:7; Matt. 26:28).

VII. God justifies a sinner through faith in Christ's blood. Faith is the instrumental cause of receiving this benefit, faith in the blood of Christ.

1. This faith is a believing on Christ, that we may be justified by Him: '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' (Gal. 2:16). We believe in Christ for justification, out of a sense of our inability to obtain justification by works.

2. This faith does not justify us as an act of righteousness, earning and procuring our justification by the work of it, for this would have been justification by works, as under the law, diametrically opposite to grace and free gift; which excludes all consideration of any works of ours to be our righteousness, under any denomination or diminutive terms whatever, whether you call it 'legal' or 'evangelical', though you reckon it no more than the payment of a peppercorn (Rom. 11:6). Faith in this case is accounted a not-working (Rom. 4:5). And it is not faith that stands instead of the righteousness of the law, but the righteousness of Christ, which satisfies for what we ought to have done or suffered, as has been shown.

3. God justifies by faith, as the instrument by which we receive Christ and His righteousness, by which we are justified properly; and we are justified by faith only metonymically, by reason of the righteousness received by it; and to be 'justified by faith' and 'by Christ' is all one (Gal. 3:8; Rom. 5:19). By faith we receive remission of sins (Acts 26:18; 10:43). Its effect is the reception of Justification, not the working it; as a man may be said to be maintained by his hands, or nourished by his mouth, when those do but receive that which nourishes - his food and drink. The cup is put for the liquor in the cup (1 Cor. 11:26, 27). See Romans 1:17 and 3:22. Christ is in us by faith (Eph. 3:17); received, ate, drunk (John 1:12; 6:51, 53, 54).

4. This faith is to be understood exclusively to all our works for justification. We defend against the Papists justification by faith only, and there is nothing more fully expressed in Scripture phrase (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:8, 9; Rom. 4:16).

5. We must understand faith in a full sense of receiving remission of the fault, as well as of the punishment. We believe God accounts not the fault to us of the least sin. And, where faith is said to be accounted for righteousness, it is because of the object it receives (Rom. 4:5-8; 2 Cor. 5:19, 21). We believe Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as our sins are to Him, or else we receive not remission of sins by believing; which is contrary to charging us with sin and condemnation, which charging signifies imputing sin (Rom. 8:33, 34). Together with the removal of the charge of sin, we receive the gift of righteousness (Rom. 5:17). And this we have in the reception of Christ's redemption and bloodshed (Eph. 1:7; Matt. 26:28).

VIII. That God, in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, aimed to declare His righteousness now under the gospel, for the remission of sins that are past as well as present - of those sins that were past and committed under the Old Testament, which was God's time of forbearing in pardoning, long before His justice was actually satisfied by Christ's atonement (Heb. 13:8; Rev. 13: 8; Matt. 18:26). The ground of these pardons is now revealed by Christ's coming (Isa. 51:5, 6; 56:1; Dan. 9:24 ; 2 Tim. 1:9, 10), that those pardons may be no blemish to the justice of God now satisfied (Exod. 34:7; Ps. 85:10).

1. By this righteousness is meant that righteousness of God mentioned in the proposition (Rom. 3:21, 22), of which the text is but a confirmation - namely, the righteousness of God: not His essential righteousness, that which is an essential property of God, but righteousness, which is upon all them that believe - Christ's righteousness, which is the end of the law (Rom. 10:3, 4), and therefore called 'God's righteousness', that which Christ wrought for us, which is given to us and we receive by faith; that by which Christ answered the law for us, by which as the price, He redeemed us; which is called 'God's righteousness' because it is of God's working, and it only has God's acceptance and approbation - as Christ is called the 'Lamb of God' because God provided Him and accepts Him as an offering (John 1:29). Upon the like account, Christ's kingdom is called the 'kingdom of God' because God's own hand set it up, and maintains it, and rules it (Eph. 5:5). Christ, who became obedient to death to work this righteousness, was God as well as man (Phil. 2:6, 8). And this is that righteousness of God here, and in other places: the righteousness which is of God by faith (Phil. 3:9).

2. God aimed at declaring in gospel times His righteousness in forgiving sins past, in the time of God's forbearance under the Old Testament (Rom. 3:25), and also in justifying those that believe in Christ at present, for it was by the righteousness of the same Christ that sins were pardoned under the Old Testament, as well as now (Heb. 13:8). Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8); only the righteousness was not actually fulfilled and revealed then, but it was shadowed out then by the sacrifices, ransoms, redemptions, etc. (Heb. 10:1-3, 9, 10). So this was a time of God's forbearance, because He pardoned sins, as it were, without present payment and satisfaction. He had patience and did not exact the debt, until Christ paid all (Matt. 18:26 ). But then God promised that He would reveal His righteousness in due time (Isa. 56:1; 51:5, 6; Ps. 98:2; Dan. 9:24). And this He has done by the appearance of Christ (2 Tim. 1:10 ).

IX. The end of this manifestation is that God may appear just, in forgiving sins past as well as present, and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus. Here the essential property of God is exalted and appears glorious in justifying by the forementioned righteousness of God.

1. As God justifies freely by grace, He would appear in this way just in justifying sinners, for it would be a blemish to God's justice to forgive without a satisfaction and righteousness performed, and therefore, though He is gracious and merciful, yet He will not clear the guilty (Exod. 34:7; Gen. 18:25; Exod. 23:7). And so the saints of God concluded that God had a righteousness and redemption by which He forgave sin, though it was not then revealed (Ps. 51:14; 130:7, 8; 143:1, 2). God would have justice and mercy to meet in our salvation (Ps. 85:10).

2. God would have it appear that He only is just, and therefore saves us, not by our own righteousness, but by His, which is indeed the more exalted by our unrighteousness occasionally, though God is not therefore unrighteous in taking vengeance (Rom. 3:4, 5; Dan. 9:7).

3. God would appear to be the only procurer and worker of our righteousness, and so our justifier by way of procurement, as well as by way of judgement, and so He will justify us by a righteousness of His own, and not by our own (Isa. 54:17; 45:22, 24, 25), that we may glory in the Lord only (1 Cor. 1:30, 31).

Use I. It serves for instruction, by way of encouragement and consolation, that the great happiness of those that are in Christ is that their sins are forgiven, and they accounted just in the sight of the judge of the world through the redemption that is by the blood of Christ; and this benefit contains all blessedness of life and the consequences of it (Rom. 4:6). That man to whom God imputes righteousness without works has a blessedness in it, and such an extensive blessedness, in regard of the spiritual part, as Abraham had, comprehending all spiritual blessings in Christ, for they which are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham (Gal. 3:9). For this righteousness, being the fundamental blessing, is revealed from faith to faith; and they that are by faith just, and justified through that righteousness, do live by faith, always receiving it and receiving nourishment and comfort by it (Rom. 1:17).

1. They are delivered from the charge of sin and fault before God (Rom. 8:33 , 34). tiV egkaledei: Who shall lay anything to their charge, or be suffered to bring in at God's tribunal any indictment, charge or accusation against them? It is God that justifies them, and Christ has died and rose again. They are redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits to God and the Lamb. In their mouth there is no guile, and they are without fault [amwmoi] before the throne of God (Rev. 14:4, 5. See also Col. 1:22).

2. They are delivered from all condemnation in sentence and execution, the curse and wrath of God: 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us' (Gal. 3:13). 'Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come' (1. Thess. 1:10). 'You have taken away all Your wrath: You have turned Yourself from the fierceness of Your anger' (Ps. 85:3, see vv. 5, 6). The wrath of God is an unsupportable burden and the foundation of all miseries, which foundation is razed and a foundation of blessedness laid, by which we have peace with God and are fully reconciled to God (Rom. 5:1, 2; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19). 'You that were sometime alienated, and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled, in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and unblameable, and unreprovable in His sight' (Col. 1:21, 22). Now, where there is no blame before God, there can be no wrath from God.

3. They have no need to seek salvation by the works of the law, and so are delivered from a yoke that cannot be borne, from endless observances that Pharisees and Papists have heaped up; from continual frights, doubts, fears and terrors by the law (Acts 15:10; Rom. 8:15); from a wrath-working law (Rom. 4:15); from a sin-irritating law (Rom. 6:5); from a killing law, a ministration of death and condemnation (2 Cor. 3:6, 7, 9); Mount Sinai, which genders to bondage (Gal. 4:24).

4. Thus they are delivered from a condemning conscience, which otherwise would still gnaw them as a worm.

'If the blood of bulls and of goats, and ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?' (Heb. 9:14.) A guilty conscience is a foul conscience, and it will make all services and duties dead works, unfit for the service of the living God; it is the blood of Christ applied by faith that takes off the foulness of guilt from the conscience; therefore the blood of Christ has the only efficacy this way to take off the conscience of sin (Heb. 10:1-4, etc.). Thus they come to have a good conscience (1 Peter 3:21 ), void of offence towards God Acts 24:16).

5. It is an everlasting righteousness by which their standing in Christ is secured (Dan. 9:24). It is an eternal redemption that is obtained (Heb. 9:12), whereas by the law those that were justified today typically might fall under condemnation so far as to need another sacrifice for sin tomorrow, they had no real purgation of conscience from sin by those sacrifices, and therefore could not have a lasting delivery of their consciences from guilt by them. Here it is far otherwise; here is an effectual, complete and perpetual redemption, reaching the conscience of the sinner, and for the purging away all sins, present and to come (1 John 1:7).

6. It is a righteousness of infinite value, because it is the righteousness of one that is God, and His Name is JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jer. 23:6; Heb. 9:14). It is therefore more powerful to save than Adam's sin was to destroy or condemn (Rom. 5). Christ is here the power of God (1 Cor. 1:24). Hence we are powerful, and conquer by faith. Likewise there is a marvellous plenty of mercy and grace that is brought to us by JEHOVAH our Righteousness, plenteous redemption (Ps. 130:7). It must be most plentiful, because infinite. Though no creature could satisfy for sin, yet Jehovah could do it abundantly, and therefore in Christ God's mercy prevails high above our sins (Ps. 103:11, 12).

7. God's grace and justice are both engaged on our behalf in this righteousness. Justice is terrible and seems to be against mercy and dreadful to natural people, but it is otherwise to believers; it is pacified and appeased through this righteousness; it is satisfied by Christ for our sins. Justice becomes our friend, joins in with grace and, instead of pleading against us, it is altogether for us, and it speaks contrary to what it speaks to sinners out of Christ (Josh. 24:19, 20). We may also plead justice for forgiveness through mercy in Christ (Rom. 3:26 ).

8. We may be sure of holiness and glory, delivery from the power and dominion of sin, as well as the charge of it before God, and guilt in our consciences, for this was the end of Christ's death (Titus 2:14; Rom. 6:6, 14; 8:3, 4, 30). 'Whom He justified, them He also glorified.' The law was the strength of sin, for sin had its title to rule in us by reason of the curse, and then Satan also rules; but here is our deliverance from sin and Satan, yea, from death too (Heb. 2:14, 15; Hos. 13:14). And, by the same reason, we are raised by this excellent righteousness to a better state than we had in Adam at first, for Christ died that we might receive the adoption of sons, and the Spirit; that we might be brought under a new covenant, and be set in the right way of holiness, serving out of love (Gal. 3:14; 1 John 4:19; Gal. 4:5; Heb. 9:15; Rom. 5: 11; Luke 1:74; Col. 2:13).

9. We may be sure, hence, of a concurrence of all things for our good. All things shall work for good through grace to bring us to glory, because God is for us, who is the Creator and Governor of all things (Rom. 8:28, 31, 33). God will never be wroth with us, nor rebuke us in anger any more (Isa. 54:9; Rom. 5:2, 5).

10. Hence we may come before God without confusion of face, yea, with boldness to the throne of grace in Christ's name (John 14:13, 14) and expect all good things from Him. 'In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of Him' (Eph. 3:12). 'Let us draw near with full assurance of faith' (Heb. 20:22, 23). Christ's blood pleads for us in heaven (Heb. 12:24 ); and we may, and are to plead boldly a satisfaction on His account.

11. We live in those times when this righteousness is fully revealed, and sin made an end of (Rom. 3:21, 22). This is our happiness above those that lived before Christ's coming, who were under types and shadows of this righteousness, whereas we have the substance in its own light, and so we are not under the law, which they were under as a schoolmaster. We are not servants, but sons, called to liberty (Gal. 3:23, 26; 4:7; 5:13). The preaching the old covenant, as a church ordinance to be urged, now is ceased; the law is not to be preached now in the same terms as Moses preached it, for justification (Rom. 10:5-8; 2 Cor. 3:6, 7; Gal. 3:13, 24); it is contrary in terms of faith, though it were subservient.

Use 11. For examination whether we are in Christ and have received this justification by faith with all our hearts.

1. Consider whether you are made really sensible of sin and your condemnation by the law. This is necessary to make us fly to Christ, and for this as one great end was the law given (Gal. 3:22-14; Matt. 9:13; Acts 2:37). Without sense of sin, there will be no prizing of Christ or desire of holiness, but rather abuse of grace to carnal security and licentiousness. Those that were stung with the fiery serpents looked up to the brazen serpent.

2. Do you trust only on free mercy for justification in God's sight, renouncing all your works whatever in this point, as not able to stand in them before God's exact justice, crying mercy with the poor publican? Perfectionists and self-righteous persons have no share in this matter (Luke 18:13, 14). Paul, notwithstanding all that the world might think he had to plead for himself, 'counted all but dung, that he might win Christ, and be found in Him, not having his own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith,' that is, the redeeming and propitiating righteousness of Christ, by which he desired only to be justified and which he believed in for that end, opposing it to anything inherent in himself, which therefore he calls his own righteousness (Phil. 3:6, 8, 9; Rom. 4:5).

3. Do you trust with any confidence in Christ, not continuing in a mere suspense? In a way of mere doubting, we can receive no good thing from God (James 1:6, 7). Mere doubting will not loose the conscience from the guilt of sin (Heb. 10:22), but leaves the soul under terrors. Abraham's confidence is the example and pattern of our justifying faith, that we should endeavour to come up to, believing with a fullness of persuasion, in hope against hope (Rom. 4: 20, 24). Though a believing soul may be assaulted with many doubtings, yet it fights against them and does not give up itself to the dominion of them (Ps. 42:11; Mark 9:24). It has always something contrary to them and striving with them.

4. Do you come to Christ for remission of sins for the right end, namely, that you may be freed from the dominion of sin before the living God (Heb. 9:14; Ps. 130; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:24). If otherwise, you do not receive it for the right end and do not desire really the favour and enjoyment of God and to be in friendship with Him.

5. Do you walk in holiness and strive to evidence this justification by the fruits of faith in good works? If otherwise, your faith is but a dead faith, for a true faith purifies the heart (Acts 15:9). If Christ is yours, He will be sanctification as well as righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30; Rom. 8:1, 9; John 13:8). If God has taken you into His favour, He will doubtless cleanse you. Though faith alone justifies, without the concurrence of works to the act of justification, yet that faith is not so alone as not to be accompanied with good works, as the eye alone sees, yet it is not alone without other members. So the apostle James declares faith that is alone to be dead, and bids us show our faith by our works; which is to be understood, not as if works were the conditions of attaining justification, but sure evidences of justification attained by faith, and very necessary (James 2:14, 15). The gospel is no covenant of works, requiring another righteousness for justification by doing for life. Works justify us from such accusations of men as will deny us to have justification by faith, or that we have a true and lively faith, or are good trees (Matt. 12:33, 37); not as being our righteousness themselves, or conditions of our having Christ's righteousness, or qualifying us for it.

Use III. It serves for exhortation to several duties.

I. To the wicked. It is dehortation to them from continuance in sin, under God's wrath, running headlong to damnation; for here is a door of mercy opened to them, a righteousness prepared that they may be freely accepted of God. Some men are desperadoes: 'They have loved strangers, and after them they will go' (Jer. 2:25). They are resolved to run the risk of it, and please themselves that they shall speed as well as others. And some men would be justified, but seek for it in a wrong way. Some will go to the pope, to quiet their consciences by his deceits; some to their own works and performances, but you are exhorted to look out for the true righteousness. Christ says in the gospel, 'Behold Me, Behold Me', the kingdom of heaven is open, mercy and righteousness are freely offered (Isa. 55:6, 7; Jer. 3:12). Repentance is preached with remission of sins (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38 ). Beware you do not neglect this acceptable time, this day of salvation (Heb. 2:1, 3). For,

1. If you do, you remain under the wrath of God (John 3:36), under the curse of the law, which, like a flood, sweeps away all that are found out of this ark, the Lord Jesus Christ (Ps. 11:5, 6).

2. Your condemnation will be aggravated by refusing so great salvation (Heb. 2:3). You will have no cloke for your sins, when you refuse mercy (John 15:22). You cannot say you are undone by your past sins beyond recovery, and therefore it is in vain to strive, for, behold, remission of sins is proclaimed to you (Ezek. 33:10, 11). And what a horrid sin is it, to despise the blood of the Son of God! (John 3:18,36.)

Objection I. If God justify the ungodly (Rom. 4:5), what need I forsake ungodliness at all? (Rom. 6:1.)

Answer. You cannot seek justification truly, except you have a mind to live to God in friendship with Him, for justification is God's way of taking us into friendship with Him (Rom. 5:1, 2), and of reconciling us (2 Cor. 5:19). The use you are to make of it is to seek God's friendship by it, and the enjoyment of Him. Why does a man seek a pardon, if he intends to go on in rebellion and stand out in defiance to his prince? (1 Peter 2:24.) They seek pardon in a mocking way, that intend not to return to obedience (Gal. 6:7, 8).

Objection II. My sins are so great, that I have no encouragement to hope.

Answer. Christ's righteousness is for all sorts of sinners that believe, whether Jews or Gentiles (and how great sinners were of both sorts!) (Rom. 1; 2; 3) and even for those that killed and murdered the Lord of glory (Acts 2:23, 36; 1 Cor. 2:8), for the chief of the sinners (1 Tim. 1:15; Acts 16). 'Where sin abounds, grace super-abounds' (Rom. 5:20). Your sins are but the sins of a creature, but His righteousness is the righteousness of God (John 6:37; Rom. 10:3, 11, 13).

Exhortation II. It exhorts those that have a mind to turn to God to turn the right way by faith in Christ for justification. Let them not seek by works, as most in the world do, and all are prone to do (Rom. 9:31, 32). But this doctrine seems very foolish, yea, pernicious to a natural man. 'Become a fool, that you may be wise' (1 Cor. 3:18); otherwise you will labour in the fire, and weary yourselves for very vanity, and be under continual discomforts and discouragements, for you can do no good work while you are in the flesh, under the law and its curse, before God has received you into favour, for justification is in order of nature before true holiness of heart and life (1 Tim. 1:5; Heb. 9:14). Faith is the great work and mother duty (John 6:29 ; Gal. 5:6; Isa. 55:2), and therefore while you believe not, you dishonour Christ and His death (Gal. 2: 21, 5:2-4). Therefore come boldly, though you have been a great sinner (Acts 10:43), and seek righteousness in Christ with holiness (Rom. 8:1).

Question. But how shall I get faith?

Answer. Faith is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8), and by the gospel (Rom. 1:15 -17). Faith comes by hearing the gospel preached (Rom. 10:17), and that comes in working faith, not in word only, but in power (1 Thess. 1:5), beyond what can be done by natural or human attainment (John 6:63). Therefore, if you have no beginning of it in you, your only way is to attend to the gospel and to meditate on your sin and misery and Christ's excellency, that so you may be inclined in your heart to believe (S. of S. 1:3; Gal. 2:16; Ps. 9:10), for this is the way God uses to beget faith (Isa. 55: 3). But if you have a desire and inclination to fly from yourself to Christ, in the bent of your heart, so that you prefer Christ above all, then the Spirit has begun and will carry on the work, so that now you may pray confidently for faith (S. of S. 1:4; Luke 11:13; Mark 9:24).

Objection III. But without holiness no man shall see the Lord (Heb. 12:14). And how shall I get holiness? I cannot sanctify myself, and this confidence you speak of may slacken my diligence.

Answer. If you have righteousness in Christ, God will make you holy, and this confidence is the only way to get holiness, because of that righteousness (Rom. 5:21). The new covenant is confirmed in Him, which promises a new heart. If sin is forgiven you shall be delivered from its power and quickened by the same death and resurrection of Christ whereby you are justified (Col. 2:12, 13).

Exhortation III. It exhorts them that are justified by faith.

1. To walk humbly, as being nothing of themselves; to acknowledge themselves enemies to God by nature, and acknowledge their sins in the greatness and heinousness of them, that they are saved freely by the righteousness of another, not by their own - yea, that they are so far fallen that the justice of God would have been against them, if it had not been satisfied (Ps. 71:16; Rom. 3:27), but now they see that Christ has satisfied, and His righteousness is above their sins (Ezek. 36:31).

2. To praise and glorify God through Christ for His grace. Oh, what abundant grace and love appears in God's washing and cleansing us by His Son's blood! (Rev. 1:5; Gal. 2:20) and in making His Son sin and a curse for us! (Rom. 5:5, 8; 1 John 4:9, 10; 3:16; 2 Cor. 8:9). And what a glorious and excellent righteousness has God given us in Christ! (Isa. 61:10.)

3. To walk comfortably, upon the account of this righteousness (Isa. 40:1, 2). Triumph over sin and affliction (Rom. 8:33, 39). Be confident m expecting great things from God (Heb. 10:22), for though you may be unworthy and grace will show you your own unworthiness, yet you stand upon the righteousness of Christ. Glory in the hope of God's glory, for if Christ died to reconcile you when you were enemies, much more will He save you by His life, now you are reconciled (Rom. 5:3, 10). Ask boldly for what you want, for God is in Christ's manhood as the mercy seat. Whenever sin stings you and objections trouble you, look to the brazen serpent, confess sin and trust for pardon, meditate on Christ's righteousness and the abundance of grace in Him (Rom. 8:32). If you find never so much ungodliness, no good qualifications, yet Christ is at hand for your comfort (Isa. 50:10; 2 Thess. 2:16, 17). In all your sins apply yourselves to this fountain (Zech. 13:1; 1 John 1:7). If sin lie on the conscience, it weakens peace and spiritual strength. Lay not under guilt with a slavish fear; you have a righteousness to deliver you from it; apply it by faith, that you may have no more conscience of sin as condemning (Heb. 10:2; Ps. 32). You have a better righteousness than any perfectionists can have.

4. Hold fast this way of justification, notwithstanding all the noise that is made in the world against it, for the devil will strive to scare you out of it or steal it from you, as he did from the Jews, from the Galatians, the Papists and many Protestants (Gal. 1:6). And the apostle reckons it is by a spiritual bewitchery. He will strive to get you to trust on works, and tell you it is for the promoting of holiness, and to trust on works to get Christ, and to lay works lowest in the foundation. If you lose this righteousness of Christ, under any colour or pretence whatever, you lose all (Gal. 5:2, 3). Do not so dishonour Christ as to think of procuring that by works which you have fully in Christ. Think not that the gospel requires another justification to gain this, for the gospel is no legal covenant, but a declaration of the righteousness of faith and we, being justified, are heirs by adoption and promise (Gal. 3:24-26; 4:7). This is the doctrine which glorifies God and abases the creature, which is a great mark of its truth. Beware therefore of carnal reason, which will go quite contrary, and make Christ's righteousness a stumbling-stone to you (1 Peter 2:8; Rom; 9: 32, 33).

5. Walk as one that enjoys the favour of God in Christ. Let Him have the honour of it. Walk therefore in holiness, knowing by what price you are redeemed (1 Peter 1:17, 18; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15; 1 Peter 1:5, 11; 1 Cor. 6:20). Love God that has loved you first (1 John 4:19; Ps. 116:16). Believe that God will enable you for the practice of holiness (Rom. 6:14 ). Particularly, walk in love to the saints; exercise forgiveness to your enemies. Sense of your own sins and God's forgiving you will cause you to pity and forgive others, else you cannot pray or trust for forgiveness of your own sins upon reasonable grounds (Eph. 4:31, 32; Matt. 6:14, 15; 18:21). Desire grace may be exalted on others, and wait patiently for the full declaration of justification at the great day (Gal. 5:5; Acts 3:19), for here your justification is known only by faith, but in outward things you are dealt with as a sinner; then your righteousness shall appear openly and you shall be dealt with according to it.

Justification

by Dr. William Ames

1. Participation in the blessings of the union with Christ comes when the faithful have all the things needed to live well and blessedly to God. Eph. 1:3, He has blessed us with every spiritual blessing; Rom. 8:32, He who spared not his own son . . . how shall he not freely with him give us all things also?

2. This participation therefore brings a change and alteration in the condition of believers from the state of sin and death to the state of righteousness and eternal life. 1 John 3:14, We know that we are translated from death to life.

3. This change of state is twofold, relative and absolute (or real).

4. The relative change occurs in God's reckoning. Rom. 4:5, And to him who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is imputed as righteousness. 2 Cor. 5:19, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their offenses.

5. The change, of course, has no degrees and is completed at one moment and in only one act. Yet in manifestation, consciousness, and effects, it has many degrees; therein lie justification and adoption.

6. Justification is the gracious judgment of God by which he absolves the believer from sin and death, and reckons him righteous and worthy of life for the sake of Christ apprehended in faith. Rom. 3:22, 24, The righteousness of God by faith in Jesus Christ in all and upon all that believe. . . . they are freely justified by his grace . . . through the redemption made by Jesus Christ.

7. It is the pronouncing of a sentence, as the word is used, which does not denote in the Holy Scriptures a physical or a real change. There is rather a judicial or moral change which takes shape in the pronouncing of the sentence and in the reckoning. Prov. 17:15, He that justifies the wicked; Rom. 8:33, Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God who justifies.

8. Therefore, Thomas and his followers are completely mistaken for they would make justification a kind of physical motion from the state of unrighteousness to that of righteousness in a real transmutation. They consider that it begins with sin, ends in inherent righteousness, with remission of sin and infusion of righteousness the motion between.

9. The judgment was, first, conceived in the mind of God in a decree of justification. Gal. 3:8, The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith. Second, it was pronounced in Christ our head as he rose from the dead. 2 Cor. 5:19, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their sins to them. Third, it is pronounced in actuality upon that first relationship which is created when faith is born. Rom. 8:1, There is therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. Fourth, it is expressly pronounced by the spirit of God witnessing to our spirits our reconciliation with God. Rom. 5:5, The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which has been given to us. This testimony of the spirit is not properly justification itself, but rather an actual perceiving of what has been given before as if in a reflected act of faith.

10. It is a gracious judgment because it is given not by God's justice but by his grace. Rom. 3:24, Freely by his grace. For by the same grace with which he called Christ to the office of mediator and the elect to union with Christ, he accounts those who are called and believing, justified by the union.

11. It happens because of Christ. 2 Cor. 5:21, That we may become the righteousness of God in him. The obedience of Christ is that Si.KalwiMo., the righteousness, Rom. 5:16, in the name of which the grace of God justifies us, just as the disobedience of Adam was that upliio., the offense, Rom. 5:16, for which God's justice condemned us, Rom. 5:18.

12. Therefore, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers in justification. Phil. 3:9, That I may be found in him not having my own righteousness which is of the law but that which is by faith in Christ, the righteousness of God through faith.

13. This righteousness is called the righteousness of God because it is ordained, approved, and confirmed by his grace to the end that sinners can stand before him, Rom. 10:3.

14. This justification comes about because of Christ, but not in the absolute sense of Christ's being the cause of vocation. It happens because Christ is apprehended by faith, which follows calling as an effect. Faith precedes justification as the instrumental cause, laying hold of the righteousness of Christ from which justification being apprehended follows; therefore, righteousness is said to be from faith, Rom. 9:30; 10:6. And justification is said to be by faith, Rom. 3:28.

15. This justifying faith is not the general faith of the understanding by which we give assent to the truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures, for that belongs not only to those who are justified, nor of its nature has it any force to justify, nor produce the effects which are everywhere in Scripture given to justifying faith.

16. Neither is it that special trust (properly speaking) by which we obtain remission of sins and justification itself. For justifying faith goes before justification itself, as a cause goes before its effect. But faith apprehending justification necessarily presupposes and follows justification as an act follows the object towards which it is directed.

17. That faith is properly called justifying by which we rely upon Christ for the remission of sins and for salvation. For Christ is a sufficient object for justifying faith. Faith justifies only by apprehending the righteousness by which we are justified. That righteousness does not lie in the truth of some proposition to which we give assent, but in Christ alone Who has been made sin for us that we might be righteousness in him, 2 Cor. 5:21.

18. Therefore, words are often repeated in the New Testament which show that justification is to be sought in Christ alone: John 1:12; 3:15, 16; 6:40, 47; 14:1, 12; Rom. 4:5; 3:26; Acts 10:43;

26:18; and Gal. 3:26.

19. Justifying faith of its own nature produces and is marked by a special, sure persuasion of the grace and mercy of God in Christ. Therefore, justifying faith is not wrongly described as persuasion by the orthodox (as it often is) —especially when they take a stand against the general faith to which the papists ascribe everything. But the following should be considered. First, the feeling of persuasion is not always present. It may and often does happen, either through weakness of judgment or various temptations and troubles of mind, that a person who truly believes and is by faith justified before God may for a time think that he neither believes nor is reconciled to God. Second, there are many degrees in this persuasion. Believers obviously do not have the same assurance of grace and favor of God, nor do the same ones have it at all times. But this cannot be said of justifying faith itself, without considerable loss in the consolation and peace which Christ has left to believers.

20. Justification does not free from sin and death directly by taking away the blame or stain or all the effects of sin; rather it removes the guilty obligation to undergo eternal death. Rom. 8:1, 33, 34, There is no condemnation . . . Who shall lay anything to their charge? . . , who shall condemn?

21. Nor does it take away guilt so that the deserving of punishment is removed from sin. This cannot be taken away as long as sin itself remains. But justification does take away guilt so that its haunting or deadly effects vanish.

22. The absolution from sins is called many things in the Holy Scriptures—remission, redemption, and reconciliation, Eph. 1:6, 7— but these all have the same meaning. When sin is thought of as a bondage or kind of spiritual captivity because of guilt, justification is called redemption. When it is thought of as subjection to deserved punishment, it is called remission — also passing by, blotting out, exoneration, taking away, casting away, removing, and casting behind the back, Rom. 4:7; Col. 2:13; Mic. 7:18; Isa. 43:12; 38:17; Ps. 32:1, 2. And when sin is thought of as enmity against God, justification is called reconciliation, Rom. 5:10. Sometimes this is regarded as even a kind of winking at sin, Num. 23:25, and a covering of sin, Ps. 32:1, 2.

23. Not only are past sins of justified persons remitted but also those to come. Num. 23:25. God sees no iniquity in Jacob or perverseness in Israel. Justification has left no place for condemnation. John 5:24, He who believes has eternal life and shall not come into condemnation — justification gives eternal life surely and immediately.

It also makes the whole remission obtained for us in Christ actually ours. Neither past nor present sins can be altogether fully remitted unless sins to come are in some way remitted.

24. The difference is that past sins are remitted specifically and sins to come potentially. Past sins are remitted in themselves, sins to come in the subject or the person sinning.

25. Yet those who are justified need daily the forgiveness of sins. This is true because the continuance of grace is necessary to them; the consciousness and manifestation of forgiveness increases more and more as individual sins require it; and the execution of the sentence which is pronounced in justification may thus be carried out and completed.

26. Besides the forgiveness of sins there is also required an imputation of righteousness, Rom. 5:18; Rev. 19:8; Rom. 8:3. This is necessary because there might be a total absence of sin in a case where that righteousness does not exist which must be offered in place of justification.

27. This righteousness is not to be sought in a scattered fashion in the purity of the nature, birth, and life of Christ. It arises rather, with remission of sins, out of Christ's total obedience, just as the disobedience of Adam both robbed us of original righteousness and made us subject to the guilt of condemnation.

Antidote to the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent on the Doctrine of Justification

John Calvin (1547)

THE doctrine of man’s Justification would be easily explained, did not the false opinions by which the minds of men are preoccupied, spread darkness over the clear light. The principal cause of obscurity, however, is, that we are with the greatest difficulty induced to leave the glory of righteousness entire to God alone. For we always desire to be somewhat, and such is our folly, we even think we are. As this pride was innate in man from the first, so it opened a door for Satan to imbue them with many impious and vicious conceits with which we have this day to contend. And in all ages there have been sophists exercising their pen in extolling human righteousness, as they knew it would be popular. When by the singular kindness of God, the impiety of Pelagius was repudiated with the common consent of the ancient Church, they no longer dared to talk so pertly of human merit. They, however, devised a middle way, by which they might not give God the whole in justification, and yet give something.

This is the moderation which the venerable Fathers adopt to correct the errors on Justification, which, they say, have arisen in our day. Such indeed is their mode of prefacing, that at the outset they breathe nothing but Christ; but when they come to the subject, far are they from leaving him what is his own. Nay, their definition at length contains nothing else than the trite dogma of the schools: that men are justified partly by the grace of God and partly by their own works; thus only showing themselves somewhat more modest than Pelagius was.

This will easily be shown to be the fact. For under the second head, where they treat of Original Sin, they declare that free-will, though impaired in its powers and biased, is not however extinguished. I will not dispute about a name, but since they contend that liberty has by no means been extinguished, they certainly understand that the human will has still some power left to choose good. For where death is not, there is at least some portion of life. They themselves remove all ambiguity when they call it impaired and biased. Therefore, if we believe them, Original Sin has weakened us, so that the defect of our will is not pravity but weakness. For if the will were wholly depraved, its health would not only be impaired but lost until it were renewed. The latter, however, is uniformly the doctrine of Scripture. To omit innumerable passages where Paul discourses on the nature of the human race, he does not charge free-will with weakness, but declares all men to be useless, alienated from God, and enslaved to the tyranny of sin; so much so, that he says they are unfit to think a good thought. (Romans 3:12; 2 Corinthians 3:5.) We do not however deny, that a will, though bad, remains in man. For the fall of Adam did not take away the will, but made it a slave where it was free. It is not only prone to sin, but is made subject to sin. Of this subject we shall again speak by and bye.

The third and fourth heads I do not touch. Towards the end of the fifth head they affirm that no transference to a state of grace takes place without Baptism, or a wish for it. Would it not have been better to say, that by the word and sacraments Christ is communicated, or, if they prefer so to speak, applied to us, than to make mention of baptism alone? But they have been pleased to exclude infants from the kingdom of God, who have been snatched away before they could be offered for baptism. As if nothing were meant when it is said that the children of believers are born holy. (1 Corinthians 7:14.) Nay, on what ground do we admit them to baptism unless that they are the heirs of promise? For did not the promise of life apply to them it would be a profanation of baptism to give it to them. But if God has adopted them into his kingdom, how great injustice is done to his promise, as if it were not of itself sufficient for their salvation! A contrary opinion, I admit, has prevailed, but it is unjust to bury the truth of God under any human error, however ancient. The salvation of infants is included in the promise in which God declares to believers that he will be a God to them and to their seed. In this way he declared, that those deriving descent from Abraham were born to him. (Genesis 17:7) In virtue of this promise they are admitted to baptism, because they are considered members of the Church. Their salvation, therefore, has not its commencement in baptism, but being already founded on the word, is sealed by baptism. But these definition-mongers thrust forward the passage, “Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit.” (John 3:3.) First, assuming with them that water means baptism, who will concede to them that it moreover means a wish to receive baptism? But were I to say that the passage has a different meaning, and were I following some ancient expositors to take the term water for mortification, they would not, I presume, be so bitter as therefore to judge me heretical. I interpret it, however, as added by way of epithet to express the nature and power of the Spirit. Nor can they make out that water here means baptism, any more than that fire means some sacrament, when it is said, “In the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11.) See on what grounds they arrogate to themselves supreme authority in interpreting Scripture!

In the sixth head, they assert that we are prepared by the grace of God for receiving Justification, but they assign to this grace the office of exciting and assisting, we ourselves freely co-operating; in other words, we are here treated with the inanities which the sophists are wont to babble in the schools. But I ask, Is it the same thing to excite a will, and aid it when in itself weak, as to form a new heart in man, so as to make him willing? Let them answer, then, whether creating a new heart, and making a heart of flesh out of a heart of stone, (both of which the Scripture declares that God does in us,) is nothing else than to supply what is wanting to a weak will. But if they are not moved by these passages, let them say whether he who makes us to be willing simply assists the will. Paul claims the whole work for God; they ascribe nothing to him but a little help. But for what do they join man as an associate with God? Because man, though he might repudiate it, freely accepts the grace of God and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. How greatly do they detract from the work of God as described by the Prophet! — “I will put my law,” says he, “in your hearts, and make you to walk in my precepts.” (Jeremiah 32:39; Ezekiel 36:27; Hebrews 8:10; 10:16).

Is this the doctrine delivered by Augustine, when he says, “Men labor to find in our will some good thing of our own not given us of God; what they can find I know not?” (Aug. Lib. de Precator. Merit. et Remiss. 2.) Indeed, as he elsewhere says, “Were man left to his own will to remain under the help of God if he chooses, while God does not make him willing, among temptations so numerous and so great, the will would succumb from its own weakness. Succor, therefore, has been brought to the weakness of the human will by divine grace acting irresistibly and inseparably, that thus the will however weak might not fail.” (Aug. de Corruptione et Gratia,) But the Neptunian fathers, in a new smithy, forge what was unknown to Augustine, viz., that the reception of grace is not of God, inasmuch as it is by the free movement of our own will we assent to God calling. This is repugnant to Scripture, which makes God the author of a good will. It is one thing for the will to be moved by God to obey if it pleases, and another for it to be formed to be good. Moreover, God promises not to act so that we may be able to will well, but to make us will well. Nay, he goes farther when he says, “I will make you to walk;” as was carefully observed by Augustine. The same thing is affirmed by Paul when he teaches, that, “it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” The hallucination of these Fathers is in dreaming that we are offered a movement which leaves us an intermediate choice, while they never think of that effectual working by which the heart of man is renewed from pravity to rectitude. But this effectual working of the Holy Spirit is described in the thirty-second chapter of Jeremiah, where he thus speaks in the name of God, “I will put the fear of my name into their hearts, that they decline not from my commandments.” In short, their error lies in making no distinction between the grace of Regeneration, which now comes to the succor of our wretchedness, and the first; grace which had been given to Adam. This Augustine carefully expounds. “Through Christ the Mediator,” he says, “God makes those who were wicked to be good for ever after. The first man had not that grace by which he could never wish to be bad; for the help given him was of that nature that he might abandon it when he would, and remain in it if he would, but it was not such as to make him willing. The grace of the second Adam is more powerful. It makes us will, will so strongly and love so ardently, that by the will of the spirit we overcome the will of the flesh lusting against it.” A little farther on he says, “Through this grace of God in receiving good and persevering therein, there is in us a power not only to be able to do what we will, but to will what we are able.” (Aug. Lib. ad Bonif. 2, c. 8.) Although the subject is too long to be despatched thus briefly, I feel confident that my statement, though short, will suffice with readers of sense to refute these fancies.

But they pretend that they have also the support of Scripture. For when it is said, “Turn thou me, O Lord, and I shall be turned,” (Jeremiah 31:18,) they infer that there is a preventing grace given to men: and, on the other hand, out of the words, “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,” they extract the power of free-will. I am aware that Augustine uses this distinction, but it is in a very different sense: For he distinctly declares, and that in numerous passages, that the grace of God so works in us as to make us willing or unwilling, whence he concludes that man does no good thing which God does not do in him. (Aug. Lib. ad Bonif. 3, c. 8.) What then, you will ask, does Augustine mean when he speaks of the freedom of the will? Just what he so often repeats, that men are not forced by the grace of God against their will, but ruled voluntarily, so as to obey and follow of their own accord, and this because their will from being bad is turned to good. Hence he says, “We therefore will, but God works in us also to will. We work, but God causes us also to work.” Again, “The good which we possess not without our own will we should never possess unless he worked in us also to will.” Again, “It is certain that we will when we are willing, but he makes us to be willing. It is certain that we do when we do, but he makes us to do by affording most effectual strength to the will.” (Aug. Lib. 2:de Bon. Persev. cap. 13; Lib. 2:23, de Graf. et Liber. Arbit.) The whole may be thus summed up — Their error consists in sharing the work between God and ourselves, so as to transfer to ourselves the obedience of a pious will in assenting to divine grace, whereas this is the proper work of God himself.

But they insist on the words of the Prophet, that in requiring conversion from us he addresses free-will, which he would do in vain (that is, in their opinion) unless free-will were something. I admit that expressions of this kind would be absurd if there were not some will in man, but I do not therefore concede that the free faculty of obeying may be thence inferred. Those venerable Fathers must be the merest of novices if they form their estimate of what man is able to do from the commandments given him, seeing that God requires of us what is above our strength for the very purpose of convincing us of our imbecility, and divesting us of all pride. Let us remember, therefore, that will in man is one thing, and the free choice of good and evil another: for freedom of choice having been taken away after the fall of the first man, will alone was left; but so completely captive under the tyranny of sin, that it is only inclined to evil.

Moreover, not to dwell longer here, I say that the doctrine here delivered by the Fathers of Trent is at open war with our Savior’s words, “Whosoever hath heard of the Father, cometh unto me.” (John 6:45.) For as Augustine wisely observes, it hence follows, that no man hears and learns of God without at the same time believing on Christ; and that the motion of the Holy Spirit is so efficacious that it always begets faith. They, on the contrary, place it in the option of man to listen to the inspiration of God, if he will! It is impossible to reconcile the two things — that all who have learned of God believe in Christ, and that the inspiration of God is not effectual and complete unless men of themselves assent to it. We have the Son of God, who is never at variance with himself, for the author of the former. To whom shall we ascribe the latter, which is utterly contrary to it, but to the father of lies?

After treating, under the seventh head, of The Mode of Preparation, so frigidly that every one but a savories Papist must feel ashamed of such senselessness, they at length, under the eighth head, when they come to define, set out with cautioning us against supposing that the justification of man consists in faith alone. The verbal question is, What is Justification? They deny that it is merely the forgiveness of sins, and insist that it includes both renovation and sanctification. Let us see whether this is true. Paul’s words are, “David describeth the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven.” (Romans 4:6; Psalm 32:1.) If, from this passage of David, Paul duly extracts a definition of gratuitous righteousness, it follows that it consists in the forgiveness of sins. Paul interprets thus — David calls him righteous to whom God imputeth righteousness by not imputing sin, and the same Apostle, without appealing to the testimony of another, elsewhere says, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing unto men their trespasses.” Immediately after, he adds, “He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:19.) Can anything be clearer than that we are regarded as righteous in the sight of God, because our sins have been expiated by Christ, and no longer hold us under liability?

There is no room for the vulgar quibble that Paul is speaking of the beginning of Justification; for in both places he is showing, not how men who had hitherto been unbelievers begin to be righteous, but how they retain the righteousness which they have once procured during the whole course of life; for David speaks of himself after he had been adopted among the children of God; and Paul asserts that this is the perpetual message which is daily heard in the Church. In the same sense also he says, “Moses describeth the righteousness of the law, that he who doeth these things shall live in them, (Leviticus 18:5;) but the righteousness of faith thus speaketh, He that believeth,” etc. (Romans 10:5.) We thus see that the righteousness of faith, which by no means consists of works, is opposed to the righteousness of the law, which so consists. The words have the same meaning as those which, as Luke tells us, Paul used to the people of Antioch, “By this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and every one who believeth in him is justified from all the things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (Acts 13:38.) For justification is added to forgiveness of sins by way of interpretation, and without doubt means acquittal. It is denied to the works of the law; and that it may be gratuitous, it is said to be obtained by faith. What! can the justification of the publican have any other meaning (Luke 17) than the imputation of righteousness, when he was freely accepted of God? And since the dispute is concerning the propriety of a word, when Christ is declared by Paul to be our righteousness and sanctification, a distinction is certainly drawn between these two things, though the Fathers of Trent confound them. For if there is a twofold grace, inasmuch as Christ both justifies and sanctifies us, righteousness does not include under it renovation of life. When it is said, “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? — It is God that justifieth” — it is impossible to understand anything else than gratuitous acceptance.

I would be unwilling to dispute about a word, did not the whole case depend upon it. But when they say that a man is justified, when he is again formed for the obedience of God, they subvert the whole argument of Paul, “If righteousness is by the law, faith is nullified, and the promise abolished.” (Romans 4:14.) For he means, that not an individual among mankind will be found in whom the promise of salvation may be accomplished, if it involves the condition of innocence; and that faith, if it is propped up by works, will instantly fall. This is true; because, so long as we look at what we are in ourselves, we must tremble in the sight of God, so far from having a firm and unshaken confidence of eternal life. I speak of the regenerate; for how far from righteousness is that newness of life which is begun here below?

It is not to be denied, however, that the two things, Justification and Sanctification, are constantly conjoined and cohere; but from this it is erroneously inferred that they are one and the same. For example: — The light of the sun, though never unaccompanied with heat, is not to be considered heat. Where is the man so undiscerning as not to distinguish the one from the other? We acknowledge, then, that as soon as any one is justified, renewal also necessarily follows: and there is no dispute as to whether or not Christ sanctifies all whom he justifies. It were to rend the gospel, and divide Christ himself, to attempt to separate the righteousness which we obtain by faith from repentance.

The whole dispute is as to The Cause of Justification. The Fathers of Trent pretend that it is twofold, as if we were justified partly by forgiveness of sins and partly by spiritual regeneration; or, to express their view in other words, as if our righteousness were composed partly of imputation, partly of quality. I maintain that it is one, and simple, and is wholly included in the gratuitous acceptance of God. I besides hold that it is without us, because we are righteous in Christ only. Let them produce evidence from Scripture, if they have any, to convince us of their doctrine. I, while I have the whole Scripture supporting me, will now be satisfied with this one reason, viz., that when mention is made of the righteousness of works, the law and the gospel place it in the perfect obedience of the law; and as that nowhere appears, they leave us no alternative but to flee to Christ alone, that we may be regarded as righteous in him, not being so in ourselves. Will they produce to us one passage which declares that begun newness of life is approved by God as righteousness either in whole or in part? But if they are devoid of authority, why may we not be permitted to repudiate the figment of partial justification which they here obtrude?

Moreover, how frivolous and nugatory the division of causes enumerated by them is, I omit to show, except that I neither can nor ought to let pass the very great absurdity of calling Baptism alone the instrumental cause. What then will become of the gospel? Will it not even be allowed to occupy the smallest corner? But baptism is the sacrament of faith. Who denies it? Yet, when all has been said, it must still be granted me that it is nothing else than an appendage of the gospel. They, therefore, act preposterously in assigning it the first place, and act just as any one who should call a mason’s trowel the instrumental cause of a house! Unquestionably, whosoever postponing the gospel enumerates baptism among the causes of salvation, by so doing gives proof that he knows not what baptism is, what its force, its office, or its use. What else I wish to say of the formal cause will be said on the tenth Canon. Here I wish only to advert to what belongs to the present place. For they again affirm that we are truly righteous, and not merely counted so. I, on the contrary, while I admit that we are never received into the favor of God without being at the same time regenerated to holiness of life, contend that it is false to say that any part of righteousness (justification) consists in quality, or in the habit which resides in us, and that we are righteous (justified) only by gratuitous acceptance. For when the Apostle teaches that “by the obedience of one many were made righteous,” (Romans 6:19) he sufficiently shows, if I mistake not, that the righteousness wanting in ourselves is borrowed elsewhere. And in the first chapter to the Ephesians, where he says that we are adopted to the predestination of sons of God, that we might be accepted in the Beloved, he comprehends the whole of our righteousness. For however small the portion attributed to our work, to that extent faith will waver, and our whole salvation be endangered. Wherefore, let us learn with the Apostle to lay aside our own righteousness, which is of the law, as a noxious impediment, that we may lay hold of that which is of the faith of Jesus Christ. (Philippians 3:9.) Of what nature this is we have abundantly shown; and Paul intimates in a single sentence in the third chapter to the Galatians, that the righteousness of the law, because it consists of works, has no congruity with the righteousness of faith.

But what can you do with men like these? For after they have enumerated many causes of Justification, forgetting that they were treating of the cause of justification, they infer that righteousness partly consists of works, because no man is reconciled to God by Christ without the Spirit of regeneration. How gross the delusion! It is just as if they were to say, that forgiveness of sins cannot be dissevered from repentance, and therefore repentance is a part of it. The only point in dispute is, how we are deemed righteous in the sight of God, and where our faith, by which alone we obtain righteousness, ought to seek it? Though they should repeat a thousand times, that we cannot share in the merit of Christ’s passion, without being at the same time regenerated by his Spirit, they will not make it cease to be a fundamental principle; that God is propitious to us because he was appeased by the death of Christ; and that we are counted righteous in his sight, because by that sacrifice our transgressions were expiated. “We have propitiation,” says Paul, “through faith in the blood of Christ.” (Romans 3:25; 5:11.) In fine, when the cause is inquired into, of what use is it to obtrude an inseparable accident? Let them cease then to sport with trifles, or trifle with quibbles such as — man receives faith, and along with it hope and love; therefore it is not faith alone that justifies. Because if eyes are given us, and along with them ears and feet and hands, we cannot therefore say that we either hear with our feet or walk with our hands, or handle with our eyes. Of the erroneous application of a passage of Paul I shall speak elsewhere.

Next follows their approbation of the worse than worthless distinction between an informal and a formed Faith. The venerable Fathers, indeed, are ashamed to use the very terms, but while they stammer out that man is not united to Christ by faith alone, unless hope and charity are added, they are certainly dreaming of that faith, devoid of charity, which is commonly called by the sophists informal. They thus betray their gross incapacity. For if the doctrine of Paul is true, that “Christ dwells in our hearts by faith,” (Ephesians 3:17) they can no more separate faith from charity than Christ from his Spirit. If “our hearts are purified by faith,” as Peter affirms, (Acts 15:9,) if “whosoever believeth hath eternal life,” as our Savior so often declares, (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:40; 20:31,) if the inheritance of eternal life is obtained by faith, (Romans 5:14,) faith is something very different from all forms of dead persuasion. They deny that we are made living members of Christ by faith. How much better Augustine, who calls faith the life of the soul, as the soul is the life of the body? (Aug. in Joan. c. 11,) although Augustine is not so much the authority to be quoted here as Paul, who acknowledges that he lives by the faith of Christ. (Galatians 2:20.) They should perhaps be pardoned this error, because they talk about faith as they might do of fabulous islands, (for who among them knows by the slightest experience what faith is?) were it not that they drag the miserable world along with them in the same ignorance to destruction!

Let us remember that the nature of Faith is to be estimated from Christ. For that which God offers to us in Christ we receive only by faith. Hence, whatever Christ is to us is transferred to faith, which makes us capable of receiving both Christ and all his blessings. There would be no truth in the words of John, that faith is the victory by which we overcome the world, (1 John 5:4,) did it not ingraft us into Christ, (John 16:33,) who is the only conqueror of the world. It is worth while to remark their stupidity. When they quote the passage of Paul, “Faith which worketh by love,” (Galatians 5:6) they do not see that they are cutting their own throats. For if love is the fruit and effect of faith, who sees not that the informal faith which they have fabricated is a vain figment? It is very odd for the daughter thus to kill the mother! But I must remind my readers that that passage is irrelevantly introduced into a question about Justification, since Paul is not there considering in what respect faith or charity avails to justify a man, but what is Christian perfection; as when he elsewhere says, “If a man be in Christ he is a new creature.” (2 Corinthians 5:17)

It were long and troublesome to note every blunder, but there is one too important to be omitted. They add, “that when catechumens ask faith from the Church, the answer is, “If you will enter into life, keep the commandments.’” (Matthew 19:17.) Wo to their catechumens, if so hard a condition is laid upon them! For what else is this but to lay them under an eternal curse, since they acknowledge with Paul, that all are under the curse who are subject to the law? (Galatians 3:10.) But they have the authority of Christ! I wish they would observe to what intent Christ thus spake. This can only be ascertained from the context, and the character of the persons. He to whom Christ replies had asked, What must I do to have eternal life? Assuredly, whosoever wishes to merit life by works, has a rule prescribed to him by the law, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But attention must be paid to the object of this as intimated by Paul, viz., that man experiencing his powers, or rather convinced of his powerlessness, may lay aside his pride, and flee all naked to Christ. There is no room for the righteousness of faith until we have discovered that it is in vain that salvation is promised us by the law. But that which the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God performed by his own Son, by expiating our sins through the sacrifice of his death, so that his righteousness is fulfilled in us. But so preposterous are the Fathers of Trent, that while it is the office of Moses to lead us by the hand to Christ, (Galatians 3:24,) they lead us away from the grace of Christ to Moses.

Lest they should not be liberal enough in preaching up the powers of man, they again repeat, under this head, that the Spirit of God acts in us according to the proper disposedness and co-operation of each. What disposedness, pray, will the Spirit of God find in stony hearts? Are they not ashamed to feign a disposedness, when the Spirit himself uniformly declares in Scripture that all things are contrary? For the commencement of grace is to make those willing who were unwilling, and therefore repugnant; so that faith, as well in its beginnings as its increase, even to its final perfection, is the gift of God; and the preparation for receiving grace is the free election of God, as Augustine says, (Lib. 1:de Praedest., Sanct. c. 9-11.) And the words of Paul are clear, “God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings, according as he hath chosen us in Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will.” (Ephesians 1:3.) By these words he certainly restrains us, while receiving so great a blessing from God, from glorying in the decision of our will, as Augustine again says. (Ibid. c. 8.) This which man ought to receive as at the hands of God, is he to oppose to him as a merit of his own? For whence is there a first disposition, unless because we are the sheep of Christ! And who dare presume so far as to say he makes himself a sheep? Accordingly, when Luke speaks of effectual calling, he tells us that not those who were disposed of themselves, but those who were pre-ordained to eternal life, believed. (Acts 13:48.) And Paul acquaints us whence a right disposition is, when he teaches that the good works in which we walk were prepared by God. (Ephesians 2:10.) Let us hear Augustine, whose doctrine is very different, rather than those babblers. “After the fall of man,” he says, (Lib. 2: de Bono Persev., c. 9,) “God was pleased that man’s approach to him should be the effect only of his grace, and that man’s not withdrawing from him should also be the effect only of his grace.” For it is he himself who promises that he will give us a heart that we may understand, and ears that we may hear. Wherefore it is His grace alone which makes the difference, as Paul reminds us. Let me conclude by again using the words of Augustine, “The human will obtains not grace by freedom, but freedom by grace, and in order that it may persevere, delectable perpetuity and insuperable fortitude,” (Lib. de Corrupt. et Grat. c. 8.)

In the ninth chapter, while they desire to show some signs of modesty, they rather betray their effrontery. Seeing that the doctrine of Scripture was obviously repugnant to their decrees, they, to prevent this from being suspected, first explain what it is for a man to be justified by faith, saying, that faith is the beginning of salvation, and the foundation of justification. As if they had disentangled themselves by this solution, they immediately fly off to another — that the Apostle teaches that we are justified freely, because all the things which precede justification, whether faith or works, do not merit it. Did they think they are engaged in a serious matter, would they perform it as giddily as if they were playing at see-saw? I say nothing of their disregard of the judgments of mankind, as if they had expected to put out the eyes of all by such a sacred dogma as this — Faith justifies, since it begins justification. First, this comment is repugnant to common sense. For what can be more childish than to restrict the whole effect to the mere act of beginning?

But let us see for a little whether the words of Paul allow themselves to be so easily wrested. “The gospel,” he says, (Romans 1:16) “is the, power of God to every one believing unto salvation; for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith.” Who sees not that here the beginning and the end are alike included? Were it otherwise, it would have been said, from “faith to works,” as they would finish what faith begins. To the same effect is the testimony of Habakkuk, “The just shall live by fairly.” (Habakkuk 2:4.) This would be improperly said did not faith perpetuate life. In the person of Abraham the chief mirror of justification is held forth. Let us see, then, at what time faith is declared to have been imputed to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15:6; Galatians 3:6.) He was certainly not a novice, but having left his country, had for several years followed the Lord, so that he was no common exemplar of holiness and all virtue. Faith therefore does not open up an access to him to righteousness, in order that his justification may afterwards be completed elsewhere. And Paul at length concludes that we stand in the grace which we have obtained by faith. (Romans 5:2.) As far as a fixed and immovable station is from a transient passage, so far are they in this dogma of theirs from the meaning of Paul. To collect all the passages of Scripture were tedious and superfluous. From these few, I presume, it is already super-abundantly clear, that the completion, not less than the commencement of justification, must be ascribed to faith.

The second branch is, that Justification is said by Paul to be gratuitous, because no merit precedes it. What then? When Paul also exclaims that all glorying of the flesh is excluded by the law of faith, is he looking only to the merits of past life, and does he not rather remind us that men justified by faith have nothing in which they can glory to the very end of life? For when he asserts after David that righteousness is imputed without works, he declares what is the perpetual state of believers. (Romans 3:27; 4: 2.) In like manner David exclaims, that himself and all the other children of God are blessed by the remission of sins, not for one day, but for the whole of life. (Psalm 32:1.) Nor does Peter, in the Acts, speak of the justification of a single day, when he says, “We believe that through the grace of Jesus Christ we are saved, as did also our fathers.” (Acts 15:11.) The question under discussion was, whether observance of the law was to be exacted of the Gentiles. He says it ought not, because there is no other salvation in the Christian Church than through the grace of Christ, and there never was any other. (Acts 4:12.) And justly; for, as Paul says, the promise will not be secure unless it depends on the grace of God and on faith. (Romans 4:16.) Will they pretend that he is here, too, speaking of preceding merits? Nay, he declares that the greatest saints can have no assurance of salvation, unless it repose on the grace of Christ. He therefore abolishes faith who does not retain his as the only righteousness, which exists even until death.

We are justified freely, they say, because no works which precede justification merit it. But when Paul takes away all ground of glorying from Abraham, on the ground that faith was imputed to him for righteousness, he immediately subjoins by way of proof — where works are, there a due reward is paid, whereas what is given to faith is gratuitous. Let us observe that he is, speaking of the holy Patriarch. Paul affirms, that at the time when he renounced the world to devote himself entirely to God, he was not justified by any works. If these spurious Fathers object, that it was then only he began to be justified, the quibble is plainly refuted by the context of the Sacred History. He had for many years exercised himself in daily prayer to God, and he had constantly followed the call of God, wherein was contained the promise of eternal life. Must they not therefore be thrice blind who see no gratuitous righteousness of God, except in the very vestibule, and think that the merit of works pervades the edifice? But it is proper to attend to the gloss by which they attempt to cloak this gross impiety, viz., that in this way they satisfy the Apostle’s sentiment, “If it be of grace, then it is no more of works.” (Romans 11:5) But Paul ascribes it to Divine grace that a remnant is left, and that they are miraculously preserved by God from the danger of eternal destruction, even unto the end. Far, therefore, is he from restricting it to so small a portion, i.e., to the beginning alone.

It was indeed an absurd dream, but they are still more grossly absurd when they give it as their opinion, that none of all the things which precede Justification, whether faith or works, merit it. What works antecedent to Justification are they here imagining? What kind of order is this in which the fruit is antecedent in time to the root? In one word, that pious readers may understand how great progress has been made in securing purity of doctrine, the monks dunned into the ears of the reverend Fathers, whose part was to nod assent, this old song, that good works which precede justification are not meritorious of eternal salvation, but preparatory only. If any works precede faith, they should also be taken into account. But there is no merit, because there are no works; for if men inquire into their works, they will find only evil works.

Posterity will scarcely believe that the Papacy had fallen into such a stupor as to imagine the possibility of any work antecedent to justification, even though they denied it to be meritorious of so great a blessing! For what can come from man until he is born again by the Spirit of God? Very different is the reasoning of Paul. He exhorts the Ephesians to remember (Ephesians 2) that they were saved by grace, not by themselves nor by their own works. He subjoins a proof, not the one which these insane Fathers use, that no works which precede suffice, but the one which I have adduced, that we are possessed of no works but those which God hath prepared, because we are his workmanship created unto a holy and pious life. Faith, moreover, precedes justification, but in such a sense, that in respect of God, it follows. What they say of faith might perhaps hold true, were faith itself, which puts us in possession of righteousness, our own. But seeing that it too is the free gift of God, the exception which they introduce is superfluous. Scripture, indeed, removes all doubt on another ground, when it opposes faith to works, to prevent its being classed among merits. Faith brings nothing of our own to God, but receives what God spontaneously offers us. Hence it is that faith, however imperfect, nevertheless possesses a perfect righteousness, because it has respect to nothing but the gratuitous goodness of God.

In the tenth chapter, they inveigh against what they call The Vain Confidence of Heretics. This consists, according to their definition, in our holding it as certain that our sins are forgiven, and resting in this certainty. But if such certainty makes heretics, where will be the happiness which David extols? (Psalm 32) Nay, where will be the peace of which Paul discourses in the fifth chapter to the Romans, if we rest in anything but the goodwill of God? How, moreover, have we God propitious, but just because he enters not into judgment with us? They acknowledge that sins are never forgiven for Christ’s sake, except freely, but leaving it in suspense to whom and when they are forgiven, they rob all consciences of calm placid confidence. Where, then, is that boldness of which Paul elsewhere speaks, (Ephesians 3:12,) that access with confidence to the Father through faith in Christ? Not contented with the term confidence, he furnishes us with boldness, which is certainly something more than certainty. And what shall we say to his own occasional use of the term certainty? (Romans 8:37.) This certainty he founds upon nothing but a mere persuasion of the free love of God. Nay, they overthrow all true prayer to God, when they keep pious minds suspended by fear which alone shuts the door of access against us. “He who doubts,” says James, (James 1:6) “is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind.” Let not such think that they shall obtain anything of the Lord. “Let him who would pray effectually not doubt.” Attend to the antithesis between faith and doubt, plainly intimating that faith is. destroyed as soon as certainty is taken away.

But that the whole of their theology may be more manifest to my readers, let them weigh the words which follow under the same head. It ought not to be asserted, they say, that those who have been truly justified ought to entertain an unhesitating doubt that they are justified. If it be so, let them teach how plhrofori>a (full assurance) can be reconciled with doubt. For Paul makes it the perpetual attendant of faith. I say nothing as to their laying down as a kind of axiom what Paul regards as a monstrous absurdity. “If the inheritance is by the law,” he says, (Romans 4:14,) “faith is made void.” He argues that there will be no certainty of faith if it depends on human works — a dependence which he hesitates not to pronounce most absurd. And justly; seeing he immediately infers from it that the promise also is abolished.

I am ashamed to debate the matter, as if it were doubtful, with men who call themselves Christians. The doctrine of Scripture is clear. “We know,” says John, (1 John 4:6,) “that we are the children of God.” And he afterwards explains whence this knowledge arises, viz., from the Spirit which he hath given us. In like manner Paul, too, reminds us, (1 Corinthians 2:12) “That we have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit which is of God, that we may know the things which are given us of God.” Elsewhere it is said still more explicitly, “We have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” (Romans 8:15.) Hence that access with confidence and boldness which we mentioned a little ago. And, indeed, they are ignorant of the whole nature of faith who mingle doubt with it. Were Paul in doubt, he would not exult over death, and write as he does in the eighth of the Romans, when he boasts of being so certain of the love of God that nothing can turn him from the persuasion. This is clear from his words. And he assigns the cause, “Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given to us.” By this he intimates that our conscience, resting in the testimony of the Holy Spirit, boldly glories in the presence of God, in the hope of eternal life. But it is not strange that this certainty, which the Spirit of God seals on the hearts of the godly, is unknown to sophists. Our Savior foretold that so it would be. “Not the world, but you alone in whom he abideth, will know him.” (John 14:17.) It is not strange that those who, having discarded the foundation of faith, lean rather on their works, should waver to and fro. For it is a most true saying of Augustine, (in Psalm 88,) “As the promise is sure, not according to our merits, but according to his grace, no man ought to speak with trepidation of that of which he cannot doubt.”

They think, however, that they ingeniously obviate all objections when they recommend a general persuasion of the grace of Christ. They prohibit any doubt as to the efficacy of Christ’s death. But where do they wish it to be placed In the air, so as to be only in confused imagination. For they allow none to apply grace to themselves with the firm assurance of faith, as if we had to no purpose received such promises as these, “Behold your king cometh;” “Ye are the heirs of promise;” “The Father is pleased in thee;” “The righteousness of God is unto all and upon all them that believe.” (Matthew 21:5; Zechariah 9:9; Acts 2:39; Luke 12:32; Romans 3:22.) Surely, if they admit that by faith we apprehend what God offers to us, Christ is not set before me and others, merely that we may believe him to have been the Redeemer of Abraham, but that every one may appropriate the salvation which he procured. And how improper is it to assert that “no man can know with certainty of faith that he has obtained the grace of God.” Paul and John recognize none as the children of God but those who know it. Of what knowledge can we understand them to speak, but that which they have learned by the teaching of the Holy Spirit? Admirably says Bernard, (Sermon 5 in Dedicat. Temp.,) “Faith must here come to our aid; here truth must lend us succor; that that which lies hid in the heart of the Father respecting us may be revealed by the Spirit, or the Spirit may persuade our hearts that we are the children of God; and persuade by calling and justifying us freely by faith.” But if Paul, when he exhorts the Corinthians to prove themselves whether they be in the faith, (2 Corinthians 13:5,) pronounces all reprobate who do not know Christ dwelling in them, why should I hesitate to pronounce them twice reprobate, who, not allowing the Church to enter on any such proof, abolish all certainty concerning the grace of God?

Under the eleventh, head, when they describe Increase of Righteousness, they not only confound the free imputation of righteousness with the merit of works, but almost exterminate it. Their words are, “Believers increase in righteousness by good works, through the observance of the commandments of God and the Church, and are thence more justified.” They ought at least to use the exception of Augustine. (De Civit. 19 c. 27.) “The righteousness of believers, while they live in the world, consists more in the forgiveness of sins than the perfection of virtues.” He teaches that no dependence at all is to be placed on righteousness of works, which he names with contempt. For he declares that the only hope of all the godly who groan under the weakness of the flesh is, that they have a mediator, Christ Jesus, who is the propitiation for their sins. (Lib. ad Bonif., 5 c. 5.) On the contrary, the Fathers of Trent; or rather the hireling monks, who, as a kind of Latin pipers, compose for them whatever tune they please, doing their utmost to call their disciples away from the view of grace, blind them by a false confidence in works. We, indeed, willingly acknowledge, that believers ought to make daily increase in good works, and that the good works wherewith they are adorned by God, are sometimes distinguished by the name of righteousness. But since the whole value of works is derived from no other fountain than that of gratuitous acceptance, how absurd were it to make the former overthrow the latter! Why do they not remember what they learned when boys at school, that what is subordinate is not contrary? I say that it is owing to free imputation that we are considered righteous before God; I say that from this also another benefit proceeds, viz., that our works have the name of righteousness, though they are far from having the reality of righteousness. In short, I affirm, that not by our own merit but by faith alone, are both our persons and works justified; and that the justification of works depends on the justification of the person, as the effect on the cause. Therefore, it is necessary that the righteousness of faith alone so precede in order, and be so pre-eminent in degree, that nothing can go before it or obscure it.

Hence it is a most iniquitous perversion to substitute some kind of meritorious for a gratuitous righteousness, as if God after justifying us once freely in a single moment, left us to procure righteousness for ourselves by the observance of the law during the whole of life. As to the observance of the Divine Commandments, they must, whether they will or not, confess this much, that all mortals are very far from accomplishing it perfectly. Let them now answer, and say whether any part of it whatever be righteousness, or a part of righteousness? They will strenuously maintain the latter. But it is repugnant to Scripture, which gives this honor to none but perfect obedience. “The man who doeth these things shall live in them;” “Cursed is he that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” (Galatians 3:10.) Again, “He who fails in one point is guilty of all.” (James 2:10.) There is no man who does not acknowledge, without one word from me, that we are all subject to the curse while we keep halting at the observance of the law, and that righteousness, since works cannot procure it, must be borrowed from some other quarter of the commandments of the Church, which they mix up with those of God, we shall speak elsewhere. My readers, however, must be informed in passing, that no kind of impiety is here omitted. Who can excuse their profanity in not hesitating to claim a power of justifying for their own inventions? Never did even Pelagius attempt this. He attempted to fascinate miserable men by the impious persuasion that they could, by the observance of the Divine law, acquire righteousness for themselves; but. to attribute this merit to human laws never entered his mind. It is execrable blasphemy against God for any mortal to give way to such presumption as to award eternal life to the observance of his own traditions.

But whither shall I turn? It is a Sacred Council that speaks, and it cannot err in the interpretation of Scripture. And they have passages of Scripture, the first out of Ecclesiasticus, “Fear not to be justified even until death.” I believe there is one way of getting myself out of the difficulty. Let my readers look at the passage, and they will find that the worthy Fathers have impudently corrupted it; for the writer says, “Be not forbidden, i.e., prevented until death,” although it ought rather to be rendered defer not; for this the Greek word means. He is inveighing against the slothfulness of those who put off their conversion to God. What was thus spoken of the commencement, these religious Fathers, not only in gross ignorance, but open malice, apply to progress. In the passage of James there is more plausibility. (James 2:24.) But any one who has read our writings knows well enough that James gives them no support, inasmuch as he uses justification to signify, not the cause of righteousness, but the proof of it. This plainly appears from the context. But they become more ridiculous when they infer that a man is justified by good works because the Church prays for increase of faith, hope, and charity. Who, if he is not too old to be a child, is not frightened at this thunder?

Under the twelfth head they renew the old anathema: Let none say that the Commandments of God are impossible to be observed by a justified man. It serves no purpose to dispute about the term impossible. It is enough for me, and should be enough for all who are pious, and not at all contentious, that no man ever lived who satisfied the law of God, and that none ever can be found. What! shall we accuse the Holy Spirit of falsehood, when he charges all men with the guilt of transgression, not those of our age only, but all who shall ever exist to the end of the world? “There is not a man upon earth,” saith Solomon, “who sinneth not.” (1 Kings 8:46.) And David had said, “In thy sight shall no man living be justified.” (Psalm 143:2.) If it be possible to find any one who can fulfill the law, let the Holy Spirit retract. But far from us be the devilish pride of making the eternal Author of truth a liar. Nay, even Paul’s argument would fail: “It is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law. Therefore, whosoever are under the law are under curse.” (Galatians 3:10.) It will be easy to object, that the law can be fulfilled. But the Apostle assumes as an acknowledged principle what these men stigmatize with anathema. Accordingly in another place, when deploring the bondage in which himself, in common with all saints, was held, he could find no other remedy than that of being freed from the body. (Romans 7:24.)

The Pelagians annoyed Augustine with the same quibble. He admits that God may, if he pleases, raise men to this pitch of perfection, but that he never had, and never would, because the Scriptures teach otherwise. I go farther, and assert, that what the Scriptures declare never shall be, is impossible; although, if we are to debate about a word, the very thing was expressed by Peter, (Acts 15.) when he spoke of the yoke of the law as that which none of their fathers could bear. It is an error to suppose that this refers only to ceremonies: for what so very arduous was there in ceremonies as to make all human strength fail under the burden of them? He undoubtedly means that all mankind from the beginning were, and still are, unequal to the observance of the law, and that therefore nothing remains but to flee to the grace of Christ, which, loosing us from the yoke of the law, keeps us as it were under free custody. And it is to be observed that he is speaking of the regenerate, lest the Fathers of Trent quibble, and say that he spoke of the weakness of the flesh when the assistance of the Spirit is wanting. For he affirms that prophets and patriarchs, and pious kings, however aided by the Spirit of God, were unable to bear the yoke of the law, and declares, without ambiguity, that the observance of the law was impossible.

But they also produce Scripture as a witness on the other side: for John says, that “his commandments are not grievous.” (1 John 5:3.) I admit it, provided you exclude not the doctrine of the remission of sins, which he places before all the commandments. If it be not grievous to perform the law, you will find me several men without sin to make God a liar; as is said also by John. (1 John 1:8.) But these fools consider not that the facility of which John speaks depends on this, that the saints have a remedy in readiness to supply their defects — they flee for pardon. Hence, too, it is that Christ’s yoke is easy and his burden light, because the saints feel an alacrity in their liberty while they feel themselves no longer under the law. Paul applies to them this best stimulus of exhortation. (Romans 6:12.) And David also teaches, “With thee is forgiveness, that thou mayest be feared.” (Psalm 130:4.) Take that hope of pardon from me, and the least commandment of the law will be a heavier load than AEtna. But what is this to idle monks, who have here touched with the little finger that observance of the commandments of the facility of which they so confidently prattle. Nay, they openly betray their irreligion by this one dogma. How? This admirable Apostle laments that he is held captive from inability to obey the law as is meet, and he cries out that the disease cannot be cured till death cure it. (Romans 7:23.) These sturdy doctors superdiously smile, and sing out that such complaints are causeless, because Christ’s burden is light. They afterwards add, “The disciples of Christ love him, and those who love him do his commandments.” (John 14:23.) This is all true. But where is the perfect love of Christ — love, I mean, with the whole heart, and mind, and strength? There only where the flesh lusteth not against the spirit, and therefore not in the world at all. The disciples of Christ love him with sincere and earnest affection of heart, and according to the measure of their love keep his commandments. But how small is this compared with that strict perfection in which there is no deficiency?

Let readers of sense now attend to the consistency of the dicta of these Fathers. After boldly asserting that the Law can be fulfilled by believers, they admit that even the most holy sometimes fall into light and daily sins. First I ask, whether there be any sin, however light, that is not inconsistent with the observance of the law? For what vicious thought will creep into the mind of man if it be wholly occupied with the love of God? The law is not satisfied unless God is loved with the whole heart. That men do not therefore cease to be righteous I admit. But why so, but just because they are blessed to whom sin is not imputed? If they insist on 117 Hence, too, it is that Christ’s yoke is easy and his burden light, because the saints feel an alacrity in their liberty while they feel themselves no longer under the law. Paul applies to them this best stimulus of exhortation. (Romans 6:12.) And David also teaches, “With thee is forgiveness, that thou mayest be feared.” (Psalm 130:4.) Take that hope of pardon from me, and the least commandment of the law will be a heavier load than AEtna. But what is this to idle monks, who have here touched with the little finger that observance of the commandments of the facility of which they so confidently prattle. Nay, they openly betray their irreligion by this one dogma. How? This admirable Apostle laments that he is held captive from inability to obey the law as is meet, and he cries out that the disease cannot be cured till death cure it. (Romans 7:23.) These sturdy doctors superdiously smile, and sing out that such complaints are causeless, because Christ’s burden is light. They afterwards add, “The disciples of Christ love him, and those who love him do his commandments.” (John 14:23.) This is all true. But where is the perfect love of Christ — love, I mean, with the whole heart, and mind, and strength? There only where the flesh lusteth not against the spirit, and therefore not in the world at all. The disciples of Christ love him with sincere and earnest affection of heart, and according to the measure of their love keep his commandments. But how small is this compared with that strict perfection in which there is no deficiency? Let readers of sense now attend to the consistency of the dicta of these Fathers. After boldly asserting that the Law can be fulfilled by believers, they admit that even the most holy sometimes fall into light and daily sins. First I ask, whether there be any sin, however light, that is not inconsistent with the observance of the law? For what vicious thought will creep into the mind of man if it be wholly occupied with the love of God? The law is not satisfied unless God is loved with the whole heart. That men do not therefore cease to be righteous I admit. But why so, but just because they are blessed to whom sin is not imputed? If they insist on being righteous by works, on which their consciences can repose in the sight of God, they, in the first place, subvert faith, and do an insufferable wrong to the grace of God; and, in the second place, they bring no support to their impious doctrine as to possible observance of the law. If they consider what they call lighter lapses as nothing, the dreadful sentence of the Supreme Judge thunders forth, “He who shall despise one of these least commandments shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” Although I should like to know what sins they call light, (for so they speak by way of extenuation,) and why they say that the righteous fall into them sometimes rather than constantly, or ever and anon; for scarcely a moment passes in which we do not contract some new guilt. In their eyes all kinds of concupiscence which prompt us to evil are light sins, and also all kinds of temptations which urge us to blasphemy against God. Be this as it may, they are here placed in a manifest dilemma.

What afterwards follows under the same head is no more applicable than if one were to attempt to prove from the movement of the feet that the hands do not feel. They gather some exhortations to a pious life. What, pray, will they force out of these except what may be learned a hundred times better, and with very different effect, from our writings and discourses, and even daily conversation, viz., that “we are not called to uncleanness but to holiness,” that “the mercy of God hath appeared, that denying the lusts of the flesh, we may live piously and holily in the world,” that “we have risen with Christ to set our affections on things above:” (1 Thessalonians 4:7; Titus 2:11; Colossians 3:12.) But they seem to think they have done some great thing when they infer that it is in vain for those who are unwilling to be partakers of the sufferings of Christ, to glory in the heavenly inheritance. How much better we explain the matter let our readers judge. There is one difference, however: we teach that we are to share in the sufferings of Christ in order that we may attain to the fellowship of his blessed resurrection; (Romans 8:17;) we do not separate Christ from himself. They erroneously infer what does not at all follow — that men by suffering merit eternal life, and that part of their righteousness consisting therein, they do not depend entirely on the grace of God.

But they are still more absurd in their conclusion. For they infer that all are enemies to the Christian religion who teach that the righteous sin in every good work, at least venially. I should like to know what logic taught them to draw such an inference as this: “So run that you may obtain the reward” — ergo, In the good works of saints there is nothing that deserves blame. Must not men be thrice stupid when such fellows can persuade them that such follies proceeded from the Holy Spirit? But, passing this absurdity, let us look at the substance.

They must of necessity admit that works are to be judged from the internal affection of mind from which they emanate, and the end at which they aim, rather than from the external mask under which they appear to men: for God looketh on the heart, as was said to Samuel, and his eyes behold the truth, as Jeremiah reminds us. It is too plain, however, that we are never animated and actuated by a perfect love to God in obeying His just commands. Various passions withdraw us from our course, so that we scarcely walk when God enjoins us to hasten on with the greatest speed; we are scarcely lukewarm when we ought to be all ardor. Though from self-deception we are not sensible of this defect, God sees and judges: in his sight the stars are dim, and the sun shineth not. In short, the seventh chapter of the Romans disposes of this controversy. There Paul, in his own person and that of all the godly, confesses that he is far from perfection, even when his will is at its best. Wherefore let a man flatter himself as he may, the best work that ever was, if brought by God to judgment, will be found stained by some blemish. But these works are approved by God. Who denies it? We only maintain that they cannot please without pardon. But what is it that God pardons except sin? Hence it follows that there is nothing so very censurable in saying, that all good works whatever, if judged with strict rigor, are more deserving of eternal damnation than of the reward of life; for wherever sin, in however slight a degree, is found, no man of sound judgment will deny that there too the materials of death are found. Owing, however, to the boundless mercy of God, works have a recompense in heaven, though, they not only merited nothing of the kind, but would have the reward of eternal death were not the impurity with which they are otherwise defiled wiped away by Christ. I have moreover shown in many places how absurd the reasoning is which infers dignity or merit from the use of the term reward. The reason is obvious. The very recompense which the sophists assert to be founded on merit, depends on gratuitous acceptance.

Under the thirteenth head. if they only did what the title professes, I would give them my subscription. But since, while professing to obviate rashness and presumption, they make it their whole study to efface from the minds of the pious all confidence in their election, I am forced to oppose them, because they are plainly opposed by Scripture. For to what end does Paul discourse at such length in the first chapter to the Ephesians, on the eternal election of God, unless to persuade them that they were chosen by it unto eternal life? And there is no need of conjecture; for he repeatedly enjoins the Ephesians to hold it fixed in their minds, that they have been called and made partakers of the gospel, because they were elected in Christ before the foundation of the world. Likewise in the eighth chapter to the Romans, he expressly conjoins the doctrine of election with the assurance of faith.

I acknowledge, indeed, and we are all careful to teach, that nothing is more pernicious than to inquire into the secret council of God, with the view of thereby obtaining a knowledge of our election — that this is a whirlpool in which we shall be swallowed up stud lost. But seeing that our Heavenly Father holds forth in Christ a mirror of our eternal adoption, no man truly holds what has been given us by Christ save he who feels assured that Christ himself has been given him by the Father, that he may not perish. What! are the following passages mere verbiage? “The Father who has placed us under the protection and faith of his Son is greater than all.” “The Son will not allow anything to be lost.” (John 6:39; 10:28.) These things are said that all who are the sons of God may trust in such a guardian of their salvation, and feel safe in the midst of danger; nay, when beset with infinite perils, may trust that their salvation is secure because in the hand of God.

But they affirm, that it is impossible to know whom God has chosen except by special revelation. I admit it. And, accordingly, Paul says that we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we may know the things which are given us of God. The gift he elsewhere interprets as meaning the adoption, by which we are classed among his children, and which he holds to be so certain that we may with loud voice glory in it. But I am not unaware of what they intend by special revelation. I, however, mean that which our Heavenly Father specially deigns to bestow on his own children. Nor is this any fancy of my own. The words of Paul are well known, “Those things which are hidden from human sense God hath revealed unto us by his Spirit, who also searcheth the deepest things of God.” Again, “Who hath known the mind of God, or who hath been his counselor? But we have the mind of Christ.”

On the whole, then, we see that what the venerable Fathers call rash and damnable presumption, is nothing but that holy confidence in our adoption revealed unto us by Christ, to which God everywhere encourages his people. Under the fourteenth head they prohibit any one from feeling absolutely certain that God will bestow upon him the gift of Final Perseverance, and yet they do not disapprove of entertaining the strongest hope of it in God. But let them first show us by what kind of cement they can glue together things so opposed to each other as the strongest hope and a doubtful expectation. For certainly, he whose expectation of eternal life is not founded on absolute certainty, must be agitated by various, doubts. This is not the kind of hope which Paul describes, when he says that he is certainly persuaded that neither life nor death, nor things present, nor things to come, will dissolve the love with which God embraces him in Christ. He would not speak thus did not the certainty of Christian hope reach beyond the last hour of life. And what language do the promises speak? The Spirit not only declares that the just lives by faith, but that he shall live. (Habakkuk 2:4.) Thus far must hope reach. Paul even shows this when ]he describes hope as patiently waiting for things which are yet concealed.

But, it may be said, they do not take away hope, but only absolute certainty. What! is there any expression of doubt or uncertainty when Paul boldly asserts that a crown of righteousness is laid up for him? (1 Timothy 4:8.) Is there anything conditional in the words, when he declares that an earnest of our adoption has been given us, so that we can dare with loud voice to call God our Father? They take refuge in the frivolous quibble out of which I have already driven them, viz., that Paul had this by special revelation. But he claims nothing so special for himself as not to share it with all believers, when in their name as much as his own, he boldly exults over death and life, the present and the future. Nor does John claim for himself alone that knowledge in which he glories, when he says, “We know that we shall be like God, for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2.) Nor Paul, when he says, “We glory in hope of the glory of God;” and again, “We know that when this earthly tabernacle falls, a mansion is prepared for us in heaven.” (Romans 5:2; 2 Corinthians 5:1.)

They make a gloss of what is said in the tenth chapter of First Corinthians, “Let him who standeth take heed lest he fall.” Of this there is a twofold solution. Paul there only checks carnal arrogance, which has nothing to do with the assurance of hope; nor does he address believers only, but all of the Gentiles who had assumed the name of Christ, among whom there might be many puffed up with vain confidence. For the comparison which is there made between Jews and Gentiles, is not confined to the elect only, but comprehends all who belonged to the Church by name. I will be satisfied, however, with this one reply, as it is quite sufficient, viz., that the fear enjoined is not that which in the smallest degree impairs the certainty of faith or hope, but only that which keeps us solicitous in the fear of God. The regenerate are not yet in glory, but only in the hope of glory, and much of the contest still remains. Hence did they infer that torpor must be shaken off, and no overweening security indulged, there is no man of sense who would not subscribe to them. But when they employ the passage as a battering-ram to shake the firmness of our hope, and drive us headlong, their conduct is on no account to be tolerated. In qualifying Paul’s sentiment, and making it mean that the work of salvation which God has begun will be perfected in us only if we are not wanting to his grace, they act very ignorantly, not observing that one part of grace consists in having God present with us so as to prevent our being wanting to his grace. This doctrine ought not to give occasion to sloth; it ought only to make them recognize what they have received of God, and what they expect from him. I could like, if I durst, to pass many things without affixing a stigma to them. But what can I do? There is scarcely one line which does not contain some notable error or give indications of dishonest dealing. On the fifteenth head, where they treat of recovery after the fall, they say that Jerome gave an appropriate definition of repentance, when he called it the second plank after shipwreck. Were I disposed to criticize the dictum of Jerome, I would ask why he calls it the second plank, and not the third or fourth? for how few are there who do not during life make more than one shipwreck. Nay: what man was ever found whom the grace of God has not rescued from daily shipwrecks? But I have no business with Jerome at present.

The Fathers of Trent do not treat of Repentance, but of the Sacrament of Penitence, which they pretend to have been instituted by Christ. When? When he said, Receive ye the Holy Spirit; whose sins ye remit, they shall be remitted. (John 20:22.) First, because Christ gave the Apostles this authority, is it therefore a sacrament? Where is the sign? where the form? Secondly, who knows not that this office was assigned to the Apostles that they might perform it towards strangers? How asinine the Fathers must be to allow the absurd trifling of a dreaming monk thus to pass without opposition! Christ confirms the testimony which the Apostles were to bear to the world concerning the remission of sins. Such is the message which is conveyed by the gospel, and that, too, `Lo those who are not yet chosen into the Church. Some babbler among the monks who rule the Council having never perhaps looked at the passage, certainly never pondered it, read out his own commentary that there a formula is prescribed by which those who had fallen after baptism were to be restored to a state of grace. The stupid Fathers nodded assent. The passage itself, however, proclaims that it was Shamelessly wrested. They infer that the penitence of a Christian man after a lapse, is very different from baptismal penitence: as if Christ had only referred to one species, and not expressly required, as the twenty-fourth chapter of Luke informs us, that repentance as well as remission of sins should be preached in his name. They go farther, and say, that this Penitence with which they trifle consists not only in contrition of heart, but the confession of the mouth and the satisfaction of works: although not to appear unmerciful, they mitigate the rigor of their law when they allow’ themselves to be appeased by a wish to confess. Why should I begin a long discussion here? The point is the remission of sins: which is the knowledge of salvation. (Luke 1:77.) God promises it to us free in the blood, of Christ: of auricular confession he says not a word. These new lawgivers tie down forgiveness to a formula of confession, contrary to the command of God, and assert that it is redeemed by satisfaction. What will remain for miserable consciences, if they are forced to abandon the word of God and acquiesce in the decrees of men?

I am desirous to be assured of my salvation. I am shown in the word of God a simple way, which will lead me straight to the entire and tranquil possession of this great boon. I will say no more. Men come and lay hands on me, and tie me down to a necessity of confession from which Christ frees me. They lay upon me the burden of satisfaction, ordering me to provide at my own hand that which Christ shows me is to be sought from his blood alone. Can I long doubt what it is expedient to do? Nay, away with all hesitation, when attempts are made to lead us away from the only author of our salvation. Search as they may, not a syllable will be found by which Christ orders us to confess our sins into a human ear. All the promises relating to the remission of sins make not the smallest mention of such a thing. The law was wholly unknown to the Apostles. Throughout the Eastern Church it was scarcely ever used. Nay, the observance was everywhere free for more than a thousand years, till Innocent III., with a few of his horned crew, entangled the Christian people in this net, which the Fathers of Trent would now make fast;. What I say is abundantly testified by ancient history. Our books are filled with proofs. None of them are unknown to those who dictated this famous formula to the Council; and yet so impudent are they, that they would persuade us by one word that the door of salvation is closed, and can only be opened by the key of a fictitious confession. But who will grant them a license to restrict the promises of Christ, by imposing any condition they please?

I do not say at present how cruel an executioner to torture and excruciate consciences is that law of Innocent which they anew promulgate; how many it has driven headlong to despair; what a narcotic of hypocrisy it has been to lull others asleep; how many monstrous iniquities have sprung from it! Nay, let us even imagine, as they themselves falsely give out, that some advantage flows from it: it is nothing to the purpose. The question is asked, How are those who have fallen from divine grace restored to it? Scripture everywhere shows the method, but makes no reference to confession, which was long afterwards coined in human brains. What effrontery! to preclude access to the hope of obtaining pardon, unless the confession which they have been pleased to prescribe precedes. The question relates to repentance. Its whole force and nature are so frequently, so copiously, so clearly depicted by the Holy Spirit in the law, the Prophets, and the Gospel, that no doctrine is more lucidly explained. Of confession, such as they pretend, there is throughout a profound silence. Who, then, will believe them `when they affirm that no repentance is genuine without that appendage, nay, unless it be included in it? It is enough for me to know the two following things — first, that they devise a Repentance altogether different from that which is recommended to us in Scripture; and secondly, that they enact a condition for obtaining the remission of sins, from which he, to whom alone the power of remitting belongs, wished us to be free. The latter is just as if they were forbidding God to promise salvation without their permission, or at least were opposing his performance of the promise of salvation which he has given. For they do not permit him to pardon our sins, unless it be on the condition of our performing an observance which they alone make binding.

With regard to Satisfaction, they think they make a subtle distinction when they collect the dregs of the vile comments of the sophists, — that not eternal punishment, indeed, but temporal, is to be compensated by satisfaction. Who knew not that such was the prattle of the sophists? And yet, when they pretend that eternal punishment, together with guilt, is remitted to us by confession, or the wish to confess, what else do they mean than that we merit by works what God promises to give freely? But let us now see the force of the distinction. When the Prophets mention the gratuitous remission of sins, it is true they usually refer to its other effect, viz., that God would be appeased, and no longer avenge the sins of his people or visit them with his rod. Whoever is moderately versed in Scripture will acknowledge the strict accuracy of my statement, that the punishments which we deserved are mitigated, loosed, in fine, abolished, because God pardons us, not for any merit of our own, as if he were appeased by compensation, but because he is moved solely by his own mercy. The Babylonish captivity was a temporal punishment. Its termination in seventy years, when the Israelites deserved it much longer, God ascribes to his own free mercy. Whenever the chastisements which God had threatened are withdrawn, it is uniformly represented as the result of gratuitous reconciliation. It is certainly a relaxation of temporal punishment which God promises in these words, “Not on your account will I do it, but for my name’s sake.” And Isaiah, when he states, that the satisfaction or price of our peace was laid upon Christ, reminds us that we have not only been freed from punishment by his interposition, but that he bore on our account all the pains by which God is wont to avenge or chastise our sins, in order that we may, however unworthy, enjoy all the blessings of the present life also. (Isaiah 48:9; 53:5.) But God nevertheless still chastises believers. I admit it. But to what end? Is it that he, by inflicting punishment, may pay what is due to himself and his own justice? Not at all; but that he may humble them, by striking them with a dread of his anger, that he may produce in them an earnest feeling of repentance, and render them more cautious in future. But there are means by which they may avert these punishments; I mean, when they anticipate them of their own accord, there is no reason why God should as it were drag them violently. When is there occasion for the rod but just when voluntary correction is wanting? Accordingly, the Apostle tells us that those who shall have judged themselves shall not be judged by the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:31.)

But how preposterous to infer satisfaction from this? The greater part of believers have, by prayer, warded off the chastisement to which they had made themselves liable. Nay, even Ahab, when he humbles himself spontaneously, feels the hand of God fall lighter upon him. (1 Kings 21:29.) The deprecatory petitions which the saints employed are the most decisive witnesses to gratuitous satisfaction. But these Fathers, it seems, adduce nothing which they cannot prove by passages of Scripture; for Paul teaches, that the sorrow which is agreeable to God worketh: repentance unto salvation not to be repented of. (2 Corinthians 7:10.) What! does Paul here call us back to satisfaction? I hear no word of it. They are dishonestly deluding us. They do so still more in what follows, when they tell us that John must be understood to refer to the same penitence in saying, “Repent, and bring forth fruits meet for repentance.” (Luke 3:8.) But whom did John address in these terms? Was it not persons who offered themselves for baptism while not yet imbued with the faith of Christ? Somewhat different from this, and yet not less absurd, is their quotation from the second chapter of the Revelations, “Remember whence thou art fallen, and first do works;” whereas the proper reading is, “do the first works,” or the former works. The writer exhorts the Ephesians to return to their former state of life. With what face is this stretched to satisfaction? When they so pertly called black white, did they think there would be no eyes to detect their fraud? Lysander once said to deputies who had spoken in a meeting of allies more imperiously than they ought, that they had need of a city which would be very indulgent to them. These masters would need a herd of oxen if they wish to have an audience which they can persuade to believe what they please. Let them go and boast of being guided immediately by the Holy Spirit, while they are palpable falsifiers of holy writ.

To sum up the whole — Though believers ought to be constantly thinking of Repentance, these Holy Fathers imagine it to be an indescribable something of rare occurrence — though Scripture declares repentance to be a renewal of the whole man — though it points out its very source, fear excited by a true sense of the Divine judgment — though it enumerates its parts, self-denial, which consists in a hatred of sin and dissatisfaction with our own depravity, and renewal of life or regeneration of the spirit, which is nothing else than the restoration of the Divine image — though it carefully marks its effects, and explicitly defines its whole nature, — the venerable Fathers produce nothing but the flimsy inanities by which the doctrine of repentance has been corrupted under the Papacy. What was said by ecclesiastical writers concerning external discipline, which referred to the formal profession of repentance, they ignorantly wrest to the spiritual renovation which formed the subject of their discourse. Not to be tedious in reviewing each point, let any one compare their lucubrations with our writings, and he will find and acknowledge that they have turned light into darkness.

I have hitherto endeavored to censure without accusing; and impartial readers will observe, that I censure nothing unless compelled to do so. But there is not a sentence which does not extort more of it from me than I could wish. Of this nature is the assertion under the sixteenth head, that the grace of Justification is lost, not only by unbelief, but by any mortal sin. If they meant that we are ejected from the possession (enjoyment) of this great blessing by an evil conscience, I would not at all gainsay them, I mean as far as regards ourselves. For although God does not cast us off, yet an evil conscience is such a separation from him as excludes us from the enjoyment of a lively and justifying knowledge of his paternal love towards us. But they are preposterous, first,in recognizing no sin as mortal that is not gross and palpable:, whereas most inward sins wound the mind more grievously and even fatally; and, secondly, in not perceiving how a good conscience is the inseparable attendant of faith. Were it not so, how could it be said that our hearts are purified, by faith, that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, that it is the victory by which we overcome the world, the shield for repelling the assaults of the devil, and that we are kept by faith through the power of God unto salvation? (Acts 15:9; Ephesians 3:17; 1 John 5:4; Ephesians 6:16; 1 Peter 5:9; 1:5.) There is no doubt, therefore, that faith is overwhelmed and buried in a man whenever he has been overcome by any temptation so as to abandon the fear of God. For the Spirit of holiness cannot be separated from faith any more than can Christ himself. I do not assert, however, that when we forsake the fear of the Lord faith is altogether extinguished in us. But as the fear of God is oppressed by depraved lusts, so I say that faith is stifled, and for the time exerts its power no more than if it were in a manner dead. The holy Fathers craftily endeavor to burrow out a hole in which they may hide their impious dogma, that we are not justified by faith alone. Not succeeding in this they attempt another method.

We come now to the last head, which treats of The Merit of Works. Here there is no dispute between us as to the necessity of exhorting `believers to good works, and even stimulating them by holding forth a reward. What then? First, I differ from them in this, that they make eternal life the reward; for if God rewards works with eternal life, they will immediately make out that faith itself is the reward which is paid, whereas Scripture uniformly proclaims that it is the inheritance which falls to us by no other right than that of free adoption. But there is still greater ground for contradicting, when they are not ashamed to affirm that nothing is to prevent believers from satisfying the Law, at least in a degree proportioned to the present state, and meriting eternal life. Where then will be the blessedness of which David speaks, (Psalm 32,) and without which we are all thrice wretched? Woe to those miserable men who perceive not that he who has come nearest to perfection has not yet advanced half-way! All who have their conscience exercised feel the strict truth of Augustine’s sentiment, “The righteousness of saints in this life consists more in the forgiveness of sins than the perfection of virtues.” (Lib. de Civit. Dei, 19 c. 27.) Still more accurate is another passage which I quoted, that; “so long as they groan under the infirmity of the flesh, the only hope left them is, that they have a mediator in Christ by whom they are reconciled to God.” (Lib. ad Bon., 3. c. 5.)

It is not strange, however, that addle-pated monks who, having never experienced any struggle of conscience, and who, moreover, being intoxicated with ambition, or surfeiting and drunkenness, only desire to raise themselves in the estimation of their idol, should thus prate of the perfection of the Law. With the same confidence do they talk of a heaven for hire, while they themselves meanwhile continue engrossed with the present hire, after which they are always gaping. But in vain do they attempt to dazzle eyes not wholly blind with those fair colors which they afterwards employ when they prohibit any one from glorying or confiding in works, because they are the gifts of God. Not to mention that what they now confess to be gifts of God, they previously claimed in a greater degree for human ability, there are three errors in their decree which are not to be tolerated. Though they mention incidentally that the good works of the pious are meritorious by the merit of Christ, they omit the most necessary part, viz., that there is no work untainted with impurity, until it be washed away by the blood of Christ. Nay rather, they annex a false dignity to works, as if they could please without pardon. There is, indeed, a speciousness in the gloss that they all flow from the Spirit of Christ. But where will the absolute power of the Holy Spirit be found? Is it not distributed to every one in measure? (1 Corinthians 12:11.) They ought, therefore, to have observed, that it is always mixed with dross of ours which taints its purity. But while our inherent depravity renders every kind of work which proceeds from us vicious in the sight of God, the only thing left for our works is to recover the grace which they have not in themselves, by a gratuitous acceptance. This is done when works acknowledged to have no value in themselves borrow, and, as it were, beg their value from Christ.

It is, indeed, a gross and impious delusion, not to acknowledge that every work which proceeds from us has only one way of obtaining acceptance, viz., when all that was vicious in it is pardoned by paternal indulgence. Another delusion almost similar to this is their not reflecting, that even if we should have merited anything by any one work, the whole of the merit, be it what it may, is lost by contrary transgression. “He who offends in one point is guilty of all.” (James 2:10) What reward do you promise yourself when nothing is produced but liability to eternal death They are also in error when they do not flee to the only remedy, and assuming that there is some good thing in them, ask God of his goodness, to regard it with favor, by not imputing the evil things which far exceed it both in weight and number.

The third error, however, is by far the worst, I mean their making assurance of salvation depend on the view of works. At one time, indeed, they prohibit us from trusting in ourselves, but when they again tell us to look to our works that we may have a sure hope of salvation, what grounds of hope, can we find in them? Do they not plainly place our whole trust in ourselves? Accordingly, they add a clause which is fit only for such a doctrine. It is, that in this life we carry on a warfare of doubtful issue, and cannot attain certainty, until God render to every one according to his works. By this they overthrow all confidence in our faith, or to use Paul’s expression, make faith itself void. (Romans 4:14.) But Paul declares that he is not justified, because he is not conscious of anything in himself. (1 Corinthians 4:4.) This is true, and therefore, in order that our possession of righteousness may be stable and tranquil, our part is to omit all mention of works, and beseech our Judge not to enter into judgment with us. (Psalm 143:2.) We reach the haven of security only when God lays aside the character of Judge, and exhibits himself to us as a Father.

And yet those swinish men are not ashamed to thunder out a cruel denunciation to terrify the simple, that no man is capable of receiving righteousness who does not firmly adhere to whatever they prescribe. What! has a new method of Justification lately appeared? Or rather, as salvation is one, do we not all come to it by one way? What will become of the Prophets and Apostles who gave no heed to such masters? Therefore, paying no regard to the Council of Trent, let us hold that fixed faith which the Prophets and Apostles, by the Spirit of Christ, delivered to us, knowing whence we have learned it. But the venerable Fathers, as if to make it impossible for any man to doubt that they are of the number of those whose mouth, as David exclaims, (Psalm 4:7) is full of cursing and bitterness, proceed, with truculent bluster, to send forth almost as many anathemas as there are individuals among them, and give these the plausible and honorable name of Canons! Yet that I may not seem to act maliciously, as if I had forgotten the moderation I have hitherto observed, I willingly subscribe to the three first. To the rest I will affix brief censures.

ANTIDOTE TO THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.

To Canons 1, 2, and 3:, I say, Amen.

CANON 4.

This was answered above, when I explained how Free-will assents to God calling and exciting it. We certainly obey God with our will, but it is with a will which he has formed in us. Those, therefore, who ascribe any proper movement to free-will, apart from the grace of God, do nothing else than rend the Holy Spirit. Paul declares, not that a faculty of willing is given to us, but that the will itself is formed in us, (Philippians 2:13,) so that from none else but God is the assent or obedience of a right will. He acts within, holds our hearts, moves our hearts, and draws us by the inclinations which he has produced in us. So says Augustine. (Lib. de Corrupt. et Grat., c. 14.) What preparation can there be in a heart of iron, `until by a wondrous change it begins to be a heart of flesh? This, as the Prophet declares, is entirely the work of God. The will of man will, indeed, dissent from God, so long as it continues contrary, but when it has been framed for obedience, the danger of dissenting is removed. But that the efficacy of divine grace is such, that all opposition is beaten down, and we who were unwilling are made obedient, it is not we who assent, but the Lord by the Prophet, when he promises that lie will make us to walk in his precepts; and Christ also, when he says, “Whosoever hath heard of my Father cometh unto me.” (John 6:45.)

CANON 5.

Let us not raise a quarrel about a word. But as by Free-will they understand a faculty of choice perfectly free and unbiassed to either side:, those who affirm that this is merely to use a name without a substance, have the authority of Christ when he says, that they are free whom the Son makes free, and that all others are the slaves of sin. Freedom and slavery are certainly contrary to each other. As to the term itself, let them hear Augustine, who maintains that the human will is not free so long as it is subject to passions which vanquish and enthral it. (Epist. 144, ad Anastas.) Elsewhere he says, “The will being vanquished by the depravity into which it has fallen, nature is without freedom.” (Hom. 3, in Joann.) Again, “Man making a bad use of free-will lost both himself and it.” Again, “Man received great powers of free-will when he was created, but lost them by sinning. Foolish men consider not that in the term freewill freedom is implied. But if they are the slaves of sin, why do they boast of free-will? For of whom a man is overcome, to the same is he bound a slave.” Nay, in another place he openly derides the name. “The will,” says he, “is free, not freed — free to righteousness, the slave of sin! Why, then, do they so much inflame miserable men by reminding them of their slavery, but just that they might learn to flee to the deliverer?” (Aug. de Perfect. Justit. Lib. de Verb. Apost. Serm. 3; De Spiritu et Litera, c. 30; De Corrupt. et Grat., c. 13.)

CANON 6.

As I abhor paradox, I readily repudiate the saying that the treachery of Judas is as properly the work of God as the calling of Paul. But they never will convince any man that God only acts permissively in the wicked, except it be one who is ignorant of the whole doctrine of Scripture. When it is said that the reprobate are set apart to execute the work of God; that his are the snares, swords, and axes which are directed by his hand; that his hiss arouses them to execute what his hand and counsel have decreed; that Christ was slain `by the Jews by the determinate counsel of God, (Isaiah 10:5; Ezekiel 17:20; 32:2; Psalm 17:13; Acts 2:4, 23) the words are too strong to be evaded by the subterfuge of permission. Augustine interprets better. After quoting the passages of Scripture in which the Father is said to have delivered up the Son, and Christ to have delivered himself, he immediately adds, “What;, then, did Judas do but sin?” Nor can he be justly blamed for saying elsewhere, that “God worketh in the hearts of men to incline their wills as he pleaseth, whether to good, of his mercy, or to evil, according to their deservings, and that by his judgment, sometimes open, sometimes hidden, but always just;” for he immediately adds the qualification, that “the malice is not his.” (De Verb. Dom. Serm. 63.) In like manner he had said a little before, “He does not command the wicked by ordering, in which case obedience would be laudable, but by his secret and just judgment he bends their will, already bad by their own depravity, to this misdeed or that.” (Aug. de Gr. et Lib. Arb. c. 21.) For there is nothing here but what the Scriptures teach almost in the same words when they speak of inclining and turning, hardening and doing.

CANON 7.

Assuredly a bad tree can only produce bad fruit. But who will be so shameless as to deny that we are bad trees until we are ingrafted into Christ? Therefore, if any good fruit is praised in man, let the root of it be sought in faith, as Augustine admonishes, (in Psalm 31 Sermon 1.) There God so often declares that he regards not the outward appearance, but looketh on the heart. This is said expressly by Jeremiah. (Jeremiah 5.) But what can be the cleanness or sincerity of a heart which Peter tells us is purified only by faith? (Acts 15:9.) Admirably, therefore, does Augustine say to Boniface, “Our religion distinguishes the just from the unjust, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith, without which the works which seem good turn to sin.” He adds, “Therefore unbelievers sin in whatever they do, because they do not refer their doings to a lawful end.” (Lit. ad Bonif., Lib. 3, c. 5.) He treats copiously of the same subject in his tract against Julian. Hence, also, in another place he describes theirs as a wandering course, inasmuch as the more active they are, the farther they are carried from the goal, and. the more therefore their condition becomes hopeless. At last he concludes, that “it is better to limp in the course than keep running out of it.” (Praef. in Psalm 31.) And what more would we, have? Let them anathematize the Apostle, who declares that without faith it is impossible to please God! (Hebrews 11:6.) Let them anathematize Christ and Paul, who declare that all unbelievers are dead, and are raised from death by the gospel! (John 5; Ephesians 2:1.)

CANON 8.

I answer: AMEN. Nor do I think that the thing ever came into any man’s mind. For being such as is described by them, it comprehends true repentance and is conjoined with faith. On the subject of the servile fear of hell, which to some degree restrains unbelievers from rushing with such furious and headlong impetus into wicked courses, we are of the same sentiments as Augustine, whose words are, (Ad. Anast. Ep. 144,) “What man is found innocent before God, who, if fear were withdrawn, would do what God forbids? He is guilty in his will by wishing to do what cannot lawfully be done. As far as he is concerned, he would rather that there was no justice prohibiting and punishing sin. And hence, if he would rather that there was no justice, who can doubt that he would take it away if he could? How then is he righteous who is such an enemy to righteousness, that if power were given him he would take it away when commanding, and not bear it when threatening or judging? He, therefore, is the enemy of righteousness who does not sin, because he is afraid of punishment. And, indeed, when all the progress made is that the sinner curbed by terror murmurs against God, who can deny that by such contumacy he aggravates his sin?”

CANON 9.

This Canon is very far from being canonical; for it joins things which are utterly at variance. They imagine that a man is justified by faith without any movement of his own will, as if it were not with the heart that a man believeth unto righteousness. Between them and us there is this difference, that they persuade themselves that the movement comes from the man himself, whereas we maintain that faith is voluntary, because God draws our wills to himself. Add, that when we say a man is justified by faith alone, we do not fancy a faith devoid of charity, but we mean that faith alone is the cause of justification.

CANON 10.

Could these anathemas take effect, all who are not versed in the sophistical art would pay dearly for their simplicity. They formerly asserted in their decrees that the righteousness of God was the only formal cause of Justification; now they anathematize those who say that we are formally righteous by the obedience of Christ. But it is in another sense. I see it or scent it. But how few are there who will not be misled by the ambiguity? Although it may be that having met with the sentiment somewhere and not understood it, they boldly condemn it. For as it were impious to say that the righteousness of Christ is only an exemplar or type to us, so if any one were to teach that we are righteous formally, i.e., not by quality but by imputation, meaning that our righteousness is in relation merely, there would be nothing worthy of censure. The adverb formally is used in both senses.

CANON 11.

I wish the reader to understand that as often as we mention Faith alone in this question, we are not thinking of a dead faith, which worketh not by love, but holding faith to be the only cause of justification. (Galatians 5:6; Romans 3:22.) It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone: just as it is the heat alone of the sun which warms the earth, and yet in the sun it is not alone, because it is constantly conjoined with light. Wherefore we do not separate the whole grace of regeneration from faith, but claim the power and faculty of justifying entirely for faith, as we ought. And yet it is not us that these Tridentine Fathers anathematize so much as Paul, to whom we owe the definition that the righteousness of man consists in the forgiveness of sins. The words are in the fourth chapter to the Romans, “David speaketh of the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven.” (Psalm 32:1) We see that in Paul’s view blessedness and righteousness mean the same thing. And where does he place both but solely in the remission of sins? His meaning is the same as in the fifth chapter of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing unto men their trespasses.” For he immediately explains how that reconciliation comes to us: “We are ambassadors beseeching you as in the name of Christ. He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him.” See how being reconciled to God by the sacrifice of Christ, we both are accounted and are righteous in him. But why quote one passage after another, while this is the doctrine uniformly inculcated by Prophets and Apostles?

It is worth while to observe how dexterously they accommodate Scripture to their purpose. They say that the love which is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit must not be excluded. Thus they corrupt one passage by another. The context shows that Paul does not there speak of our own love, but of the paternal love of God toward us; for he holds it forth as ground of consolation in all circumstances of adversity, that the Spirit suggests proof of the divine benevolence towards us. This swinish herd, on the contrary, twist it to mean, that we are not ashamed of hoping because we love God. And the moment they have given utterance to the words they insist on being regarded as oracles! With similar perversion they make justifying grace a habit, and deny that it proceeds from the free favor of God. The words of Scripture are clear as day against them. For when Paul says, that to believers reward is imputed not as of debt but of grace; and again, that the inheritance is of faith that it may be of grace, (Romans 4:4,) how is it possible in expounding it to give it any other meaning than that of free favor? What else is meant by a purpose of grace? One of the most striking passages is the first chapter to the Ephesians, where, going on word by word, he tells us that the Father hath made us acceptable to himself in the Son.

CANON 12.

The venerable Fathers will not allow Justifying Faith to be defined as the confidence with which we embrace the mercy of God as forgiving sin for Christ’s sake. But it pleases the Holy Spirit, who thus speaks by the mouth of Paul, “We are justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption which is in Christ, whom God hath appointed a propitiation through faith in his blood for the remission of sins which are past.” (Romans 3:24.) Nor is it possible to give a different exposition to what he afterwards says, viz., that “being justified by faith we have peace with God.” (Romans 5:1.) How so, but just that our consciences are never at ease until they rest in the mercy of God? This he distinctly expresses immediately after, when he adds the reason, that the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as being the witness of our free adoption, and not the witness only, but also the earnest and seal. Again, “We have boldness and access with confidence through faith in him.” For the same reason he calls the gospel, rather than the law, “the doctrine of faith.” He moreover declares, that the gospel is “the message of reconciliation.”

CANON 13.

That, however, is Paul’s meaning when he concludes, that if Faith is made void the promise is abolished. (Romans 4:14.) That too is the meaning of the term (plhroforia) which Paul also sometimes uses. Accordingly he regards the eyes of our mind as not duly enlightened unless we perceive what is the hope of our inheritance. It is also sufficiently obvious from the above passages, that faith is not right unless we dare with tranquil minds to sist ourselves into the divine presence. For, as Bernard admirably expresses it, (Super Cantic. Sermon 16 c. 3, 10,) “If conscience is troubled, it will not be troubled out of measure, because it will remember the words of our Lord. Therein the infirm have firm rest and security.” To the same effect are the words of Zechariah, “Each one will come to his own vine, and dwell safely under his own fig-tree, when the iniquity of the land shall have been forgiven.”

CANON 14.

I see not why they should condemn the same thing twice, unless it be they were afraid that their first thunderbolt had fallen scatheless! But; though they should fulminate a hundred times they will not be able to prevail in the least degree against this clear truth of God. Christ says, “Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee.” This sentence the horned Fathers abominate, whenever any one teaches that acquittal is completed by faith alone. And yet the pious reader ought to remember that we do not exclude repentance, which is altogether necessary, but mention faith only when the inquiry relates to the cause of acquittal. And justly do we so. For how can any one begin truly to fear God unless he is persuaded that God is propitious to him? And whence this persuasion but from confidence in acquittal?

CANON 15.

It is indeed true that to pry too minutely into this matter is hurtful, and therefore to be avoided; but that knowledge of Predestination which Paul[recommends dreads neither the stern trident of Neptune, nor all the blasts of AEolus, nor the thunders of the Cyclops, nor any violence of tempests. For he wishes the Ephesians to know and be assured that they have been made partakers of heavenly grace in Christ, as they had been chosen in him before the foundation of the world. (Ephesians 1:4.) Thus therefore it becomes all believers to be assured of their election, that they may learn to behold it in Christ as in a mirror. Nor is it to no purpose that Christ animates his followers by this consoling reflection — that not one of those whom the Father hath given him shall perish. (John 6:39.) What else, good Sirs, is a certain knowledge of our Predestination than that testimony of adoption which Scripture makes common to all the godly?

CANON 16.

That I may not be forced often to repeat the same thing, what they here condemn is nothing else than what I have previously shown to have been delivered by the same oracles of the Holy Spirit.

CANON 17.

The words of Luke are, “All who had been pre-ordained to life believed.” (Acts 13:48.) He intimates whence it was that in one audience such a difference existed that some believed, and others persisted in their obstinacy. In like manner Paul asserts, that those are called whom God has previously chosen. (Romans 8:29.) Are not also the reprobate called? Not effectually. For there is this difference in the calling of God, that he invites all indiscriminately by his word, whereas he inwardly calls the elect alone, as Christ says, “All that the Father hath given me will come to me.” (John 6:37.) In short, if any man is ignorant that the Spirit of regeneration is given to none but the regenerate, I know not what part of Scripture he holds.

CANON 18.

Were Regeneration perfected in this life the observance of the law would be possible. But seeing that believers as long as they live here only perceive the goal at a distance, and with much difficulty keep panting towards it, where is the perfection of obedience, of which those men dream, to be found? But there is no wonder that they prate so boldly of things they know not. War is pleasant to those who never tried it.

CANON 19.

AMEN.

CANON 20.

While no sane man will strike off the yoke of God from the shoulders of believers, as if they behooved not to keep his Commandments, it must still be understood that assurance of salvation by no means depends on the observance of them. For the words of Paul always hold true, that the difference between the Law and the Gospel lies in this, that the latter does not like the former promise life under the condition of works, but from faith. What can be clearer than the antithesis — “The righteousness of the law is in this wise, The man who doeth these things shall live in them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh thus, Whoso believeth,” etc. (Romans 10:5.) To the same effect is this other passage, “If the inheritance were of the law, faith would be made void and the promise abolished. Therefore it is of faith that in respect of grace the promise might be sure to every one that believeth.” (Romans 4:14.) As to ecclesiastical laws, they must themselves see to them: we acknowledge one Legislator, to whom it belongs to deliver the rule of life, as from him we have life.

CANON 21.

No one says so. The Fathers, therefore, are anathematizing their own figments, unless perhaps they are offended because we deny that Christ as a lawgiver delivered new laws to the world. That he did so they imagined foolishly. Neither did Moses testify in vain that the Law which he had brought was the way of life and death, (Deuteronomy 30:19;) and again, “This is the way, walk ye in it;” nor in vain do the Prophets and Apostles, whenever they discourse of the true and entire perfection of righteousness, call us back to the law; nor in vain did Christ reply to the Pharisee, “If thou wouldst enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matthew 19:17; Luke 18:20.) Accordingly, when Paul charges the law with weakness, he does not place the defect in its teaching, as if it could not bestow life but in our flesh. (Romans 7:8.)

CANON 22.

AMEN.

CANON 23.

We condemn those who affirm that a man once justified cannot sin, and likewise those who deny that the truly justified ever fall: those in like manner who assert that a man regenerated by the Spirit of God is able to abstain even from the least sins. These are the delirious dreams of fanatics, who either with devilish arrogance deceive, or with hypocrisy fascinate the minds of men, or plot to lead them to the precipice of despair. As to the special privilege of the Virgin Mary, when they produce the celestial diploma we shall believe what they say: for to what do they here give the name of the Church, but just to the Council of Clermont? Augustine was certainly a member of the Church, and though he in one passage chooses, in order to avoid obloquy, rather to be silent respecting the blessed Virgin, he uniformly, without making her an exception, describes the Whole race of Adam as involved in sin. Nay, he even almost in distinct terms classes her among sinners, when writing to Marcellinus, he says, They err greatly who hold that any of the saints except Christ require not to use this prayer, “Forgive us our debts.” In so doing, they by no means please the saints whom they laud. Chrysostom and Ambrose, who suspect her of having been tempted by ambition, were members of the Church. All these things I mention for no other end but to let my readers understand that there is no figment so nugatory as not to be classed by these blockheads among the Articles of Faith.

CANON 24.

That God visits the good works of the godly with reward, and to former adds new and ampler grace, we deny not. But whosoever asserts that works have the effect of increasing justification, understands neither what is the meaning of justification nor its cause. That we are regarded as righteous when we are accepted by God, has already been proved. From this acceptance, too, works derive whatever grace they had.

CANON 25.

Solomon is correct when he says that “the ways of a man seem right in his own eyes, but God weigheth the heart.” (Proverbs 16:2.) For how comes it that the horned men of Trent pour forth this execration, but just because they try things by the false balance of their own opinion, not by the weights of God? In the judgment of God nothing is genuine and good, save what flows from perfect love to Him. If the heart of man is never reformed so far in this life, as not to labor under many defects, and to be distracted by various passions, and often fielded by worldly allurements, works must of necessity carry some taint along with them. There is no work, therefore, which is not sin, unless it acquires a value in consequence of a gratuitous estimate.

CANON 26.

Such boldness is not strange in men who have never felt any serious fear of the Divine judgment. Let them, if they will, expect eternal life for their good works; only let us on the authority of Paul hope for it from the grace of God. But it may be said that in thus speaking of grace they do not overthrow it. Although they leave the name of grace to a certain extent, yet so long as consciences in seeking out the cause of salvation look around for works, wo to them! If they waver with trepidation, they have fallen from the certainty of faith: and wo again if they dare to promise themselves any certainty, for they are inflated with devilish presumption! Let the saying of Paul then stand fast — that “the inheritance is not of the law but of faith, that the promise according to grace may be sure to every one that believeth.” (Romans 4:14.)

CANON 27.

As we acknowledge and feel that every sin, inasmuch as it is condemned by the law of God, is mortal, so the Holy Spirit teaches that all sins flow from unbelief, or, at least, from deficiency of faith. Eternal death is indeed the curse which God denounces against adulterers, thieves, and false witnesses; but wherever faith reigns it expels all sin, and so averts the Divine anger in the same way in which one extinguishes a fire by withdrawing the fuel.

CANON 28.

I deny not that, even during the most grievous lapses, some seed of Faith remains, though in a smothered state. However small it is, I admit that it partakes of the nature of true faith: I add, living faith, since otherwise no fruit could come from it. But since it does not appear for a time, nor exhibit itself by the usual signs, it is, in respect of our sense, as if it were dead. But nothing of this kind entered the minds of the Fathers or their dictatorial monks. All they wished was to establish their absurd dogma of an informal and a formal faith. Hence they maintain that faith to be true which is manifestly dead; as if faith could be the life of the soul, (as Augustine, in accordance with the uniform doctrine of Scripture, elegantly terms it,)and yet not be itself alive. To the same purpose they contend that men are Christians though they have no charity, and anathematize those who think otherwise; in other words, according to them, we anathematize the Holy Spirit if we deride a false profession of Christianity, and set it at naught. Paul pronounced them no Israelites who were not truly the children of Abraham. He moreover defines true Christianity as consisting in “the putting off of the old man;” and he declares that God is denied by those “who do not live godly.”

CANON 29.

The first article, along with its author, Novatus, we also execrate. As to the second, if the lapsed can only be reinstated in grace by the Sacrament of Penance, what will become of Peter, who, after his dreadful fall, had no access to the remedy which they require as of absolute necessity? Nay, what will become of the tens of thousands in those ages which know nothing of that Auricular Confession which they now represent as the gate of salvation? As to their glorying in the teaching of Christ and his Apostles, their effrontery is extreme, seeing it is clear, from their own historians, that for four hundred years there was no law on the subject of Confession. Therefore, if they would obtain credit for their wicked figments, it will be necessary for them not only to exterminate all the monuments of antiquity, but also to deprive mankind of all sense and judgment!

CANON 30.

They think that, after the guilt is remitted, the liability. to punishment remains, But Scripture everywhere describes, as the fruit of forgiven guilt, that God withdraws his chastisements, and, forgetting his wrath and revenge, blesses us. And when David proclaims those blessed “to whom the Lord imputeth not sin,” he not only refers to the remission of guilt, but speaks chiefly of punishment. And what, pray, will be the end or limit, should God begin to exact punishment for sins which are both in number infinite and in weight so heavy, that the hundredth part would sink us to the lowest hell? It is easy indeed for Fathers intoxicated with devilish presumption to call for temporal punishment. To them scarcely anything short of murder is a sin; whoredom is a trivial mistake — the foulest lusts praiseworthy trials of virtue, a hidden wound of the conscience, a mere bagatelle. But to us, who, after long examination, feeling as it were confused and overwhelmed, are forced at length to break out into these words with David, “Who can understand his errors?” the mode of escape is not so easy. Still we deny not, that sometimes after the guilt is forgiven, God chastises us, but it is in the way of admonition and correction — not vengeance. Their idea that punishment is exacted by the justice of God is therefore a profane fiction. All are not punished in the same way, nor in proportion to their faults; but just according as God knows the application of the rod to be necessary, in order that each, under the training of discipline, may act more wisely in future. The Fathers, however, here. demonstrate what industrious architects they are. Out of one little word they construct a labyrinth composed of a thousand labyrinths. The abyss which they say swallowed up all souls must surely be of immense extent. We see indeed that all the riches of the world are engulfed in it! They ought at least to have spent a little more labor in the construction. There is no mention of Purgatory at all in any part of Scripture. But, as Augustine says, (Ep. 157, ad Optat.,) when a matter naturally obscure cannot be comprehended by us, and Scripture does not come distinctly to our aid, human conjecture is presumptuous in giving any decision. What then must our conclusion be, but that these men act presumptuously in daring, out of their own brains, to make a fabric of that which has no foundation in the word of God? unless, perhaps, they would have us to receive their device of Purgatory as a kind of vaticination vented by ventriloquism; for there is nothing which serves so well to fill their bellies! But what of this? Purgatory cannot stand without destroying the whole truth of Scripture. The demonstration of this would be long, but it is clearly given in our writings. In short, when satisfactions are overthrown, Purgatory of necessity tumbles along with them.

CANON 31.

I acknowledge that he who is truly justified will not forget that a reward is laid up for him, but be incited by it as the best stimulus to well-doing. And yet he will not look to this alone; for seeing that God requires an ingenuous obedience from his children, he will not only repudiate slavish observance of this description, but utterly reject it. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, in every part of Scripture, as well as in those words which he puts into the mouth of Paul in the first chapter of the Ephesians, assigns a very different motive to a pious and holy life.

CANON 32.

By what right or in what sense the Good Works which the Spirit of Christ performs in us are called ours, Augustine briefly teaches when the draws an analogy from the Lord’s Prayer: saying, that the bread which we there ask is called “ours” on no other ground than simply that it is given to us. Accordingly, as the same writer elsewhere teaches, no man will embrace the gifts of Christ till he has forgotten his own merits. He sometimes gives the reason: because, what is called merit is naught else but the free gift of God. Let us therefore allow these Fathers to bawl out, that by separating merit from grace:, we are wickedly lacerating what is truly one. He who has learned from our former observations wherein it is that the merit of works consists, will not be greatly dismayed art the sound of the present anathema.

CANON 33.

A very ingenious caution! no man is to see what every man sees! They almost go the length of making void both the glory of God and the grace of Christ. Meanwhile they hurl a dire execration at any one who presumes to think that they derogate in any respect from either. It is just as if a man were to murder another in the open marketplace before the eyes of the public, and yet prohibit any one from believing that the murder thus manifest to all has been really committed. Moreover, the rats here turn informers against themselves, by holding out an anathema in terrorem against all who shall dare to perceive the impiety of which they themselves are conscious.

Justification by Faith

by Charles Hodge

Part I: Justification

When the mind is enlightened by Divine truth, and duly impressed with a sense of guilt, it cannot fail anxiously to inquire, How can a man be just with God! The answer given to this question decides the character of our religion, and, if practically adopted, our future destiny. To give a wrong answer, is to mistake the way to heaven. It is to err where error is fatal, because it cannot be corrected. If God require one thing, and we present another, how can we be saved? If He has revealed a method in which He can be just and yet justify the sinner, and if we reject that method and insist upon pursuing a different way, how can we hope to be accepted? The answer, therefore, which is given to the above question, should be seriously pondered by all who assume the office of religious teachers, and by all who rely upon their instructions. As we are not to be judged by proxy, but every man must answer for himself, so every man should be satisfied for himself what the Bible teaches on this subject. All that religious teachers can do, is to endeavor to aid the investigations of those who are anxious to learn the way of life. And in doing this, the safest method is to adhere strictly to the instructions of the Scriptures, and to exhibit the subject as it is there presented. The substance and the form of this all-important doctrine are so intimately connected, that those who attempt to separate them can hardly fail to err. What one discards as belonging merely to the form, another considers as belonging to its substance. All certainty and security are lost, as soon as this method is adopted, and it becomes a matter to be decided exclusively by our own views of right and wrong, what is to be retained and what rejected from the scriptural representations. Our only security, therefore, is to take the language of the Bible in its obvious meaning, and put upon it the construction which the persons to whom it was addressed must have given, and which, consequently, the sacred writers intended it should bear.

As the doctrine of justification is not only frequently stated in the sacred Scriptures, but formally taught and vindicated, all that will be attempted in this article, is to give as faithfully as possible, a representation of what the inspired writers inculcate on this subject; that is, to state what positions they assume, by what arguments they sustain those positions, how they answer the objections to their doctrine, and what application they make of it to the hearts and consciences of their readers.

It is one of the primary doctrines of the Bible, everywhere either asserted or assumed, that we are under the law of God. This is true of all classes of men, whether they enjoy a Divine revelation or not. Everything which God has revered as a rule of duty, enters into the constitution of the law which binds those to whom that revelation is given, and by which they are to be ultimately judged. Those who have not received any external revelation of the Divine will are a law unto themselves. The knowledge of right and wrong, written upon their hearts, is of the nature of a Divine law, having its authority and sanction, and by it the heathen are to be judged in the last day.

God has seen fit to annex the promise of life to obedience to his law. 'The man which doeth those things shall live by them' (Rom. 10.5), is the language of Scripture on this subject. To the lawyer who admitted that the law required love to God and man, our Savior said, 'Thou has answered right: this do, and thou shalt live' (Lk. 10.28). And to one who asked him, 'What good things shall I do, that I may have eternal life?' he said, 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandment.'(Mt. 19.17). On the other hand, the law denounces death as the penalty of transgression: 'The wages of sin is death.' (Rom. 6.23). Such is the uniform declaration of Scripture on this subject.

The obedience which the law demands is called righteousness; and those who render that obedience are called righteous. To ascribe righteousness to anyone, or to pronounce him righteous, is the scriptural meaning of the word 'to justify.' The word never means, to make good in a moral sense, but always to pronounce just or righteous. Thus God says, 'I will not justify the wicked'(Ex.23.7). Judges are commanded to justify the righteous and to condemn the wicked (Deut. 25.1). Woe is pronounced on those who 'justify the wicked for reward' (Isa. 5.23). In the New Testament it is said, 'By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight' (Rom. 3.20) 'It is God that justifieth, Who is he that condemneth?' (Rom. 8.33,34). There is scarcely a word in the Bible the meaning of which is less open to doubt. There is no passage in the New Testament in which it is used out of its ordinary and obvious sense. When God justifies a man, he declares him to be righteous. To justify never means to render one holy. It is said to be sinful to justify the wicked; but it could never be sinful to render the wicked holy. And as the law demands righteousness, to impute or ascribe righteousness to anyone, is, in scriptural language, to justify. To make (or constitute) righteous, is another equivalent form of expression. Hence, to be righteous before God, and to be justified, mean the same thing: as in the following passage: ' Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.'(Rom. 2.13) The attentive, and especially the anxious reader of the Bible cannot fail to observe, that these various expressions, to be righteous in the sight of God, to impute righteousness, to constitute righteous, to justify, and others of similar import, are so interchanged as to explain each other, and to make it clear that to justify a man is to ascribe or impute to him righteousness. The great question then is, How is this righteousness to be obtained? We have reason to be thankful that the answer which the Bible gives to this question is so perfectly plain.

In the first place, that the righteousness by which we are to be justified before God is not of works, is not only asserted, but proved. The apostle's first argument on this point is derived from the consideration that the law demands a perfect righteousness. If the law was satisfied by an imperfect obedience, or by a routine of external duties, or by any service which men are competent to render, then indeed justification would be by works. But since it demands perfect obedience, justification by works is, for sinners, absolutely impossible. It is thus the apostle reasons, 'As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them (Gal.3.10). As the law pronounces its curse upon every man who continues not to do all that it commands, and as no man can pretend to this perfect obedience, it follows that all who look to the law for justification must be condemned. To the same effect, in a following verse, he says, 'The law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.' That is, the law is not satisfied by any single grace, or imperfect obedience. It knows, and can know no other ground of justification than complete compliance with its demands. Hence, in the same chapter, Paul says, ' If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.' Could the law pronounce righteous, and thus give a title to the promised life to those who had broken its commands, there would have been no necessity of any other provision for the salvation of men; but as the law cannot thus lower its demands, justification by the law is impossible. The same truth is taught in a different form, when it is said, 'If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain (Gal. 2.21). There would have been no necessity for the death of Christ, if it had been possible to satisfy the law by the imperfect obedience which we can render. Paul therefore warns all those who look to works for justification, that they are debtors to do the whole law (Gal. 5.3). It knows no compromise; it cannot demand less than what is right, and perfect obedience is right, and therefore its only language is as before, ' Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them' (Gal. 3.10); and, 'The man which doeth those things shall live by them' (Rom. 10.5). Every man, therefore, who expects justification by works, must see to it, not that he is better than other men, or that he is very exact and does many things, or that he fasts twice in the week, and gives tithes of all he possesses, but that he is SINLESS.

That the law of God is thus strict in its demands, is a truth which lies at the foundation of all Paul's reasoning in reference to the method of justification. He proves that the Gentiles have sinned against the law written on their hearts; and that the Jews have broken the law revealed in their Scriptures; both Jews and Gentiles, therefore, are under sin, and the whole world is guilty before God. Hence, he infers, that by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight. There is, however, no force in this reasoning, except on the assumption that the law demands perfect obedience. How many men, who freely acknowledge that they are sinners, depend upon their works for acceptance with God! They see no inconsistency between the acknowledgment of sin, and the expectation of justification by works. The reason is, they proceed upon a very different principle from that adopted by the apostle. They suppose that the law may be satisfied by very imperfect obedience. Paul assumes that God demands perfect conformity to his will, that his wrath is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. With him, therefore, it is enough that men have sinned, to prove that they cannot be justified by works. It is not a question of degrees, more or less, for as to this point there is no difference, since ' all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God' (Rom. 3.23).

This doctrine, though so plainly taught in Scripture, men are disposed to think very severe. They imagine that their good deeds will be compared with their evil deeds, and that they will be rewarded or punished as the one or the other preponderates; or that the sins of one part of life may be atoned for by the good works of another, or that they can escape by mere confession and repentance. They could not entertain such expectations, if they believed themselves to be under a law. No human law is administered as men seem to hope the law of God will be. He who steals or murders, though it be but once, though he confesses and repents, though he does any number of acts of charity, is not less a thief or murderer. The law cannot take cognizance of his repentance and reformation. If he steals or murders, the law condemns him. Justification by the law is for him impossible. The law of God extends to the most secret exercises of the heart. It condemns whatever is in its nature evil. If a man violate this perfect rule of right, there is an end of justification by the law; he has failed to comply with its conditions; and the law can only condemn him. To justify him, would be to say that he had not transgressed. Men, however, think that they are not to be dealt with on the principles of strict law. Here is their fatal mistake. It is here that they are in most direct conflict with the Scriptures, which proceed upon the uniform assumption of our subjection to the law. Under the government of God, strict law is nothing but perfect excellence; it is the steady exercise of moral rectitude. Even conscience, when duly enlightened and roused, is as strict as the law of God. It refuses to be appeased by repentance, reformation, or penance. It enforces every command and every denunciation of our Supreme Ruler, and teaches, as plainly as do the Scriptures themselves, that justification by an imperfect obedience is impossible. As conscience, however, is fallible, no reliance on this subject is placed on her testimony. The appeal is to the word of God, which clearly teaches that it is impossible a sinner can be justified by works, because the law demands perfect obedience.

The apostle's second argument to show that justification is not by works, is the testimony of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. This testimony is urged in various forms. In the first place, as the apostle proceeds upon the principle that the law demands perfect obedience, all those passages which assert the universal sinfulness of men, are so many declarations that they cannot be justified by works. He therefore quotes such passages as the following: 'There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one' (Rom. 3.10-12). The Old Testament, by teaching that all men are sinners, does, in the apostle's view, thereby teach that they can never be accepted before God on the ground of their own righteous ness. To say that a man is a sinner, is to say that the law condemns him; and of course it cannot justify him. As the ancient Scriptures are full of declarations of the sinfulness of men, so they are full of proof that justification is not by works.

But, in the second place, Paul cites their direct affirmative testimony in support of his doctrine. In the Psalms it is said, 'Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified' (Ps. 143.2). This passage he often quotes; and to the same class belong all those passages which speak of the insufficiency or worthlessness of human righteousness in the sight of God.

In the third place, the apostle refers to those passages which imply the doctrine for which he contends; that is, to those which speak of the acceptance of men with God as a matter of grace, as something which they do not deserve, and for which they can urge no claim founded upon their own merit. It is with this view that he refers to the language of David; 'Blessed are they whose iniquities are for given, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin (Rom. 4.7, 8). The fact that a man is forgiven, implies that he is guilty; and the fact that he is guilty, implies that his justification cannot rest upon his own character or conduct. It need hardly be remarked, that, in this view, the whole Scriptures, from the beginning to the end, are crowded with condemnations of the doctrine of justification by works. Every penitent confession, every appeal to God's mercy, is a renunciation of all personal merit, a declaration that the penitent's hope was not founded on anything in himself. Such confessions and appeals are indeed often made by those who still rely upon their good works, or inherent righteousness, for acceptance with God. This, however, does not invalidate the apostle's argument. It only shows that such persons have a different view of what is necessary for justification, from that entertained by the apostle. They suppose that the demands of the law are so low, that although they are sinners and need to be forgiven, they can still do what the law demands. Whereas, Paul proceeds on the assumption that the law requires perfect obedience, and therefore every confession of sin, or appeal for mercy, involves a renunciation of justification by the law.

Again, the apostle represents the Old Testament Scriptures as teaching that justification is not by works, by showing that they inculcate a different method of obtaining acceptance with God. This they do by the doctrine which they teach concerning the Messiah as a Redeemer from sin. Hence Paul says, that the method of justification without works (not founded upon works) was testified by the law and the prophets; that is, by the whole of the Old Testament. The two methods of acceptance with God, the one by works, the other by a propitiation for sin, are incompatible. And as the ancient Scriptures teach the latter method, they repudiate the former. But they moreover, in express terms, assert, that 'the just shall live by faith.' And the law knows nothing of faith; its language is, 'The man that doeth them shall live in them' (Gal. 3:11,12). The law knows nothing of anything but obedience as the ground of acceptance. If the Scriptures say we are accepted through faith, they thereby say that we are not accepted on the ground of obedience.

Again: the examples of justification given in the Old Testament, show that it was not by works. The apostle appeals particularly to the case of Abraham, and asks, whether he attained justification by works; and answers, 'No, for if he were justified by works he had whereof to glory; but he had no ground of glorying before God, and therefore he was not justified by works.' And the Scriptures expressly assert, 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness' (Rom. 4.3). His acceptance, therefore, was by faith, and not by works.

In all these various ways does the apostle make the authority of the Old Testament sustain his doctrine, that justification is not by works. This authority is as decisive for us as it was for the ancient Jewish Christians. We also believe the Old Testament to be the word of God, and its truths come to us explained and enforced by Christ and his apostles. We have the great advantage of an infallible interpretation of these early oracles of truth; and the argumentative manner in which their authority is cited and applied, prevents all obscurity as to the real intentions of the sacred writers. That by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified before God is taught so clearly and so frequently in the New Testament, it is so often asserted, so formally proved, so variously assumed, that no one can doubt that such is indeed the doctrine of the word of God. The only point on which the serious inquirer can even raise a question, is, What kind of works do the Scriptures mean to exclude as the foundation for acceptance with God? Does the apostle mean works in the widest sense, or does he merely intend ceremonial observances, or works of mere formality, performed without any real love to God?

Those who attend to the nature of his assertions and to the course of his argument, will find that there is no room for doubt on this subject. The primary principle on which his argument rests precludes all ground for mistaking his meaning. He assumes that the law demands perfect obedience, and as no man can render that obedience, he infers that no man can be justified by the law. He does not argue, that because the law is spiritual, it cannot be satisfied by mere ceremonies, or by works flowing from an impure motive. He nowhere says, that though we cannot be justified by external rites, or by works having the mere form of goodness, we are justified by our sincere, though imperfect, obedience. On the contrary, he constantly teaches, that since we are sinners, and since the law condemns all sin, it condemns us, and justification by the law is, therefore, impossible. This argument he applies to the Jews and the Gentiles without distinction, to the whole world, whether they knew anything of the Jewish Scriptures or not. It was the moral law, the law which he pronounced holy, just, and good, which says, 'Thou shalt not covet'; it is this law, however revealed, whether in the writings of Moses, or in the human heart, of which he constantly asserts that it cannot give life, or teach the way of acceptance with God. As most of those to whom he wrote had enjoyed a Divine revelation, and as that revelation included the law of Moses and all its rites, he of course included that law in his statement, and often specially refers to it; but never in its limited sense, as a code of religious ceremonies, but always in its widest scope, as including the highest rule of moral duty made known to men. And hence he never contrasts one class of works with another, but constantly works and faith, excluding all classes of the former, works of righteousness as well as those of mere formality. 'Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us' (Titus 3.5). 'Who hath saved us--not according to our works (2 Tm. 1.9). We are saved by faith, not by works (Eph. 2.9). Nay, men are said to be justified without works; to be in themselves ungodly when justified; and it is not until they are justified that they perform any real good works. It is only when united to Christ that we bring forth fruit unto God. Hence, we are said to be 'His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works' (Eph. 2.10). All the inward excellence of the Christian and the fruit of the Spirit are the consequences, and not the causes of his reconciliation and acceptance with God. They are the robe of beauty, the white garment, with which Christ arrays those who come to him poor, and blind, and naked. It is, then, the plain doctrine of the word of God, that our justification is not founded upon our own obedience to the law. Nothing done by us or wrought in us can for a moment stand the test of a rule of righteousness, which pronounces a curse upon all those who continue not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.

Part II: The Demands Of The Law Are Satisfied By What Christ Has Done.

WE have thus seen that the Scriptures teach, first, That all men are naturally under the law as prescribing the terms of their acceptance with God; and, secondly, That no obedience which sinners can render is sufficient to satisfy the demands of that law. It follows, then, that unless we are freed from the law, not as a rule of duty, but as prescribing the conditions of acceptance with God, justification is for us impossible. It is, therefore, the third great point of scriptural doctrine on this subject, that believers are free from the law in the sense just stated. 'Ye are not under the law,' says the apostle, 'but under grace' (Rom.6.14). To illustrate this declaration, he refers to the case of a woman who is bound to her husband as long as he lives; but when he is dead, she is free from her obligation to him, and is at liberty to marry another man. So we are delivered from the law as a rule of justification and are at liberty to embrace a different method of obtaining acceptance with God (Rom. 7.1-6). Paul says of himself, that he had died to the law; that is, become free from it (Gal. 2.19). And the same is said of all believers (Rom. 7.6). He insists upon this freedom as essential not only to justification, but to sanctification. For while under the law, the motions of sins, which were by the law, brought forth fruit unto death; but now we are delivered from the law, that we may serve God in newness of spirit (Rom. 7.5-6). Before faith came we were kept under the law, which he compares to a schoolmaster, but now we are no longer under a schoolmaster (Gal. 3.24, 25). He regards the desire to be subject to the law as the greatest infatuation. 'Tell me,' he says, 'ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?' and then shows that those who are under the demands of a legal system, are in the condition of slaves, and not of sons and heirs. 'Stand fast therefore,' he exhorts, 'in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.--Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace (Gal. 4.21-1; 5.1-4). This infatuation Paul considered madness, and exclaims, 'O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth crucified among you. This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ?' (Gal. 3.1-2). This apostasy was so fatal, the substitution of legal obedience for the work of Christ as the ground of justification was so destructive, that Paul pronounces accursed any man or angel who should preach such a doctrine for the gospel of the grace of God.

It was to the law, as revealed in the books of Moses, that the fickle Galatians were disposed to look for justification. Their apostasy, however, consisted in going back to the law, no matter in what form revealed--to works, no matter of what kind, as the ground of justification. .The apostle's arguments and denunciations, therefore, are so framed as to apply to the adoption of any form of legal obedience, instead of the work of Christ, as the ground of our confidence towards God. To suppose that all he says relates exclusively to a relapse into Judaism, is to suppose that we Gentiles have no part in the redemption of Christ. If it was only from the bondage of the Jewish economy that he redeemed his people, then those who were never subject to that bondage have no interest in his work. And of course Paul was strangely infatuated in preaching Christ crucified to the Gentiles. We find, however, that what he taught in the Epistle to the Galatians, in special reference to the law of Moses he teaches in the Epistle to the Romans in reference to that law which is holy, just, and good, and which condemns the most secret sins of the heart.

The nature of the apostle's doctrine is, if possible, even more clear from the manner in which he vindicates it, than from his direct assertions. 'What then?' he asks,'shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid' (Rom. 6.15). Had Paul taught that we are freed from the ceremonial in order to be subject to the moral law, there could have been no room for such an objection. But if he taught that the moral law itself could not give life, that we must be freed from its demands as the condition of acceptance with God, then, indeed, to the wise of this world, it might seem that he was loosing the bands of moral obligation, and opening the door to the greatest licentiousness. Hence the frequency and earnestness with which he repels the objection, and shows that, so far from legal bondage being necessary to holiness, it must cease before holiness can exist; that it is not until the curse of the law is removed, and the soul reconciled to God, that holy affections rise in the heart, and the fruits of holiness appear in the life, 'Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law' (Rom. 2.31).

It is then clearly the doctrine of the Bible, that believers are freed from the law as prescribing the conditions of their acceptance with God; it is no longer incumbent upon them, in order to justification, to fulfil its demand of perfect obedience, or to satisfy its penal exactions. But how is this deliverance effected? How is it that rational and accountable beings are exempted from the obligations of that holy and just law, which was originally imposed upon their race as the rule of justification ? The answer to this question incudes the fourth great truth respecting the way of salvation taught in the Scriptures. It is not by the abrogation of the law, either as to its precepts or penalty; it is not by lowering its demands, and accommodating them to the altered capacities or inclinations of men. We have seen how constantly the apostle teaches that the law still demands perfect obedience, and that they are debtors to do the whole law who seek justification at its hands. He no less clearly teaches, that death is as much the wages of sin in our case, as it was in that of Adam. If it is neither by abrogation nor relaxation that we are freed from the demands of the law, how has this deliverance been effected! By the mystery of vicarious obedience and suffering. This is the gospel of the grace of God. This is what was a scandal to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks; but, to those that are called, the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1.23, 24).

The Scriptures teach us that the Son of God, the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person, who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, became flesh, and subjected himself to the very law to which we were bound; that he perfectly obeyed that law, and suffered its penalty, and thus, by satisfying its demands, delivered us from its bondage, and introduced us into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. It is thus that the doctrine of redemption is presented in the Scriptures. 'God,' says the apostle, 'sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law' (Gal. 4.4-5). Being made under the law, we know that he obeyed it perfectly, and brought in everlasting righteousness, and is therefore declared to be 'the Lord our righteousness,'(Jer. 23.6) since, by his obedience, many are constituted righteous (Rom. 5.19). He, therefore, is said to be made righteousness unto us (1 Cor. 1.30). And those who are in him are said to be righteous before God, not having their own righteousness, but that which is through the faith of Christ (Phil. 3.9).

That we are redeemed from the curse of the law by Christ's enduring that curse in our place, is taught in every variety of form from the beginning to the end of the Bible. There was the more need that this point should be dearly and variously presented, because it is the one on which an enlightened conscience immediately fastens. The desert of death begets the fear of death. And this fear of death cannot be allayed, until it is seen how, in consistency with Divine justice, we are freed from the righteous penalty of the law. How this is done, the Scriptures teach in the most explicit manner. 'Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us' (Gal. 3.13). Paul had just said, 'As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse.' But all men are naturally under the law, and therefore all are under the curse. How are we redeemed from it? By Christ's being made a curse for us. Such is the simple and sufficient answer to this most important of all questions.

The doctrine so plainly taught in Gal. 3.13, that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by bearing it in our stead, is no less clearly presented in 2 Cor. 5. 21: ' He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,' This is represented as the only ground on which men are authorized to preach the gospel. 'We are ambassadors for Christ,' says the apostle, ' as though God did beseech you by us;: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God' (2 Cor. 5.20). Then follows a statement of the ground upon which this offer of reconciliation is presented. God has made effectual provision for the pardon of sin, by making Christ, though holy, harmless, and separate from sinners, sin for us, that we might be made righteous in him. The iniquities of us all were laid on him; he was treated as a sinner in our place, in order that we might be treated as righteous in him.

The same great truth is taught in all those passages in which Christ is said to bear our sins. The expression, to bear sin, is one which is clearly explained by its frequent occurrence in the sacred Scriptures. It means, to bear the punishment due to sin. In Lev. xx. 17, it is said that he that marries his sister 'shall bear his iniquity.' Again, ' Whosoever curseth his God, shall bear his sin' (Lev. 24.15). Of him that failed to keep the Passover, it was said, 'That man shall bear his sin' (Num. 9.13). If a man sin, he shall bear his iniquity. It is used in the same sense when one man is spoken of as bearing the sin of another. 'Your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms' (Num. 14.33). Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities' (Lam. 5.7). And when, in Ezekiel xvii. to, it is said that 'the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,' it is obviously meant that the son shall not be punished for the sins of the father. The meaning of this expression being thus definite, of course there can be no doubt as to the manner in which it is to be understood when used in reference to the Redeemer. The prophet says, 'The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.--My righteous servant shall justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.--He was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many' (Isa. 53.6, 11, 122). Language more explicit could not be used. This whole chapter is designed to teach one great truth, that our sins were to be laid on the Messiah, that we might be freed from the punishment which we deserved. It is therefore said, 'He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him.--For the transgression of my people was he stricken.' In the New Testament, the same doctrine is taught in the same terms. 'Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree' (1 Pet. 2.24). 'Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many' (Heb. 9.28). 'Ye know that he was manifested to take away' (to bare) 'our sins' (1 Jn. 3.5). According to all these representations, Christ saves us from the punishment due to our sins, by bearing the curse of the law in OUR stead.

Intimately associated with the passages just referred to, are those which describe the Redeemer as a sacrifice or propitiation. The essential idea of a sin offering is propitiation by means of vicarious punishment. That this is the scriptural idea of a sacrifice is plain from the laws of their institution, from the effects ascribed to them, and from the illustrative declarations of the sacred writers. The law prescribed that the offender should bring the victim to the altar, lay his hands upon its head, make confession of his crime; and that the animal should then be slain, and its blood sprinkled upon the altar. Thus, it is said, 'He shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him' (Lev. 1.4) 'And he brought the bullock for the sin offering; and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the bullock for the sin offering' (Lev. 8.14). The import of this imposition of hands is clearly taught in the following passage: '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. 16.21 22). The imposition of hands, therefore, was designed to express symbolically the ideas of substitution and transfer the liability to punishment. In the case just referred to, in order to convey more clearly the idea of the removal of the liability to punishment, the goat on whose head the sins of the people were imposed, was sent into the wilderness, but another goat was slain and consumed in its stead.

The nature of these offerings is further obvious from the effects attributed to them. They were commanded in order to make atonement, to propitiate, to make reconciliation, to secure the forgiveness of sins. And this effect they actually secured. In the case of every Jewish offender, some penalty connected with the theocratical constitution under which he lived, was removed by the presentation and acceptance of the appointed sacrifice. This was all the effect, in the way of securing pardon, that the blood of bulls and of goats could produce. Their efficacy was confined to the purifying of the flesh, and to securing, for those who offered them, the advantages of the external theocracy. Besides, however, this efficacy, which, by Divine appointment, belonged to them considered in themselves, they were intended to prefigure and predict the true atoning sacrifice which was to be offered when the fulness of time should come. Nothing, however, can more clearly illustrate the scriptural doctrine of sacrifices, than the expressions employed by the sacred writers to convey the same idea as that intended by the term sin offering. Thus, all that Isaiah taught by saying of the Messiah that the chastisement of our peace was upon him; that with his stripes we are healed; that he was stricken for the transgression of the people; that on him was laid the iniquity of us all, and that he bore the sins of many, he taught by saying, 'he made his soul an offering for sin.' And in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is said, He 'was once offered' (as a sacrifice) 'to bear the sins of many' (Heb. 9.28). The same idea, therefore, is expressed by saying, either he bore our sins, or he was made an offering for sin. But to bear the sins of anyone, means to bear the punishment of those sins; and, therefore, to be a sin offering conveys the same meaning.

Such being the idea of a sacrifice which pervades the whole Jewish Scriptures, it is obvious that the sacred writers could not teach more distinctly and intelligibly the manner in which Christ secures the pardon of sin, than by saying he was made an offering for sin. With this mode of pardon all the early readers of the Scriptures were familiar. They had been accustomed to it from their earliest years. No one of them could recall the time when the altar, the victim, and the blood were unknown to him. His first lessons in religion contained the ideas of confession of sin, substitution, and vicarious sufferings and death. When, therefore, the inspired penmen told men imbued with these ideas that Christ was a propitiation for sin, that he was offered as a sacrifice to make reconciliation, they told them, in the plainest of all terms, that he secures the pardon of our sins by suffering in our stead. Jews could understand such language in no other way: and, therefore, we may be sure it was intended to convey no other meaning. And, in point of fact, it has been so understood by the Christian church from its first organization to the present day.

If it were merely in the way of casual allusion that Christ was declared to be a sacrifice, we should not be authorized to infer from it the method of redemption. But this is far from being the case. This doctrine is presented in the most didactic form. It is exhibited in every possible mode. It is asserted, illustrated, vindicated. It is made the central point of all Divine institutions and instructions. It is urged as the foundation of hope, as the source of consolation, the motive to obedience. It is, in fact, THE GOSPEL. It would be vain to attempt a reference to all the passages in which this great doctrine is taught. We are told that God set forth Jesus Christ as a propitiation for our sins through faith in his blood (Rom. 3.25). Again, he is declared to be a 'propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world' (1 Jn. 2.2). He is called the Lamb of God, which taketh away' (beareth) 'the sin of the world' (Jn. 1.29). 'Ye were not redeemed,' says the apostle Peter, 'with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot' 1 Pet. 1.18,19). In the Epistle to the Hebrews, this doctrine is more fully exhibited than in any other portion of Scripture. Christ is not only repeatedly called a sacrifice, but an elaborate comparison is made between the offering which he presented and the sacrifices which were offered under the old dispensation. 'If the blood of bulls and of goats,' says the apostle, 'and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself with out spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God!' (Heb. 9.13,14). The ancient sacrifices in themselves could only remove ceremonial uncleanness. They could not purge the conscience, or reconcile the soul to God. They were mere shadows of the true sacrifice for sins. Hence, they were offered daily. Christ's sacrifice being really efficacious, was offered but once. It was because the ancient sacrifices were ineffectual, that Christ said, when he came into the world, 'Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me; in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God' (Heb. 10.5-15). 'By the which will', adds the apostle, that is, by the accomplishing the purpose of God, 'we are sanctified' (or atoned for) 'through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all'; and by that 'one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified,' and of all this he adds, the Holy Ghost is witness (Heb. 10.5-15). The Scriptures, therefore, clearly teach that Jesus Christ delivers us from the punishment of our sins, by offering himself as a sacrifice in our behalf; that as under the old dispensation, the penalties attached to the violations of the theocratical covenant, were removed by the substitution and sacrifice of bulls and of goats, so under the spiritual theocracy, in the living temple of the living God, the punishment of sin is removed by the substitution and death of the Son of God. As no ancient Israelite, when by transgression he had forfeited his liberty of access to the earthly sanctuary, was ignorant of the mode of atonement and reconciliation; so now, no conscience-stricken sinner, who knows that he is unworthy to draw near to God, need be ignorant of that new and living way which Christ hath consecrated for us, through his flesh, so that we have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.

In all the forms of expression mentioned--Christ was made a curse for us; he was made sin for us; he bore our sins, he was made a sin offering--there is the idea of substitution. Christ took our place, he suffered in our stead, he acted as our representative. But as the act of a substitute is in effect the act of the principal, all that Christ did and suffered in that character, every believer is regarded as having done and suffered. The attentive and pious reader of the Bible will recognize this idea in some of the most common forms of scriptural expression. Believers are those who are in Christ. This is their great distinction and most familiar designation. They are so united to him, that what he did in their behalf they are declared to have done. When he died, they died; when he rose, they rose; as he lives, they shall live also. The passages in which believers are said to have died in Christ are very numerous. 'If one died for all,' says the apostle, 'then all died' (not, 'were dead') (2 Cor. 5.14). He that died (with Christ) is justified from sin, that is, freed from its condemnation and power; and if we died with Christ, we believe, that we shall live with him (Rom. 6. 7, 8). As a woman is freed by death from her husband, so believers are freed from the law by the body (the death) of Christ, because his death is in effect their death (Rom. 7.4). And in the following verse, he says, having died (in Christ), we are freed from the law. Every believer, therefore, may say with Paul, I was crucified with Christ (Gal. 2.20). In like manner, the resurrection of Christ secures both the spiritual life and future resurrection of all his people. If we have been united to him in his death, we shall be in his resurrection, if we died with him, we shall live with him (Rom.6.5, 8). 'God,' says the apostle, 'hath quickened us together with Christ; and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus' (Eph.2.4-6). That is, God hath quickened, raised, and exalted us together with Christ. It is on this ground, also, that Paul says that Christ rose as the firstfruits of the dead; not merely the first in order, but the earnest and security of the resurrection of his people. 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive' (1 Cor. 15.20, 22). As our union with Adam secures our death, union with Christ secures our resurrection. Adam is a type of him that was to come--that is, Christ, inasmuch as the relation in which Adam stood to the whole race, is analogous to that in which Christ stands to his own people. As Adam was our natural head, the poison of sin flows in all our veins. As Christ is our spiritual Head, eternal life which is in him, descends to all his members. It is not they that live, but Christ that liveth in them (Gal. 2.20). This doctrine of the representative and vital union of Christ and believers pervades the New Testament. It is the source of the humility, the joy, the confidence which the sacred writers so often express. In themselves they were nothing, and deserved nothing, but in Him they possessed all things. Hence, they counted all things but loss that they might be found in Him. Hence, they determined to know nothing, to preach nothing, to glory in nothing, but Christ and him crucified.

The great doctrine of the vicarious sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, is further taught in those numerous passages which refer our salvation to his blood, his death, or his cross. Viewed in connexion with the passages already mentioned, those now referred to not only teach the fact that the death of Christ secures the pardon of sin, but how it does it. To this class belong such declarations as the following: 'The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin' (1 Jn. 1.7). 'We have redemption through his blood' (Eph. 1.7). He has 'made peace through the blood of his cross' (Col. 1.20). 'Being now justified by his blood' (Rom. 5.9). Ye 'are made nigh by the blood of Christ' (Eph. 2.13). 'Ye are come--to the blood of sprinkling' (Heb. 12.22, 24). 'Elect--unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ' (1 Pet. 1.2). 'Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood' (Rev. 1.5). 'He hath redeemed us unto God by his blood' (Rev. 5.9) 'This cup,' said the Son of God himself, 'is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins' (Mt. 26.28). The sacrificial character of the death of Christ is taught in all these passages. Blood was the means of atonement, and without the shedding of blood there was no remission; and, therefore, when our salvation is so often ascribed to the blood of the Savior, it is declared that he died as a propitiation for our sins.

The same remark may be made in reference to those passages which ascribe our redemption to the death, the cross, the flesh of Christ; for these terms are interchanged, as being of the same import. We are 'reconciled to God by the death of his Son' (Rom. 5.10). We are reconciled his cross. (Eph. 2.16). We are 'reconciled in the body of his flesh through death' (Col. 1.21, 22). We are delivered from the law 'by the body of Christ' (Rom. 7.4); he abolished the law in his flesh (Eph. 2.15); he took away the handwriting which was against us, nailing it to his cross (Col. 2.14). The more general expressions respecting Christ's dying for us, receive a definite meaning from their connexion with the more specific passages above mentioned. Everyone, therefore, knows what is meant, when it is said that ' Christ died for the ungodly' (Rom. 5.6); that he gave himself ' a ransom for many' (Mt. 20.28); that he died 'the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God' (1 Pet. 3.18). Not less plain is the meaning of the Holy Spirit when it is said, God 'spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all' (Rom. 8.32); that he 'was delivered for our offences' (Rom. 4.25); that he 'gave himself for our sins' (Gal. 1.4). Seeing, then, that we owe everything to the expiatory sufferings of the blessed Savior, we cease to wonder that the cross is rendered so prominent in the exhibition of the plan of salvation. We are not surprised at Paul's anxiety lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect; or that he should call the preaching of the gospel the preaching of the cross; or that he should preach Christ crucified, both to Jews and Creeks, as the wisdom of God and the power of Cod; or that he should determine to glory in nothing save in the cross of Christ.

As there is no truth more necessary to be known, so there is none more variously or plainly taught, than the method of escaping the wrath of God due to us for sin. Besides all the clear exhibitions of Christ as bearing our sins, as dying in our stead, as making his soul an offering for sin, as redeeming us by his blood, the Scriptures set him forth in the character of a Priest, in order that we might more fully understand how it is that he effects our salvation. It was predicted, long before his advent, that the Messiah was to be a Priest. 'Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,' was the declaration of the Holy Spirit by the mouth of David (Ps. 110.4). Zechariah predicted that he should sit as 'a priest upon his throne (Zech. 6.13). The apostle defines a priest to be a man 'ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins (Heb. 5.1). Jesus Christ is the only real Priest in the universe. All others were either pretenders, or the shadow of the great High priest of our profession. For this office he had every necessary qualification. He was a man. 'For inasmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also took part of the same, in order that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest; one who can be touched with a sense of our infirmities, seeing that was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.' He was sinless. 'For such a High Priest became us, who was holy, harmless, and separate from sinners.' He was the Son of God. The law made men having infirmity, priests. But God declared his Son to be a Priest, who is consecrated for evermore (Heb. 7.28). The sense in which Christ is declared to be the Son of God, is explained in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is there said, that he is the express image of God; that he upholds all things by the word of his power; that all the angels are commanded to worship him; that his throne is an everlasting throne; that in the beginning he laid the foundations of the earth; that he is from everlasting and that his years fail not. It is from the dignity of his person, as possessing this Divine nature, that the apostle deduces the efficacy of his sacrifice (Heb. 9.14), the perpetuity of his priesthood (Heb. 7.16), and his ability to save to the uttermost all who come unto God by him (Heb. 7.25). He was duly constituted a Priest. He glorified not himself to be made a High Priest; but he that said unto him, 'Thou art my Son,' said also, 'Thou art a Priest for ever.' He is the only real Priest, and therefore his advent superseded all others, and put an immediate end to all their lawful ministrations, by abolishing the typical dispensation with which they were connected. For the priesthood being changed, there was of necessity a change of the law. There was a disannulling of the former commandment for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof, and there was the introduction of a better hope (Heb. 7.12, 18, 19). He has an appropriate offering to present. As every high priest is appointed to offer sacrifices, it was necessary that this man should have somewhat to offer. This sacrifice was not the blood of goats or of calves, but his own blood; it was himself he offered unto God, to purge our conscience from dead works (Heb. 9.12, 14). He has 'put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,' which was accomplished when he was 'once offered to bear the sin of many (Heb. 9.26, 28). He has passed into the heavens. As the high priest was required to enter into the most holy place with the blood of atonement, so Christ has entered not into the holy places made with hands, 'but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us, (Heb. 9.24) and where 'he ever lives to make intercession for us (Heb. 7.25).

Seeing then we have a great High Priest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God (let the reader remember what that means), who is set down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, having by himself purged out sins and made reconciliation for the sins of the people, every humble believer who commits his soul into the hands of this High Priest, may come with boldness to the throne of grace, assured that he shall find mercy and grace to help in time of need.

Part III: The righteousness of Christ the true ground of our justification.

The practical effects of this doctrine. THE Bible, as we have seen, teaches, first, that we are under a law which demands perfect obedience, and which threatens death in case of transgression; secondly, that all men have failed in rendering that obedience, and therefore are subject to the threatened penalty; thirdly, that Christ has redeemed us from the law by being made under it, and in our place satisfying its demands. It only remains to be shown, that this perfect righteousness of Christ is presented as the ground of our justification before God. In scriptural language, condemnation is a sentence of death pronounced upon sin; justification is a sentence of life pronounced upon righteousness. As this righteousness is not our own, as we are sinners, ungodly, without works, it must be the righteousness of another, even of Him who is our righteousness. Hence we find so constantly the distinction between our own righteousness and that which God gives. The Jews, the apostle says, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, would not submit themselves unto the righteousness of God (Rom. 10.3). This was the rock on which they split. They knew that justification required a righteousness; they insisted on urging their own, imperfect as it was, and would not accept of that which God had provided in the merits of his Son, who is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes. The same idea is presented in Rom. ix. 30-32, where Paul sums up the case of the rejection of the Jews and the acceptance of believers.

The Gentiles have attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel hath not attained it. Why? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. The Jews would not receive and confide in the righteousness which God had provided, but endeavored, by works, to prepare a righteousness of their own. This was the cause of their ruin. In direct contrast to the course pursued by the majority of his kinsmen, we find Paul renouncing all dependence upon his own righteousness, and thankfully receiving that which God had provided; though he had every advantage and every temptation to trust in himself, that any man could have; for he was one of the favored people of God, circumcised on the eighth day, and touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless; yet all these things he counted but loss, that he might win Christ, and be found in him, not having his 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. 3.4-9). Here the two righteousness are brought distinctly into view. The one was his own, consisting in obedience to the law; this Paul rejects as inadequate, and unworthy of acceptance. The other is of God, and received by faith; this Paul accepts and glories in as all-sufficient and as alone sufficient. This is the righteousness which the apostle says God imputes to those without works. Hence it is called a gift, a free gift, a gift by grace, and believers are described as those who receive this gift of righteousness (Rom. 5.17). Hence we are never said to be justified by anything done by us or wrought in us, but by what Christ has done for us. We are justified through the redemption that is in him (Rom. 3.24). We are justified by his blood (Rom. 5.9) We are justified by his obedience (Rom. 5.19). We are justified by him from all things (Acts 13.39). He is our righteousness (1 Cor. 1.30). We are made the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. 5.21). We are justified in his name (1 Cor. 6.11). There is no condemnation to those who are in him (Rom. 8.1) Justification is, therefore, by faith in Christ, because faith is receiving and trusting to him as our Savior, as having done all that is required to secure our acceptance before God. It is thus, then, the Scriptures answer the question, How can a man be just with God? When the soul is burdened with a sense of sin, when it sees how reasonable and holy is that law which demands perfect obedience, and which threatens death as the penalty of transgression, when it feels the absolute impossibility of ever satisfying these just demands by its own obedience and sufferings, it is then that the revelation of Jesus Christ as our righteousness is felt to be the wisdom and power of God unto salvation. Destitute of all righteousness in ourselves, we have our righteousness in him. What we could not do, he has done for us, The righteousness, therefore, on the ground of which the sentence of justification is passed upon the believing sinner, is not his own, but that of Jesus Christ.

It is one of the strongest evidences of the Divine origin of the Scriptures, that they are suited to the nature and circumstances of man. If their doctrines were believed and their precepts obeyed, men would stand in their true relation to God, and the different classes of men to each other. Parents and children, husbands and wives, rulers and subjects, would be found in their proper sphere, and would attain the highest possible degree of excellence and happiness. Truth is in order to holiness. And all truth is known to be truth by its tendency to promote holiness. As this test, when applied to the Scriptures generally, evinces their Divine perfection, so when applied to the cardinal doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ, it shows that doctrine to be worthy of all acceptation. On this ground it is commended by the sacred writers. They declare it to be in the highest degree honorable to God, and beneficial to man. They assert that it is so arranged as to display the wisdom, justice, holiness, and love of God, while it secures the pardon, peace, and holiness of men. If it failed in either of these objects; if it were not suited to the Divine character, or to our nature and necessities, it could not answer the end for which it was designed.

It will be readily admitted, that the glory of God in the exhibition or revelation of the Divine perfections, is the highest conceivable end of creation and redemption; and consequently, that any doctrine which is suited to make such an exhibition is, on that account, worthy of being universally received and gloried in. Now, the inspired writers teach us, that it is peculiarly in the plan of redemption that the Divine perfections are revealed; that it was designed to show unto principalities and powers the manifold wisdom of God; that Christ was set forth as a propitiatory sacrifice to exhibit his righteousness or justice; and especially, that in the ages to come he might show forth the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness towards us in Christ Jesus. It is the love of God, the breadth, and length, and depth, and height of which pass knowledge, that is here most conspicuously displayed. Some men strangely imagine that the death of Christ procured for us the love of God; whereas it was the effect and not the cause of that love. Christ did not die that God might love us; but he died because God loved us. 'God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.'

(Rom. 5.8). He 'so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life' (Jn. 3.16). 'In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins' (1 Jn. 4.9-10).

As this love of God is manifested towards the unworthy, it is called grace, and this is what the Scriptures dwell upon with such peculiar frequency and earnestness. The mystery of redemption is, that a Being of infinite holiness and justice should manifest such wonderful love to sinners. Hence the sacred writers so earnestly denounce everything that obscures this peculiar feature of the gospel; everything which represents men as worthy, as meriting, or, in any way, by their own goodness, securing the exercise of this love of God. It is of grace, lest any man should boast. We are justified by grace; we are saved by grace; and if of grace, it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace (Eph. 2.8, 9; Rom. 11.6). The apostle teaches us not only that the plan of salvation had its origin in the unmerited kindness of God, and that our acceptance with him is in no way or degree founded in our own worthiness, but moreover that the actual administration of the economy of mercy is so conducted as to magnify this attribute of the Divine character. God chooses the foolish, the base, the weak, yea, those who are nothing, in order that no flesh should glory in his presence. Christ is made everything to us, that those who glory should glory only in the Lord (1 Cor. 1.27-31).

It cannot fail to occur to every reader, that unless he sincerely rejoices in this feature of the plan of redemption, unless he is glad that the whole glory of his salvation belongs to God, his heart cannot be in accordance with the gospel. If he believes that the ground of his acceptance is in himself, or even wishes that it were so, he is not prepared to join in those grateful songs of acknowledgment to Him, who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which it is the delight of the redeemed to offer unto him that loved them and gave himself for them. It is most obvious, that the sacred writers are abundant in the confession of their unworthiness in the sight of God. They acknowledged that they were unworthy absolutely, and unworthy comparatively. It was of grace that any man was saved; and it was of grace that they were saved rather than others. It is, therefore, all of grace, that God may be exalted and glorified in all them that believe.

The doctrine of the gratuitous justification of sinners by faith in Jesus Christ, not only displays the infinite love of God, but it is declared to be peculiarly honorable to him, or peculiarly consistent with his attributes, because it is adapted to all men. 'Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, seeing it is one God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith' (Rom. 3.29, 30). 'For the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For WHOSOEVER Shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved' (Rom. 10.12, 13). This is no narrow, national, or sectarian doctrine. It is as broad as the earth. Wherever men, the creatures of God, can be found, there the mercy of God in Christ Jesus may be preached. The apostle greatly exults in this feature of the plan of redemption, as worthy of God, and as making the gospel the foundation of a religion for all nations and ages. In revealing a salvation sufficient for all and suited for all, it discloses Cod in his true character, as the God and Father of all.

The Scriptures, however, represent this great doctrine as not less suited to meet the necessities of man, than it is to promote the glory of God. If it exalts God, it humbles man. If it renders it manifest that he is a Being of infinite holiness, justice, and love, it makes us feel that we are destitute of all merit, nay, are most ill-deserving; that we are without strength; that our salvation is an undeserved favor. As nothing is more true than the guilt and helplessness of men, no plan of redemption which does not recognize these facts, could ever be in harmony with our inward experience, or command the full acquiescence of the penitent soul. The ascription of merit which we are conscious we do not deserve, produces of itself severe distress; and if this false estimate of our deserts is the ground of the exhibition of special kindness towards us, it destroys the happiness such kindness would otherwise produce. To a soul, therefore, sensible of its pollution and guilt in the sight of God, the doctrine that it is saved on account of its own goodness, or because it is better than other men, is discordant and destructive of its peace. Nothing but an absolutely gratuitous salvation can suit a soul sensible of its ill desert. Nothing else suits its views of truth, or its sense of right. The opposite doctrine involves a falsehood and a moral impropriety, in which neither the reason nor conscience can acquiesce. The scriptural doctrine, which assumes what we know to be true-namely, our guilt and helplessness--places us in our proper relation to God; that relation which accords with the truth, with our sense of right, with our inward experience, and with every proper desire of our hearts. This is one of the reasons why the Scriptures represent peace as the consequence of justification by faith. There can be no peace while the soul is not in harmony with God, and there can be no such harmony until it willingly occupies its true position in relation to God. So long as it does not acknowledge its true character, so long as it acts on the assumption of its ability to merit or to earn the Divine favor, it is in a false position. Its feelings towards God are wrong, and there is no manifestation of approbation or favor on the part of God towards the soul. But when we take our true place and feel our ill desert, and look upon pardoning mercy as a mere gratuity, we find access to God, and his love is shed abroad in our hearts, producing that peace which passes all understanding. The soul ceases from its legal strivings; it gives over the vain attempt to make itself worthy, or to work out a righteousness wherewith to appear before God. It is contented to be accepted as unworthy, and to receive as a gift a righteousness which can bear the scrutiny of God. Peace, therefore, is not the result of the assurance of mere pardon, but of pardon founded upon a righteousness which illustrates the character of God; which magnifies the law and makes it honorable; which satisfies the justice of God while it displays the infinite riches of Divine tenderness and love. The soul can find no objection to such a method of forgiveness. It is not pained by the ascription of merit to itself, which is felt to be undeserved. Its utter unworthiness is not only recognized, but openly declared. Nor is it harassed by the anxious doubt whether God can, consistently with his justice, forgive sin. For justice is as clearly revealed in the cross of Christ, as love. The whole soul, therefore, however enlightened, or however sensitive, acquiesces with humility and delight in a plan of mercy which thus honors God, and which, while it secures the salvation of the sinner, permits him to hide himself in the radiance which surrounds his Savior.

The apostles, moreover, urge on men the doctrine of justification by faith with peculiar earnestness, because it presents the only method of deliverance from sin. So long as men are under the condemnation of the law, and feel themselves bound by its demands of obedience as the condition and ground of their acceptance with God, they do and must feel that he is unreconciled, that his perfections are arrayed against them. Their whole object is to propitiate him by means which they know to be inadequate. Their spirit is servile, their religion a bondage, their God is a hard Master. To men in such a state, true love, true obedience, and real peace are alike impossible. But when they are brought to see that God, through his infinite love, has set forth Jesus Christ as a propitiation for our sins, that he might be just, and yet justify those that believe; that it is not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saves us--they are emancipated from their former bondage and made the sons of God. God is no longer a hard Master, but a kind Father. Obedience is no longer a task to be done for a reward; it is the joyful expression of filial love. The whole relation of the soul to God is changed, and all our feelings and conduct change with it. Though we have no works to perform in order to justification, we have everything to do in order to manifest our gratitude and love. 'Do we then make void the law through faith! God forbid: yea, we establish the law' (Rom. 3.31). There is no such thing as real, acceptable obedience, until we are thus delivered from the bondage of the law as the rule of justification, and are reconciled to God by the death of his Son. Till then we are slaves and enemies, and have the feelings of slaves. When we have accepted the terms of reconciliation, we are the sons of God, and have the feelings of sons.

It must not, however, be supposed that the filial obedience rendered by the children of God, is the effect of the mere moral influence arising from a sense of his favor. Though, perhaps, the strongest influence which any external consideration can exert, it is far from being the source of the holiness which always follows faith. The very act by which we become interested in the redemption of Christ, from the condemnation of the law, makes us partakers of his Spirit. It is not mere pardon, or any other isolated blessing, that is offered to us in the gospel, but complete redemption, deliverance from evil and restoration to the love and life of God. Those, therefore, who believe, are not merely forgiven, but are so united to Christ, that they derive from and through him the Holy Spirit. This is his great gift, bestowed upon all who come to Him and confide in Him. This is the reason why he says, 'Without me ye can do nothing.--As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit' (Jn. 15.4, 5).

The gospel method of salvation, therefore, is worthy of all acceptation. It reveals the Divine perfections in the dearest and most affecting light, and it is in every way suited to the character and necessities of men. It places us in our true position as undeserving sinners; and it secures pardon, peace of conscience, and holiness of life. It is the wisdom and the power of God unto salvation. It cannot be a matter of surprise that the Scriptures represent the rejection of this method of redemption as the prominent ground of the condemnation of those who perish under the sound of the gospel. That the plan should be so clearly revealed, and yet men should insist upon adopting some other, better suited to their inclinations, is the height of folly and disobedience. That the Son of God should come into the world, die the just for the unjust, and offer us eternal life, and yet we should reject his proffered mercy, proves such an insensibility to his excellence and love, such a love of sin, such a disregard of the approbation and enjoyment of God, that, could all other grounds of condemnation be removed, this alone would be sufficient. 'He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God' (Jn. 3.18).

Stand Before God

by Augustus Toplady

“Who is able to stand before this holy Lord God?” 1 Sam. vi. 20.

And yet, before this holy Lord God, every soul must one day stand. “We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ,” says the apostle, “that every one may receive according to the things he hath done in the body.” In some sense, we may be said to stand before Him now: “for He is not far from every one of us;” nay, “in Him we live, and move, and have our being.” The consequence of this is, that there is no creature which is not manifest to His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes “of Him with whom we have to do.” With regard therefore to His own Omniscience and Omnipresence, we already stand before this holy Lord God. He is about our bed, and about our paths, and is acquainted with all our ways; nor is there a word in our tongues, or a thought in our hearts, but He knows it altogether. “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.”

I shall not detain the reader with considering on what occasion the men of Bethshemesh spoke the words of the text; but only observe, that the miraculous judgment inflicted on them for looking into the ark, was that which gave rise to the above question, and made them cry out, with trembling and astonishment, “Who is able to stand before this holy Lord God?” But in whatever sense these words were meant by the speakers, they certainly contain a most momentous enquiry; — an enquiry in which every soul of man is deeply concerned.

If the Lord God, before whom each individual will shortly stand, is a holy God, a God of truth, and without iniquity, and of purer eyes than to behold sin with impunity; we may well ask, “Who is able to stand before Him? — who can abide the day of His coming, or stand when He appears?” Appear He certainly will; and stand before Him we inevitably must. God only knows who shall first be summoned to do this; but, first or last, the citation will be sent to all. Health is a tender, precarious flower; life is a brittle, slender thread; how soon the one may wither, and the other break, He alone can tell who lent us both. This only we know, from Scripture and from daily observation, that all below is of uncertain tenure; that we are no more than tenants at will, removable at the pleasure of God, the great Proprietor of all.

Some are dismissed from life in the dawn of infancy; some in the morning of childhood; others in the noon of youth. The sands of some are continued longer; and a very few are permitted to see the night of what we generally term old age. Not a day, nor an hour; no, not a minute passes, wherein multitudes of’ all ages are not called away to stand before the holy Lord God. Death, that promiscuous reaper, pays no regard to years or station. The infant of a day, and the man of a century, are alike to him; he mows the shooting blade and the maturer stem: the growing and the grown unite to swell his harvest and augment his spoils. But is that which we term Death, the offspring of chance, or the result of accident? Surely, no. Death is a scythe! but if I may so speak, it is a scythe in the hand of God. Affliction, sickness, and dissolution, are messengers of His; which come not but at His command. As King William used to say, with regard to those that died in battle, that “every bullet has its billet”, or is directed by special Providence; so it may truly be said, that every event has its commission from God, and is the effect of at least His permissive will. And therefore, though with regard to the act of dying itself, “all things come alike to all, and there is, in this respect, one event to the righteous and the wicked, and as the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath;” — though good and bad must die, the grave being the house appointed for all living; yet we must beware of thinking, because the holy and the wicked, the useful and the useless, seem to be taken away promiscuously, and without distinction, that therefore death is the effect of that unmeaning thing called chance; for both holy scripture and sound reason join in supporting the assertion of the celebrated Mr. Pope: — “All nature is but art unknown to thee; All chance, direction, which thou canst not see.” So far is anything from being fortuitous or accidental, with regard to God, (however contingent and unexpected some things may be to us) that not a sparrow falls to the ground, but in consequence of His will; and the very hairs of our head are everyone numbered. Nor does the absolute and necessary dependence of all things on God, the first cause, at all interfere with, much less does it supercede, the liberty of second, or subordinary causes. Difficulties, indeed, may attend the reconciliation of human freedom, with the purposes and prescience of God from eternity, and with the efficacious influence of actual Providence in time; but yet it is plain, from experience, that man is free, that is, that he acts without any inward force or violent compulsion. What he does in a moral way, he does with the concurrence of his will. If unregenerate, his will inclines him to the works of darkness, and these accordingly he commits; if renewed by the Spirit of God, his will, from the new bias which grace has given, naturally and spontaneously inclines him to what is good, and he acts agreeably to this renewed will. So that in every view, man is free in what he does; though totally dependent on God, from moment to moment, he yet is free as to the actings of his will; which, according to its bias, naturally excites him to this or that. If therefore man himself may be, and is, subject to the efficacy and energy of divine influence, without any prejudice to his natural freedom; much more may other creatures be so.

Hence we see how prodigiously wide of the mark their reasoning is, who, under pretence of guarding natural liberty, exclude the Providence of God from having any influence on the creatures He made, and represent the Deity as no more than an idle spectator, and scarce that, of what is done below. As if it was either beneath the dignity of Him to superintend and direct the world, who did not think it beneath Him to make it; or as if, having made it, He would suffer the affairs of it to take their chance, and go on at random, without His taking any care or notice. Into such blasphemies and absurdities do those run, who forsake the Scriptures.

How much more exalted views, worthy of God, and comfortable to man, do the treasures of inspiration give us, respecting the Deity and His ever-acting Providence? There we are told, that He worketh all things according to the counsel of His own will; that whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did He in heaven and in earth, and in the sea, and in all deep places; and that His effectual agency begun in creation, is carried on by Providence. “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,” said He who is in the form of God. Hence it follows, that if the Almighty is thus operative, that declaration of the apostle is true, which tells us, that “God hath determined the times before appointed;” and that He even “fixes the bounds of our habitation.” — ”To everything,” says another inspired writer, “there is a season; and a time to every purpose under the heaven; a time to be born, and a time to die.” — ”Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth,” says Job; “Are not his days also like the days of a hireling,” which consist of just so many hours and no more. And elsewhere, speaking of man, he says, “His days are determined; the number of his months are with thee; thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass.” Conformably to which, he adds, “All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.”

It remains then, that God is the sovereign Disposer, as of all things else, so of life and death; and consequently, that the awful period is fixed, wherein we must each stand before this holy Lord God. But are we not sinners? and is not sin that which this holy Lord God hateth? All this is true. God abhors sin; we are sinful, and we must stand before Him. How then shall we be able to do this? What, O what will be the result of standing at such a bar, and before such a judge? To be tried by the holy law of God, which we have broken; to be witnessed against by our conscience, and by angels who invisibly throng our most retired concealments; above all, to be heard by Him who is the searcher of hearts, and whose sentence is decisive either for heaven or hell. If the Holy Spirit should alarm the conscience by this consideration, it will stir up the individual to pray, that he may be found of Him in peace, and be enabled to stand with joy before this Holy God? But what can qualify us thus to stand? Is our own goodness sufficient to cover our guilty souls, and ward off the blow of justice? Alas! it is insufficient; as the prophet says, “Our gold is dim, and our wine is mixed with water.” Our purest obedience is sinful, and how can that which is sinful, save a sinner? Can a smaller sin atone for a greater; nay, do not both stand in need of an atonement from some other quarter? “All our righteousnesses,” says the church, in Isaiah, “are as filthy rags.”

Now, should a man attempt to go to court, clothed in filthy rags, and endeavour to gain admission to the royal presence in such raiment as that, would not he be refused entrance, and driven with indignation from the palace gate? — certainly he would; and can we expect to stand in the hour of death and day of judgment, undaunted before the holy Lord God, arrayed in no better robe, and defended with no better armour than that imperfect righteousness of ours, which the Scripture calls filthy rags? We must appear in a better dress, if we mean to appear at God’s right hand; a dress superior even to that which angels wear; a dress which God was manifest in the flesh on purpose to supply us with; and which, through grace, is to all, and upon all them that believe in Him. I need not say, that I mean the merits of Jesus Christ, consisting of His active righteousness and His atoning death; of all He did, and of all He endured, in obedience and submission to the law. This is that righteousness, that garment of salvation, in which St. Paul desired to be found; and in which we too must be interested and arrayed, would we reign in life through Him, and stand, at the latter day, in the congregation of the righteous.

The important doctrine of justification by the transfer of Christ’s merit to us, which doctrine is founded, on the perfection of His obedience, as our representative, and the reality of His substitution to death in our stead; I say, this supplies us with a satisfactory answer to the question offered, “Who is able to stand before this holy Lord God?” Who! — the soul unto whom Christ is made wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption: wisdom, to discover its native guilt and inability; righteousness, to cover its moral deformity, and render the whole man legally acceptable in the sight of the infinitely holy God; sanctification, to master and subdue the body of sin, to give the will and affections a divine tendency, to fire the heart with holy love, and adorn the outward conversation with all the beauties of practical godliness; and lastly, to whom Christ is made redemption, by the efficacy of His atonement, blotting out our sins and the handwriting that was against us, giving us to see that both one and the other were nailed to His cross, and that therefore there now remains no condemnation to them that are in Christ, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Now, if wisdom must be given to us to see our absolute need of an interest in Christ; if His righteousness must be imputed to us for our justification; if we must be sanctified by His grace; weaned from sin and devoted to God; and if the merits of His redemption likewise must be made over to us, in order to our obtaining the forgiveness of our evil works, and the acceptance of our good ones; I say, if these things are necessary for our salvation, and without them, we shall never be able so to stand before the holy Lord God, as to enjoy His favour, and be admitted to His kingdom; then, it behoves us to lay our hand upon our heart, and solemnly to ask ourselves, whether we have a hope that Christ is thus made of God wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption to us. — Soon we shall be called to stand, where self-examination will do us no service; when we appear before God, He will be the examiner alone. Judge therefore yourself, my Christian brother, now, that ye be not then judged of the Lord. Remember, that the night of death is coming on, and the shadows of the evening are stretching out; and as sure as natural night is succeeded by day, so sure will death be followed by the immediate scrutiny of that holy Lord God, who will bring all things to light; and upon your leaving the body will soon put it beyond all doubt, whether you belong to Christ or not.

Death, as I observed, respects not persons, neither taketh reward. Old and young, rich and poor, the serious and gay, the learned and the illiterate, the holy and the profane, one with another, must appear before the judge of quick and dead. When the call is issued forth, when the warrant is made out, it will neither admit of denial or delay. “O that men were wise, that they understood this, and would consider their latter end! “Look not on what I say as words of course, but know, that if they are unheeded now, a dying bed will convince you of their importance.

Ask yourself, What am I building on, so as to be able to stand before this holy Lord God? If you are ignorant of this, I pray the blessed Spirit to convince you, that there is no “other foundation for any man to lay, but that laid, which is Christ Jesus.” May He give you faith and repentance, so as you may be led to have a total reliance on the righteousness, blood, and intercession of Christ for the pardon of sins, which will give a conformity to His image, and to the mind which was in Christ Jesus. These are the fruits of real grace, the evidences of an interest in Him, and the marks by which His sheep are distinguished from those who belong not to His fold. And for an encouragement to wait upon Him in prayer for the communication of these graces, let us bear this in mind, that the holy Lord God before whom you and I are to stand in judgment, is, at the same time that He sustains this exalted title, that person of the Trinity who assumed our nature, and in it wrought out the salvation of His church and people. The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son. May He be your Advocate as well as Judge!

There is yet another sense wherein men will stand before this holy Lord God; and a blessed standing it will be, a standing peculiar to the just. They shall stand — Where? In the new Jerusalem, the heaven of heavens, before the throne and before the Lamb. They shall stand — How? Clothed in white robes, the robes of justifying merit and sanctifying grace. They shall stand — With whom? With angels and archangels, and all the powers of heaven. They shall stand — Doing what? Singing the song for ever new, the praises of the great Three-one, Father, Son, and Spirit. They shall stand — How long? As long as eternity itself; wrapt in the vision of God for ever and ever.

Do you ask, Who is worthy to stand thus before this “Holy Lord God?” — Who, indeed, abstracted from the merits of Christ? Without that, we should not only be unworthy, but absolutely incapable of this exceeding great reward. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. “Understand, therefore,” said Moses to the Israelites, “that the Lord thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it, for thy righteousness.” And if even the earthly Canaan was not the reward of human merit, much less the heavenly. And yet Christ says of the saints at Sardis, and by consequence of all saints whatever, (for a saint is a saint, let him live in what age or country he will) “These shall walk with me in white,” that is, they shall be my companions in glory, “for they are worthy.” — How! void of merit, and yet worthy? And worthy too of walking with Christ in white? Yes, unworthy, totally so, in themselves; but worthy, completely so, of an eternity of bliss, through the blood of sprinkling and the imputation of Christ’s obedience, styled in Scripture, the righteousness of God, and elsewhere, the righteousness of the saints. The righteousness of God, because wrought out by Christ, who, from the time of His incarnation, was God and man in one Person; and the righteousness of the saints, because freely imputed to them, and graciously made theirs, to all the purposes of justification and happiness. “Therefore are they before the throne, and serve God day and night;” that is, without end or intermission, “in His temple,” the region of glory. Hence it is, that they shall be able to stand before the holy Lord God; shall stand with joy in His presence, after death; stand at His right hand in the day of universal judgment; and stand before Him in His kingdom to all eternity. Just men made perfect in glory, are elsewhere in Scripture represented as sitting with Christ. Both phrases are evidently metaphorical. Their standing, therefore, may denote their bliss and alacrity; for standing is a posture of gladness and cheerfulness; and when they are described as sitting in heavenly places, the expression may signify the unspeakable freedom and intimacy with the Trinity, to which they will then be admitted.

There are some, it is to be feared, who think little about standing before the holy Lord God. Death and judgment, with what will follow, are seldom or never the subjects of their meditation. Indeed, dissipation and banishment of thought, seems to be one of our national vices at present, and is in great measure, the root of all the rest. Hence, concern for salvation is too generally ridiculed as superstition; and seriousness exploded as fanaticism. This is a melancholy but faithful representation of the state of religion, in this our day, nor will matters ever wear a brighter aspect, while gaiety and amusement, in ten thousand different shapes, and succeeding in endless rotation, are permitted to engross our time, and occupy the place of thought.

“A serious mind,” says Dr. Young, “is the native soil of every virtue.” And, if I mistake not, the same writer, elsewhere, makes this just observation: — that excessive attachment to fashionable pleasures begets levity; levity begets loose morals; loose morals beget infidelity; and infidelity begets death. And I verily believe, for my own part, that if we trace Deism and Libertinism to their fountainhead, we shall find, in most cases, the inordinate pursuit of pleasure to have been the source of both. Recreations are needful at times; but take care of these two things, that your recreations be innocent in themselves, and that you be moderate in your use of them.

If the time is hastening wherein all must, without any exception, stand before the holy Lord God, let the unbeliever tremble. “What! “ says a Deist, with a smile, “tremble at that which I do not believe!” Yes, I repeat it again, tremble, lest conscience should be in the right, and what you now profess to disbelieve, should prove true at last. Many a deistical hero has been dismally frightened when death stared him in the face; and some of them much sooner; for I could mention instances of Deists, who, unable to bear the intolerable hauntings of conscience, and their pride disdaining to fly to religion for relief, have, in the madness of despair put an end to their own lives; have plunged into eternity as a horse rushes into the battle, and gone, with all their sins about them to stand before the holy Lord God. “A proof this,” say you, “that they really disbelieved a future state.” O! no; a proof rather, that a conscience gashed with sin, and uncured by the remedy of the gospel, flashes horror on the soul too great for it to bear; and therefore the miserable creature, wishing that there may be no hereafter, chooses rather, in the fury of his pain, to try the dreadful experiment, and run the risk of accumulated misery in the next world, to get rid of his tortures in this.

But I willingly dismiss this dismal part of the subject, on a supposition that the reader of these lines is no professed infidel. I will suppose that you admit the Scriptures to be, as indeed they are, the Word of God; and that you believe every article of the Christian faith. Nay, I will go farther, and put the case, that the historical belief, and assent of your understanding, has some influence on your external conversation. I would take for granted, that you are neither profane nor immoral, but stand in awe of that great and terrible name, the Lord thy God; that the temple of your body, is in purity and sanctification, not walking in any lust of uncleanness, like them that know not God; and to add no more, that you are morally honest in your dealings with all men, and are punctual to the worship of God, in your closets, in your families, and in the temple. All this is excellent; all this is needful; but remember, this is not your justifying righteousness. We are not pardoned and entitled to heaven on account of our holiness and good works; but are made holy, and abound in good works, in consequence of our acceptance in the Beloved, of our pardon and justification through the propitiation and perfect obedience of Jesus Christ the righteous; do you know any thing of this? In all matters, but especially in spiritual affairs, experience is the life of knowledge.

Did the Spirit of God ever convince you of sin? Do you see yourself liable to the curse of the law, and the just vengeance of God, for the innate depravity of your nature, and the transgressions of your life? Do you come to Christ humbled and self-condemned; sensible that unless you are clothed with the merits of Him our Elder Brother, you are ruined and undone, and can never stand with joy or safety before the holy Lord God? If so, lift up thy head; redemption is thine; thou art in a state of grace; thou art translated from death to life; thou art an heir of God, and a joint-heir with Christ. But, if you-never felt, nor desire to feel, this work of the Holy Ghost upon thy heart, this conviction of sin, this penitential faith, all the supposed righteousness of thine own, wherein thou trusted, is but a broken reed; a painted sepulchre; and the trappings of a Pharisee.

Let believers rejoice. The holy Lord God, to whom they must give account, is their Father, their Saviour, and their Friend. What is death to such, but the accomplishment of their warfare, and the commencement of an endless triumph? I admire an illustration of the death of the righteous, which I lately met with in a discourse on that subject, by an eminent writer: “As a man,” says he, “that takes a walk in his garden, and spying a beautiful full-blown flower, he crops it, and puts it into his bosom, so the Lord takes His walks in His gardens, the churches, and gathers His lilies, souls fully ripe for glory, and with delight takes them to Himself.”

If it is in the merits of Christ alone that we can stand with safety before God, let us renounce self-dependence in every view, and rely for justification and everlasting life on Him, making mention of Him and of His righteousness only, in whom all the seed of Israel are justified, and shall glory.

Lastly; Is the Lord God we must appear before infinitely holy?then let us aim at holiness likewise. There is no true Christianity; that is, there is no dignity nor happiness, without it. He is not a Father, in a spiritual, saving sense, to any on whose souls the Holy Spirit has not impressed His image, and on whose hearts He has not inscribed His law.

The Everlasting Righteousness

by Horatius Bonar

Preface

The awakened conscience of the sixteenth century betook itself to "the righteousness of God." There it found refuge, at once from condemnation and from impurity. Only by "righteousness" could it be pacified; and nothing less than that which is divine could meet the case. At the cross this "righteousness" was found; human, yet divine: provided for man, and presented to him by God, for relief of conscience and justification of life. On the one word tetelestai "It is finished," as on a heavenly resting-place, weary souls sat down and were refreshed. The voice from the tree did not summon them to do, but to be satisfied with what was done. Millions of bruised consciences there found healing and peace.

The belief of that finished work brought the sinner into favour with God; nor did it leave him in uncertainty as to this. The justifying work of Calvary was God's way, not only of bringing pardon, but of securing certainty. It was the only perfect thing which had ever been presented to God in man's behalf; and so peculiar was this perfection, that it might be used by man in his transactions with God, as if it were his own.

The knowledge of this sure justification was life from the dead to multitudes. All over Europe, from the Apennines to the Grampians, from the Pyrenees to the Carpathians, went the glad tidings that man is justified freely, and that God wishes him to know he is justified. It was not merely a new thought for man's intellect, but a new discovery for his soul, (1) As to the true source of spiritual health, viz. the setting of man's conscience right with God; (2) As to the continuation of that health, viz. the keeping of the conscience right.

The fruit of this was not merely a healthy personal religion, but a renovated intellect and a noble literature, and, above all, a pure worship. It was an era of resurrection. The graves were opened; and the congregation of the dead became the church of the living. Christendom awoke and arose. The resurrection-dew fell far and wide; nor has it yet ceased to fall.

For ages Christianity had grovelled in the dust, smothered with semi-pagan rites; ready to die, if not already dead; bound hand and foot by a semi-idolatrous priesthood, unable to do aught for a world which it had been sent to regenerate. Now "it was lifted up from the earth, and made to stand upon its feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it."

A new conscience was born; and with a new conscience came in new life and power. Nothing had been seen like this since the age of apostles.

The doctrine of another's righteousness reckoned to us for justification before God is one of the links that knot together the first and the sixteenth centuries, the Apostles and the Reformers. The creeds of the Reformation overleap fifteen centuries, and land us at once in the Epistle to the Romans. Judicial and moral cleansing was what man needed; and in that epistle we have both the imputed and imparted righteousness; the former the root or foundation of the latter. Not the one without the other; both together, inseparable; but each in its own order.

It was not Luther merely who took up the old watchword, "The just shall live by faith," and thus found the answer of a good conscience toward God. To thousands of hearts it came like a voice from heaven, they knew not how. Sunshine from above had fallen upon one grand text; the text which the age needed: men recognized the truth thus supernaturally lighted up. "The nations came to its light, and kings to the brightness of its rising." The inquiring men of that age, though not borrowing from each other, betook themselves to this truth and text. From every kingdom of Europe came the same voice; and every Protestant Confession bore witness to the unanimity of awakened Christendom. The long-needed, long-missing truth had been found; and eureka was the cry of gladness were heard announcing its discovery.

Our fathers saw that this truth was the basis of all real spiritual life. That which was superficial, and morbid, and puny, and second-rate, might do with some less deep, less broad foundation; but all that is healthy, and noble, and daring, and happy, and successful in religion must rest here. "The just shall live by faith."

Religion is fashionable in our age. But is it that which sprang up, after centuries of darkness, among our fathers in Europe? Is it that of apostles and prophets? Is it the calm yet thorough religion which did such great deeds in other days? Has it gone deep into the conscience? Has it filled the heart? Has it pervaded the man? Or has it left the conscience unpacified, the heart unfilled, the man unchanged, save with some external appliances of religiousness, which leaves him hollow as before? There is at this moment many an aching spirit, bitterly conscious of this hollowness. The doctrine, the profession, the good report of others, the bustle of work, will not fill the soul. God Himself must be there, with His covering righteousness, His cleansing blood, His quickening Spirit. Without this, religion is but a shell: holy services are dull and irksome. Joy in God, which is the soul and essence of worship, is unknown. Sacraments, prayer-meetings, religious services, labours of charity, will not make up for the living God.

How much of unreality there may be in the religious life of our age, it is for each individual to determine for himself, that he may not be deceived nor lose his reward.(1)

All unreality is weakness as well as irksomeness; and the sooner that we are stripped of unreality the better, both for peace and for usefulness.

Men with their feet firmly set on Luther's rock, "the righteousness of God," filled with the Spirit, and pervaded with the peace of God, do the great things in the church; others do the little.

The men of robust spiritual health are they who, like Luther, have made sure of their filial relationship to God. They shrink from no battle, nor succumb to any toil. The men who go to work with an unascertained relationship give way in the warfare, and faint under the labour: their life is not perhaps a failure or defeat; but it is not a victory, it is not a triumph.

"We do not war after the flesh," and "our weapons are not carnal" (2 Cor 10:3,4). Our battle is not fought in the way that the old man would have us to fight it. It is "the fight of faith" (1 Tim 6:12). It is not by doubting but by believing that we are saved; it is not by doubting but by believing that we overcome. Faith leads us first of all to Abel's "more excellent sacrifice" (Heb 11:4). By faith we quit Ur and Egypt and Babylon, setting our face to the eternal city (Heb 11:16). By faith we offer up our Isaacs, and worship "leaning on the top of our staffs," and "give commandment concerning our bones." By faith we choose affliction with the people of God, and despise Egypt's treasures. By faith we keep our passover; pass through the Red Sea; overthrow Jerichos; subdue kingdoms; work righteousness; stop the mouth of lions; quench the violence of fire; turn to flight the armies of the aliens, and refuse deliverance in the day of trial, that we may obtain a better resurrection (Heb 11:35).

It is "believing" from first to last. We begin, we go on, we end in faith. The faith that justifies is the faith that overcomes (1 John 5:4). By faith we obtain the "good report" both with God and man. By faith we receive forgiveness; by faith we live; by faith we work, and endure, and suffer; by faith we win the crown,-a crown of righteousness, which shall be ours in the day of the appearing of Him who is OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

THE GRANGE, EDINBURGH,

November, 1872.

(1) One who knows the "religious world" well, and passed through its hollowness, thus writes: "It is just two years since He came in a way as certainly miraculous as ever He spake with a voice to Paul or any other, and ran His plough through my heart, breaking up and tearing into shreds my old 'Christian' and 'professor' life, showing me death, death amidst all, and leading me, though with terrible struggles and opposition from the old heart and its pride, into something like a knowledge of Himself, the living personal Jesus; though, alas, how feeble, how dark, how slow, has been the progress!

Before that, I was in a condition in which I verily believe (though it may seem unkind and morbid to say so) the great part of the professing church is at the present day, ministers as well as people. I know the kind of intercourse I had with many who pass for as good Christians as are to be found; and I know this, that very many who could talk hotly about doctrine, who would laugh and make merry, smile at my foolish jesting, showed no inclination whatever to join in speaking of the personal living Lord Himself, after He came by His strong arm of power, and made me wish more to speak of Him. (cont.)

I think it is well that you should be told such things. Cry aloud, spare not; show to the house of Israel their sins. There is far too much assuming even on the part of the faithful ones, that many of their flock are only in a low state, and that the mere calling them to go out of the world is enough. No. While there may be an isolated case of this sort, I believe that where worldliness and inconsistency are so widespread as they are, where so many are known only by profession, and by no other single mark or fruit of the Lord's people, it tells of something worse. The ploughshare must be sent deeper. It must bring up earth which has not yet been searched.

A great number are awakened and interested in youth, who by and by find a sort of peace, through some kind of wrong preaching or daubing with untempered mortar, along with the blindness of their own heart. Such peace is not founded on personal contact with the living One; and when business, or advancing years, or worldly entanglements come in, their vessel will not hold in. What have they to fall back upon? They do not like to abandon their profession; nay, there hangs about them a sort of spurious and galvanic life, which blinds them. But they know not the Lord of life. The good Lord help you to deal with such souls; and may He anoint you afresh, and give you His own wisdom and discernment to speak so as to draw souls, and call them to new life in the Lord."

How Shall Man Be Just with God?

Chapter 1

God's Answer to Man's Question

How may I, a sinner, draw near to Him in whom there is no sin, and look upon His face in peace?

This is the great question which, at some time or other, every one of us has asked. This is one of the awful problems which man in all ages has been attempting to solve. There is no evading it: he must face it.

That man's answers to this question should have been altogether wide of the mark, is only what might have been expected; for he does not really understand the import of the question which he, with much earnestness perhaps, is putting, nor discern the malignant character of that evil which he yet feels to be a barrier between him and God.

That man's many elaborate solutions of the problem which has perplexed the race since evil entered should have been unsatisfactory, is not wonderful, seeing his ideas of human guilt are so superficial; his thoughts of himself so high; his views of God so low.

But that, when God has interposed, as an interpreter, to answer the question and to solve the problem, man should be so slow to accept the divine solution as given in the word of God, betrays an amount of unteachableness and self-will which is difficult to comprehend. The preference which man has always shown for his own theories upon this point is unaccountable, save upon the supposition that he has but a poor discernment of the evil forces with which he professes to battle; a faint knowledge of the spiritual havoc which has been wrought in himself; a very vague perception of what law and righteousness are; a sorrowful ignorance of that Divine Being with whom, as lawgiver and judge, he knows that he has to do; and a low appreciation of eternal holiness and truth.

Man has always treated sin as a misfortune, not a crime; as disease, not guilt; as a case for the physician, not for the judge. Herein lies the essential faultiness of all mere human religions or theologies. They fail to acknowledge the judicial aspect of the question, as that on which the real answer must hinge; and to recognise the guilt or criminality of the evil-doer as that which must first be dealt with before any real answer, or approximation to an answer, can be given.

God is a Father; but He is no less a Judge. Shall the Judge give way to the Father, or the Father give way to the Judge?

God loves the sinner; but He hates the sin. Shall He sink His love to the sinner in His hatred of the sin, or His hatred of the sin in His love to the sinner?

God has sworn that He has no pleasure in the death of a sinner (Eze 33:11); yet He has also sworn that the soul that sinneth, it shall die (Eze 18:4). Which of the two oaths shall be kept? Shall the one give way to the other? Can both be kept inviolate? Can a contradiction, apparently so direct, be reconciled? Which is the more unchangeable and irreversible, the vow of pity or the oath of justice?

Law and love must be reconciled, else the great question as to a sinner's intercourse with the Holy One must remain unanswered. The one cannot give way to the other. Both must stand, else the pillars of the universe will be shaken.

The reconciliation man has often tried; for he has always had a glimpse of the difficulty. But he has failed; for his endeavors have always been in the direction of making law succumb to love.

The reconciliation God has accomplished; and, in the accomplishment, both law and love have triumphed. The one has not given way to the other. Each has kept its ground; nay, each has come from the conflict honored and glorified. Never has there been love like this love of God; so large, so lofty, so intense, so self-sacrificing. Never has law been so pure, so broad, so glorious, so inexorable.

There has been no compromise. Law and love have both had their full scope. Not one jot or tittle has been surrendered by either. They have been satisfied to the full; the one in all its severity, the other in all its tenderness. Love has never been more truly love, and law has never been more truly law, than in this conjunction of the two. It has been reconciliation, without compromise. God's honour has been maintained, yet man's interests have not been sacrificed. God has done it all; and He has done it effectually and irreversibly.

Man could not have done it, even though he could have devised it. But truly he could do neither. God only could have devised and done it.

He has done it by removing the whole case into His own courts of law, that it might be settled there on a righteous basis. Man could not have gone into court with the case, save in the certainty that he would lose it. God comes into court, bringing man and man's whole case along with Him, that upon righteous principles, and in a legal way, the case may be settled, at once in favour of man and in favour of God. It is this judicial settlement of the case that is God's one and final answer to man's long unanswered question, "How shall man be just with God?" "Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God?" (Micah 6:6).

God provides the basis of the reconciliation; a basis which demonstrates that there is no compromise between law and love, but the full expression of both; a basis which establishes both the authority and the paternity of Jehovah, as Lawgiver and Father; a basis which reveals in infinite awfulness the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the spotless purity of the statute, the unbending character of God's governmental ordinances; and which yet secures, in and by law, the righteous overflow of His boundless love to the lost sons of Adam.

This basis of reconciliation between law and love God has Himself not only provided, but brought into His own courts of law; proposing to the sinner that all the questions between Himself and the sinner should be settled on this basis ,-so equitable, so friendly, so secure; and settled in judicial form, by a legal process, in which verdict is given in favour of the accused, and he is clean absolved, -"justified from all things."

The consent of parties to the acceptance of this basis is required in court. The law consents; the Lawgiver consents; Father, Son, and Spirit consent; and man, the chief party interested, is asked for his consent. If he consents, the whole matter is settled. The verdict is issued in his favour; and henceforth he can triumph, and say, "It is God that justifieth; who is he that condemneth?"

Sin is too great an evil for man to meddle with. His attempts to remove it do but increase it, and his endeavours to approach God in spite of it aggravate his guilt. Only God can deal with sin, either as a disease or a crime; as a dishonour to Himself, or as a hinderer of man's approach to Himself. He deals with it not in some arbitrary or summary way, by a mere exercise of will or power, but by bringing it for adjudication into His own courts of law. As judge, seated on His tribunal, He settles the case, and settles it in favour of the sinner, -of any sinner on the earth that will consent to the basis which He proposes. Into this court each one may freely come, on the footing of a sinner needing the adjustment of the great question between him and God. That adjustment is no matter of uncertainty or difficulty; it will at once be granted to each applicant; and the guilty man with his case, however bad, thus legally settled, retires from court with his burden removed and his fears dispelled, assured that he can never again be summoned to answer for his guilt. It is righteousness that has reconciled God to him, and him to God.

As sin is too great an evil for any but God to deal with, so is righteousness too high for man to reach; to high for any but God to bring down and place at our disposal. God has brought down, and brought nigh, the righteousness. Thus the guilt which we have contracted is met by the righteousness which God has provided; and the exclusion from the divine fellowship, which the guilt produced, is more than reversed by the new introduction which the righteousness places at our disposal.

May I then draw near to God, and not die? May I draw near, and live? May I come to Him who hateth sin, and yet find that the sin which He hateth is no barrier to my coming, no reason for my being shut out from His presence as an unclean thing? May I renew my lost fellowship with Him who made me, and made me for Himself? May I worship in His holy place, with safety to myself, and without dishonour to Him?

These are the questions with which God has dealt, and dealt with so as to ensure a blessed answer to them all; an answer which will satisfy our own troubled consciences as well as the holy law of God. His answer is final and it is effectual. He will give no other; nor will He deal with these questions in any other way than He has done. He has introduced them into His courts of law, that there they may be finally adjusted; and out of these courts into which God has taken them who can withdraw them? Or what end would be served by such a withdrawal on our part? Would it make the settlement more easy, more pleasant, more sure? It would not. It would augment the uncertainty, and make the perplexity absolutely hopeless.

Yet the tendency of modern thought and modern theology is to refuse the judicial settlement of these questions, and to withdraw them from the courts into which God has introduced them. An extrajudicial adjustment is attempted; man declining to admit such a guilt as would bring him within the grasp of law, and refusing to acknowledge sin to be of such a nature as to require a criminal process in solemn court; yet admitting the necessity or desirableness of the removal of the sore evil under which humanity is felt to be labouring, and under which, if unremoved, it must ere long dissolve.

The history of six thousand years of evil has been lost on man. He refuses to read its awful lesson regarding sin, and God's displeasure against the sinner, which that history records. The flood of evil that has issued forth from one single sin he has forgotten. The death, the darkness, the sorrow, the sickness, the tears, the weariness, the madness, the confusion, the bloodshed, the furious hatred between man and man, making earth a suburb of hell,-all this is overlooked or misread; and man repels the thought that sin is crime, which God hates with an infinite hate, and which He, in His righteousness, must condemn and avenge.

If sin is such a surface thing, a trifle, as men deem it, what is the significance of this long sad story? Do earth's ten thousand graveyards, where human love lies buried, tell no darker tale? Do the millions upon millions of broken hearts and heavy eyes say that sin is but a trifle? Does the moaning of the hospital or the carnage of the battlefield, the blood-stained sword, and the death-dealing artillery, proclaim that sin is a mere casualty, and the human heart the seat of goodness after all? Does the earthquake, the volcano, the hurricane, the tempest, speak nothing of sin's desperate evil? Does mans aching head, and empty heart, and burdened spirit, and shaded brow, and weary brain, and tottering limbs, not utter, in a voice articulate beyond mistake, that sin is GUILT, that that guilt must be punished,-punished by the Judge of all,-not as a mere "violation of natural laws," but as a breach of the eternal law, which admits of no reversal, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die"? For without law, sin is nothing. "The strength of sin is the law" (1 Cor 15:56); and he who makes light of sin must defend moral confusion and injustice; he who refuses to recognize sin as guilt, must dissolve the law of the universe, or ascribe imbecility and injustice to the Judge of all.

The world has grown old in sin, and has now more than ever begun to trifle with it, either as a necessity which cannot be cured, or a partial aberration from good order which will rectify itself ere long. It is this tampering with evil, this refusal to see sin as God sees it, as the law declares it, and as the story of our race has revealed it, that has in all ages been the root of error, and of wide departure from the faith once delivered to the saints. Admit the evil of sin, with all its eternal consequences, and you are shut up to a divine way of dealing with it. Deny the evil of sin, and the future results of that evil, and you may deny the whole revelation of God, set aside the cross, and abrogate the law.

"By the law is the knowledge of sin." Therefore the connection between sin and law must be maintained, both in condemnation and in pardon. God's interposition in behalf of man must be a confirmation, not a relaxation of the law; for law cannot change, even as God cannot change or deny Himself.

Favor to the sinner must also be favor to the law. Favor to the sinner which would simply establish law, or leave its sanctities untouched, would be much; but favor to him which would deepen its foundations, and render it more venerable, more awful than before, is unspeakably higher and surer. Even so has it been. Law has not suffered at the hands of love, nor love been cramped and frozen by law. Both have had full scope, fuller scope than if man had never fallen.

I know that love is not law, and that law is not love. In law, properly, no love inheres. It is like the balance which knows not whether it be gold or iron that is laid upon it. Yet in that combination of the judicial and the paternal, which God's way of salvation exhibits, law has become the source and vehicle of love, and love law's upholder and honourer; so that even in this sense and aspect "love is the fulfilling of the law."(1)

The law that was against the sinner has come to be upon the sinner's side. It is now ready to take his part in the great controversy between him and God, provided he will conduct his case on the new principles which God has introduced for the settlement of all variances between Himself and the sinner; or rather, provided he will put that case into the hands of the divine Advocate, who alone knows how to conduct it aright, and to bring it to a successful issue,--who is both "propitiation" and "Advocate,"--the "propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2:2), "the Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)"of law there can be no less acknowledged than that her seat is the bosom of God, her voice the harmony of the world; all things in heaven do her homage, the very least as feeling her care, and the greatest as not exempted from her power; both angels and men, and creatures of what condition soever, though each in different sort and manner, yet all, with uniform consent, admiring her as the mother of their peace and joy." --Hooker, Eccl Pol. B. 1 sec 16.

Chapter 2

God's Recognition of Substitution

The mere bringing the question into the courts of law would have availed nothing, had there not been provision made for so ordering their processes and judgments that the sinner might be righteously acquitted; that God might be 'just and the justifier" (Rom 3:26), "a just God and a Saviour" (Isa 45:21); that law might be brought to be upon the sinner's side; his absolver, and not his condemner.

This provision has been made by means of substitution, or transference of the penalty from him who had incurred it to One who had not.

In human courts, no such provision can be allowed, save in regard to the payment of debt. In that case there is no difficulty as to the exchange of person and of property. If the creditor receives his money from a third party, he is satisfied, and the law is satisfied, though the debtor himself has not paid one farthing. To a certain extent, this is substitution; so that the idea of such a thing is not unknown in common life, and the principle of it not unacknowledged by human law.

But beyond this the law of man does not go. Substitution in any wider aspect is something about which man has never attempted to legislate. Stripe for stripe is human law; "by His stripes we are healed" is superhuman, the result of a legislation as gracious as it is divine.

Substitution is not for man to deal with: its principle he but imperfectly understands; its details he cannot reach. They are far too intricate, too far-reaching, and too mysterious for him to grasp, or, having grasped, to found any system of legislation upon them. In this, even though willing, he must ever be helpless.

But God has affirmed substitution as the principle on which He means to deal with fallen man; and the arrangements of His holy tribunal, His righteous governmental processes, are such as to bring this effectually and continually into play. It is through substitution that His righteous government displays its perfection in all its transactions with the sinner.

God has introduced the principle of substitution into His courts. There He sits as judge, "just and justifying"; acting on the principle of transference or representation; maintaining law, and yet manifesting grace: declaring that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23); that "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20); yet presenting a divine Surety, as "a PROPITIATION through faith in His blood, to declare His RIGHTEOUSNESS for the remission of sins that are past" (Rom 3:25).

Salvation by substitution was embodied in the first promise regarding the woman's seed and His bruised heel. Victory over our great enemy, by His subjecting Himself to the bruising of that enemy, is then and there proclaimed. The clothing of our first parents with that which had passed through death, in preference to the fig-leaves which had not so done, showed the element of substitution as that on which God had begun to act in His treatment of fallen man. Abel's sacrifice revealed the same truth, especially as contrasted with Cain's. For that which made Abel's acceptable, and himself accepted, was the death of the victim as substituted for his own; and that which rendered Cain's hateful, and himself rejected, was the absence of that death and blood. The slain firstling was accepted by God as, symbolically, Abel's substitute, laid on the altar, till He should come, the "woman's seed," "made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Gal 4:4,5).

From the beginning God recognized this principle in His dealings with man; the Just dying for the unjust; the blessed One becoming a curse that the cursed might be blessed. In all subsequent sacrifices it was the same. Noah's burnt-offering was like Abel's; and Abraham's resembled Noah's. Transference of guilt from one who could not bear the penalty without being eternally lost, to One who could bear it, and yet come forth from under it, free and glorious,-this was the deep truth into which God educated the patriarchs, as that which lay at the foundation of His procedure with the sinner. The consumption of Abraham's sacrifice by the divine fire told him that the divine displeasure which should have rested on him for ever, had fallen upon a substitute and been exhausted, so that there remained no more wrath, no darkness, "no condemnation" for him; nothing but deliverance and favor and everlasting blessedness.

But it was the arrangements of the tabernacle that brought out most fully this great principle of God's actings to the children of Adam.

In the passover-blood, the idea was chiefly that of protection from peril. The lamb stood sentinel at the door of each family; the blood was their "shield and buckler." There might be trembling hearts within, wondering perhaps how a little blood could be so efficacious, and make their dwelling so impregnable; disquieted, too, because they could not see the blood, but were obliged to be content with knowing that God saw it (Exo 12:13); yet no amount of fearfulness could alter the potency of that sprinkled blood, and no weakness of faith could make that God-given shield less efficacious against "the enemy and the avenger." The blood,-the symbol of substitution,-was on the lintel; and that was enough. They did not see it, nor feel it; but they knew that it was there, and that sufficed. God saw it, and that was better than their seeing it. They were safe; and they knew that they were so. They could feast upon the lamb in peace, and eat their bitter herbs with thankful joy. They could sing by anticipation the Church's song, "If God be for us, who can be against us?"

But still it was not in Egypt, but in the wilderness; not in their paschal chamber, but in the sanctuary of their God, that they were to learn the full and varied truth of pardon, and cleansing, and acceptance, and blessing through a substitute.

The old burnt-offering of the patriarchs, on the footing of which these fathers had in ages past drawn near to God, was split into many parts; and in the details of these we see the fulness and variety of the substitution.

The various sacrifices are well connected with the altar; and even that which was "burnt without the camp" was connected with the altar. It was no doubt carried forth without the camp, and burnt with fire (Lev 6:30, 16:27); but "the blood was brought into the tabernacle of the congregation, to reconcile withal in the holy place." "The blood of the bullock was brought in, to make atonement in the holy place." Their connection with the altar is sufficient of itself to show the truth of substitution contained in them, for the altar was the place of transference. But in each of them we find something which expresses this more directly and fully.

In the burnt-offering we see the perfection of the substitute presented in the room of our imperfection, in not loving God with our whole heart.

In the meat-offering we have the perfection of the substitute, as that on which, when laid upon the altar, God feeds, and on which He invites us to feed.

In the peace-offering we find the perfection of the substitute laid on the same altar as an atonement, reconciling us to God; removing the distance and the enmity, and providing food for us out of that which had passed through death; for "He is our peace."

In the sin-offering we see the perfection of the substitute, whose blood is sprinkled on the altar, and whose body is burnt without, as securing pardon for unconscious sins,-sins of ignorance.

In the trespass-offering there is the same perfection of the substitute, in His atoning character, procuring forgiveness for conscious and willful sin.

In the drink-offering we have the perfection of the substitute poured out on the altar, as that by which God is refreshed, and by which we are also refreshed. "His blood is drink indeed."

In the incense we have the "sweet savor" of the substitute going up to God in our behalf, the cloud of fragrance from His life and death with which God is well pleased, enveloping us and making us fragrant with a fragrance not our own; absorbing all in us that is displeasing or hateful, and replacing it with a sweetness altogether perfect and divine.

In the fire we see the holy wrath of the Judge consuming the victim slain in the sinner's room. In the ashes we have the proof that the wrath had spent itself, that the penalty was paid, that the work was done. "It is finished," was the voice of the ashes on the altar.

In all this we see such things as the following: (1) God's displeasure against sin; (2) that displeasure exhausted in a righteous way; (3) the substitute presented and accepted; (4) the substitute slain and consumed; (5) the transference of the wrath from the sinner to his representative; (6) God resting in His love over the sinner, and viewing him in the perfection of his substitute; (7) the sinner reconciled, accepted, complete, enjoying God's favour, and feeding at His table on that on which God had fed; on that which had come from the altar, and had passed through the fire.

Thus God's acceptance of this principle, in His preparation of acceptable worshippers for His sanctuary, shows the fitness and value of it, as well as the divine intention that it should be available for the sinner in his drawing near to God. In this way it is that God makes the sinner "perfect as pertaining to the conscience" (Heb 9:9), gives him "no more conscience of sins" (Heb 10:2), and "purges his conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (Heb 9:14). For that which satisfies the holiness of God cannot but satisfy the conscience of the sinner. God, pointing to the altar, says, "That is enough for me"; the sinner responds, and says, "It is enough for me."

As in the Epistle to the Hebrews we have this principle of substitution applied to the sanctuary, so in that to the Romans we find it applied to the courts of law. In the former we see God making the sinner perfect as a worshipper; in the latter, righteous as a servant and a son. In the one it is priestly completeness; in the latter it is judicial righteousness. But in both, the principle on which God acts is the same. And as He acts on it in receiving us, so does He invite us to act in coming to Him.

It is this truth that the gospel embodies; and it is this truth that we preach, when, as ambassadors for Christ, we pray men in Christ's stead to be reconciled to God. God's free love to the sinner is the first part of our message; and God's righteous way of making that free love available for the sinner is the second. What God is, and what Christ has done, make up one gospel. The belief of that gospel is eternal life. "All that believe are justified from all things" (Acts 13:39).

With a weak faith and a fearful heart many a sinner stands before the altar. But it is not the strength of his faith, but the perfection of the sacrifice, that saves; and no feebleness of faith, no dimness of eye, no trembling of hand, can change the efficacy of our burnt-offering. The vigor of our faith can add nothing to it, nor can the poverty of it take anything from it. Faith, in all its degrees, still reads the inscription, "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin"; and if at times the eye is so dim that it cannot read these words, through blinding tears or bewildering mist, faith rests itself on the certain knowledge of the fact that the inscription is still there, or at least that the blood itself (of which these words remind us) remains, in all its power and suitableness, upon the altar unchanged and uneffaced. God says that the believing man is justified; who are we, then, that we should say, "We believe, but we do not know whether we are justified"? What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

The question as to the right way of believing is that which puzzles many, and engrosses all their anxiety, to the exclusion of the far greater questions as to the person and work of Him who is the object of their believing. Thus their thoughts run in a self-righteous direction, and are occupied, not with what Christ has done, but with what they have yet to do, to get themselves connected with His work.

What should we have said to the Israelite, who, on bringing his lamb to the tabernacle, should puzzle himself with questions as to the right mode of laying his hands on the head of the victim, and who should refuse to take any comfort from the sacrifice, because he was not sure whether he had laid them aright;-on the proper place, in the right direction, with adequate pressure, or in the best attitude? Should we not have told him that his own actings concerning the lamb were not the lamb, and yet that he was speaking as if they were? Should we not have told him that the lamb was everything, his touch nothing, as to virtue or merit or recommendation? Should we not have told him to be of good cheer; not because he had laid his hands on the victim in the most approved fashion, but because they had touched that victim, however lightly and imperfectly, and thereby said, Let this lamb stand for me, answer for me, die for me? The touching had no virtue in itself, and therefore the excellency of the act was no question to come up at all: it simply intimated the man's desire that this sacrifice should be taken instead of himself, as God's appointed way of pardon; it was simply the indication of his consent to God's way of saving him, by the substitution of another. The point for him to settle was not, Was my touch right or wrong, light or heavy? but, Was it the touch of the right lamb,-the lamb appointed by God for the taking away of sin?

The quality or quantity of faith is not the main question for the sinner. That which he needs to know is that Jesus died and was buried, and rose again, according to the Scriptures. This knowledge is life everlasting.

Chapter 3

The Completeness of the Substitution

In person and in work, in life and in death, Christ is the sinner's Substitute. His vicariousness is co-extensive with the sins and wants of those whom He represents, and covers all the different periods as well as the varied circumstances of their lives.

He entered our world as the Substitute. "There was no room for Him in the inn" (Luke 2:7),-the inn of Bethlehem, the city of David, His own city. "Though rich, for our sakes He had become poor" (2 Cor 8:9). In poverty and banishment His life began. He was not to be allowed either to be born or died, save as an outcast man. "Without the gate" (Heb 13:12) was His position, as He entered and as He left our earth. Man would not give even a roof to shelter or a cradle to receive the helpless babe. It was as the Substitute that He was the outcast from the first moment of His birth. His vicarious life began in the manger. For what can this poverty mean, this rejection by man, this outcast condition, but that His sin-bearing had begun? (1)

The name, too, that met Him as He came into our world intimated the same truth: "Thou shalt call His name JESUS, for He shall save His people from their sins" (Matt 1:21). His name proclaimed His mission and His work to be salvation; "Jehovah the Savior" (Jesus) is that by which the infant is called. As the Savior, He comes forth from the womb; as the Savior, He lies in the manger; and if He is the Savior, He is the Substitute. The name Jesus was not given to Him merely in reference to the cross, but to His whole life below. Therefore did Mary say, "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior (Luke 1:46,47). Therefore also did the angel say to the shepherds, "Unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11).

Scarcely is He born when His blood is shed. Circumcision deals with Him as one guilty, and needing the sign of cleansing.(2) He knew no sin, yet He is circumcised. He was not born in sin, nor shapen in iniquity, but was "the holy thing" (Luke 1:35); yet He is circumcised as other children of Abraham, for "He took on Him the seed of Abraham" (Heb 2:16). Why was He circumcised if not as the Substitute? The rite proclaimed His vicarious birth, as truly as did the cross His vicarious death. "He who knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor 5:21). This was the beginning of that obedience in virtue of which righteousness comes to us; as it is written, "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (Rom 5:19). For He Himself testified concerning His baptism, "Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness" (Matt 3:15); and what was true of His baptism was no less true of His circumcision. The pain and the blood and the bruising of His tender body, connected with that symbol of shame, are inexplicable save on the supposition that even in infancy He was the vicarious one, not indeed bearing sin in the full sense and manner in which He bore it on the cross (for without death, sin-bearing could not have been consummated), but still bearing it in measure, according to the condition of His years. Even then He was "the Lamb of God."

His banishment into Egypt is referred to once and again by the old divines as part of that life of humiliation by which He was bearing our sins. As the banished one, He bore our banishment that we might return to God. He passed through earth as an outcast, because He was standing in the outcast's place; -"hurried up and down," says an old writer, "and driven out of His own land as a vagabond" (Flavel). In each part of His sin-bearing life there is something to meet our case. By the first Adam we were made exiles from God and paradise; by the last Adam we are brought back from our wanderings, restored to the divine favor, and replaced in the paradise of God.

His baptism is the same in import with His circumcision. He needed not the symbol of death and cleansing; for He was wholly pure, not liable to death on His own account. Why, then, should this sign of washing the unclean be applied to Him, if He was not then standing in the room of the unclean? What had water to do with the spotless One? What had "the figure of the putting away of the filth of the flesh, and of the answer of a good conscience toward God" (1 Pet 3:21), to do with Him who had no filth of the flesh to put away, and on whose conscience not the very shadow of dispeace had ever rested? But He was the Substitute; and into all the parts and circumstances of our life He enters, fulfilling all righteousness in the name of those whom He had come to save. The water was poured upon Him as standing in our room, and fulfilling our obligations.(3)

In the Psalms we find Him giving utterance to His feelings while bearing sins that were not His own, but which were felt by Him as if they were His own. Again and again He confesses sin.

But what had the Holy One to do with confession, or with strong crying and tears? What connection had He with the horrible pit and the miry clay, with the overwhelming floods and waves, with the deep waters, and the dust and darkness, and the lowest pit? Why shrank He from the assembly of the wicked that enclosed Him, from the "bulls that compassed Him, the strong bulls of Bashan that beset Him round," from the power of the dogs, from the sword, from the lion's mouth, from the horns of the unicorns? Why, during those days of His flesh, was He subjected to all this? and why were the powers of earth and hell let loose against Him? Because He was the Substitute, who had taken our place and assumed our responsibilities, and undertaken to do battle with our enemies. In these Psalms we find the seed of the woman at war with the seed of the serpent, and undergoing the varied anguish of the bruised heel.

He speaks not merely of the anguish of the cross when the full flood of wrath descended on Him, but of His lifetime's daily griefs: "I am afflicted and ready to die from my youth up: while I suffer Thy terrors, Jam distracted" (Psa 88:15). "My soul is full of troubles, and my life draweth nigh unto the grave," He said in the Psalms; just as afterwards He cried out, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." "Mine eye mourneth by reason of affliction... Thy fierce wrath goeth over me, Thy terrors have cut me off... Lover and friend hast Thou put far from me, and mine acquaintance into darkness." Thus was He "despised and rejected of men" (i.e. the despised and rejected of men), "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief' (Isa 53:3). And of the meaning of all this we can have no doubt, when we remember that He was always the sinless One bearing our sins, carrying them up to the cross as well as bearing them upon the cross (1 Pet 2:24, anênegken ); also that it is written of Him, "Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Isa 53:4); and yet again, that it is written expressly with reference to His daily life, "He healed all that were sick, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES, AND BARE OUR SICKNESSES" (Matt 8:17).(4) Vicariousness, or substitution, attached itself to each part of His life as truly as to His death.(5) Our burden He assumed when He entered the manger, and laid it aside only at the cross. The utterance, "It is finished,' pointed back to a whole life's sin-bearing work.

The confessions of our sins which we find in the Psalms (where, as "in a bottle," God has deposited the tears of the Son of man, Psa 56:8) are the distinctest proofs of His work as the Substitute. Let one example suffice: "O LORD, rebuke me not in Thy wrath, neither chasten me in Thy hot displeasure; for Thine arrows stick fast in me, and Thy hand presseth me sore. There is no soundness in my flesh because of Thine anger, neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin. For mine iniquities are gone over mine head; as an heavy burden, they are too heavy for me" (Psa 38:1-4).

These confessions must be either those of the sinner or the sin-bearer. They suit the former; and they show what views of sin we should entertain, and what our confessions should be. But they suit the latter no less; and as they occur in those Psalms which are quoted in the New Testament as specially referring to Christ, we must take them as the confessions of the sin-bearer, and meant to tell us what He thought of sin when it was laid upon Him simply as a substitute for others. The view thus given us of the completeness of the substitution is as striking as it is satisfying. We see here our Noah building His wondrous ark for the salvation of His household. We see its beginning, middle, and end. We see its different parts, external and internal; each plank as it is laid, each nail as it is driven in. Its form is perfect; its structure in all details is complete; its strength and stability are altogether divine. Yet with what labour and amid what mockings is this ark constructed! Amid what strong crying and tears, what blood and agony, is it completed! Thus, however, we are assured of its perfection and security. Through the deep waters of this evil world it floats in peace. No storm can overset it, no billow break it, nor so much as loosen one of its planks. They who have fled to it as a hiding-place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest, are everlastingly safe.

When the Lord said, "Now is my soul troubled" (John 12:27); and when, again, He said, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death" (Matt 26:38), He spoke as the sin-bearer. For what construction can we possibly put upon that trouble and sorrow, but that they were for us?(6) Men, false to the great truth of a sin-bearing Christ, may say that in the utterance of this anguish He was merely giving us an example of patient endurance and self-sacrifice; but they who own the doctrine of Christ "suffering for sin, the just for the unjust," will listen to these bitter cries as to the very voice of the Substitute, and learn from them the completeness of that work of satisfaction, for the accomplishment of which He took our flesh, and lived our life, and died our death upon the tree.

But the completeness of the substitution comes out more fully at the cross. There the whole burden pressed upon Him, and the wrath of God took hold of Him, and the sword of Jehovah smote Him; He poured out His soul unto death, and He was cut off out of the land of the living.

Then the work was done. "It is finished." The blood of the burnt-offering was shed. The propitiation was made; the transgression finished; and the everlasting righteousness brought in.

All that follows is the fruit or result of the work finished on the cross. The grave is the awful pledge or testimony to His death as a true and real death; but it forms no part of the substitution or expiation.(7) Ere our surety reached the tomb, atonement had been completed. The resurrection is the blessed announcement of the Father that the work had been accepted and the surety set free; but it was no part either of the atonement or the righteousness. The ascension and the appearing in the presence of God for us with His own blood, are the carrying out of the atonement made upon Calvary; but they are no part of the expiation by means of which sin is forgiven and we are justified. All was finished, once and for ever, when the surety said, "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit."

There are some who would separate propitiation from the cross, who maintain that the three days' entombment was part of the sin-bearing. But the cry from the cross, "It is finished," silences all such theories. The altar is the only place of expiation; and it is death that is the wages of sin. Burial was but the visible proof of the reality of the death. The surety's death once given instead of ours, the work is done. The fire consumed the sacrifice; and the ashes which remain are not the prolongation of that sacrifice, but the palpable proof that the fire has exhausted itself, that wrath is spent, and that nothing can now be added to or taken from the perfection of that sacrifice, through which pardon and righteousness are henceforth to flow to the condemned and the ungodly.

"Justified by His blood" is the apostolic declaration; and as a result of this, "saved from wrath through Him" (Rom 5:9). Here we rest; sitting down beneath the shadow of the cross to receive the benefit of that justifying, saving, protecting sacrifice.

It is at and by the cross that God justifies the ungodly. "By His stripes we are healed" (Isa 53:5); and the symbol of the brazen serpent visibly declares this truth. It was the serpent when uplifted that healed the deadly bite, not the serpent after it was taken down and deposited in the tabernacle. As from that serpent,-the figure of Him who was "made a curse for us,"-so from the cross health and life flow in. Not resurrection, but crucifixion, is the finishing of transgression and the making of an end of sin.

"Reconciled to God by the death of His Son" (Rom 5:10) is another of the many testimonies to the value and efficacy of the cross. Reconciliation is not connected with resurrection. The "peace was made by the blood of His cross" (Col 1:20). The fruits and results of the peace-offering may be many and various, but they are not the basis of reconciliation. That basis is the sacrificial blood-shedding. What can be more explicit than these three passages, which announce justification by the blood, reconciliation by the death, and peace by "the blood of the cross"?

In the cross we see the Priest and priesthood; in the resurrection, the King and royal power. To the Priest belong the absolution and the cleansing and the justifying; to the King, the impartation of blessing to the absolved, the cleansed and the justified.

To the cross, therefore, do we look and cleave; knowing that out of its death cometh life to us, and out of its condemnation pardon and righteousness. With Christ were we crucified; and in this crucifixion we have "redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace."

Three times over in one chapter (Lev 1:9,13,17) we read these words, "It is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire of a sweet savour unto the LORD"; and the apostle, referring to these words, says, "Christ hath loved us, and hath given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour" (Eph 5:2). This sweet savour came from the brazen altar, or altar of burnt-offering. It was the sweet odour of that sacrifice that ascended to God, and that encompassed the worshipper, so that he was covered all over with this sacrificial fragrance, presenting him perfect before God, and making his own conscience feel that he was accepted as such, and treated as such. Thus, by that burnt-offering there is proclaimed to us justification in a crucified Christ

The manifold blessings flowing from resurrection and ascension are not to be over-looked; but nowhere does Scripture teach justification by these. The one passage sometimes quoted to prove this, declares the opposite (Rom 4:25); for the words truly translated run thus: "He was delivered because we had sinned, and raised again because of our justification." It was because the justifying work was finished that resurrection was possible. Had it not been so, He must have remained under the power of the grave. But the cross had completed the justification of His church. He was raised from the dead. Death could no longer have dominion over Him. The work was finished, the debt paid, and the surety went free: He rose, not in order to justify us, but because we were justified. In raising Him from the dead, God the Father cleared Him from the imputed guilt which had nailed Him to the cross and borne Him down to the tomb. "He was justified in the Spirit" (1 Tim 3:16). His resurrection was not His justification, but the declaration that He was "justified"; so that resurrection, in which we are one with Him, does not justify us, but proclaims that we are justified,-justified by His blood and death.(8)

In so far, then, as substitution is concerned, we have to do with the cross alone. It was, indeed, the place of death; but on that very account it was also to us a place of life and the pledge of resurrection.

The words of the apostle (Rom 6:6,7) are very explicit on this point: "Knowing this, that our old man has been crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Here we have three things connected directly with the cross: (1) The death of the old man; (2) the destruction of the body of sin; (3) deliverance from the life-bondage of sin. Then he adds, "For he who dieth is freed from sin." The word "freed" is literally "justified," (dedikaiôtai, has been judicially released, legally set free, having paid the full penalty) teaching us that death is the exhaustion of the penalty and the justification of the sinner; so that justification in a crucified Christ is the teaching of the Spirit here.

The words of another apostle are no less clear (1 Pet 4:1): "Christ suffered for us in the flesh;...he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin." Here Christ on the cross is set before us, suffering the just for the unjust; and having thus suffered, He has exhausted the penalty which He was bearing; and having exhausted it, His connection with sin has ceased: he is now in the state described elsewhere, "without sin" (Heb 9:28). The word "ceased" means more properly "has rest."(9) The life of our surety was one of sorrow and unrest, for our penalty lay upon Him; but when this penalty was paid by His death, He "rested." The labor and the burden were gone; and as one who knew what entering into rest was (Heb 4:10), He could say to us, "I will give you rest." He carried His life-long burden to the cross, and there laid it down, "resting from His labors." Or rather, it was there that the law severed the connection between Him and the burden; loosing it from His shoulders, that it might be buried in His grave. From that same cross springs the sinner's rest, the sinner's disburdening, the sinner's absolution and justification.

Not for a moment are we to lose sight of the blessings flowing from the resurrection, or to overlook and undervalue the new position into which we are brought by it. The "power of the resurrection" (Phil 3:10) must be fully recognized and acted on for its own results. We are crucified with Christ. With Him we died, were buried, and rose again. "Risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead" (Col 2:12). "He hath quickened us together with Christ... and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph 2:5,6). Such are the terms in which the apostle describes the benefits of Christ's resurrection, and in which he reveals to us the oneness with Him who died and rose. But nowhere does he separate our justification from the cross; nowhere does he speak of Christ meeting our legal responsibilities by His resurrection; nowhere does he ascribe to His resurrection that preciousness in whose excellency we stand complete. Acceptance, and completeness in our standing before God, are attributed to the cross and blood and death of the Divine Substitute.

Poor as my faith in this Substitute may be, it places me at once in the position of one to whom "God imputeth righteousness without works." God is willing to receive me on the footing of His perfection; and if I am willing to be thus received, in the perfection of another with whom God is well pleased, the whole transaction is completed. I AM JUSTIFIED BY HIS BLOOD. "As He is, so am I (even) in this world,"-even now, with all my imperfections and evils.

To be entitled to use another's name, when my own name is worthless; to be allowed to wear another's raiment, because my own is torn and filthy; to appear before God in another's person,-the person of the Beloved Son ,-this is the summit of all blessing. The sin-bearer and I have exchanged names, robes, and persons! I am now represented by Him, my own personality having disappeared; He now appears in the presence of God for me (Heb 9:24). All that makes Him precious and dear to the Father has been transferred to me. His excellency and glory are seen as if they were mine; and I receive the love, and the fellowship, and the glory, as if I had earned them all. So entirely one am I with the sin-bearer, that God treats me not merely as if I had not done the evil that I have done; but as if I had done all the good which I have not done, but which my Substitute has done. In one sense I am still the poor sinner, once under wrath; in another I am altogether righteous, and shall be so for ever, because of the Perfect One, in whose perfection I appear before God. Nor is this a false pretense or a hollow fiction, which carries no results or blessings with it. It is an exchange which has been provided by the Judge, and sanctioned by law; an exchange of which any sinner upon earth may avail himself and be blest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The Heidelberg Catechism (used in the Scotch Church, along with Calvin's, till superseded by the Westminster) asks, "What profit takest thou by Christ's holy conception and nativity?" and answers, "That He is our Mediator, and doth cover my sins with His innocencv and perfect holiness, in which I was conceived, that they may not come into the sight of God."

(2) "These ceremonial observances were so many confessions of sin. Christ, then, who was made sin for us, conformed to these" (Ames, Medulla Theologica, B. 1. ch. 21). "Hereby (by circumcision) He was represented to the world not only as a subject, but also as a sinner. For though He was pure and holy, yet this ordinance passing upon Him seemed to imply as if corruption had indeed been in Him, which must be cut off by mortification....Thus was He represented as a sinner to the world, though most holy and pure in Himself" (Flavel, Fountain of Life-Sermon 19). "He was circumcised, and kept the law to deliver us from the condemnation of it....Therefore we must seek our righteousness, not in the law, but in Christ, who hath fulfilled the same, and given us freely His fulfilling" (Latimer on Matt 2:1,2).

(3) The old hymns have not lost sight of those truths. As specimens, I give the following: -

"Stillat excisos pueri per artus -- Eficacious blood drops from

Efficax noxas abolere sanguis; -- The pierced limbs of the boy

Obligat morti pretiosa totum -- To abolish punishments;

Stilla cruorem." -- A precious drop requires the whole bloodshed to death.

Again:

"Vix natus, ecce lacteum -- Behold the infant, scarcely born,

Profundit Infans sanguinem, -- Sheds the milk blood,

Libamen est hoc funeris -- A sample of death,

Amoris hoc praeludium." -- A prelude of love.

And again:

"Dixit; et Patris veneratus iram -- He spoke; and having respected

Sustinet vulnus silicis cruentae; -- The wrath of the Father endures the wound of the bloody rock;

Et jugum legis subit ipse, servis -- And he himself submits to the yoke of the law

Ut juga demat." -- In order to take away the yokes for his servants. --Editor

Little as these hymns contain of the finished work of the substitution, occasionally the great truth breaks out in connection with the different events in the Lord's history.

(4) The evangelist here translates directly from the Hebrew, and differs from the Septuagint.

(5) The Heidelberg Catechism asks, "What believest thou when thou sayest, He suffered?" and the answer is, "That He, all the time of His life which He led on earth, but especially at the end thereof, sustained the wrath of God, both in body and soul, against the sin of mankind, that He might by His passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, deliver our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and purchase unto us the favour of God, righteousness, and everlasting life."

(6) The old catechetical exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism brings out this fully: "The Godhead hath so strengthened the human nature, and upheld it, that it could bear the weight of the wrath of God against sin. It hath also given such dignity to the short sufferings of the human nature, that it hath satisfied for the eternal punishment which we had deserved... What suffered He in His soul? Very heavy and terrible torments, anxieties, pains, sorrows, distresses, arising from the sense of God's wrath... When and how long hath Christ suffered? The whole time of His life which He led on earth, but especially at the end thereof. The evangelical histories testify of banishments, Satan's temptations, poverty, disgrace, infirmities, hunger, thirst, fear, perils of life; especially in the garden of Gethsemane, in the judgment hall, on Golgotha... He not only suffered for sin, but He felt God against Him in that suffering as an angry judge... Hath He also purchased righteousness for us? Yes, so that the Father freely giveth and bestoweth the same on us, and reckoneth it unto us; so that the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ being imputed to us, we may stand in God's judgment."

(7) "To what end was He buried? That thereby He might make manifest that He was dead indeed" (Heidelberg Catechism).

(8) "What other benefits receive we by the sacrifice and death of Christ? That by virtue of His death our old man is crucified, slain, and buried together with Him, that henceforth evil lusts and desires may not reign in us, but we may offer ourselves unto Him a sacrifice of thanksgiving....How doth the resurrection of Christ profit us? First, by His resurrection He vanquished death, that He might make us partakers of that righteousness which He had purchased for us; secondly, we are stirred up by His power to a new life" (Heidelberg Catechism).

(9) See Kypke's Observations in N.T, who quotes some striking passages in classical Greek to illustrate this. See also Bengel and Winer.

Chapter 4

The Declaration of the Completeness

The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is a prophetic vision of the cross.

The book of Leviticus had given Israel in detail the standing symbols which were all to be transformed into spiritual substances or verities in Christ crucified. And this chapter of the prophet gives a summary of these truths, in Levitical language, connecting them all with the seed of the woman, and His bruising upon the tree.

For more than three thousand years the "bruised heel" had been held up before the eye of the world, and specially of Israel (in their sacrifices), as their deliverance and hope. But now the inter-pretation is given in more explicit language. Its meaning, as expressing (in the varied details of this chapter) the transference of the sinner's guilt to the Surety; as setting forth also the mysteri-ous person of the Man of sorrows, and, under all this, revealing the deep free love of God to man,-is here proclaimed with a clearness and fulness such as had not hitherto been vouchsafed either to the patriarchs or to Israel. Nowhere is the work of the Messiah the sin-bearer more explicitly revealed. The just One suffering for the unjust is the theme of this prophetic burden.

Abruptly the prophet breaks forth in his description of Messiah, seed of the woman, son of Adam, son of Abraham, son of David: "He shall grow up before Him a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground." The soil and the air of earth are alike uncon-genial to this shoot from the stem of Jesse. Its affinities are all with a purer climate than ours.

He rises up in the midst of us, but not to be appreciated and honored; not to be admired, or loved. "He hath no form or come-liness; and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him." The light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not. "He is [the] despised and rejected [one] of men"; i.e. of all men, the most despised and rejected: for He came to His own, and His own received Him not.

Here is the beginning of His vicarious life ,-a life of reproach among the sons of men. "A Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief."

Whence all this life-long sadness? When angels visit earth, are they thus sor-rowful? Does the air of earth infect them with its troubles? Do they weep, and groan, and bleed? Are they assailed with the blasphemies of earth? If not, why is it thus? Why is the holy Son of God, from His childhood, subjected to this contempt, and bowed down beneath this burden? Why is the cup of gall and wormwood set beside His cradle? and why, day by day, in youth and manhood, has He to drink the bitter draught? Angels see the sights and hear the sounds of earth, as they attend us in their ministries, or execute the errands of their King: yet they are not saddened; nor, when they return to their dwellings of light, do they require the tears to be wiped from their eye, or the sweat from their brow. How can we account for the difference between Messiah and the angels, save the fact that His sin-bearing character made Him accessible to and penetrable by grief, in a way such as no angel could be?

The difficulty of such a case was obvious; and accordingly the prophet meets it in the next verse. It is our griefs that He was bear-ing; it was our sorrows that He was carrying. These were the things that made Him the Man of sorrows. They that saw Him could not understand the mystery. They said, God has smitten him for his sins, and afflicted him for some hidden transgression that we know not. But, no; "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed." The wounding, the bruis-ing, the chastening, and the scourging had their beginnings before He reached the cross; but it was there that they were all complet-ed by "the obedience unto death."

"The LORD [Jehovah] hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all"; or, bath made to rush or strike upon Him the punishment of us all.

"It was exacted, and He became answerable,

And (therefore) He opened not His mouth.

As a lamb to the slaughter He is led;

And as a sheep before her shearers is dumb,

So He opened not His mouth.

From prison and from judgment He is taken,

And His generation (manner of life) who declareth?"

These are the scenes before the Cross; while He was on His way to it. He was dumb before His judges, because He had made Himself legally responsible for our debt or guilt. Nor was there any one to come forward and declare His innocence. He was carrying, too, our sins to the cross. After this we have the cross itself:

"He was cut off out of the land of the living;

For the transgressions of my people He was stricken."

The sin-bearing of the cross is fully brought out here.There He hung as the Substitute, "the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God."

"And there was appointed Him a grave with the wicked,

But with the rich man was He in death."

There was assigned to Him a place with the wicked not only on the cross, but in His burial; He was condemned not only to die an ignominious death, but to have a like sepulchre. From this latter, however, He was delivered by the rich man of Arimathea, who unexpectedly came forward and begged the body, which would oth-erwise have been consigned to a malefactor's grave. He was "with the rich in His death"; that is, when He died, or after His death, when He was taken down from the cross.

"Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise Him,

He bath put Him to grief."

Jehovah was well pleased with His bruising,-nay, took plea-sure in bruising Him. Never was Messiah more the "beloved Son" than when suffering on the cross; yet Jehovah was "well pleased" to put Him to grief. Though the consciousness of communion was interrupted for a time, when he cried, "Why has Thou forsaken me?" yet there was no breaking of the bond. There was wrath coming down on Him as the Substitute, but love resting on Him as the Son. Both were together. He knew the love, even while He felt the wrath; nay, it was the knowledge of the love that made Him cry out in amazement and anguish, "My God, my God, why hast Thou for-saken me?"

"Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin;"

or, more exactly, "a trespass-offering"; a sacrifice for willful, conscious sin. Of this trespass-offering it is written, "The priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord, and it shall be forgiven him for anything of all that he hath done in trespassing therein" (Lev 6:7). The various offerings of the tabernacle and the altar all center in and cluster round the cross. It is THE SOUL that is here said to be the trespass-offering; implying that when the soul was parted from the body, when Christ commended His spirit to His Father, then the trespass-offering was completed. Atonement was made, once for all. Before the body of the Surety had reached the tomb, the great work was done. The lying in the grave was the visible and palpable sign or pledge of the work having been already finished; and resurrection was the Father's seal from above set to the excellency of that completed sacrifice, and to the perfection of Him by whom it had been accomplished on the cross.

"Upon the labor of His soul He shall look,

He shall be satisfied."

Christ, in the days of His flesh, often used language like this regarding His soul: "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death" (Matt 26:38); "Now is my soul troubled" (John 12:27); "The Son of man came. ..to give His soul a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28); "The good shepherd giveth His soul for the sheep" (John 10:11); "I lay down my soul for the sheep" (John 10:15). Thus the life, the soul, the blood, are connected together; and with that which was accomplished by them in life and in death He is satisfied Whether it is Himself that is satisfied, or the Father, matters not. The truth taught is the same.

"By His knowledge shall my righteous Servant justify many;

For He shall bear their iniquities."

It is the Father that here speaks. He calls Messiah, "My right-eous Servant," and proclaims that by giving the knowledge of Himself He shall justify many. The knowledge of Christ is that which secures our justification; the knowledge of Christ as the sin-bearer: for it is added, as the justifying thing in this knowledge, "He shall bear their iniquities"; thus again linking justification with the cross, and the finished work there.

The last verse is very remarkable, as bringing out fully the Father's reasons for glorifying His Son; reasons connected entire-ly with the cross and the sin-bearing there:

"Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great,

And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,

Because He hath poured out His soul unto death.

And He was numbered with the transgressors;

And He bare the sin of many,

And made intercession for the transgressors."

So that the resurrection, with all the subsequent glory and honor conferred on Him, is the recompense and result of His jus-tifying work on the cross. On that tree of death and shame the work was FINISHED. There He poured out His soul; there He was numbered with the transgressors; there He bare the sin of many; there He made intercession for the transgressors, when He cried out, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." (1)

"It is finished" were His words as He died. The justifying work is done! If anything else besides this finished work is to justify, then Christ has died in vain.

"It is finished," He said, and gave up the ghost. "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit"; and to the Father that spirit went. The Father received it; and in receiving it, bore testimony to the completeness of the work. The Roman soldiers, "perceiving that he was dead already," may be said to have testified to the completion of the work of pouring out His soul unto death. The taking down from the cross was another testimony. Joseph and Nicodemus were like the Levites carrying away the ashes from the altar. The burial was another testimony. The resurrection began the divine and visi-ble testimony to this same thing. The ascension, and "sitting" at the Father's right hand, were the attestations from above,-the heav-enly responses to the voice from the cross, "It is finished." All after this was the result of that finished work. The presentation of His blood was not to complete the sacrifice, but to carry out what was already done. The sprinkling of the blood (at whatever time that may have been done) was the application of the sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself.

"It is finished!" He who makes this announcement on the cross is the Son of God; it is He who but the day before had said in the prospect of this consummation, "I have glorified Thee on the earth, I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do." He knows what He says when He utters it; and He is "the faithful and true witness." His words are true, and they are full of meaning.

He makes this announcement before the Father, as if calling on Him to confirm it. He makes it before heaven and earth, before men and angels, before Jew and Gentile. He makes it to us. Listen, O sons of men! The work that saves is perfected. The work that jus-tifies is done.

The completeness thus announced is a great and momentous one. It is one in which all the ends of the earth have an interest. Had ought been left unfinished, then what hope for man or for man's earth? But it is begun, carried on, consummated; and no flaw is found it in; no part is left out; not a jot or tittle has failed. It is absolutely perfect.

This perfection or consummation proclaims to us such things as these: the completion of the Father's purpose, the completion of atonement, the completion of the justifying work, the complete-ness of the sin-bearing and law-fulfilling, the completeness of the righteousness, the completeness of the covenant and the covenant seal. All is done, and done by Him who is Son of man and Son of God; perfectly and for ever done; nothing to be added to it or taken from it, by man, by Satan, or by God. The burial of the Substitute does not add to its completeness; resurrection forms no part of that justifying work. It was all concluded on the cross.

It is so finished that a sinner may at once use it for pardon, for rest, for acceptance, for justification. Standing beside this altar where the great burnt-offering was laid and consumed to ashes, the sinner feels that he is put in possession of all blessing. That which the altar has secured passes over to him simply in virtue of his tak-ing his place at the altar, and thus identifying himself with the vic-tim. There the divine displeasure against sin has spent itself; there righteousness has been obtained for the unrighteous; there the sweet savor of rest is continually ascending from God; there the full flood of divine love is ever flowing out; there God meets the sin-ner in His fullest grace, without hindrance or restraint; there the peace which has been made through blood-shedding is found by the sinner; there reconciliation is proclaimed, and the voice that pro-claims it from that altar reaches to the ends of the earth; there the ambassadors of peace take their stand to discharge their embassy, pleading with the sons of men far off and near, saying, "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."

The resurrection was the great visible seal set to this complete-ness. It was the Father's response to the cry from the cross, "It is fin-ished." As at baptism He spoke from the excellent glory, and said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"; so did He speak, though not with audible voice, at the resurrection, bearing testimony thereby not only to the excellency of the Person, but to the completeness of the work of His only-begotten Son. The resur-rection added nothing to the propitiation of the cross; it proclaimed it already perfect, incapable of addition or greater completeness.

The ascension added to this testimony, and especially the sit-ting at God's right hand. "This man, after He had offered one sac-rifice for sins for ever, SAT DOWN at the right hand of God" (Heb 10:12). "When He had by Himself purged our sins, SAT DOWN on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb 1:3). The standing p05-ture of the ancient priests showed that their work was an unfin-ished one. The sitting down of our High Priest intimated to all heaven that the work was done, and the "eternal redemption obtained." And what was thus intimated in heaven has been pro-claimed on earth by those whom God sent forth in power of the Holy Ghost, to tell to men the things which eye had not seen nor ear heard. That "sitting down" contained in itself the gospel. The first note of that gospel was sounded at Bethlehem, from the manger where the young child lay; the last note came from the throne above, when the Son of God returned in triumph from His mission of grace to earth, and took His seat upon the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Between these two extremities, the manger and the throne, how much is contained for us! All the love of God is there. The exceeding riches of divine grace are there. The fullness of that power and wisdom and righteousness, which have come forth, not to destroy, but to save, is there. These are the two boundary walls of that wondrous storehouse out of which we are to be filled throughout the eternal ages.

Of what is contained in this treasure-house we know something here, in some small measure; but the vast contents are beyond all measurement and all conception. The eternal unfolding of these to us will be perpetual gladness. Apart from the excellency of the inher-itance, and the beauty of the city, and the glory of the kingdom, which will make us say, "Truly the lines have fallen unto us in pleas-ant places," there will be, in our ever-widening knowledge of "the unsearchable riches of Christ," light and replenishment and satis-faction, which, even were all external brightness swept away, would be enough for the soul throughout all the ages to come.

The present glory of Christ is the reward of His humiliation here. Because He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross, therefore God hath highly exalt-ed Him, and given Him the name that is above every name. He wears the crown of glory, because He wore the crown of thorns. He drank of the brook by the way, therefore he has lifted up the head (Psa 110:7).

But this is not all. That glory to which He is now exalted is the standing testimony before all heaven that His work was finished on the cross. "I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do," He said; and then He added, "Now, 0 Father, glorify Thou me with Thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was" (John 17:4,5).

The proofs of the completeness of the sacrificial work upon the cross are very full and satisfying. They assure us that the work was really finished, and, as such, available for the most sinful of men. We shall find it good to dwell upon the thought of this completeness, for the pacifying of the conscience, for the satisfying of the soul, for the removal of all doubt and unbelief, and for the production and increase of faith and confidence.

There are degrees of rest for the soul, and it is in proportion as we comprehend the perfection of the work on Calvary that our rest will increase. There are depths of peace which we have not yet sounded, for it is "peace which passeth all understanding"; and into these depths the Holy Spirit leads us, not in some miraculous way, or by some mere exertion of power, but by revealing to us more and more of that work, in the first knowledge of which our peace began.

We are never done with the cross, nor ever shall be. Its wonders will be always new, and always fraught with joy. "The Lamb as it had been slain" will be the theme of our praise above. Why should such a name be given to Him in such a book as the Revelation, which in one sense carries us far past the cross, were it not that we shall always realize our connection with its one salvation; always be look-ing to it even in the midst of glory; and always learning from it some new lesson regarding the work of Him "in whom we have redemp-tion through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace"? What will they who here speak of them-selves as being so advanced as to be done with the cross, say to being brought face to face with the Lamb that was slain, in the age of absolute perfection, the age of the heavenly glory?

Thou fool! Dost thou not know that the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ endureth for ever, and that thou shalt eternally glory in it, if thou are saved by it at all?

Thou fool! Wilt thou not join in the song below, "To Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood"? Wilt thou not join in the song above, "Thou was slain, and hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood"? And dost thou not remember that it is from "the Lamb as it had been slain" that "the seven spir-its of God are sent forth into all the earth"? (Rev 5:6). (2)

It is the Lamb who stands in the midst of the elders (Rev 5:6), and before whom they fall down. "Worthy is the Lamb" is the theme of celestial song. It is the Lamb that opens the seals (6:1). It is before the Lamb that the great multitude stand clothed in white (7:9). It is the blood of the Lamb that washes the raiment white (7:14). It is by the blood of the Lamb that the victory is won (12:11). The book of life belongs to the Lamb slain (13:8). It was a Lamb that stood on the glorious Mount Zion (14:1). It is the Lamb that the redeemed multitude are seen following (14:4); and that multitude is the first-fruits unto God and unto the Lamb (14:4). It is the song of the Lamb that is sung in heaven (15:3). It is the Lamb that wars and over-comes (17:14). It is the marriage of the Lamb that is celebrated, and it is to the marriage-supper of the Lamb that we are called (19:7,9). The church is the Lamb's wife (21:9). On the foundations of the heavenly city are written the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (21:14). Of this city the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple (21:23). Of that city the Lamb is the light (21:23). The book of life of the Lamb, and the throne of the Lamb (21:27; 22:1,3), sum up this wondrous list of honors and dignities belonging to the Lord Jesus as the crucified Son of God.

Thus the glory of heaven revolves round the cross; and every object on which the eye lights in the celestial city will remind us of the cross, and carry us back to Golgotha. Never shall we get beyond it, or turn our backs on it, or cease to draw from it the divine virtue which it contains.

The tree, be it palm, or cedar, or olive, can never be indepen-dent of its roots, however stately its growth, however plentiful its fruit. The building, be it palace or temple, can never be separated from its foundation, however spacious or ornate its structure may be. So, never shall the redeemed be independent of the cross, or cease to draw from its fullness.

In what ways our looking to the cross hereafter will benefit us; what the shadow of that tree will do for us in the eternal kingdom, I know not, nor do I venture to say. But it would seem as if the cross and the glory were so inseparably bound together, that there cannot be the enjoyment of the one without the remembrance of the other. The completeness of the sacrificial work on Calvary will be matter for eternal contemplation and rejoicing, long after every sin has been, by its cleansing efficacy, washed out of our being for ever.

Shall we ever exhaust the fullness of the cross? Is it a mere stepping-stone to something beyond itself? Shall we ever cease to glory in it (as the apostle gloried), not only because of past, but because of present and eternal blessing? The forgiveness of sin is one thing; but is that all? The crucifixion of the world is another; but is that all? Is the cross to be a relic, useless though venerable, like the serpent of brass laid up in the tabernacle; to be destroyed perhaps at some future time, and called Nehushtan? (2 Kings 18:4). Or is it not rather like the tree of life, which bears twelve manner of fruits, and yields its fruit every month, by the banks of the celestial river? Its influence here on earth is transforming; but even after the transformation has been completed, and the whole church perfected, shall there not be a rising higher and higher, a taking on of greater and yet greater comeliness, a passing from glory to glory; and all in connection with the cross, and through the never-ending vision of its wonders?

Of the new Jerusalem it is said, "The LAMB is the light [or lamp] thereof' (Rev 21:23). The Lamb is only another name for Christ crucified: so that thus it is the cross that is the lamp of the holy city; and with its light, the gates of pearl, the jasper wall, the golden streets, the brilliant foundations, and the crystal river, are all lighted up. The glow of the cross is everywhere, penetrating every part, and reflected from every gem; and by its peculiar radi-ance transporting the dwellers of the city back to Golgotha, as the fountainhead of all this splendor.

It is light from Calvary that fills the heaven of heavens. Yet it is no dim religious light: for the glory of God is to lighten it (Rev 21:23); and its light is "like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper-stone, clear as crystal; and there is no night there, and they need no candle, neither light of the sun, for the Lord God giveth them light" (Rev 22:5). Yes, we shall never be done with the cross and the blood; though, where all are clean and perfect in every sense, these will not be used for purging the conscience or justifying the ungodly.

It is the symbol both of a dying and of a risen Christ that we find in the Revelation. The "lamb as it had been slain" indicates both. But the prominence is given to the former. It is the slain Lamb that has the power and authority to open the seals; implying that it was in His sin-bearing or sacrificial character that He exer-cised this right, and that it was His finished work on which this right rested, and by which it was acquired. It is as the Lamb that He is possessed with all wisdom and strength,-"the seven horns and the seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God" (Rev 5:6); the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of omniscience and omnipotence.

The Lamb is one of His special and eternal titles; the name by which He is best known in heaven. As such, we obey and honor and worship Him; never being allowed to lose sight of the cross amid all the glories of the kingdom. As such we follow Him, and shall follow Him eternally, as it is written, "These are they that fol-low THE LAMB withersoever He goeth" (Rev 14:4).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) In these words, "they know not what they do," He is speaking as the sin-offering, which was specially for sins of ignorance.

(2) Thirty times does the word Lamb, as Christ's heavenly name, occur in the Apocalypse; bringing perpetually before the redeemed in glory the cross and the blood, as if to prevent the possibility of our losing sight of CHRIST CRUCIFIED.

Chapter 5

Righteousness for the Unrighteous

It is in righteousness and by righteousness that God saves the sinner.

He justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5); but He does it in and by RIGHTEOUSNESS. For "the righteous Lord loveth righteousness" (Psa 11:7). He "justifies freely by His grace" (Rom 3:24); but still it is "in and by righteousness." His grace is righteous grace; it is grace which condemns the sin while acquitting the sinner; nay, which condemns the sin by means of that very thing which brings about the acquittal of the sinner. His pardon is righteous pardon, and therefore irreversible. His salvation is righteous salvation, and therefore everlasting.

It is as the righteous Judge that God justifies. He is "faithful and just" in forgiving sin (1 John 1:9). By His pardons He magni-fies His righteousness; so that he who goes to God for forgiveness can use as his plea the righteousness of the righteous Judge, no less than the grace of the loving and merciful Lord God.

God loves to pardon because He is love; and He loves to par-don because He is righteous, and true, and holy. No sin can be too great for pardon, and no sinner can be too deep or old in sin to be saved and blest; because the righteousness out of which salvation comes is infinite. (1)

The sacrifices on which the sinner is called to rest are "the sacrifices of righteousness" (Deut 33:19; Psa 4:5). It is from "the God of our salvation" that this righteousness comes (Psa 24:5). It is with the "sacrifices of righteousness" that God is "pleased" (Psa 51:19). It is with righteousness that His priests are clothed (Psa 132:9). It is righteousness that looks down from heaven to bless us (Psa 85:11); and it is righteousness and peace that kiss each other in bringing deliverance to our world. It is the work of righteousness that is peace, and "the effect of righteousness, quietness, and assurance for ever" (Isa 32:17).

It is with the "robe of righteousness" that Messiah is clothed, over and above the garments of salvation (Isa 61:10), when He comes to deliver earth; and when He proclaims Himself "mighty to save," it is when "speaking in righteousness" (Isa 63:1). When He came to "finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity," He came also to bring in "everlasting righteousness" (Dan 9:24).

"This is the name whereby He shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" (Jer 23:6); and as if to mark the way in which e blesses and justifies, it is added in another place, "This is the name wherewith SHE shall be called, The Lord our righteousness" (Jer 33:16),-His name passing over to the sinner; the sinners name lost and forgotten in that of his Substitute. Oneness in name, in nature, in privilege, in position, in righteousness, and in glory with Messiah, his divine sin-bearer, is the sinner's portion. "Their righteousness is of ME, saith the Lord" (Isa 54:17); for "He, of God, is made unto righteousness" (1 Cor 1:30). The transference is complete and eternal. From the moment that we receive the divine testimony to the righteousness of the Son of God, all the guilt that was on us passes over to Him, and all His righteousness passes over to us; so that God looks on us as possessed of that righteousness, and treats us according to its value in His sight. Men may call this a mere "name" or "legal fiction"; but it is such a "name" as secures for us the full favor of the righteous God, who can only show favor to us in a righteous way; and it is such a "fic-tion" as law recognizes and God acts upon in dealing with the unrighteous as if they were righteous,-supremely, divinely right-eous, in virtue of their connection with Him, who, "though He knew no sin, was made sin for us, that we might be made the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD in Him" (2 Cor 5:21).

This is the "righteousness of God which is revealed from faith to faith" (2) (Rom 1:17). This is "the righteousness of God without the law which is manifested, and was witnessed by the law and the prophets" (Rom 3:21); "the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe" (Rom 3:22). (3) Thus, "in believing" (not in doing) this "righteousness of God" becomes ours; for the promise of it is "to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly" (Rom 4:5).

On our part there is the "believing"; on God's part, the "imput-ing" or reckoning. We believe, He imputes; and the whole transac-tion is done. The blood (as "atoning" or "covering") washes off our guilt; the righteousness presents us before God as legally entitled to that position of righteousness which our surety holds, as being Himself not merely the righteous One, but "Jehovah OUR righteousness." We get the benefit of His perfection in all its complete-ness; not as infused into us, but as covering us: "Thy beauty was perfect through MY COMELINESS which I had put upon thee" (Eze 16:14). Applying here the words of the prophet concerning Jerusalem, we may illustrate and extend the figure used by the Holy Spirit as to the "perfection" of him whom this righteousness covers. Spread out, it is as follows:-

1. "I said to thee, Live" (Eze 16:6).

2. "I spread my skirt over thee" (verse 8).

3. "I entered into a covenant with thee, and thou becamest mine" (verse 8).

4. "I washed thee" (verse 9).

5. "I anointed thee" (verse 9).

6. "I clothed thee" (verse 10).

7. "I shod thee" (verse 10).

8. "I girded thee" (verse 10).

9. "I covered thee with silk" (verse 10).

10. "I decked thee with ornaments, bracelets, chains, jewels, a beautiful crown" (verse 12).

11. "Thou was exceeding beautiful" (verse 13).

12. "Thy renown went forth for thy beauty" (verse 14).

Such, in the symbols of Scripture, is a picture of the perfection (not our own) with which we are clothed, so soon as we believe in Him who is "Jehovah our righteousness." "Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee" (Song 4:7).

"He that believeth is not condemned" (John 3:18). This is the negative side; and even were there no more for us, this would be blessedness, seeing our portion was by nature that of "children of wrath." But there is more; for it is written, "All that believe are jus-tified from all things" (Acts 13:39); and "Christ is the end (or ful-filling) of the law for RIGHTEOUSNESS to every one that believeth" (Rom 10:4). "As by the offense 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" (Rom 5:18).

The strength or kind of faith required is nowhere stated. The Holy Spirit has said nothing as to quantity or quality, on which so many dwell, and over which they stumble, remaining all their days in darkness and uncertainty. It is simply in believing,-feeble as our faith may be,-that we are invested with this righteousness. For faith is no work, nor merit, nor effort; but the cessation from all these, and the acceptance in place of them of what another has done,-done completely, and for ever. The simplest, feeblest faith suffices; for it is not the excellence of our act of faith that does aught for us, but the excellence of Him who suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God. His perfection suffices to cover not only that which is imperfect in our characters and lives, but that which is imperfect in our faith, when we believe on His name.

Many a feeble hand,-perhaps many a palsied one,-was laid on the head of the burnt-offering (Lev 1:4); but the feebleness of that palsied touch did not alter the character of the sacrifice, or make it less available in all its fullness for him who brought it. The priest would not turn him away from the door of the tabernacle because his hand trembled; nor would the bullock fail to be "accepted for him, to make atonement for him" (Lev 1:4), because his fingers might barely touch its head by reason of his feebleness. The burnt-offering was still the burnt-offering, and the weakest touch sufficed to establish the connection between it and him, because even that feeble touch was the expression of his consciousness that he was unfit to be dealt with on the footing of what he was himself, and of his desire to be dealt with by God on the footing of another, infi-nitely worthier and more perfect than himself.

On our part there is unrighteousness, condemning us; on God's part there is righteousness, forgiving and blessing us. Thus unright-eousness meets righteousness, not to war with each other, but to be at peace. They come together in love, not in enmity; and the hand of righteousness is stretched out not to destroy, but to save.

It is as the unrighteous that we come to God; not with good-ness in our hands as a recommendation, but with the utter want of goodness; not with amendment or promises of amendment, but with only evil, both in the present and the past; not presenting the claim of contrition or repentance or broken hearts to induce God to receive us as something less than unrighteous, but going to Him simply as unrighteous; unable to remove that unrighteousness, or offer anything either to palliate or propitiate. (4)

It is the conscious absence of all good things that leads us to the fountain of all goodness. That fountain is open to all who thus come; it is closed against all who come on any other footing. It is the want of light and life that draws us to the one source of both; and both of these are the free gifts of God.

He who comes as partly righteous is sent empty away. He who comes acknowledging unrighteousness, but at the same time trying to neutralize it or expiate it by feelings, and prayers, and tears, is equally rejected. But he who comes as an unrighteous man to a righteous yet gracious God, finds not only ready access, but plen-teous blessing. The righteous God receives unrighteous man, if man presents himself in his own true character as a sinner, and does not mock God by pretending to be something less or better than this.

For then the divinely provided righteousness comes in to cover the unrighteous, and to enable God to receive him in love, and justify him before earth and heaven.

In all this we find such things as the following; each of them bringing out a separate aspect of the answer to the great question, "How can man be just with God?"

1. The Justifier;--"It is God that justifieth." The sentence of acquittal must come from His lips, and be registered in His books.

2. The justified;--Man, the sinner, under wrath, the ungodly, the condemned.

3. The justifying fact;--The death of Him whose name is Jehovah our righteousness.

4. The justifying instrument;--Faith. Not strong faith, or great faith, or perfect faith, but simply faith, or believing. "We are justified by faith."

5. The justifying medium;--The righteousness of God. This is the "best robe" which is prepared for the prodigal, by which he is clothed and beautified, and made fit to enter his Father's house, and sit down at his Father's table. Christ is Himself our justifica-tion. In Him we "stand." In Him we are "found." Him we "put on," and with Him we are clothed, by Him we are protected as by a shield, in Him we take refuge as in a strong tower.

"Found in Him." What then? Our own "self" has disappeared; and instead there is Christ, the beloved Son in whom God is well pleased. Found in ourselves, there was nothing but wrath; found in Him there is nothing but favor. We are hidden in Christ. God seeks for us; and when at last He discovers us in our hiding-place, it is not we that He finds, but Christ; so complete is the exchange of persons, so perfect and so glorious the disguise.

Yet it is not a disguise which shall ever be taken off, nor of which we shall have cause to be ashamed. It remains ours for ever. It is an everlasting righteousness. (5)

Jehovah is satisfied with Christ's obedience. He is well pleased with His righteousness. And when we, crediting His testimony to that obedience and that righteousness, consent to be treated by Him on the footing of its perfection, then is He satisfied and well pleased with us.

Jehovah is satisfied, more than satisfied, with Christ's fulfilling of the law which man had broken. For never had that law been so fulfilled in all its parts as it was in the life of the God-man. For man to fulfill it, would have been much; for an angel to fulfill it, would have been more; but for Him who was God and man to fulfill it, was yet unspeakably more. So satisfied is Jehovah with this divine law-fulfilling, and with Him who so gloriously fulfilled it, that He is willing to pass from or cancel all the law's sentences against us; nay, to deal with us as partakers of or identified with this law-ful-filling, if we will but agree to give up all personal claims to His favor, and accept the claims of Him who hath magnified the law and made it honorable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)"How art thou righteous before God? Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; insomuch that if my conscience accuse me that I have grievously transgressed against all the commandments of God, nor have kept any one of them, and, moreover, am still prone to evil; yet, notwithstanding, the full and perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ is imputed and given to me, without any merit of mine, of the mere mercy of God, even as if I had never committed any sin, or as if no spot at all did cleave to me, yea, as if I myself had perfectly performed that obedience which Christ per-formed for me.... Why is Christ's sacrifice and obedience called the materi-al cause of our justification? For that it is the same for which we are made righteous (Rom 5:19).-Is Christ's death and last passion only imputed to us, or also the obedience of His life? Both. His satisfaction by punishment meriteth for us the remission of sin. This is His passive obedience. Then there is the obedience called active obedience.... We owed to God not only punishment for the transgression, but also a perfect obedience. All this hath Christ satisfied for us. But our justification is most ascribed to Christ's suf-fering, blood-shedding, and death" (Heidelberg Catechism).

(2)That is: "Therein is the righteousness of God, which is by faith, revealed to be believed."

(3)That is: The righteousness which God has provided for us, the right-eousness of Him who is God, and which comes to us by believing in Christ, is presented to all without distinction, and is put upon all who believe for a robe or covering; as it is written "Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 13:14); and again, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27).

(4)"I may boldly glory of all the victory which He obtaineth over the law, sin, death, the devil; and may challenge to myself all His works, even as if they were my own, and I myself had done them.... Wherefore, when the law shall come and accuse thee that thou dost not observe it, send it to Christ, and say, There is that man who hath fulfilled the law; to Him I cleave; He hath fulfilled it for me, and hath given His fulfilling unto me. When it heareth these things, it will be quiet. If sin come, and would have thee by the throat, send it to Christ, and say, As much as thou mayest do against Him, so much right shalt thou have against me; for I am in Him, and He is in me. If death creep upon thee and attempt to devour thee, say unto it, Good mistress Death, dost thou know this man? Come, bite out His tooth: hast thou forgotten how little thy biting prevailed with Him once? Go to! if it be a pleasure unto thee, encounter Him again. Thou hast per-suaded thyself that thou shouldest have prevailed somewhat against Him when He did hang between two thieves, and died an ignominious death; but what didst thou gain thereby? Thou didst bite, indeed, but it turned worst to thyself. I pertain to this man; I am His, and He is mine, and where He abideth I will abide. Thou couldst hurt Him nothing; therefore let me alone....'

Hereof we may easily understand what kind of works those be which make us entire and righteous before God. Surely they are the works of another...Salvation hath come unto all by Jesus Christ, as by the works of another; wherefore this is diligently to be noted, that our felicity doth not consist in our own works, but in the works of another, namely, of Christ Jesus our Savior, which we obtain through faith only in Him... Before God this thy righteousness is of no estimation. Thou must set in place thereof another, namely mine. This God my Father doth allow. I have appeased the wrath of God, and of an angry Judge have made Him a gen-tle, merciful, and gracious Father. Believe this, and it goeth well with thee; thou art then safe, entire, and righteous. Beware that thou presume not to deal before God with thine own works. But if thou wilt do anything with Him, creep into me, put on me, and thou shalt obtain of my Father whatsoever thou desirest."- LUTHER, Sermon on John 20:24-29

(5)In this there is no confusion of personalities; no transfer of moral character; no exchange of inherent sin on the one hand, or inherent righteousness on the other; no literal or physical identity; but a judicial verdict or sentence is given in our favor, constituting us partakers in law of all the results or fruits of the work of Him whom God, as Judge, appointed our Substitute. "As we are made guilty of Adam's sin, which is not inherent in us, but only imputed to us; so are we made righteous by the righteousness of Christ, which is not inherent in us, but only imputed to us" (Owen).

The legal or judicial gift of benefits is certainly different from the personal meriting of them; but the benefits are not less real, nor their possession less sure. That they should come to us in a righteous way, with the consent and sanction of law, is the great thing. The reality is to be measured by the actual possession and enjoyment of the benefits, and not by the way in which they come. The security for them lies in this, that they reach us in a legal and honorable way.

Chapter 6

The Righteousness of God Reckoned to Us

This "everlasting righteousness" comes to us through believing. We are "justified by faith" (Rom 5:1), the fruit of which is "peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

It is of this "everlasting righteousness" that the Apostle Peter speaks when he begins his second epistle thus: "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us, through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet 1:1). (1)

This righteousness is "reckoned" or "imputed" to all who believe; so that they are treated by God as if it were actually theirs. They are entitled to claim all that which such righteousness can merit from God, as the Judge of righteous claims. It does not become ours gradually, or in fragments or drops; but is transferred to us all at once. It is not that so much of it is reckoned to us (so much to account, as men in business say) in proportion to the strength of our faith, or the warmth of our love, or the fervor of our prayers; but the whole of it passes over to us by imputation: we are "accepted in the Beloved" (Eph 1:6); we are "complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power" (Col 2:10). In its whole quality and quantity it is transferred to us. Its perfection represents us before God; and its preciousness, with all that that preciousness can purchase for us, henceforth belongs to us (1 Pet 1:7). (2)

The stone, the chief cornerstone, elect and precious,-this stone in all its preciousness is ours, not only for resting on, not only for acceptance, but for whatever its divine value can purchase for us. Possessed of this preciousness (imputed, but still ours), we go into the heavenly market, and buy what we need without stint or end. We get everything upon the credit of His name, and because not only has our unworthiness ceased to be recognized by God in His dealings with us, but our demerit been supplanted by the merit of One who is absolutely and divinely perfect. In His name we carry on all our transactions with God, and obtain all that we need by simply using it as our plea. The things that He did not do were laid to His charge, and He was treated as if He had done them all; so the things that He did do are put to our account, and we are treated by God as if we had done them all.

This is the scriptural meaning of reckoning or imputing, both in the Old Testament and the New. Let us look at a few of these.

Genesis 15:6: "It was imputed to him for righteousness;" i.e. it was so reckoned to him, that in virtue of it he was treated as being what he was not.

Genesis 31:15: "Are we not counted of him strangers?" Are we not treated by him as if we were strangers, not children?

Leviticus 7:18: "Neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it." The excellence of the peace-offering shall not be counted to him.

Numbers 18:27: "Your heave-offering shall be reckoned unto you as though it were the corn of the threshing-floor." It shall be accepted by God as if it were the whole harvest, and ye shall be treated by Him accordingly.

2 Samuel 19:19: "Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely." Do not deal with me according to my iniquity.

Psalm 32:2: "Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity"; to whom God does not reckon his iniquities, but treats him as if they were not (see also Psalm 106:31).

Romans 4:3: "It was counted to him for righteousness."

Romans 4:5: "His faith is counted for righteousness"; i.e., not as the righteousness, or as the substitution for it, but as bringing him into righteousness.

Romans 4:6: "Unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works."

Romans 4:8: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."

Romans 4:11: "That righteousness might be imputed to them also."

Romans 4:24: "To whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead."

2 Corinthians 5:19: "Not imputing their trespasses unto them."

Galatians 3:6: "It was accounted to him for righteousness."

Thus the idea of reckoning to one what does not belong to him, and treating him as if he really possessed all that is reckoned to him, comes out very clearly. (3) This is God's way of lifting man out of the horrible pit and the miry clay; of giving him a standing and a privilege and a hope far beyond that which mere pardon gives, and no less far above that which the first Adam lost. To be righteous according to the righteousness of the first Adam, would have been much; but to be righteous according to the righteousness of the last Adam, the Lord from heaven, is unspeakably and inconceivably more.

"It is God that justifies"; and He does so by imputing to us a righteousness which warrants Him as the Judge to justify the unrighteous freely.

It is not simply because of this righteousness that Jehovah justifies; but by legally transferring it to us, so that we can use it, and plead it, and appear before God in it, just as if it were wholly our own. Romanists and Socinians have set themselves strongly against the doctrine of "imputed righteousness." But there it stands, written clearly and legibly in the divine word. There it stands, an essential part of the great Bible truth concerning sacrifice and substitution and suretyship. It is as deeply written in the book of Leviticus as in the Epistle to the Romans. It spreads itself over all Scripture; and rises gloriously into view in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, where the "obedience unto death" which makes up this righteousness was completed. (4) There He, who as our substitute took flesh and was born at Bethlehem,-who as our substitute passed through earth, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,-consummated His substitution, and brought in the "everlasting righteousness"; the righteousness of which the apostle spoke when he reasoned that, "as by the disobedience of one many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (Rom 5:19); and when he proclaimed his abnegation of all other righteousnesses: "and be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is by the faith of Christ, even the righteousness which is of God by faith" (Phil 3:9). This is "the gift of righteousness" regarding which he says: "If by one man's offense 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" (Rom 5:17). The one man's offense rests upon all men "to condemnation" (Rom 5:18); 50 the one Man's righteousness, as the counteraction or removal of this condemnation, is available and efficacious "unto justification of life." The imputation of the first Adam's sin to us, and of the last Adam's righteousness, are thus placed side by side. The transference of our guilt to the Divine Substitute, and the transference of that Substitute's righteousness or perfection to us, must stand or fall together.

This righteousness of God was no common righteousness. It was the righteousness of Him who was both God and man; and therefore it was not only the righteousness of God, but in addition to this it was the righteousness of man. It embodied and exhibited all uncreated and all created perfection. Never had the like been seen or heard of in heaven or on earth before. It was the twofold perfection of Creatorhood and Creatorship in one resplendent center, one glorious Person; and the dignity of that Person gave a perfection, a vastness, a length and breadth, a height and depth, to that righteousness which never had been equaled, and which never shall be equaled for ever. It is the perfection of perfection; the excellency of excellency; the holiness of holiness. It is that in which God preeminently delighteth. Never had His law been so kept and honored before. Son of God and Son of man in one person, He in this twofold character keeps the Father's law, and in keeping it provides a righteousness so large and full, that it can be shared with others, transferred to others, imputed to others, and God be glorified (as well as the sinner saved) by the transference and imputation. Never had God been so loved as now; with all divine love and with all human love. Never had God been so served and obeyed, as now He has been by Him who is "God manifest in flesh." Never had God found one before, who for love to the holy law was willing to become its victim that it might be honored; who for love to God was willing not only to be made under the law, but by thus coming under it, to subject Himself to death, even the death of the cross; who for love to the fallen creature was willing to take the sinner's place, to bear the sinner's burden, to undergo the sinner's penalty, to assume the sinner's curse, to die the sinner's death of shame and anguish, and to go down in darkness to the sinner's grave.

The objections against imputation all resolve themselves into objections against substitution in any form. Vicarious suffering is even more unreasonable to some than vicarious obedience; and the arguments used in assailing the former apply with greater force against the latter. Yet human law recognizes both; the "laws of nature" show the existence of both; and the divine law, as interpreted by the great Lawgiver Himself, acknowledges both. Man is willing to act on the principle of substitution or representation by another in earthly transactions, such as the payment of debt, or the performance of duty, or the descent of property; but he is not so willing to admit it, or proceed upon it, in the great transaction between him and God as to condemnation and righteousness. That to which he objects not in temporal things, he repudiates in spiritual as unjust and unreasonable; giving one man the benefit of another's doings or another's sufferings; treating the man who has not paid the debt as if he had done so, because another has paid it for him; or recognizing the legal right of a man to large wealth or a vast estate, no part of which he had earned or deserved, but which had come to him as the gift and fruit of another's lifetime's toil.

Men object not to receive any kind or amount of this world's goods from another, though they have done nothing to deserve them, but everything to make them unworthy of them; but they refuse to accept the favor of God, and a standing in righteousness before Him, on the ground of what a Substitute has done and suffered. In earthly things they are willing to be represented by another, but not in heavenly things. The former is all fair, and just, and legal; the latter is absurd, an insult to their understanding, and a depreciation of their worth! Yet if they prized the heavenly as much as they do the earthly blessing, they would not entertain such scruples nor raise such objections as to receiving it from another as the result of his work. If God is willing that Christ should represent us, who are we, that we should refuse to be represented by Him? If God is willing to deal with us on the footing of Christ's obedience, and to reckon that obedience to us as if it had been our own, who are we, that we should reject such a method of blessing, and call it unjust and impossible? This principle or theory of representation, of one man being treated far beyond his deserts in virtue of his being legally entitled to use the name or claims of another, runs through all earthly transaction; and why should it not in like manner pervade the heavenly?

Rejection of "imputed righteousness" because the words do not actually occur in Scripture, is foolish and weak. Such terms as Christianity, the Trinity, the Eucharist, Plenary Inspiration, are not to be found in the Bible; yet, inasmuch as the thing, or object, or truth which these words truly and accurately cover is there, the term is received as substantially accurate, and made use of without scruple. Such an objection savors more of little-minded caviling than of the truth-seeking simplicity of faith. (5)

Refusal to accept the divine "theory" or doctrine of representation in and by another, indicates in many cases mere indifference to the blessing to be received; in others, resentment of the way in which that doctrine utterly sets aside all excellency or merit on our part. Men will win the kingdom for themselves; they will deserve eternal life; they will not take forgiveness or righteousness freely from another's hands; or be indebted to a Substitute for what they are persuaded they can earn by their personal doings. Because the plan of representation or substitution is distasteful and humbling, they call it absurd and unjust. They refuse a heavenly inheritance on such terms, while perhaps at the very moment they are accepting an earthly estate on terms as totally irrespective of their own labor or goodness.

The Judge must either be the justifier or the condemner. The Judge is Jehovah. It is His office to condemn, it is His office to justify. He does not condemn by infusing sin into the person who appears before Him; so He does not justify by infusing righteousness into the sinner whom He acquits. It is as Judge that He acquits. But He does not merely acquit or absolve. He goes beyond this. The marvelous way in which He has met the claims of justice, so as to enable Him to pronounce a righteous acquittal, enables Him to replace, either on his own former place of innocence, or on a higher, the sinner whom He absolves so freely and so completely. It was by representation or substitution of the just for the unjust that He was enabled to acquit; and it is by the same representation or substitution that He lifts into a more glorious position the acquitted man.

The representative or substitute being the Son of God, and therefore of infinite dignity in His person, the excellency of that which He is and does, when conveyed or reckoned to another, gives that other a claim to be treated far higher than he could otherwise in any circumstances have possessed. Some may have expressed this transference in terms too strong and absolute, as if we actually became as righteous as He is, as near to God as He is, as infinitely the objects of the Father's love as He is. But though there may have been unwise utterances on this point, which have needlessly afforded cause of offense and objection, it remains true that the man who believes in Jesus Christ, from the moment that he so believes, not only receives divine absolution from all guilt, but is so made legally possessor of His infinite righteousness, that all to which that righteousness entitles becomes his, and he is henceforth treated by God according to the perfection of the perfect One, as if that perfection had been his own. "As He is, so are we [even] in THIS world" (1 John 4:17), that is, even now, in our state of imperfection, though men of unclean lips, and though dwelling among a people of unclean lips; as it is elsewhere written, "There is therefore NOW [even now] no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1). Not only are we "delivered from the wrath to come" (1 Thess 1:10); not only shall we "not come into condemnation" (John 5:24); not only are we "justified from all things" (Acts 13:39); but we are "made [literally, we 'become'] THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD in Him" (2 Cor 5:21).

The transaction is not one of borrowing. The perfection made over to us is given, not lent, by God. It becomes ours in law, ours for all legal ends; ours as efficaciously as if it had been from first to last our very own in deed.

The transaction is a real one between the sinner and God, and carries with it all legal consequences, just as if the sinner had really discharged his own debts and obtained a judicial absolvitor from all further claims whatever; a receipt in full from Him to whom the great debt was due.

The transaction is one to which all the parties concerned have consented, as being fully satisfied that injury has been done to none; nay, that all have been greatly more benefited by this mode of settlement than by the more direct one, of the parties punishable undergoing the punishment in their own persons. When thus not merely no injustice is done to any one, but when more than justice is done to all; when no one is defrauded, but when each gets far more than his due, how foolish, how preposterous, to speak of imputation as a violation of law, and a subversion of the principles of righteous government!

The transaction is not one of indifference to sin, or obliterative of the distinction between righteousness and unrighteousness. It is one which, of all that can be imagined, is most fitted to show the evil of evil, the malignity of sin, the divine hatred of all departure from perfection, the regard which God has to His law, His awful appreciation of justice, and His determination to secure, at any cost,-even the death of His Son,-the righteous foundations of the universe, and the sanctities of His eternal throne.

If the Christ of God, in His sorrowful life below, be but a specimen of suffering humanity, or a model of patient calmness under wrong, not one of these things is manifested or secured. He is but one fragment more of a confused and disordered world, where everything has broken loose from its anchorage, and each is dashing against the other in unmanageable chaos, without any prospect of a holy or tranquil issue. He is an example of the complete triumph of evil over goodness, of wrong over right, of Satan over God,-one from whose history we can draw only this terrific conclusion, that God has lost the control of His own world; that sin has become too great a power for God either to regulate or extirpate; that the utmost that God can do is to produce a rare example of suffering holiness, which He allows the world to tread upon without being able effectually to interfere; that righteousness, after ages of buffeting and scorn, must retire from the field in utter helplessness, and permit the unchecked reign of evil.

If the cross be the mere exhibition of self-sacrifice and patient meekness, then the hope of the world is gone. We had always thought that there was a potent purpose of God at work in connection with the sin- bearing work of the holy Sufferer, which, allowing sin for a season to develop itself, was preparing and evolving a power which would utterly overthrow it, and sweep earth clean of evil, moral and physical. But if the crucified Christ be the mere self-denying man, we have nothing more at work for the overthrow of evil than has again and again been witnessed, when some hero or martyr rose above the level of his age to protest against evils which he could not eradicate, and to bear witness in life and death for truth and righteousness,-in vain.

The transaction is, in all its aspects, and in its bearings on all parties and interests, strictly and nobly righteous. It provides a righteous channel through which God's free love may flow down to man. It lays a righteous foundation for the pardon of sin. It secures a righteous welcome for the returning sinner. It makes the justification of the justified even more righteous than his condemnation would have been; while it makes the condemnation of the condemned not only doubly righteous, but at once a vindication and an exhibition of infinite and immutable justice.

There can be no justification without some kind of righteousness; and according to the nature or value of that righteousness will the justification be. That justification will necessarily partake of the value of the righteousness which justifies. If the righteousness be poor and finite, our standing as justified men will be the same. If it be glorious and divine, even such will our standing be. God the justifier, acting according to the excellency of that righteousness, and recognising its claims in behalf of all who consent to be treated according to its value, deals with each believing man, weak as his faith may be, in conformity with the demands of that righteousness. All that it can claim for us we may ask and expect; all that it can claim for us God will assuredly bestow. He by whom, in believing, we consent to be represented, puts in the claim for us, in His name; and the demands of that name are as just as they are irresistible.

Our legal responsibilities as transgressors of the law are transferred to Him; and His legal claims, as the fulfiller of the law, pass over to us. It is not a transference of characters nor an exchange of persons that we mean by this; but a transference of liabilities, an exchange of judicial demands. Very strikingly is the case between the sinner and God put in our Lord's parable of the two debtors, of which these words are the sum: "When they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both" (Luke 7:42). Here is our thorough bankruptcy, and God's full discharge. What can law say to us after this? "It is God that justifieth." We are bankrupts; our assets are nothing; God looks at the case, pities us, and clears everything.

The epithet "fictitious" which some have applied to this representation need not trouble or alarm us. The question with us is not, "Can we clear up fully the abstract principles which the transaction embodies?" but, "Does it carry with it legal consequences, by which we are set in a new standing before God, and entitled to plead, in all our dealings with God, the meritoriousness of an infinitely perfect life, the payment effected in behalf of those who had nothing to pay, by an infinitely perfect death?"

Thus 'grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 5:21). "Through (dia) righteousness," and also "through (dia) Jesus Christ our Lord"; the one the active instrument, the other the efficient cause: (1) God the justifier, (2) Christ the cause, (3) righteousness the instrument. God's free love has found for itself a righteous channel, along which it flows in all its fullness to the ungodly. For while all that the believing man receives, he receives from GRACE; yet it is not less true that all that he believes, he receives from RIGHTEOUSNESS; from the hand of a righteous God, acting according to the claims of a righteousness which is absolutely and divinely perfect.

He who refuses to be represented by another before God, must represent himself, and draw near to God on the strength of what he is in himself, or what he has done. How he is likely to fare in such an approach, let his own conscience tell him, if he will not believe the explicit declaration of the Holy Spirit, that "through Him (Christ) we have access by one Spirit to the Father" (Eph 2:18); or Christ's own affirmation concerning this: "I am the way," and "I am the door" (John 10:9, 14:6).

As for him who, conscious of unfitness to draw near to God by reason of personal imperfection, is willing to be represented by the Son of God, and to substitute a divine claim and merit for a human; let him know that God is willing to receive him with all his imperfection, because of the perfection of another, legally transferred to him by the just God and Judge; that God is presenting to him a righteousness not only sufficient to clear him from all guilt, and to pay his penalty to the full, but to exalt him to a new rank and dignity, such as he could not possibly acquire by the labors or prayers of goodnesses of ten thousand such lives as his own.

"Christ is all and in all" (Col 3:11). He who knows this, knows what fully satisfies and cheers. He who knows this best has the deepest and truest peace: for he has learned the secret of being always a sinner, yet always righteous; always incomplete, yet always complete; always empty, and yet always full; always poor, and yet always rich. We would not say of that fullness, "Drink deep or taste not," for even to taste is to be blest. But we say, Drink deep; for he who drinks deepest is the happiest as well as the holiest man. (6)

Recognition of the PERFECTION of the Lord Jesus Christ, as to the personal excellency, official suitableness, and vicarious value, is that only which satisfies the heart and conscience of the sinner. It satisfies the former by presenting it with the most lovable of all lovable objects on which a heart can rest; the latter by furnishing it with that which can alone remove from the trembling conscience every possible ground for claim. True knowledge of the person of Him who is "the Christ of God," appreciation of His completed sacrifice, and living attachment to Himself, can alone meet the evil condition into which man has sunk; not only lifting him out of the horrible pit and out of the miry clay; not only setting his feet upon the eternal rock; but raising him up into a region of peace and holiness such as no less costly means could have accomplished for the fallen son of Adam.

"He who knew no sin was made sin for us." On this basis we build for eternity. The assumption of all our legal responsibilities by a divine Substitute is that which brings us deliverance. These responsibilities were great, and no effort of ours to rid ourselves of them could possibly succeed. They must all be fully met. Such judicial claims as are brought against the sinner cannot be waived. They are righteous claims, and must be settled righteously. God offers to settle them for us, by transferring them to One who can be answerable for them. The basis of this eternal settlement was laid at the cross, and on that basis God is willing to deal with any sinner for the complete canceling of all his liabilities.

The second man came, as the Righteous One, to undo by His righteousness all that the first man, as the unrighteous one, had done by his unrighteousness. Yet such is the power of sin, that it took thirty-three years of righteousness to undo what one act of unrighteousness had done. One act of disobedience to one statute had done the evil; a lifetime's obedience to the whole law of God is required for the undoing. Only by this can man be replaced in that condition of righteousness in which God can accept him, and the law recognize him as entitled to blessing.

Our characters are not transferred to Christ, but our liabilities are; and in our acceptance of God's mode of transference, we make the complete exchange by which we are absolved from all guilt, and enter into a state of "no condemnation." Sin reckoned to Christ as our substitute, and righteousness reckoned to us as the acceptors of that substitute: this is deliverance, and peace, and life eternal.

"Labour therefore diligently, that not only out of the time of temptation, but also in the danger and conflict of death, when thy conscience is thoroughly afraid with the remembrance of thy sins past, and the devil assaulteth thee with great violence, going about to overwhelm thee with heaps, floods, and whole seas of sins, to terrify thee, to draw thee from Christ, and to drive thee to despair; that then, I say, thou mayest be able to say with some confidence, Christ the Son of God was given, not for the righteous and holy, but for the unrighteous and sinners. If I were righteous, and had no sin, I should have no need of Christ to be my reconciler, why then, 0 thou peevish holy Satan, wilt thou make me to be holy, and to seek righteousness in myself, when in very deed I have nothing in me but sins, and most grievous sins? Not feigned or trifling sins, but such as are against the first table; to wit, great infidelity, doubting, despair, contempt of God, hatred, ignorance, and blaspheming of God, unthankfulness, abusing of God's name, neglecting, loathing, and despising the word of God, and such like."-LUTHER.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)"TO them that have obtained like precious faith with us," i.e. with us Jews, who have believed now, and with all our fathers of the past ages, "through (or more properly in) the righteousness of Him who is our God and Savior." Thus that which is elsewhere called "the righteousness of God" is here called "the righteousness of our God and Savior," i.e. of Christ. So that "the righteousness of Christ" is a scriptural expression.

(2)In the high priest's breastplate were twelve precious stones, on which the names of the twelve tribes were written. The names thus graven shone with all the glory of the gems which contained them. Thus are our names written on the breastplate of the greater High Priest, not only for remembrance, but for glory. They are enveloped in His glory, and shine as if all that glory were their own. The luster of the sardius, and the topaz, and the diamond, chased in gold, took away that which was dark and earthly about the name, or the person, or the tribe; so the more resplendent luster of the heavenly gems which glitter in the breastplate of the great Intercessor, not only hides all that is unlustrous in us, but gives to us a beauty such as belongs only to Him.

(3)See the Greek of Isa 53:3,4. "He was despised, and we esteemed Him not"; i.e. refused to reckon Him to be what He was. "We did not esteem Him stricken, smitten of God"; we reckoned Him to be under the curse of God. The word in these two sentences is the same as is elsewhere rendered 'imputed.''

(4) "Justifying righteousness is the doing and suffering of Christ when He was in the world. This is clear, because we are said to be justified by His obedience-His obedience to the law (Rom 5:19,10:4). This righteousness resides in and with the person of Christ; it is of a justifying virtue only by imputation, i.e. by God's reckoning it to us, even as our sins made the Lord Jesus a sinner, nay sin, i.e. by God's reckoning it to Him. The righteousness of God, i.e. a righteousness of God's completing, a righteousness of God's bestowing, a righteousness that God gives unto and puts upon all them that believe,-a righteousness that stands in the works of Christ, and that is imputed both by the grace and justice of God. The righteousness by which we stand just before God, from the curse, was performed long ago by the person of Christ." - BUNYAN'S Sermon on Justification by Imputed Righteousness.

(5)Thus old Anthony Burgess, in 1655, wrote regarding imputation:

'The righteousness the believer hath is imputed. It is an accounted or reckoned righteousness to him; it is not that which he hath inherently in himself, but God through Christ doth esteem of him as if he had it, and so deals with him as wholly righteous. This is a passive, not an active righteousness, -a righteousness we receive, not that we do. This doctrine of imputed righteousness is by all erroneous persons to be judged to be like the abomination of desolation. However heretical persons contradict one another in other things, yet against this they are unanimously conspiring. It is well enough known what reproaches and mocks are put upon it by the Popish party, calling it the putative and chimerical righteousness. The Socinians abominate it. The Castellians flout at it, saying they have an imputed learning, and imputed modesty, that hold imputed righteousness. The Arminians, though they grant faith to be accounted for righteousness, yet think it an idol of the Protestants' brain to say that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, and say that it is nowhere expressed in Scripture. Let this satisfy us, that the Scripture doth often mention an imputed righteousness, and therefore that it should not be a matter of reproach, but worthy of all acceptation, and certainly, seeing none of us have such an inherent righteousness within ourselves as is able to endure before so perfect and holy a God, we ought greatly to rejoice in the goodness and mercy of God, who hath provided such glorious robes for us, that when we were wholly naked and undone, hath procured a righteousness for us that neither men nor angels could bring about."

(6)"Think not that to live always on Christ for justification is a low and beggarly thing,-a staying at the foundation. For, let me tell you, depart from a sense of the meritorious means of your justification before God, and you will quickly grow light, and frothy, and vain; you will be subject to errors and delusions, for this is not to 'hold the head,' from which nourishment is administered. Why not live upon Christ alway; and especially as He standeth the Mediator between God and the soul, defending thee with the merit of His blood, and covering thee with His infinite righteousness from the wrath of God and the curse of the law? Can there be any greater comfort ministered to thee, than to know that thy person stands just before God; just, and justified from all things that would otherwise swallow thee up? Is peace with God and assurance of heaven of so little respect with thee, that thou slightest the very foundation thereof, even faith in the blood and righteousness of Christ." - BUNYAN, Justification by Imputed Righteousness.

Chapter7

Not Faith, But Christ

Our justification is the direct result of our believing the gospel; our knowledge of our own justification comes from believing God's promise of justification to every one who believes these glad tidings. For there is not only the divine testimony, but there is the promise annexed to it, assuring eternal life to every one who receives that testimony. There is first, then, a believed Gospel, and then there is a believed promise. The latter is the "appropriation," as it is called; which, after all, is nothing but the acceptance of the promise which is everywhere coupled with the gospel message. The believed gospel saves; but it is the believed promise that assures us of this salvation.

Yet, after all, faith is not our righteousness. It is accounted to us in order to (eis) righteousness (Rom 4:5), but not as righteousness; for in that case it would be a work like any other doing of man, and as such would be incompatible with the righteousness of the Son of God; the "righteousness which is by faith." Faith connects us with the righteousness, and is therefore totally distinct from it. To confound the one with the other is to subvert the whole gospel of the grace of God. Our act of faith must ever be a separate thing from that which we believe.

God reckons the believing man as having done all righteousness, though he has not done any, and though his faith is not righteousness. In this sense it is that faith is counted to us for, or in order to, righteousness,-and that we are "justified by faith." Faith does not justify as a work, or as a moral act, or a piece of goodness, nor as a gift of the Spirit, but simply because it is the bond between us and the Substitute; a very slender bond in one sense, but strong as iron in another. The work of Christ for us is the object of faith; the Spirit's work in us is that which produces this faith: it is out of the former, not of the latter, that our peace and justification come. Without the touch of the rod the water would not have gushed forth; yet it was the rock, and not the rod, that contained the water.

The bringer of the sacrifice into the tabernacle was to lay his hand upon the head of the sheep or the bullock, otherwise the offering would not have been accepted for him. But the laying on of his hand was not the same as the victim on which it was laid. The serpent-bitten Israelite was to look at the uplifted serpent of brass in order to be healed. But his looking was not the brazen serpent. We may say it was his looking that healed him, just as the Lord said, "Thy faith hath saved thee"; but this is figurative language. It was not his act of looking that healed him, but the object to which he looked. So faith is not our righteousness: it merely knits us to the righteous One, and makes us partakers of His righteousness. By a natural figure of speech, faith is often magnified into something great; whereas it is really nothing but our consenting to be saved by another: its supposed magnitude is derived from the greatness of the object which it grasps, the excellence of the righteousness which it accepts. Its preciousness is not its own, but the preciousness of Him to whom it links us.

Faith is not our physician; it only brings us to the Physician. It is not even our medicine; it only administers the medicine, divinely prepared by Him who "healeth all our diseases." In all our believing, let us remember God's word to Israel: "I am Jehovah, that healeth thee" (Exo 14:26). Our faith is but our touching Jesus; and what is even this, in reality, but His touching us?

Faith is not our savior. It was not faith that was born at Bethlehem and died on Golgotha for us. It was not faith that loved us, and gave itself for us; that bore our sins in its own body on the tree; that died and rose again for our sins. Faith is one thing, the Savior is another. Faith is one thing, and the cross is another. Let us not confound them, nor ascribe to a poor, imperfect act of man, that which belongs exclusively to the Son of the Living God.

Faith is not perfection. Yet only by perfection can we be saved; either our own or another's. That which is imperfect cannot justify, and an imperfect faith could not in any sense be a righteousness. If it is to justify, it must be perfect. It must be like "the Lamb, without blemish and without spot." An imperfect faith may connect us with the perfection of another; but it cannot of itself do aught for us, either in protecting us from wrath or securing the divine acquittal. All faith here is imperfect; and our security is this, that it matters not how poor or weak our faith may be: if it touches the perfect One, all is well. The touch draws out the virtue that is in Him, and we are saved. The slightest imperfection in our faith, if faith were our righteousness, would be fatal to every hope. But the imperfection of our faith, however great, if faith be but the approximation or contact between us and the fullness of the Substitute, is no hindrance to our participation of His righteousness. God has asked and provided a perfect righteousness; He nowhere asks nor expects a perfect faith. An earthenware pitcher can convey water to a traveler's thirsty lips as well as one of gold; nay, a broken vessel, even if there be but "a shard to take water from the pit" (Isa 30:14), will suffice. So a feeble, very feeble faith, will connect us with the righteousness of the Son of God; the faith, perhaps, that can only cry, "Lord, I believe; help mine unbelief."

Faith is not satisfaction to God. In no sense and in no aspect can faith be said to satisfy God, or to satisfy the law. Yet if it is to be our righteousness, it must satisfy. Being imperfect, it cannot satisfy; being human, it cannot satisfy, even though it were perfect. That which satisfies must be capable of bearing our guilt; and that which bears our guilt must be not only perfect, but divine. It is a sin-bearer that we need, and our faith cannot be a sin-bearer. Faith can expiate no guilt; can accomplish no propitiation; can pay no penalty; can wash away no stain; can provide no righteousness. It brings us to the cross, where there is expiation, and propitiation, and payment, and cleansing, and righteousness; but in itself it has no merit and no virtue.

Faith is not Christ, nor the cross of Christ. Faith is not the blood, nor the sacrifice; it is not the altar, nor the laver, nor the mercy-seat, nor the incense. It does not work, but accepts a work done ages ago; it does not wash, but leads us to the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness. It does not create; it merely links us to that new thing which was created when the "everlasting righteousness" was brought in (Dan 9:24).

And as faith goes on, so it continues; always the beggar's outstretched hand, never the rich man's gold; always the cable, never the anchor; the knocker, not the door, or the palace, or the table; the handmaid, not the mistress; the lattice which lets in the light, not the sun.

Without worthiness in itself, it knits us to the infinite worthiness of Him in whom the Father delights; and so knitting us, presents us perfect in the perfection of another. Though it is not the foundation laid in Zion, it brings us to that foundation, and keeps us there, "grounded and settled" (Col 1:23), that we may not be moved away from the hope of the gospel. Though it is not "the gospel," the "glad tidings," it receives these good news as God's eternal verities, and bids the soul rejoice in them; though it is not the burnt-offering, it stands still and gazes on the ascending flame, which assures us that the wrath which should have consumed the sinner has fallen upon the Substitute.

Though faith is not "the righteousness," it is the tie between it and us. It realizes our present standing before God in the excellency of His own Son; and it tells us that our eternal standing, in the ages to come, is in the same excellency, and depends on the perpetuity of that righteousness which can never change. For never shall we put off that Christ whom we put on when we believed (Rom 12:14; Gal 3:27). This divine raiment is "to everlasting." It waxes not old, it cannot be rent, and its beauty fadeth not away.

Nor does faith lead us away from that cross to which at first it led us. Some in our day speak as if we soon got beyond the cross, and might leave it behind; that the cross having done all it could do for us when first we came under its shadow, we may quit it and go forward; that to remain always at the cross is to be babes, not men.

But what is the cross? It is not the mere wooden pole, or some imitation of it, such as Romanists use. These we may safely leave behind us. We need not pitch our tent upon the literal Golgotha, or in Joseph's garden. But the great truth which the cross embodies we can no more part with than we can part with life eternal. In this sense, to turn our back upon the cross is to turn our back upon Christ crucified,-to give up our connection with the Lamb that was slain. The truth is, that all that Christ did and suffered, from the manger to the tomb, forms one glorious whole, no part of which shall ever become needless or obsolete; no part of which can ever leave without forsaking the whole. I am always at the manger, and yet I know that mere incarnation cannot save; always at Gethsemane, and yet I believe that its agony was not the finished work; always at the cross, with my face toward it, and my eye on the crucified One, and yet I am persuaded that the sacrifice there was completed once for all; always looking into the grave, though I rejoice that it is empty, and that "He is not here, but is risen"; always resting (with the angel) on the stone that was rolled away, and handling the grave-clothes, and realizing a risen Christ, nay, an ascended and interceding Lord; yet on no pretext whatever leaving any part of my Lord's life or death behind me, but unceasingly keeping up my connection with Him, as born, living, dying, buried, and rising again, and drawing out from each part some new blessing every day and hour.

Man, in his natural spirit of self-justifying legalism, has tried to get away from the cross of Christ and its perfection, or to erect another cross instead, or to set up a screen of ornaments between himself and it, or to alter its true meaning into something more congenial to his tastes, or to transfer the virtue of it to some act or performance or feeling of its own. Thus the simplicity of the cross is nullified, and its saving power is denied.

For the cross saves completely, or not at all. Our faith does not divide the work of salvation between itself and the cross. It is the acknowledgment that the cross alone saves, and that it saves alone. Faith adds nothing to the cross, nor to its healing virtue. It owns the fullness, and sufficiency, and suitableness of the work done there, and bids the toiling spirit cease from its labors and enter into rest. Faith does not come to Calvary to do anything. It comes to see the glorious spectacle of all things done, and to accept this completion without a misgiving as to its efficacy. It listens to the "It is finished!" of the Sin-bearer, and says, "Amen." Where faith begins, there labor ends,-labor, I mean, "for" life and pardon. Faith is rest, not toil. It is the giving up all the former weary efforts to do or feel something good, in order to induce God to love and pardon; and the calm reception of the truth so long rejected, that God is not waiting for any such inducements, but loves and pardons of His own goodwill, and is showing that good will to any sinner who will come to Him on such a footing, casting away his own performances or goodnesses, and relying implicitly upon the free love of Him who so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son.

Faith is the acknowledgment of the entire absence of all goodness in us, and the recognition of the cross as the substitute for all the want on our part. Faith saves, because it owns the complete salvation of another, and not because it contributes anything to that salvation. There is no dividing or sharing the work between our own belief and Him in whom we believe. The whole work is His, not ours, from the first to last. Faith does not believe in itself, but in the Son of God. Like the beggar, it receives everything, but gives nothing. It consents to be a debtor for ever to the free love of God. Its resting-place is the foundation laid in Zion. It rejoices in another, not in itself. Its song is, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but by His mercy He saved us."

Christ crucified is to be the burden of our preaching, and the substance of our belief, from first to last. At no time in the saint's life does he cease to need the cross; though at times he may feel that his special need, in spiritual perplexity or the exigency of conflict with evil, may be the incarnation, or the agony in the garden, or the resurrection, or the hope of the promised advent, to be glorified in His saints, and admired in all them that believe.

But the question is not, "What truths are we to believe?" but, What truths are we to believe FOR JUSTIFICATION?

That Christ is to come again in glory and in majesty, as Judge and King, is an article of the Christian faith, the disbelief of which would almost lead us to doubt the Christianity of him who disbelieves it. Yet we are not in any sense justified by the second advent of our Lord, but solely by His first. We believe in His ascension, yet our justification is not connected with it. So we believe His resurrection, yet we are not justified by faith in it, but by faith in His death,-that death which made Him at once our propitiation and our righteousness.

"He was raised again on account of our having been justified" (Rom 4:25) is the clear statement of the word. The resurrection was the visible pledge of a justification already accomplished.

"The power of His resurrection" (Phil 3:10) does not refer to atonement, or pardon, or reconciliation; but to our being renewed in the spirit of our minds, to our being "begotten again unto a living hope, by the resurrection from the dead" (1 Pet 1:3). That which is internal, such as our quickening, our strengthening, our renewing, may be connected with resurrection and resurrection power; but that which is external, such as God's pardoning, and justifying, and accepting, must be connected with the cross alone.

The doctrine of our being justified by an infused resurrection-righteousness, or, as it is called, justification in a risen Christ, (1) is a clear subversion of the Surety's work when "He died for our sins, according to the Scriptures," or when "He washed us from our sins in His own blood," or when He gave us the robes "washed white in the blood of the Lamb."

It is the blood that justifies (Rom 5:9). It is the blood that pacifies the conscience, purging it from dead works to serve the living God (Heb 9:14). It is the blood that emboldens us to enter through the veil into the holiest, and go up to the sprinkled mercy-seat. It is the blood that we are to drink for the quenching of our thirst (John 6:55). It is the blood by which we have peace with God (Col 1:20). It is the blood through which we have redemption (Eph 1:7), and by which we are brought nigh (Eph 2:13), by which we are sanctified (Heb 13:12). It is the blood which is the seal of the everlasting covenant (Heb 13:20). It is the blood which cleanses (1 John 1:7), which gives us victory (Rev 12:11), and with which we have communion in the Supper of the Lord (1 Cor 10:16). It is the blood which is the purchase-money or ransom of the church of God (Acts 20:28).

The blood and the resurrection are very different things; for the blood is death, and the resurrection is life.

It is remarkable that in the book of Leviticus there is no reference to resurrection in any of the sacrifices. It is death throughout. All that is needed for a sinner's pardon, and justification, and cleansing, and peace, is there fully set forth in symbol,-and that symbol is death upon the altar. Justification by any kind of infused or inherent righteousness is wholly inconsistent with the services of the tabernacle, most of all justification by an infused, resurrection-righteousness.

The sacrifices are God's symbolical exposition of the way of a sinner's approach and acceptance; and in none of these does resurrection hold any place. If justification be in a risen Christ, then assuredly that way was not revealed to Israel; and the manifold offerings so minutely detailed, did not answer the question: How may man be just with God? nor give to the worshippers of old one hint as to the way by which God was to justify the ungodly.

"Christ in us, the hope of glory" (Col 1:27), is a well-known and blessed truth; but Christ IN US, our justification, is a ruinous error, leading man away from a crucified Christ-a Christ crucified FOR US. Christ for us is one truth; Christ in us is quite another. The mingling of these two together, or the transposition of them, is the nullifying of the one finished work of the Substitute. Let it be granted that Christ in us is the source of holiness and fruitfulness (John 15:4); but let it never be overlooked that first of all there be Christ FOR US, as our propitiation, our justification, our righteousness. The risen Christ in us, our justification, is a modern theory which subverts the cross. Washing, pardoning, reconciling, justifying, all come from the one work of the cross, not from resurrection. The dying Christ completed the work for us from which all the above benefits flow. The risen Christ but sealed and applied what, three days before, He had done once for all.

It is somewhat remarkable that in the Lord's Supper (as in the passover) there is no reference to resurrection. The broken body and the shed blood are the Alpha and Omega of that ordinance. In it we have communion (not with Christ as risen and glorified, but) with the body of Christ and the blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16), that is, Christ upon the cross. "This do in remembrance of me." "As oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come." If, after we have been at the cross, we are to pass on and leave it behind us, as no longer needed, seeing we are justified by the risen Christ in us, let those who hold that deadly error say why all reference to resurrection should be excluded from the great feast; and why the death of the Lord should be the one object presented to us at the table.

"Life in a risen Christ" is another way of expressing the same error. If by this were only meant that resurrection has been made the channel or instrument through which the life and justification are secured for us on and by the cross ,-as when the apostle speaks of our being begotten again unto a lively hope by the "resurrection of Christ from the dead," or when we are said to be "risen with Christ,"-one would not object to the phraseology. But when we find it used as expressive of dissociation of these benefits from the cross, and derivation of them from resurrection solely, then do we condemn it as untrue and antiscriptural. For concerning this "life" let us hear the words of the Lord: "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51). "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him" (John 6:53-56).

This assuredly is not the doctrine of "life in a risen Christ," or "a risen Christ in us, our justification and life." I do not enter on the exposition of these verses. I simply cite them. They bear witness to the cross. They point to the broken body and shed blood as our daily and hourly food, our life-long feast, from which there comes into us the life which the Son of man, by His death, has obtained for us. That flesh is life-imparting, that blood is life-imparting; and this not once, but for evermore. It is not incarnation on the one hand, nor is it resurrection on the other, on which we are thus to feed, and out of which this life comes forth; it is that which lies between these two,-death,-the sacrificial death of the Son of God. It is not the personality nor the life-history of the Christ of God which is the special quickener and nourishment of our souls, but the blood-shedding. Not that we are to separate the former from the latter, but still it is on the latter that we are specially to feed, and this all the days of our lives.

"Christ, our passover, has been sacrificed for us." Hence we rest, protected by the paschal blood, and feeding on the paschal Iamb, with its unleavened bread and bitter herbs, from day to day. "Let us keep the feast" (1 Cor 5:8). Wherever we are, let us keep it. For we carry our passover with us, always ready, always fresh. With girded loins and staff in hand, as wayfarers, we move along, through the rough or the smooth of the wilderness, our face toward the land of promise.

That paschal lamb is CHRIST CRUCIFIED. As such He is our protection, our pardon, our righteousness, our food, our strength, our peace. Fellowship with Him upon the cross is the secret of a blessed and holy life.

We feed on that which has passed through the fire; on that which has come from the altar. No other food can quicken or sustain the spiritual life of a believing man. The unbroken body will not suffice; nor will the risen or glorified body avail. The broken body and shed blood of the Son of God form the viands on which we feast; and it is under the shadow of the cross that we sit down to partake of these, and find refreshment for our daily journey, strength for our hourly warfare. His flesh is meat indeed; His blood is drink indeed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Mr. Irving, Dr. Newman, and the followers of Mr. Darby, are the modern upholders of this new form of an old heresy. Formerly it was simply justification by an infused righteousness, now it is by an infused righteousness derived from Christ's resurrection. See Dr. Newman's sermon, Christ's Resurrection the Source of Justification.

Chapter 8

What the Resurrection of the Substitute has Done

Death is not resurrection; and the benefits of the Surety's death are not the same as those of His resurrection. Yet let us not overlook the "glorious things" spoken concerning the latter.

Our justified life, or our life as justified men, is certainly in one sense resurrection-life, produced and sustained by resurrection-power. But not for a moment is that justified life severed from the cross, nor is the justified man to lose sight of his indebtedness to the cross for justification.

That we are risen with Christ is the truth of God. Oneness with Him who rose is our privilege and our standing. But oneness is not substitution; and it is not by the former, but the latter, that we are justified. Resurrection points us back to a finished substitution, and seals its blessings to us.

"Justified in the Spirit" is one of the apostle's references to Christ's resurrection. As He was brought again from the dead by the blood of the everlasting covenant (Heb 13:20), 50 was He justified in or by the Spirit in raising Him from the dead. He died as a criminal, and went down to the grave as such; but the Spirit raises Him, and thereby declares Him righteous, free from the imputed guilt under which He went down to the tomb.

But let us look a little more minutely into Christ's resurrection, lest we should be led to undervalue it. The resurrection must not hide the cross; neither must the cross hide the resurrection.

The words of the angel to the woman are meant for us: "He is not here; for He is risen" (Matt 28:6).

Man did all that he could to hinder the resurrection of the Son of God. He had succeeded in slaying the Prince of life; and he is resolved that, if he can help it, the dead shall not arise. Samson is in prison, and must be kept there. The great stone, the watch, the Roman seal, are all proofs of this determination.

But he knows not his prisoner. He might as well bind the whirlwind with a cord of silk, or shut up the lightening in one of his chambers, and say to it, Thou shalt not go forth. Death itself, stronger than man, could not hold its prey. Ere the dawn of the third day, the earthquake shook the tomb (the earthquake of Psalm 18:6,7), the angel of the Lord descended, the stone was rolled away, the seal was broken, and the dead came forth.

Even His own believe not that He will rise. They would not try to hinder His resurrection, but, treating it as a thing incredible, they act as those who believe that all is over, and that the cross has destroyed their hopes. They would not close the sepulcher, nor seal it; nay, they would roll away the stone and break the seal: but this is only to anoint Him for His final burial. It is not the expression of hope, but of despair.

But the tomb of the Son of God is the place of light, not of darkness; of hope, not of despair; of life, not of death. They come to look on the dead, they find the living. The seekers of the crucified Jesus find the risen Son of God. The garments of death are all that the tomb contains; the linen clothes, still stained with blood, and the carefully-folded napkin,-folded by angels' hands, if not by His own. They had brought their myrrh and aloes and spices to keep corruption from entering; forgetful that it is the Incorruptible whose body they are thus needlessly though lovingly embalming, and ignorant of the meaning of the ancient promise, "Thou wilt not suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption."

But friend and enemy are both at fault. The unbelief of the former and the resistance of the latter are met equally with a strange surprise. For God's thoughts are not our thoughts, nor His ways our ways. The angel of the Lord descends; he rolls back the stone; he sits upon it, to show himself in his brightness to the watchers; he opens the gate, that the Holy One may go forth. Not that he raises or assists in raising the Son of God. That is beyond the mightiest of these mighty ones, those angels that excel in strength. But he is honored to have a share in the scene, as porter or door-keeper of that glorious shrine. With him came the earthquake,-the second that had occurred during these three days: the first being when the Prince of life entered the chambers of death, and at the open door many of the dead saints of other days came forth; the second being when this same Prince of life left these chambers, and burst the bands of death, shaking creation with the tread of His feet as He marched forth in triumph.

The earthquake and the brightness were too terrible for man to bear. "For fear of him, the keepers did shake, and became as dead men." Nor does he try to allay their terror. Let them tremble on. But for those who are seeking the crucified One he has words of love and peace. To the keepers he was as the lightening; to the women he was as the dayspring from on high. "Fear not ye; I know that ye seek Jesus, who was crucified."

That which follows is the angel's message to these women; and to us no less in these last days. It is the reason for the cheer, the comfort he had spoken. It is the blessed contents of the cup, the ingredients of the heavenly wine, which he was giving them to drink of. And the substance of it is, "Jesus lives." The comfort with which the Lord Himself once comforted the sorrowing father of Capernaum was, "The maid is not dead, but sleepeth"; so the comfort ministered by the angel is like this, only it goes far beyond it: "He is not dead; nay, He sleepeth not: He has awakened; He has risen." And as the Lord calmed the fears of His disciples once with, "Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid"; so did the angel here: or as in Patmos the Lord allayed the alarm of the beloved disciple with, "Fear not, I am the First and the Last; I am He that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore"; so does the angel soothe the fear of the trembling women: "Fear not ye; He is not here; He is risen: come, see the place where the Lord lay."

Let us mark, then, the glad tidings which the angel brings us regarding Him who died and was buried.

He is not here. This is the only place regarding which it could be accounted good news to say, Christ is not here. Christ is here, was good news at Bethany, at Jericho, at Nain, at Capernaum, or on the sea of Galilee; but Christ is not here, is the good news from Joseph's tomb. A present Christ would be accounted the joy and security of other places; it is an absent Christ that is announced as the blessing, the consolation here. He is not here, is one of the gladdest sounds that ever fell on human ears. Were He still here, what and where should we have been?

And who is it that you are seeking here? The mortal or the immortal? And what place is this in which you expect to find the Son of God? In a grave? Is this the place for immortality? Is it likely that there should be life in the dwellings of death? Why seek ye the living among the dead? No; not here,-not here; not in this place of death can the Prince of life be found. He was here, indeed; but He is not. These rock walls and this rock gate cannot hold Him. He was in Gethsemane, in Pilate's palace, on the cross; but not now. These He has visited, but in none of them has He remained. He has left them all behind. With Him it is all life, and incorruption, and glory now. He is not here!

If not here, where? That we soon discover when we follow Him to Emmaus and to Galilee. But even though we knew not, does it matter, save for this, that we may learn that His disappearance has not been a forsaking of earth, nor a turning His back upon the children of men? His disappearance from the tomb is only the carrying out of His love.

He is risen. He was laid down upon that rocky floor; but only to rest there for a day. For that tomb was His first earthly resting-place; all before that was weariness. Having rested there for a short season, He rises; and with renewed strength, into which hereafter no element of weariness can enter, He resumes His work. He has not been carried off, either by friend or enemy; He has been raised by the Father, as the righteous One; the fulfiller of His purpose; the finisher of His work; the destroyer of death; the conqueror of him who has the power of death; the Father's beloved Son, in whom He is well pleased. This true temple has been destroyed, only to be rebuilt in greater and more undecaying magnificence. This true Siloam has only for three days intermitted the flow of its missioned waters, that it might gush forth in larger fullness. This true Sun has only for three days been darkened, that it might be relighted in its incorruptible glory.

He is risen! Yes; and now we see more fully the meaning of His own words, spoken at a tomb, and over one whom death had bound, "I am the resurrection and the life"; Himself at once the raiser and the raised, the quickener and the quickened, the p0sessor and the giver of an infinite life,-a higher kind of life than that which the first Adam knew,-a life which can force its way into the dungeons of death, transforming them, by its resistless power, into the dwellings, the palaces, the temples of immortality and glory.

He is risen! He has tasted death, but He has not seen corruption; for He is the Holy One of God, and upon holiness corruption cannot fasten. As the beloved of the Father, He rises from the dead; for therefore doth the Father love Him, because He giveth His life for the sheep. And in this resurrection we read the Father's testimony to His Sonship; the Father's seal set to His completed propitiation; the Father's declaration of satisfaction and delight in the work of Calvary.

It was henceforth with a risen Master that the disciples had to do. It was a risen Christ who was their companion on the way to Emmaus; it was a risen Christ who entered the upper chamber with "Peace be to you" on His lips; it was a risen Christ who appeared to five hundred brethren at once; it was a risen Christ that saluted them by the sea of Galilee, and prepared for them their morning meal on the fire of coals; it was a risen Christ with whom they companied during the forty days when He went out and in among them. And it is now with a risen Christ that we have to do in the pathways of our daily pilgrimage. At every turn of the way, resurrection meets us in the person of the Lord Jesus, and says to us, "Because I live, ye shall live also." For the life that is in Him is resurrection-life.

It is with this risen life that faith connects us, from the moment that we believe in Him who died and rose again. Let us note, then, such things as these:

1. The security of this risen life. It is not mere life out of nothingness, as in the case of the first Adam, but life out of death. And it is this life which Scripture presents to us as higher, fuller, and more secure. The soil out of which the tree of immortality springs is not the common soil of earth; it is the mold of the graveyard, the dust of the tomb. This far securer life, this life that no death can touch, comes to us from the risen life of Him who died and rose again. The faith that knits us to Him makes us partakers of His resurrection-life; nay, does it so fully that His resurrection becomes ours: we are risen with Him, and with Him have put on a divine immortality.

2. The power of the risen life. It was as the risen One that He spoke, "All power is given unto me." It was as possessor of this power the He went forth from the sepulcher; a power like that by which He overcame death; "the power of an endless life." This corn of wheat had fallen into the ground and died; and though sown in weakness, it was raised in power. It was with this power of the risen life that He ascended on high, leading captivity captive. It is this power of the risen life that He now wields upon the throne. It is in this power of the risen life that He comes again in His glory; Redeemer, king, Judge of all. It is this power of the risen life that He puts forth in His Church,-that He exercises in the begetting us again to a lively hope, and in sustaining each begotten one in a world of hostility and death, amid fightings without and fears within. It is to the power of this risen life that we betake ourselves in the day of weakness and conflict; so that, strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might, we are made more than conquerors.

3. The love of the risen life. Resurrection was a new and higher stage of being; and with the perfection of life, there came the perfection of the love. The instrument was now more perfectly tuned, and fitted both for containing and giving forth new measures of love. The love of the risen life is the largest and highest of all. It is of this love that we are made partakers; a love beyond all that is earthly and human; a love that passeth knowledge.

4. The sympathies of the risen life. Resurrection does not form a gulf or throw up a wall between us and the risen One. It is not the Shepherd withdrawing from His flock to some inaccessible height. It is the filling up of every gulf, the throwing down of every wall; it is the Shepherd bringing Himself into closer and fuller sympathy with His flock. True, they are evil, and He is good; they are earthly, and He is heavenly. But that which resurrection laid aside was not anything of true humanity. It was but the sinless infirmities which weighed down His true humanity, and kept its sympathies from coming out into full development and play. The risen life, then, is the life of truest and largest sympathy. In its perfection there is the perfection of sympathy, the development of the full round of fellow-feeling existing in the being of the Word made flesh.

5. The affinities of the risen life. The resurrection breaks no bounds save those of mortality. It is the strengthening, not the weakening, of the links that fasten the Son of God to us, and us to the Son of God. Resurrection ties are the strongest of all. The risen life of Christ alters none of the affinities between Himself and His saints; it has not lessened the number of the points at which we come in contact with Him; it has not made Him less human, nor stopped certain channels of communication between us and Him. His immortality has not unlinked Him from those who are still in the flesh. His risen life has not shaken or loosened the relationship He bears to the unrisen. All that He was before, He is still, with something superadded of new love, new power, new perfection, new glory. The difference between His unrisen and His risen life is only that between the sun at dayspring and at noon. Let us rejoice at the remembrance of His risen life as the truest, the fittest, the most blessed for us. The more that we realize our own mortality, the more let us feel the preciousness and the suitableness of His immortality as the risen One; and the more let us realize the identity between us and Him, in virtue of which not merely we shall rise, but we have risen with Him.

6. The joys of the risen life. In the tomb the Man of sorrows left all His sorrows, as He left all our sins. There they were buried with Him. At His resurrection His full joy began; and in the Psalms this connection between His resurrection and His joy is more than once proclaimed. In the sixteenth the two things are placed very strikingly together; for after it is said, "Thou wilt not suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption," it is added, "Thou wilt show me the path of life (resurrection); in Thy presence is fullness of joy" (see Psalm 30:3-5; 116:3-7). For Him resurrection was joy, not merely because it ended His connection with death, but because it introduced Him into the fullness of joy,-a joy peculiar to the risen life, and of which only a risen man can be capable. Into the joy of His risen life we in some measure enter here by faith; but the fullness of that risen joy is yet in reserve for us, awaiting the resurrection of the just, when the body as well as the head shall have done with tribulation and with death for ever.

7. The hopes of the risen life. We are "begotten again to a lively (or living and life-giving) hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Pet 1:3). With Christ's resurrection and with His risen life our "hope" is connected,-a "hope" which contains and imparts "life" here; a "hope" which, like a flower from the bud, opens out into the fullness of the glorious life hereafter. The hope of which we are partakers through the risen life of the second Adam far transcends any hope which the unrisen life of the first Adam could have given. It is the hope of an inheritance, a kingdom, a city, a glory, such as belongs only to the risen offspring of the second Adam, such as can be possessed only by the redeemed and the risen. The resurrection of the Son of God is to us the earnest and the pledge of this blessed hope. Hence our watchword is, "Christ in us, the hope of glory."

For the Church of God, the words "He is risen" are full of health and gladness. The more that we dwell upon our Surety's resurrection, the more shall we realize the life and immortality which have been brought to light by His gospel. The oftener that we visit His empty tomb, and see for ourselves that He is not here, He is risen, the more shall we be penetrated by that wondrous truth that we are risen with Him, and that this fellowship in resurrection is as truly the source of spiritual life, health, and holiness, as of joy unspeakable and full of glory.

For each sad sinner, still buried in the grave of sin, the words contain a gospel,-glad tidings of great joy. The empty tomb of Jesus gives forth a voice which reaches to the very ends of the earth. Everlasting life through Him who died and rose again; forgiveness and righteousness and reconciliation through the accepted work of the great Substitute, finished on the cross, but sealed and attested by resurrection; peace with God through Him who left the tomb. and went up to the Father's right hand, as at once the maker and the giver of peace;-all this we preach, without condition or restriction, to a world lying in wickedness, that each condemned one may hear and live! Through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins! Take the free pardon now; and in taking it, exchange at once, without one moment's delay or uncertainty, life for death, liberty for bondage, Sonship for alienation, joy for sorrow,-a hope that maketh not ashamed, for heaviness here and eternal despair hereafter. He is risen, sinner, He is risen!

Go, deal with this risen Christ; go, transact the great business for eternity with Him; go, receive life and blessings at His hands: for truly He is the same Savior still as when, by the sea of Galilee, He said to sinners, as far off as you can be, "Come unto me, and I will give you rest."

Chapter 9

The Pardon and the Peace Made Sure

"Chnst for us," the obedient in the room of the disobedient, is the first part of our message. His assumption of the legal claims, which otherwise would have made good against us, is the security for our deliverance. That deliverance becomes an actual thing to us immediately upon our consenting to allow Him to undertake our case.

"Christ in us" is the second part of our gospel. This second is of mighty moment, and yet is not to be confounded with the first. That which is done for us is not the same as that which is done in us. By the former we are constituted righteous, by the latter we are made holy. The one is properly the Gospel, in the belief of which we are saved; the other, the carrying out of that gospel in the soul.

Christ "for us" is our justification. "Christ in us, and we in Christ," is our holiness. The former is the external substitution; the latter, the internal energy or operation, taking its rise from the former, yet not to be confounded with it, or substituted for it.

Christ the substitute, giving His life for ours upon the cross, is specially the object of faith. The message concerning this sacrificial work is the gospel, the belief of which brings pardon to the guilty.

God has given us this gospel not merely for the purpose of securing to us life hereafter, but of making us sure of this life even now. It is a true and sure gospel; so that he who believes it is made sure of being saved. If it could not make us sure, it would make us miserable; for to be told of such a salvation and such a glory, yet kept in doubt as to whether they are to be ours or not, must render us truly wretched. What a poor gospel it must be, which leaves the man who believes it still in doubt as to whether he is a child of God, an unpardoned or a pardoned sinner! Till we have found forgiveness, we cannot be happy; we cannot serve God gladly or lovingly; but must be in some bondage or gloom.

This is the view of the matter which Scripture sets before us; telling us that salvation is a free, a sure, a present gift. "He that believeth is justified" (Acts 13:39). "He that believeth hath everlasting life" (John 3:36). The Bible gives no quarter to unbelief or doubting. It does not call it humility. It does not teach us to think better of ourselves for doubting. It does not countenance uncertainty or darkness.

This was the view taken of the subject by our fathers, from the Reformation downwards. They held that a man ought to know that he is justified; and that it was Popery to teach uncertainty, or to set aside the full assurance of faith, or to hold that this sureness was not to be had from the beginning of a man's conversion, but only to be gathered up in process of years, by summing up his good feelings and good deeds, and concluding from his own excellences that he must be one of the elect, a man in favor with God. Our fathers believed that the jailer at Philippi rejoiced as soon as he received the good news which Paul preached to him (Acts 16:34). Our fathers believed that, "being justified by faith, WE HAVE peace with God" (Rom 5:1), and that the life of a believing man is a life of known pardon; a life of peace with God; a life of which the outset was the settlement of the great question between himself and God; a life in which, as being a walk with God, the settlement of that question did not admit of being deferred or kept doubtful: for without felt agreement, without conscious reconciliation, intercourse was impossible.

All the Reformation creeds and confessions take this for granted; assuming that the doctrine of uncertainty was one of the worst lies of Popery, (1) the device and stronghold of a money-loving priesthood, who wished to keep people in suspense in order to make room for the dealings of priests and payments for pardon. If assurance be the right of every man who believes, then the priest's occupation is at an end; his craft is not only in danger, but gone. It was the want of assurance in his poor victims that enabled him to drive so prosperous a trade, and to coin money out of the people's doubts. It was by this craft he had his wealth, and hence the hatred with which Rome and her priests have always hated the doctrine of assurance. It took the bread out of their mouths. If God pardons so freely, so simply, so surely, so immediately upon believing, alas for the priesthood! Who will pay them for absolution? Who will go to them to make sure that which God has already made sure in a more excellent way than theirs?

Romanists have always maintained that assurance is presumption; and it is remarkable that they quote, in defense of their opinion, the same passages which many modern Protestants do, such as, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling"; the apostle's expression about being "a castaway"; "Let him that thinketh he standeth"; and the like.

One of them, in reasoning with one of the English Reformers, speaks of "the presumptuous opinion of the certainty of grace and salvation, contrary to that which St. Paul counselleth, Philippians 2:12"; and the great Romish controversialists give the following reasons against assurance, which we abridge and translate:

(1) No man certainly ought to disbelieve God's mercy and Christ's merits; but on account of his own imperfections, he ought to be fearful about his own grace, so that no one can certainly know that he has found favor with God.

(2) It is not expedient that men should have certainty about their own grace; for certainty produces pride, while ignorance of this secret preserves and increases humility.

(3) Assurance is the privilege of only a few favored ones, to whom God has revealed the singular benefit of the pardon of their sins.

(4) The most perfect men, when dying, have been humbled because of this uncertainty; and if some of the holiest men have been uncertain, is it credible that all believers ought to have assurance of their justification?

(5) The best men fall from faith; therefore there can be no assurance.

(6) The following passages confute the error of assurance: 1 Corinthians 10:12; 2 Corinthians 6:1; Romans 11:20; Philippians 2:12.

Such are the Popish arguments against assurance, and the conclusion to which the Council of Trent came was: "If any man shall say that justifying faith is confidence in the mercy of God, who remitteth sins for Christ's sake, or that it is by such confidence alone that we are justified, let him be accursed."

Old John Foxe, who three hundred years ago wrote the history of the martyrs, remarks concerning the Pope's Church that it "left the poor consciences of men in perpetual doubt" (volume 1. page 78).

This is a true saying. But it is true of many who earnestly protest against the Church of Rome. They not only teach doctrines which necessarily lead to doubting, and out of which no poor sinner could extract anything but uncertainty; but they inculcate doubting as a humble and excellent thing; a good preparation, nay, an indispensable qualification, for faith. The duty of doubting is in their theology much more obligatory than that of believing. The propriety and necessity of being uncertain they strongly insist upon; the blessedness of certainty they undervalue; the sin of uncertainty they repudiate; the duty of being sure they deny.

This same John Foxe, after showing that a man is saved not by working, but by believing, gives us the following specimen of "the horrible blindness and blasphemy" of the Church of Rome: "That faith wherewith a man firmly believeth and certainly assureth himself, that for Christ's sake his sins be forgiven him, and that he shall possess eternal life, is not faith, but rashness; not the persuasion of the Holy Ghost, but the presumption of human audacity." The above extract is from a Popish book of the time, and is a fair specimen of the Romish hatred of the doctrine of assurance. Its language is almost the same as that employed by many Protestants of our day.

The Romanists held that a man is to believe in the mercy of God and the merits of Christ, but that this belief brought with it no assurance of justification; though possibly, if the man lived a very holy life, God might before he died reveal His grace to him, and give him assurance; which is precisely what many Protestants hold.

In opposition to this, our forefathers not only maintained that a man is justified by faith, but that he ought to know that he is justified, and that this knowledge of justification is the great root of a holy life. The Romanists did not quarrel with the word assurance; they did not hold it to be impossible: they held that men might get it, nay, that some very holy men had got it. But they affirmed that the only means of reaching the grace of assurance was by a holy life; that with the slow development of a holy life, assurance might develop itself; and that in the course of years, a man by numbering his good deeds, and ascertaining the amount of his holiness, might perhaps come to the conclusion that he was a child of God; but perhaps not. They were very strenuous in contending for this life of religious suspense, sad and dismal as it must be; because conscious justification, such as Luther contended for, shut out priesthood and penance; giving a man the joy of true liberty and divine fellowship at once, without the intervention of another party or the delay of an hour.

This conscious justification started the man upon a happy life, because relieved from the burden of doubt and the gloom of uncertainty; it made his religion bright and tranquil, because springing so sweetly from the certainty of his reconciliation to God; it delivered him from the cruel suspense and undefined fears which the want of assurance carries always with it; it rescued him from all temptations to self-righteousness, because not arising from any good thing in himself; it preserved him from pride and presumption, because it kept him from trying to magnify his own goodness in order to extract assurance out of it; it drew him away from self to Christ, from what he was doing to what Christ had done; thus making Christ, not self, the basis and the center of his new being; it made him more and more dissatisfied with self, and all that self contained, but more and more satisfied with Jesus and His fullness; it taught him to rest his confidence towards God, not on his satisfaction with self, not on the development of his own holiness, not on the amount of his graces and prayers and doings, but simply on the completed work of Him in whom God is well pleased.

The Romanists acquiesced in the general formula of the Protestants, that salvation was all of Christ, and that we are to believe on Him in order to get it. But they resisted the idea that a man, on believing, knows that he is saved. They might even have admitted the terms "justification by faith," provided it was conceded that this justification was to be known only to God, hidden from the sinner who believes. They did not much heed the mere form of words, and some of them went apparently a long way to the Protestant doctrine. But that which was essential to their system was, that in whatever way justification took place, it should be kept secret from the sinner himself, so that he should remain without assurance for years, perhaps all his life. Unconscious justification by faith suited their system of darkness quite as well as justification by works. For it was not the kind of justification that they hated, but the sinner's knowing it, and having peace with God simply in believing, without waiting for years of doing. No doubt they objected to free justification in the Protestant sense; but the force of their objection lies not so much against its being free, as against the sinner being sure of it. For they saw well enough, that if they could introduce uncertainty at any part of the process, their end was gained. For to remove such uncertainty the Church must be called in; and this was all they wanted.

The doctrine, then, that makes uncertainty necessary, and that affirms that this uncertainty can only be removed by the development of a holy life, is the old Popish one, though uttered by Protestants. Luther condemned it; Bellarmine maintained it. And many of the modern objections to assurance, on the part of some Protestants, are a mere reproduction of old Romish arguments, urged again and again, against justification by faith.

There is hardly one objection made to a man's being sure of his justification which would not apply, and which have not been applied, against his being justified by faith at all. If the common arguments against assurance turn out valid, they cannot stop short of establishing justification by works. Salvation by believing, and assurance only by means of working, are not very compatible. The interval which is thus created between God's act of justifying us, and His letting us know that He has justified us, is a singular one, of which Scripture certainly takes no cognizance.

This interval of suspense (be it longer or shorter) which Romanists have created for the purpose of giving full scope to priestly interposition, and which some Protestants keep up in order to save us from pride and presumption, is not acknowledged in the Bible any more than purgatory. An intermediate state in the life to come, during which the soul is neither pardoned nor unpardoned, neither in heaven nor hell, is thought needful by Romanists for purging out sin and developing holiness; but then this interval of gloom is man's creation. An intermediate state in this life, during which a sinner, though believing in Jesus, is not to know whether he is justified or not, is reckoned equally needful by some Protestants, as a necessary means of producing, and through holiness leading perhaps ere life close to assurance; but then of this sorrowful interval, this present purgatory, which would make a Christian's life so dreary and fearful, Scripture says nothing. It is a human delusion borrowed from Popery, and based upon the dislike of the human heart to have immediate peace, immediate adoption, and immediate fellowship.

The self-righteous heart of man craves an interval of the above kind as a space for the exercise of his religiousness, while free from the responsibility for a holy and unworldly life which conscious justification imposes on the conscience.

But it will be greatly worth our while to see what Romanists have said upon this subject; for their errors help us much in understanding the truth. It will be seen that it was against present peace with God that Rome contended; and that it was in defense of this present peace, this immediate certainty, that the Reformers did battle so strenuously, as a matter of life and death. The great Popish Assembly, the "Council of Trent," in 1547, took up these points concerning faith and grace. Nor was that body content with condemning assurance; they proclaimed it an accursed thing, and pronounced an anathema against every one who affirmed that justifying faith is "confidence in the mercy of God." They denounced the man as heretic who should hold "the confidence and certainty of the remission of sins."

Yet they had a theory of a justification by faith. We give it in their own words, as it corresponds strikingly with the process which is prescribed by some Protestants as the means of arriving, after long years, at the knowledge of our justification:

"The beginning of justification proceedeth from preventing grace. The manner of the preparation is, first to believe the divine revelations and promises, and knowing oneself to be a sinner, to turn from the fear of God's justice to His mercy, to hope for pardon from Him, and therefore to begin to love Him and hate sin, to begin a new life, and keep the commandments of God. Justification follows this preparation."

This theory of a gradual justification, or a gradual approach to justification, is that held by many Protestants, and made use of by them for resisting the truth of immediate forgiveness of sin and peace with God.

Then comes another sentence of the Council which expresses truly the modern theory of non-assurance, and the common excuse for doubting, when men say, "We are not doubting Christ, we are only doubting ourselves." The Romish divines assert:

"No one ought to doubt the mercy of God, the merits of Christ, and the efficacy of the sacraments; but in regard to his own indisposition he may doubt, because he cannot know by certainty, of infallible faith, that he has obtained grace."

Here sinners are taught to believe in God's mercy and in Christ's merits, yet still to go on doubting as to the results of that belief, viz. sure peace with God. Truly self-righteousness, whether resting on works or on feelings, whether in Popery or Protestantism, is the same thing, and the root of the same errors, and the source of the same determination not to allow immediate certainty to the sinner from the belief of the good news.

This Popish Council took special care that the doctrine of assurance should be served with their most pointed curses. All the "errors of Martin" were by them traced back to this twofold root, that a man is justified by faith, and that he ought to know that he is justified. They thus accuse the German Reformer of inventing his doctrine of immediate and conscious justification for the purpose of destroying the sinner's works of repentance, which by their necessary imperfection make room for indulgences. They call this free justification, a thing unheard of before,-a thing which not only makes good works unnecessary, but sets a man free from any obligation to obey the law of God.

It would appear that the learned doctors of the Council were bewildered with the Lutheran doctrine. The schoolmen had never discussed it, nor even stated it. It had no place either among the beliefs or misbeliefs of the past. It had not been maintained as a truth, nor impugned as a heresy, so far as they knew. It was an absolute novelty. They did not comprehend it, and of course misrepresented it. As to original sin, that had been so often discussed by the schoolmen, that all Romish divines and priests were familiar with it in one aspect or another. On it, therefore, the Council were at home, and could frame their curses easily, and with some point. But the Lutheran doctrine of justification brought them to a stand. Thus the old translator of Paul Sarpi's History puts it:

"The opinion of Luther concerning justifying faith, that is a confidence and certain persuasion of the promise of God, with the consequences that follow, of the distinction between the law and the gospel, etc., had never been thought of by any school writers, and therefore never confuted or discussed, so that the divines had work enough to understand the meaning of the Lutheran propositions."

Luther's doctrine of the will's bondage they were indignant at, as making man a stone or a machine. His doctrine of righteousness by faith horrified them, as the inlet of all laxity and wickedness. Protestant doctrines were to them absurdities no less than heresies.

Nor was it merely the Church, the Fathers, and tradition that they stood upon. The schools and the schoolmen! This was their watchword; for hitherto these scholastic doctors had been, at least for centuries, the bodyguard of the Church. Under their learning, and subtleties, and casuistries, priests and bishops had always taken refuge. Indeed, without them, the Church was helpless, so far as logic was concerned. When she had to argue, she must call in these metaphysical divines; though generally by force and terror she contrived to supersede all necessity for reasoning.

Three men in the Council showed some independence: a Dominican friar, by name Ambrosius Catarinus; a Spanish Franciscan, by name Andreas de Vega; and a Carmelite, by name Antonius Marinarus. The "Heremites" of the order to which Luther originally belonged were especially blind and bitter, their leader Seripandus outdoing all in zeal against Luther and his heresy.

Compelled, in the investigation of the subject, to pass beyond Luther to Luther's Master, they were sorely puzzled. To overlook Him was impossible, for the Protestants appealed to Him; to condemn Him would have not been wise.

They were obliged to admit the bitter truth, that Paul had said that a man is justified by faith. They had maintained the strict literality of "This is my body"; must they admit the equal literality of 'justified by faith"? Or may this latter expression not be qualified and overlaid by scholastic ingenuity, or set aside by an authoritative denial in the name of the Church? At the Council of Trent both these methods were tried.

It was not Luther only who laid such stress upon the doctrine of free justification. His adversaries were wise enough to do the same. They saw in it the root or foundationstone of the whole Reformation. If it falls, Popery stands erect, and may do what she pleases with the consciences of men. If it stands, Popery is overthrown; her hold on men's consciences is gone; her priestly power is at an end, and men have directly to do with the Lord Jesus Christ in heaven, and not with any pretended vicar upon earth, or any of his priests or seven sacraments. "All the errors of Martin are resolved into that point," said the bishops of the Council; and they added, "He that will establish the Catholic doctrine must overthrow the heresy of righteousness by faith only."

But did not Paul say the same things as Luther has said? Did he not say, "To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness"? (Rom 4:20). Yes; but we may use some liberties with Paul's words, which we cannot do with Luther's. It would not do to refute Paul; but it is quite safe to demonstrate that Luther is wrong, and is at variance with the Church.

Let us then assail Luther; and leave Paul alone. Now Luther has said such things as the following:-

1. Faith without works is sufficient to salvation, and alone doth justify.

2. Justifying faith is a sure trust, by which one believeth that his sins are remitted for Christ's sake; and they that are justified are to believe certainly that their sins are remitted.

3. By faith only we are able to appear before God, who neither regardeth nor hath need of our works; faith only purifying us.

4. No previous disposition is necessary to justification; neither doth faith justify because it disposeth us, but because it is a means or instrument by which the promise and grace of God are laid hold on and received.

5. All the works of men, even the most sanctified, are sin.

6. Though the just ought to believe that his works are sins, yet he ought to be assured that they are not imputed.

7. Our righteousness is nothing but the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; and the just have need of a continual justification and imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

8. All the justified are received into equal grace and glory; and all Christians are equally great with the Mother of God, and as much saints as she.

These were some of Luther's propositions which required to be confuted. That they looked wonderfully like the doctrines of the Apostle Paul, only made the confutation more necessary. That "faith justifies," the bishops said, we must admit, because the apostle has said so; but as to what faith is, and how it justifies, is hard to say. Faith has many meanings (some said nine, others fifteen; some modern Protestants have said the same); and then, even admitting that faith justifies, it cannot do so without good dispositions, without penance, without religious performances, without sacraments. By introducing all these ingredients into faith, they easily turned it into a work; or by placing them on the same level with faith, they nullified (without positively denying) justification by faith.

Ingenious men! Thus to overthrow the truth, while professing to admit and explain it. In this ingenious perversity they have had many successors, and that in churches which rejected Rome and its Council.

"Christ crucified" is the burden of the message which God has sent to man. "Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures." The reception of this gospel is eternal life; the non-reception or rejection of it is everlasting death. "This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son." The belief of the gospel saves; the belief of the promise annexed to that gospel makes us sure of this salvation personally. It is not the belief of our belief that assures us of pardon, and gives us a good conscience towards God; but our belief of what God has promised to every one who believes His Gospel, -that is eternal life. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and THOU SHALT BE SAVED."

What is God to me? This is the first question that rises up to an inquiring soul. And the second is like unto it,-What am I to God? On these two questions hang all religion, as well as all joy and life to the immortal spirit.

If God is for me, and I am for God, all is well. If God is not for me, and if I am not for God, all is ill (Rom 8:31). If He takes my side, and if I take His, there is nothing to fear, either in this world or in that which is to come. If He is not on my side, and if I am not on His, then what can I do but fear? Terror in such a case must be as natural and inevitable as in a burning house or a sinking vessel.

Or, if I do not know whether God is for me or not, I can have no rest. In a matter such as this, my soul seeks certainty, not uncertainty. I must know that God is for me, else I must remain in the sadness of unrest and terror. In so far as my actual safety is concerned, everything depends on God being for me; and in so far as my present peace is concerned, everything depends on my knowing that God is for me. Nothing can calm the tempest of my soul, save the knowledge that I am His, and that He is mine.

Our relationship to God is then to us the first question; and till this is settled, nothing else can be settled. It is the question of questions to us, in comparison of which all other personal questions are as moonshine. when the health of a beloved child is in danger; I seem for the time to lose sight of everything around me, wholly absorbed in the thought, Will he live, or will he die? I move about the house as one who sees nothing, hears nothing. I go to and I come from the sick-room incessantly, watching every symptom for the better or the worse. I eagerly inquire at the physician, Is there hope, or is there none? I am paralyzed in everything, and indifferent to the things which in other circumstances might interest me. What matters it to me whether it rains or shines, whether my garden-flowers are fading or flourishing, whether I am losing or making money, so long as I am uncertain whether that beloved child is to live or die?

And if uncertainty as to my child's health be so important to me, and so engrossing as to make me forget everything else; oh, what must be the engrossment attending the unsettled question of the life or death of my own immortal soul! I must know that my child is out of danger before I can rest; and I must know that my soul is out of danger before I can be quieted in spirit. Suspense in such a case is terrible; and, were our eyes fully open to the eternal peril, absolutely unendurable. Not to know whether we are out of danger, must be as fatal to peace of soul as the certainty of danger itself. Suspense as to temporal calamities has often in a night withered the fresh cheek of youth, and turned the golden hair to gray. And shall time's uncertainties work such havoc with their transient terrors, and shall eternal uncertainties pass over us as the idle wind?

In the great things of eternity nothing but certainty will do; nothing but certainty can soothe our fears, or set us free to attend to the various questions of lesser moment which every hour brings up. The man who can continue to go about these lesser things, whilst uncertainty still hangs over his everlasting prospects, and the great question between his soul and God is still unsettled must be either sadly hardened or altogether wretched.

He who remains in this uncertainty remains a burdened and weary man. He who is contented with this uncertainty is contented with misery and danger. He who clings to this uncertainty as a right thing, can have no pretensions to the name of son, or child, or saint of God: for in that uncertainty is there any feature of resemblance to the son or the saint; anything of the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father; any likeness to the filial spirit of the beloved son of God?

He who resolves to remain in this uncertainty is a destroyer of his own soul; and he who tries to persuade others to remain in this uncertainty is a murderer of souls. He who does his best to make himself comfortable without the knowledge of his reconciliation and relationship to God, is a manifest unbeliever; and he who tries to induce others to be comfortable without this knowledge is something worse; if worse can be. That there are many among professing Christians who have not this knowledge, is a painful fact; that there are some who, instead of lamenting this, make their boast of it, is a fact more painful still; that there are even some who proclaim their own uncertainty in order to countenance others in it, is a fact the most painful of all.

Thus the questions about assurance resolve themselves into that of the knowledge of our relationship to God. To an Arminian, who denies election and the perseverance of the saints, the knowledge of our present reconciliation to God might bring with it no assurance of final salvation; for; according to him, we may be in reconciliation today, and out of it tomorrow; but to a Calvinist there can be no such separation. He who is once reconciled is reconciled for ever; and the knowledge of filial relationship just now is the assurance of eternal salvation. Indeed, apart from God's electing love, there can be no such thing as assurance. It becomes an impossibility.

By nature we have no peace; "there is no peace to the wicked." Man craves peace; longs for it. God has made it for us; presents it to us.

Many are the causes of dispeace; sin is the root of all. Where unpardoned sin is, there cannot be peace. Many are the subordinate causes. An empty soul; disappointment; wounded affection; worldly losses; bereavement; vexations, cares, weariness of spirit; broken hopes; deceitful friendships; our own blunders and failures; the misconduct or unkindnesses of others. These produce dispeace; these are the winds that ruffle the surface of life's sea.

Many are the efforts and appliances to obtain peace. Man's whole life is filled up with these. His daily cry is, "Give me peace!" He tries to get it in such ways as the following:-

1. By forgetting God. It is the remembrance of God that troubles a sinner. He could get over many of his disquietudes, if he could keep God at a distance. He tries to thrust Him out of his thoughts, his heart, his mind, his conscience. Though he could succeed, what would it avail? He would only bring himself more surely into the number of those who shall be "turned into hell"; for they are they who "forget God." What will forgetting God do for a soul? What will it avail to thrust Him out of our thoughts?

2. By following the world. The heart must be filled by some one or in some way. Man betakes himself to the world, as that which is most congenial, and most likely to satisfy his cravings. Pleasure, gaiety, business, folly, change, gold, friends,-these man tries; but in vain. Peace comes not.

3. By working hard and denying self. The dispeace of a troubled conscience comes from the thought of evil deeds done, or good deeds left undone. This dispeace he tries to remove by trying to shake off the evil that is in him, and to introduce the good that is not in him. But the hard labor is fruitless. It does not pacify the conscience or assure him of pardon, without which there can be no peace.

4. By being very religious. He does not know that true religion is the fruit or result of peace found, not the way to it, or the price paid for it. He may be on his knees from morn to night, and may make long fastings and vigils, or prosecute his devotional performances till body and soul are worn out; but all will not do. Peace is as far off as ever.

He wants peace; but he takes his own way of getting it, not God's. He thinks there is a resting-place; but he overlooks the free love that said, "Come unto me, and I will give you rest." (2) The peace of the cross, what is it? What does it do for us?

What is it? It is peace of conscience; peace with God; peace with the law of God; peace with the holiness of God. It is reconciliation, friendship, fellowship; and all this in a way which prevents the dread or possibility of future variance, or distance, or condemnation. For it is not simply peace, but the peace of the cross; peace extracted from the cross; peace founded on and derived from what the cross reveals, and what the cross has done. It is peace whose basis is forgiveness, "no condemnation." It is peace which comes from our knowledge of the peace-making work of Calvary. It is true peace; sure peace; present peace; righteous peace; divine peace; heavenly peace; the peace of God; the peace of Christ; complete peace, pervading the whole being.

What does it do for us?

1. It calms our storms. In us tempests rage perpetually. The storms of the unforgiven spirit are the most fearful of all: the whirlwind, earthquake, rushing blast, lightning, raging waves,-these are the emblems of a human heart. But peace comes, and all is still. The great Peacemaker comes, and there is a great calm. The holy pardon which He bestows is the messenger of rest.

2. It removes our burdens. A sinner's heaviest burdens must ever be dread of God, want of conscious reconciliation with Him, uncertainty as to the eternal future. Peace with God is the end of all these. A sight of the cross relieves us of our burdens, and connection with the Sin-bearer assures us that these shall never be laid on us again.

3. It breaks our bonds. Sharp and heavy are the chains of sin; not merely because it is a disease preying upon our spiritual nature, but because it is guilt which must be answered for before a righteous Judge. Unpardoned guilt is both prison and fetters. Forgiveness brings with it peace; and with peace every chain is broken: our prison doors are opened; we walk forth into liberty.

4. It strengthens us for warfare. Without peace we cannot fight. Our hands hang down, and our weapons fall from them. Our courage is gone. So long as God is our enemy, or so long as we know not whether God is our friend, we are disabled men. We are without heart, and without hope. But when reconciliation comes, and God becomes our assured friend, then we are strong; well nerved for battle; fearless in the conflict; full of hope and heart. "If God be for us, who can be against us?"

5. It cheers us in trial. The peace of God within is our chiefest consolation when sorrows crowd in upon us. Lighted up with this true lamp, we are not greatly moved because of the darkness without. Peace with God is our anchor in the storm; our strong tower in adverse times; the soother of our hearts, and the dryer up of our tears. We learn to call affliction light, and to find that it worketh for us an exceeding and eternal weight of glory.

Is my soul at rest? If so, whence has the rest come? If not, why is it not at rest? Is unrest a necessity, after Christ has said, "I will give you rest"?

Am I satisfied with the gospel? Is my heart content with Christ Himself, and my conscience with what He has done? If not content, why? What aileth me at Him and His work? Would I have something added to that work, or something taken from it? Is it not, at this moment, exactly the thing for me; exactly the thing which contains all the peace and rest I need? and am I not, at this moment, exactly the person whom it suits; to whom, without any change or delay, it offers all its fullness?

The propitiation and the righteousness finished on the cross, and there exhibited as well as presented to me freely, are such as entirely meet my case: offering me all that which is fitted to remove dispeace and unrest from heart and conscience; revealing as they do the free love of God to the sinner, and providing for the removal of every hindrance in the way of that love flowing down; proclaiming aloud the rent veil, and the open way, and the gracious welcome, and the plenteous provision, and the everlasting life.

Peace does not save us, yet it is the portion of a saved soul.

Assurance does not save us; and they have erred who have spoken of assurance as indispensable to salvation. For we are not saved by believing in our own salvation, nor by believing anything whatsoever about ourselves. We are saved by what we believe about the Son of God and His righteousness. The gospel believed saves; not the believing in our own faith.

Nevertheless, let us know that assurance was meant to be the portion of every believing sinner. It was intended not merely that he should be saved, but that he should know that he is saved, and so delivered from all fear and bondage, and heaviness of heart.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)What do you think of the doctrine of the Papists, whereby they teach the people to doubt and fear? It is a comfortless doctrine, placing a believer at his departure no higher than an unbeliever" (Heidelberg Catechism). Elsewhere in the same Catechism we have the following quotation: "What comfort have the Papists here? Continual doubting, an unquiet mind, and the wreck of conscience, They say:

Three things there are that trouble my mind:

The first, that I the grave must find;

The second troubleth me more yet,-That I know not the time of it;

The third above all troubleth me,-That whither I must I cannot see. (cont.)

What doth a believer set against this?

Three things there are that cheer my mind:

First, that in Christ I pardon find;

The second cheers me much more yet,-That Christ my Lord for me is fit;

The third above all cheereth me,-That I my place in heaven do see."

(2)"I believe these words on the divine testimony. My conscience bears witness to their truth. It is a good conscience; it agrees with God; and looks upon Him as reconciled perfectly. It fears to dishonor Him, by calling in question the infinite value of Christ's righteousness and atonement, or doubting of their being mine, while they are freely offered to me, while I find my want of them, and have my dependence upon them. Thus the peace of God rules, takes the lead in the conscience, rules always, the offer being always the same, the righteousness and atonement of Jesus always the same, my want of them always the same, and mine interest in them always the same; which I daily learn to maintain by all means, against all corruptions, enemies, and temptations from every quarter."- Old Writer.

Chapter 10

The Holy Life of the Justified

"To him that worketh not, but believeth," says the apostle, speaking of the way in which we are reckoned just before God.

Does he by this speech make light of good works? Does he encourage an unholy walk? Does he use a rash word, which had better been left unspoken?

No, truly. He is laying the foundation of good works. He is removing the great obstacle to a holy life, viz. the bondage of an unforgiven state. He is speaking, by the power of the Holy Ghost, the words of truth and soberness. The difference between working and believing is that which God would have us to learn, lest we confound these two things, and so destroy them both. The order and relation of these two things are here very explicitly laid down, so as to anticipate the error of many who mix up working and believing together, or who make believing the result of working, instead of working the result of believing.

We carefully distinguish, yet we as carefully connect the two. We do not put asunder what God has joined together; yet we would not reverse the divine order, nor disturb the divine relation, nor place that last which God has set first.

It was not to depreciate or discourage good works that the apostle spoke of "not working, but believing"; or of a man being "justified by faith, without the deeds of the law"; or of God "imputing righteousness without works" (Rom 3:28; 4:6). It was to distinguish things that differ; it was to show the true use of faith, in connecting us, for justification, with what another has done; it was to stay us from doing anything in order to be justified. In this view, then, faith is truly a ceasing from work, and not a working; it is not the doing of anything in order to be justified, but the simple reception of the justifying work of Him who "finished transgression and made an end of sin": for THE ONE JUSTIFYING WORK was completed eighteen hundred years ago, and any attempt on our part to repeat or imitate this is vain. The one cross suffices.

Nor was it to undervalue good works that our Lord gave, what many may deem such a singular answer to the question of the Jews, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" "This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent" (John 6:29). They wanted to work their way into the favor of God. The Lord tells them that they may have that favor without waiting or working; by accepting at once His testimony to His only-begotten Son. Till then, they were not in a condition for working. They were as trees without a root; as stars whose motions, however regular, would be useless, if they themselves were unlighted.

To say to a groping, troubled spirit, You must first believe before you can work, is no more to encourage ungodliness or laxity of walk, than to say to an imprisoned soldier, You must first get out of your dungeon before you can fight; or to a swimmer, You must throw off that millstone before you can attempt to swim; or to a racer, You must get quit of these fetters before you can run the race.

Yet these expressions of the apostle have often been shrunk from; dreaded as dangerous; quoted with a guarding clause, or rather cited as seldom as possible, under the secret feeling that, unless greatly diluted or properly qualified, they had better not be cited at all. But why are these bold utterances there, if they are perilous, if they are not meant to be as fearlessly proclaimed now as they were fearlessly written eighteen centuries ago? What did the Holy Spirit mean by promulgation of such "unguarded" statements, as some seem disposed to reckon them? It was not for nothing that they were so boldly spoken. Timid words would not have served the purpose. The glorious gospel needed statements such as these to disentangle the great question of acceptance; to relieve troubled consciences, and purge them from dead works, yet at the same time to give to works their proper place.

Perhaps some of Luther's statements are too unqualified; yet their very strength shows how much he felt the necessity of so speaking of works, as absolutely and peremptorily to exclude them from the office of justifying the sinner. He saw and testified how the Papacy, by mixing the two things together, had troubled and terrified men's consciences, and had truly become a "slaughter-house of souls."

In another's righteousness we stand; and by another's righteousness are we justified. All accusations against us, founded upon our unrighteousness, we answer by pointing to the perfection of the righteousness which covers us from head to foot, and in virtue of which we are unassailable by law, as well as shielded from wrath.

Protected by this perfection, we have no fear of wrath, either now or hereafter. It is a buckler to us, and we cry, "Behold, 0 God, our shield; look upon the face of Thine Anointed"; as if to say, Look not on me, but on my Substitute; deal not with me for sin, but with my Sin-bearer; challenge not me for my guilt, but challenge Him; He will answer for me. Thus we are safe beneath the shield of His righteousness. No arrow, either from the enemy or from conscience, can reach us there.

Covered by this perfection, we are at peace. The enemy cannot invade us; or if he try to do so, we can triumphantly repel him. It is a refuge from the storm, a covert from the tempest, a river of water in a dry place, the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. The work of righteousness is peace; and in the Lord we have righteousness and strength.

Beautified with this perfection, which is the perfection of God, we find favour in His sight. His eye rests on the comeliness which He has put upon us; and as He did at viewing the first creation, so now, in looking at us as clothed with this divine excellency, He pronounces it "very good." He sees "no iniquity in Jacob, and no transgression in Israel." "The iniquity of Jacob may be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found" (Jer 50:20). This righteousness suffices to cover, to comfort, and to beautify.(1)

But there is more than this. We are justified that we may be holy. The possession of this legal righteousness is the beginning of a holy life. We do not live a holy life in order to be justified; but we are justified that we may live a holy life. That which man calls holiness may be found in almost any circumstances,--of dread, or darkness, or bondage, or self-righteous toil and suffering; but that which God calls holiness can only be developed under conditions of liberty and light, and pardon and peace with God. Forgiveness is the mainspring of holiness. Love, as a motive, is far stronger than law; far more influential than fear of wrath or peril of hell. Terror may make a man crouch like a slave and obey a hard master, lest a worse thing come upon him; but only a sense of forgiving love can bring either heart or conscience into that state in which obedience is either pleasant to the soul or acceptable to God.

False ideas of holiness are common, not only among those who profess false religions, but among those who profess the true. For holiness is a thing of which man by nature has no more idea than a blind man has of the beauty of a flower or the light of the sun. All false religions have had their "holy men," whose holiness often consisted merely in the amount of pain they could inflict upon their bodies, or of food which they could abstain from, or of hard labor which they could undergo. But with God, a saint or holy man is a very different being. It is in filial, full-hearted love to God that much of true holiness consists. And this cannot even begin to be until the sinner has found forgiveness and tasted liberty, and has confidence towards God. The spirit of holiness is incompatible with the spirit of bondage. There must be the spirit of liberty, the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. When the fountain of holiness begins to well up in the human heart, and to fill the whole being with its transforming, purifying power, "We have known and believed the love that God has to us" (1 John 4:16) is the first note of the holy song, which, commenced on earth, is to be perpetuated through eternity.

We are bought with a price, that we may be new creatures in Christ Jesus. We are forgiven, that we may be like Him who forgives us. We are set at liberty and brought out of prison, that we may be holy. The free, boundless love of God, pouring itself into us, expands and elevates our whole being; and we serve Him, not in order to win His favour, but because we have already won it in simply believing His record concerning His Son. If the root is holy, so are the branches. We have become connected with the holy root, and by the necessity of this connection are made holy too.

Forgiveness relaxes no law, nor interferes with the highest justice. Human pardons may often do so: God's pardons never.

Forgiveness doubles all our bonds to a holy life; only they are no longer bonds of iron, but of gold. It takes off the heavy yoke, in order to give us the light and easy.

The love of God to us, and our love to God, work together for producing holiness in us. Terror accomplishes no real obedience. Suspense brings forth no fruit unto holiness. Only the certainty of love, forgiving love, can do this. It is this certainty that melts the heart, dissolves our chains, disburdens our shoulders, so that we stand erect, and makes us to run in the way of the divine commandments.

Condemnation is that which binds sin and us together. Forgiveness looses this fearful tie, and separates us from sin. The power of condemnation which the law possesses is that which makes it so strong and terrible. Cancel this power, and the liberated spirit rises into the region of love, and in that region finds both will and strength for the keeping of the law,--a law which is at once old and new: old as to substance ("Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart"); new as to mode and motive. "The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus bath made me free from the law of sin and death" (Rom 8:2); that is, The law of the life-giving spirit which we have in Christ Jesus has severed the condemning connection of that law which leads only to sin and death. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh (i.e. unable to carry out its commandments in our old nature), 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, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit" (Rom 8:3,4).

The removal of condemnation is the dissolution of legal bondage, and of that awful pressure upon the conscience which at once enslaved and irritated; disenabling as well as disinclining us from all obedience; making holiness both distasteful and dreadful, to be submitted to only through fear of future woe.

Sin, when unforgiven, oppresses the conscience and tyrannizes over the sinner. Sin forgiven in an unrighteous way, would be but a slight and uncertain as well as imperfect relief. Sin righteously and judicially forgiven, loses its dominion. The conscience rises up from its long oppression, and expands into joyous liberty. Our whole being becomes bright and buoyant under the benign influence of this forgiving love of God. "The winter is past, the rain is over and gone, the flowers appear on the earth, the time of the singing of birds is come" (Song 2:11,12).

Condemnation is the dark cloud that obscures our heavens. Forgiveness is the sunshine dissolving the cloud, and by its brilliance making all good things to grow and ripen in us.

Condemnation makes sin strike its roots deeper and deeper. No amount of terror can extirpate evil. No fear of wrath can make us holy. No gloomy uncertainty as to God's favour can subdue one lust, or correct our crookedness of will. But the free pardon of the cross uproots sin, and withers all its branches. The "no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus" is the only effectual remedy for the deadly disease of an alienated heart and stubborn will.

The want of forgiveness, or uncertainty as to it, are barriers in the way of the removal of the heart's deep enmity to a righteous God. For enmity will only give way to love; and no suspense, however terrible, will overcome the stout-hearted rebelliousness of man. Threats do not conquer hearts; nor does austerity win either confidence or affection. They who would trust to law to awaken trust, know nothing either of law or love; nor do they understand how the suspicions of the human heart are to be removed, and its confidence won. The knowledge of God simply as Judge or Lawgiver will be of no power to attract, of no avail to remove distrust and dread.

But the message, "God is love," is like the sun bursting through the clouds of a long tempest. The good news, "Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins," is like the opening of the prisoner's dungeon-gate. Bondage departs, and liberty comes. Suspicion is gone, and the heart is won. "Perfect love has cast out fear." We hasten to the embrace of Him who loved us; we hate that which has estranged us; we put away all that caused the distance between us and Him; we long to be like one so perfect, and to partake of His holiness. To be "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), once so distasteful, is henceforth most grateful and pleasant; and nothing seems now so desirable as to escape the corruptions that are in the world through lust.

We undergo many false changes, which look like holiness, but which are not really so. The poison-tree drops its leaves, yet remains the same. The sea of Sodom glistens in the sunshine with surpassing splendor, yet remains salt and bitter as before. Time changes us, yet does not make us holy. The decays of age change us, but do not break the power of evil. One lust expels another; frailty succeeds to frailty; error drives out error; one vanity pails, another comes freshly in its room; one evil habit is exchanged for a second, but our old man remains the same. The cross has not touched us with its regenerating power; the Holy Spirit has not purified the inner sources of our being and life.(2)

Fashion changes us; the example of friends changes us; society changes us; excitement changes us; business changes us; affection changes us; sorrow changes us; dread of coming evil changes us; yet the heart is just what it was. Of the numerous changes in our character or deportment, how many are deceitful, how few are real and deep! Only that which can go down into the very depths of our spiritual being can produce any change that is worthy of the name.

The one spell that can really transform us is THE CROSS. The one potent watchword is, "I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me" (John 12:32). The one physician for all our maladies is He who died for us, and the one remedy which He applies is the blood that cleanseth from all sin. The one arm of power that can draw us out of the horrible pit and the miry clay, is "the Spirit of holiness."

"For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth" (John 17:19). Christ presents Himself as the Holy One, Consecrated One, to God, that His people may partake of His sanctification, and be like Himself, saints, consecrated ones, men set apart for God by the sprinkling of the blood. Through the truth they are sanctified, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

"By one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Heb 10:14); 50 that the perfection of His saints, both as to the conscience and as to personal holiness, is connected with the one offering, and springs out of the one work finished upon Calvary. "By the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb 10:10). Here again the sanctification is connected with the offering of the body of Christ. Whatever place "the power of His resurrection" may hold in our spiritual history, it is the cross that is the source of all that varied fullness by which we are justified and purified. The secret of a believer's holy walk is his continual recurrence to the blood of the Surety, and his daily intercourse with a crucified and risen Lord.

Nowhere does Scripture, either in its statements or doctrines or lives of the saints, teach us that here we get beyond our need of the blood, or may safely cast off the divine raiment that covers our deformity. Even should we say at any time, "I am free from sin," this would be no proof of our being really holy: for the heart is deceitful above all things, and there may be ten thousand sins lurking in us; seen by God, though unseen by ourselves. "I know nothing of myself' says the apostle; i.e. I am not conscious of any failure; "but," he adds, "I am not hereby justified"; i.e. this my own consciousness is no proof of my sinlessness: for "He that judgeth me is the Lord"; and the Lord may condemn me in many things in which I do not condemn myself.

Let me say to one who thinks he has reached sinlessness, "My friend, are you sure that you are perfectly holy? For nothing but absolute certainty should lead you to make so bold an affirmation regarding your freedom from all sin. Are you sure that you love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul? For unless you are absolutely sure of this, you have no right to say, I am perfectly holy; and it will be a perilous thing for you to affirm, I have no longer any need of the blood, and I refuse to go to the fountain for cleansing, seeing my going thither would be mockery. For the cross, the blood, the fountain, are for the imperfect, not for the perfect; for the unrighteous, not for the righteous; and if your self-consciousness is correct, you are no longer among the imperfect or the unrighteous. My friend, do you never sin, in thought, or in word, or in desire, or in deed? Have you never a wandering thought? Is your heart as warm and are your affections as heavenly as you could possibly desire them to be? What! not one stray thought from morn to night, from night to morn? Not one wrong word, nor look, nor tone? What! no coldness, no want of fervor, no flagging of zeal, no momentary indulgence of self and sloth? What! no error (for error is sin), no false judgment, no failure of temper, no improper step, no imperfect plan; nothing to regret, nothing to wish unsaid or undone in the midst of a world like ours, with all its provocations, its crosses, it worries, its oppositions, its heated atmosphere of infectious evil? And art thou sure, quite sure, that all this is the case; and that thy conscience is so perfectly alive, so divinely sensitive, that the faintest expressions of evil in the remotest corner of thy heart would be detected? If so, thou art an extraordinary man, far above him who was less than the least of all saints; above him who said, 'The good that I would, that I do not; and the evil that I would not, that I do'; and one whose history will require to be written by some immortal pen, as that of the man who, after a few years believing, ceased to require any application to the cross, or to be indebted to the blood for cleansing, who could look at altar, and laver, and mercy-seat as one who had no longer any interest in their provisions; nay, as one to whom a crucified Christ was a thing of the past, of whom he had now no need as a Sin-bearer; or High Priest, or Advocate, or Intercessor, but only as a companion and friend."

God's processes are not always rapid. His greatest works rise slowly. Swiftness of growth has been one of man's tests of greatness; not so is it with God. His trees grow slowly; the stateliest are the slowest. His flowers grow slowly; the brightest are the slowest. His creatures grow slowly, year by year; man, the noblest, grows the most slowly of all. God can afford to take His time. Man cannot. He is hasty and impatient. He will have everything to be like Jonah's gourd, or like one of those fabled oriental palaces, which magicians are said to call up by a word or a stamp, out of the sand. He forgets how slowly the palm tree and the cedar grow. They neither spring up in a night nor perish in a night. He forgets the history of the temple: "Forty and six years was this temple in building." He insists that, because it is God's purpose that His saints should be holy, therefore they ought to be holy at once.

It is true that our standard is, and must be, perfection. For our model is the Perfect One. But the question is, Has God in Scripture anywhere led us to expect the rapidity of growth, the quick development of perfection in which some glory, and because of the confessed lack of which in others they look down on these others as babes or loiterers?

Is there in Scripture any instance of a perfect man, excepting Him who was always and absolutely without sin? If Christians were perfect, where is the warfare, and the adversary, and the sword, and the shield? Are angels exposed to this warfare when they visit earth? Or is it not our imperfection that in great measure produces this? And are we anywhere in Scripture led to believe that we are delivered from "the body of this death," from the battle of flesh and spirit, from the wrestling with principalities and powers, till death sets us free, or our Lord shall come?

Yet we are called with a holy calling (2 Tim 1:9); and as so called, are bound to take the highest standard for our model of life. The slowness or swiftness of the progress does not alter the standard, nor affect our aiming at conformity to it.

This progress, rapid or gradual, springs from the forgiveness we have received, and the new life imparted by the Holy Spirit. Our life is to be fruit-bearing; and the fruitfulness comes from our ascertained acceptance, our being "rooted and grounded in love." We taste and see that the Lord is good; that in His favour is life; that the joy of the Lord is our strength; and so we move on and up, rising from one level to another. "We know and believe the love that God hath to us"; and we find in this the source of goodness, no less than of gladness and liberty.

The life of the justified should be a peaceful one. Being justified by faith, we have peace with God,--the God of peace, and the God of all grace. The world's storms have not been stilled, nor our way smoothed, nor our skies brightened, nor our enemies swept away; but the peace of God has come in and taken possession of the soul. We are cheered and comforted. God is for us, and who can be against us? The name of the Lord is our strong tower; we run into it, and are safe. No evil can happen to us; no weapon that is formed against us can prosper.

The life of the justified should be a holy one, all the more because of the extent of previous unholiness. "And 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" (1 Cor 6:11). All that these marvelous and mysterious words "holy" and "holiness" imply, is to be found in the life of one who has been "much forgiven." There is no spring of holiness so powerful as that which our Lord assumes: "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more" (John 8:11). Free and warm reception into the divine favour is the strongest of all motives in leading a man to seek conformity to Him who has thus freely forgiven him all trespasses. A cold admission into the paternal house by the father might have repelled the prodigal, and sent him back to his lusts; but the fervent kiss, the dear embrace, the best robe, the ring, the shoes, the fatted calf, the festal song,--all without one moment's suspense or delay, as well as without one upbraiding word, could not but awaken shame for the past, and true-hearted resolution to walk worthy of such a father, and of such a generous pardon. "Revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries," come to the abhorrence of him round whom the holy arms of renewed fatherhood have been so lovingly thrown. Sensuality, luxury, and the gaieties of the flesh have lost their relish to one who has tasted the fruit of the tree of life.

The life of the justified should be a loving one. It is love that has made him what he is, and shall he not love in return? Shall he not love Him that begat, and him also that is begotten of Him? The deep true spring of love is thus revealed to us by the Lord Himself: "A certain creditor had two debtors; the one owed five hundred pence, the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, HE FRANKLY FORGAVE THEM BOTH. Tell me therefore, which of them will LOVE him most?" (Luke 7:41,42). Thus love produces love. The life of one on whom the fullness of the free love of God is ever shining must be a life of love. Suspense, doubt, terror, darkness, must straiten and freeze; but the certainty of free and immediate love dissolves the ice, and kindles the coldest spirit into the warmth of love. "We love Him because He first loved us." Love to God, love to the brethren, love to the world, spring up within us as the heavenly love flows in. Malevolence, anger, envy, jealously, receive their death-blow. The nails of the cross have gone through all these, and their deadly wound cannot be healed. They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with its affections and lusts. Sternness, coldness, distance, depart; and are succeeded by gentleness, mildness, guilelessness, meekness, ardor, long-suffering. The tempers of the old man quit us, we know not how; and in their place comes the "charity which suffereth long, and is kind, which envieth not, which vaunteth not itself, which is not puffed up, which doth not behave itself unseemly, which seeketh not her own, which is not easily provoked, which thinketh no evil, which rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth, which beareth all things, which believeth all things, which never faileth" (1 Cor 13:4-8). Gentle and loving and simple should be the life of the justified; meek and lowly should they be, who have been loved with such a love.

The life of the justified should be an earnest one. For everything connected with his acceptance has been earnest on the part of God; and the free forgiveness on which he has entered, in believing, nerves, and cheers, and animates. It is a spring of courage, and hardihood, and perseverance. It makes the coward brave; it says to the weak, Be strong; to the indolent, Arise; making the forgiving man ready to face danger, and toil, and loss; arming him with a new-found energy, and crowning him with sure success. "Ready to spend and be spent" is his motto now. "I am debtor" is his watch-word , debtor first of all to Him who forgave me; after that, to the church of God, redeemed with the same blood, and filled with the same Spirit; and then after that to the world around, still sunk in sin and struggling with a thousand sorrows, under which it has no comforter, and of whose termination it has no hope. How thoroughly in earnest should be the life of one thus pardoned,--pardoned so freely, yet at such a cost to Him who "gave His life a ransom for many!"

The life of the justified should be a generous one. All connected with his justification has been boundless generosity on the part of God. He spared not His own Son, and will He not with Him also freely give us all things? The love of God has been of the largest, freest kind; and shall this not make us generous? The gifts of God have been all of them on the most unlimited scale; and shall not this boundless liberality make us liberal in the highest and truest sense? Can a justified man be covetous, or slow to part with his gold? God has given His Son; He has given His Spirit; He has given us eternal life; He has given us an everlasting kingdom. And shall these gifts not tell upon us? shall they not expand and elevate us? or shall they leave us narrow and shriveled as before? Surely we are called to a noble life; a life far above the common walk of humanity; a life far above that of those who, disbelieving the liberality of God, are trying to merit His favour, or to purchase His kingdom by moral goodnesses or ceremonial performances of their own. Not unselfish merely, but self-denying men, we are called to be; not self-pleasers, nor man-pleasers, nor flesh-pleasers, nor world-pleasers; but pleasers of God, like Enoch (Heb 11:5), or like a greater than Enoch, as it is written, "Even Christ pleased not Himself" (Rom 15:3). "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and NOT TO PLEASE OURSELVES; let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification," i.e. to the edification or building up of the body of Christ (Rom 15:2). Selfishness, self-love, self-seeking, have been in all ages the scandal of the church of God. "All seek their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's" (Phil 2:21), was the sad testimony of the apostle to the Philippian church, even in early days: so little had God's marvelous love told even upon those who believed it; so obstinate was the contraction of the human heart, and so unwilling to yield to the enlarging pressure of an influence which men in common things deem irresistible. To love warmly, to give largely, to sympathize sincerely, to help unselfishly; these are some of the noble fruits to be expected from the belief of a love that passeth knowledge. Self-sacrifice ought not to seem much to those for whom Christ has died, and whom He now represents upon the throne. Generous deeds and gifts and words ought to be as natural as they are becoming in those who have been so freely loved, so abundantly pardoned, and so eternally blest. Narrow hearts are the fruits of a narrow pardon, and of an uncertain favour; poor gifts are the produce of stinted and grudging giving; but large-heartedness and open-handedness may surely be looked for from those whom the boundless liberality of God has made partakers of the unsearchable riches of Christ, and heirs of the kingdom which can not be moved.

The life of the justified should be a lofty one. Littleness, and meanness, and earthliness, do not become the pardoned. They must mount up on wings as eagles, setting their affection on things above. Having died with Christ and risen with Him, they sit with Him in heavenly places (Eph 2:6). In the world, and yet not of it, they rise above it; possessed of a heavenly citizenship (Phil 3:20), and expecting an unearthly recompense at the return of Him who has gone to prepare a place for them. High thoughts, high aims, high longings, become them of whom Christ was not merely the substitute upon the cross, but the representative upon the throne,--the forerunner, who has entered within the veil, and ever liveth to intercede for us. Shall he who has been freely justified grovel in the dust, or creep along the polluted soil of earth? Shall such a justification as he has received not be the source of superhuman elevation of character, making him unworldly in his hopes, in his tastes, in his works, in the discharge of his daily calling? Shall not such a justification act upon his whole being, and pervade his life; making him a thoroughly consistent man in all things; each part of his course becoming his name and prospects; and his whole man symmetrical, his whole Christianity harmonious?

The life of the justified is a decided one. It does not oscillate between goodness and evil, between Christ and the world. The justifying cross has come between him and all evil things; and that which released him from the burden of guilt has, in so doing, broken the bondage of sin. Even if at any time he feels as if he could return to that country from which he set out, the cross stands in front, and arrests his backward step. Between him and Egypt rolls the Red Sea, now flowing in its strength, so that he cannot pass. At the door of the theatre, or the ballroom, or the revel-hall, stands the cross, and forbids his entrance. The world is crucified to him, and he unto the world, by the saving cross. His first look to the cross committed him. He began, and he cannot go back. It would be mean as well as perilous to do so. There is henceforth to be no mistake about him. His heart is no longer divided, and his eye no longer roams. He has taken up the cross, and he is following the Lamb. He has gone in at the strait gate, and is walking along the narrow way; and at the entrance thereof stands the cross barring his return. Over his entrance there was joy in heaven; and shall he at any time turn that joy into sorrow by even seeming to go back?

The life of the justified is a useful one. He has become a witness for Him who has thrown over him the shadow of His cross. He can tell what the bitterness of sin is, and what is the burden of guilt. He can speak of the rolling away of the stone from the sepulchre of his once dead soul, and of the angel sitting on that stone clothed in light. He can make known the righteousness which he has found, and in finding which he has been brought into liberty and gladness. Out of the abundance of his heart, and in the fullness of his liberated spirit, his mouth speaketh. He cannot but speak of the things which he now possesses, that he may induce others to come and share the fullness. He is bent on doing good. He has no hours to throw away. He knows that the time is short, and he resolves to redeem it. He will not waste a life that has been redeemed at such a cost. It is not his own, and he must keep in mind the daily responsibilities of a life thus bought for another. As one of the world's lights, in the absence of the true light, he must be always shining, to lessen in some degree the darkness of earth, and to kindle heavenly light in souls who are now excluding it. As one of the sowers of the heavenly seed, he must never be idle, but watching opportunities,--making opportunities for sowing it as he goes out and in; it may be in weakness, it may be in tears.

The life of the justified is the life of wisdom and truth. He has become "wise in Christ"; nay, "Christ has been made unto him wisdom" as well as righteousness. It is thus that he has become "wise unto salvation," and he feels that he must hold fast the truth that saves. To trifle with that truth, to tamper with error, would be to deny the cross. He by whom he is justified is Himself THE TRUTH, and every man who receives that truth becomes a witness for it. By THE TRUTH he is saved; by THE TRUTH he is made free; by THE TRUTH he is made clean; by THE TRUTH he is sanctified; and therefore it is precious to him, every jot and tittle. Each fragment broken off is so much lost to his spiritual well-being; and each new discovery made in the rich field of truth is so much eternal gain. He has bought the truth, and he will not sell it. It is his life; it is his heritage; it is his kingdom. He counts all truth precious, and all error hateful. He dreads the unbelief that is undermining the foundations of truth, and turning its spacious palaces into the chaos of human speculations. He calls no truth obsolete or out of date; for he knows that the truths on which he rests for eternity are the oldest of old, and yet the surest of sure. To introduce doubt as to the one sacrifice on which he builds, is to shake the cross of Calvary. To lay another foundation than that already laid, is to destroy his one hope. To take the sacrificial element out of the blood, is to make peace with God impossible, because unrighteous. To substitute the church for Christ, or the priest for the herald of pardon, or the rite for the precious blood, or the sacrament for the living Christ upon the throne, or the teachings of the church for the enlightenment of the Holy Ghost,--this is to turn light into darkness, and then to call that darkness light. Thus taught by that Spirit who has led him to the cross, the justified man knows how to discern truth from error. He has the unction from the Holy One, and knows all things (1 John 2:20); he has the anointing which is truth, and is no lie (1 John 2:27); and he can try the spirits, whether they are of God (1 John 4.1).

Want of sensitiveness to the difference between truth and error is one of the evil features of modern Protestantism. Sounding words, well-executed pictures, pretentious logic, carry away multitudes. The distinction between Gospel and no Gospel is very decided and very momentous; yet many will come away from a sermon in which the free gospel has been overlaid, not sensible of the want, and praising the preacher. The conversions of recent years have not the depth of other days. Consciences are half-awakened and half-pacified; the wound is slightly laid open, and slightly healed. Hence the want of spiritual discernment as to truth and error. The conscience is not sensitive, else it would at once refuse and resent any statement, however well argued or painted, which encroached in the slightest degree upon the free gospel of God's love in Christ; which interposed any obstacle between the sinner and the cross; or which merely declaimed about the cross, without telling us especially how it saves and how it purifies. We need sensitive but not morbid consciences to keep us steadfast in the faith, to preserve our spiritual eyesight unimpaired, remembering the apostle's words, "He that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off and bath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins" (2 Pet 1:9). Censoriousness is one thing, and spiritual discernment is quite another. To avoid the first we do not need to give up the second: though the "liberality" of modern times would recommend us to be charitable to error, and not very tenacious of any Bible truth, seeing that nothing in an age of culture can be received but that which has been pronounced credible by philosophy or science, and which the "verifying faculty" has adjudged to be true!

The life of the justified must be one of praise and prayer. His justification has drawn him near to God. It has opened his lips and enlarged his heart. He cannot but praise; he cannot but pray. He has ten thousand things to ask for; he has ten thousand things for which to give thanks. He knows what it is to speak in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in his heart to the Lord (Col 3:16).

The life of the justified is one of watchfulness. Forgiveness has altered all his circumstances and hopes. It has brought him into a new world, from which are shut out things he was formerly familiar with, and into which are introduced things which he knew not. He sees and hears what he never saw nor heard before; and he ceases to see and hear what but lately he delighted in. He expects changes, and wishes that they were come. The present has become less to him, the future more; and in that future the one absorbing object is the reappearing of Him, whom not having seen he loves. That the future should be a mere repetition of the present,--with a few scientific and political improvements,--is quite enough for the worldly man. But the man who, by his new connection with the cross, has been transported into a new region, is not content that it should be so. He wants a better future, and a more congenial world; he desires a state of things in which the new object of his love shall be all. And learning from Scripture that such a new condition of things is to be expected, and that of that new state Christ is Himself to be the first and last, he looks eagerly out for the fulfillment of these hopes. Learning, moreover, that the arrival of this King and of His kingdom is to be sudden, he is led to wait and watch; all the more because everything here, in the world's daily history of change, and noise and revelry, is fitted to throw him off his guard. His justification does not lull him asleep. His faith does not make him heedless of the future. It is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. It says, Let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober: watch, for ye know neither the day nor the hour when the Son of man cometh. Many a trial of her watchfulness has the church had, many a disappointment has her faith sustained; but she does not despond nor give way, remembering the promise, "He that shall come will come, and will not tarry." Her faith keeps up her vigilance, and her vigilance invigorates her faith. In the darkest hour faith says, "I am my Beloved's, and my Beloved is mine"; and hope adds, "Make haste, my beloved, and be thou like to a roe or a young hart upon the mountains of spices."

The church watches because of present evil, and coming good; that she may be kept undefiled from the one, and may attain unto the other. Danger from enemies, and the prospect of speedy victory over them, keep her awake. Fear of losing sight of the cross, and so again walking in darkness; suspicion both of the good and the evil things of earth,--its flatteries and its menaces, it toils, its cares, its amusements, its pleasures; anxiety about keeping her garments unspotted and her conscience clean; the sight of the sleeping millions around, and the knowledge that it is upon a sleeping world that the Lord is to come;--these things act powerfully as stimulants, and bid her be watchful. To be among the foolish virgins, without oil and with a dying lamp, when the midnight cry goes forth; to be near the door, and yet shut out; to hear the announcement, "The marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife hath made herself ready," and yet not be ready; to be summoned to the festival, and yet to be without the bridal and festal dress; to love, and then to fall from love; to draw the sword, and then in faint-heartedness to sheath it; to run well for a while, and then to slacken speed; to war against Satan as the prince of darkness, and yield to him as an angel of light; to set out with condemning the world, and then to mingle with it; to cleave like Demas to the saints, and then to forsake them; to be among the twelve for a season, then to be a traitor at the last; to be lifted up, like Capernaum, to heaven, and then to be thrust down to hell; to be among the sons of light, and then to fall from heaven like Lucifer, son of the morning; to sit down in the upper chamber with the Lord, and then to betray the Son of man with a kiss; to put on a goodly garment of fair profession, and then to walk naked in shame;--these are the solemn thoughts that crowd in upon the justified man, and keep him watchful.

They who know not what it is to be "accepted in the Beloved," and to "rejoice in hope of the glory of God," may fall asleep. He dare not; he knows what he is risking, and what one hour of slumber may cost him; and he must be wakeful. He does not make election his opiate, and say, I am safe; but this only makes me doubly vigilant, that I may not dishonor Him who has saved me; and even though I may not finally fall away, I know not how much I may lose by one day's slothfulness, or how much I may gain by maintaining that watchful attitude to which, as the expectant of an absent Lord, I am called, "Blessed is he that watcheth"; and even though I could not see the reason for this, I will act upon it, that I may realize the promised blessedness. He who has called me to vigilance can make me a partaker of its joy. He can make my watch-tower, lonely and dark as it may seem, none other than the house of God, and the very gate of heaven.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Every time we say "for Thy name's" sake, or for Christ's sake, we are making use of another's claim, another's merit, and conceding or accepting the whole doctrine of imputed righteousness. Every man is daily getting, in some way or other, what he personally has no title to. When a son gets an inheritance from his father, he gets what does not belong to him, and what could easily and legally be diverted from him. When one who is not a son gets an estate by will, he gets what he has no claim to, simply by a legal deed. Human jurisprudence recognizes these transferences as competent and proper, not fictitious or absurd. Man daily acts on these principles of getting what he has no right to, simply because a fellow-man wills it, and law acknowledges that will. Why then should he speak of fictitious transferences in spiritual blessings, proceeding on precisely the same principle? why should he deny the law or process of the divine jurisprudence, by which forgiveness of sins is conferred on him according to the will of another, and secured to him by the claims of another? If earthly law deals thus with him in earthly things, why should not heavenly law deal thus with him in heavenly things?

(2)All divine life, and all the precious fruits of it, pardon, peace, and holiness, spring from the cross.... Holiness as well as pardon is to be had from the blood of the cross.... All fancied sanctification which does not arise wholly from the blood of the cross is nothing better than Pharisaism.... If we would be holy, we must get to the cross, and dwell there; else, notwithstanding all our labor and diligence, and fasting, and praying, and good works, we shall be yet void of real sanctification, destitute of those humble, gracious tempers which accompany a clear view of the cross." --BERRIDGE'S Letters.

OF GRACE, AS IT REIGNS IN OUR JUSTIFICATION

by Abraham Booth

THE doctrine of justification makes a very distinguished figure in that religion which is from above, and is a capital article of that faith which was once delivered to the saints. Far from being a merely speculative point, it spreads its influence through the whole body of divinity, runs through all Christian experience, and operates in every part of practical godliness. Such is its grand importance, that a mistake about it has a malignant efficacy, acid is attended with a long train of dangerous consequences. Nor can this appear strange, when it is considered, that this doctrine of justification is no other than the way of a sinner's acceptance with God. Being of such peculiar moment, it is inseparably connected with many other evangelical truths, the harmony and beauty of which we cannot behold, while this is misunderstood. Till this appears in its glory, they will be involved in darkness. It is, if any thing may be so called, a fundamental article; and certainly requires our most serious consideration.*

*Let it be carefully observed by the reader, that though I here treat upon justification as distinct from pardon, yet I am fully persuaded that they are blessings which cannot be separated. For he who is also pardoned is justified, and he who is justified is also pardoned. It is readily allowed that there is, in various respects, a great resemblance between the two blessings. They are both gifts of grace; both vouchsafed to the same person, at the same time; and both are communicated through the mediation of Christ. Notwithstanding which agreement, the signification of the terms, and the nature of the blessings intended by them are so far different as to lay a sufficient foundation for distinguishing between the one and the other. I would just hint at a few things in confirmation of this. When a Parson is pardoned, he is considered as a transgressor; but when he is justified, he is considered as righteous. A criminal when pardoned, is freed from obligation to suffer death for his crimes; but he that is justified is declared worthy of life, as an innocent person. Wisdom is said to be justified; Christ is said to be justified; nay, God himself is said to be justified. Matt. xi. 19. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Luke vii. 29. Rom. iii 4. But neither God, nor Christ, nor Wisdom, is ever said to be Pardoned; nor indeed is it possible, in any sense, that they should be forgiven. Though we may, therefore, with the Scripture affirm that they are justified, we cannot without absurdity, or blasphemy, say they are pardoned. This one consideration, I humbly conceive, is an irrefragable proof, that there is a real, an important difference between justification and pardon. To which I may add, Paul treats upon them as distinct blessings, in Acts 13:38, 39.

How shall sinful man be just with God? is a question of the most interesting nature to every child of Adam. A question which, notwithstanding its infinite importance, could never have been resolved by all the reason of men, nor by all the penetration of angels, if the Lord of heaven and earth had not exercised and manifested reigning grace, toward his disobedient and rebellious creatures. But, with the Bible in his hand, and the gospel in view, the mere infant in religious knowledge and in Christian experience is at no loss for an answer; for the wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err therein. Nay, such is the pleasure of God, that he frequently reveals this truth in its glory, to those who are esteemed fools by the haughty sons of science, that no flesh might have the least ground of boasting.

Justification is a forensic term, and signifies the declaring, or the pronouncing a person righteous according to law. Justification is not the making a person righteous, by a real, inherent change from sin to holiness, in which the nature of sanctification consists; but it is the act of a judge, pronouncing the partly acquitted from all judicial charges. That the blessing of which we speak does not consist in a real change from sin to hellness, will further appear from considering, that justification is diametrically opposite to condemnation. Now the sentence of condemnation is never supposed to make the person criminal on whom it is pronounced. There is no infusion of evil qualities into the culprit's mind; nor is he made guilty, either in the eye of the public, or in his own estimation. But being arraigned as a criminal, and proved guilty of a capital offence, according to the tenor of that law by which he is tried, he is esteemed worthy of death, and condemned accordingly. So, in justification; the subject of it is pronounced righteous in the eye of the law, is deemed worthy to live, and his right to life is declared. Hence that justification of which the Scripture speaks, and is now the subject of our inquiry, is called the justification of life. (Rom. 5:18) That the words justify, justified, and justification are used by the sacred writers in a forensic sense, and as opposed to the words condemn, condemned, and condemnation, is manifest to every attentive reader.*

* To this purpose the following texts, instead of many more, may be consulted. Exod. 23:7. Deut. 25:2. I Kings 8:31, .32. Job 13:18; and 27:5. Prov. 17:15. Matt. 11:19, and 12:37. Luke vii. 29. Rom. 2:13; and 3:4; and 8:30. 33, 34.

Justification, in a theological sense, is either legal or evangelical. If any person could be found that has never broken the divine law, he might be justified by it, in a manner strictly legal. But in this way none of the human race can be justified, or stand acquitted before God For all have sinned; there is none righteous, no, not one. The whole world, having transgressed, are guilty before the eternal Judge, and under the sentence of death by his righteous law. On this ground, every offender is excluded from all hope, and abandoned to utter destruction. For as an obedience absolutely perfect is the only righteousness which the law can accept, so punishment inconceivable, or death eternal, is the least penalty it will inflict, on those that fall under its curse. That justification, therefore, about which the Scriptures principally treat, and which reaches the case of a sinner, is not by a personal, but an imputed righteousness; a righteousness without the law. (Rom. 3:21) provided by grace and revealed in the gospel: for which reason, that obedience by which a sinner is justified, and his justification itself, are called evangelical. In this affair, there is the most wonderful display of Divine justice, and of boundless grace. Of Divine justice, if we regard the meritorious cause and ground on which the justifier proceeds, in absolving the condemned sinner, and in pronouncing him righteous. Of boundless grace, if we consider the state and character of those persons to whom the blessing is granted.

Justification may be further distinguished, as being either at the bar of God, and in the court of conscience, or in the sight of the world, and before our fellow-creatures. The former is by mere grace, through faith, and the latter is by works. It is the former of these I shall now consider, which may be thus defined; Justification is a judicial, but gracious act of God, by which a sinner is absolved from the guilt of sin, is freed from condemnation, and has a right to eternal life adjudged, merely for the sake of our Lord's obedience, which is imputed to him, and received by faith.

To justify, is evidently a divine prerogative. It is God that justifieth. That Sovereign Being against whom we have so greatly offended, whose law we have broken by ten thousand acts of rebellion against him, has, in the way of his own appointment, the sole right of acquitting the guilty, and of pronouncing them righteous. Jehovah, whose judgment is always according to truth, is the Justifier of all that believe in Jesus. Here grace reigns. For the infinitely wise God appoints the way; the righteous and merciful God provides the means, and (let the sacred name be repeatedly mentioned with profound reverence) the God of all grace imputes the righteousness and pronounces the sinner acquitted, in perfect agreement with the demands of his violated law, and the rights of his offended justice.

What is here, as well as in several passages of Scripture, affirmed concerning God, considered essentially, is, in some places of the infallible word, more particularly appropriated personally to the Father. It is manifest, however, that all the three divine Persons are concerned in this grand affair, and each performs a distinct part in this particular, as also in the whole economy of salvation. The eternal Father is represented as appointing the way, and as giving his own Son to perform the conditions of our acceptance before him. The Divine Son, as engaging to sustain the curse, and make the atonement, to fulfil the terms, and provide the righteousness by which we are justified. And the Holy Spirit, as revealing to sinners the perfection, suitableness, and freeness of the Saviour's work; enabling them to receive it, as exhibited in the gospel of sovereign grace, and testifying to their consciences complete justification by it in the court of heaven. Thus the triune God justifies. And may we not ask, in the triumphant language of Paul, Who shall condemn? If Jehovah pronounce the sinner acquitted, who, in earth or hell, shall reverse the sentence? If the Most High entirely justify, who shall bring in a second charge? There is no higher court to which any appeal can be made. There is no superior tribunal at which a complaint can be lodged, against any of those happy souls whose invaluable privilege it is to be justified by the eternal God. When he acquits in judgment, he absolves from all guilt, he accepts as completely righteous; otherwise, a person, immediately after he is justified, must be supposed to stand in need of a further justification, which is highly absurd. This divine sentence shall never be made void, by any unworthiness of him on whom it is passed, nor by the accusations of Satan: but shall stand, firmer than the everlasting hills; unshaken as the throne of God. This sentence – (let my reader dwell on the ravishing truth, let his very soul feast on the precious doctrine) – this sentence, being the justification of life, is pregnant with all the blessings of the everlasting covenant; with all the felicity of the world of glory.

Superlatively great, glorious, and divine, is the blessing of justification. Most ardently to be sought, most thankfully to be enjoyed. Can any one, conscious of possessing it, cease to exult in God his Justifier, who, by being so, is also the God of his praise? Or, who that is convinced of his guilty, condemned condition, can cease to pray and most earnestly to long for it? O, sinner! are you insensible to the worth of this blessing, and supinely negligent about it? be assured, then, that you are in your sins, and under condemnation. The justification of which we treat is far from you. And what, if you should never be justified? What, if your affronted Sovereign should swear in his wrath, that he will never forgive, never accept you; but that you shall die under the curse already passed upon you? In such a cast, though awful beyond conception, what could you have to object? You have trampled his authority under your feet, and cherished a spirit of the most malignant enmity against him. Your conscience testifies, that you have neither obeyed his law, nor loved his gospel; that you have had little concern whether he was pleased or offended, so that you could but gratify your impetuous lusts, and obtain your sordid purposes. You have, it may be, never considered the death of the Son of God as worthy of your serious notice; though it is the greatest and most wonderful event that ever took place in the universe, and the only thing that can save you from final condemnation. Remember, thoughtless reader! that you have a cause to be tried at the bar of God, and before Jehovah your Judge, which involves your all. An eternal hell to be suffered, or an eternal heaven to be enjoyed, will be the awful or the glorious consequence of being cast or acquitted in judgment. Can you rest, then, can you take any comfort, while entirely ignorant whether the Judge immortal will absolve or condemn you? Consider the ground on which you stand, and the reason of that hope which is in you. A mistake about the way of acceptance with God will be attended with the utmost danger; such danger that, where it is final, inevitable and eternal ruin must be the consequence. May the God of grace and the Father of fights awaken the sleepy consciences of the inconsiderate, into an earnest solicitude about it! and may he direct the steps of such as are anxiously inquiring, How shall a man be just with God?

The persons to whom the wonderful favour is granted, are sinners and ungodly. For thus runs the Divine declaration, To him that worketh is the reward of justification, and of eternal life as connected with it, not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth – whom? the righteous? the holy! the eminently pious! Nay, verily, but the UNGODLY; his faith, or that in which he believes, is counted unto him for righteousness. From this remarkable text we learn, that the subjects of justification, considered in themselves, are not only destitute of a perfect righteousness, but have performed no good works at all. Nor are they only described as having performed no good works, but also as being entirely destitute of every heavenly quality and righteous disposition. They are denominated and considered as ungodly when the blessing is bestowed upon them. The mere sinner, the ungodly person, he that worketh not, is the subject on whom grace is magnified; toward whom grace reigns in justification. Thus it is written in those sacred canons of our faith and practice which are unalterable.

Before I dismiss this important passage, I will present my reader with the thoughts of Dr. Owen upon it. "To say, he who worketh not, is justified through believing, is to say, that his works, whatever they be, have no influence in his justification; nor hath God, in justifying him, any respect unto them. Wherefore he alone who worketh not, is the subject of justification, the person to be justified. That is, God considereth no man's works, no man's duties of obedience, in his justification; seeing we are justified freely, by his grace. And when God affirmeth expressly, that he justifieth him who worketh 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 to such express divine testimonies; however they may be harnessed with philosophical notions and arguings, which are but the thorns and briers which the word of God will pass through and consume. But the apostle further adds, in the description of the subject of justification, that God justifieth the ungodly. This is that expression which hath stirred up so much wrath among 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 justifieth the ungodly, he is presently 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 justifieth the ungodly? Howbeit this is a periphrasis of God, that he is he who justifieth the ungodly. This is his prerogative and property: as such he will be believed and worshiped, 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 such 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 justifieth the ungodly; for the contradictory proposition is true, God justifieth none but the godly. Wherefore, although in and with the justification of a sinner he is made godly; (for he is endowed with that faith which purifieth 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 his justification, he is ungodly and considered as ungodly; as one that worketh not; as one whose duties and obedience contribute nothing to his justification. As he worketh not, all works are excluded from being the cause; and, as he is ungodly, from being the condition of his justification!" (On justification, Chapter 8)

That the mere sinner is the subject of justification, appears from hence. The Spirit of God speaking in the Scripture repeatedly declares, that we are justified by grace. But grace, as already observed, stands in direct opposition to works; all works and worthiness of every kind and of every degree. Whoever therefore is justified by grace, is considered as absolutely unworthy, in that very instant when the glorious blessing is vouchsafed to him. This momentous truth is yet more strongly expressed in the following emphatical words: Being justified freely by his grace. (Rom 3:24) Freely by grace. If these words do not prove that justification is entirely free, without the least regard to any supposed holy qualities in the sinner, or any good works performed by him, antecedent to his being possessed of the unspeakable favour; I think it is impossible to express any such thing. The most fruitful invention would be at a loss to contrive a form of words better adapted to express the communication of any benefit in a way of mere favour. This text informs us that, in regard to God, justification is an act of pure, unmixed grace; exclusive of all good works, and absolutely independent on any such thing as human worthiness: and, in respect of us, that it is entirely without cause; for so the adverb in the original signifies. The word freely, does not so immediately respect, either the blessing itself, or the giver, as it does the state and character of the persons to whom the inestimable blessing is granted. It denotes that there is no cause in them, why they should be thus treated by a righteous God. In this sense the original word is used and translated in tile following passage: They hated me without a cause. (John 15:25. Ps. 35:19. Ps. lxix. 4 Spetuag.) Was the holy Jesus hated, by the malevolent Jews, without the least cause in himself? certainly: to assert the contrary would be a contradiction of the sacred text, and blasphemy against the Son of God. The person, therefore, that is justified freely by grace, is accepted without any cause in himself. Nothing in him, or about him, is considered by the sovereign Dispenser of every favour, when he bestows the blessing, as preparing or qualifying for it.

Hence it appears, that if we regarded the persons who are justified, and their state, prior to the enjoyment of this immensely glorious privilege; Divine grace appears and reigns in all its glory: there being no conditions, or prerequisites, no terms to be fulfilled, or good qualities to be obtained, either with or without the Divine assistance, in order to a full discharge before the eternal Judge. Justification is a blessing of pure grace, as well as transcendently excellent. So the true believer esteems it, and as such rejoices in it. In this, as in every other part of his salvation, he is willing to be nothing, less than nothing; that grace may reign, that grace may be all in all.

The various facts and testimonies produced from sacred writ, when treating about the freeness of pardon, equally prove the point under consideration: and might, with many others, be adduced and pleaded on this occasion. For he that is pardoned is justified; and he that is justified is pardoned, as before observed. Consequently, if our pardon be free, our justification cannot be conditional. But, to avoid prolixity, I shall not further enlarge in proof of the glorious truth; only would just observe, that so great a blessing, yet absolutely free; so Divine a favour, yet not suspended on any condition to be performed by the sinner, discovers astonishing grace. This must silence the fears and raise the hopes of the guilty, the accursed, the self-condemned. And may their hopes be raised by such a consideration; and also by beholding the glory of that infinite Being, whose honour and sovereign prerogative it is, to be inviolably just, yet the Justifier of the ungodly.

Having considered the antecedent state of the person whom God justifies, and the freeness with which the important blessing is bestowed upon him; the way appointed in the eternal counsels and revealed in the everlasting gospel, in which the condemned criminal may be honourably acquitted before the Divine tribunal, and accepted as righteous, now demands our attentive regard. Here we behold immaculate holiness and strict justice harmonizing with tenderest mercy and freest favour. Nor can it be otherwise. The Judge of all the earth must do right He can acquit none without a complete righteousness. For to justify a person, and judicially to pronounce him righteous, are the same thing. Justification is evidently a forensic term, and the thing intended by it a judicial act So that were a person to be justified without a righteousness, the judgment would not be according to truth; it would be a false and unrighteous sentence.

That righteousness by which we are justified must be perfect; must be equal to the demands of that law, according to which the sovereign Judge proceeds in our justification. Every judge, it is evident, must have some rule by which to proceed in his judicial capacity. This rule is the law. To talk of passing judgment, without having any regard to law, is absurd, and involves a contradiction. For, to judge, is nothing else but to determine whether the object of judgment be according to rule. A judge first considers what is fact, and then, comparing the fact with the rule of action, he pronounces it right or wrong, and approves or condemns the performer of it. An imperfect obedience, therefore, before a judge, is not righteousness: For, in this case, righteousness is no other than a complete conformity to that law which is the rule of our conduct. To accept of any obedience short of the rule, instead of that which perfectly answers it, is to act, not in the capacity of a righteous judge, but under the character of an absolute sovereign. So Jehovah himself declares, that he will by no means clear the guilty in judgment; that he will not at all acquit the wicked; and, consequently, that he will justify none without a perfect righteousness. That obedience, therefore, which is available for this grandest of all purposes, must answer the demands of Divine law. It must be such as will vindicate the honour of eternal justice, and of inviolable truth, in declaring the subject of justification completely righteous. Yes, reader, it must be such as you may venture to plead, without the least imputation of arrogance, at the throne of grace and the bar of judgment; such to which you may warrantably ascribe your happiness in the heavenly world, and in which you may glory to all eternity.

Many persons talk of, I know not what, conditions of justification; some supposing one thing, and some another, to be the condition of it. But hence it appears, that the only condition of our acceptance with God, is a prefect righteousness. This the law requires; nor does the gospel substitute another. For as the Divine law can have no more, so it will admit of no less. Those persons, therefore, who think of any thing short of complete obedience being sufficient, let their call the supposed condition by what name they please, may do well to consider, how they can free themselves from the charge of Antinomianism. For the gospel does not, in any degree, make void the law. So far from it, that the voice of the gospel and the death of Christ demonstrate Jehovah to be absolutely inflexible, as to all that his holy law requires or forbids. The way in which sinners are justified, does not in the least infringe on its rights. For, considered as moral, it is unalterable and eternal. Perfect obedience was demanded by it of man, while in a state of innocence, as the condition of life. Perfect obedience it still requires of man, though in a state of apostasy. And perfect obedience it must have, either at our own, or a surety's hand, or we must fall eternally under its curse.

Where then shall we find, or how shall we obtain a justifying righteousness? Shall we flee to the law for relief? Shall we apply, with diligence and zeal, to the performance of duty, in order to attain the desired end? Such a procedure, though it might flatter our pride, would betray our ignorance, disappoint oar hopes, and issue in eternal ruin. The apostle of the Gentiles, when professedly handling the doctrine of justification, positively affirms and strongly proves, that there is no acceptance with God by the works of the law. Now, the works of the law, are those duties of piety and of humanity which the law requires. Nor can any acceptable obedience be performed, which is not required by that law which demands perfect love to God, and perfect love to man. So that when the infallible teacher excludes the works of the law from having any concern in our justification, he entirely rejects all our works, all our duties of every kind. But let us hear his words and consider their import.

By the deeds of the law, by our own obedience to it, however sincere, shall no flesh be justified, accepted of God, and pronounced righteous in his sight. The reason is evident; for by the law is the knowledge of sin, as an opposition to the Divine revealed will, and as deserving an everlasting curse." But if so, it is absolutely impossible that we should be justified by it; for a law which proves us guilty, is far from pronouncing us righteous in the eye of the lawgiver. The law entered, was promulgated at Sinai, that the offence might abound, that the abundance of our iniquities might be manifested, and their exceeding sinfulness appear. (Rom. 5:20) The law worketh wrath. It reveals the wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. It fastens a charge of guilt on the criminal, and works a sense of deserved wrath in his conscience. Far from justifying any offender, it denounces utter destruction against him, and unsheaths the sword of vengeance. (Rom. 4:15) As many as are of the works of the law; who do their best endeavours to keep it, and are looking for justification by it; are – what? In a promising way to obtain acceptance with God, and to be rewarded with life eternal? quite the reverse. They are under a dreadful curse. For it is written by the pen of infallibility, and is awfully expressive of Jehovah's unchangeable purpose: CURSED IS EVERY ONE, without any respect of persons, without any regard to please, That CONTINUETH NOT IN ALL THINGS which are written in the book of the law to do them. (James 2:10) From this alarming text we learn that there never was, nor can be any acceptance with God, without a perfect obedience – an obedience, perfect in its principle, complete in all its parts, anti without the least interruption in thought, word and deed. For he who fails in one point, breaks the law, is guilty before God, and exposed to ruin. (Gal. 3:10)

The apostle argues in proof of his point, from the opposition there is between living by faith, and living by the works of the law. These are his words; That no man, however excellent his moral character, however righteous in his own esteem, is justified by his own obedience to the law in the sight of God, it is evident: For the just, the truly righteous and justified person, shall live by faith. And, that he does not obtain the character, or enjoy the blessedness connected with it, in virtue of his own obedience, appears from hence; the law is not of faith; it makes no mention of a Redeemer, or of believing in him. But, its uniform language is, the man that doeth them; that punctually performs the duties enjoined, and entirely avoids the things prohibited; he, and he only, shall live in them; shall find acceptance and enjoy peace. (Gal. 3:11, 12)

The inspired penman, ever jealous of his Master's honour, ever concerned for the glory of Divine grace, argues from an absurdity; an absurdity, obvious to the meanest capacity, and shocking to every mind that has the least esteem for the Lord Redeemer. If righteousness come by the law, if men either were or could be justified by their own duties and endeavours, then it would inevitably follow that Christ is dead in vain; all his obedience and all his sufferings were useless things; there was no occasion for them. (Gal. 2:21) Again; If they which are of the law be heirs; if they who rely on their own legal performances be accepted of God, and entitled to the heavenly inheritance; faith in a dying Redeemer is made entirely void, and the promise of life by him is made of none effect. (Rom. 4:14).

Nor are the works of the law, which Paul so expressly and repeatedly excludes from having any concern in our justification, to be understood only of an obedience to those positive institutions of Jehovah, which, being of a temporary kind, were abrogated by the death of Christ. His design was to set aside all our obedience to every law; all our works and duties of every kind. That this was his intention, appears from the following considerations. The apostle excludes all works in general. God imputeth righteousness without works – By grace ye are saved – not of works – If by grace, then it is no more of works. Not by works of righteousness which we have done – Who hath saved us – not according to our works. He does not only say, that we are not justified by the works of the law; but also, that we are not justified by works, performances, duties, obedience, in general, what rule soever may be their object, or however they may be denominated. He does not give the least hint, as if he meant only to exclude the works of some particular law, or duties of some particular kind, in contradiction to others. And when the Spirit of God declares, without limiting the phrase to any particular kind of duties, that we are not justified by works; what authority have we to restrain the sense to this or that sort of works, to the exclusion of others? For as all duties performed in obedience to a law are works, whether the law be considered as moral or ceremonial, old or new; so all works, whatever they be, are here excluded without any exception.

That law which the apostle designs, stands in direct opposition to the grace of the gospel, and the promise of life; to faith in Christ, and the righteousness of faith. The promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Because the law worketh wrath; for where there is no law, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, that the promise might be sure to all the seed. (Rom. 4:13-16) Now it is the moral, and not the ceremonial law, that stands opposed to grace, and the promise; to faith, and the righteousness of faith. For the ceremonial law, exhibiting in various ways the grace of God, the promised Messiah, and life by him, as the great objects of faith and hope under the ancient Jewish economy; cannot be stated and considered in this contrasted view, without a manifest impropriety. But the moral law is not of faith; it contains no revelation of grace: it exhibits no foundation of trust, no object of hope for sinners; nor does it make the least promise to them, but all the reverse. Besides, the law hero intended, worketh wrath. By a transgression of it, wrath is incurred; and by a conviction of the evil of such disobedience, a sense of deserved wrath possesses the conscience. Which, though perfectly applicable to the moral law, and to mankind in general as breakers of it; yet cannot be affirmed of the ceremonial institutions, neither in regard to Jews nor Gentiles. Because, as to the former, those rites were long since abrogated; and, as to the latter, they never were under any obligation to observe them.

The important reasons assigned by the sacred disputant, why we cannot be justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus, make it evident, that he intended to exclude, not only all ceremonial performances, but also all our moral obedience. Having asserted, that there is no justification by the deeds of the law, he adds, For by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3:20) Now the apostle informs us from his own experience, that the knowledge of sin comes by that law which forbids all irregular desires, and every unsanctified affection. I had not known sin but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law hall said, Thou shall not covet. Hence it is plain to a demonstration, that all the duties of that law by which is the knowledge of sin, are entirely excluded from all concern in our justification: and, that the law which convinces of sin, is spiritual; reaches the thoughts and intents of the heart, saying, Thou shall not covet. Whether it be the moral, or the ceremonial law, that is here intended, the reader, I presume, will be at no loss to determine. Another reason assigned, is, Lest any man should boast. For thus it is written; By grace ye are saved – not of works, lest any man should boast – To declare at this time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting, then? it is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. Whence the apostle infers the following conclusion: Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Rom. 7:7) Now, of what are men ready to boast, in a religious view, but of their supposed moral goodness? Of what, except the integrity of their hearts, and the regularity of their lives; their sincere intentions, and their pious performances? These, therefore, we may justly infer, are entirely excluded. For if no works be excepted but those of a ceremonial kind, and if our moral obedience be any way concerned in procuring acceptance with God, how is boasting excluded? Does not the performance of moral precepts afford as fair a ground for boasting, as a submission to ceremonial rites? and were not the ancient Pharisees guilty in both respects? (Luke 18:11)

Nor is faith itself our righteousness, or that for the sake of which we are justified. For though believers are said to be justified by faith, yet not for faith. That faith is not our righteousness, is evident from the following considerations. No man's faith is perfect; and if it were, it would not be equal to the demands of the Divine law. It could not, therefore, without an error in judgment, be accounted a complete righteousness. But the judgment of God, as before proved, is according to truth, and according to the rights of his law. That obedience by which a sinner is justified, is called the righteousness or faith; righteousness BY faith; and is represented as revealed TO faith: (Rom. 3:22) consequently, it cannot be faith itself. Faith, in the business of justification, stands opposed to all works. To him that worketh not, BUT believeth. Now, if it were our justifying righteousness, to consider it in such a light would be highly improper. For, in such a connexion, it falls under the consideration of a work, a condition, on the performance of which our acceptance with God is manifestly suspended. If faith itself be that on account of which we are accepted, then some believers are justified by a more, and some by a less perfect righteousness, in exact proportion to the strength or weakness of their faith. He was strong in faith – O ye of little froth. Consequently, either more of justice and less of grace must appear in the justification of some, than in that of others; or else it must be concluded, that some are more fully justified than others; each of which is absurd. That which is the end of the law, is our righteousness; which, certainly, is not faith, but the obedience of our exalted Substitute. Christ is the end of the law, FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS, to every one that believeth. That righteousness by which many are justified, is the obedience of One. The believer, therefore, is not justified for the sake of his own faith; for then there must be as many distinct righteousnesses, as there are justified persons. Were faith itself our justifying righteousness, we might, without either pride or folly, depend upon it, plead it before God, and rejoice in it. For whatever the Most High is pleased to accept as our justifying righteousness, may be pleaded before him as such. Whatever may be so pleaded, must be esteemed a proper ground of our confidence – may be used as an argument in prayer at the throne of grace, and as the foundation of our expecting final happiness: and whatever is the ground of our confidence, must be the source of our spiritual joy. So that, according to this hypothesis, not Christ, but faith, is the capital thing; the object to which we must look. The glorious Redeemer and his undertaking are only considered as auxiliaries in the affair of justification; while faith is the grand requisite, as it renders Immanuel's work effectual, and crowns the whole. To understand those words, Faith was imputed to him for righteousness, in the Arminian sense, is to contradict the whole scope and design of the apostle's argumentation, when treating about the justification of sinners. For his main design is to prove, that the eternal Sovereign justifies freely; without any cause in the creature. But, according to this hypothesis, faith is the condition; is the cause; is that on account of which we are accepted as righteous. For it is considered under the formal notion of righteousness. Hence it appears, that it is not faith itself, but its glorious Object, which Paul intends, when 'he speaks of the being imputed for righteousness.

But is not that law, which man was originally under, which requires an absolutely perfect obedience, and denounces a curse on the least offender, abrogated by the mediation of Jesus Christ? And is not a new, remedial, milder law, introduced in its place; one that is more happily adapted to the infirmities of a fallen creature, requiring only a sincere obedience, as the condition of acceptance before the sovereign Judge? No: for, not to take notice that such a scheme represents the gospel as making void the law; not to mention many other things which might be urged; the sentiment supposes that the old, the eternal law of God, was either too strict in its precepts, or too severe in its penal sanction; and that its requisitions never were, nor ever will be performed, either by ourselves or by our Surety. An imagination this, which deserves the utmost abhorrence; as, in one view, it denies perfection to that law which is holy, and just, and good; and as, in another, it highly reflects on the wisdom, or equity, or goodness of the supreme Legislator for enacting a law, the repeal of which was so necessary in order to accomplish the designs of his grace. Besides, the scheme is absurd. For it supposes that the law which man is now under requires only an imperfect obedience. But an imperfect righteousness cannot answer its demands, whether it be denominated old or new. For every law requires perfect obedience to its own precepts and prohibitions. Under whatever law we are, it must be the standard of duty and the rule of our obedience; and every rule requires, and cannot but require, a complete conformity to itself. That law which forbids every irregularity in our tempers and conduct, whatever name it may bear, is the rule of our duty, the law which is now in force; otherwise, such irregularity would not be sin; such a deviation from perfect rectitude would be no fault. That which is not prohibited, that which is the breach of no law, cannot be sin; for sin is a transgression of the law. If then we are forbidden to commit sin, it must be by a law that is now in force; and if every sin be a breach of it, nothing short of perfect obedience can be required by it. Consequently, nothing can be accepted as righteousness by our eternal Judge, but an obedience in all respects complete; a perfect obedience, either performed by us or imputed to us?*

* To obviate objections and to enforce my argument, I will introduce a paragraph or two from a late excellent writer; who, when touching upon this subject, observes: "They," the Arminians, "strenuously maintain, that it would be unjust in God to require any thing of us beyond our present power and ability to perform; and also hold, that we are now unable to perform perfect obedience, and that Christ died to satisfy for the imperfections of our obedience, and has made way that our imperfect obedience might be accepted instead of perfect; wherein they seem insensibly to run themselves into the grossest inconsistency. For they hold, 'That God in mercy to mankind, has abolished that rigorous constitution, or law, that they were under originally; and, instead of it, has introduced a more mild constitution, and put us under a new law, which requires no more than imperfect, sincere obedience, in compliance with our poor, infirm, impotent circumstances since the fall.' Now, how can these things be made consistent? I would ask, What law these imperfections of our obedience are a breach of? If they are a breach of no law that we were ever under, then they are not sins. And if they be not sins, what need of Christ's dying to satisfy for them? But if they are sins, and the breach of some law, what law is it? They cannot be a breach of their new law; for (according to their principles) that requires no other than imperfect obedience, or obedience with imperfections: and, therefore, to have obedience attended with imperfections is no breach of it; for it is as much as it requires. And they cannot be a breach of their old law; for that, they say, is entirely abolished, and we never were under it. They say, it would not be just in God to require of us perfect obedience, because it would not be just to require more than we can perform, or to punish us for failing of it. And, therefore, by their own scheme, the imperfections of our obedience do not deserve to be punished. What need, therefore, of Christ's dying to satisfy for them. What need of his suffering, to satisfy for that which is no fault, and, in its own nature, deserves no suffering? What need of Christ's dying to purchase that our imperfect obedience should be accepted, when, according to their scheme, it would be unjust in itself that any other obedience than imperfect should be required I What need of Christ's dying to make way for God's accepting such an obedience, as it would be unjust in him not to accept? Is there any need of Christ's dying to prevail with God not to do unrighteously? – If it be said, That Christ died to satisfy that old law for us, that so we might not be under it, but that thee might be room for our being under a milder law; Still I would inquire, What need of Christ's dying that we might not be under a law, which, by their principles, it would be in itself unjust that we should be under, whether Christ had died or no; because, in our present state, we am not able to keep it?

"So the Arminians are inconsistent with themselves, not only in what they say of the need of Christ's satisfaction, to atone for those imperfections which we cannot avoid; but also in what they say of the grace of God granted to enable men to perform the sincere obedience of the new law. They grant, that by reason of original sin, we are utterly disabled for the performance of the condition without new grace from God. But they affirm, that he gives such grace to all, by which the performance of the condition is truly possible: and that upon this ground he may and doth most justly require it. If they intend to speak properly, by grace they must mean that assistance which is of grace, or of free favour and kindness. But yet they speak of it, as very unreasonable, unjust, and cruel, for God to require that, as the condition of pardon, that is become impossible by original sin. If it be so, what grace is there in giving assistance and ability to perform the condition of pardon: Or why is that called by the name of grace that is an absolute debt, which God is bound to bestow, and which it would be unjust and cruel in him to withhold; seeing he requires that, us the condition of pardon, which we cannot perform without it?" – See that masterly work entitled. "A careful and strict inquiry into the modern prevailing Notions of that Freedom of Will, which is supposed to be essential to Moral Agency," part iii. sect. iii. by Mr. Jonathan EDWARDS.

Nor are we accepted of God on account of any holiness wrought in us by the Holy Spirit; or of any good works performed by us through the assistance of Divine grace after regeneration. For, however attained or performed, if it be ours by way of inherency, it comes under the denomination of our own righteousness. But all our own righteousness is extremely imperfect, and is therefore entirely excluded. This appears from hence. All righteousness consists, either in habit, or in act; either in principle, or in practice. Now if our external obedience to the commands of God be not our own righteousness, there is no such thing; and so the phrase, as used in the sacred writings, must be entirely destitute of all propriety. As to the principle of all obedience, what is it but the love of God? This is purity of heart, this is true holiness. And though this heavenly affection be not natural to man, but a fruit of the Spirit, yet it is included under the general idea of our own righteousness; for there is no such thing as righteousness, or moral goodness, where God is not the object of supreme affection; where our Maker is not sincerely loved. A rational creature who does not love the infinitely amiable Jehovah, far from having any thing that may be called righteousness, is actuated by the temper, and bears the very image of Satan: For where Divine love has no place in the heart, the dispositions of the mind are entirely sinful, and the whole conduct a direct opposition to the revealed will of God. Consequently, if nothing be worthy the name of righteousness, where the love of God has no influence; and if all our own obedience be excluded, in the article of justification; all that holiness, and all those duties which follow regeneration, and are performed by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, must be totally set aside, as to that important affair. According to those words: By grace ye are saved – not of works. What works? those to which they were created in Christ Jesus, and in which God ordained that they should walk. (Eph. 2:8-10) Hence the apostle very evidently distinguishes between that righteousness by which he was justified, in which also he desired to be found, and all his own righteous deeds. 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. 3:9) Nor can any man, with the least shadow of reason, suppose, that the apostle ever imagined himself to have attained that holiness, or to have performed those good works included under the general phrase, his own righteousness, without the Divine assistance.

To assert that our own righteousness is the condition of justification, is to confound the two opposite covenants of works and grace. What was the covenant of works? Was it not a constitution which required personal obedience, as the condition of life, and promised acceptance with God on the performance of that condition? This was the tenor of it, and in this its distinguishing nature consisted. Whatever covenant therefore proceeds on the same terms, whether expressed or implied, is, however it may be varied in other respects, a covenant of works. As in the renewal of the first promise concerning the Messiah, in which the essence of the covenant of grace was contained; though the Sovereign Dispenser of all good was pleased to vary his language, and to exhibit his mercy in different views, under the Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensation; yet, in substance, it was always the same: so, whatever variations we may suppose to have taken place, respecting the covenant of works, while its grand characteristic, DO THIS AND LIVE, is retained, it is nevertheless the same covenant.

To set the point in a clearer light, be it observed; that our first parents before the fall were under the covenant of works: and, supposing the condition of it had been performed, they would have had a right to life, and would have enjoyed the promised blessing. Now, though the enjoyment of life was suspended on the performance of perfect obedience, yet that was easier to them in their primitive state, than the least supposed condition would be to us in our fallen, corrupted state. And, how great soever the disparity was, between the obedience prescribed and the blessing promised; yet, had the condition been performed, and life enjoyed in consequence of it, the happy state would have been possessed, not as a gift of grace, but as a reward of pactional debt. (Rom. 4:4) Nor would it have been of grace at all, in that sense in which the sacred writers use the term, when treating about the justification of sinners.

But supposing the condition of that covenant had been performed by our first father, and that life had been enjoyed by him as the reward of his own obedience; how, or by what means, could he have performed it? By that power and rectitude with which his nature was endued. But who gave him that power and rectitude? Who endued him with holy qualities, and flitted him for such obedience? Who maintained those moral abilities, and preserved him in existence itself? The answer is obvious. It is plain, however, that his being furnished with sufficient capacities, and having them preserved by the Lord his Maker, would not have prevented the reward from being by works. Life would still have been by the legal covenant; and entirely opposite, therefore, to that way of justification, which is revealed in the gospel.

Yet further to evince the truth and confirm the argument, it may be observed, that the covenant of works itself did not require, even from innocent Adam, the performance of its condition by a power independent on Divine assistance. Nor could it, consistent with the nature of a dependent being, as man in his best estate, and every mere creature, must necessarily be. For conservation is as much owing to a Divine power, as creation itself. Those holy qualities, therefore, with which man was at first endued, could no otherwise be maintained, than by a continual divine influence from his Creator and Preserver. For if Divine agency be necessary to a continuance in mere existence, it must certainly be allowed necessary to a holy and happy existence; such as our original parents would undoubtedly have enjoyed, had they continued in a state of innocence. If then we talk of terms and conditions respecting the covenant of grace, the question is not whether they be great or small, hard or easy? but whether, properly speaking, there be any condition at all, to be performed by the sinner, in order to obtain acceptance with God? and whether a supposition of any such thing does not annihilate the radical difference between the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace?*

* If the covenant of grace be duly considered, it will appear, that the execution of it, and the final happiness of the covenantees, do not depend on the proper exercise of the human will, or on any condition to be performed by man: that covenant having all its virtue and benign efficacy from the authority, love, and faithfulness of God himself This glorious constitution consists of absolute promises. Eph. 2:12. Jer. 31: 31-34. Heb. 8:10-12. Nor is there any thing like a condition, which is not contained in the promises themselves. Those persons, therefore, must act a very injudicious part, who endeavour to explain the nature of this divine covenant, by considering the properties of those compacts which are common among men. For in so doing they entirely obscure the glory of sovereign grace, and leave the awakened sinner destitute of all hope. See Dr. Owen's Theologeanena, 1. iii. c. i. WITSII (Econ. Foed I. iii. c. i. § 8-13. Acta Synod. Dordrech. Part. iii. p. 312. HOORNBEEKII Summa Controvers. 1. x. p. 805.

If then the subject of justification be, in himself, ungodly; if the Supreme Governor of the world neither will nor can justify any without a perfect righteousness; and if such a righteousness cannot possibly be found in our own performances, nor in faith itself, nor in any of the graces or fruits of the Holy Spirit; it is absolutely necessary that righteousness, wrought out by a substitute, should be imputed to us, or placed to our account. Where then, where, but in the finished work of JESUS CHRIST, shall we find this vicarious righteousness? Yes, the spotless obedience, the bitter sufferings, and the accursed death of our heavenly Surety, constitute that very righteousness by which sinners are justified before God. That amazing work which the incarnate Son completed when he expired on the cross, is the grand requisite for our justification before the heavenly tribunal. To this, and to/his only, the eternal Sovereign has respect, when he pronounces the sinner just, and acquits him in judgment. Hence we are said to be made righteous by the obedience of Christ, and to be justified by his blood. This blood being shed, and that obedience being performed by our Divine Substitute, on the sinner's behalf and in his nature, are placed to his account as fully and as much to his advantage, as if he had in his own person underwent the sufferings and performed the obedience. The sufferings of the Holy Jesus, those dreadful sufferings of the Son of God and the Lord of glory, considered in connexion with this consummate obedience to the perceptive part of the law, which, for the superexcellency of it, is called THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD – these, including all that the righteous but broken law requires, being accepted by the Judge and imputed to sinners, are the united cause and the only ground of their full discharge. This – let me indulge the pleasing idea, and repeat the precious truth – this, without any addition, of any sort whatever, is that work for the sake of which the wretched sinner is pronounced just and adjudged to life, by Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. By this obedience the law is honoured, and eternal justice completely satisfied. Jehovah declares himself well pleased with it, and treats as his children all those that are found in it.

That we are not justified by a personal, but by an imputed righteousness, appears from the Scripture with superior evidence. There the doctrine is taught in the plainest terms; there the important truth is set in the strongest light. It was in this way that Jehovah justified the Father of the faithful; to the consideration of which notable example of Divine grace and free acceptance Paul referred his Jewish brethren for their conviction, and for the instruction of all who should at any time inquire after the methods of grace. Abraham was the renowned progenitor of the Israelitish nation; and he was honoured with that exalted character, THE FRIEND OF GOD. His resignation and faith, his obedience and piety, stand on everlasting record. Few, among all the saints, ever manifested so cheerful a submission to the Divine will, or so unreserved a confidence in the Divine promise. No sooner did the true God signify his will to Abraham, that he should leave his native country and his father's house, than he obeyed; and went out, not knowing whither he went. (Gen. 12:1. Heb. 11:8) No sooner did the Great Possessor of heaven and earth intimate his sovereign pleasure, that he should sacrifice his only son, his Isaac, whom he loved, than he readily submitted; though the heavenly mandate was quite unprecedented, and the thought of performing it enough, one would think, to astonish and confound him. Yet these acts of obedience, though highly pleasing to God, and such as will be had in everlasting remembrance, were neither the cause, nor the condition, of his justification. They, indeed, afforded the noblest testimony that his faith was genuine, and his piety real; and, in that sense, he was justified, or declared righteous, by his works. (James 2:21-25) But they were far from being placed to his account in the article of Divine acceptance. For if Abraham was justified by his own works, though amazingly great, and in one instance quite unparalleled; he hath whereof to glory, in comparison with others, who come far short of that elevated pitch of obedience to which he arrived. But though he might, on that supposition, have gloried before his fellow-creatures, yet not before God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed the promise of God, concerning the Messiah and the work to be accomplished by him, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Nor was the method of Divine proceeding, in the justification of this illustrious patriarch, any way singular. In this respect he had no exclusive privilege. For it is added, Now it was not written, in the ancient Scriptures, for his sake alone, that it, the work of a dying and rising Redeemer, was imputed to him; but for us also, whether Jews or Gentiles, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. For they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. (Rom. 4:2, 3. 22-24. Gal. 3:6-9) Now if a person of such victorious faith, exalted piety, and amazing obedience as he was, did not obtain acceptance with God on account of his own duties, but by an imputed righteousness; who shall pretend to an interest in the heavenly blessing, in virtue of his own sincere endeavours, or pious performances? –performances not fit to be named, in comparison with those that adorned the conduct and character of JEHOVAH'S FRIEND.

The apostle hating shown in what way the Father of the chosen tribes was justified before the King immortal; and having intimated, that the patriarch was considered as an ungodly person, as one who had no good works, when the Lord imputed righteousness to him, in order to his final acceptance; to illustrate and confirm the momentous truth, he presents his reader with a description that David gives of the truly blessed man. And how does the royal psalmist describe him? To what does he attribute his acceptance with God? To an inherent, or to an imputed righteousness? Does he represent him as attaining the happy state, and as enjoying, the precious privilege, in consequence of performing sincere obedience, and of keeping the law to the best of his power! No such thing. His words are, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. The blessed man is here described as one who is, in himself, a polluted creature, and a guilty criminal. As one who, before grace made the difference, was on a level with the rest of mankind; equally unworthy, and equally wretched: and the sacred penman informs us, that all his blessedness arises from an imputed righteousness. For what else can be intended by those remarkable words, with which he introduces the evangelical declaration! Even as David describeth the blessedness of the man – what man? Why, he to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works. (Rom. 4:5-8) The righteousness here intended, cannot be understood of a person's own obedience; because it is expressly said to be without works. His own virtues and duties, however excellent, contribute nothing toward it. No; it is perfect in itself, and entirely detached from every thing which he either has done, or can do. The phraseology of rite inspired writer is very remarkable. He does not only speak of blessedness, as the result of an imputed righteousness; but he describes the obedience, which is thus applied to the sinner, as being without works. This he does, more strongly to assert the truth he defends, and more effectually to secure the honour of grace. Righteousness imputed: righteousness without the law: righteousness without works. Such was the language of Paul; such was the doctrine that he preached; and such was the faith of the primitive church. Now, alas, the phrases are cashiered as obsolete, and are become offensive; so offensive that their frequent use is considered by the generality of those who call themselves Christians, as a certain indication of an enthusiastic turn of mind. And as the language is disapproved by multitudes in the present age; so the sentiment expressed by it is discarded with contempt, as offering an insult to common sense. But, however much the doctrine of imputed righteousness may be despised as absurd, or abhorred as licentious, by any of our modern professors, it is evident that the great apostle considered it as intimately connected with the happiness of mankind, and esteemed the blessing as the only solid basis of all our hope, and of all our comfort.

Having seen what Paul says concerning the justification of Abraham, and the application he makes of that description which David gives of the blessed man; let us now consider what was the foundation of his own hope of eternal felicity, and on what righteousness he relied. Of these particulars the infallible teacher informs us in the following passage: 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. In this context the apostle relates his own experience. In these words he declares what was the frame of his mind, and what were his views with regard to the doctrine of justification. Here he presents himself as a guide and a pattern to all that inquire the way to happiness.

Let us attend to his words, and a little more particularly consider their import. Yea, doubtless; I affirm it with the utmost confidence, and am determined to abide by it; that I count all things; my birth-privileges, and pharisaical zeal; my submission to ceremonial rites, and performance of moral duties; these, all these I esteem but loss. Nor do I only reject all my duties before conversion; but also whatever I now have, and all that I now perform, I count of no worth in the grand article of Divine acceptance. These, though highly ornamental, useful, and excellent, when standing in their proper places and referred to suitable ends, are little, are nothing, are loss itself, compared with the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. Yea, such is the love that I have for my Saviour, and such the dependence I place on his righteousness, that for his sake I have cheerfully suffered the loss of all things which once I so highly valued. And I do with the greatest deliberation again declare, in the presence of Him who searches the heart, that I count them vile as the offals which are thrown to the dogs, and loathsome as dung which is cast out of sight. Such is the worth of my own performances, and such my estimate of them, if set in competition with the work of Jesus, or presuming to stand in the place of his righteousness. Now, therefore, it is my chief desire and supreme concern that I may win Christ, who is able to supply every want, and to render me completely happy. That when the Judge ascends the throne, at the last tremendous audit, when all nations shall appear before Him, and when none but the perfectly righteous are able to stand, I may be found in Him the Beloved, as the Lord my righteousness Then impartial justice must entirely acquit, and immaculate holiness completely approve. Would you know more particularly what I mean by being found in Him? It is, my not having, not depending upon, or so much as once mentioning mine own righteousness, which is of the law; the holy qualities I now possess, and the righteous deeds I have performed in obedience to the law, as a rule of conduct, and by the influence of grace, as the principle of spiritual life; – But, being adorned with, and relying upon that righteousness which is through the faith of Christ; which was finished by him, is revealed m the gospel, and received by faith–Even that obedience which, being performed by the incarnate Son, is dignified with every excellence, and bears that exalted character, The righteousness of God by faith.

On this instructive and very important passage I would further observe, that the manifest design of the sacred penman is to show, what that is in which a sinner may safely confide, and what is a warrantable ground of rejoicing. He intimates, that there can be no confidence toward God, no acceptance with him, and consequently no cause of spiritual joy, without a righteousness: for condemnation and wrath must be our portion, if we appear in our sins before the righteous Judge. He further suggests, that there is a twofold righteousness. The one he calls our own, and informs us it is of the law. The other, he describes as through the faith of Christ; and this he characterizes, the righteousness of God. These, he signifies, are entirely distinct, and far from having a united influence in procuring our justification: so far from it, that they are opposite and absolutely inconsistent, as to any such purpose. In reference therefore to acceptance with the Most High, he who embraces the one, must reject the other; and on the one or the other all mankind depend. He also informs us, with all the fervour of holy zeal, and in the most emphatical manner, which of these obtained his regard and supported his hope; was the ground of his confidence and the source of his joy. How much soever the Judaizing teachers, of whom he speaks in the beginning of the chapter, might confide in the flesh, or depend on their own duties, he was determined to adopt a very different method, and to seek for acceptance in a contrary way. Having warned them of their danger, and guarded the Philippians against their destructive mistakes, he declares that the righteousness which he esteemed sufficient was not his own; was not of the law; but a gift of grace, and through the faith of Christ. Even that obedience which our Lord performed in the capacity of a surety; which is without works, and without the law; was the object of his dependence, and in that only he glorified. But as to all that is included under the phrase, his own righteousness, when he considered the purity of the Divine law, the majesty of the eternal Judge, and that he must soon stand before him, he accounted it of no avail. Under such a consideration, he rejected it with disdain, and poured the utmost contempt upon it, calling it loss and dung. Such was the experience, and such was the hope of that wonderful man, whose apostolic gifts and Christian graces, whose ministerial usefulness and exemplary conduct, rendered him an eminent blessing to the world, and an honour to the great Redeemer's cause.

Many are the arguments which might be adduced from the unerring word, in proof of this capital doctrine and comfortable truth; but I shall only present my reader with the few that follow. It has been before proved, that the subject of justification is an ungodly person. His pardon and acceptance, therefore, cannot be the result of his own obedience: and it is equally clear, that as ungodly he cannot be justified. He must stand right in the eye of the law, and unreprovable before his Judge, before he can be acquitted in judgment. It must, consequently, be by the righteousness of another. But, what, or whose, righteousness can it be? Not the obedience of our fellow-mortals who are already justified; that would be to adopt the exploded doctrine of superogation. Not the sanctity of angels; because they never became responsible for us. Not the essential rectitude of the Divine nature; for that is absolutely incommunicable. It must therefore be the righteousness of Christ; or his complete conformity to the holy law, as a voluntary substitute for the ungodly. Now, in what way can his obedience be applied to us, except by imputation? This argument, I am persuaded, will remain conclusive till it be proved, either that the subject of justification is not in himself ungodly; or that the Judge of all the earth can justify without a righteousness. The former is expressly contrary to the Divine testimony, and the latter involves a palpable contradiction.

Paul, when treating about our awful ruin by sin, and our wonderful recovery by grace, and when professedly handling this capital doctrine, informs us, that Adam was a type of Him that was to come, even of the Lord Messiah. He forms a striking comparison between the first and the second Adam; between the disobedience of the one, and the obedience of the other, together with the effects of each. He represents Adam as a public person, as constituted the federal head of all his posterity; and Christ, as the representative of all the chosen seed. The first offence of the former, he signifies, was imputed to all his natural offspring; the complete obedience of the latter, is imputed to all his spiritual seed. By the imputation of that offence, all mankind were made sinners; came under a charge of guilt, and the awful sentence of condemnation to eternal death: by the imputation of this obedience, all that believe are made righteous; are acquitted from every legal charge, and adjudged to eternal life. And as it was one offence, of one man, that brought death and misery on all the human race: so it is by one righteousness, of one man, even of the Lord from heaven and Jehovah's Fellow, that spiritual life and eternal happiness are introduced. According to that saying, As by one offence, judgment came upon all men to condemnation: even so, by one righteousness, the free gift came, upon all men to 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. (Rom. 5:18, 19) That the one offence, and the disobedience of one, are to be understood of Adam's actual transgression of the Divine law, none can dispute. By his first iniquitous act and bold offence many were made sinners, before they were guilty of actual transgression; so made sinners as to be, on principles of justice, liable to condemnation and death. Nor is it conceivable how this could be, except by imputation; for which imputation, their natural relation to Adam, and his federal relation to them, were a sufficient foundation. It is equally evident, that the one righteousness and the obedience of One, are the complete performance of Divine precepts by our Lord Jesus Christ, his actual conformity to the holy law. This the antithesis in the text requires; this the scope of the apostle's reasoning demands. By this consummate obedience many are made righteous. By this one most excellent righteousness, all that believe are justified and entitled to immortal glory, without any good works of their own, and before they have performed any acceptable duty. Now, in whatever way the first offence of our original parent was made ours to condemnation; in the same way is the righteousness of his glorious Antitype made ours to justification. If that was by imputation, so is this.

The momentous truth for which I am pleading, is emphatically taught in the following nervous passage. He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Hence it is plain, that as Christ the surety was made sin, so are we made righteousness; in the very same way that our sins were made his, does his obedience become ours. How, then, and in what sense, was the Holy One of God made sin? By being punished for it? No; for tie was made that sin which he knew not; but he knew by painful experience what it was to be punished. Besides, he could not have been punished for sin, if he had not stood guilty in the eye of the law; for punishment always supposes guilt, either personal or imputed. A person may suffer, but he cannot be punished without a previous charge of guilt; without being considered as the breaker of some law; for punishment is no other than the evil of suffering, inflicted for the evil of sinning. Was he made sin by becoming a sacrifice for it? That he was an expiatory sacrifice, is readily granted, is the Christian's glory: but that this is the sense of the phrase may be justly questioned. For, to omit other considerations, it is plain from the text, that he was made that sin which stands opposed to righteousness; which cannot be affirmed of an expiatory sacrifice. Nor could he have been offered as an atoning victim, without having sin transferred to him prior to his being offered. So that He was in some way or other made sin before he shed his blood and made expiation. Was he then made sin by inhesion, or by transfusion? Was it communicated to him, so as to reside in him? The idea is absurd, the fact was impossible, and the very thought is blasphemy. It remains, therefore, that if he was made sin, that sin which is opposed to righteousness, it must be by imputation. (Non per tropum est explicandum, sed entas sumendum est, prout oppositio manstrat. WALTH. Vide CALOVUM in loc.) This was the way in which our adorable Sponsor came under a charge of guilt. Hence it follows, by necessary consequence, according to the rule of opposition, except we would entirely destroy the apostle's beautiful antithesis, and the whole force of his argument, that those who are truly righteous, are made so by imputation, and by imputation only. For as it is impossible that any person, perfectly innocent, should be made sin, but by having the sins of others placed to his account, or charged upon him in a judicial way; so those that are in themselves guilty, cannot be made righteous in another, and by his obedience, without having it imputed to them. And as the blessed Jesus is said to be made sin, so we are said to be made righteousness. Strongly implying, that it was not by any criminal conduct of His that he became sin; so it is not by any pious activity of ours that we become righteous. As it was not on account of any evil qualities infused, that he was treated by Divine justice as an offender; so it is not in virtue of any holiness wrought in us, that we are accepted and treated as righteous. And as that sin, for which the condescending Jesus was condemned and punished, was not found in him, but charged upon him; so that righteousness by which we are justified and entitled to happiness, is not inherent in us, but imputed to us.

The objections also with which the apostle meets, and the way in which he refutes them, when handling the doctrine of justification, strongly imply that his design was entirely to exclude all the works of every law, and all duties of every kind: consequently, that our acceptance with God is a blessing of pure grace, and only by an imputed righteousness. 'File objections plainly suppose, that the method of justification, as clearly stated and fully explained by Paul, is not only injurious to the interests of holiness, but subversive of all morality. His doctrine was charged with making void the Divine commands – with encouraging those by whom it was adopted, to continue in sin, because they were not under the law – to multiply transgressions that grace might abound–and to do all manner of evil, that good might come. (Rom. 3:8-31, and 4:1, 15) Now if Paul had taught, or given the least intimation that righteous deeds, or holy dispositions, were any way necessary to a sinner's justification; if, in reference to that affair, he had not in the fullest sense renounced all human obedience, and directed sinners to place their whole dependence on the work and worthiness of Christ alone; it is highly improbable that the apostolic gospel would have been charged with such horrid consequences. For on that supposition, the enemies of sacred truth would not have had the least plausible pretence for traducing his doctrine as licentious.

But supposing any, through stupid ignorance or violent prejudice, to have so far mistaken his meaning as to imagine, that he entirely rejected all holy desires and pious endeavours without exception, as constituting no part of that righteousness for the sake of which a sinner is justified; when at the same time he only excluded a supurious kind of holiness, and works of a particular sort: we may reasonably conclude that, in his replies to those reproachful charges against his ministerial character, and against that gospel which was dearer to him than his very life, he would not have failed to point out the egregious mistake on which the objector proceeded, by distinguishing the works he did admit, from those which he renounced.

Had he rejected only the works of the ceremonial law, or such duties as are performed prior to regeneration, and without the aids of grace, while he maintained the necessity of evangelical obedience; it would have been easy, natural, and necessary for him, when refuting the blasphemous accusations, to have drawn the line of distinction, in order to prevent future mistakes. But not the least vestige of any such distinction appears, in his answers to the several hateful charges. He does not so much as hint that the objector was under a mistake in supposing, that he entirely excluded all the duties and works of men without any difference.

When he puts the objection, What shall we say then? shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? he answers by a strong negation, expressing the utmost abhorrence of any such thought; God forbid! Then he argues from an absurdity; How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? By which he signifies, that those who are the subjects of grace and believe in Jesus Christ, being dead to sin, cannot walk in the ways of ungodliness. For, so to do, would be absolutely inconsistent with their new state, and with that principle of spiritual life which they have received. But he gives not the least intimation of the necessity of holiness, or of obedience in order to gain the favour of God, or to procure acceptance before him. If my reader should suppose that his views of justification are the same which Paul had, and yet is persuaded that some holiness, or moral goodness of his own, is necessary to obtain pardon, or to procure acceptance, I would advise him to consider, whether, if his sentiments were charged with being licentious, he would not immediately think of a different reply – one better adapted to answer his purpose, than any of those-which the apostle made in a similar case. And whether he would not be ready to vindicate his creed by observing, That as he had no expectation of being, accepted before the eternal Sovereign without a personal obedience, to charge him with making void the law, or with saying, let us do evil that good may come, could proceed from nothing less than the most palpable mistake, or the greatest malevolence. Such persons, however, as maintain the necessity of good works, in order to justification before God, are in little danger of being charged by ignorant people with holding licentious principles; which is a strong presumptive argument, that the doctrines which they espouse are not the same that Paul preached, and which the primitive saints professed. For, that their character and sentiments were so aspersed, is clear beyond a doubt: nor does it appear that natural men are any more capable of discerning spiritual things, or any more friendly toward the genuine gospel now, than they were in the apostolic times.

That righteousness by which we are justified is a free gift, as appears by the following words, The gift of righteousness; conformably to which, the apostle represents believers, not as performing, but as receiving it. (Rom. 5:17) The gospel of sovereign grace, proclaiming the sufficiency, suitableness, and freeness of it, is thence denominated the word of righteousness – the ministration of righteousness; (Heb. 5:13. II Cor. 3:9) and one of the glorious characters which our Divine Sponsor bears, is, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. In perfect correspondence with which, He is said to be made unto us righteousness; and it is affirmed of believers, that they are made the righteousness of God in Him. (I Cor. 1:30. II Cor. 5:21) Hence it is that they are declared, by the Spirit of infallibility, to be justified in Him – accepted in Him – complete in Him – and saved in Him. (Isa. 65:25. Eph. 1:6. Col. 2:10. Isa. 65:17) Such is the divinely appointed method of justification; and such the provision which grace has made, for the final acceptance of guilty, ungodly, and wretched creatures.

The grand design of the gospel is to reveal this righteousness of God, and to display the riches of that grace which provided and freely bestows the wonderful gift. The gospel informs us that, in regard to justification, what is required of the transgressor, both as to doing and suffering, was performed by our adorable Substitute. This perfect obedience, therefore, being revealed in the word of truth for the justification of sinners, it is the business of true faith, not to come in as a condition, not to assert its own importance, and to share the glory with our Saviour's righteousness, but to receive it as absolutely sufficient to justify the most ungodly sinner, and as entirely free for his use. For what is evangelical faith, but the receiving of Christ and his righteousness? (Isa. 65:22. John 1:12. Col. 2:16. Rom. 1:17, and 5:17) Or, in other words, a dependence on Jesus only for eternal salvation? A dependence upon Him, is all-sufficient to save the most guilty; as every way suitable to supply the wants of the most needy, and as absolutely free for the vilest of sinners. The Divine Redeemer, and his finished work being the object of faith, (Agreeable to those remarkable and instructive words, II Pet. 1:1. "To them that have obtained by lot equally precious faith with us, IN THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF OUR GOD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.") and the report of the gospel its warrant and ground, to believe, is to trust entirely and without reserve, on the faithful word which God has spoken, and on the perfect work which Christ has wrought. Such is the faith of God's elect: and the comfortable evidences of its truth and reality, are the love of God, and holy obedience; peace of conscience, and hope of glory. These, to a greater or less degree, are its proper effects and genuine fruits.

Happy, thrice happy they that are interested in this Divine righteousness, and have received the atonement! All such are pronounced righteous by the eternal Judge. There is nothing to be laid to their charge. They are acquitted with honour to all the perfections of Deity, and everlastingly free from condemnation. Their sins, though ever so numerous or ever so hateful, being purged away by atoning blood, and their souls being vested with that most excellent robe, the Redeemer's righteousness, they are without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. They are presented, by their great Representative, in the body of his flesh, through death, holy, unblameable, and unreprovable in the sight of Omniscience. They are fair as the purest wool; whiter than the virgin snow. Yes – let believers exult in the thought! – the work and worthiness of the Lord Redeemer give them acceptance with infinite Majesty, and dignity before the angels of light. These afford consolation on earth, and procure estimation in heaven. Through these they shall stand with courage at the bar of judgment, and make their appearance with honour among the inhabitants of glory. Let the legalist boast of his good works, his devout services, and strict holiness; the man that is taught of God esteems them all, if set in competition with Christ, or presuming to stand in the place of his righteousness, sordid as dross, and vile as the dung, lighter than vanity, and worse than nothing. Were he endued with all the shining virtues that ever adorned the lives and characters of the most excellent saints; did he possess the exemplary meekness of Moses, and the amazing patience of Job, the ever-active zeal of Paul, and that love which glowed in the bosom of John, he would not, he durst not, advance the least claim to justification and eternal life on that footing. No, blessed Jesus! it is in thy righteousness only that he dares to confide; it is only in thy obedience he presumes to glory. This obedience is an immovable basis for the anxious mind to rest upon by faith. This is a sure foundation to support the believer's hope of glory, even when he views the righteous law in its full extent and unabated purity. This foundation of confidence will support the soul in the view of death, and when on the confines of an eternal world. Nor will it fail (such is its high perfection and sovereign efficacy) in the near prospect of the awful judgment. Here then grace reigns, in freely bestowing this righteousness, and in our complete justification by it.

As it is the imputed righteousness of Christ, and that only, by which any of the children of men can be justified, let us look to it, rely on it, and glory in it. For it is dignified with every honourable character, and free for our use. Cheering thought! This way of justification is completely fitted to pull down the pride of the self-righteous professor, who considers himself as standing on more respectable terms with his Maker, than his ungodly neighbour. Nor is it less happily adapted to raise the drooping spirits of the trembling sinner; of him who has nothing to plead why sentence of condemnation, already pronounced upon him, should not be executed in all its rigour. If, indeed, we were not allowed to look to this unequalled obedience, till conscious of having some righteousness of our own, we might then be discouraged; despair would be rational, and damnation certain. But, thanks be to God for the unparalleled favour! this righteousness, and justification by it, are free, perfectly free for the worst of sinners. For the works of every law, in every sense, as performed by man, are entirely excluded from having any concern in our acceptance with God.*

* Dr. Owen, having quoted Rom. iii. 23, and iv. 5, and xi. 6. Gal. ii. 16. Eph. ii. 8, 9, and Tit. iii. 5, adds, "I am persuaded that no reprejudiced 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 unbelievers 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 which we must betake ourselves unto, or this matter must cease forever." Doct. of Justification, chap, xiv.

Since, therefore, it is in Christ alone, as our head, representative, and surety, that we are or can be justified, he alone should have the glory. He is infinitely worthy to have the unrivalled honour. Let the sinner, then, the ungodly wretch, trust in the obedience of the dying Jesus, as being absolutely sufficient to justify him, without any good works or duties, without any good habits or qualities, however performed or acquired; and eternal Truth has declared for his encouragement, that he shall not be disappointed.

Here, sinner, self-ruined and self-condemned; even you that are tempted to execrate the day of your birth, on account of your multiplied provocations and utter unworthiness; here is a complete righteousness revealed for your full relief and immediate comfort. In this righteousness you may read the Divine character; JUST, YET THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. True it is, if nothing but equity had appeared in Jehovah's name, nothing but misery could have been expected by the guilty. But when we behold the idea of a compassionate Saviour, connected with that of a righteous Judge; such a character, though supremely venerable, is greatly inviting. For it speaks deliverance, and administers consolation. Yes, disconsolate soul, though you have no righteousness, nor any recommendation, yet the wisdom of God has appointed a way, and the infinite riches of sovereign grace have provided effectual means for your full discharge before the great tribunal, and for attaining that honour and joy, which are commensurate to your utmost wishes, which exceed your highest conceptions, and shall render you happy to all eternity. Is my reader oppressed with guilt, and harassed with tumultuous fears of deserved ruin! wearied with going about to establish his own righteousness, and sensible that he is possessed of no worth, nor any thing that might be a probable mean of recommending him to the Redeemer? Remember, distressed fellow mortal, that no such recommendation is needful. Nothing is required at your hand for any such purpose. "Come, and take freely," is the language, of Jesus. He has all that you want, however impoverished; and he gives all with the most liberal hand. Grace reigns and let that be your encouragement when thinking about acceptance with Christ, and of your justification in him before the Almighty.

If my reader, notwithstanding all that has been said, should yet think it prudent and safe to depend on his own obedience, let me remind him before I dismiss the subject, of the absolute purity and infinite holiness, the transcendent majesty and awful glories of that GOD with whom he has to do, and before whom he must soon appear. Consider, presumptuous mortal! that with your supreme Judge is terrible majesty. That He is of purer eyes than to look upon evil, and cannot behold iniquity, will by no means clear the guilty, and is a consuming fire. His righteous judgment is, that those who commit sin are worthy of death; and, therefore, his law denounces an awful curse on every offender. Remember that he, whose divine prerogative it is to justify, is a jealous God; jealous of his honour, as a righteous governor, and determined to support the rights of his throne. So terrible his indignation, that, when once his wrath is kindled, it will consume every refuge of lies, and burn to the lowest hell. So awfully majestic is Jehovah, that before him the everlasting mountains quake, the pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his reproof. As his condescending smile irradiates the countenances of angels, and crowns them with unutterable bliss; so his righteous frown is nothing less than absolute destruction. So flaming his purity, and so dazzling his glory, that he looketh to the moon and it shineth not, and the stars are not pure in his sight. In his presence the seraphim, those most exalted of mere creatures, veil their faces and cover their feet, in token of profound humiliation; while they cry in loud responsive strains, HOLY! HOLY! HOLY! is the LORD OF HOSTS! How, then, to use the language of Bildad in Job, how, then, can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean, before his Maker, that is born of woman? When he whose eyes are as a flame of fire, whose peculiar province it is to search the human heart, and to explore its latent evils; when he shall sift your conduct, and mark your offences, laying judgment to the line and righteousness to the plummet, you will not be able to answer him one of a thousand: and to what refuge will you then flee? Trusting in your own duties, you slight the great atonement, you despise the revealed righteousness, and Christ shall profit you nothing. You may talk in lofty strains about man's moral excellence, and the dignity of human nature, the worth of personal obedience, and the efficacy of penitential tears: you may declaim upon the necessity of good works, and reject with disdain the doctrine of imputed righteousness, while your conscience is unimpressed with a sight of the Divine purity, and with a sense of the Divine presence: but when you come to consider yourself as before the Most HIGH, and that the important question is, How shall I be just before the Most HOLY? – when you form your ideas of the God of heaven, not from the character you have drawn of him in your own imagination, but agreeably to that which is given in the inspired volume; then your pretensions to personal worthiness must subside, and your mouth must be stopped. Or, if not entirely silent, you must exclaim with the men of Bethshemesh, when Jehovah's hand was heavy upon them; Who is able to stand before this Holy Lord God? Then, if the atonement be not presented for your immediate, relief, you will be ready to add, Who shall dwell with devouring fire? who shall dwell with everlasting burnings?

The Holy Spirit, speaking in the Scripture, directs us to conceive of justification as before God and in his sight. Intimating, that. when final acceptance is the subject of our inquiry, we should look upon ourselves as in the immediate presence of Him who will soon ascend the great white throne, to pass the irreversible sentence; that we should consider on what ground we shall be able to stand, when heaven and earth shall flee away from the face of our Eternal Judge, and no place shall, be found for them. Yes, reader, if you would not deceive yourself in a matter of the last importance; if you would come to a satisfactory persuasion, in what righteousness you may venture to trust, you should consider yourself as at the bar of God, and as having a cause depending which is pregnant with your everlasting fate; a cause which must inevitably issue, either in your eternal happiness, or infinite misery. You should anticipate, in your own meditations, that great decisive day, and then ask your own conscience, "On what shall I then depend? or what shall I dare to plead when my astonished eyes behold my Judge?" Because it would be superlative folly for you to rely on any obedience now, or to dispute for it as necessary to justification, of which your own conscience cannot approve as a plea that will then be admitted as valid.

Consider the ingenuous acknowledgments and deep confessions, which the greatest saints and holiest men that ever lived have made of their impurity and sinfulness, when their acceptance with that sublime Being, who is glorious in holiness, came under consideration. Job was an eminent saint: he had not his equal on earth, according to the testimony of God himself. Conscious of his integrity, he avowed it before men, and vindicated his exemplary conduct against the accusations of censorious friends. But when the Almighty addressed him, and when he considers himself as standing before the Divine tribunal, he says not a word about his inherent rectitude, or his pious performances. Then, in language of the deepest self-abasement, he exclaims, Behold, I am vile! I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. Yea, he declares, If I justify myself, my own mouth shall condemn me. If I say I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse. Though I were perfect, in my own apprehensions, yet, before Him that is infinitely holy, I would be so far from pleading my own extraordinary attainments, that I would not know my soul; nay, I would despise my life, with all its most shining accomplishments. For if I wash myself with snow-water, and make my hands never so clean, yet shalt Thou, O righteous and eternal Judge, plunge me in the ditch; manifest me, notwithstanding all my endeavours to obtain purity and find acceptance, to be a polluted creature and a guilty criminal. So abominably filthy and highly criminal, that my own clothes, were they sensible of my pollution and guilt, would abhor me. For He, to whom I am accountable, is not a man as I am, but a being of such discernment, that the minutest faults cannot escape his notice; and so perfectly holy, that the least spot of defilement is infinitely abhorrent in his sight. It is therefore absolutely impossible that I should answer him, plead my cause and gain acceptance, on the foundation of my own obedience; or that we should, on any such footing, come together in judgment, without inevitable ruin to my person and all my immortal interests. (Job 60:5; 52:6; 9:20, 21, 30-32) David, the man after God's own heart, made it his earnest request that God would not enter into judgment with him according to the tenor of his own obedience: being well aware 'that neither he nor any man living could be justified in that way. To rebuke the pride of self-righteous confidence, with emotions of holy reverence and sacred awe, he asks, If thou, Lord, shouldst mark iniquities; O Lord, who shall stand, who can be acquitted? (Ps. cxlii. 2; cxxx. 3) Isaiah also, though an eminent prophet, and a distinguished servant of God, when he beheld Jehovah's glory, and heard the seraphim proclaim his holiness, loudly exclaimed, Wo is me! for I am undone! because I am a man of unclean lips. Nor was his consternation removed, of his conscience relieved, till pardon through the atonement was applied to him. (Isa. 4:2-7)

Now, is it prudent, or can it be safe, to trust in your own imperfect duties, when persons of such eminent character and exalted piety made these acknowledgments, and had such views of themselves and of their own attainments? If their personal obedience would not bear the Divine scrutiny, what a wretched figure must yours make before the heart-searching God? If Jehovah charge his angels with folley, and if the heavens be not pure in his sight; what then is man, who drinketh iniquity like water, that he should presume to be clean? or the son of man, that he should pretend to be righteous? For, between human obedience and angelic holiness, there is no more comparison than between a clod of the field and a star in the firmament. Vain man would be wise, though he is born like a wild ass's colt: proud man would be righteous, though loathsome with sin and obnoxious to ruin. But, however highly the self-sufficient may think of their own obedience, the sinner, whose conscience is pressed with a sense of guilt, and every real Christian will deprecate appearing in their own righteousness, before the final judge. Yea, the man who is taught of God will ardently cry, "Fall upon me, ye rocks! cover me, ye mountains! yea, rather let me lose my existence than appear before the Most Holy in the filthy rags of my own duties; or in any righteousness but that which is perfect, in any obedience but that which is divine."

Our Righteousness Is Not in Ourselves

John Calvin

LET us first explain the meaning of the expressions, to be justified in the sight of God, to be justified by faith or by works. A man is said to be justified in the sight of God when in the judgment of God he is deemed righteous and is accepted on account of his righteousness. For as iniquity is abominable to God, so neither can the sinner find grace in His sight, so far as he is and so long as he is regarded as a sinner. Hence, wherever sin is, there also are the wrath and vengeance of God.

He, on the other hand, is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned. As an innocent man, when charged before an impartial judge, who decides according to his innocence, is said to be justified by the judge, as a man is said to be justified by God when, removed from the catalogue of sinners, he has God as the witness and assertor of his righteousness. In the same manner, a man will be said to be justified by works, if in his life there can be found a purity and holiness which merits an attestation of righteousness at the throne of God, or if by the perfection of his works he can answer and satisfy the divine justice. On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification as the acceptance with which God receives us into His favor as if we were righteous. And we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

Let us now consider the truth of what was said in the definition—viz. that justification by faith is reconciliation with God and that this consists solely in the remission of sins. We must always return to the axioms that the wrath of God lies upon all men so long as they continue sinners. This is elegantly expressed by Isaiah in these words: "Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear" (Isaiah 59:1, 2). We are here told that sin is a separation between God and man; that His countenance is turned away from the sinner; and that it cannot be otherwise, since to have any intercourse with sin is repugnant to His righteousness. Hence the Apostle shows that man is at enmity with God until he is restored to favor by Christ (Romans 5:8-10). When the Lord, therefore, admits him to union, He is said to justify him, because He can neither receive him into favor, nor unite him to Himself without changing his condition from that of a sinner into that of a righteous man. He adds that this is done by remission of sins. For if those whom the Lord has reconciled to Himself are estimated by works, they will still prove to be in reality sinners, while they ought to be pure and free from sin. It is evident therefore, that the only way in which those whom God embraces are made righteous is by having their pollutions wiped away by the remission of sins, so that this justification may be termed in one word the remission of sins.

Both of these become perfectly clear from the words of Paul: "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." He then subjoins the sum of his embassy: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:19-21). He here uses righteousness and reconciliation indiscriminately, to make us understand that the one includes the other. The mode of obtaining this righteousness he explains to be that our sins are not imputed to us. Wherefore, you cannot henceforth doubt how God justifies us when you hear that He reconciles us to Himself by not imputing our faults.

In the same manner, in the Epistle to the Romans, he proves, by the testimony of David, that righteousness is imputed without works because he declares the man to be blessed "whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered," and "unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity," (Romans 4:6; Psalms 32:1, 2). There he undoubtedly uses blessedness for righteousness; and as he declares that it consists in forgiveness of sins, there is no reason why we should define it otherwise. Accordingly, Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, sings that the knowledge of salvation consists in the forgiveness of sins (Luke 1:77). The same course was followed by Paul, when in addressing the people of Antioch he gave them a summary of salvation. Luke states that he concluded in this way: "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 13:38, 39). Thus the Apostle connects forgiveness of sins with justification in such a way as to show that they are altogether the same; and hence he properly argues that justification, which we owe to the indulgence of God, is gratuitous.

Nor should it seem an unusual mode of expression to say that believers are justified before God not by works, but by gratuitous acceptance, seeing it is frequently used in Scripture and sometimes also by ancient writers. Thus Augustine says: "The righteousness of the saints in this world consists more in the forgiveness of sins than the perfection of virtue." To this corresponds the well-known sentiment of Bernard: "Not to sin is the righteousness of God, but the righteousness of man is the indulgence of God." He previously asserts that Christ is our righteousness in absolution, and, therefore, that those only are just who have obtained pardon through mercy.

Hence also it is proved, that it is entirely by the intervention of Christ's righteousness that we obtain justification before God. This is equivalent to saying that man is not just in himself, but that the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation, while he is strictly deserving of punishment. Thus vanishes the absurd dogma, that man is justified by faith, inasmuch as it brings him under the influence of the Spirit of God by whom he is rendered righteous. This is so repugnant to the above doctrine that it never can be reconciled with it. There can be no doubt that he who is taught to seek righteousness out of himself does not previously possess it in himself. This is most clearly declared by the Apostle, when he says, that he who knew no sin was made an expiatory victim for sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21).

You see that our righteousness is not in ourselves, but in Christ; that the only way in which we become possessed of it is by being made partakers with Christ, since with Him we possess all riches. There is nothing repugnant to this in what he elsewhere says: "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" (Romans 8:3, 4). Here the only fulfillment to which he refers is that which we obtain by imputation.

Our Lord Jesus Christ communicates His righteousness to us, and so by some wondrous ways in so far as pertains to the justice of God transfuses its power into us. That this was the Apostle's view is abundantly clear from another sentiment which he had expressed a little before: "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (Romans 5:19). To declare that we are deemed righteous, solely because the obedience of Christ is imputed to us as if it were our own, is just to place our righteousness in the obedience of Christ.

Wherefore, Ambrose appears to me to have most elegantly adverted t o the blessing of Jacob as an illustration of this righteousness, when he says that as he who did not merit the birthright in himself personated his brother, put on his garments which gave forth a most pleasant odor, and thus introduced himself to his father that he might receive a blessing to his own advantage, though under the person of another, so we conceal ourselves under the precious purity of Christ, our first-born Brother, that we may obtain an attestation of righteousness from the presence of God. The words of Ambrose are, "Isaac's smelling the odor of his garments, perhaps means that we are justified not by works, but by faith, since carnal infirmity is an impediment to works, but errors of conduct are covered by the brightness of faith, which merits the pardon of faults." And so indeed it is; for in order to appear in the presence of God for salvation, we must send forth that fragrant odor, having our vices covered and buried by His perfection.

From Institutes of the Christian Religion, III. xi. 2, 21-23.

Of Justification by Faith

by John Calvin (1509-1564)

1. I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man's only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life. This second benefit, viz., regeneration, appears to have been already sufficiently discussed. On the other hand, the subject of justification was discussed more cursorily, because it seemed of more consequence first to explain that the faith by which alone, through the mercy of God, we obtain free justification, is not destitute of good works; and also to show the true nature of these good works on which this question partly turns. The doctrine of Justification is now to be fully discussed, and discussed under the conviction, that as it is the principal ground on which religion must be supported, so it requires greater care and attention. For unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and what the judgment which he passes upon you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared. The necessity of thoroughly understanding this subject will become more apparent as we proceed with it.

2. Lest we should stumble at the very threshold, (this we should do were we to begin the discussion without knowing what the subject is,) let us first explain the meaning of the expressions, To be justified in the sight of God, to be Justified by faith or by works. A man is said to be justified in the sight of God when in the judgment of God he is deemed righteous, and is accepted on account of his righteousness; for as iniquity is abominable to God, so neither can the sinner find grace in his sight, so far as he is and so long as he is regarded as a sinner. Hence, wherever sin is, there also are the wrath and vengeance of God. He, on the other hand, is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned. As an innocent man, when charged before an impartial judge, who decides according to his innocence, is said to be justified by the judge, as a man is said to be justified by God when, removed from the catalogue of sinners, he has God as the witness and assertor of his righteousness. In the same manner, a man will be said to be justified by works, if in his life there can be found a purity and holiness which merits an attestation of righteousness at the throne of God, or if by the perfection of his works he can answer and satisfy the divine justice. On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, (see sec. 21 and 23.)

3. In confirmation of this there are many clear passages of Scripture. First, it cannot be denied that this is the proper and most usual signification of the term. But as it were too tedious to collect all the passages, and compare them with each other, let it suffice to have called the reader's attention to the fact: he will easily convince himself of its truth. I will only mention a few passages in which the justification of which we speak is expressly handled. First, when Luke relates that all the people that heard Christ "justified God," (Luke 7: 29,) and when Christ declares, that "Wisdom is justified of all her children," (Luke 7: 35,) Luke means not that they conferred righteousness which always dwells in perfection with God, although the whole world should attempt to wrest it from him, nor does Christ mean that the doctrine of salvation is made just: this it is in its own nature; but both modes of expression are equivalent to attributing due praise to God and his doctrine. On the other hand, when Christ upbraids the Pharisees for justifying themselves, (Luke 16: 15,) he means not that they acquired righteousness by acting properly, but that they ambitiously courted a reputation for righteousness of which they were destitute. Those acquainted with Hebrew understand the meaning better: for in that language the name of wicked is given not only to those who are conscious of wickedness, but to those who receive sentence of condemnation. Thus, when Bathsheba says, "I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders," she does not acknowledge a crime, but complains that she and her son will be exposed to the disgrace of being numbered among reprobates and criminals, (1 Kings 1: 21.) It is, indeed, plain from the context, that the term even in Latin must be thus understood, viz., relatively, and does not denote any quality. In regard to the use of the term with reference to the present subject, when Paul speaks of the Scripture, "foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith," (Gal. 3: 8,) what other meaning can you give it than that God imputes righteousness by faith? Again, when he says, "that he (God) might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus," (Rom. 3: 26,) what can the meaning be, if not that God, in consideration of their faith, frees them from the condemnation which their wickedness deserves? This appears still more plainly at the conclusion, when he exclaims, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us, (Rom. 8: 33, 34.) For it is just as if he had said, Who shall accuse those whom God has acquitted? Who shall condemn those for whom Christ pleads? To justify therefore, is nothing else than to acquit from the charge of guilt, as if innocence were proved. Hence, when God justifies us through the intercession of Christ, he does not acquit us on a proof of our own innocence, but by an imputation of righteousness, so that though not righteous in ourselves, we are deemed righteous in Christ. Thus it is said, in Paul's discourse in the Acts, "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 13: 38, 39.) You see that after remission of sins justification is set down by way of explanation; you see plainly that it is used for acquittal; you see how it cannot be obtained by the works of the law; you see that it is entirely through the interposition of Christ; you see that it is obtained by faith; you see, in fine, that satisfaction intervenes, since it is said that we are justified from our sins by Christ. Thus when the publican is said to have gone down to his house "justified," (Luke 18: 14,) it cannot be held that he obtained this justification by any merit of works. All that is said is, that after obtaining the pardon of sins he was regarded in the sight of God as righteous. He was justified, therefore, not by any approval of works, but by gratuitous acquittal on the part of God. Hence Ambrose elegantly terms confession of sins "legal justification," (Ambrose on Psalm 118 Serm. 10).

4. Without saying more about the term, we shall have no doubt as to the thing meant if we attend to the description which is given of it. For Paul certainly designates justification by the term acceptance, when he says to the Ephesians, "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the Beloved," (Eph. 1: 5, 6.) His meaning is the very same as where he elsewhere says, "being justified freely by his grace," (Rom. 3: 24.) In the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, he first terms it the imputation of righteousness, and hesitates not to place it in forgiveness of sins: "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," &c., (Rom. 4: 6-8.) There, indeed, he is not speaking of a part of justification, but of the whole. He declares, moreover, that a definition of it was given by David, when he pronounced him blessed who has obtained the free pardon of his sins. Whence it appears that this righteousness of which he speaks is simply opposed to judicial guilt. But the most satisfactory passage on this subject is that in which he declares the sum of the Gospel message to be reconciliation to God, who is pleased, through Christ, to receive us into favor by not imputing our sins, (2 Cor. 5: 18-21.) Let my readers carefully weigh the whole context. For Paul shortly after adding, by way of explanation, in order to designate the mode of reconciliation, that Christ who knew no sin was made sin for us, undoubtedly understands by reconciliation nothing else than justification. Nor, indeed, could it be said, as he elsewhere does, that we are made righteous "by the obedience" of Christ, (Rom. 5: 19,) were it not that we are deemed righteous in the sight of God in him and not in ourselves.

5. But as Osiander has introduced a kind of monstrosity termed essential righteousness, by which, although he designed not to abolish free righteousness, he involves it in darkness, and by that darkness deprives pious minds of a serious sense of divine grace; before I pass to other matters, it may be proper to refute this delirious dream. And, first, the whole speculation is mere empty curiosity. He indeed, heaps together many passages of scripture showing that Christ is one with us, and we likewise one with him, a point which needs no proof; but he entangles himself by not attending to the bond of this unity. The explanation of all difficulties is easy to us, who hold that we are united to Christ by the secret agency of his Spirit, but he had formed some idea akin to that of the Manichees, desiring to transfuse the divine essence into men. Hence his other notion, that Adam was formed in the image of God, because even before the fall Christ was destined to be the model of human nature. But as I study brevity, I will confine myself to the matter in hand. He says, that we are one with Christ. This we admit, but still we deny that the essence of Christ is confounded with ours. Then we say that he absurdly endeavors to support his delusions by means of this principle: that Christ is our righteousness, because he is the eternal God, the fountain of righteousness, the very righteousness of God. My readers will pardon me for now only touching on matters which method requires me to defer to another place. But although he pretends that, by the term essential righteousness, he merely means to oppose the sentiment that we are reputed righteous on account of Christ, he however clearly shows, that not contented with that righteousness, which was procured for us by the obedience and sacrificial death of Christ, he maintains that we are substantially righteous in God by an infused essence as well as quality. For this is the reason why he so vehemently contends that not only Christ but the Father and the Spirit dwell in us. The fact I admit to be true, but still I maintain it is wrested by him. He ought to have attended to the mode of dwelling, viz., that the Father and the Spirit are in Christ; and as in him the fulness of the Godhead dwells, so in him we possess God entire. Hence, whatever he says separately concerning the Father and the Spirit, has no other tendency than to lead away the simple from Christ. Then he introduces a substantial mixture, by which God, transfusing himself into us, makes us as it were a part of himself. Our being made one with Christ by the agency of the Spirit, he being the head and we the members, he regards as almost nothing unless his essence is mingled with us. But, as I have said, in the case of the Father and the Spirit, he more clearly betrays his views, namely, that we are not justified by the mere grace of the Mediator, and that righteousness is not simply or entirely offered to us in his person, but that we are made partakers of divine righteousness when God is essentially united to us.

6. Had he only said, that Christ by justifying us becomes ours by an essential union, and that he is our head not only in so far as he is man, but that as the essence of the divine nature is diffused into us, he might indulge his dreams with less harm, and, perhaps, it were less necessary to contest the matter with him; but since this principle is like a cuttle-fish, which, by the ejection of dark and inky blood, conceals its many tails, if we would not knowingly and willingly allow ourselves to be robbed of that righteousness which alone gives us full assurance of our salvation, we must strenuously resist. For, in the whole of this discussion, the noun righteousness and the verb to justify, are extended by Osiander to two parts; to be justified being not only to be reconciled to God by a free pardon, but also to be made just; and righteousness being not a free imputation, but the holiness and integrity which the divine essence dwelling in us inspires. And he vehemently asserts (see sec. 8) that Christ is himself our righteousness, not in so far as he, by expiating sins, appeased the Father, but because he is the eternal God and life. To prove the first point, viz., that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change upon their vices? The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, are we therefore to say, that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the matter in hand than this simile. The sun by its heat quickens and fertilizes the earth; by its rays enlightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and undivided connection, and yet reason itself prohibits us from transferring the peculiar properties of the one to the other. In the confusion of a twofold grace, which Osiander obtrudes upon us, there is a similar absurdity. Because those whom God freely regards as righteous, he in fact renews to the cultivation of righteousness, Osiander confounds that free acceptance with this gift of regeneration, and contends that they are one and the same. But Scriptures while combining both, classes them separately, that it may the better display the manifold grace of God. Nor is Paul's statement superfluous, that Christ is made unto us "righteousness and sanctification," (1 Cor. 1: 30.) And whenever he argues from the salvation procured for us, from the paternal love of God and the grace of Christ, that we are called to purity and holiness, he plainly intimates, that to be justified is something else than to be made new creatures. Osiander on coming to Scripture corrupts every passage which he quotes. Thus when Paul says, "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," he expounds justifying as making just. With the same rashness he perverts the whole of the fourth chapter to the Romans. He hesitates not to give a similar gloss to the passage which I lately quoted, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth." Here it is plain that guilt and acquittal simply are considered, and that the Apostle's meaning depends on the antithesis. Therefore his futility is detected both in his argument and his quotations for support from Scripture. He is not a whit sounder in discussing the term righteousness, when it is said, that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness after he had embraced Christ, (who is the righteousness of Gad and God himself) and was distinguished by excellent virtues. Hence it appears that two things which are perfect are viciously converted by him into one which is corrupt. For the righteousness which is there mentioned pertains not to the whole course of life; or rather, the Spirit testifies, that though Abraham greatly excelled in virtue, and by long perseverance in it had made so much progress, the only way in which he pleased God was by receiving the grace which was offered by the promise, in faith. From this it follows, that, as Paul justly maintains, there is no room for works in justification.

7. When he objects that the power of justifying exists not in faith, considered in itself, but only as receiving Christ, I willingly admit it. For did faith justify of itself, or (as it is expressed) by its own intrinsic virtue, as it is always weak and imperfect, its efficacy would be partial, and thus our righteousness being maimed would give us only a portion of salvation. We indeed imagine nothing of the kind, but say, that, properly speaking, God alone justifies. The same thing we likewise transfer to Christ, because he was given to us for righteousness; while we compare faith to a kind of vessel, because we are incapable of receiving Christ, unless we are emptied and come with open mouth to receive his grace. Hence it follows, that we do not withdraw the power of justifying from Christ, when we hold that, previous to his righteousness, he himself is received by faith. Still, however, I admit not the tortuous figure of the sophist, that faith is Christ; as if a vessel of clay were a treasure, because gold is deposited in it. And yet this is no reason why faith, though in itself of no dignity or value, should not justify us by giving Christ; Just as such a vessel filled with coin may give wealth. I say, therefore, that faith, which is only the instrument for receiving justification, is ignorantly confounded with Christ, who is the material cause, as well as the author and minister of this great blessing. This disposes of the difficulty, viz., how the term faith is to be understood when treating of justification.

8. Osiander goes still farther in regard to the mode of receiving Christ, holding, that by the ministry of the external word the internal word is received; that he may thus lead us away from the priesthood of Christ, and his office of Mediator, to his eternal divinity. We, indeed, do not divide Christ, but hold that he who, reconciling us to God in his flesh, bestowed righteousness upon us, is the eternal Word of God; and that he could not perform the office of Mediator, nor acquire righteousness for us, if he were not the eternal God. Osiander will have it, that as Christ is God and man, he was made our righteousness in respect not of his human but of his divine nature. But if this is a peculiar property of the Godhead, it will not be peculiar to Christ, but common to him with the Father and the Spirit, since their righteousness is one and the same. Thus it would be incongruous to say, that that which existed naturally from eternity was made ours. But granting that God was made unto us righteousness, what are we to make of Paul's interposed statement, that he was so made by God? This certainly is peculiar to the office of mediator, for although he contains in himself the divine nature, yet he receives his own proper title, that he may be distinguished from the Father and the Spirit. But he makes a ridiculous boast of a single passage of Jeremiah, in which it is said, that Jehovah will be our righteousness, (Jer. 23: 6; 33: 16.) But all he can extract from this is, that Christ, who is our righteousness, was God manifest in the flesh. We have elsewhere quoted from Paul's discourse, that God purchased the Church with his own blood, (Acts 20: 28.) Were any one to infer from this that the blood by which sins were expiated was divine, and of a divine nature, who could endure so foul a heresy? But Osiander, thinking that he has gained the whole cause by this childish cavil, swells, exults, and stuffs whole pages with his bombast, whereas the solution is simple and obvious, viz., that Jehovah, when made of the seed of David, was indeed to be the righteousness of believers, but in what sense Isaiah declares, "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many," (Isa. 53: 11.) Let us observe that it is the Father who speaks. He attributes the office of justifying to the Son, and adds the reason, - because he is "righteous." He places the method, or medium, (as it is called,) in the doctrine by which Christ is known. For the word "da'at" is more properly to be understood in a passive sense. Hence I infer, first, that Christ was made righteousness when he assumed the form of a servant; secondly, that he justified us by his obedience to the Father; and, accordingly that he does not perform this for us in respect of his divine nature, but according to the nature of the dispensation laid upon him. For though God alone is the fountain of righteousness, and the only way in which we are righteous is by participation with him, yet, as by our unhappy revolt we are alienated from his righteousness, it is necessary to descend to this lower remedy, that Christ may justify us by the power of his death and resurrection.

9. If he objects that this work by its excellence transcends human, and therefore can only be ascribed to the divine nature; I concede the former point, but maintain, that on the latter he is ignorantly deluded. For although Christ could neither purify our souls by his own blood, nor appease the Father by his sacrifice, nor acquit us from the charge of guilt, nor, in short, perform the office of priest, unless he had been very God, because no human ability was equal to such a burden, it is however certain, that he performed all these things in his human nature. If it is asked, in what way we are justified? Paul answers, by the obedience of Christ. Did he obey in any other way than by assuming the form of a servant? We infer, therefore, that righteousness was manifested to us in his flesh. In like manner, in another passage, (which I greatly wonder that Osiander does not blush repeatedly to quote,) he places the fountain of righteousness entirely in the incarnation of Christ, "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. 5: 21.) Osiander in turgid sentences lays hold of the expression, righteousness of God, and shouts victory! as if he had proved it to be his own phantom of essential righteousness, though the words have a very different meaning, viz., that we are justified through the expiation made by Christ. That the righteousness of God is used for the righteousness which is approved by God, should be known to mere tyros, as in John, the praise of God is contrasted with the praise of men, (John 12: 43.) I know that by the righteousness of God is sometimes meant that of which God is the author, and which he bestows upon us; but that here the only thing meant is, that being supported by the expiation of Christ, we are able to stand at the tribunal of God, sound readers perceive without any observation of mine. The word is not of so much importance, provided Osiander agrees with us in this, that we are justified by Christ in respect he was made an expiatory victim for us. This he could not be in his divine nature. For which reason also, when Christ would seal the righteousness and salvation which he brought to us, he holds forth the sure pledge of it in his flesh. He indeed calls himself "living bread," but, in explanation of the mode, adds, "my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed," (John 6: 55.) The same doctrine is clearly seen in the sacraments; which, though they direct our faith to the whole, not to a part of Christ, yet, at the same time, declare that the materials of righteousness and salvation reside in his flesh; not that the mere man of himself justifies or quickens, but that God was pleased, by means of a Mediator, to manifest his own hidden and incomprehensible nature. Hence I often repeat, that Christ has been in a manner set before us as a fountain, whence we may draw what would otherwise lie without use in that deep and hidden abyss which streams forth to us in the person of the Mediator. In this way, and in this meaning, I deny not that Christ, as he is God and man, justifies us; that this work is common also to the Father and the Holy Spirit; in fine, that the righteousness of which God makes us partakers is the eternal righteousness of the eternal God, provided effect is given to the clear and valid reasons to which I have adverted.

10. Moreover, lest by his cavils he deceive the unwary, I acknowledge that we are devoid of this incomparable gift until Christ become ours. Therefore, to that union of the head and members, the residence of Christ in our hearts, in fine, the mystical union, we assign the highest rank, Christ when he becomes ours making us partners with him in the gifts with which he was endued. Hence we do not view him as at a distance and without us, but as we have put him on, and been ingrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in having a fellowship of righteousness with him. This disposes of Osiander's calumny, that we regard faith as righteousness; as if we were robbing Christ of his rights when we say, that, destitute in ourselves, we draw near to him by faith, to make way for his grace, that he alone may fill us. But Osiander, spurning this spiritual union, insists on a gross mixture of Christ with believers; and, accordingly, to excite prejudice, gives the name of Zwinglians to all who subscribe not to his fanatical heresy of essential righteousness, because they do not hold that, in the supper, Christ is eaten substantially. For my part, I count it the highest honor to be thus assailed by a haughty man, devoted to his own impostures; though he assails not me only, but writers of known reputation throughout the world, and whom it became him modestly to venerate. This, however, does not concern me, as I plead not my own cause, and plead the more sincerely that I am free from every sinister feeling. In insisting so vehemently on essential righteousness, and an essential inhabitation of Christ within us, his meaning is, first, that God by a gross mixture transfuses himself into us, as he pretends that there is a carnal eating in the supper; And, secondly that by instilling his own righteousness into us, he makes us really righteous with himself since, according to him, this righteousness is as well God himself as the probity, or holiness, or integrity of God. I will not spend much time in disposing of the passages of Scripture which he adduces, and which, though used in reference to the heavenly life, he wrests to our present state. Peter says, that through the knowledge of Christ "are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by them ye might be partakers of the divine nature," (2 Pet. 1: 4;) as if we now were what the gospel promises we shall be at the final advent of Christ; nay, John reminds us, that "when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is", (1 John 3: 2.) I only wished to give my readers a slender specimen of Osiander, it being my intention to decline the discussion of his frivolities, not because there is any difficulty in disposing of them, but because I am unwilling to annoy the reader with superfluous labour.

11. But more poison lurks in the second branch, when he says that we are righteous together with God. I think I have already sufficiently proved, that although the dogma were not so pestiferous, yet because it is frigid and jejune, and falls by its own vanity, it must justly be disrelished by all sound and pious readers. But it is impossible to tolerate the impiety which, under the pretence of a twofold righteousness, undermines our assurance of salvation, and hurrying us into the clouds, tries to prevent us from embracing the gift of expiation in faith, and invoking God with quiet minds. Osiander derides us for teaching, that to be justified is a forensic term, because it behaves us to be in reality just: there is nothing also to which he is more opposed than the idea of our being justified by a free imputation. Say, then, if God does not justify us by acquitting and pardoning, what does Paul mean when he says "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them"? "He made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," (2 Cor. 5: 19, 21.) Here I learn, first, that those who are reconciled to God are regarded as righteous: then the method is stated, God justifies by pardoning; and hence, in another place, justification is opposed to accusation, (Rom. 8: 33;) this antithesis clearly demonstrating that the mode of expression is derived from forensic use. And, indeed, no man, moderately verdant in the Hebrew tongue, (provided he is also of sedate brain,) is ignorant that this phrase thus took its rise, and thereafter derived its tendency and force. Now, then, when Paul says that David "describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven," (Rom. 4: 6, 7; Ps. 32: 1,) let Osiander say whether this is a complete or only a partial definition. He certainly does not adduce the Psalmist as a witness that pardon of sins is a part of righteousness, or concurs with something else in justifying, but he includes the whole of righteousness in gratuitous forgiveness, declaring those to be blessed "whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered," and "to whom the Lord will not impute sin." He estimates and judges of his happiness from this that in this way he is righteous not in reality, but by imputation.

Osiander objects that it would be insulting to God, and contrary to his nature, to justify those who still remain wicked. But it ought to be remembered, as I already observed, that the gift of justification is not separated from regeneration, though the two things are distinct. But as it is too well known by experience, that the remains of sin always exist in the righteous, it is necessary that justification should be something very different from reformation to newness of life. This latter God begins in his elect, and carries on during the whole course of life, gradually and sometimes slowly, so that if placed at his judgment-seat they would always deserve sentence of death. He justifies not partially, but freely, so that they can appear in the heavens as if clothed with the purity of Christ. No portion of righteousness could pacify the conscience. It must be decided that we are pleasing to God, as being without exception righteous in his sight. Hence it follows that the doctrine of justification is perverted and completely overthrown whenever doubt is instilled into the mind, confidence in salvation is shaken, and free and intrepid prayer is retarded; yea, whenever rest and tranquility with spiritual joy are not established. Hence Paul argues against objectors, that "if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise," (Gal. 3: 18.) that in this way faith would be made vain; for if respect be had to works it fails, the holiest of men in that case finding nothing in which they can confide. This distinction between justification and regeneration (Osiander confounding the two, calls them a twofold righteousness) is admirably expressed by Paul. Speaking of his real righteousness, or the integrity bestowed upon him, (which Osiander terms his essential righteousness,) he mournfully exclaims, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7: 24;) but retaking himself to the righteousness which is founded solely on the mercy of God, he breaks forth thus magnificently into the language of triumph: "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth." "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?" (Rom. 8: 33, 35.) He clearly declares that the only righteousness for him is that which alone suffices for complete salvation in the presence of God, so that that miserable bondage, the consciousness of which made him a little before lament his lot, derogates not from his confidence, and is no obstacle in his way. This diversity is well known, and indeed is familiar to all the saints who groan under the burden of sin, and yet with victorious assurance rise above all fears. Osiander's objection as to its being inconsistent with the nature of God, falls back upon himself; for though he clothes the saints with a twofold righteousness as with a coat of skins, he is, however, forced to admit, that without forgiveness no man is pleasing to God. If this be so, let him at least admit, that with reference to what is called the proportion of imputation, those are regarded as righteous who are not so in reality. But how far shall the sinner extend this gratuitous acceptance, which is substituted in the room of righteousness? Will it amount to the whole pound, or will it be only an ounce? He will remain in doubt, vibrating to this side and to that, because he will be unable to assume to himself as much righteousness as will be necessary to give confidence. It is well that he who would prescribe a law to God is not the judge in this cause. But this saying will ever stand true, "That thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judges," (Ps. 51: 4.) What arrogance to condemn the Supreme Judge when he acquits freely, and try to prevent the response from taking affect: "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." And yet the intercession of Moses, which God calmed by this answer, was not for pardon to some individual, but to all alike, by wiping away the guilt to which all were liable. And we, indeed, say, that the lost are justified before God by the burial of their sins; for (as he hates sin) he can only love those whom he justifies. But herein is the wondrous method of justification, that, clothed with the righteousness of Christ, they dread not the judgment of which they are worthy, and while they justly condemn themselves, are yet deemed righteous out of themselves.

12. I must admonish the reader carefully to attend to the mystery which he boasts he is unwilling to conceal from them. For after contending with great prolixity that we do not obtain favor with God through the mere imputation of the righteousness of Christ, because (to use his own words) it were impossible for God to hold those as righteous who are not so, he at length concludes that Christ was given to us for righteousness, in respect not of his human, but of his divine nature; and though this can only be found in the person of the Mediator, it is, however, the righteousness not of man, but of God. He does not now twist his rope of two righteousnesses, but plainly deprives the human nature of Christ of the office of justifying. It is worth while to understand what the nature of his argument is. It is said in the same passage that Christ is made unto us wisdom, (1 Cor. 1: 30;) but this is true only of the eternal Word, and, therefore, it is not the man Christ that is made righteousness. I answer, that the only begotten Son of God was indeed his eternal wisdom, but that this title is applied to him by Paul in a different way, viz., because "in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and righteousness," (Col. 2: 3.) That, therefore, which he had with the Father he manifested to us; and thus Paul's expression refers not to the essence of the Son of God, but to our use, and is fitly applied to the human nature of Christ; for although the light shone in darkness before he was clothed with flesh, yet he was a hidden light until he appeared in human nature as the Sun of Righteousness, and hence he calls himself the light of the world. It is also foolishly objected by Osiander, that justifying far transcends the power both of men and angels, since it depends not on the dignity of any creature, but on the ordination of God. Were angels to attempt to give satisfaction to God, they could have no success, because they are not appointed for this purpose, it being the peculiar office of Christ, who "has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us," (Gal. 3: 13.) Those who deny that Christ is our righteousness, in respect of his divine nature, are wickedly charged by Osiander with leaving only a part of Christ, and (what is worse) with making two Gods; because, while admitting that God dwells in us, they still insist that we are not justified by the righteousness of God. For though we call Christ the author of life, inasmuch as he endured death that he might destroy him who had the power of death, (Heb. 2: 14,) we do not thereby rob him of this honor, in his whole character as God manifested in the flesh. We only make a distinction as to the manner in which the righteousness of God comes to us, and is enjoyed by us, - a matter as to which Osiander shamefully erred. We deny not that that which was openly exhibited to us in Christ flowed from the secret grace and power of God; nor do we dispute that the righteousness which Christ confers upon us is the righteousness of God, and proceeds from him. What we constantly maintain is, that our righteousness and life are in the death and resurrection of Christ. I say nothing of that absurd accumulation of passages with which without selection or common understanding, he has loaded his readers, in endeavoring to show, that whenever mention is made of righteousness, this essential righteousness of his should be understood; as when David implores help from the righteousness of God. This David does more than a hundred times, and as often Osiander hesitates not to pervert his meaning. Not a whit more solid is his objection, that the name of righteousness is rightly and properly applied to that by which we are moved to act aright, but that it is God only that worketh in us both to will and to do, (Phil. 2: 13.) For we deny not that God by his Spirit forms us anew to holiness and righteousness of life; but we must first see whether he does this of himself, immediately, or by the hand of his Son, with whom he has deposited all the fulness of the Holy Spirit, that out of his own abundance he may supply the wants of his members. When, although righteousness comes to us from the secret fountain of the Godhead, it does not follow that Christ, who sanctified himself in the flesh on our account, is our righteousness in respect of his divine nature, (John 17: 19.) Not less frivolous is his observation, that the righteousness with which Christ himself was righteous was divine; for had not the will of the Father impelled him, he could not have fulfilled the office assigned him. For although it has been elsewhere said that all the merits of Christ flow from the mere good pleasure of God, this gives no countenance to the phantom by which Osiander fascinates both his own eyes and those of the simple. For who will allow him to infer, that because God is the source and commencement of our righteousness, we are essentially righteous, and the essence of the divine righteousness dwells in us? In redeeming us, says Isaiah, "he (God) put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head," (Isaiah 59: 17,) was this to deprive Christ of the armour which he had given him, and prevent him from being a perfect Redeemer? All that the Prophet meant was, that God borrowed nothing from an external quarter, that in redeeming us he received no external aid. The same thing is briefly expressed by Paul in different terms, when he says that God set him forth "to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins." This is not the least repugnant to his doctrine: in another place, that "by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous," (Rom. 5: 19.) In short, every one who, by the entanglement of a twofold righteousness, prevents miserable souls from resting entirely on the mere mercy of God, mocks Christ by putting on him a crown of plaited thorns.

13. But since a great part of mankind imagine a righteousness compounded of faith and works let us here show that there is so wide a difference between justification by faith and by works, that the establishment of the one necessarily overthrows the other. The Apostle says, "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. 3: 8, 9.) You here see a comparison of contraries, and an intimation that every one who would obtain the righteousness of Christ must renounce his own. Hence he elsewhere declares the cause of the rejection of the Jews to have been, that "they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God," (Rom. 10: 3.) If we destroy the righteousness of God by establishing our own righteousness, then, in order to obtain his righteousness, our own must be entirely abandoned. This also he shows, when he declares that boasting is not excluded by the Law, but by faith, (Rom. 3: 27.) Hence it follows, that so long as the minutes portion of our own righteousness remains, we have still some ground for boasting. Now if faith utterly excludes boasting, the righteousness of works cannot in any way be associated with the righteousness of faith. This meaning is so clearly expressed in the fourth chapter to the Romans as to leave no room for cavil or evasion. "If Abraham were justified by works he has whereof to glory;" and then it is added, "but not before God," (Rom. 4: 2.) The conclusion, therefore, is, that he was not justified by works. He then employs another argument from contraries, viz., when reward is paid to works, it is done of debt, not of grace; but the righteousness of faith is of grace: therefore it is not of the merit of works. Away, then, with the dream of those who invent a righteousness compounded of faith and works, (see Calvin. ad Concilium Tridentinum.)

14. The Sophists, who delight in sporting with Scripture and in empty cavils, think they have a subtle evasion when they expound works to mean, such as unregenerated men do literally, and by the effect of free will, without the grace of Christ, and deny that these have any reference to spiritual works. Thus according to them, man is justified by faith as well as by works, provided these are not his own works, but gifts of Christ and fruits of regeneration; Paul's only object in so expressing himself being to convince the Jews, that in trusting to their ohm strength they foolishly arrogated righteousness to themselves, whereas it is bestowed upon us by the Spirit of Christ alone, and not by studied efforts of our own nature. But they observe not that in the antithesis between Legal and Gospel righteousness, which Paul elsewhere introduces, all kinds of works, with whatever name adorned, are excluded, (Gal. 3: 11, 12.) For he says that the righteousness of the Law consists in obtaining salvation by doing what the Law requires, but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing that Christ died and rose again, (Rom. 10: 5-9.) Moreover, we shall afterwards see, at the proper place, that the blessings of sanctification and justification, which we derive from Christ, are different. Hence it follows, that not even spiritual works are taken into account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith. And, indeed, the passage above quoted, in which Paul declares that Abraham had no ground of glorying before God, because he was not justified by works, ought not to be confined to a literal and external form of virtue, or to the effort of free will. The meaning is, that though the life of the Patriarch had been spiritual and almost angelic, yet he could not by the merit of works have procured justification before God.

15. The Schoolmen treat the matter somewhat more grossly by mingling their preparations with it; and yet the others instill into the simple and unwary a no less pernicious dogma, when, under cover of the Spirit and grace, they hide the divine mercy, which alone can give peace to the trembling soul. We, indeed, hold with Paul, that those who fulfill the Law are justified by God, but because we are all far from observing the Law, we infer that the works which should be most effectual to justification are of no avail to us, because we are destitute of them. In regard to vulgar Papists or Schoolmen, they are here doubly wrong, both in calling faith assurance of conscience while waiting to receive from God the reward of merits, and in interpreting divine grace to mean not the imputation of gratuitous righteousness, but the assistance of the Spirit in the study of holiness. They quote from an Apostle: "He that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him," (Heb. 11: 6.) But they observe not what the method of seeking is. Then in regard to the term grace, it is plain from their writings that they labour under a delusion. For Lombard holds that justification is given to us by Christ in two ways. "First," says he, (Lombard, Sent. Lib. 3, Dist. 16, c. 11,) "the death of Christ justifies us when by means of it the love by which we are made righteous is excited in our hearts; and, secondly, when by means of it sin is extinguished, sin by which the devil held us captive, but by which he cannot now procure our condemnation." You see here that the chief office of divine grace in our justification he considers to be its directing us to good works by the agency of the Holy Spirit. He intended, no doubt, to follow the opinion of Augustine, but he follows it at a distance, and even wanders far from a true imitation of him both obscuring what was clearly stated by Augustine, and making what in him was less pure more corrupt. The Schools have always gone from worse to worse, until at length, in their downward path, they have degenerated into a kind of Pelagianism. Even the sentiment of Augustine, or at least his mode of expressing it, cannot be entirely approved of. For although he is admirable in stripping man of all merit of righteousness, and transferring the whole praise of it to God, yet he classes the grace by which we are regenerated to newness of life under the head of sanctification.

16. Scripture, when it treats of justification by faith, leads us in a very different direction. Turning away our view from our own works, it bids us look only to the mercy of God and the perfection of Christ. The order of justification which it sets before us is this: first, God of his mere gratuitous goodness is pleased to embrace the sinner, in whom he sees nothing that can move him to mercy but wretchedness, because he sees him altogether naked and destitute of good works. He, therefore, seeks the cause of kindness in himself, that thus he may affect the sinner by a sense of his goodness, and induce him, in distrust of his own works, to cast himself entirely upon his mercy for salvation. This is the meaning of faith by which the sinner comes into the possession of salvation, when, according to the doctrine of the Gospel, he perceives that he is reconciled by God; when, by the intercession of Christ, he obtains the pardon of his sins, and is justified; and, though renewed by the Spirit of God, considers that, instead of leaning on his own works, he must look solely to the righteousness which is treasured up for him in Christ. When these things are weighed separately, they will clearly explain our view, though they may be arranged in a better order than that in which they are here presented. But it is of little consequence, provided they are so connected with each other as to give us a full exposition and solid confirmation of the whole subject.

17. Here it is proper to remember the relation which we previously established between faith and the Gospel; faith being said to justify because it receives and embraces the righteousness offered in the Gospel. By the very fact of its being said to be offered by the Gospel, all consideration of works is excluded. This Paul repeatedly declares, and in two passages, in particular, most clearly demonstrates. In the Epistle to the Romans, comparing the Law and the Gospel, he says, "Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which does those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, - If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved," (Rom. 10: 5, 6: 9.) Do you see how he makes the distinction between the Law and the Gospel to be, that the former gives justification to works, whereas the latter bestows it freely without any help from works? This is a notable passage, and may free us from many difficulties if we understand that the justification which is given us by the Gospel is free from any terms of Law. It is for this reason he more than once places the promise in diametrical opposition to the Law. "If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise," (Gal. 3: 18.) Expressions of similar import occur in the same chapter. Undoubtedly the Law also has its promises; and, therefore, between them and the Gospel promises there must be some distinction and difference, unless we are to hold that the comparison is inept. And in what can the difference consist unless in this that the promises of the Gospel are gratuitous, and founded on the mere mercy of God, whereas the promises of the Law depend on the condition of works? But let no pester here allege that only the righteousness which men would obtrude upon God of their own strength and free will is repudiated; since Paul declares, without exceptions that the Law gained nothing by its commands, being such as none, not only of mankind in general, but none even of the most perfect, are able to fulfill. Love assuredly is the chief commandment in the Law, and since the Spirit of God trains us to love, it cannot but be a cause of righteousness in us, though that righteousness even in the saints is defective, and therefore of no value as a ground of merit.

18. The second passage is, "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 does them shall live in them," (Gal. 3: 11, 12; Hab. 2: 4.) How could the argument hold unless it be true that works are not to be taken into account, but are to be altogether separated? The Law, he says, is different from faith. Why? Because to obtain justification by it, works are required; and hence it follows, that to obtain justification by the Gospel they are not required. From this statement, it appears that those who are justified by faith are justified independent of, nay, in the absence of, the merit of works, because faith receives that righteousness which the Gospel bestows. But the Gospel differs from the Law in this, that it does not confine justification to works, but places it entirely in the mercy of God. In like manner, Paul contends, in the Epistle to the Romans, that Abraham had no ground of glorying, because faith was imputed to him for righteousness, (Rom. 4: 2;) and he adds in confirmation, that the proper place for justification by faith is where there are no works to which reward is due. "To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." What is given to faith is gratuitous, this being the force of the meaning of the words which he there employs. Shortly after he adds, "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace," (Rom. 4: 16;) and hence infers that the inheritance is gratuitous because it is procured by faith. How so but just because faiths without the aid of works leans entirely on the mercy of God? And in the same sense, doubtless, he elsewhere teaches, that the righteousness of God without the Law was manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, (Rom. 3: 21;) for excluding the Law, he declares that it is not aided by worlds, that we do not obtain it by working, but are destitute when we draw near to receive it.

19. The reader now perceives with what fairness the Sophists of the present day cavil at our doctrine, when we say that a man is justified by faith alone, (Rom. 4: 2.) They dare not deny that he is justified by faith, seeing Scripture so often declares it; but as the word alone is nowhere expressly used they will not tolerate its being added. Is it so? What answer, then will they give to the words of Paul, when he contends that righteousness is not of faith unless it be gratuitous? How can it be gratuitous, and yet by works? By what cavils, moreover, will they evade his declaration in another place, that in the Gospel the righteousness of God is manifested? (Rom. 1: 17.) If righteousness is manifested in the Gospel, it is certainly not a partial or mutilated, but a full and perfect righteousness. The Law, therefore, has no part in its and their objection to the exclusive word alone is not only unfounded, but is obviously absurd. Does he not plainly enough attribute everything to faith alone when he disconnects it with works? What I would ask, is meant by the expressions, "The righteousness of God without the law is manifested;" "Being justified freely by his grace;" "Justified by faith without the deeds of the law?" (Rom. 3: 21, 24, 28.) Here they have an ingenious subterfuge, one which, though not of their own devising but taken from Origin and some ancient writers, is most childish. They pretend that the works excluded are ceremonial, not moral works. Such profit do they make by their constant wrangling, that they possess not even the first elements of logic. Do they think the Apostle was raving when he produced, in proof of his doctrine, these passages? "The man that does them shall live in them," (Gal. 3: 12.) "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them," (Gal. 3: 10.) Unless they are themselves raving, they will not say that life was promised to the observers of ceremonies, and the curse denounced only against the transgressors of them. If these passages are to be understood of the Moral Law, there cannot be a doubt that moral works also are excluded from the power of justifying. To the same effect are the arguments which he employs. "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin," (Rom. 3: 20.) "The law worketh wrath," (Rom. 4: 15,) and therefore not righteousness. "The law cannot pacify the conscience," and therefore cannot confer righteousness. "Faith is imputed for righteousness," and therefore righteousness is not the reward of works, but is given without being due. Because "we are justified by faith," boasting is excluded. "Had there been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe," (Gal. 3: 21, 22.) Let them maintain, if they dare, that these things apply to ceremonies, and not to morals, and the very children will laugh at their effrontery. The true conclusion, therefore, is, that the whole Law is spoken of when the power of justifying is denied to it.

20. Should any one wonder why the Apostle, not contented with having named works, employs this addition, the explanation is easy. However highly works may be estimated, they have their whole value more from the approbation of God than from their own dignity. For who will presume to plume himself before God on the righteousness of works, unless in so far as He approves of them? Who will presume to demand of Him a reward except in so far as He has promised it? It is owing entirely to the goodness of God that works are deemed worthy of the honor and reward of righteousness; and, therefore, their whole value consists in this, that by means of them we endeavor to manifest obedience to God. Wherefore, in another passage, the Apostle, to prove that Abraham could not be justified by works, declares, "that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect," (Gal. 3: 17.) The unskillful would ridicule the argument that there could be righteous works before the promulgation of the Law, but the Apostle, knowing that works could derive this value solely from the testimony and honor conferred on them by God, takes it for granted that, previous to the Law, they had no power of justifying. We see why he expressly terms them works of Law when he would deny the power of justifying to theme viz., because it was only with regard to such works that a question could be raised; although he sometimes, without addition, excepts all kinds of works whatever, as when on the testimony of David he speaks of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, (Rom. 4: 5, 6.) No cavils, therefore, can enable them to prove that the exclusion of works is not general. In vain do they lay hold of the frivolous subtilty, that the faith alone, by which we are justified, "worketh by love," and that love, therefore, is the foundation of justification. We, indeed, acknowledge with Paul, that the only faith which justifies is that which works by love, (Gal. 5: 6;) but love does not give it its justifying power. Nay, its only means of justifying consists in its bringing us into communication with the righteousness of Christ. Otherwise the whole argument, on which the Apostle insists with so much earnestness, would fall. 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." Could he express more clearly than in this word, that there is justification in faith only where there are no works to which reward is due, and that faith is imputed for righteousness only when righteousness is conferred freely without merit?

21. Let us now consider the truth of what was said in the definition, viz., that justification by faith is reconciliation with God, and that this consists solely in the remission of sins. We must always return to the axioms that the wrath of God lies upon all men so long as they continue sinners. This is elegantly expressed by Isaiah in these words: "Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear," (Isaiah 59: 1, 2.) We are here told that sin is a separation between God and man; that His countenance is turned away from the sinner; and that it cannot be otherwise, since, to have any intercourse with sin is repugnant to his righteousness. Hence the Apostle shows that man is at enmity with God until he is restored to favour by Christ, (Rom. 5: 8-l0.) When the Lord, therefore, admits him to union, he is said to justify him, because he can neither receive him into favor, nor unite him to himself, without changing his condition from that of a sinner into that of a righteous man. We adds that this is done by remission of sins. For if those whom the Lord has reconciled to himself are estimated by works, they will still prove to be in reality sinners, while they ought to be pure and free from sin. It is evident therefore, that the only way in which those whom God embraces are made righteous, is by having their pollutions wiped away by the remission of sins, so that this justification may be termed in one word the remission of sins.

22. Both of these become perfectly clear from the words of Paul: "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and has committed unto us the word of reconciliation." He then subjoins the sum of his embassy: "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. 5: l9-21.) He here uses righteousness and reconciliation indiscriminately, to make us understand that the one includes the other. The mode of obtaining this righteousness he explains to be, that our sins are not imputed to us. Wherefore, you cannot henceforth doubt how God justifies us when you hear that he reconciles us to himself by not imputing our faults. In the same manner, in the Epistle to the Romans, he proves, by the testimony of David, that righteousness is imputed without works, because he declares the man to be blessed "whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered," and "unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity," (Rom. 4: 6; Ps. 32: 1, 2.) There he undoubtedly uses blessedness for righteousness; and as he declares that it consists in forgiveness of sins, there is no reason why we should define it otherwise. Accordingly, Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, sings that the knowledge of salvation consists in the forgiveness of sins, (Luke 1: 77.) The same course was followed by Paul when, in addressing the people of Antioch, he gave them a summary of salvation. Luke states that he concluded in this way: "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 12: 38, 39.) Thus the Apostle connects forgiveness of sins with justification in such a way as to show that they are altogether the same; and hence he properly argues that justification, which we owe to the indulgence of God, is gratuitous. Nor should it seem an unusual mode of expression to say that believers are justified before God not by works, but by gratuitous acceptance, seeing it is frequently used in Scripture, and sometimes also by ancient writers. Thus Augustine says: "The righteousness of the saints in this world consists more in the forgiveness of sins than the perfection of virtue," (August. de Civitate Dei, lib. 19, cap. 27.) To this corresponds the well-known sentiment of Bernard: "Not to sin is the righteousness of God, but the righteousness of man is the indulgence of God," (Bernard, Serm. 22, 23 in Cant.) He previously asserts that Christ is our righteousness in absolution, and, therefore, that those only are just who have obtained pardon through mercy.

23. Hence also it is proved, that it is entirely by the intervention of Christ's righteousness that we obtain justification before God. This is equivalent to saying that man is not just in himself, but that the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation, while he is strictly deserving of punishment. Thus vanishes the absurd dogma, that man is justified by faith, inasmuch as it brings him under the influence of the Spirit of God by whom he is rendered righteous. This is so repugnant to the above doctrine that it never can be reconciled with it. There can be no doubt that he who is taught to seek righteousness out of himself does not previously possess it in himself. This is most clearly declared by the Apostle, when he says, that he who knew no sin was made an expiatory victim for sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. 5: 21.) You see that our righteousness is not in ourselves, but in Christ; that the only way in which we become possessed of it is by being made partakers with Christ, since with him we possess all riches. There is nothing repugnant to this in what he elsewhere says: "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. 8: 3, 4.) Here the only fulfillment to which he refers is that which we obtain by imputation. Our Lord Jesus Christ communicates his righteousness to us, and so by some wondrous ways in so far as pertains to the justice of Gods transfuses its power into us. That this was the Apostle's view is abundantly clear from another sentiment which he had expressed a little before: "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous," (Rom. 5: 19.) To declare that we are deemed righteous, solely because the obedience of Christ is imputed to us as if it where our own, is just to place our righteousness in the obedience of Christ. Wherefore, Ambrose appears to me to have most elegantly adverted to the blessing of Jacob as an illustration of this righteousness, when he says that as he who did not merit the birthright in himself personated his brother, put on his garments which gave forth a most pleasant odour, and thus introduced himself to his father that he might receive a blessing to his own advantage, though under the person of another, so we conceal ourselves under the precious purity of Christ, our first-born brother, that we may obtain an attestation of righteousness from the presence of God. The words of Ambrose are, - "Isaac's smelling the odour of his garments, perhaps means that we are justified not by works, but by faith, since carnal infirmity is an impediment to works, but errors of conduct are covered by the brightness of faith, which merits the pardon of faults," (Ambrose de Jacobo et Vita Beats, Lib. 2, c. 2.) And so indeed it is; for in order to appear in the presence of God for salvation, we must send forth that fragrant odour, having our vices covered and buried by his perfection.

John Calvin, Book 3:11, The Institutes of The Christian Religion, Beveridge edition, 1863.

Faith & Justification

by Theodore Beza (1519-1605)

We believe in the Holy Spirit; He is the essential Power of the Rather and the Son (Gen 1:2). He dwells in Them and is co-eternal and consubstantial with Them; He proceeds from Them (John 14:16,26; 16:7-15). He is one God with Them (Rom 8:9-11; Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor. 12:4-8; 3:16) and is always a Person distinct from the One and the Other (Matt 28:19).

This is what the Church has well settled, by the Word of God, against Macedonius* and other similar heretics. His infinite might and power are demonstrated in the creation and preservation of all creatures, since the beginning of the world (Gen 1:2; Ps. 104:29,30).

But, in this treatise, we shall especially consider the effects which He produces in the children of God; how, along with faith, He brings to them the graces of God to make them sensible of the efficacy and power of them (Rom 8:12-17; 1 Cor. 2:11,12; 1 John 4:13); in brief, how He brings them more and more to the end and goal to. which they have been predestinated before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:3-4).

* Macedonius, (4th Century), denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. His heresy was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.

The Holy Spirit makes us partakers of Jesus Christ by Faith Alone

The Holy Spirit is therefore the One through whom the Rather places and maintains His elect in possession of Jesus Christ, His Son; and, consequently, of all the graces which are necessary to their salvation.

But it is necessary, in the first place, that the Holy Spirit makes us suitable and ready to receive Jesus Christ. This is what He does in creating in us, by His pure goodness and Divine mercy, that which we call 'faith' (Eph. 1: 17; Phil 1: 29; 2 'Mess 3:2), the sole instrument by which we take hold of Jesus Christ when He is offered to us, the sole vessel to receive Him (John 3:1-13, 33-36).

The means which the Holy Spirit uses to create and preserve faith in us

In order to create in us this instrument of faith, and also to feed and strengthen it more and more, the Holy Spirit uses two ordinary means (without however communicating to them His power, but working by them): the preaching of the Word of God, and His Sacraments (Matt 29:19-20; Acts 6:4; Rom 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Pet 1:23-25).

Further on, we will return to this; in the first place we shall define what this so precious faith is, and what are its effects and powers.

How faith is necessary, and what faith is

We are at this point such enemies of our own salvation, because of our natural corruption (Rom 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14), that if God had merely contented Himself to tell us that we shall find our salvation in Jesus Christ, we would only mock it; thus has the world always done and will do until the end (1 Cor. 1:23-25; John 10:20; Acts 2:13; Luke 23:35). Even more, if He added nothing more than to tell us also that the means whereby we experience the efficacy of this remedy against eternal death is to believe in Jesus Christ, that would profit us nothing (John 3:5-6). For, in all this, we are more than dumb (Ps. 51:15; Is 6:5; Jer. 1:6), deaf (Ps. 40:6; John 8:47; Matt 13:13), and blind through the corruption of our nature (John 1:5; 3:3; 9:41). It would be no more possible for us even to wish to believe than it would be for a dead man to fly (John 12:38,39; 6:44).

It is necessary therefore that with all this, the good Father, who chose us for His glory, should come to multiply His mercy towards His enemies. In declaring to us that He has given His own only Son so that whosoever takes hold of Him by faith should not perish (John 3:16), He creates also in us this instrument of faith which He requires from us.

Now, the faith of which we speak does not consist only in believing that God is God, and that the contents of His Word are true:- for the devils indeed have this faith, and it only makes them tremble (James 2:19) -- But we call 'faith' a certain knowledge which, by His grace and goodness alone, the Holy Spirit engraves more and more in the hearts of the elect of God (I Cor. 2:6-8). By this knowledge, each of them, being assured in his heart of his election, appropriates to himself and applies to himself the promise of his salvation in Jesus Christ.

Faith, I say, does not only believe that Jesus Christ is dead and risen again for sinners, but it comes also to embrace Jesus Christ (Rom 8:16,39; Heb. 10:22, 23; 1 John 4:13; 5:19, etc). Whosoever truly believes trusts in Him alone and is assured of his salvation to the point of no longer doubting it (Eph. 3:12). That is why St. Bernard said, conformably to the whole of Scripture, what follows, "If you believe that your sins cannot be blotted out except by Him against whom alone you have sinned, you do well. But add yet one point: that you believe that your sins have been forgiven you by Him. This is the testimony that the Holy Spirit gives to our heart, saying, 'Your sins are forgiven you'."

The object and power of true faith

Since Jesus Christ is the object of faith, and indeed Jesus Christ as He is held forth to us in the Word of God, there follow two points which should be noted well.

On the one side, where there is no Word of God but only the word of man, whoever he be, there is no faith there, but only a dream or an opinion which cannot fail to deceive us (Rom 10:2-4; Mark 16:15,16; Rom 1:28; Gal 1:8-9).

On the other side, faith embraces and appropriates Jesus Christ and all that is in Him, since He has been given to us on the condition of believing in Him (John 17:20,21; Rom 8:9). There follows one of two things: either all that is necessary for our salvation is not in Jesus Christ, or if all is indeed there, he who has Jesus Christ by faith has everything. Now, to say that all which is necessary for our salvation is not in Jesus Christ is a very horrible blasphemy, for this would only make Him a Saviour in part (Matt 1:21). There remains therefore the other part: in having Jesus Christ, by faith, we have in Him all that is required for our salvation (Rom 5:1).

This is what the Apostle says, "There is no condemnation for those who are in Jesus Christ." (Rom 8:1).

How must that word be understood which we say after St Paul, "We are justified by faith alone"

Here is the explanation of our justification by faith alone: faith is the instrument which receives Jesus Christ and, consequently, which receives His righteousness, that is to say, all perfection. When therefore, after St. Paul (Rom 1: 17; 3:21-27; 4:3; 5:1; 9:30-33; 11:6; Gal 2:16-21; 3:9,10,18; Phil 3:9; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5; Heb. 11:7) we say that we are justified by faith alone, or freely, or by faith without works (for all these ways of speaking give the same sense), we do not say that faith is a virtue which makes us righteous, in ourselves, before God. For this would be to put faith in the place of Jesus Christ who is, alone, our perfect and entire righteousness.

But we speak thus with the Apostle, and we say that by faith alone we are justified, insomuch as it embraces Him who justifies us, Jesus Christ, to whom it unites and joins us. We are then made partakers of Him and an the benefits which He possesses. These, being imputed and gifted to us, are more than sufficient to make us acquitted and accounted righteous before God.

To be assured of one's salvation through faith in Jesus Christ is not at all arrogance or presumption

It is established that to be assured of one's salvation, through faith, is not only neither presumption nor arrogance, but, on the contrary, is the sole means of stripping oneself of all pride, to give all glory to God (Rom 8:16,38; Eph 3:12; Heb. 10:22,23; 1 John 4:13; 5:19; Rom 3:27; 4:20; 1 Cor. 4:4; 9:26,27). Because faith alone teaches us to go out of ourselves, and compels us, to earnestly acknowledge that in ourselves there is nothing but cause for complete damnation. Thus it sends us away to Jesus Christ, and it teaches us and assures us that we shall find salvation before God through His righteousness alone. Truly, all that is in Jesus Christ, that is to say, all the righteousness and perfection (in Him there was no sin and moreover He has fulfilled all the righteousness of the Law), is placed to our account and gifted to us as if it were our own, provided that we embrace Him by faith.

That is why St. Bernard said, "The testimony of our conscience is our glory: not the testimony which the deceived mind, deceiving its owner, gives from itself to the vain-glorious Pharisee (Luke 18:11,12); this testimony is not true. But the testimony which the Holy Spirit gives to our spirit is true."

Faith finds in Jesus Christ all that is necessary for salvation

This requires to be expounded in detail, so that one may know if, through faith, we take hold of a remedy sufficient to assure us fully of life eternal; according to what is written, "The just shall live by faith". (Hab. 2:4; Rom 1:16,17; Gal 3:11). We say therefore that everything which obstructs man from communion with God, who is perfectly righteous and good, lies in three points. But, in the face of each of them, we find the remedy, not in ourselves, but in Jesus Christ and all that He has, provided that we are united and joined to Him in communion of all benefits (John 17:9-11, 20-26).

That is why the Church, that is to say, the assembly of believers, is called the Spouse of Jesus Christ, her Husband (Rom 7:2-6; 8:35; 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph 5:31,32); it is to more clearly show the greatness of the union and communion which exists between Jesus Christ and those who, through faith, have entrusted themselves to him. For, by virtue of this union and this spiritual marriage through faith, He takes all our miseries upon Himself, and we receive from Him all His treasures, by His pure goodness and mercy. This is what we are going to see.

The remedy which faith finds in Jesus Christ alone against the first assault of the first temptation: "The multitude of our sins": The assurance which we can have on this point regarding the saints or ourselves

Therefore let us now see how, in Jesus Christ alone, we find sure remedies against all the temptations of Satan and all the troubles of our conscience.

In the first place, Satan and our conscience, to show that we are truly unworthy of being saved and very worthy of perishing, put in the forefront the nature of God, perfectly righteous, He who is the great Enemy and Avenger of all iniquity. Now, it is true, we are covered with infinite sins. It follows therefore that there is nothing more for us to do than to wait for the wages of sin, that is to say, eternal death (Rom 6:23).

What shall men be able to plead against this conclusion of Satan and of their conscience? Certainly, nothing which would avail, unless it is what I say. For if they have recourse to the mercy of God, forgetting His righteousness, they are deceiving themselves. One thing is certain, the mercy of God is such that it is necessary, however, that His righteousness also be totally acknowledged: which we declared already.

If we desire then, in order to cover our sins, to plead the merits of the saints:

1. We do them a great wrong; for David himself writes, "Enter not into judgement with Thy servant." (Ps. 143:2), and, in another passage, he confesses that his works cannot ascend to God (Ps. 16:2). And what does St Paul say of Abraham, this holy person and father of believers? "If Abraham", he says, "were justified by his works, he has reason for self-glorying, but not before God. For, what says the Scripture? Abraham believed in God, and this was imputed to him for righteousness." (Rom 4:2-3). And what says St. Paul regarding himself? "Certainly," he says, "I do not feel guilty, but I am not thereby justified." (1 Cor. 4:4). How then can we plead the merits of the saints to satisfy for our sins, since they themselves have recourse only to the mercy of God alone, procured by Jesus Christ (Phil 3:8)?

2. Moreover, if the saints themselves have merited paradise by their holy life (which cannot be, seeing that they themselves testify to the contrary), would they not have already received payment for their merits? With what claim, therefore, shall we plead them before God one more time?

3. Since, to say that they had so much merit that there remains some left over for us, is to give the lie to what they have left us in writing. Moreover, is it not as if we were saying that they have nothing to do with the death of Jesus Christ, seeing that they have in themselves more than enough to have need of Him?

4. And then, if they have excess merits, in what way would we know that they are ours? Is - it because we think it so, or because we have bought them? But St. Peter rebukes Simon the magician for this false and accursed trade: "May thy money perish with thee," he says, "for Thou hast thought to buy the gift of God with money". (Acts 8:20).

There is how, in believing that we honour the saints, we actually dishonour them as much as possible. Now, if the works of the saints have nothing to merit in this sphere, what shall we find in ourselves, or in any other living man, which is sufficient to fortify us against this assault of Satan? But, in order to cut short all these false imaginings, let us consider the following points.

Firstly, would we not think a man to be destitute of sense who persuades himself that he is free of a creditor under the pretext that he imagines he has paid, or that another has paid for him? This is how we always act towards God when we are not content with the sole satisfaction of Jesus Christ. For, what foundation have all the rest except the fantasy of men, as if God must find good all that seems good to us. But, on the contrary, let us hear what Jesus Christ says: "They honour me in vain, in teaching the commandments of men." (Matt 15:9). And, in another passage, "When you come to appear before me, who then demanded these things from you?" (Is 1:12)

In the second place, when we say that we rest on the sole mercy of God, but we imagine that we ourselves have paid for it, wholly or in part, is this not but to mock His mercy (Rom 4:4)?

Thirdly, not to be content with the sole merit of Jesus Christ, but to wish to add others to it, is this not as if one were saying that Christ is not Jesus, that is to say, our Saviour, but only in part (Gal 2:21,)?

Fourthly, is this not to strip God of His perfect righteousness (Rom. 3:26), and consequently of His Divinity (in the measure in which that is possible to us!) by daring to oppose to His wrath the works of men, against whom so much could be said, no matter how good they are (Luke 17:10)? David said, "Enter. not into judgement with thy servant." (Ps. 143:2).

Let us therefore learn to reply in a different manner to the aforesaid argument of Satan. You say, Satan, that God is perfectly righteous and the Avenger of all iniquity. -- I confess it; but I add another property of His righteousness which you have left aside: since He is righteous, He is satisfied with having been paid once. You say next that I have infinite iniquities which deserve eternal death.- I confess it; but I add what you have maliciously omitted: the iniquities which are in me have been very amply avenged and punished in Jesus Christ who has borne the judgement of God in my place (Rom 3:25; 1 Pet 2:24). That is why I come to a conclusion quite different from yours. Since God is righteous (Rom 3:26) and does not demand payment twice, since Jesus Christ, God and man (2 Cor. 5:19), has satisfied by infinite obedience (Rom 5:19; Phil 2:8) the infinite majesty of God (Rom 8:33), it follows that my iniquities can no longer bring me to ruin (Col. 2:14); they are already blotted out and washed out of my account by the blood of Jesus Christ who was made a curse for me (Gal 3:13), and who righteous, died for the unrighteous (1 Pet 2:24).

Thereupon, it is certain that Satan will know well to set our afflictions before our eyes, and especially death (Rom 5:12). He will allege that these are so many testimonies showing that God has not pardoned our sins.

But, as for afflictions, we must reply, firstly: although all affliction and death entered into the world by sin, God does not always have regard to our sins when He afflicts us. We establish this from the whole history of Job and elsewhere (John 9:3; 1 Pet 2:19; 3:14; James 1:2). But He has several other ends in view which tend to His glory and our profit, as we shall explain further on.

On the other side, when God afflicts His own for their sins, even if He comes to make them feel the pains of death (Job 13:15), He is not provoked to anger against them as a Judge, to condemn them, but as a Father who is chastising His children in order to prevent them from perishing (2 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 12:6; 2 Sam 7:14), or to give an example to others (2 Sam 12:13,14).

The remedy which faith alone finds in Jesus Christ alone against the second assault of the first temptation: "We are destitute of the righteousness which God justly demands from us"

Here is the second assault that Satan can raise against us on account of our unworthiness: It is not sufficient to have no sin, or to have satisfied for sins. But more is necessary; that man should fulfil all the Law, that is to say, that he love God perfectly and his neighbour as himself (Deut. 17:26; Gal 3:10-12; Matt 22:3740). Bring therefore this righteousness, Satan win say to our poor conscience, or know well that you cannot escape the wrath and curse of God.

Now, against this assault, what will all men profit us except Christ alone? For it is a question of perfect obedience which is never found in any save in Jesus Christ alone. Let us learn therefore here to appropriate to ourselves once more, by faith, another treasure of Jesus Christ: His righteousness. We know that it is He who has fulfilled all righteousness (Matt 3:15: Phil 2:8; Is 53:11). He has given a perfect obedience and love to God His Bather, and has perfectly loved His enemies (Rom 5:6-10) as far as being made a curse for them, as St. Paul says (Gal 3:13); that is to say, as far as bearing, for them, the judgement of the wrath of God (Col. 1:22; 2 Cor. 5:21). Thus, being clothed with this perfect righteousness which is given to us through faith, as if it were properly our own (Eph. 1:7-8), we can be acceptable to God (John 1:12; Rom 8:17), as brothers and co-heirs of Jesus Christ.

On this point, Satan must of necessity close his mouth, provided we have the faith to receive Jesus Christ and all the benefits He possesses in order to communicate them to those who believe in Him (Rom 8:33).

The third assault of the same temptation: "The natural pollution, or original sin, which is in our persons, makes God hate us still"

There remains yet to Satan an assault with this temptation about our unworthiness, as follows: although you have satisfied for the penalty of your sins, in the Person of Jesus Christ, and are also, through faith, covered with His righteousness, you are nevertheless corrupt in your nature; in it there dwells still the root of all sin (Rom 7:17,18). How, then, will you dare to appear before the majesty of God who is the Enemy of all pollution (Ps. 5:5), and who sees the depths of the heart (Ps. 44:21; Jer. 17:10)?

Now, in this sphere, we find anew a prompt remedy in Jesus Christ alone. We must rely on Him. Truly we are yet enclosed in this mortal body (Rom 7:24), so that we do not practise the good that we wish, we still feel the sin which dwells in us (Rom 7:21-23), and the flesh which battles against the Spirit (Gal 5:17). This is why, with regard to ourselves, we are still polluted in the body and in the soul (1 Cor. 4:4; Phil 3:9). But inasmuch as we have faith, we are united (1 Cor. 6:17), embodied (Eph. 4:16; Col 2:19), rooted (Col. 2:7), ingrafted in Jesus Christ (Rom 6:5). In Him, from the first moment of His conception in the womb of the virgin Mary (Matt 1:20; Luke 1:35), our nature was more fully restored and sanctified (Heb. 2:10,11), than it ever was when created pure in Adam; seeing that Adam was made only in the image of God (Gen 1:27; 1 Cor. 15:47), whereas Christ is true God, who has taken to Himself our flesh, conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This sanctification of human nature in Jesus Christ is reckoned as ours, through faith. Thus, the remainder of natural corruption which, even after regeneration, still dwells in us, cannot enter into our account (Rom 8:1-3). Our unworthiness is covered and swallowed up by the holiness of Jesus Christ, which is far more powerful to sanctify us before God than natural corruption is to pollute us.

Remedy against the second temptation: "Have we faith or not?"

In a second temptation Satan will then answer that Jesus Christ did not die for all sinners, seeing that all will not be saved. Let us then have recourse to our faith, and reply to him that in truth, only believers will receive the fruit of this suffering and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. But, instead of disturbing us, this gives us assurance; for we know that we have faith (Rom 8:15; 1 Cor. 2:12-16; 1 John 4:13). As we have said before, it is not enough to have a general and confused belief that Jesus Christ came to take away the sins of the world. But it is necessary that each apply to himself and appropriate to himself Jesus Christ through faith, so that each concludes in himself: I am in Jesus Christ through faith, that is why I cannot perish, and am sure of my salvation (Rom 8:1,38,39; 1 Cor. 2:16; 1 John 5:19,20).

Thus, to confirm that we have repulsed Satan in the three preceding assaults of the first temptation, and in order to resist this second, it is necessary to know if we have this faith or not. The means is to return from the effects to the cause which produces them. Now, the effects which Jesus Christ produces in us, when we have taken hold of Him by faith, are two. In the first place, there is the testimony which the Holy Spirit gives to our spirit that we are children of God, and enables us to cry with assurance, "Abba, Father". (Rom 8:16; Gal 4:6). In the second place, we must understand that when we apply to ourselves Jesus Christ by faith, this is not by some silly and vain fancy and imagining, but really and in fact, though spiritually (Rom 6:14; 1 John 1:6; 2:5; 3:7). In the same way as the soul produces its effects when it is naturally united to the body, so, when, by faith, Jesus Christ dwells in us in a spiritual manner, His power produces there and reveals there His graces. These are described in Scripture by the words 'regeneration' and 'sanctification', and they make us new creatures with regard to the qualities that we can have (John 3:3; Eph 4:21-24).

This regeneration, that is to say, a new beginning and new creation, is divided into three parts. In the same way as the natural corruption, which holds our person captive, both soul and body, produces in us sins and death (Rom 7:13), so the power of Jesus Christ, flowing and entering into us with efficacy, as coming to take possession of us, produces in us three effects: the putting to death of sin, that is -to say, of this natural corruption which Scripture cans the 'old man', his burial, and, finally, the resurrection of the new man. St. Paul, in particular, describes these things at length (Rom 6, and almost everywhere else; cf. 1 Pet 4:1-2).

The putting to death of the corruption, or of sin, is an effect of Jesus Christ in us. Little by little, He destroys this cursed corruption of our nature, so that it becomes less powerful to produce in us its effects: the motions, the consents and the other actions contrary to the will of God.

The burying of the old man is an effect of the same Jesus Christ (Rom 6:4; Col 2:12; 3:3-4). By His power, the old man, who has received his deathblow, does not cease to be annihilated little by little. In short, in the same way as the burying of our body is a progression from death, so the burying of our old man is a progression and consequence of his being put to death. To this end the afflictions, with which the Lord visits us daily, greatly serve (2 Cor. 4:16); He comes likewise with spiritual and physical trials which we must diligently make use of, to put to death more and more the rebellion of the flesh, which fights against the Spirit (1 Cor. 9:27; Gal 5:17). Finally, for believers, the first death is the completion of this putting to death and burying of sin, for it puts an end to the war of the flesh against the Spirit (Phil 3:20,21).

The resurrection of the new man, this man whose qualities and faculties are truly renewed, is the third effect of the same Jesus Christ living in us. Having put to death in our nature that which it had of corruption, He then gives to us a new power and remakes us. Thus, our understanding and our judgement, illuminated by the pure grace of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1: 18), and governed by the new power which we draw from Jesus Christ (Rom 8:14), begin to understand and to approve that which, previously, was folly to them (1 Cor. 2:14) and, abomination (Rom 8:7). And then, in the second place, the will is rectified to hate sin and embrace righteousness (Rom 6:6). Finally, all the faculties of the man begin to shun that which God has forbidden, and to follow all that he has commanded (Rom 7:22; Phil 2:13).

These are therefore the two effects that Jesus Christ produces in us. If we experience them, the conclusion is infallible: we have faith, and, consequently, as we have said, we have in us Jesus Christ living eternally.

It is therefore evident that each believer must watch above all to maintain, by continual supplication, this aforementioned testimony which the Spirit of God gives to His own; he must also develop, by a continual exercise of good works to which his vocation calls him, the gift of regeneration which he has received (Rom 12:9-16). In this sense it is said that he who is born of God does not sin (1 John 5:18), that is to say, he does not addict himself to sin, but resists it more and more, so that he has correspondingly more assurance of his election and calling (2 Pet 1:10). Since to know this regeneration, it is necessary to come to its fruits. Thus, as I have said, the man, being freed from the of sin, that is to say, from his natural corruption, begins, thanks to the power of Jesus Christ who dwells in Him, to produce the good fruits, which we call 'good works'. This is why we say, and with good reason, that the faith of which we speak can no more exist without good works than the sun without light or the fire without heat (1 John 2:9,10; James 2:14-17).

Justification

by Rev. Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556)

To know how we obtain our justification, it is expedient to consider, first, how naughty and sinful we are all, that be of Adam's kindred; and contrariwise, what mercifulness is in God, which to all faithful and penitent sinners pardoneth all their offences for Christ's sake. Of these two things no man is lightly ignorant that ever hath heard of the fall of Adam, which was to the infection of all his posterity; and again, of the inexplicable mercy of our heavenly Father, which sent his only begotten Son to suffer his most grievous passion for us, and shed his most precious blood, the price of our redemption. But it is greatly to be wished and desired, that as all Christian men do know the same, so that every man might acknowledge and undoubtedly believe the same to be true and verified, even upon himself; so that both he may humble himself to God and knowledge himself a miserable sinner not worthy to be called his son; and yet surely trust, that to him being repentant God's mercy is ready to forgive. And he that seeth not these two things verified in himself, can take no manner of emolument and profit by acknowledging and believing these things to be verified in others. But we cannot satisfy our minds or settle our conscience that these things are true, saving that we do evidently see that God's word so teacheth us.

The commandments of God lay our faults before our eyes, which putteth us in fear and dread, and maketh us see the wrath of God against our sins, as St. Paul saith, Per legem agnitio peccati, et, Lex iram operatur, and maketh us sorry and repentant, that ever we should come into the displeasure of God, and the captivity of the Devil. The gracious promises of God by the mediation of Christ showeth us, (and that to our great relief and comfort,) whensoever we be repentant...we have forgiveness of our sins, [are] reconciled to God, and accepted, and reputed just and righteous in his sight, only by his grace and mercy, which he doth grant and give unto us for his dearly beloved Son's sake, Jesus Christ; who paid a sufficient ransom for our sins; whose blood doth wash away the same; whose bitter and grievous passion is the only pacifying oblation, that putteth away from us the wrath of God his Father; whose sanctified body offered on the cross is the only sacrifice of sweet and pleasant savour, as St. Paul saith: that is to say, of such sweetness and pleasantness to the Father, that for the same he accepteth and reputeth of like sweetness all them that the same offering doth serve for.

These benefits of God with innumerable other, whosoever expendeth, and well pondereth in his heart, and thereby conceiveth a firm trust and feeling of God's mercy, whereof springeth in his heart a warm love and fervent heat of zeal towards God, it is not possible but that he shall fall to work, and be ready to the performance of all such works as he knoweth to be acceptable unto God. And these works only which follow our justification, do please God; for so much as they proceed from an heart endued with pure faith and love to God. But the works which we do before our justification, be not allowed and accepted before God, although they appear never so good and glorious in the sight of man. For after our justification only begin we to work as the law of God requireth. Then we shall do all good works willingly, although not so exactly as the law requireth by mean of infirmity of the flesh. Nevertheless, by the merit and benefit of Christ, we being sorry that we cannot do all things no more exquisitely and duly, all our works shall be accepted and taken of God, as most exquisite, pure, and perfect.

Now they that think they may come to justification by performance of the law, by their own deeds and merits, or by any other mean than is above rehearsed, they go from Christ, they renounce his grace: Evacuati estis a Christo, saith St. Paul, Gal. v., quicunque, in lege, judificamini, a gratia excidistis. They be not partakers of the justice, that he hath procured, or the merciful benefits that be given by him. For St. Paul saith a general rule for all them that will seek such by-paths to obtain justification; those, saith he, which will not knowledge the justness or righteousness which cometh by God, but go about to advance their own righteousness, shall never come to that righteousness which we have by God (Rom. 10:1-4); which is the righteousness of Christ: by whom only all the saints in heaven, and all other that have been saved, have been reputed righteous, and justified. So that to Christ our only Saviour and Redeemer, on whose righteousness both their and our justification doth depend, is to be transcribed all the glory thereof.

Excerpt from Cranmer's annotations to "A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for Any Christian Man; Set Forth by the King's Majesty of England," (1538). This edition was taken from the Parker Society volume of Cranmer's writings (Cambridge University Press, 1840).

The Doctrine of Justification

by A. W. Pink

1. Introduction

Our first thought was to devote an introductory chapter unto a setting forth the principle errors which have been entertained upon this subject by different men and parties, but after more deliberation we decided this would be for little or no profit to the majority of our readers. While there are times, no doubt, when it becomes the distasteful duty of God's servants to expose that which is calculated to deceive and injure His people, yet, as a general rule, the most effective way of getting rid of darkness is to let in the light. We desire, then, to pen these articles in the spirit of the godly John Owen, who, in the introduction to his ponderous treatise on this theme said, "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... 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 endeavor 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."

There was a time, not so long ago, when the blessed truth of Justification was one of the best known doctrines of the Christian faith, when it was regularly expounded by the preachers, and when the rank and file of church-goers were familiar with its leading aspects. But now, alas, a generation has arisen which is well-nigh totally ignorant of this precious theme, for with very rare exceptions it is no longer given a place in the pulpit, nor is scarcely anything written thereon in the religious magazines of our day; and, in consequence, comparatively few understand what the term itself connotes, still less are they clear as to the ground on which God justifies the ungodly. This places the writer at a considerable disadvantage, for while he wishes to avoid a superficial treatment of so vital a subject, yet to go into it deeply, and enter into detail, will make a heavy tax upon the mentality and patience of the average person. Nevertheless, we respectfully urge each Christian to make a real effort to gird up the loins of his mind and seek to prayerfully master these chapters.

That which will make it harder to follow us through the present series is the fact that we are here treating of the doctrinal side of truth, rather than the practical; the judicial, rather than the experimental. Not that doctrine is impracticable; no indeed; far, far from it. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable (first) for doctrine, (and then) for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). Doctrinal instruction was ever the foundation from which the Apostles issued precepts to regulate the walk. Not until the 6th chapter will any exhortation be found in the Roman Epistle: the first five are devoted entirely to doctrinal exposition. So again in the Epistle to the Ephesians: not until 4:1 is the first exhortation given. First the saints are reminded of the exceeding riches of God's grace, that the love of Christ may constrain them; and then they are urged to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they are called.

While it be true that a real mental effort (as well as a prayerful heart) is required in order to grasp intelligently some of the finer distinctions which are essential to a proper apprehension of this doctrine, yet, let it be pointed out that the truth of justification is far from being a mere piece of abstract speculation. No, it is a statement of Divinely revealed fact; it is a statement of fact in which every member of our race ought to be deeply interested in. Each one of us has forfeited the favor of God, and each one of us needs to be restored to His favor. If we are not restored, then the outcome must inevitably be our utter ruin and hopeless perdition. How fallen creatures, how guilty rebels, how lost sinners, are restored to the favor of God, and given a standing before Him inestimably superior to that occupied by the holy angels, will (D.V.) engage our attention as we proceed with our subject.

As said Abram Booth in his splendid work "The Reign of Grace" (written in 1768), "Far from being a merely speculative point, it spreads its influence through the whole body of divinity (theology), runs through all Christian experience, and operates in every part of practical godliness. Such is its grand importance, that a mistake about it has a malignant efficacy, and is attended with a long train of dangerous consequences. Nor can this appear strange, when it is considered that this doctrine of justification is no other than the way of a sinner's acceptance with God. Being of such peculiar moment, it is inseparably connected with many other evangelical truths, the harmony and beauty of which we cannot behold, while this is misunderstood. Till this appears in its glory, they will be involved in darkness. It is, if anything may be so called, a fundamental article; and certainly requires our most serious consideration" (from his chapter on "Justification").

The great importance of the doctrine of justification was sublimely expressed by the Dutch Puritan, Witsius, when he said, "It tends much to display the glory of God, whose most exalted perfections shine forth with an eminent lustre in this matter. It sets forth the infinite goodness of God, by which He was inclined to procure salvation freely for lost and miserable man, 'to the praise of the glory of His grace' (Eph. 1:6). It displays also the strictest justice, by which He would not forgive even the smallest offense, but on condition of the sufficient engagement, or full satisfaction of the Mediator, 'that He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus' (Rom 3:26). It shows further the unsearchable wisdom of the Deity, which found out a way for the exercise of the most gracious act of mercy, without injury to His strictest justice and infallible truth, which threatened death to the sinner: justice demanded that the soul that sinned should die (Rom. 1:32). Truth had pronounced the curses for not obeying the Lord (Deut. 28:15-68). Goodness, in the meantime, was inclined to adjudge life to some sinners, but by no other way than what became the majesty of the most holy God. Here wisdom interposed, saying, 'I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins' (Isa. 43:25). Nor shall you, His justice and His truth have any cause of complaint because full satisfaction shall be made to you by a mediator. Hence the incredible philanthropy of the Lord Jesus shineth forth, who, though Lord of all, was made subject to the law, not to the obedience of it only, but also to the curse: "hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5:21).

Ought not the pious soul, who is deeply engaged in the devout meditation of these things, to break out into the praises of a justifying God, and sing with the church, "Who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression" (Micah 7:18). O the purity of that holiness which chose rather to punish the sins of the elect in His only begotten Son, than suffer them to go unpunished! O the abyss of His love to the world, for which He spared not His dearest Son, in order to spare sinners! O the depth of the riches of unsearchable wisdom, by which He exercises mercy towards the penitent guilty, without any stain to the honor of the most impartial Judge! O the treasures of love in Christ, whereby He became a curse for us, in order to deliver us therefrom! How becoming the justified soul, who is ready to dissolve in the sense of this love, with full exultation to sing a new song, a song of mutual return of love to a justifying God.

So important did the Apostle Paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, deem this doctrine, that the very first of his epistles in the New Testament is devoted to a full exposition thereof. The pivot on which turns the entire contents of the Epistle to the Romans is that notable expression "the righteousness of God"-than which is none of greater moment to be found in all the pages of Holy Writ, and which it behooves every Christian to make the utmost endeavor to clearly understand. It is an abstract expression denoting the satisfaction of Christ in its relation to the Divine Law. It is a descriptive name for the material cause of the sinner's acceptance before God. "The righteousness of God" is a phrase referring to the finished work of the Mediator as approved by the Divine tribunal, being the meritorious cause of our acceptance before the throne of the Most High.

In the succeeding chapters (D.V.) we shall examine in more detail this vital expression "the righteousness of God," which connotes that perfect satisfaction which the Redeemer offered to Divine justice on the behalf of and in the stead of that people which had been given to Him. Suffice it now to say that that "righteousness" by which the believing sinner is justified is called "the righteousness of God" (Rom 1:17; 3:21) because He is the appointer, approver, and imputer of it. It is called "the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1) because He wrought it out and presented it unto God. It is called "the righteousness of faith" (Rom. 4:13) because faith is the apprehender and receiver of it. It is called "man's righteousness" (Job 33:26) because it was paid for him and imputed to him. All these varied expressions refer to so many aspects of that one perfect obedience unto death which the Saviour performed for His people.

Yes, so vital did the Apostle Paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, esteem this doctrine of Justification, that he shows at length how the denial and perversion of it by the Jews was the chief reason of their being rejected by God: see the closing verses of Romans 9 and the beginning of chapter 10. Again; throughout the whole Epistle to the Galatians we find the Apostle engaged in most strenuously defending and zealously disputing with those who had assailed this basic truth. Therein he speaks of the contrary doctrine as ruinous and fatal to the souls of men, as subversive of the cross of Christ, and calls it another gospel, solemnly declaring "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you... let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8). Alas, that under the latitudinal liberty and false "charity" of our day, there is now so little holy abhorrence of that preaching which repudiates the vicarious obedience of Christ which is imputed to the believer.

Under God, the preaching of this grand truth brought about the greatest revival which the Cause of Christ has enjoyed since the days of the Apostles. "This was the great fundamental distinguishing doctrine of the Reformation, and was regarded by all the Reformers as of primary and paramount importance. The leading charge which they adduced against the Church of Rome was that she had corrupted and perverted the doctrine of Scripture upon this subject in a way that was dangerous to the souls of men; and it was mainly by the exposition, enforcement, and application of the true doctrine of God's Word in regard to it, that they assailed and overturned the leading doctrines and practices of the Papal system. There is no subject which possesses more of intrinsic importance than attaches to this one, and there is none with respect to which the Reformers were more thoroughly harmonious in their sentiments" (W. Cunningham).

This blessed doctrine supplies the grand Divine cordial to revive one whose soul is cast down and whose conscience is distressed by a felt sense of sin and guilt, and longs to know the way and means whereby he may obtain acceptance with God and the title unto the Heavenly inheritance. To one who is deeply convinced that he has been a life-long rebel against God, a constant transgressor of His Holy Law, and who realizes he is justly under His condemnation and wrath, no inquiry can be of such deep interest and pressing moment as that which relates to the means of restoring him to the Divine favour, remitting his sins, and fitting him to stand unabashed in the Divine presence: till this vital point has been cleared to the satisfaction of his heart, all other information concerning religion will be quite unavailing.

"Demonstrations of the existence of God will only serve to confirm and more deeply impress upon his mind the awful truth which he already believes, that there is a righteous Judge, before whom he must appear, and by whose sentence his final doom will be fixed. To explain the moral law to him, and inculcate the obligations to obey it, will be to act the part of a public accuser, when he quotes the statutes of the land in order to show that the charges which he has brought against the criminal at the bar are well founded, and, consequently, that he is worthy of punishment. The stronger the arguments are by which you evince the immortality of the soul, the more clearly do you prove that his punishment will not be temporary, and that there is another state of existence, in which he will be fully recompensed according to his desert" (J. Dick).

When God Himself becomes a living reality unto the soul, when His awful majesty, ineffable holiness, inflexible justice, and sovereign authority, are really perceived, even though most inadequately, indifference to His claims now gives place to a serious concern. When there is a due sense of the greatness of our apostasy from God, of the depravity of our nature, of the power and vileness of sin, of the spirituality and strictness of the law, and of the everlasting burnings awaiting God's enemies, the awakened soul cries out, "Wherewith 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 thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" (Micah 6:6, 7). Then it is that the poor soul cries out, "How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?" (Job 25:4). And it is in the blessed doctrine which is now to be before us that we are taught the method whereby a sinner may obtain peace with his Maker and rise to the possession of eternal life.

Again; this doctrine is of inestimable value unto the conscientious Christian who daily groans under a sense of his inward corruptions and innumerable failures to measure up to the standard which God has set before him. The Devil, who is "the accuser of our brethren" (Rev. 12:10), frequently charges the believer with hypocrisy before God, disquiets his conscience, and seeks to persuade him that his faith and piety are nought but a mask and outward show, by which he has not only imposed upon others, but also on himself. But, thank God, Satan may be overcome by "the blood of the Lamb" (Rev. 12:11): by looking away from incurably depraved self, and viewing the Surety, who has fully answered for the Christian's every failure, perfectly atoned for his every sin, and brought in an "everlasting righteousness" (Dan. 9:24), which is placed to his account in the high court of Heaven. And thus, though groaning under his infirmities, the believer may possess a victorious confidence which rises above every fear.

This it was which brought peace and joy to the heart of the Apostle Paul: for while in one breath he cried, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7:24), in the next he declared, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). To which he added, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" (vv. 33-35). May it please the God of all grace to so direct our pen and bless what we write unto the readers, that not a few who are now found in the gloomy dungeons of Doubting Castle, may be brought out into the glorious light and liberty of the full assurance of faith.

2. Its Meaning

Deliverance from the condemning sentence of the Divine Law is the fundamental blessing in Divine salvation: so long as we continue under the curse, we can neither be holy nor happy. But as to the precise nature of that deliverance, as to exactly what it consists of, as to the ground on which it is obtained, and as to the means whereby it is secured, much confusion now obtains. Most of the errors which have been prevalent on this subject arose from the lack of a clear view of the thing itself, and until we really understand what justification is, we are in no position to either affirm or deny anything concerning it. We therefore deem it requisite to devote a whole chapter unto a careful defining and explaining this word "justification," endeavouring to show both what it signifies, and what it does not connote.

Between Protestants and Romanists there is a wide difference of opinion as to the meaning of the term "justify": they affirming that to justify is to make inherently righteous and holy; we insisting that to justify signifies only to formally pronounce just or legally declare righteous. Popery includes under justification the renovation of man's moral nature or deliverance from depravity, thereby confounding justification with regeneration and sanctification. On the other hand, all representative Protestants have shown that justification refers not to a change of moral character, but to a change of legal status; though allowing, yea, insisting, that a radical change of character invariably accompanies it. It is a legal change from a state of guilt and condemnation to a state of forgiveness and acceptance; and this change is owing solely to a gratuitous act of God, founded upon the righteousness of Christ (they having none of their own) being imputed to His people.

"We simply explain justification to be an acceptance by which God receives us into His favour and esteems us as righteous persons; and we say that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ... Justification, therefore, is no other than an acquittal from guilt of him who was accused, as though his innocence has been proved. Since God, therefore, justifies us through the mediation of Christ, He acquits us, not by an admission of our personal innocence, but by an imputation of righteousness; so that we, who are unrighteous in ourselves, are considered as righteous in Christ" (John Calvin, 1559).

"What is justification? Answer: Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which He pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in His sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone" (Westminster Catechism, 1643).

"We thus define the Gospel justification of a sinner: It is a judicial, but gracious act of God, whereby the elect and believing sinner is absolved from the guilt of his sins, and hath a right to eternal life adjudged to him, on account of the obedience of Christ, received by faith" (H. Witsius, 1693).

"A person is said to be justified when he is approved of God as free from the guilt of sin and its deserved punishment; and as having that righteousness belonging to him that entitles to the reward of life" (Jonathan Edwards, 1750).

Justification, then, refers not to any subjective change wrought in a person's disposition, but is solely an objective change in his standing in relation to the law. That to justify cannot possibly signify to make a person inherently righteous or good is most clearly to be seen from the usage of the term itself in Scripture. For example, in Proverbs 17:15 we read, "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD": now obviously he who shall make a "wicked" person just is far from being an "abomination to the LORD," but he who knowingly pronounces a wicked person to be righteous is obnoxious to Him.

Again; in Luke 7:29 we read, "And all the people that heard Him, and the publicans, justified God": how impossible it is to make the words "justified God" signify any moral transformation in His character; but understand those words to mean that they declaredHim to be righteous, and all ambiguity is removed. Once more, in 1 Timothy 3:16 we are told that the incarnate Son was "justified in (or "by") the Spirit": that is to say, He was publicly vindicated at His resurrection, exonerated from the blasphemous charges which the Jews had laid against Him.

Justification has to do solely with the legal side of salvation. It is a judicial term, a word of the law courts. It is the sentence of a judge upon a person who has been brought before him for judgment. It is that gracious act of God as Judge, in the high court of Heaven, by which He pronounces an elect and believing sinner to be freed from the penalty of the law, and fully restored unto the Divine favour. It is the declaration of God that the party arraigned is fully conformed to the law; justice exonerates him because justice has been satisfied. Thus, justification is that change of status whereby one, who being guilty before God, and therefore under the condemning sentence of His Law, and deserving of nought but an eternal banishment from His presence, is received into His favour and given a right unto all the blessings which Christ has, by His perfect satisfaction, purchased for His people.

In substantiation of the above definition, the meaning of the term "justify" may be determined, first, by its usage in Scripture. "And Judah said, What shall we say unto my lord? what shall we speak? or how shall we clear (this Hebrew word "tsadag" always signifies "justify") ourselves?" (Gen. 44:16). Here we have an affair which was entirely a judicial one. Judah and his brethren were arraigned before the governor of Egypt, and they were concerned as to how they might procure a sentence in their favour. "If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked" (Deut. 25:1). Here again we see plainly that the term is a forensic one, used in connection with the proceedings of law-courts, implying a process of investigation and judgment. God here laid down a rule to govern the judges in Israel: they must not "justify" or pass a sentence in favour of the wicked: compare 1 Kings 8:31, 32.

"If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse" (Job 9:20): the first member of this sentence is explained in the second-"justify" there cannot signify to make holy, but to pronounce a sentence in my own favour. "Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu ... against Job ... because he justified himself rather than God" (Job 32:2), which obviously means, because he vindicated himself rather than God. "That Thou mightest be justified when Thou speakest, and be clear when Thou judgest" (Psa. 51:4), which signifies that God, acting in His judicial office, might be pronounced righteous in passing sentence. "But wisdom is justified of her children" (Matt. 11:19), which means that they who are truly regenerated by God have accounted the wisdom of God (which the scribes and Pharisees reckoned foolishness) to be, as it really is, consummate wisdom: they cleared it of the calumny of folly.

2. The precise force of the term "to justify" may be ascertained by noting that it is the antithesis of "to condemn." Now to condemn is not a process by which a good man is made bad, but is the sentence of a judge upon one because he is a transgressor of the law. "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD" (Prov. 17:15 and cf. Deut. 25:1). "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matt. 12:37). "It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?" (Rom. 8:33, 34). Now it is undeniable that "condemnation" is the passing of a sentence against a person by which the punishment prescribed by the law is awarded to him and ordered to be inflicted upon him; therefore justification is the passing of a sentence in favour of a person, by which the reward prescribed by the law is ordered to be given to him.

3. That justification is not an experimental change from sin to holiness, but a judicial change from guilt to no-condemnation may be evidenced by the equivalent terms used for it. For example, in Romans 4:6 we read, "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works": so that legal "righteousness" is not a habit infused into the heart, but a gift transferred to our account. In Romans 5:9, 10 to be "justified by Christ's blood" is the same as being "reconciled by His death," and reconciliation is not a transformation of character, but the effecting of peace by the removal of all that causes offense.

4. From the fact that the judicial side of our salvation is propounded in Scripture under the figures of a forensic trial and sentence. "(1) A judgment is supposed in it, concerning which the Psalmist prays that it may not proceed on the terms of the law: Psalm 143:2. (2) The Judge is God Himself: Isaiah 50:7, 8. (3) The tribunal whereon God sits in judgment is the Throne of Grace: Hebrews 4:16. (4) A guilty person. This is the sinner, who is so guilty of sin as to be obnoxious to the judgment of God: Romans 3:18. (5) Accusers are ready to propose and promote the charge against the guilty person; these are the law (John 5:45), conscience (Rom. 2:15), and Satan: Zechariah 3:2, Revelation 12:10. (6) The charge is admitted and drawn up in a 'handwriting' in form of law, and is laid before the tribunal of the Judge, in bar to the deliverance of the offender: Colossians 2:14. (7) A plea is prepared in the Gospel for the guilty person: this is grace, through the blood of Christ, the ransom paid, the eternal righteousness brought in by the Surety of the covenant: Romans 3:23, 25, Daniel 9:24. (8) Hereunto alone the sinner betakes himself, renouncing all other apologies or defensatives whatever: Psalm 130:2, 3; Luke 18:13. (9) To make this plea effectual we have an Advocate with the Father, and He pleads His own propitiation for us: 1 John 2:1, 2. (10) The sentence hereon is absolution, on account of the sacrifice and righteousness of Christ; with acceptation into favour, as persons approved of God: Romans 8:33, 34; 2 Corinthians 5:21" (John Owen).

From what has been before us, we may perceive what justification is not. First, it differs from regeneration. "Whom He called, them He also justified" (Rom. 8:30). Though inseparably connected, effectual calling or the new birth and justification are quite distinct. The one is never apart from the other, yet they must not be confounded. In the order of nature regeneration precedes justification, though it is in no sense the cause or ground of it: none is justified till he believes, and none believe till quickened. Regeneration is the act of the Father (James 1:18), justification is the sentence of the Judge. The one gives me a place in God's family, the other secures me a standing before His throne. The one is internal, being the impartation of Divine life to my soul: the other is external, being the imputation of Christ's obedience to my account. By the one I am drawn to return in penitence to the Father's house, by the other I am given the "best robe" which fits me for His presence.

Second, it differs from sanctification. Sanctification is moral or experimental, justification is legal or judicial. Sanctification results from the operation of the Spirit in me, justification is based upon what Christ has done for me. The one is gradual and progressive, the other is instantaneous and immutable. The one admits of degrees, and is never perfect in this life; the other is complete and admits of no addition. The one concerns my state, the other has to do with my standing before God. Sanctification produces a moral transformation of character, justification is a change of legal status: it is a change from guilt and condemnation to forgiveness and acceptance, and this solely by a gratuitous act of God, founded upon the imputation of Christ's righteousness, through the instrument of faith alone. Though justification is quite separate from sanctification, yet sanctification ever accompanies it.

Third, it differs from forgiveness. In some things they agree. It is only God who can forgive sins (Mark 2:7) and He alone can justify (Rom. 3:30). His free grace is the sole moving cause in the one (Eph. 1:7) and of the other (Rom. 3:24). The blood of Christ is the procuring cause of each alike: Matthew 26:28, Romans 5:9. The objects are the same: the persons that are pardoned are justified, and the same that are justified are pardoned; to whom God imputes the righteousness of Christ for their justification to them He gives the remission of sins; and to whom He does not impute sin, but forgives it, to them He imputes righteousness without works (Romans 4:6-8). Both are received by faith (Acts 26:18, Romans 5:1). But though they agree in these things, in others they differ.

God is said to be "justified" (Rom. 3:4), but it would be blasphemy to speak of Him being "pardoned"-this at once shows the two things are diverse. A criminal may be pardoned, but only a righteous person can truly be justified. Forgiveness deals only with a man's acts, justification with the man himself. Forgiveness respects the claims of mercy, justification those of justice. Pardon only remits the curse due unto sin; in addition justification confers a title to Heaven. Justification applies to the believer with respect to the claims of the law, pardon with respect to the Author of the law. The law does not pardon, for it knows no relaxation; but God pardons the transgressions of the law in His people by providing a satisfaction to the law adequate to their transgressions. The blood of Christ was sufficient to procure pardon (Eph. 1:7), but His righteousness is needed for justification (Rom. 5:19). Pardon takes away the filthy garments, but justification provides a change of raiment (Zech. 3:4). Pardon frees from death (2 Sam. 12:13), but righteousness imputed is called "justification of life" (Rom. 5:18). The one views the believer as completely sinful, the other as completely righteous. Pardon is the remission of punishment, justification is the declaration that no ground for the infliction of punishment exists. Forgiveness may be repeated unto seventy times seven, justification is once for all.

From what has been said in the last paragraph we may see what a serious mistake it is to limit justification to the mere forgiveness of sins. Just as "condemnation" is not the execution of punishment, but rather the formal declaration that the accused is guilty and worthy of punishment; so "justification" is not merely the remission of punishment but the judicial announcement that punishment cannot be justly inflicted-the accused being fully conformed to all the positive requirements of the law in consequence of Christ's perfect obedience being legally reckoned to his account. The justification of a believer is no other than his being admitted to participate in the reward merited by his Surety. Justification is nothing more or less than the righteousness of Christ being imputed to us: the negative blessing issuing therefrom is the remission of sins; the positive, a title to the heavenly inheritance.

Beautifully has it been pointed out that "We cannot separate from Immanuel His own essential excellency. We may see Him bruised and given like beaten incense to the fire, but was incense ever burned without fragrance, and only fragrance being the result? The name of Christ not only cancels sin, it supplies in the place of that which it has canceled, its own everlasting excellency. We cannot have its nullifying power only; the other is the sure concomitant. So was it with every typical sacrifice of the Law. It was stricken: but as being spotless it was burned on the altar for a sweet-smelling savor. The savor ascended as a memorial before God: it was accepted for, and its value was attributed or imputed to him who had brought the vicarious victim. If therefore, we reject the imputation of righteousness, we reject sacrifice as revealed in Scripture; for Scripture knows of no sacrifice whose efficacy is so exhausted in the removal of guilt as to leave nothing to be presented in acceptableness before God" (B.W. Newton).

"What is placing our righteousness in the obedience of Christ, but asserting that we are accounted righteous only because His obedience is accepted for us as if it were our own? Wherefore Ambrose appears to me to have very beautifully exemplified this righteousness in the benediction of Jacob: that as he, who had on his own account no claim to the privileges of primogeniture, being concealed in his brother's habit, and invested with his garment, which diffused a most excellent odor, insinuated himself into the favour of his father, that he might receive the benediction to his own advantage, under the character of another; so we shelter ourselves under the precious purity of Christ" (John Calvin).

3. Its Problem

In this and the following chapter our aim will be fourfold. First, to demonstrate the impossibility of any sinner obtaining acceptance and favour with God on the ground of his own performances. Second, to show that the saving of a sinner presented a problem which nought but omniscience could solve, but that the consummate wisdom of God has devised a way whereby He can pronounce righteous a guilty transgressor of His Law without impeaching His veracity, sullying His holiness, or ignoring the claims of justice; yea, in such a way that all His perfections have been displayed and magnified, and the Son of His love glorified. Third, point out the sole ground on which an awakened conscience can find solid and stable peace. Fourth, seek to give God's children a clearer understanding of the exceeding riches of Divine grace, that their hearts may be drawn out in fervent praise unto the Author of "so great salvation."

But let it be pointed out at the onset that, any reader who has never seen himself under the white light of God's holiness, and who has never felt His Word cutting him to the very quick, will be unable to fully enter into the force of what we are about to write. Yea, in all probability, he who is unregenerate is likely to take decided exception unto much of what will be said, denying that any such difficulty exists in the matter of a merciful God pardoning one of His offending creatures. Or, if he does not dissent to that extent, yet he will most likely consider that we have grossly exaggerated the various elements in the case we are about to present, that we have pictured the sinner's condition in far darker hues than was warranted. This must be so, for he has no experimental acquaintance with God, nor is he conscious of the fearful plague of his own heart.

The natural man cannot endure the thought of being thoroughly searched by God. The last thing he desires is to pass beneath the all-seeing eye of his Maker and Judge, so that his every thought and desire, his most secret imagination and motive, stands exposed before Him. It is indeed a most solemn experience when we are made to feel with the Psalmist, "O LORD, Thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, Thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, Thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid Thine hand upon me" (Psa. 139:1-5).

Yes, dear reader, the very last thing which the natural man desires is to be searched, through and through by God, and have his real character exposed to view. But when God undertakes to do this very thing-which He either will do in grace in this life, or in judgment in the Day to come-there is no escape for us. Then it is we may well exclaim, "Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend up into Heaven, Thou art there: if I make my bed in Hell, behold, Thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall Thy hand lead me, and Thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me" (Psa. 139:7-11). Then it is we shall be assured, "Yea, the darkness hideth not fromThee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to Thee" (v. 12).

Then it is that the soul is awakened to a realization of Who it is with whom it has to do. Then it is that he now perceives something of the high claims of God upon him, the just requirements of His Law, the demands of His holiness. Then it is that he realizes how completely he has failed to consider those claims, how fearfully he has disregarded that law, how miserably he falls short of meeting those demands. Now it is that he perceives he has been "a transgressor from the womb" (Isa. 48:8), that so far from having lived to glorify His Maker, he has done nought but follow the course of this world and fulfill the lust of the flesh. Now it is he realizes that there is "no soundness" in him but, from the sole of the foot even unto the head, "wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores" (Isa. 1:6). Now it is he is made to see that all his righteousness are as "filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6).

"It is easy for any one in the cloisters of the schools to indulge himself in idle speculations of the merit of works to justify men; but when he comes into the presence of God, he must bid farewell to these amusements, for there the business is transacted with seriousness, and no ludicrous logomachy practiced. To this point, then, must our attention be directed, if we wish to make any useful inquiry concerning true righteousness; how we can answer the celestial Judge, when He shall call us to an account. Let us place that Judge before our eyes, not according to the spontaneous imaginations of our minds, but according to the descriptions given of Him in the Scripture; which represents Him as one whose refulgence eclipses the stars, whose power melts the mountains, whose anger shakes the earth, whose wisdom takes the subtle in their own craftiness, whose purity makes all things appear polluted, whose righteousness even the angels are unable to bear, who acquits not the guilty, whose vengeance, when it is once kindled, penetrates even to the abyss of Hell" (John Calvin).

Ah, my reader, tremendous indeed are the effects produced in the soul when one is really brought into the presence of God, and is granted a sight of His awesome majesty. While we measure ourselves by our fellow men, it is easy to reach the conclusion that there is not much wrong with us; but when we approach the dread tribunal of ineffable holiness, we form an entirely different estimate of our character and conduct. While we are occupied with earthly objects we may pride ourselves in the strength of our visive faculty, but fix the gaze steadily on the midday sun and under its dazzling brilliance the weakness of the eye will at once become apparent. In like manner, while I compare myself with other sinners I can but form a wrong estimate of myself, but if I gauge my life by the plummet of God's Law, and do so in the light of His holiness, I must "Abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:6).

But not only has sin corrupted man's being, it has changed his relation to God: it has "alienated" him (Eph. 4:18), and brought him under His righteous condemnation. Man has broken God's Law in thought and word and deed, not once, but times without number. By the Divine tribunal he is pronounced an incorrigible transgressor, a guilty rebel. He is under the curse of his Maker. The law demands that its punishment shall be inflicted upon him; justice clamours for satisfaction. The sinner's case is deplorable, then, to the last degree. When this is painfully felt by the convicted conscience, its agonized possessor cries out, "How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?" (Job 25:4). How indeed! Let us now consider the various elements which enter into this problem.

1. The requirements of God's Law. "Every question therefore, respecting justification necessarily brings before us the judicial courts of God. The principles of those courts must be determined by God alone. Even to earthly governors we concede the right of establishing their own laws, and appointing the mode of their enforcement. Shall we then accord this title to man, and withhold it from the all-wise and almighty God? Surely no presumption can be greater than for the creature to sit in judgment on the Creator, and pretend to determine what should, or should not be, the methods of His government. It must be our place reverently to listen to His own exposition of the principles of His own courts, and humbly to thank Him for His goodness in condescending to explain to us what those principles are. As sinners, we can have no claim on God. We do have claim to a revelation that should acquaint us with His ways.

"The judicial principles of the government of God, are, as might be expected, based upon the absolute perfectness of His own holiness. This was fully shown both in the prohibitory and in the mandatory commandments of the law as given at Sinai. That law prohibited not only wrong deeds and wrong counsels of heart, but it went deeper still. It prohibited even wrong desires and wrong tendencies, saying, 'thou shalt not be concupiscent'-that is, thou shalt not have, even momentarily, one desire or tendency that is contrary to the perfectness of God. And then as to its positive requirements, it demanded the perfect, unreserved, perpetual surrender of soul and body, with all its powers, to God and to His service. Not only was it required, that love to Him-love perfect and unremitted-should dwell as a living principle in the heart, but also that it should be developed in action, and that unvaryingly. The mode also of the development throughout, was required to be as perfect as the principle from which the development sprang.

"If any among the children of men be able to substantiate a claim to prefectness such as this, the Courts of God are ready to recognize it. The God of Truth will recognize a truthful claim wherever it is found. But if we are unable to present any such claim-if corruption be found in us and in our ways-if in any thing we have fallen short of God's glory, then it is obvious that however willing the Courts of God may be to recognize perfectness wherever it exists, such willingness can afford no ground of hope to those, who, instead of having perfectness, have sins and short-comings unnumbered" (B.W. Newton).

2. The indictment preferred against us. "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, My people doth not consider. Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward" (Isa. 1:2-4). The eternal God justly charges us with having broken all His commandments-some in act, some in word, all of them in thought and imagination.

The enormity of this charge is heightened by the fact that against light and knowledge we chose the evil and forsook the good: that again and again we deliberately turned aside from God's righteous Law, and went astray like lost sheep, following the evil desires and devices of our own hearts. Above, we find God complaining that inasmuch as we are his creatures, we ought to have obeyed Him, that inasmuch as we owe our very lives to His daily care we ought to have rendered Him fealty instead of disobedience, and have been His loyal subjects instead of turning traitors to His throne. No exaggeration of sin is brought against us, but a statement of fact is declared which it is impossible for us to gainsay. We are ungrateful, unruly, ungodly creatures. Who would keep a horse that refused to work? Who would retain a dog which barked and flew at us? Yet we have broken God's sabbaths, despised His reproofs, abused His mercies.

3. The sentence of the law. This is clearly announced in the Divine oracles, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" (Gal. 3:10). Whoever violates a single precept of the Divine Law exposes himself to the displeasure of God, and to punishment as the expression of that displeasure. No allowance is made for ignorance, no distinction is made between persons, no relaxation of its strictness is permissible: "The soul that sinneth it shall die" is its inexorable pronouncement. No exception is made whether the transgressor be young or old, rich or poor, Jew or Gentile: "the wages of sin is death"; for "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (Rom. 1:18).

4. The Judge Himself is inflexibly just. In the high court of Divine justice God takes the law in its strictest and sternest aspect, and judges rigidly according to the letter. "But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things... Who will render to every man according to his deeds" (Rom. 2:2, 6). God is inexorably righteous, and will not show any partiality either to the law or to its transgressor. The Most High has determined that His Holy Law shall be faithfully upheld and its sanctions strictly enforced.

What would this country be like if all its judges ceased to uphold and enforce the laws of the land? What conditions would prevail were sentimental mercy to reign at the expense of righteousness? Now God is the Judge of all the earth and the moral Ruler of the universe. Holy Writ declares that "justice and judgment," and not pity and clemency, are the "habitation" of His "throne" (Psa. 89:14). God's attributes do not conflict with each other. His mercy does not override His justice, nor is His grace ever shown at the expense of righteousness. Each of His perfections is given free course. For God to give a sinner entrance into Heaven simply because He loved him, would be like a judge sheltering an escaped convict in his own home merely because he pitied him. Scripture emphatically declares that God, "will by no means clear the guilty" (Exo. 34:7).

5. The sinner is unquestionably guilty. It is not merely that he has infirmities or that he is not as good as he ought to be: he has set at nought God's authority, violated His commandments, trodden His Laws under foot. And this is true not only of a certain class of offenders, but "all the world" is "guilty before God" (Rom. 3:19). "There is none righteous, no, not one: They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10, 12). It is impossible for any man to clear himself from this fearful charge. He can neither show that the crimes of which he is accused have not been committed, nor that having been committed, he had a right to do them. He can neither disprove the charges which the law preferred against him, nor justify himself in the perpetration of them.

Here then is how the case stands. The law demands personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity to its precepts, in heart and act, in motive and performance. God charges each one of us with having failed to meet those just demands, and declares we have violated His commandments in thought and word and deed. The law therefore pronounces upon us a sentence of condemnation, curses us, and demands the infliction of its penalty, which is death. The One before whose tribunal we stand is omniscient, and cannot be deceived or imposed upon; He is inflexibly just, and swayed by no sentimental considerations. We, the accused, are guilty, unable to refute the accusations of the law, unable to vindicate our sinful conduct, unable to offer any satisfaction or atonement for our crimes. Truly, our case is desperate to the last degree.

Here, then, is the problem. How can God justify the willful transgressor of His Law without justifying his sins? How can God deliver him from the penalty of His broken Law without compromising His holiness and going back upon His word that He will "by no means clear the guilty"? How can life be granted the guilty culprit without repealing the sentence "the soul that sinneth it shall die"? How can mercy be shown to the sinner without justice being flouted? It is a problem which must forever have baffled every finite intelligence. Yet, blessed be His name, God has, in His consummate wisdom, devised a way whereby the "chief of sinners" may be dealt with by Him as though he were perfectly innocent; nay more, He pronounces him righteous, up to the required standard of the law, and entitled to the reward of eternal life. How this can be will be taken up in the next chapter.

4. Its Basis

In our last chapter we contemplated the problem which is presented in the justifying or pronouncing righteous one who is a flagrant violater of the Law of God. Some may have been surprised at the introduction of such a term as "problem": as there are many in the ranks of the ungodly who feel that the world owes them a living, so there are not a few Pharisees in Christendom who suppose it is due them that at death their Creator should take them to Heaven. But different far is it with one who has been enlightened and convicted by the Holy Spirit, so that he sees himself to be a filthy wretch, a vile rebel against God. Such an one will ask, seeing that the word of God so plainly declares "there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination" (Rev. 21:27), how is it possible that I can ever gain admission into the heavenly Jerusalem? How can it be that one so completely devoid of righteousness as I am, and so filled with unrighteousness, should ever be pronounced just by a holy God?

Various attempts have been made by unbelieving minds to solve this problem. Some have reasoned that if they now turn over a new leaf, thoroughly reform their lives and henceforth walk in obedience to God's Law, they shall be approved before the Divine Tribunal. This scheme, reduced to simple terms, is salvation by our own works. But such a scheme is utterly untenable, and salvation by such means is absolutely impossible. The works of a reformed sinner cannot be the meritorious or efficacious cause of his salvation, and that for the following reasons. First, no provision is made for his previous failures. Suppose that henceforth I never again transgress God's Law, what is to atone for my past sins? Second, a fallen and sinful creature cannot produce that which is perfect, and nothing short of perfection is acceptable to God. Third, were it possible for us to be saved by our own works, then the sufferings and death of Christ were needless. Fourth, salvation by our own merits would entirely eclipse the glory of Divine grace.

Others suppose this problem may be solved by an appeal to the bare mercy of God. But mercy is not an attribute that overshadows all the other Divine perfections: justice, truth, and holiness are also operative in the salvation of God's elect. The law is not set aside, but honored and magnified. The truth of God in His solemn threats is not sullied, but faithfully carried out. The Divine righteousness is not flouted, but vindicated. One of God's perfections is not exercised to the injury of any of the others, but all of them shine forth with equal clearness in the plan which Divine wisdom devised. Mercy at the expense of justice over-ridden would not suit the Divine government, and justice enforced to the exclusion of mercy would not befit the Divine character. The problem which no finite intelligence could solve was how both might be exercised in the sinner's salvation.

A striking example of mercy helpless before the claims of the law occurs in Daniel 6. There we find that Darius, the king of Babylon, was induced by his nobles to sign a decree that any subject within his kingdom who should pray, or "ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days" save the king himself, should be cast into the den of lions. Daniel knowing this, nevertheless, continued to pray before God as hitherto. Whereupon the nobles acquainted Darius with his violation of the royal edict, which "according to the law of the Medes and Persians altereth not," and demanded his punishment. Now Daniel stood high in the king's favour, and he greatly desired to show clemency unto him, so he "set his heart on Daniel to deliver him, and he labored till the going down of the sun to deliver him." But he found no way out of the difficulty: the law must be honored, so Daniel was cast into the lion's den.

An equally striking example of law helpless in the presence of mercy is found in John 8. There we read of a woman taken in the act of adultery. The scribes and Pharisees apprehended her and set her before Christ, charging her with the crime, and reminding the Saviour that "Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned." She was unquestionably guilty, and her accusers were determined that the penalty of the law should be inflicted upon her. The Lord turned to them and said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"; and they, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, leaving the adulteress alone with Christ. Turning to her, He asked, "Woman, where are thine accusers, hath no man condemned thee?" She replied, "No man, Lord," and He answered, "Neither do I condemn thee, go, and sin no more."

The two adverse principles are seen operating in conjuction in Luke 15. The "Father" could not have the (prodigal) son at His table clad in the rags of the far country, but He could go out and meet him in those rags: He could fall on his neck and kiss him in those rags-it was blessedly characteristic of His grace so to do; but to seat him at His table in garments suited to the swine-troughs would not be fitting. But the grace which brought the Father out to the prodigal "reigned" through that righteousness which brought the prodigal in to the Father's house. It had not been "grace" had the Father waited till the prodigal decked himself out in suitable garments of his own providing; nor would it have been "righteousness" to bring him to His table in his rags. Both grace and righteousness shone forth in their respective beauty when the Father said "bring forth the best robe, and put it on him."

It is through Christ and His atonement that the justice and mercy of God, His righteousness and grace, meet in the justifying of a believing sinner. In Christ is found the solution to every problem which sin has raised. In the Cross of Christ every attribute of God shines forth in its meridian splendor. In the satisfaction which the Redeemer offered unto God every claim of the law, whether preceptive or penal, has been fully met. God has been infinitely more honored by the obedience of the last Adam than He was dishonored by the disobedience of the first Adam. The justice of God was infinitely more magnified when its awful sword smote the beloved Son, than had every member of the human race burned for ever and ever in the lake of fire. There is infinitely more efficacy in the blood of Christ to cleanse, than there is in sin to befoul. There is infinitely more merit in Christ's one perfect righteousness than there is demerit in the combined unrighteousness of all the ungodly. Well may we exclaim, "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal. 6:14).

But while many are agreed that the atoning death of Christ is the meritorious cause of His peoples' salvation, there are now few indeed who can give any clear Scriptural explanation of the way and manner by which the work of Christ secures the justification of all who believe. Hence the need for a clear and full statement thereon. Hazy ideas at this point are both dishonouring to God and unsettling to our peace. It is of first importance that the Christian should obtain a clear understanding of the ground on which God pardons his sins and grants him a title to the heavenly inheritance. Perhaps this may best be set forth under three words: substitution, identification, imputation. As their Surety and Sponsor, Christ entered the place occupied by His people under the law, so identifying Himself with them as to be their Head and Representative, and as such He assumed and discharged all their legal obligations: their liabilities being transferred to Him, His merits being transferred to them.

The Lord Jesus has wrought out for His people a perfect righteousness by obeying the law in thought and word and deed, and this righteousness is imputed to them, reckoned to their account. The Lord Jesus has suffered the penalty of the law in their stead, and through His atoning death they are cleansed from all guilt. As creatures they were under obligations to obey Gods' Law; as criminals (transgressors) they were under the death-sentence of the law. Therefore, to fully meet our liabilities and discharge our debts it was necessary that our Substitute should both obey and die. The shedding of Christ's blood blotted out our sins, but it did not, of itself, provide the "best robe" for us. To silence the accusations of the law against us so that there is now "no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" is simply a negative blessing: something more was required, namely, a positive righteousness, the keeping of the law, so that we might be entitled to its blessing and reward.

In Old Testament times the name under which the Messiah and Mediator was foretold is, "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" (Jer. 23:6). It was plainly predicted by Daniel that He should come here to "finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and tobring in everlasting righteousness" (9:24). Isaiah announced "Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to Him shall men come; and all that are incensed against Him shall be ashamed. In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory" (45:24, 25). And again, he represents each of the redeemed exclaiming, "I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness" (61:10).

In Romans 4:6-8 we read, "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." Here we are shown the inseparability of the two things: God imputing "righteousness" and God not imputing "sins." The two are never divided: unto whom God imputes not sin He imputes righteousness; and unto whom He imputes righteousness, He imputes not sin. But the particular point which we are most anxious for the reader to grasp is, Whose "righteousness" is it that God imputes or reckons to the account of the one who believes? The answer is, that righteousness which was wrought out by our Surety, that obedience to the law which was vicariously rendered by our Sponsor, even "the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1). This righteousness is not only "unto all" but also "upon all them that believe" (Rom. 3:22). It is called "the righteousness of God" because it was the righteousness of the God-man Mediator, just as in Acts 20:28 His blood is call the blood of God.

The "righteousness of God" which is mentioned so frequently in the Roman epistle refers not to the essential righteousness of the Divine character, for that cannot possibly be imputed or legally transferred to any creature. When we are told in 10:3 that the Jews were "ignorant of God's righteousness" it most certainly does not mean they were in the dark concerning the Divine rectitude or that they knew nothing about God's justice; but it signifies that they were unenlightened as to the righteousness which the God-man Mediator had vicariously wrought out for His people. This is abundantly clear from the remainder of that verse: "and going about to establish their own righteousness"-not their own rectitude or justice, but performing works by which they hoped to merit acceptance with God. So tightly did they cling to this delusion, they, "submitted not themselves unto the righteousness of God": that is, they refused to turn from their self-righteousness and put their trust in the obedience and sufferings of the incarnate Son of God.

"I would explain what we mean by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Sometimes the expression is taken by our divines in a larger sense, for the imputation of all that Christ did and suffered for our redemption whereby we are free from guilt, and stand righteous in the sight of God; and so implies the imputation both of Christ's satisfaction and obedience. But here I intend it in a stricter sense, for the imputation of that righteousness or moral goodness that consists in the obedience of Christ. And by that obedience being imputed to us, is meant no other than this, that that righteousness of Christ is accepted for us, and admitted instead of that perfect inherent righteousness that ought to be in ourselves: Christ's perfect obedience shall be reckoned to our account, so that we shall have the benefit of it, as though we had performed it ourselves: and so we suppose, that a title to eternal life is given us as the reward of this righteousness" (Jonathan Edwards).

The one passage which casts the clearest light upon that aspect of justification which we are now considering is 2 Corinthians 5:21, "For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." Here we have the counter imputations: of our sins to Christ, of His righteousness to us. As the teaching of this verse is of such vital moment let us endeavor to consider its terms the more closely. How was Christ "made sin for us"? By God imputing to Him our disobedience, or our transgressions of the law; in like manner, we are made "the righteousness of God in Him" (in Christ, not in ourselves) by God imputing to usChrist's obedience, His fulfilling the precepts of the law for us.

As Christ "knew no sin" by inward defilement or personal commission, so we "knew" or had no righteousness of our own by inward conformity to the law, or by personal obedience to it. As Christ was "made sin" by having our sins placed to His account or charged upon Him in a judicial way, and as it was not by any criminal conduct of His own that He was "made sin," so it is not by any pious activities of our own that we become "righteous": Christ was not "made sin" by the infusion of depravity, nor are we "made righteous" by the infusion of holiness. Though personally holy, our Sponsor did, by entering our law-place, render Himself officially liable to the wrath of God; and so though personally unholy, we are, by virtue of our legal identification with Christ, entitled to the favor of God. As the consequence of Christ's being "made sin for us" was, that "the LORD laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6), so the consequence of Christ's obedience being reckoned to our account is that God lays righteousness "upon all them that believe" (Rom. 3:22). As our sins were the judicial ground of the sufferings of Christ, by which sufferings He satisfied Justice; so Christ's righteousness is the judicial ground of our acceptance with God, by which our pardon is an act of Justice.

Notice carefully that in 2 Corinthians 5:21 it is God who "made" or legally constituted Christ to be "sin for us," though as Hebrews 10:7 shows, the Son gladly acquiesced therein. "He was made sin by imputation: the sins of all His people were transferred unto Him, laid upon Him, and placed to His account and having them upon Him He was treated by the justice of God as if He had been not only a sinner, but a mass of sin: for to be made sin is a stronger expression than to be made a sinner" (John Gill). "That we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" signifies to be legally constituted righteous before God-justified. "It is a righteousness 'in Him,' in Christ, and not in ourselves, and therefore must mean the righteousness of Christ: so called, because it is wrought by Christ, who is God over all, the true God, and eternal life" (Ibid.).

The same counter-exchange which has been before us in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is found again in Galatians 3:13, 14, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." As the Surety of His people, Christ was "made under the law" (Gal. 4:4), stood in their law-place and stead, and having all their sins imputed to Him, and the law finding them all upon Him, condemned Him for them; and so the justice of God delivered Him up to the accursed death of the cross. The purpose, as well as the consequence, of this was "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles": the "blessing of Abraham" (as Rom. 4 shows) was justification by faith through the righteousness of Christ.

"Upon a Life I did not live,

Upon a Death I did not die;

Another's death, Another's life

I'd rest my soul eternally."

5. Its Nature

Justification, strictly speaking, consists in God's imputing to His elect the righteousness of Christ, that alone being the meritorious cause or formal ground on which He pronounces them righteous: the righteousness of Christ is that to which God has respect when He pardons and accepts the sinner. By the nature of justification we have reference to the constituent elements of the same, which are enjoyed by the believer. These are, the non-imputation of guilt or the remission of sins, and second, of the investing of the believer with a legal title to Heaven. The alone ground on which God forgives any man's sins, and admits him into His judicial favour, is the vicarious work of his Surety-that perfect satisfaction which Christ offered to the law on his behalf. It is of great importance to be clear on the fact that Christ was "made under the law" not only that He might redeem His people "from the curse of the law" (Gal. 3:13), but also that they might "receive the adoption of sons" (Gal. 4:4, 5), that is, be invested with the privileges of sons.

This grand doctrine of Justification was proclaimed in its purity and clarity by the Reformers-Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Peter Martyr, etc.; but it began to be corrupted in the seventeenth century by men who had only a very superficial knowledge of it, who taught that justification consisted merely in the removal of guilt or forgiveness of sins, excluding the positive admittance of man into God's judicial favour: in other words, they restricted justification unto deliverance from Hell, failing to declare that it also conveys a title unto Heaven. This error was perpetuated by John Wesley, and then by the Plymouth Brethren, who, denying that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer, seek to find their title to eternal life in a union with Christ in His resurrection. Few today are clear upon the twofold content of Justification, because few today understand the nature of that righteousness which is imputed to all who believe.

To show that we have not misrepresented the standard teachings of the Plymouth Brethren on this subject, we quote from Mr. W. Kelly's "Notes on Romans." In his "Introduction" he states, "There is nothing to hinder our understanding 'the righteousness of God' in its usual sense of an attribute or quality of God" (p. 35). But how could an "attribute" or "quality" of God be "upon all them that believe" (Rom. 3:22)? Mr. Kelly will not at all allow that the "righteousness of God" and "the righteousness of Christ" are one and the same, and hence, when he comes to Romans 4 (where so much is said about "righteousness" being imputed to the believer) he evacuates the whole of its blessed teaching by trying to make out that this is nothing more than our own faith, saying of Abraham, "his faith in God's word as that which he exercised, and which was accounted as righteousness" (p. 47).

The "righteousness of Christ" which is imputed to the believer consists of that perfect obedience which He rendered unto the precepts of God's Law and that death which He died under the penalty of the law. It has been rightly said that, "There is the very same need of Christ's obeying the law in our stead, in order to the reward, as of His suffering the penalty of the law in our stead in order to our escaping the penalty; and the same reason why one should be accepted on our account as the other... To suppose that all Christ does in order to make atonement for us by suffering is to make Him our Saviour but in part. It is to rob Him of half His glory as a Saviour. For if so, all that He does is to deliver us from Hell; He does not purchase Heaven for us" (Jonathan Edwards). Should any one object to the idea of Christ "purchasing" Heaven for His people, he may at once be referred to Ephesians 1:14, where Heaven is expressly designated "the purchased possession."

The imputation to the believer's account of that perfect obedience which his Surety rendered unto the law for him is plainly taught in Romans 5:18, 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." Here the "offence" or "disobedience" of the first Adam is set over against the "righteousness" or "obedience" of the last Adam, and inasmuch as the disobedience of the former was an actual transgression of the law, therefore the obedience of the latter must be His active obedience unto the law; otherwise the force of the Apostle's antithesis would fail entirely. As this vital point (the chief glory of the Gospel) is now so little understood, and in some quarters disputed, we must enter into some detail.

The one who was justified upon his believing sustained a twofold relation unto God: first, he was a responsible creature, born under the law; second, he was a criminal, having transgressed that law-though his criminality has not canceled his obligation to obey the law any more than a man who recklessly squanders his money is no longer due to pay his debts. Consequently, justification consists of two parts, namely, an acquittal from guilt, or the condemnation of the law (deliverance from Hell), and the receiving him into God's favour, on the sentence of the law's approval (a legal title to Heaven). And therefore, the ground upon which God pronounces him just is also a double one, as the one complete satisfaction of Christ is viewed in its two distinct parts: namely, His vicarious obedience unto the precepts of the law, and His substitutionary death under the penalty of the law, the merits of both being equally imputed or reckoned to the account of him who believes.

Against this it has been objected, "The law requires no man to obey and die too." To which we reply in the language of J. Hervey (1750), "But did it not require a transgressor to obey and die? If not, then transgression robs the law of its right, and vacates all obligation to obedience. Did it not require the Surety for sinful men to obey and die? If the Surety dies only, He only delivers from penalty. But this affords no claim to life, no title to a reward- unless you can produce some such edict from the Court of Heaven- 'Suffer this, and thou shalt live.' I find it written 'In keeping Thy commandments there is great reward' (Psa. 19:11), but nowhere do I read, 'In undergoing Thy curse, there is the same reward.' Whereas, when we join the active and passive obedience of our Lord-the peace-speaking Blood with the Life-giving righteousness-both made infinitely meritorious and infinitely efficacious by the Divine glory of His person, how full does our justification appear! How firm does it stand!"

It is not sufficient that the believer stand before God with no sins upon him-that is merely negative. The holiness of God requires a positive righteousness to our account-that His Law be perfectly kept. But we are unable to keep it, therefore our Sponsor fulfilled it for us. By the blood-shedding of our blessed Substitute the gates of Hell have been forever shut against all those for whom He died. By the perfect obedience of our blessed Surety the gates of Heaven are opened wide unto all who believe. My title for standing before God, not only without fear, but in the conscious sunshine of His full favour, is because Christ has been made "righteousness" unto me (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ not only paid all my debts, but fully discharged all my responsibilities. The law-Giver is my law-Fulfiller. Every holy aspiration of Christ, every godly thought, every gracious word, every righteous act of the Lord Jesus, from Bethlehem to Calvary, unite in forming that "best robe" in which the seed royal stand arrayed before God.

Yet sad to say, even so widely-read and generally-respected a writer as the late Sir Rob. Anderson, said in his book, "The Gospel and Its Ministry" (Chapter on Justification by Blood), "Vicarious obedience is an idea wholly beyond reason; how could a God of righteousness and truth reckon a man who has broken law to have kept law, because some one else has kept it? The thief is not declared to be honest because his neighbour or his kinsman is a good citizen." What a pitiable dragging down to the bar of sin-polluted human reason, and a measuring by worldly relations, of that Divine transaction wherein the "manifold wisdom of God" was exercised! What is impossible with men is possible with God. Did Sir Robert never read that Old Testament prediction wherein the Most High God declared, "Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid" (Isa. 29:14)?

It is pointed out that, "In the human realm, both innocence and righteousness are transferable in their effects, but that in themselves they are untransferable." From this it is argued that neither sin nor righteousness are in themselves capable of being transferred, and that though God treated Christ as if He were the sinner, and deals with the believer as though he were righteous, nevertheless, we must not suppose that either is actually the case; still less ought we to affirm that Christ deserved to suffer the curse, or that His people are entitled to be taken to Heaven. Such is a fair sample of the theological ignorance of these degenerate times, such is a representative example of how Divine things are being measured by human standards; by such sophistries is the fundamental truth of imputation now being repudiated.

Rightly did W. Rushton, in his "Particular Redemption," affirm, "In the great affair of our salvation, our God stands single and alone. In this most glorious work, there is such a display of justice, mercy, wisdom and power, as never entered into the heart of man to conceive, and consequently, can have no parallel in the actions of mortals. 'Who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside Me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside Me': Isaiah 45:21." No, in the very nature of the case no analogy whatever is to be found in any human transactions with God's transferring our sins to Christ or Christ's obedience to us, for the simple but sufficient reason thatno such union exists between worldlings as obtains between Christ and His people. But let us further amplify this counter-imputation.

The afflictions which the Lord Jesus experienced were not only sufferings at the hands of men, but also enduring punishment at the hand of God: "it pleased the LORD to bruise Him" (Isa. 53:10); "Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, and against the man that is My Fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd" (Zech. 13:7) was His edict. But lawful "punishment" presupposes criminality; a righteous God had never inflicted the curse of the law upon Christ unless He had deserved it. That is strong language we are well aware, yet not stronger than what Holy Writ fully warrants, and things need to be stated forcibly and plainly today if an apathetic people is to be aroused. It was because God had transferred to their Substitute all the sins of His people that, officially, Christ deserved to be paid sin's wages.

The translation of our sins to Christ was clearly typed out under the Law: "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, (expressing identification with the substitute), 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 (denoting transference), and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited" (Lev. 16:21, 22). So too it was expressly announced by the Prophets: "The LORD hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all... He shall bear their iniquities" (Isa. 53:6, 11). In that great Messianic Psalm, the 69th, we hear the Surety saying, "O God, Thou knowest My foolishness; and My sins are not hid from Thee" (v. 5)-how could the spotless Redeemer speak thus, unless the sins of His people had been laid uponHim?

When God imputed sin to Christ as the sinner's Surety, He charged Him with the same, and dealt with Him accordingly. Christ could not have suffered in the stead of the guilty unless their guilt had been first transferred to Him. The sufferings of Christ were penal. God by act of transcendent grace (to us) laid the iniquities of all that are saved upon Christ, and in consequence, Divine justice finding sin upon Him, punished Him. He who will by no means clear the guilty must strike through sin and smite its bearer, no matter whether it be the sinner himself or One who vicariously takes his place. But as G.S. Bishop well said, "When justice once strikes the Son of God, justice exhausts itself. Sin is amerced in an Infinite Object." The atonement of Christ was contrary to our processes of law because it rose above their finite limitations!

Now as the sins of him who believes were, by God, transferred and imputed to Christ so that God regarded and treated Him accordingly-visiting upon Him the curse of the law, which is death; even so the obedience or righteousness of Christ is, by God, transferred and imputed to the believer so that God now regards and deals with him accordingly-bestowing upon him the blessing of the law, which is life. And any denial of that fact, no matter by whomsoever made, is a repudiation of the cardinal principle of the Gospel. "The moment the believing sinner accepts Christ as his Substitute, he finds himself not only freed from his sins, but rewarded: he gets all Heaven because of the glory and merits of Christ (Rom. 5:17). The atonement, then, which we preach is one of absolute exchange (1 Peter 3:18). It is that Christ took our place literally, in order that we might take His place literally-that God regarded and treated Christ as the Sinner, and that He regards and treats the believing sinner as Christ.

"It is not enough for a man to be pardoned. He, of course, is then innocent-washed from his sin-put back again, like Adam in Eden, just where he was. But that is not enough. It was required of Adam in Eden that he should actuallykeep the command. It was not enough that he did not break it, or that he is regarded, through the Blood, as though he did not break it. He must keep it: he must continue in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. How is this necessity supplied? Man must have a righteousness, or God cannot accept him. Man must have a perfect obedience, or else God cannot reward him" (G.S. Bishop). That necessary and perfect obedience is to be found alone in that perfect life, lived by Christ in obedience to the law, before He went to the cross, which is reckoned to the believer's account.

It is not that God treats as righteous one who is not actually so (that would be a fiction), but that He actually constitutes the believer so, not by infusing a holy nature in his heart, but by reckoning the obedience of Christ to his account. Christ's obedience is legally transferred to him so that he is now rightly and justly regarded as righteous by the Divine Law. It is very far more than a naked pronouncement of righteousness upon one who is without any sufficient foundation for the judgment of God to declare him righteous. No, it is a positive and judicial act of God "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 granteth them right and title unto eternal life" (John Owen).

It now remains for us to point out the ground on whichGod acts in this counter-imputation of sin to Christ and righteousness to His people. That ground was the Everlasting Covenant. The objection that it is unjust the innocent should suffer in order that the guilty may escape loses all its force once the Covenant-Headship and responsibility of Christ is seen, and the covenant-oneness with Him of those whose sins He bore. There could have been no such thing as a vicarious sacrifice unless there had been some union between Christ and those for whom He died, and that relation of union must have subsisted before He died, yea, before our sins were imputed to Him. Christ undertook to make full satisfaction to the law for His people because He sustained to them the relation of a Surety. But what justified His acting as their Surety? He stood as their Surety because He was their Substitute: He acted on their behalf, because He stood in their room. But what justified the substitution?

No satisfactory answer can be given to the last question until the grand doctrine of everlasting covenant-oneness comes into view: that is the great underlying relation. The federal oneness between the Redeemer and the redeemed, the choosing of them in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), by which a legal union was established between Him and them, is that which alone accounts for and justifies all else. "For both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified areall of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren" (Heb. 2:11). As the Covenant-Head of His people, Christ was so related to them that their responsibilities necessarily became His, and we are so related to Him that His merits necessarily become ours. Thus, as we said in an earlier chapter, three words give us the key to and sum up the whole transaction: substitution, identification, imputation-all of which rest upon covenant-oneness. Christ was substituted for us, because He is one with us-identified with us, and we with Him. Thus God dealt with us as occupying Christ's place of worthiness and acceptance. May the Holy Spirit grant both writer and reader such an heart-apprehension of this wondrous and blessed truth, that overflowing gratitude may move us unto fuller devotedness unto Him who loved us and gave Himself for us.

6. Its Source

Let us here review, briefly, the ground which we have already covered. We have seen, first, that "to justify" means to pronounce righteous. It is not a Divine work, but a Divine verdict, the sentence of the Supreme Court, declaring that the one justified stands perfectly conformed to all the requirements of the law. Justification assures the believer that the Judge of all the earth is for him, and not against him: that justice itself is on his side. Second, we dwelt upon the great and seemingly insoluable problem which is thereby involved: how a God of truth can pronounce righteous one who is completely devoid of righteousness, how He can receive into His judicial favour one who is a guilty criminal, how He can exercise mercy without insulting justice, how He can be gracious and yet enforce the high demands of His Law. Third, we have shown that the solution to this problem is found in the perfect satisfaction which the incarnate Son rendered unto Divine Law, and that on the basis of that satisfaction God can truthfully and righteously pronounce just all who truly believe the Gospel.

In our last article we pointed out that the satisfaction which Christ made to the Divine Law consists of two distinct parts, answering to the twofold need of him who is to be justified. First, as a responsible creature I am under binding obligations to keep the law-to love God with all my heart and my neighbor as myself. Second, as a criminal I am under the condemnation and curse of that law which I have constantly transgressed in thought and word and deed. Therefore, if another was to act as my surety and make reparation for me, he must perfectly obey all the precepts of the law, and then endure the awful penalty of the law. That is exactly what was undertaken and accomplished by the Lord Jesus in His virtuous life and vicarious death. By Him every demand of the law was fulfilled; by Him every obligation of the believer was fully met.

It has been objected by some that the obedience of Christ could not be imputed to the account of others, for being "made under the law" (Gal. 4:4) as man, Heowed submission to the law on His own account. This is a serious mistake, arising out of a failure to recognize the absolute uniqueness of the Man Christ Jesus. Unlike us, He was never placed under the Adamic Covenant, and therefore He owed nothing to the law. Moreover, the manhood of Christ never had a separate existence: in the virgin's womb the eternal Son took the seed of Mary into union with His Deity, so that whereas the first man was of the earth, earthy, "the second Man is the Lord from Heaven" (1 Cor. 15:47), and as such He was infinitely superior to the law, owing nothing to it, being personally possessed of all the excellencies of Deity. Even while He walked this earth "in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

It was entirely for His peoples' sake that the God-man Mediator was "made under the law." It was in order to work out for them a perfect righteousness, which should be placed to their account, that He took upon Himself the form of a servant and became "obedient unto death." What has been said above supplies the answer to another foolish objection which has been made against this blessed truth, namely, that if the obedience of the Man Christ Jesus were transferable it would be available only for one other man, seeing that every human being is required to obey the law, and that if vicarious obedience be acceptable to God then there would have to be as many separate sureties as there are believers who are saved. That would be true if the "surety" were merely human, but inasmuch as the Surety provided by God is the God-man Mediator, His righteousness is of infinite value, for the law was more"honoured and magnified" by the obedience of "the Lord from Heaven" than had every member of the human race perfectly kept it. The righteousness of the God-man Mediator is of infinite value, and therefore available for as many as God is pleased to impute it unto.

The value or merit of an action increases in proportion to the dignity of the person who performs it, and He who obeyed in the room and stead of the believer was not only a holy man, but the Son of the living God. Moreover, let it be steadily borne in mind that the obedience which Christ rendered to the law was entirely voluntary. Prior to His incarnation, He was under no obligation to the law, for He had Himself (being God) formulated that law. His being made of a woman and made under the law was entirely a free act on His own part. We come into being and are placed under the law without our consent; but the Lord from Heaven existed before His incarnation, and assumed our nature by His spontaneous act: "Lo, I come... I delight to do Thy will" (Psa. 40:7, 8). No other person could use such language, for it clearly denotes a liberty to act or not to act, which no mere creature possesses. Placing Himself under the law and rendering obedience to it was founded solely on His own voluntary deed. His obedience was therefore a "free will offering," and therefore as He did not owe obedience to the law by any prior obligation, not being at all necessary for Himself, it is available for imputation to others, that they should be rewarded for it.

If, then, the reader has been able to follow us closely in the above observations, it should be clear to him that when Scripture speaks of God "justifying the ungodly" the meaning is that the believing sinner is brought into an entirely new relation to the law; that in consequence of Christ's righteousness being made over to him, he is now absolved from all liability to punishment, and is given a title to all the reward merited by Christ's obedience. Blessed, blessed truth for comforting the conscientious Christian who daily groans under a sense of his sad failures and who mourns because of his lack of practical conformity to the image of Christ. Satan is ever ready to harass such an one and tell him his profession is vain. But it is the believer's privilege to overcome him by "the blood of the Lamb" (Rev. 12:11)-to remind himself anew that Another has atoned for all his sins, and that despite his innumerable shortcomings he still stands "accepted in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6). If I am truly resting on the finished work of Christ for me, the Devil cannot successfully lay anything to my charge before God, though if I am walking carelessly He will suffer him to charge my conscience with unrepented and unconfessed sins.

In our last chapter, under the nature of justification, we saw that the constituent elements of this Divine blessing are two in number, the one being negative in its character, the other positive. The negative blessing is the cancellation of guilt, or the remission of sins-the entire record of the believer's transgressions of the law, filed upon the Divine docket, having been blotted out by the precious blood of Christ. The positive blessing is the bestowal upon the believer of an inalienable title to the reward which the obedience of Christ merited for him-that reward is life, the judicial favour of God, Heaven itself. The unchanging sentence of the law is "the man which doeth those things shall live by them" (Rom. 10:5). As we read in Romans 7:10, "the commandment, which was ordained to life." It is just as true that obedience to the law secured life, as disobedience insured death. When the young ruler asked Christ "what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" He answered, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matt. 19:16, 17).

It was because His people had failed to "keep the commandments" that the God-man Mediator was "made under the law," and obeyed it for them. And therefore its reward of "life" is due unto those whose Surety He was; yea, due unto Christ Himself to bestow upon them. Therefore did the Surety, when declaring "I have glorified Thee on the earth: I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do" (John 17:4), remind the Father, "that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him" (v. 2). But more, on the footing of justice, Christ demands that His people be taken to Heaven, saying, "Father, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am" (John 17:24)-He claims eternal life for His people on the ground of His finished work, as the reward of His obedience.

"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" (Rom. 5:18). The offence of the first Adam brought down the curse of the broken law upon the whole human race; but the satisfaction of the last Adam secured the blessing of the fulfilled law upon all those whom He represented. Judgment unto condemnation is a law term intending eternal death, the wages of sin; the "free gift" affirms that a gratuitous justification is bestowed upon all its recipients-"justification of life" being the issue of the gift, parallel with "shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ" (v. 17). The sentence of justification adjudges and entitles its object unto eternal life.

Having now considered the two great blessings which come to the believer at his justification-deliverance from the curse of the law (death) and a title to the blessing of the law (life)-let us now seek to take a view of the originating source from which they proceed. This is the free, pure sovereign grace of God: as it is written "Being justified freely by His grace" (Rom. 3:24). What is grace? It is God's unmerited and uninfluenced favour, shown unto the undeserving and hell-deserving: neither human worthiness, works or willingness, attracting it, nor the lack of them repelling or obstructing it. What could there be in me to win the favourable regard of Him who is of too pure eyes to behold evil, and move Him to justify me? Nothing whatever; nay, there was everything in me calculated to make Him abhor and destroy me-my very self-righteous efforts to earn a place in Heaven deserving only a lower place in Hell. If, then, I am ever to be "justified" by God it must be by pure grace, and that alone.

Grace is the very essence of the Gospel-the only hope for fallen men, the sole comfort of saints passing through much tribulation on their way to the kingdom of God. The Gospel is the announcement that God is prepared to deal with guilty rebels on the ground of free favour, of pure benignity; that God will blot out sin, cover the believing sinner with a robe of spotless righteousness, and receive him as an accepted son: not on account of anything he has done or ever will do, but of sovereign mercy, acting independently of the sinner's own character and deservings of eternal punishment. Justification is perfectly gratuitous so far as we are concerned, nothing being required of us in order to it, either in the way of price and satisfaction or preparation and meetness. We have not the slightest degree of merit to offer as the ground of our acceptance, and therefore if God ever does accept us it must be out of unmingled grace.

It is as "the God of all grace" (1 Peter 5:10) that Jehovah justifies the ungodly. It is as "the God of all grace" He seeks, finds, and saves His people: asking them for nothing, giving them everything. Strikingly is this brought out in that word "being justified freely by His grace" (Rom. 3:24), the design of that adverb being to exclude all consideration of anything in us or from us which should be the cause or condition of our justification. That same Greek adverb is translated "without a cause" in John 15:25-"they hated Me without a cause." The world's hatred of Christ was "without a cause" so far as He was concerned: there was nothing whatever in Him which, to the slightest degree, deserved their enmity against Him: there was nothing in Him unjust, perverse, or evil; instead, there was everything in Him which was pure, holy, lovely. In like manner, there is nothing whatever in us to call forth the approbation of God: by nature there is "no good thing" in us; but instead, everything that is evil, vile, loathsome.

"Being justified without a cause by His GRACE." How this tells out the very heart of God! While there was no motive to move Him, outside of Himself, there was one inside Himself; while there was nothing in us to impel God to justify us, His own grace moved Him, so that He devised a way whereby His wondrous love could have vent and flow forth to the chief of sinners, the vilest of rebels. As it is written, "I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins" (Isa. 43:25). Wondrous, matchless grace! We cannot for a moment look outside the grace of God for any motive or reason why He should ever have noticed us, still less had respect unto such ungodly wretches.

The first moving cause, then, that inclined God to show mercy to His people in their undone and lost condition, was His own wondrous grace-unsought, uninfluenced, unmerited by us. He might justly have left us all obnoxious to the curse of His Law, without providing any Surety for us, as He did the fallen angels; but such was His grace toward us that "He spared not His own Son." "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" (Titus 3:5-7). It was His own sovereign favour and good will which actuated God to form this wondrous scheme and method of justification.

Against what has been said above, it has been objected by Socinians and their echoists that this cannot be: if the believing sinner is justified upon the grounds of a full satisfaction having been made to God for him by a surety, then his discharge from condemnation and his reception into God's judicial favour must be an act of pure justice, and therefore could not be by grace. Or, if it be purely an act of Divine grace, then no surety can have obeyed the law in the believer's stead. But this is to confound two distinct things: the relation of God to Christ the Surety, and the relation of God to me the sinner. It was grace which transferred my sins to Christ; it was justice which smote Christ on account of those sins. It was grace which appointed me unto everlasting bliss; it is justice to Christ which requires I shall enjoy that which He purchased for me.

Toward the sinner justification is an act of free unmerited favour; but toward Christ, as a sinner's Surety, it is an act of justice that eternal life should be bestowed upon those for whom His meritorious satisfaction was made. First, it was pure grace that God was willing to accept satisfaction from the hands of a surety. He might have exacted the debt from us in our own persons, and then our condition had been equally miserable as that of the fallen angels, for whom no mediator was provided. Second, it was wondrous grace that God Himself provided a Surety for us, which we could not have done. The only creatures who are capable of performing perfect obedience are the holy angels, yet none of them could have assumed and met our obligations, for they are not akin to us, possessing not human nature, and therefore incapable of dying. Even had an angel became incarnate, his obedience to the law could not have availed for the whole of God's elect, for it would not have possessed infinite value.

None but a Divine person taking human nature into union with Himself could present unto God a satisfaction adequate for the redemption of His people. And it was impossible for men to have found out that Mediator and Surety: it must have its first rise in God, and not from us: it was He that "found" a ransom (Job 33:24) and laid help upon One that is "mighty" (Psa. 89:19). In the last place, it was amazing grace that the Son was willing to perform such a work for us, without whose consent the justice of God could not have exacted the debt from Him. And His grace is the most eminent in that He knew beforehand all the unspeakable humiliation and unparalleled suffering which He would encounter in the discharge of this work, yet that did not deter Him; nor was He unapprized of the character of those for whom He did it-the guilty, the ungodly, the hell-deserving; yet He shrank not back.

"O to grace how great a debtor,

Daily I'm constrained to be!

Let Thy grace, Lord, like a fetter,

Bind my wandering heart to Thee."

7. Its Objects

We have now reached a point in our discussion of this mighty theme where it is timely for us to ask the question, Who are the ones that God justifies? The answer to that question will necessarily vary according to the mental position we occupy. From the standpoint of God's eternal decrees the reply must be, God's elect: Romans 8:33. From the standpoint of the effects produced by quickening operations of the Holy Spirit the reply must be, those who believe: Acts 13:39. But from the standpoint of what they are, considered in themselves, the reply must be, the ungodly: Romans 4:5. The persons are the same, yet contemplated in three different relations. But here a difficulty presents itself: If faith be essential in order to justification, and if a fallen sinner must be quickened by the Holy Spirit before he can believe, then with what propriety can a regenerated person, with the spiritual grace of faith already in his heart, be described as "ungodly"?

The difficulty pointed out above is self-created. It issues from confounding things which differ radically. It is the result of bringing in the experimental state of the person justified, when justification has to do only with his judicial status. We would emphasize once more the vital importance of keeping quite distinct in our minds the objective and subjective aspects of truth, the legal and the experimental: unless this be steadily done, nought but confusion and mistakes can mark our thinking. When contemplating what he is in himself, considered alone, even the Christian mournfully cries "O wretched man that I am"; but when he views himself in Christ, as justified from all things, he triumphantly exclaims, "who shall lay anything to my charge!"

Above, we have pointed out that from the viewpoint of God's eternal decrees the question "Who are the ones whom God justifies?" must be "the elect." And this brings us to a point on which some eminent Calvinists have erred, or at least, have expressed themselves faultily. Some of the older theologians, when expounding this doctrine, contended for the eternal justification of the elect, affirming that God pronounced them righteous before the foundation of the world, and that their justification was then actual and complete, remaining so throughout their history in time, even during the days of their unregeneracy and unbelief; and that the only difference their faith made was in making manifest God's eternal justification in their consciences. This is a serious mistake, resulting (again) from failure to distinguish between things which differ.

As an immanent act of God's mind, in which all things (which are to us past, present, and future) were cognized by Him, the elect might be said to be justified from all eternity. And, as an immutable act of God's will, which cannot be frustrated, the same may be predicated again. But as an actual, formal, historical sentence, pronounced by God upon us, not so. We must distinguish between God's looking upon the elect in the purpose of his grace, and the objects of justification lying under the sentence of the law: in the former, He loved His people with an everlasting love (Jer. 31:3); in the latter, we were "by nature the children of wrath, even as others" (Eph. 2:3). Until they believe, every descendant of Adam is "condemned already" (John 3:18), and to be under God' condemnation is the very opposite of being justified.

In his ponderous treatise on justification, the Puritan Thomas Goodwin made clear some vital distinctions, which if carefully observed will preserve us from error on this point. "1. In the everlasting covenant. We may say of all spiritual blessings in Christ, what is said of Christ Himself, that their 'goings forth are from everlasting.' Justified then we were when first elected, though not in our own persons, yet in our Head (Eph. 1:3). 2. There is a farther act of justifying us, which passed from God towards us in Christ, upon His payment and performance at His resurrection (Rom. 4:25, 1 Tim. 3:16). 3. But these two acts of justification are wholly out of us, immanent acts in God, and though they concern us and are towards us, yet not acts of God upon us, they being performed towards us not as actually existing in ourselves, but only as existing in our Head, who covenanted for us and represented us: so as though by those acts we are estated into a right and title to justification, yet the benefit and possession of that estate we have not without a farther act being passed upon us."

Before regeneration we are justified by existing in our Head only, as a feoffee, held in trust for us, as children under age. In addition to which, we "are to be in our own persons, though still through Christ, possessed of it, and to have all the deeds and evidences of it committed to the custody and apprehension of our faith. We are in our own persons made true owners and enjoyers of it, which is immediately done at that instant when we first believe; which act (of God) is the completion and accomplishment of the former two, and is that grand and famous justification by faith which the Scripture so much inculcates-note the 'now' in Romans 5:9, 11; 8:1!... God doth judge and pronounce His elect ungodly and unjustified till they believe" (Ibid.)

God's elect enter this world in precisely the same condition and circumstances as do the non-elect. They are "by nature the children of wrath, even as others" (Eph. 2:3), that is, they are under the condemnation of their original sin in Adam (Rom. 5:12, 18, 19) and they are under the curse of God's Law because of their own constant transgressions of it (Gal. 3:10). The sword of Divine justice is suspended over their heads, and the Scriptures denounce them as rebels against the Most High. As yet, there is nothing whatever to distinguish them from those who are "fitted to destruction." Their state is woeful to the last degree, their situation perilous beyond words; and when the Holy Spirit awakens them from the sleep of death, the first message which falls upon their ears is, "Flee from the wrath to come." But how and whither, they, as yet, know not. Then it is they are ready for the message of the Gospel.

Let us turn now to the more immediate answer to our opening inquiry, Who are the ones that God justifies? A definite reply is given in Romans 4:5: "Him that justifieth the"-whom? the holy, the faithful, the fruitful? no, the very reverse: "Him that justifieth the ungodly." What a strong, bold, and startling word is this! It becomes yet more emphatic when we observe what precedes: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly." The subjects of justification, then, are viewed in themselves, apart from Christ, as not only destitute of a perfect righteousness, but as havingno acceptable works to their account. They are denominated, and considered as ungodly when the sentence of justification is pronounced upon them. The mere sinner is the subject on which grace is magnified, toward which grace reigns in justification!

"To say, he who worketh not is justified through believing, is to say that his works, whatever they be, have no influence in his justification, nor hath God, in justifying him, any respect unto them. Wherefore he alone who worketh not, is the subject of justification, the person to be justified. That is, God considereth no man's works, no man's duties of obedience, in his justification; seeing we are justified freely by His grace" (John Owen). Those whom God, in His transcendent mercy, justifies, are not the obedient, but the disobedient; not those who have been loyal and loving subjects of His righteous government, but they who have stoutly defied Him and trampled His laws beneath their feet. Those whom God justifies are lost sinners, lying in a state of defection from Him, under a loss of original righteousness (in Adam) and by their own transgressions brought in guilty before His tribunal (Rom. 3:19). They are those who by character and conduct have no claim upon Divine blessing, and deserve nought but unsparing judgment at God's hand.

"Him that justifieth the ungodly." It is deplorable to see how many able commentators have weakened the force of this by affirming that, while the subject of justification is"ungodly" up to the time of his justification, he is not so at the moment of justification itself. They argue that, inasmuch as the subject of justification is a believer at the moment of his justification and that believing presupposes regeneration-a work of Divine grace wrought in the heart-he could not be designated "ungodly." This seeming difficulty is at once removed by calling to mind that justification is entirely a law matter and not an experimental thing at all. In the sight of God's Law every one whom God justifies is"ungodly" until Christ's righteousness is made over to him. The awful sentence "ungodly" rests as truly upon the purest virgin as much as it does upon the foulest prostitute until God imputes Christ's obedience to her.

"Him that justifieth the ungodly." These words cannot mean less than that God, in the act of justification, has no regard whatever to any thing good resting to the credit of the person He justifies. They declare, emphatically, that immediately prior to that Divine act, God beholds the subject only as unrighteous, ungodly, wicked, so that no good, either in or by the person justified, can possibly be the ground on which or the reason for which He justifies him. This is further evident from the words "to him that worketh not": that this includes not only works which the ceremonial law required, but all works of morality and godliness, appear from the fact that the same person who is said to "work not" is designated "ungodly." Finally, seeing that the faith which belongs to justification is here said to be "counted for (or "unto") righteousness," it is clear that the person to whom "righteousness" is imputed, is destitute of righteousness in himself.

A parallel passage to the one which has just been before us is found in Isaiah 43. There we hear God saying, "I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins" (v. 25). And to whom does God say this? To those who had sincerely endeavoured to please Him? To those who, though they had occasionally been overtaken in a fault, had, in the main, served Him faithfully? No, indeed; very far from it. Instead, in the immediate context we find Him saying to them, "But thou hast not called upon Me, O Jacob; but thou hast been weary of Me, O Israel. Thou hast bought Me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled Me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made Me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied Me with thine iniquities" (vv. 22, 24). They were, then, thoroughly "ungodly"; yet to them the Lord declared, "I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions"-why? Because of something good in them or from them? No, "for Mine own sake"!

Further confirmation of what has been before us in Romans 4:5 is found in both what immediately precedes and what follows. In verses 1-3 the case of Abraham is considered, and the proof given that he was not "justified by works," but on the ground of righteousness being imputed to him on his believing. "Now if a person of such victorious faith, exalted piety, and amazing obedience as his was, did not obtain acceptance with God on account of his own duties, but by an imputed righteousness; who shall pretend to an interest in the heavenly blessing, in virtue of his own sincere endeavors, or pious performances?-performances not fit to be named, in comparison with those that adorned the conduct and character of Jehovah's friend" (A. Booth).

Having shown that the father of all believers was regarded by the Lord as an "ungodly" person, having no good works to his credit at the moment of his justification, the Apostle next cited David's description of the truly blessed man. "And how does the royal Psalmist describe him? To what does he attribute his acceptance with God? To an inherent, or to an imputed righteousness? Does he represent him as attaining the happy state, and as enjoying the precious privilege, in consequence of performing sincere obedience, and of keeping the law to the best of his power? No such thing. His words are, 'Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin' (vv. 7-9). The blessed man is here described as one who is, in himself, a polluted creature, and a guilty criminal. As one who, before grace made the difference, was on a level with the rest of mankind; equally unworthy, and equally wretched: and the sacred penman informs us that all his blessedness arises from an imputed righteousness" (A. Booth).

"Him that justifieth the ungodly." Here is the very heart of the Gospel. Many have argued that God can only pronounce just, and treat as such, those who are inherently righteous; but if this was so, what good news would there be for sinful men? Enemies of the Truth insist that for God to pronounce just those whom His law condemns would be a judicial fiction. But Romans 4:5 makes known a Divine miracle: something only God could have achieved. The miracle announced by the Gospel is that God comes to the ungodly with a mercy that is righteous, and in spite of all their depravity and rebellion, enables them through faith (on the ground of Christ's righteousness) to enter into a new and blessed relation with Himself.

The Scriptures speak of mercy, but it is not mercy coming in to make up the deficiencies and forgive the slips of the virtuous, but mercy extended through Christ to the chief of sinners. The Gospel which proclaims mercy through the atonement of the Lord Jesus is distinguished from every religious system of man, by holding out salvation to the guiltiest of the human race, through faith in the blood of the Redeemer. God's Son came into this world not only to save sinners, but even the chief of sinners, the worst of His enemies. Mercy is extended freely to the most violent and determined rebel. Here, and here only, is a refuge for the guilty. Is the trembling reader conscious that he is agreat sinner, then that is the very reason why you should come to Christ: the greater your sins, the greater your need of the Saviour.

There are some who appear to think that Christ is a Physician who can cure only such patients as are not dangerously ill, that there are some cases so desperate as to be incurable, beyond His skill. What an affront to His power, what a denial of His sufficiency! Where can a more extreme case be found than that of the thief on the cross? He was at the very point of death, on the very brink of Hell! A guilty criminal, an incorrigible outlaw, justly condemned even by men. He had reviled the Saviour suffering by his side. Yet, at the end, he turned to Him and said, "Lord remember me." Was his plea refused? Did the Physician of souls regard his as a hopeless case? No, blessed be His name, He at once responded "Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise." Only unbelief shuts the vilest out of Heaven.

"Him that justifieth the ungodly." And how can the thrice holy God righteously do such a thing? Because "Christ died for the UNGODLY" (Rom. 5:6). God's righteous grace comes to us through the law-honouring, justice-satisfying, sin-atoning Work of the Lord Jesus! Here, then, is the very essence of the Gospel: the proclamation of God's amazing grace, the declaration of Divine bounty, altogether irrespective of human worth or merit. In the great Satisfaction of His Son, God has "brought nearHIS righteousness" (Isa. 46:13). "We do not need to go up to Heaven for it; that would imply Christ had never come down. Nor do we need to go down to the depths of the earth for it; that would say Christ had never been buried and had never risen. It is near. We do not need to exert ourselves to bring it near, nor do anything to attract it towards us. It is near... The office of faith is not to work, but to cease working; not to do anything, but to own that all is done" (A. Bonar).

Faith is the one link between the sinner and the Saviour. Not faith as a work, which must be properly performed to qualify us for pardon. Not faith as a religious duty, which must be gone through according to certain rules in order to induce Christ to give us the benefits of His finished work. No, but faith simply extended as an empty hand, to receive everything from Christ for nothing. Reader, you may be the very "chief of sinners," yet is your case not hopeless. You may have sinned against much light, great privileges, exceptional opportunities; you may have broken every one of the Ten Commandments in thought, word and deed; your body may be filled with disease from wickedness, your head white with the winter of old age; you may already have one foot in Hell; and yet even now, if you but take your place alongside of the dying thief, and trust in the Divine efficacy of the precious blood of the Lamb, you shall be plucked as a brand from the burning. God "justifieth the ungodly." Hallelujah! If He did not, the writer had been in Hell long ago.

8. Its Instrument

"Being justified freely by His grace" (Rom. 3:24); "being now justified by His blood" (Rom. 5:9); "being now justified by faith" (Rom. 5:1). A full exposition of the doctrine of justification requires that each of these propositions should be interpreted in their Scriptural sense, and that they be combined together in their true relations as to form one harmonious whole. Unless these three propositions be carefully distinguished there is sure to be confusion; unless all the three are steadily borne in mind we are sure to land in error. Each must be given its due weight, yet none must be understood in such a way as to make its force annul that of the others. Nor is this by any means a simple task, in fact none but a real teacher (that is, a spiritual theologian) who has devoted a lifetime to the undivided study of Scriptures is qualified for it.

"The righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ" (Rom. 3:22); "A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:28); "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" (Gal. 2:16). What is the precise place and influence which faith has in the important affairs of justification? What is the exact nature or character of justifying faith? In what particular sense are we to understand this proposition that we are "justified by faith"? and what is the connection between that proposition and the postulates that we are "justified by grace" and "justified by Christ's blood"? These are matters which call for the utmost care. The nature of justifying faith requires to be closely defined so that its particular agency is correctly viewed, for it is easy to make a mistake here to the prejudice of Christ's honour and glory, which must not be given to another-no, not to faith itself.

Many would-be teachers have erred at this point, for the common tendency of human nature is to arrogate to itself the glory which belongs alone to God. While there have been those who rejected the unscriptural notion that we can be justified before God by our own works, yet not a few of these very men virtually make a saviour of their own faith. Not only have some spoken of faith as though it were a contribution which God requires the sinner to make toward his own salvation-the last mite which was necessary to make up the price of his redemption; but others (who sneered at theologians and boasted of their superior understanding of the things of God) have insisted that faith itself is what constitutes us righteous before God, He regarding faith as righteousness.

A deplorable example of what we have just mentioned is to be found in the comments made upon Romans 4 by Mr. J.N. Darby, the father of the Plymouth Brethren: "This was Abraham's faith. He believed the promise that he should be the father of many nations, because God had spoken, counting on the power of God, thus glorifying Him, without calling in question anything that He had said by looking at circumstances; therefore this also was counted to him for righteousness. He glorified God according to what God was. Now this was not written for his sake alone: the same faith shall be imputed to us also for righteousness" ("Synopsis" vol. 4, p. 133-italics ours). The Christ-dishonouring error contained in those statements will be exposed later on in this chapter.

"How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God? Answer: Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, nor of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and His righteousness" (Westminster Confession of Faith). Though this definition was framed upwards of two hundred and fifty years ago, it is far superior to almost anything found in current literature on the subject. It is more accurate to speak of faith as the "instrument" rather than as the condition, for a "condition" is generally used to signify that for the sake whereof a benefit is conferred. Faith is neither the ground nor the substance of our justification, but simply the hand which receives the Divine gift proffered to us in the Gospel.

What is the precise place and influence which faith has in the important affair of justification? Romanist answer, It justifies us formally, not relatively: that is, upon the account of its own intrinsic value. They point out that faith is never alone, but "worketh by love" (Gal 5:6), and therefore its own excellency merits acceptance at God's hand. But the faith of the best is weak and deficient (Luke 17:5), and so could never satisfy the law, which requires a flawless perfection. If righteousness was given as a reward for faith, its possessor would have cause for boasting, expressly contrary to the Apostle in Romans 3:26, 27. Moreover, such a method of justification would entirely frustrate the life and death of Christ, making His great sacrifice unnecessary. It is not faith as a spiritual grace which justifies us, but as an instrument-the hand which lays hold of Christ.

In connection with justification, faith is not to be considered as a virtuous exercise of the heart, nor as a principle of holy obedience: "Because faith, as concerned in our justification, does not regard Christ as King, enacting laws, requiring obedience, and subduing depravity; but as a Substitute, answering the requirements of the Divine Law, and as a Priest expiating sin by His own death on the cross. Hence, in justification we read of 'precious faith... through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ' (2 Peter 1:1) and of 'faith in His blood' (Rom. 3:25), and believers are described as 'receiving the atonement' and 'receiving the gift of righteousness' (Rom. 5:11, 17). Therefore it is evident that faith is represented as having an immediate regard to the vicarious work of Christ, and that it is considered not under the notion of exercising virtue or of performing a duty, but of receiving a free gift" (A. Booth).

What is the relation of faith to justification? The Arminian answer to the question, refined somewhat by the Plymouth Brethren, is, that the act of believing is imputed to us for righteousness. One error leads to another. Mr. Darby denied that Gentiles were ever under the law, hence he denied also that Christ obeyed the law in His people's stead, and therefore as Christ's vicarious obedience is not reckoned to their account, he had to seek elsewhere for their righteousness. This he claimed to find in the Christian's own faith, insisting that their act of believing is imputed to them "for righteousness." To give his theory respectability, he clothed it in the language of several expressions found in Romans 4, though he knew quite well that the Greek afforded no foundation whatever for that which he built upon it.

In Romans 4 we read "his faith is counted for righteousness" (v. 5), "faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness" (v. 9), "it was imputed to him for righteousness" (v. 22). Now in each of these verses the Greek preposition is "eis" which never means "in the stead of," but always signifies "towards, in order to, with a view to": it has the uniform force of "unto." Its exact meaning and force is unequivocally plain in Romans 10:10, "with the heart man believeth unto ("eis") righteousness": that is, the believing heart reaches out toward and lays hold of Christ Himself. "This passage (Rom. 10:10) may help us to understand what justification by faith is, for it shows that righteousness there comes to us when we embrace God's goodness offered to us in the Gospel. We are then, for this reason, made just: because we believe that God is propitious to us through Christ" (J. Calvin).

The Holy Spirit has used the Greek prepositions with unerring precision. Never do we find Him employing "eis" in connection with Christ's satisfaction and sacrifice in our room and stead, but only "anti" or "huper," which means in lieu of. On the other hand, "anti" and "huper" are never used in connection with our believing, for faith is not accepted by God in lieu of perfect obedience. Faith must either be the ground of our acceptance with God, or the means or instrument of our becoming interested in the true meritorious ground, namely, the righteousness of Christ; it cannot stand in both relations to our justification. "God justifieth, not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ" (Westminster Catechism).

That faith itself cannot be the substance or ground of our justification is clear from many considerations. The "righteousness of God (i.e., the satisfaction which Christ rendered to the law) is revealed to faith" (Rom. 1:17) and so cannot be faith itself. Romans 10:10 declares "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness" so that righteousness must be a distinct thing from believing. In Jeremiah 23:6 we read "The LORD our righteousness," so faith cannot be our righteousness. Let not Christ be dethroned in order to exalt faith: set not the servant above the master. "We acknowledge no righteousness but what the obedience and satisfaction of Christ yields us: His blood, not our faith; His satisfaction, not our believing it, is the matter of justification before God" (J. Flavel). What alterations are there in our faith! what minglings of unbelief at all times! Is this a foundation to build our justification and hope upon?

Perhaps some will say, Are not the words of Scripture expressly on Mr. Darby's side? Does not Romans 4:5 affirm "faith is counted for righteousness"? We answer, Is the sense of Scripture on his side? Suppose I should undertake to prove that David was cleansed from guilt by the "hyssop" which grows on the wall: that would sound ridiculous. Yes; nevertheless, I should have the express words of Scripture to support me: "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean" (Psa. 51:7). Yet clear as those words read, they would not afford me the least countenance imaginable from the sense and spirit of God's Word. Has the hyssop-a worthless shrub-any kind of fitness to stand in the stead of the sacrificial blood, and make an atonement for sin? No more fitness has faith to stand in the stead of Christ's perfect obedience, to act as our justifying righteousness, or procure our acceptance with God!

An apology is really due many of our readers, for wasting their time with such puerilities, but we ask them to kindly bear with us. We hope it may please God to use this article to expose one of Darby's many grievous errors. For "grievous" this error most certainly is. His teaching that the Christian's faith, instead of the vicarious obedience of Christ, is reckoned for righteousness (Mr. W. Kelly, his chief lieutenant, wrote "his [Abraham's] faith in God's word as that which he exercised and which was accounted as righteousness"-see [1]article 5) makes God guilty of a downright lie, for it represents Him as giving to faith a fictitious value-the believer has no righteousness, so God regards his poor faith as "righteousness."

"And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness" (Gen. 15:6). The one point to be decided here is: was it Abraham's faith itself which was in God's account taken for righteousness (horrible idea!), or, was it the righteousness of God in Christ which Abraham's faith prospectively laid hold of? The comments of the Apostle in Romans 4:18-22 settle the point decisively. In these verses Paul emphasizes the natural impossibilities which stood in the way of God's promise of a numerous offspring to Abraham being fulfilled (the genital deadness both of his own body and Sarah's), and on the implicit confidence he had (notwithstanding the difficulties) in the power and faithfulness of God that He would perform what He promised. Hence, when the Apostle adds, "Therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness" (v. 22), that "therefore" can only mean: Because through faith he completely lost sight of nature and self, and realized with undoubting assurance the sufficiency of the Divine arm, and the certainty of its working.

Abraham's faith, dear reader, was nothing more and nothing else than the renunciation of all virtue and strength in himself, and a hanging in childlike trust upon God for what He was able and willing to do. Far, very far, indeed, was his faith from being a mere substitute for a "righteousness" which he lacked. Far, very far was God from accepting his faith in lieu of a perfect obedience to His Law. Rather was Abraham's faith the acting of a soul which found its life, its hope, its all in the Lord Himself. And that is what justifying faith is: it is "simply the instrument by which Christ and His righteousness are received in order to justification. It is emptiness filled with Christ's fulness; impotency lying down upon Christ's strength" (J.L. Girardeau).

"The best obedience of my hands

Dares not appear before Thy throne;

But faith can answer Thy demands,

By pleading what my Lord has done."

What is the relation of faith to justification? Antinomians and hyper-Calvinists answer, Merely that of comfort or assurance. Their theory is that the elect were actually justified by God before the foundation of the world, and all that faith does now is to make this manifest in their conscience. This error was advocated by such men as W. Gadsby, J. Irons, James Wells, J.C. Philpot. That it originated not with these men is clear from the fact that the Puritans refuted it in their day. "By faith alone we obtain and receive the forgiveness of sins; for notwithstanding any antecedent act of God concerning us in and for Christ, we do not actually receive a complete soul-freeing discharge until we believe" (J. Owen). "It is vain to say I am justified only in respect to the court of mine own conscience. The faith that Paul and the other Apostles were justified by, was their believing on Christ that they might be justified (Gal. 2:15, 16), and not a believing they were justified already; and therefore it was not an act of assurance" (T. Goodwin, vol. 8).

How are we justified by faith? Having given a threefold negative answer: not by faith as a joint cause with works (Romanists), not by faith as an act of grace in us (Arminians), not by faith as it receives the Spirit's witness (Antinomians); we now turn to the positive answer. Faith justifies only as an instrument which God has appointed to the apprehension and application of Christ's righteousness. When we say that faith is the "instrument" of our justification, let it be clearly understood that we do not mean faith is the instrument wherewith God justifies, but the instrument whereby we receive Christ. Christ has merited righteousness for us, and faith in Christ is that which renders it meet in God's sight the purchased blessing be assigned. Faith unites to Christ, and being united to Him we are possessed of all that is in Christ, so far as is consistent with our capacity of receiving and God's appointment in giving. Having been made one with Christ in spirit, God now considers us as one with Him in law.

We are justified by faith, and not for faith; not because of what faith is, but because of what it receives. "It hath no efficacy of itself, but as it is the band of our union with Christ. The whole virtue of cleansing proceeds from Christ the object. We receive the water with our hands, but the cleansing virtue is not in our hands, but in the water, yet the water cannot cleanse us without our receiving it; our receiving it unites the water to us, and is a means whereby we are cleansed. And therefore is it observed that our justification by faith is always expressed in the passive, not in the active: we are justified by faith, not that faithjustifies us. The efficacy is in Christ's blood; the reception of it is in our faith" (S. Charnock).

Scripture knows no such thing as a justified unbeliever. There is nothing meritorious about believing, yet it is necessary in order to justification. It is not only the righteousness of Christ as imputed which justifies, but also as received (Rom. 5:11, 17). The righteousness of Christ is not mine until I accept it as the Father's gift. "The believing sinner is 'justified by faith' only instrumentally, as he 'lives by eating' only instrumentally. Eating is the particular act by which he receives and appropriates food. Strictly speaking, he lives by bread alone, not by eating, or the act of masticating. And, strictly speaking, the sinner is justified by Christ's sacrifice alone, not by his act of believing in it" (W. Shedd). In the application of justification faith is not a builder, but a beholder; not an agent, but an instrument; it has nothing to do, but all to believe; nothing to give, but all to receive.

God has not selected faith to be the instrument of justification because there is some peculiar virtue in faith, but rather because there is no merit in it: faith is self-emptying-"Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace" (Rom. 4:16). A gift is seen to be a gift when nothing is required or accepted of the recipient, but simply that he receive it. Whatever other properties faith may possess, it is simply as receiving Christ that it justifies. Were we said to be justified by repentance, by love, or by any other spiritual grace, it would convey the idea of something good in us being the consideration on which the blessing was bestowed; but justification by faith (correctly understood) conveys no such idea.

"Faith justifies in no other way than as it introduces us into a participation of the righteousness of Christ" (J. Calvin). Justifying faith is a looking away from self, a renouncing of my own righteousness, a laying hold of Christ. Justifying faith consists, first, of a knowledge and belief of the truth revealed in Scripture thereon; second, in an abandonment of all pretense, claim or confidence in our own righteousness; third, in a trust in and reliance upon the righteousness of Christ, laying hold of the blessing which He purchased for us. It is the heart's approval and approbation of the method of justification proposed in the Gospel: by Christ alone, proceeding from the pure grace of God, and excluding all human merits. "In the LORD have I righteousness and strength" (Isa. 45:24).

None will experimentally appreciate the righteousness of Christ until they have been experimentally stripped by the Spirit. Not until the Lord puts us in the fire and burns off our filthy rags, and makes us stand naked before Him, trembling from head to foot as we view the sword of His justice suspended over our heads, will any truly value "the best robe." Not until the condemning sentence of the law has been applied by the Spirit to the conscience does the guilty soul cry, "Lost, lost!" (Rom. 7:9, 10). Not until there is a personal apprehension of the requirements of God's Law, a feeling sense of our total inability to perform its righteous demands, and an honest realization that God would be just in banishing us from His presence forever, is the necessity for a precious Christ perceived by the soul.

9. Its Evidence

In Romans 3:28 the Apostle Paul declared "that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," and then produces the case of Abraham to prove his assertion. But the Apostle James, from the case of the same Abraham, draws quite another conclusion, saying, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24). This is one of the "contradictions in the Bible" to which infidels appeal in support of their unbelief. But the Christian, however difficult he finds it to harmonize passages apparently opposite, knows there cannot be any contradiction in the Word of God. Faith has unshaken confidence in the inerrancy of Holy Writ. Faith is humble too and prays, "That which I see not teach Thou me" (Job. 34:32). Nor is faith lazy; it prompts its possessor unto a reverent examination and diligent investigation of that which puzzles and perplexes, seeking to discover the subject of each separate book, the scope of each writer, the connections of each passage.

Now the design of the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:28 may be clearly perceived from its context. He is treating of the great matter of a sinner's justification before God: he shows that it cannot be by works of the law, because by the law all men are condemned, and also because if men were justified on the ground of their own doings, then boasting could not be excluded. Positively he affirms that justification is by grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. His reasoning will appear the more conclusive if the whole passage (Rom. 3:19-28) be read attentively. Because the Jews had a high regard of Abraham, the Apostle proceeded to show in the 4th chapter of Romans that Abraham was justified in that very way-apart from any works of his own, by faith alone. By such a method of justification the pride of the creature is strained, and the grace of God is magnified.

Now the scope of the Apostle James is very different: his Epistle was written to counteract quite another error. Fallen men are creatures of extremes: no sooner are they driven out of the false refuge of trusting to their own righteousness, than they fly to the opposite and no less dangerous error of supposing that, since they cannot be justified by their own works, that there is no necessity whatever for good works, and no danger from ungodly living and unholy practice. It is very clear from the New Testament itself that very soon after the Gospel was freely proclaimed, there arose many who turned the grace of God into "lasciviousness": that this was not only quickly espoused in theory, but soon had free course in practice. It was therefore the chief design of the Apostle James to show the great wickedness and awful danger of unholy practice and to assert the imperative necessity of good works.

The Apostle James devoted much of his Epistle to the exposing of any empty profession. In his second chapter, particularly, he addresses himself unto those who rested in a notion which they called "faith," accounting an intellectual assent to the truth of the Gospel sufficient for their salvation, though it had no spiritual influence upon their hearts, tempers, or conduct. The Apostle shows their hope was a vain one, and that their"faith" was not a whit superior to that possessed by the demons. From the example of Abraham he proves that justifying faith is a very different thing from the "faith" of empty professors, because it enabled him to perform the hardest and most painful act of obedience, even the offering up of his only son upon the altar; which act took place many years after he had been justified by God, and which act manifested the reality and nature of his faith.

From what has been said above, it should be very evident that the "justification" of which Paul treats is entirely different from the "justification" with which James deals. The doctrine of the former is that nothing renders any sinner acceptable to God but faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; the doctrine of the latter is that such a faith is not solitary, but accompanied with every good work, and that where good works are absent, justifying faith cannot exist. James is insistent that it is not enough to say I have justifying faith, I must give proof of the same by exhibiting those fruits which love toward God and love toward men necessarily produce. Paul writes of our justification before God, James of our justification before men. Paul treats of the justification of persons; James, of the justification of our profession. The one is by faith alone; the other is by a faith which worketh by love and produces obedience.

Now it is of first importance that the above-mentioned distinctions should be clearly grasped. When Christian theologians affirm that the sinner is justified by faith alone, they do not mean that faith exists alone in the person justified, for justifying faith is always accompanied by all the other graces which the Spirit imparts at our regeneration; nor do they mean that nothing else is required in order to our receiving forgiveness from God, for He requires repentance and conversion as well as faith (Acts 3:19). No, rather do they mean that there is nothing else in sinners themselves to which their justification is in Scripture ascribed: nothing else is required of them or exists in them which stands in the same relation to justification as their faith does, or which exerts any casual influence or any efficacy of instrumentality in producing the result of their being justified (Condensed from Cunningham).

On the other hand, that faith which justifies is not an idle and inoperative principle, but one that purifies the heart (Acts 15:9) and works by love (Gal. 5:6). It is faith which can easily be distinguished from that mental faith of the empty professor. It is this which the Apostle James insists so emphatically upon. The subject of this Epistle is not salvation by grace and justification by faith, but the testing of those who claim to have faith. His design is not to show the ground on which sinners are accepted before God, but to make known that which evidences a sinner's having been justified. He insists that the tree is known by its fruits, that a righteous person is one who walks in the paths of righteousness. He declares that the man who is not a doer of the Word, but a "hearer only," is self-deceived, deluded. When God justifies a man, He sanctifies him too: the two blessings are inseparable, never found apart.

Unless the subject and scope of James' Epistle be clearly seen, the apprehension of many of its statements can only issue in God-dishonouring, grace-repudiating, soul-destroying error. To this portion of the Word of God, more than any other, have legalists appealed in their opposition to the grand truth of justification by grace, through faith, without works. To the declarations of this Epistle have they turned to find support for their Christ-insulting, man-exalting, Gospel-repudiating error of justification by human works. Merit-mongers of all descriptions cite James 2 for the purpose of setting aside all that is taught elsewhere in Scripture on the subject of justification. Romanists, and their half-brothers the Arminians, quote "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (v. 24), and suppose that ends all argument.

We propose now to take up James 2:14-26 and offer a few comments thereon. "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" (v. 14). Observe carefully that the Apostle does not here ask, "What doth it profit a man though he hath faith and have not works?"-such a supposition is nowhere countenanced by the Word of God: it were to suppose the impossibility for wherever real faith exists, good works necessarily follow. No, instead he asks, "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man (not "one of you"!) say he hath faith"? Professing to be a Christian when a man is not one, may secure a standing among men, improve his moral and social prestige, obtain membership in a "church," and promote his commercial interests; but can it save his soul?

It is not that those empty professors who call themselves Christians are all (though many probably are) conscious hypocrites, rather are they deceived souls, and the tragic thing is that in most places there is nothing in the preaching which is at all calculated to un-deceive them; instead, there is only that which bolsters them up in their delusion. There is a large class in Christendom today who are satisfied with a bare profession. They have heard expounded some of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and have given an intellectual assent thereto, and they mistake that for a saving knowledge of the Truth. Their minds are instructed, but their hearts are not reached, nor their lives transformed. They are still worldly in their affections and ways. There is no real subjection to God, no holiness of walk, no fruit to Christ's glory. Their "faith" is of no value at all; their profession is vain.

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?" By noting the emphasis upon the word "say," we perceive at once that James is arguing against those who substituted a theoretical belief of the Gospel for the whole of evangelical religion, and who replied to all exhortations and reproofs by saying, "We are not justified by our works, but by faith alone." He therefore begins by asking what profit is there in professing to be a believer, when a man is devoid of true piety? The answer is, none whatever. To merely say I have faith when I am unable to appeal to any good works and spiritual fruits as the evidence of it, profits neither the speaker nor those who listen to his empty talk. Ability to prate in an orthodox manner about the doctrines of Christianity is a vastly different thing from justifying faith.

"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 doth it profit?" (vv. 15, 16). Here the Apostle shows by an opposite illustration the utter worthlessness of fair talking which is unaccompanied by practical deeds: notice the "say unto them, depart in peace" etc. What is the use and value of feigning to be charitable when the works of charity are withheld? None whatever: empty bellies are not filled by benevolent words, nor are naked backs clothed by good wishes. Nor is the soul saved by a bare profession of the Gospel.

"Faith worketh by love" (Gal. 5:6). The first "fruit of the spirit," that is of the new nature in the regenerated soul, is "love" (Gal. 5:22). When faith has truly been wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, that faith is manifested in love-love toward God, love toward His commandments (John 14:23), love toward the brethren, love toward our fellow-creatures. Therefore in testing the "faith" of the empty professor, the Apostle at onceputs to the proof his love. In showing the pretense of his love, he proves the worthlessness of his "faith." "But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?" (1 John 3:17)! Genuine love is operative; so is genuine faith.

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:17). Here the Apostle applies the illustration he has employed to the case before him, proving the worthlessness of a lifeless and inoperative "faith." Even our fellow-men would promptly denounce as valueless a "love" which was gushing in words but lacking in works. Unregenerate people are not deceived by those who talk benignly to the indigent, but who refuse to minister unto their needs. And think you, my reader, that the omniscient God is to be imposed upon by an empty profession? Has He not said, "Why call ye Me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46).

That "faith" which is only of the lips and is not confirmed by evidence in the life, is useless. No matter how clear and sound may be my head-knowledge of the Truth, no matter how good a talker upon Divine things I am, if my walk is not controlled by the precepts of God, then I am but "sounding brass and a tinkling symbol." "Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." It is not a living and fruitful faith, like the faith of God's elect, but a thing which is utterly worthless- "dead." It is "alone," that is, divorced from love to God and men and every holy affection. How could our holy Lord approve of such a "faith"! As works without faith are "dead" (Heb. 9:14), so a "faith" which is without "works" is a dead one.

"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works" (James 2:18). Here the true Christian challenges the empty professor: You claim to be a believer, but disgrace the name of Christ by your worldly walk, so do not expect the real saints to regard you as a brother till you display your faith in the good works of a holy life. The emphatic word in this verse is "show"-proof is demanded: demonstrate your faith to be genuine. Actions speak louder than words: unless our profession can endure that test it is worthless. Only true holiness of heart and life vindicates a profession of being justified by faith.

"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble" (v. 19). Here the Apostle anticipates an objection: I do actually believe in the Lord! Very well, so also do the demons, but what is the fruit of their "believing"? Does it influence their hearts and lives, does it transform their conduct Godward and manward? It does not. Then what is their "believing" worth! "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" (v. 20): "vain" signifies "empty," exposing the hollowness of one who claims to be justified by faith yet lacks the evidence of an obedient walk.

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" (vv. 21, 22). The faith which reposes on Christ is not an idle, but an active and fruitful principle. Abraham had been justified many years before (Gen. 15:6); the offering up of Isaac (Gen. 22) was the open attestation of his faith and the manifestation of the sincerity of his profession. "By works was faith made perfect" means, in actual obedience it reaches its designed end, the purpose for which it was given is realized. "Made perfect" also signifies revealed or made known (see 2 Cor. 10:9).

"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" (James 2:23). The "Scripture" here is God's testimony to Abraham in Genesis 15:6: that testimony was "fulfilled" or verified when Abraham gave the supreme demonstration of his obedience to God. Our being informed here that Abraham was "called the Friend of God" is in beautiful accord with the tenor of the whole of this passage, as is clear from a comparison with John 15:14: "Ye are my friends,if ye do whatsoever I command you."

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24). In the "ye see then" the Apostle draws his "conclusion" from the foregoing. It is by "works," by acts of implicit obedience to the Divine command, such as Abraham exercised-and not by a mere "faith" of the brain and the lips-that we justify our profession of being believers, that we prove our right to be regarded as Christians.

"Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?" (v. 25). Why bring in the case of Rahab? Was not the example of Abraham conclusive and sufficient? First, because "two witnesses" are required for the truth to be "established"-cf. Romans 4:3, 6. Second, because, it might be objected Abraham's case was so exceptional that it could be no criterion to measure others by. Very well: Rahab was a poor Gentile, a heathen, a harlot; yet she too was justified by faith (Heb. 11:31), and later demonstrated her faith by "works"-receiving the spies at the imminent risk of her own life.

"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:26). Here is the summing up: a breathless carcass and a worthless faith are alike useless as unto all the ends of natural and spiritual life. Thus the Apostle has conclusively shown the worthlessness of the garb of orthodoxy when worn by lifeless professors. He has fully exposed the error of those who rest in a bare profession of the Gospel-as if that could save them, when the temper of their minds and the tenor of their lives was diametrically opposed to the holy religion they professed. A holy heart and an obedient walk are the scriptural evidence of our having been justified by God.

10. Its Results

The justification of the believer is absolute, complete, final. "It is God that justifieth" (Rom. 8:33), and "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it" (Eccl. 3:14). So absolute and inexorable is this blessed fact that, in Romans 8:30 we are told, "Whom He justified, them He also glorified": notice it is not simply a promise that God "will glorify," but so sure and certain is that blissful event, the past tense is used. "Them He also glorified" is speaking from the standpoint of the eternal and unalterable purpose of God, concerning which there is no conditionality or contingency whatsoever. To be "glorified" is to be perfectly conformed to the lovely image of Christ, when we shall see Him as He is and be made like Him (1 John 3:2). Because God has determined this, He speaks of it as already accomplished, for He "calleth those things which be not as though they were" (Rom. 4:17).

So far as the believer is concerned, the penal side of the sin question has been settled once and for all. His case has been tried in the supreme court, and God has justified him: in consequence thereof the Divine decision is "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). Once those very persons were under condemnation-"condemned already" (John 3:18); but now that their faith has united them to Christ there is no condemnation. The debt of their sin has been paid by their great Surety; the record thereof has been "blotted out" by His cleansing blood. "It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth" (Rom. 8:33, 34). Who will reverse His decision! Where is that superior tribunal to which this cause can be carried? Eternal justice has pronounced her fiat; immutable judgment has recorded her sentence.

It is utterly and absolutely impossible that the sentence of the Divine Judge should ever be revoked or reversed. His sentence of justification results from and rests upon a complete satisfaction having been offered to His Law, and that in the fulfillment of a covenant engagement. Thus is effectually precluded the recall of the verdict. The Father stipulated to release His elect from the curse of the law provided the Son would meet the claims of justice against them. The Son freely complied with His Father's will: "Lo, I come." He was now made under the law, fulfilled the law, and suffered the full penalty of the law; therefore shall He see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied. Sooner shall the lightenings of omnipotence shiver the Rock of Ages than those sheltering in Him again be brought under condemnation.

How very, very far from the glorious truth of the Gospel is the mere conditional pardon which Arminians represent God as bestowing upon those who come to Christ-a pardon which may be rescinded, yea, which will be canceled, unless they "do their part" and perform certain stipulations! What a horrible and blasphemous travesty of the Truth is that!-an error which must be steadfastly resisted no matter who holds it: better far to hurt the feelings of a million of our fellow-creatures than to displease their august Creator. On no such precarious basis as our fulfilling certain conditions has God suspended the justification of His people. Not only is there "now no condemnation" resting upon the believer, but there never again shall me, for "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (Rom. 4:8).

The dread sentence of the law, "Thou shalt surely die," cannot in justice be executed upon the sinner's Surety and also upon himself. Hence by a necessity existing in the very nature of moral government, it must follow that the believing sinner be freed from all condemnation, that is, so cleared of the same that he is raised above all liability to punishment. So declared our blessed Saviour Himself, in words too plain and emphatic to admit of any misunderstanding: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24). He, the habitation of whose throne is "justice and judgment," has sealed up this declaration forever, by affirming "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee." Sooner shall the sword of justice cleave the helmet of the Almighty than any Divinely pardoned soul perish.

But not only are the sins of all who truly come to Christ eternally remitted, but the very righteousness of the Redeemer passes over to them, is placed upon them, so that a perfect obedience to the law is imputed to their account. It is theirs, not by promise, but by gift (Rom. 5:17), by actual bestowment. It is not simply that God treats them as if they were righteous, they are righteous and so pronounced by Him. And therefore may each believing soul exclaim, "I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels" (Isa. 61:10). O that each Christian reader may be enabled to clearly and strongly grasp hold of this glorious fact: that he is now truly righteous in the sight of God, is in actual possession of an obedience which answers every demand of the law.

This unspeakable blessing is bestowed not only by the amazing grace of God, but it is actually required by His inexorable justice. This too was stipulated and agreed upon in the covenant into which the Father entered with the Son. That is why the Redeemer lived here on earth for upwards of thirty years before He went to the cross to suffer the penalty of our sins: He assumed and discharged our responsibilities; as a child, as a youth, as a man, He rendered unto God that perfect obedience which we owed Him. He "fulfilled all righteousness" (Matt. 3:15) for His people, and just as He who knew no sin was made sin for them, so they are now made "the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5:21). And therefore does Jehovah declare, "For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of My peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee" (Isa. 54:10).

By actually believing with a justifying faith the sinner doth receive Christ Himself, is joined to Him, and becomes immediately an heir of God and joint-heir with Christ. This gives him a right unto and an interest in the benefits of His mediation. By faith in Christ he received not only the forgiveness of sins, but an inheritance among all them that are sanctified (Acts 26:18), the Holy Spirit (given to him) being "the earnest of our inheritance" (Eph. 1:13, 14). The believing sinner may now say "in the LORD have I righteousness" (Isa. 45:24). He is "complete in Him" (Col. 2:10), for by "one offering" the Saviour hath "perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). The believer has been "accepted in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6), and stands before the throne of God arrayed in a garment more excellent than that which is worn by the holy angels.

How infinitely does the glorious Gospel of God transcend the impoverished thoughts and schemes of men! How immeasurably superior is that "everlasting righteousness" which Christ has brought in (Dan. 9:24) from that miserable thing which multitudes are seeking to produce by their own efforts. Greater far is the difference between the shining light of the midday sun and the blackness of the darkest night, than between that "best robe" (Luke 15:22) which Christ has wrought out for each of His people and that wretched covering which zealous religionists are attempting to weave out of the filthy rags of their own righteousness. Equally great is the difference between the truth of God concerning thepresent and immutable standing of His saints in all the acceptability of Christ, and the horrible perversion of Arminians who make acceptance with God contingent upon the believer's faithfulness and perseverance, who suppose that Heaven can be purchased by the creature's deeds and doings.

It is not that the justified soul is now left to himself, so that he is certain of getting to Heaven no matter how he conducts himself-the fatal error of Antinomians. No Indeed. God also imparts to him the blessed Holy Spirit, who works within him the desire to serve, please, and glorify the One who has been so gracious to Him. "The love of Christ constraineth us... that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again" (2 Cor. 5:14, 15). They now "delight in the law of God after the inward man" (Rom. 7:22), and though the flesh, the world, and the Devil oppose every step of the way, occasioning many a sad fall-which is repented of, confessed, and forsaken-nevertheless the Spirit renews them day by day (2 Cor. 4:16) and leads them in the paths of righteousness for Christ's name's sake.

In the last paragraph will be found the answer to those who object that the preaching of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith alone, will encourage carelessness and foster licentiousness. Those whom God justifies are not left in their natural condition, under the dominion of sin, but are quickened, indwelt, and guided by the Holy Spirit. As Christ cannot be divided, and so is received as Lord to rule us as well as Saviour to redeem us, so those whom God justifies He also sanctifies. We do not affirm that all who receive this blessed truth into their heads have their lives transformed thereby-no indeed; but we do insist that where it is applied in power to the heart there always follows a walk to the glory of God, the fruits of righteousness being brought forth to the praise of His name. Each truly justified soul will say:

"Let worldly minds the world pursue,

It has no charms for me;

I once admired its trifles too,

But grace has set me free."

It is therefore the bounden duty of those who profess to have been justified by God to diligently and impartially examine themselves, to ascertain whether or not they have in them those spiritual graces which always accompany justification. It is by our sanctification, and that alone, that we may discover our justification. Would you know whether Christ fulfilled the law for you, that His obedience has been imputed to your account? Then search your heart and life and see whether a spirit of obedience to Him is daily working in you. The righteousness of the law is fulfilled only in those who "walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom. 8:4). God never designed that the obedience of His Son should be imputed to those who live a life of worldliness, self-pleasing, and gratifying the lusts of the flesh. Far from it: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Cor. 5:17).

Summarizing now the blessed results of justification. 1. The sins of the believer are forgiven. "Through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins. And by Him all that believe are justified from all things" (Acts 13:38, 39). All the sins of the believer, past, present, and to come, were laid upon Christ and atoned for by Him. Although sins cannot be actually pardoned before they are actually committed yet their obligation unto the curse of the law were virtually remitted at the Cross, antecedently to their actual commission. The sins of Christians involve only the governmental dealings of God in this life, and these are remitted upon a sincere repentance and confession.

2. An inalienable title unto everlasting glory is bestowed. Christ purchased for His people the reward of blessing of the law, which is eternal life. Therefore does the Holy Spirit assure the Christian that he has been begotten "to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you" (1 Peter 1:4). Not only is that inheritance reserved for all the justified, but they are all preserved unto it, as the very next verse declares, "who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (v. 5)-"kept" from committing the unpardonable sin, from apostatising from the truth, from being fatally deceived by the Devil; so "kept" that the power of God prevents anything separating them from His love in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:35-38).

3. Reconciliation unto God Himself. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ... we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son" (Rom. 5:1, 10). Until men are justified they are at war with God, and He is against them, being "angry with the wicked every day" (Psa. 7:11). Dreadful beyond words is the condition of those who are under condemnation: their minds are enmity against God (Rom. 8:7), all their ways are opposed to Him (Col. 1:21). But at conversion the sinner throws down the weapons of his rebellion and surrenders to the righteous claims of Christ, and by Him he is reconciled to God. Reconciliation is to make an end of strife, to bring together those at variance, to change enemies into friends. Between God and the justified there is peace-effected by the blood of Christ.

4. An unalterable standing in the favour of God. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand" (Rom. 5:1, 2). Mark the word "also": not only has Christ turned away the wrath of God from us, but in addition He has secured the benevolence of God toward us. Previous to justification our standing was one of unutterable disgrace, but now, through Christ, it is in one of unclouded grace. God now has naught but good-will toward us. God has not only ceased to be offended at us, but is well-pleased with us; not only will He never afflict punishment upon us, but He will never cease to shower His blessings upon us. The throne to which we have free access is not one of judgment, but of pure and unchanging grace.

5. Owned by God Himself before an assembled universe. "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified" (Matt. 12:36, 37): yes, justified publicly by the Judge Himself! "These shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal" (Matt. 25:46). Here will be the final justification of the Christian, this sentence being declaratory unto the glory of God and the everlasting blessedness of those who have believed.

Let it be said in conclusion that the justification of the Christian is complete the moment he truly believes in Christ, and hence there are no degrees in justification. The Apostle Paul was as truly a justified man at the hour of his conversion as he was at the close of his life. The feeblest babe in Christ is just as completely justified as is the most mature saint. Let theologians note the following distinctions. Christians were decretively justified from all eternity: efficaciously so when Christ rose again from the dead; actually so when they believed; sensibly so when the Spirit bestows joyous assurance; manifestly so when they tread the path of obedience; finally so at the Day of Judgment, when God shall sententiously, and in the presence of all created things, pronounce them so.

A Treatise On Justification by Faith

By Archibald Alexander

SECTION I. IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT.

"How shall a man be just with God?" is surely the most important question which can possibly be conceived. To be beloved by our friends, to be secure from the assaults of our enemies, to stand well with the world, and enjoy the favour of those who possess power and influence, are objects naturally desirable; and, as these things contribute to our happiness on earth, their pursuit, so far as it does not interfere with higher and nobler interests, is reasonable. But when we consider, that our continuance in this world, and our possession of its good things, is only for a short period, and that we are destined to an immortal existence beyond the grave, and are accountable for our conduct while in the body; so that our future happiness or misery will depend upon our character, and be measured by our conduct in this life, all temporal interests vanish into insignificance, in the comparison with those which are eternal. Of what account will it be a million of years hence, what our condition was here, whether we were rich or poor, honorable or despised happy or miserable; but then, and through eternity, it will be of infinite importance, whether we became reconciled to God and lived humbly and piously while inhabitants of earth. It may indeed be alleged, that God our Maker is infinitely good, and will not deal severely with his erring creatures; 'and, therefore, we may venture into eternity, entertaining the confident assurance that it will be well with us hereafter. This is, indeed, a plausible and flattering doctrine, and men are much inclined to believe that which affords them present comfort; and it is by no means an agreeable task to disturb that peace which men seem to enjoy, on this ground, but as it is utterly fallacious, duty demands that we should plainly tell them that this is a sandy foundation. .If we were innocent, then might we willingly and boldly appear in the presence of our Judge: for no one of his creatures need ever fear that he will treat them with injustice But if we are all transgressors, the more holy God is, the more reason have we to expect punishment. The hope of impunity for our sins is always founded on some unworthy conceptions of the divine attributes, unless it has respect to a sufficient atonement. But it is important that we should know as accurately as possible, what the principles are, on which we shall be dealt with by the Judge of all; or, in other words, it is infinitely important to know, how a sinner can appear with acceptance before God. These considerations are sufficient to show, that the doctrine of a sinner's justification, in the sight of God, is fundamental. On some other points error may exist, and yet the state of the person entertaining it may notwithstanding be safe; he may still be in the right way to heaven. But a mistake, as to the method of acceptance with God, must be exceedingly dangerous: it must mislead the inquirer from the way of salvation. Let every man, then, as he regards his own eternal happiness, beware of embracing a false doctrine on this subject. But a sound view of this point is intimately connected with correct opinions on all other articles of primary importance; and an error here, cannot but vitiate the whole system of theology, of which it forms a part. This is a central and a cardinal point in theoretical, as well as practical religion; and the degree of error on other articles, may be inferred, from the degree of departure from the truth, in regard to this. The history of the Christian church, from the days of the apostles, confirms the statement now given. Was any heretic ever known to hold a sound doctrine on justification? Wherever, and whenever, justification by faith, has been given up, obscured, or neglected to be preached, then and there, other errors have come in like a flood, and true religion has declined. The history of most Protestant churches, for a hundred years past, will furnish a striking commentary on the statement now made. On the other hand, when a real reformation takes place, in any part of the church, the consequence is, a speedy and cordial return to the preaching of this doctrine. How dear it was to the hearts of the reformers is known to all. Luther may truly be said to have laid the foundation for the Reformation, by embracing the scriptural view of justification. He found the need of it in his own deep conviction of sin; but the doctrine itself he discovered in the Bible. Through his whole life, afterwards, he was zealous and uncompromising in its defense. His pithy and striking declaration, that it was "the article of a standing or falling church," has often been cited; but another saying of this great reformer, equally pithy and important, is less known. "The doctrine of justification being lost," says he "the whole system of Christian doctrine is lost." Perhaps, the radical error of Popery from which all the rest sprung, was the proud and unscriptural doctrine of human merit, as the ground of our acceptance with God. However this may be, undoubtedly, it was the great end of divine revelation to make known the method by which a sinner may recover the lost favour of God, and secure the pardon of all his sins. And as this doctrine is radical in the Christian system, so it stands out prominently throughout the Bible; and is more especially, the chief subject of the inspired writings of the apostle Paul. His Epistle to the Romans may without impropriety be called a treatise on the gratuitous justification of a sinner before God, with an answer to the most common objections which have in all ages been made against it. And his Epistle to the Galatians is an earnest refutation of the errors of certain false teachers, who inculcated an erroneous doctrine on this point, and had led away the Galatian churches from the truth. Paul considered the new doctrine taught by these Judaizers, as "another gospel," and denounces a curse upon all who preached it, even if it were an angel from heaven. And the receiving such a doctrine, he considered as turning from the Spirit to the flesh; and addresses those who had forsaken the gospel of Christ, for the sake of this legal system, as "bewitched," or infatuated. He represents those who were seeking to be justified by their observance of the ceremonies of the abrogated law, as having fallen from grace; that is, as having abandoned the gospel system of salvation by grace.

It can, therefore, never be a superfluous work, nor unseasonable, to exhibit the Scriptural doctrine of Justification. And this is the object at which we aim in this tract. It cannot be expected that we should discuss all questions which have been started on this point, but only the most important. And we think a short, and plain treatise on this subject, is now called for, because in the preaching of many it is left entirely out of view.

SECTION II.

NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION.

It seems strange that there should be any difference of opinion respecting the meaning of the word justification. Its common popular sense is exactly the same as its scriptural and theological meaning. When we speak of a person being justified, we never think of an internal change, but a declaration of the condition of that person in relation to some law or rule. So, when a particular action is justified, it is declared and shown to be right, or conformable to law. The word justify is uniformly the opposite of the word condemn. When a man is condemned no change is effected by the act on his real character, but he is declared to be a transgressor, and obnoxious to the penalty of some law; so when a person is justified, no new moral qualities or dispositions are communicated by that act, hut he is merely declared to be acquitted from every charge which may have been brought against him, and to have complied with the requisitions of the law by which his conduct is tried.

In the Bible, the word is used in the same way, almost uniformly. There are few cases, if any, in which it can be supposed to have a different meaning; and these must be considered as exceptions to the general rule, in which the word is used out of its proper signification. The use of the word in Scripture, will be evident from the following examples, "Thou shalt justify the righteous and condemn the wicked." (Deut. xxv. 1.) Here it is too evident to require a word of explanation, that, to justify is the opposite of, to condemn; and that both are the sentence of a judge declaring the state or condition of persons in relation to the law. Again, "If I justify myself, my own mouth will condemn me." (Job ix. 20.) That is, if I declare myself free from sin, my own mouth will condemn me; where again, to justify and to condemn, are placed in opposition to each other. But the following example from Proverbs, will serve to show the true sense of this term most distinctly. "He that justified! ^he wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord," (Prov. xvii. 15.) Here, it would be most absurd to suppose, that by justifying the wicked was to be understood, the infusion of justice, or any communication of moral qualities; for that, instead of being an abomination to the Lord, would he an excellent act: it would be making a bad man good.

The true import of the word when justification is the act of God, may be learned from Paul, where he asks, "Who shall ]iy any thing to the charge of God's elect? it is God that justifieth." (Rom. viii. 33.) Here the contrast is between laying a charge against the elect and justifying them. It is, however, the same as if it had been said, who will condemn God's elect, when he justifies them?

Notwithstanding the meaning of this word is so evident, yet the Romanists insist, that its true meaning is, not merely to absolve from guilt, but to infuse righteousness into the soul. This is not merely the opinion of some of their writers, but of the whole body. The Council of Trent discussed this subject at great length, and deliberately decreed a number of canons in relation to it, in which they completely confound justification with regeneration and sanctification. They declare that justification is not the remission of sins alone, but the "sanctification and renovation of the inner man;" and they pronounce an anathema upon all who maintain that justification cannot be increased by good works. In support of this opinion, they refer to several passages of Scripture; which, however, when rightly interpreted, bring no aid to their cause. They cite the words of Paul, "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," (Rom. viii. 30.) The argument is, that in this chain of saving benefits, running from eternity to eternity, it cannot be supposed that the Apostle has omitted the renovation or sanctification of the soul; but if this is included it must be comprehended under justification. But whilst we admit, that this great blessing of the New Covenant is not omitted, we maintain that it is fully included, not under justification, with which it is never confounded, but under "calling" and "glorification." The calling here spoken of, is the effectual, holy calling, by which God by his grace draws sinful men to himself, and which is the commencement of the work of sanctification, and glorification is the consummation of this internal work of grace; for what glory can there be without perfect holiness, without which no man can see the Lord.

Another text on which the defenders of this opinion rely, is, "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." (1 Cor. vi. 11.) But surely this can prove nothing to their purpose; for the Apostle here expressly mentions sanctification; and to suppose that he in eludes the same under the word justification, is an unnecessary and gratuitous supposition. He does, indeed, ascribe the whole of the great change which the Corinthians had undergone, to the Holy Spirit; but this divine agent is instrumental in justification as well as sanctification; for, by his operation, faith is produced, by which justification takes place. There is, therefore, not a shadow of evidence from this text, that justification and sanctification signify the same thing; or that they should, in any respect, be confounded; although it is admitted, that these two benefits of the covenant of grace are always conjoined, and are ever contemporaneous; so that he who is justified, is at the same time renovated; and he who is renewed is justified; but they are, nevertheless, perfectly distinct.

But the passage of Scripture on which they place most reliance is, "lie that is unjust let him be unjust still—and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still—and he that is holy, let him be holy still," (Rev. xxiii. 11.) The phrase, "he that is righteous let him be righteous still," might be rendered with propriety, "he that is justified let him be justified still." But there is nothing in the text thus interpreted to induce us to depart from the usual meaning of the word "justify." Why may it not mean, he that is now justified let him continue in a justified state? Why should we suppose that inherent holiness is intended, when that idea is strongly expressed in another part of the verse, "he that is holy let him be holy still." There is no necessity of admitting, that an increase of justification is here signified. There is nothing said of increase, but only of continuance. There is, however, good reason to believe, that the common reading of this text in our Greek Testaments, is not the correct reading. According to the best authorities, the text should be read, "he that is righteous, let him do righteousness." This correction Griesbach has received into his edition of the Greek Testament, which Dr. Owen had defended as the true reading of the passage, long before.

Sometimes the words in Isaiah have been adduced, "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant "'justify many."— But by his knowledge, in this place, we should understand the "Gospel," which is the knowledge of Christ, or "faith which is nearly identical with the knowledge of Christ. By the knowledge of himself, by means of the Gospel, or by the instrumentality of faith, shall my righteous servant justify many: and the true import of the passage is cleared of all doubt by the reason assigned in the following words, "for he shall bear their iniquities." The true import of the word "justify" seems to have been corrupted among the Romanists, when the Latin Vulgate alone was taken as the guide; for the Latin word, from which our English term is derived, taken aside from its use seems to carry with it the signification, not of declaring, but making a man just; but in the original terms, both in the Hebrew and Greek, there is no ambiguity. The words express uniformly the sense which we have put on them; that is, they mean, to account, to esteem, to declare a person to be just or righteous, and never to make a man just or righteous by the infusion of grace. Justification and Sanctification should, therefore, be carefully distinguished, although they should never be separated. The difference between these two benefits which arise from union with Christ, is well expressed in the answer to the 77th Question, in our Larger Catechism. "Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that, God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ, in sanctification his Spirit infuses grace, and enableth the exercise thereof: in the former, sin is pardoned, in the other, it is subdued: the one doth equally free all believers from the avenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation: the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection."

There is another error respecting the import of the term "justification," which, while it admits that the word is forensic or declarative, maintains that it means the forgiveness of sin, and nothing more. This error is current among Protestants, being embraced and defended by the Arminians, and Hopkinsians, generally. But as this error will be brought fully under consideration, hereafter, we will dismiss all further consideration of the meaning of the term in this place, and proceed to inquire into the true ground of a sinner's justification in the sight of God.

SECTION III.

JUSTIFICATION BY THE LAW IMPOSSIBLE.

When we assert that justification by the law is impossible, we do not mean to say, that this was always the case; or that this method of justification was not a good and reasonable one. Indeed, to innocent creatures, it is the only reasonable method of justification; and we suppose, that God's creatures," who have retained their original state, have obtained justification in this way alone. And when man was created and placed under a law, his obedience through the prescribed period of probation would have secured his own justification, and that of all those represented by him. While Adam continued in his original integrity, he was free from all condemnation; but it could not with propriety be said that he was then justified; for justification is the sentence of the judge declaring that the law has been fully obeyed; but in his case, the time had not arrived for pronouncing the sentence of justification, before he sinned. When any creature is put on probation, for a certain period, he cannot be justified until that period of perfect obedience is completed. There is a difference, therefore, between an innocent and a justified person. All moral agents are created in the image of God, that is, in a state of conformity to the holy law of God; and it is more than probable, that all such creatures are put on probation as soon as created; and as the goodness of God leads him to prescribe a limited time of trial, a sentence of justification cannot lake place until this period is ended, and the required obedience rendered without failure, When justification takes place, either on the principles of law or grace, we suppose that the creatures who have finished their course of obedience are confirmed in a state of favour; they will be forever preserved from falling into condemnation. The angels who remained obedient were once as liable to fall, as those who kept not their first estate; but now their probation is ended; their justification is perfect, and they are no longer on trial, but "elect," confirmed forever in their holy and happy state. And if man had continued in his obedience, he would have obtained not only justification, but confirmation; and that for all included in him, in the covenant of works. And upon the same principles, all who are united to Christ, and justified by liis righteousness, are no longer in a state of probation: the trial is over; the justifying righteousness has been rendered, and imputed to them; and they are no more liable to fall into condemnation, but are in a condition of perfect safety, "kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation."

As justification is the sentence of a judge declaring the true condition of a person, in relation to the law, it becomes necessary to inquire, what law it is which is the rule of judgment in pronouncing a creature just; or in condemning him, for want of obedience. In a human court the judge is bound to proceed in his judgments according to the law of the land, and when a person has been arraigned, and found to have been guilty of no failure of obedience in the matters charged against him, he is acquitted; or, in other words, is justified. So, when God pronounces sentence upon any one, it will be strictly according to his own righteous law. This is sometimes called the law of nature, as it arises out of the natural relations which subsist between God and the creature; and because it is written on the heart of man, or interwoven with the principles of his constitution, as a moral agent. This law requires us to love God with all the heart, mind, and strength, and our neighbour as ourselves. That is, it requires a perfect exercise of all our faculties and powers, in conformity to the will of God. It binds us to every thing which God commands, however his will may be made known. It is not necessary, therefore, to make any distinction here, between moral and positive laws. The moral obligation extends to all that God commands; and if he were to institute a thousand positive duties, they would all be morally obligatory on the same principles that what are called moral duties are binding. Every law requires perfect obedience to itself, and it requires no more. This, indeed, is a mere truism; for it would be a contradiction to say, that perfect obedience was not required by any law whatever; for if not required, then it could not be obedience. The idea of a law being satisfied by an imperfect obedience is utterly absurd.

Now, if the law be holy, just, and good, and every way adapted to man's constitution, why may he not obtain justification by the law? Paul has given the reason, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak, through the flesh." The fault is not in the law, but in the fallen sinful nature of man. The same Apostle testifies, in another place, "That which was ordained unto life I found to be unto death." One transgression of the law renders justification by it as impossible as a million. God, who cannot lie, never can pronounce him to be free from guilt and liable to no charge who has, in a single instance, disobeyed. Man fell under the curse by one transgression; and it is probable that the same was the fact in regard to the angels, who kept not their first estate. Those whom the law charges with sin, it can never justify. To1 suppose the contrary would imply a contradiction. ' The Apostle Paul assigns, as the reason why no man could be justified by the law, that "by the law is the knowledge of sin." As though he had said, the law demonstrates that all men are sinners, therefore, it is evident, that it never can justify those whom at the same time it condemns. His words are, "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." That righteousness, therefore, which justifies the sinner, is said to be "without the law;" that is, without respect to our obedience to the law, for in justifying a sinner upon any plan, it is impossible that God should pay no regard to his own law. This righteousness which equally justifies Jews and Gentiles is by faith, not by works. And it must be so, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." The apostle then declares that we are justified gratuitously, by grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. That which is free or gratuitous, is, without our works; "For to him that worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt." (Rom. iv. 4.) And he reasons, that unless there had been provided some other righteousness than our own, God could not have been just in justifying him that believeth in Jesus. It would he an unrighteous act to pronounce him just, who has sinned, and come short of the glory of God, if Christ had not been set forth as a propitiation for our sins, and thus 'provided for us a complete righteousness. And this method of justification which God has devised and made known, is so contrived as to exclude all boasting. "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." And the method of justification is the same to Jews and Gentiles; "Seeing it is one God which shall justify the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith."

THE ABOVE DECLARATIONS OF PAUL RELATE TO ALL WORKS OF EVERY KIND.

To evade the plain testimonies of Scripture, which have been adduced, some have maintained, that the only works which the apostle excludes from being any ground of justification, are works in obedience to the ceremonial law, or the Mosaic rites, on which the Pharisees depended for salvation: but that it was no part of his design to exclude good works of a moral or evangelical kind.

In answer to this objection, it may be remarked, first, that what is assumed in it cannot be true, because the inspired writer assures us, that what he said on this subject related to Gentiles as much as Jews; but we know, that the Mosaical rites were not given to the Gentiles, and they, therefore, could not trust in the ceremonial law, or boast themselves in works of this kind.

Again, the sins which the apostle enumerates to prove, that both Gentiles and Jews were all guilty before God, are all transgressions of the moral law, as may be seen in the first and third chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. It was a law which was not to be abrogated, but established by the Christian dispensation, which was not true in regard to the ceremonial law. It was that law by which is the knowledge of sin, and which said "thou shall not covet," that law which is "spiritual"—which was ordained unto life, but now was found to be unto death, all which things agree to the moral law, but not at all to the ceremonial law, "which was a shadow of good things to come, and was now ready to vanish away." To which we may add, that all works are excluded of which men might boast; but they will be as much disposed to boast of moral, as ceremonial works, therefore the apostle excludes those as well as these. And finally, there is no just ground for this distinction, in regard to an obedience which is to be the ground of justification. Ceremonial or positive duties, commanded by God, are as truly binding until abrogated, as duties of the other class, and when rightly performed, they are as truly acceptable to God. Indeed, in essence, what is called a ceremonial duty, is moral, and the act as really, and truly holy as any other act, when performed, as it should be, from love to God, and with a view to his glory. If, therefore, our own works of any kind, were a proper ground of justification these should be included. And as to imperfection, it cleaves to moral duties as much as to positive. It is evident, therefore, that there is no just ground for the opinion, that when the apostle declared, ' that by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified,' he meant ceremonial works only.

Another evasion is, that the works excluded by Paul from having any part in our justification before God, are "dead works," done by an unregenerate person; or such works as (lie Papists affirm may be performed by free-will before grace is received. To which it may be replied, that there is not a word in all that the apostle has written on this subject, which gives the least countenance to this opinion. There was no need ,3 asseverate with so much emphasis and so repeatedly that dead works, or those which arc not holy, or genuine nets o, obedience, cannot procure justification. Cut as this false opinion is not much insisted on at present, at least among Protestants, it may be dismissed without further discussion, with this single remark, that it will be demonstrated in the sequel, that the most holy obedience of the most holy men forms no part of that righteousness by which they are justified in the sight of God; and this will show that all the works of men of every kind are excluded in the business of a sinner's justification.

SECTION V.

THE ACT OF FAITH IS NOT THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS THR GROUND OF OUR JUSTIFICATION IN THE SIGHT OF GOD;

The theory of justification which considers the act of believing the ground of our acceptance with God is, perhaps, the most plausible of any of the erroneous schemes of justification, for the single reason that it has the appearance of scriptural support. This is pure Arminianism, as held and inculcated by Arminius himself; also by Limborch, and by Whitby. The foundation of this theory is found in Gen. xv. 6. "And he, (Abraham) believed in the lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness." Which is cited by Paul when discoursing on justification. "For what saith the Scripture, Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." This theory has the advantage too of seeming to agree with those texts which assert that we are justified by faith. The great difficulty in this plan of justification is, that it represents God as reckoning or imputing for righteousness, that which is not a righteousness, commensurate with the demands of the law. This they say lie does by a gracious acceptation; receiving in favour, that, as a complete righteousness, which considered in itself, is not such. That a single act, and that an imperfect one, should be judged to be a complete justifying righteousness, is to ascribe to God an erroneous judgment; or, as grounding his judicial acts upon a supposition acknowledged to be false, which is a doctrine that never can be admitted. It is inconsistent both with truth and righteousness. It is maintained, indeed, that Christ by his death has merited the right of establishing anew covenant upon terms adapted to the present condition of men; for they hold, that the power of believing in Christ was not lost by the fall, as not being a blessing included in the first covenant. But if (he sinner may be justified before God by a single act of faith, instead of a prefect obedience to the law, why might not that have been done without resorting to so costly a sacrifice? The death of Christ, however meritorious, can never render it proper in the divine government, to consider things different from what they really are.

It is also a solid objection to this theory, that while Paul sets up an entire opposition between faith and works, faith according to Arminius, is the greatest of all works, being, in fact, a substitute for all obedience. If faith itself is our justifying righteousness, then it justifies as a work as truly as any other works could. And as the express design of this gratuitous method of justification was utterly to exclude boasting, upon this theory that end cannot be attained; because if a man is justified on. account of the act of believing, and that act he can perform by the power of free will, he has as much ground of boasting as he could possibly have, if he had been justified by other works.

It is also an objection that the faith of God's elect being exceedingly different in strength, it would seem to follow, that those believers who exercised a strong faith would possess a more perfect justification than those who had a true but feeble exercise of faith. On account of these difficulties, and to take advantage of what is said in Scripture of justification by works, the modern Arminians have abandoned the scheme so far as it confines the righteousness which is the ground of our justification to faith alone; and under the name faith, or in connection with it, include the whole of evangelical obedience.

SECTION VI.

JUSTIFICATION IN THE SIGHT OF GOD IS NOT BY EVANGELICAL OBEDIENCE IN WHOLE, OR IN PART.

By evangelical obedience is meant that obedience which flows from a genuine faith, or those good works which are the fruit of regeneration.

We are ready to admit; yea, we strenuously maintain, that such obedience is connected with justification, and furnishes the only Scriptural evidence that we are in a justified state. But two things may be inseparably conjoined, as blessings of the covenant of grace, and yet, may be perfectly distinct. It would, in our opinion, be much nearer the truth to say, that evangelical obedience was the fruit and consequence of our justification, than that evangelical obedience is the condition of our justification. The truth is, our persons must be accepted in Christ before we can perform any evangelical works; and these works when performed, can only be accepted as the sincere obedience of those whose persons are already accepted in Christ; that is, who are already justified. Besides the positive testimonies of the word of God, that justification is not by the deeds of the law, nor by works of righteousness which we have done, there are two fatal objections to this theory of justification; the first has already been Drought into view; and if justification takes place when the sinner believes, it is manifestly unanswerable. It is, that we are fully justified before we have performed one act of evangelical obedience, except believing in Christ. That which comes after and proceeds from another thing, can never be its cause.

The other objection is equally conclusive, which is, that our evangelical obedience in this life is always imperfect, and an imperfect righteousness never can be the ground of a sentence of justification, pronounced by an infinitely righteous Judge.

To which may be added what has been already observed, that this theory destroys the strong opposition which Paul institutes between works and faith. According to this scheme, justification is as much by works as it can be on any other. Paul declares that it is not by the deeds of the law—not by works of righteousness which we have done. To him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned of grace but of debt.— "We are justified freely, by grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus," therefore not by our own evangelical obedience. And by this scheme, all boasting is not excluded, as the ground of our justification is, our own works. The adherence to a covenant of works, under which man was created, is so strong, that it is exceedingly difficult to induce him to seek life in any other way. Reason seems to dictate, that this must be the method of acceptance, to obey and live; and conscience, unenlightened by grace, urges to the same course. Everyman, when first awakened, is ready to inquire, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" And it is necessary in order to convince men of their helplessness, to urge the demands of the law; to tell sinners, as our Saviour did the rich, young ruler, "keep the commandments." We need not be surprised, therefore, that men guided by carnal reason, and whose pride is not sufficiently humbled, turn themselves every way lo avoid the necessity of receiving the humbling doctrine of salvation by grace, without any dependence on their own works, legal or evangelical.

The objections which have been urged against evangelical obedience, as our justifying righteousness, have been at tempted to be evaded by some one of the following methods. First, by maintaining that there is a twofold justification,-the first by faith, when the sinner believes; the second by works, when he has performed them; and especially, when he is judged according to his works, at the last day. But if our evangelical obedience is truly the ground of our justification, what is called the first justification is no justification at all. How can a man be justified until the obedience is rendered which constitutes his justifying righteousness? If a man become truly justified in (he sight of God, he needs no second justification. As the sentence of justification includes a full pardon and acceptance of the person, what more in the way of justification can he want, or possess?

There may be, and is, a manifestation of the justified state of the believer, both in this world before men, when he shows his faith by his works; and at the day of judgment, when his works of piety and mercy shall be brought forth to view, to prove that he is one of Christ's brethren; and that his future reward may be equitably apportioned according to the number and excellence of the good works performed in the body. But I repeat it again, there cannot be a twofold justification of the sinner, unless the first should be annulled; because it comprehends every thing, if it be a true justification, which can be included in this act. When a man is pardoned, and adopted as a child of God, and made an heir of the heavenly inheritance, and a joint-heir with Christ, how can he, as to the law, and as to his title to eternal life, receive any thing more by a second justification?

This being a plain case, and not easily got over, some have said that we were justified by faith, and kept in a justified state by good works. But this is a way of talking so foreign to the Scriptures, and resorted to by so few in our days, that we have no need to slop to refute it.

A more consistent method of evading the difficulty is to maintain, as is done by Dr. Macknight, that there is properly no such thing as justification before the day of judgment; and when the word is used in relation to the present state, it is to be understood as not employed in its strict and proper sense. Now this is consistent. The only objection to the theory is, that it is as directly contradictory to the whole tenor of Scripture, on this subject, as any thing can be never for the sake of a consistent theory did any man set himself in opposition to a greater array of plain and pointed texts. There is no system which was ever conceived, that may not as easily be sustained as this. Where, according to this scheme, are the high and glorious privileges of true Christians, of which the apostles speak in terms so exalted? But we will not condescend to reason this point. It carries its own refutation on its front, and therefore needs none from us; and accordingly has had few advocates. Since we have mentioned the peculiar opinion of this learned man, we will further observe, that by works of law by which no flesh can now be justified, he understands, a perfect obedience to the law, which none can now perform; but by faith, as opposed to this perfect obedience, he understands, a gratuitous justification, on account of our imperfect obedience; the former would be meritorious; but this being only a sincere but imperfect obedience can give no claim, on the ground of merit; and therefore the counting this as a righteousness, is a matter of grace or favour, because it might have been withheld.

The whole force of the objection against a sentence of justification being founded on an imperfect righteousness, lies against this scheme; and the argument need not be repeated.

To obviate this objection, which every one that understands the terms, must admit to have decisive force, two methods have been resorted to; or perhaps, they may both be reduced to one. It has been supposed, and is now strenuously maintained by a large society who deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness as the ground of a sinner's justification, that the law of innocence, or the law given to Adam and to angels, in a state of integrity, is not now in force; but that a milder law, better adapted to the fallen condition of man, has been introduced by Christ, the Mediator: so that now under the Gospel, the old moral law is not the rule of judgment in the justification of a sinner, but God, through the grace of Christ, accepts of obedience to the evangelical law, or "law of liberty." Our first remark on this scheme is, that it is repugnant to first principles in theology. The moral law is in principle and in the nature of the obedience which it requires, immutable. This law arising out of the relations which subsist between God and his accountable creature, can never be abrogated, nor changed; unless you remain eternal this inference seems plain enough, there remain some formidable difficulties in the way. As first, even if perfection be attainable in this life, it is admitted that it is the privilege of few to possess it. How then can the many who remain imperfect be justified, by a law, to which they have not rendered a complete obedience? This is not all. When we stand before God in judgment, we must account for the actions of our whole lives, and even those who are supposed to have arrived at perfection, reached this point, after years of sin and imperfection, by whatever law you judge them. If a saint becomes perfect at the last hour of life, will an hour's perfect obedience answer the demands of the law for a whole life? Surely not. Then, we see that even the doctrine of perfection, if all attained it, would not remove the difficulty. The truth is, it cannot be removed.

Those in New England, who claim for themselves, peculiarly, the denomination of "Hopkinsians," but who are more properly the disciples of Dr. Emmons, maintain a doctrine on the subject of justification, as well as on some other points, which among Protestants, is new and somewhat startling. They hold, if we understand their views, that Christ, as Mediator, did nothing else for our salvation, but by his sufferings make an atonement for our sins. They reject entirely his righteousness as imputed for justification, and teach, that while believing penitents receive the remission of all their sins, through Christ's atonement, they acquire a title to eternal life by their own obedience; which they do not hesitate to say is meritorious; or deserves the reward which is bestowed on them. Still they maintain, that all Christians upon earth are imperfect in holiness; but their notion of this imperfection is, that it does not consist in any deficiency in the particular acts or exercises of holiness; each of which they suppose to be as perfect as it can be, but in the intermixture of sinful acts. Their opinion is, that an act cannot be partly sinful and partly holy, but must be either the one or the other, entirely. Hence it follows, that if all the sinful actions be forgiven through the atonement, the holy acts, which are perfectly conformed to the law, will merit the promised rewards of obedience. This theory is connected with other peculiar and novel opinions, but as it is evidently on the wane, it will be unnecessary to enter into any discussion of the doctrine of justification as held by its abettors. Properly speaking, according to this theory, though believers obtain pardon in this life, they are not justified until their course of obedience is completed. Their title to eternal life is acquired by their own works; and their obedience must be finished before the title is secured.

If that part of the system, which supposes all holy acts to be perfectly holy, could be sustained, there would be something plausible in the theory. But it is not more a matter of conscious certainty, that we have sinful exercises, than that our holy affections are deficient in their intensity. When we feel reverence for God, is the emotion as deep as it should be? Who among men, ever loved Christ, for one moment, as fervently as he ought? When we feel gratitude for the divine goodness, are we ever as thankful in degree, as we should be? Everyone must answer these questions for himself; the appeal can only be made to experience. Hut the opinion, it is probable, arose out of the theory, and the origin of the error, as we must esteem it, is to be traced to incorrect views of the nature of sin; which they make to consist only in positive acts. But if sin may consist also in defect, and if this be truly the origin and formal nature of sin, as almost all sound divines have held, then, while there is sincere love to God, the affection may not, in intensity, be as strong as it should be. And that this is the real state of the case may be known by an appeal to our own consciousness.

SECTION VII.

JUSTIFICATION DOES NOT CONSIST MERELY IN THE PARDON OF OUR SINS, BUT ALSO IN THE ACCEPTANCE OF OUR PERSONS AS RIGHTEOUS.

This discussion might with propriety have come under the head of the "Nature of Justification" which involved the true meaning of the word; and there, the subject was adverted to; but as this is a main point in our controversy with the Arminians, the consideration of it has been reserved for this place. The object, doubtless is, to get rid of the imputation of Christ's active obedience; for if justification is nothing more than the pardon of sin, then, manifestly, there is no necessity for the righteousness of Christ, properly so called. In defense of their opinion, they allege, that the Scriptures speak of justification and pardon as the same thing; and that the law cannot, at the same time, have a two-fold claim on the sinner both for suffering and obedience. It is their opinion, that, if we obey the law, we arc not bound to endure the penalty; so, if we suffer the penalty there can be no demand for obedience, for the time past. This, therefore, may be considered a cardinal point in this controversy. If we cannot overthrow the Arminian foundation as now exhibited, we shall fail in establishing the doctrine of our standards. But we feel a strong confidence that we have truth on our side, and if it should not be fully vindicated, it should be attributed to the unskilfulness of the advocate who has undertaken its defense.

Deliverance from the guilt of sin is that which the convinced sinner is led most earnestly to seek. There can of course be no justification of the person unless sin is pardoned, for unpardoned sin is a state of condemnation. Justification must, of necessity, therefore, include the forgiveness of sins. And as this is the blessing first sought, and most needed, the whole effect and consequences of Christ's mediatorial work, while under the law, is often expressed by the "remission of sins;" and the blessings procured by the active obedience of Christ are in these cases to be understood as included. Just as in the expiatory sufferings of Christ, in common, nothing but his blood is mentioned; whereas his most bitter and oppressive sufferings were in his soul, without bodily wounds. But though it is very common to comprehend the whole of the blessings purchased by Christ by the remission of sins; yet in other passages other blessings are expressly mentioned. Indeed, every passage in which Christ's mediatorial work is designated by the word righteousness, ought to be considered as inculcating the doctrine that he fulfilled the law for us by his active obedience. But as this point will be fully discussed in the sequel, it is unnecessary to say more in this place.

The pardon of sin alone, can with no propriety be denominated justification. Pardon and justification are not only distinct, but in common cases, utterly incompatible. A culprit tried and condemned, may among men be pardoned, but it would be a solecism to say, that such a man was justified. Pardon supposes that the law has been broken, and its penalty incurred; justification supposes, that upon trial, the person arraigned is found to have complied with all the demands of the law. The same incompatibility would exist between pardon and justification, in regard to the sinner, under the Gospel, if nothing took place but a mere remission of past sins. The name justification, in that case could not have been properly used. But by the plan of Salvation through Christ, there is not only a ground for pardon, but there is rendered to the law a righteousnkss, which lays the foundation for an act of justification. By pardon, the sinner is freed from condemnation, by justification, he is entitled to the heavenly inheritance. This, Christ has purchased for him, by his perfect obedience, unto death.

But the dispute is not merely about the propriety or impropriety of a term; there are important principles involved in this controversy. We maintain, that the law when violated has a double claim on the transgressor. It still retains its original demand of obedience, of which he never can divest himself; and it now binds him over to the endurance of the penalty. To suppose that suffering the penalty* is an equivalent for obedience, and entitles to the same rewards is extremely absurd. It would be to suppose that Jehovah who loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity, would be as well pleased with sin, accompanied with its due punishment, as with perfect obedience to his own most holy law. The enduring a penalty in his own person, or by another, never can entitle any one to any thing else than exemption from that which he has already endured. To illustrate this principle by a familiar case, let us suppose a law enacted in the state, which promises an inheritance to him who shall obey it without one failure, but threatens ten years imprisonment to him who shall transgress its precepts: a person under this law incurs the penalty, and suffers his ten years in prison. When this is suffered, has he the same rights and claims, as if he had rendered an unsinning obedience? Would any man in his sober senses believe, that when he came out of the penitentiary, he had as good a right to the promised inheritance, as the citizen who had perfectly obeyed the law?And if the penalty were endured by a substitute, the effect would be the same. If a surety would secure the inheritance for him, he must obey the law in his stead, as well as suffer its penalty. Hence it appears evident, that justification includes more than merely the remission of sins, or it would be no justification; and although pardon is included in justification; yet the transaction receives this denomination not from the forgiveness of sin, but from the imputation of righteousness, by which the believer is constituted righteous; and by which a title to eternal life is procured for him by the merit of his surety.

Justification, therefore, is not merely the forgiveness of sin, but in addition to this, a declaration that the justified person has a right to the blessings promised. He not only obtains deliverance from the sentence of condemnation, but instantly is constituted an heir of God,—a joint-heir with Christ in the heavenly inheritance.

SECTION VIII.

THE ONLY MERITORIOUS GROUND OF A SINNER'S JUSTIFICATION IS THE RIGHTEOUSNKSS OF CHRIST.

By the righteousness of Christ, we mean, all that he did and suffered to satisfy the broken law of God, for those whose salvation he undertook to secure. It has been shown, that the law has a double demand upon the sinner, both of which must be satisfied before a sentence of justification can righteously be pronounced. But although the law has these two demands, the one for suffering on account of the penalty incurred, and the other for perfect obedience in order to obtain a right to the promised reward; yet it is not necessary, to attempt curiously to distinguish between obedience and suffering in the satisfaction of Christ; for as has been correctly observed by Dr. Owen and others, 'in suffering he obeyed, and in obeying he suffered.' It is sufficient, that we find in him, a full satisfaction both to the penal and preceptive requisitions of the law. As the law requires perfect holiness in the nature of man; so Christ's nature was holy. He was in all respects like other men, except that he had no stain of original sin on his soul. He was without sin—" undefiled," in infancy a perfectly holy child. His actions during every stage of his life, and in all the circumstances and relations in which he stood, were perfectly conformable to the precepts of the law. And as he performed every duty which it enjoined, so he abstained from every thing forbidden in thought, word, and deed. The eye of a holy God saw in him no sin, original or actual; neither of omission or commission; neither in the secret purposes and imaginations of the heart, nor in his external conduct and conversation. In his obedience the law wasmagnified and made honorable. He furnished the best exposition of the law in his public teaching, and what he inculcated, he exemplified, and illustrated in his whole life, from the beginning to the end. He performed all moral duties in relation to God and man with undeviating correctness, and attended on all the positive institutions, then in force. In childhood he was circumcised; when of sufficient age he attended on the stated institutions of the Mosaic religion; and as God had commissioned John to baptize the people for the remission of sins, he came and was baptized in Jordan; giving as a reason, that it became him "to fulfill all righteousness;" that is, as he had placed himself under the law, it behoved him to render obedience to all that the Jaw commanded. But it is evident, that he could neither be circumcised or baptized for the removal of any impurity from himself; neither could he join in the sacrifices which were daily offered, with any relation to his own person; but whatever the law enjoined upon others that he performed; thus rendering an obedience such as they had failed to perform.

It has been objected, that if Christ obeyed the law for us, he should perform the identical acts which every one for whom he obeyed was bound to perform, but this was impossible, because he did not sustain all the relations which they sustained. He could not perform the duties of a father, of a husband or wife, of a servant, of a magistrate, Ac., therefore he could not render an obedience which would satisfy the law for us.

This objection is founded on very contracted views of the subject. When one places himself under a law, to render an obedience in behalf of another, it is no how necessary that he should perform the very same external duties. These vary in the same person, with every change of circumstances. What the law requires is a perfect obedience, and such an obedience must arise out of the existing relations of the person performing it. It is a matter of no consequence what the particular external acts of obedience may be, the only question is, are they conformable to the demands of the law under which the substitute is placed. But the objection most commonly insisted on against the active obedience of Christ as a necessary part of our justifying righteousness, from Socinus downward, is, that he owed obedience for himself, and therefore could perform no works of supererogation, which can be applied to the benefit of others. Socinians may with some propriety urge this objection, because they think that Christ was no more than man; and it is admitted that every mere creature is bound to obedience for himself, to the utmost extent of his powers. But it is a matter of grief to find men claiming to be orthodox, and who are so, so far as relates to the person of the Mediator, borrowing this often refuted objection of heretics.

In answer, we say, that Christ, though he must be holy, was under no necessity to place himself under the obligation of any law made for mere creatures. The obedience which Christ rendered, though performed in his human nature, was the obedience of the God-man, the obedience of him who is Lord of lords and King of kings. It could not be that He, whom all*the angels of God are commanded .to worship, should be subject to the law, except so far as he voluntarily placed himself under it. Indeed, the human nature of our Lord is not a distinct person. This nature never was any other than a constituent part of the divine person of the Mediator. Besides, his putting himself under the law was not to gain any thing for himself, but to obey for us. If it be said, that having taken upon him the obligation of the law, his obedience was due; we answer yes, it was due for the end which he had in view in placing himself under the law; that is to obey, for his covenanted people. And if that voluntary obligation would render it impossible that his obedience should be for the justification of others, the very same objection would lie against his suffering for others; because in the covenant of redemption he took on himself an obligation to suffer as much as he did to obey. It might then with just as much propriety be said, that he suffered for himself, because by his own engagement he was bound to suffer, as that he obeyed for himself.

The principle may be illustrated by a memorable fact in Ecclesiastical History. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, in the fifth century, expended all his large estates, in redeeming1 from captivity his brethren enslaved by the Goths and Visigoths, who had overrun the empire. When his resources were exhausted, a poor widow came to him to represent her sad and destitute condition, in consequence of her only son, on whom she depended, being carried as a slave, into Africa. Paulinus, whose charity seems to have had no limit, immediately went over to Africa, and having found the young man, he entered into an agreement with his master, to take the place of the young man, and become a slave, that he might return to his destitute mother; and, accordingly, he continued under the yoke for some months, until his master happened to discover his high standing, and sent him home. Here then is a case in point. Paulinus was under no obligation to obey this barbarian, until for the redemption of the captive youth, he consented to take his place, and submit to all the hard laws of servitude. But can any one suppose that because he was now bound to obedience he could only perform it for himself? No: the very reason why he took this place and came under this obligation was for another. The case is too plain to need any further explanation.

As the obedience of the Mediator is expressly mentioned as the ground of our justification by Paul, where he says "As by the disobedience of one many were made sinners, (or condemned) so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous," (or be justified,) the opposers of the imputation of Christ's active obedience have alleged, that by obedience here, we should not understand his holy life, but his obedience in dying; and they bring up another text, in which it is said he was "obedient unto death," to show that not his general obedience, but a particular act of obedience, namely, in dying for us, is intended. Now, for the sake of argument, conceding all that these contend for, the principle will not be altered. It will still be true, that we are justified by the active obedience of the Mediator. The only difference is, that according to the orthodox doctrine, all his holy acts go to make up his righteousness, by which we are justified; but by this hypothesis, one act of obedience is that by which believers are constituted righteous. But this is a mere hypothesis, having no shadow of proof, except the interpretation of the text in Philippians. The expression "obedient unto death" docs not properly signify a single act of obedience in dying; it properly means an obedience continued even unto death; or rather an obedience which did not falter, even when a cruel and accursed death was to be endured. If the apostle had intended to express the idea of a single act of obedience in dying, he would have employed another form of expression. If God cannot be just and justify the ungodly, without a perfect righteousness, as we have in a former part of this treatise endeavoured to show, then the active obedience of Christ must be the ground of this sentence, or no one of Adam's sinful posterity ever can be justified in the sight of God; for there is no other righteousness which is in all respects perfect; for even if perfection were attainable in this life, the perfection of duration would be wanting. He who pleads justification on the ground of perfect obedience, must exhibit such an obedience through the whole course of his life; for the just Judge surveys the whole life of the creature whom he declares to be justified, as has before been shown.

An opinion has lately met with favour among a certain class of American theologians, which we believe to be new. It is, that justification by grace, has no respect to the law whatever. It is a scheme of bringing the sinner into a state of reconciliation without any satisfaction to law or justice. Literally, it is "without law." And this not only respects the active obedience of Christ for his elect people, but his atonement, which they deny to be an endurance of the penalty of the law; but merely a public exhibition which comes in the place of a legal process. Thus they utterly subvert the righteousness of Christ, as it has hitherto been held by the orthodox. In support of their opinion they plead that a full satisfaction is inconsistent with gratuitous pardon; that none can possibly satisfy the law, either as to its precept or penalty but the sinner himself, because the law has no claim on any other; and that God is not bound by the holiness of his nature, to execute the penalty of the law; and therefore may take the sinner into favour, notwithstanding the demands of the law against him; which demands, they assert, will remain forever unsatisfied, even while the sinner is saved. Yet they maintain, that God could not consistently with the good of the universe pardon sin, without giving a signal exhibition of his dislike to it, and his settled purpose to punish it. On this account, he sent his own well beloved Son to die an ignominious death for sin, that is, to show his views and feelings of its evil nature. By this device, a way is opened for the gratuitous pardon of every one who repents of his sin and believes the Gospel. If asked, whether the sufferings of Christ are vicarious, they promptly answer in the affirmative; but when they come to explain their meaning, it is far enough from the orthodox doctrine of substitution, and vicarious satisfaction to the law, in the room of the sinner. It is something entirely different from this legal process, but which comes in the place of it, and is therefore properly called vicarious. This is a specimen of new divinity, which is now zealously inculcated from the pulpit, and from the press; and that too by men, who have adopted without exception, as their creed, the Confession and Catechisms of our Church!

In refutation of this theory, which is in fact, "another gospel," I have only room for a few remarks.

And the first is, that justification can have no intelligible meaning, unless it be a sentence according to law; An unjust judge may disregard the law and justify the wicked, and condemn the righteous; but a righteous judge will impartially try every person arraigned before him, by the law of the land, and will pronounce sentence accordingly, justifying the righteous, and condemning the wicked. And God the Judge of all the earth, who is infinitely righteous, will surely never cast his own holy law behind his back, and disregard its demands, when he pronounces a sentence of justification. If he cannot deny himself, he cannot cast dishonour upon his own law. Every sentence of justification must be either a just sentence, or an unrighteous sentence; but how can this be determined but by ascertaining whether it is according to law, or the contrary. In this case, it is admitted that it is a sentence contrary to law; which still condemns the sinner. How then can God be just, while he justifies the sinner? It is in vain to allege, that this scheme of pardon answers all the purposes of the penalty of the law; for, if the sinner bound to suffer, is taken away from under the law, without satisfaction to its demands, the. law is not only dishonored, but completely subverted; which is in direct contradiction of what the Lord Jesus Christ asserts, "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill." "I came to magnify the law, and make it honorable." And also in direct opposition to Paul's solemn testimony, where he says, "Do we make void the law through faith, God forbid; yea we establish the law."

Again, the penalty of a holy, violated law, was the only thing which stood in the way. Men’s sufferings of any one are of no value, except in relation to some end. The sufferings of Christ, could no otherwise open a way of pardon but by removing the penalty of the law; but they could have no tendency to remove the penalty, but by his enduring it. Sufferings not required by law and justice must, have been unjust sufferings, and never could effect any good. Such an exhibition could not have the effect of demonstrating God's hatred of sin, for it was not the punishment of sin; nor could it make the impression on the world, that the Ruler of the Universe would hereafter punish sin; for, according to this theory, sin goes unpunished, and dreadful sufferings are inflicted on the innocent to whom no sin is imputed. ' This scheme as really subverts the true doctrine of atonement, as that of Socinus; and no reason appears, why it was necessary that the person making this exhibition should be a divine person.

But if the righteousness of Christ, consisting of his perfect obedience to the law and of his meritorious sufferings, be the only foundation of a sinner's justification, why do we not fulfill it clearly and repeatedly inculcated in the Scriptures? In answer to this question, we say, that this doctrine is taught in the Bible with abundant perspicuity. As it relates to the vicarious sufferings of the Redeemer, every one who reads the Scriptures will find the doctrine inculcated, every where, and in every form; not merely in words, but by expressive emblematical ceremonies; especially by the bloody sacrifices of the law. No ingenuity nor sophistry can ever obscure this prominent doctrine of divine revelation. It would seem to be the center of the whole system; and is equally conspicuous in the Old and the New Testament. Take this doctrine from the Bible, and you have destroyed the whole plan of redemption.

But the difficulty with many does not relate to the expiatory sufferings of Christ for the redemption of his people, but only to the necessity of his active obedience to the law in their behalf. Let us hear, therefore, the testimony of Scripture on this point. Christ says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfil," (Matt. v. 17.) In Rom. v. 18. 19, we have this doctrine taught with great clearness, ' 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 the disobedience of one many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Nothing can be more express than this testimony. The righteousness which is here made the ground of justification is explained to be Christ's obedience; and that this is his active obedience is evident, because nothing else can properly be called righteousness and obedience. All obedience is active. Mere suffering cannot properly be denominated "obedience." It deserves also to be remarked, that this righteousness and obedience are contrasted with the offence and disobedience of Adam, which shows that as by the latter we must understand the breach of the law, by the former we must understand the fulfillment of the law. Another strong proof of our doctrine is contained in Phil. iii. 9, "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." To the same purpose is that in 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." Here righteousness being distinguished from sanctification, must relate to our justification; and thus the enumeration of the blessings received through Christ will be complete. lie affords his people instruction, furnishes a righteousness for their justification; obtains their sanctification, and finally, their complete and eternal redemption. And in the twenty first verse of the fifth chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians, it is written "For he made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God."

SECTION IX.

The Son of God becomes incarnate, obeys the law perfectly in our nature, and to furnish a justifying righteousness for the sinner, &c. subjects himself to the penalty of the law, as an expiation for our sins. The law having thus been fulfilled and honoured God can be just and justify the ungodly who believe in Jesus. This righteousness is complete, and God is well pleased with the work of the Redeemer; but it can answer no purpose to him, unless it is some how made over to him. The law still charges him with innumerable transgressions, and his legal standing is no how altered by the mere fact that the law has been satisfied by another. That satisfaction must by some means be so connected with him, that his relation to the law shall be changed. If such an appropriation of Christ's work to his benefit cannot be made, as some tell us, then salvation is impossible, and Christ has died in vain. But God has told us that this righteousness may become ours; that lie may become our righteousness; and we the righteousness of God in him. He does become the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. But how can his righteousness become ours? How can we be justified by his obedience? In no conceivable way, but by the imputation of his righteousness to us. No part of evangelical doctrine has met with a more determined opposition, than the doctrine of imputation. It has been loaded with reproaches, as a doctrine the most unreasonable, the most dangerous, and the most impious. It is a remarkable circumstance, however, that all the objections which have been made to it are founded on a misapprehension, or a misrepresentation of the true nature of imputation. It has been objected, that it implies the transfer of personal acts, and the communication of. the moral character of one to another, which things are manifestly impossible. But this is an entire mistake. Imputation implies no change, whatever, in the inherent character of the person to whom righteousness is imputed; or to speak more correctly, though there is a renovation of nature effected at the same time, this is not by the act of imputation. By this act, the legal relations of the sinner are changed. Whereas, before righteousness was imputed, he was condemned, he is now justified. His guilt, or liableness to punishment, is taken away, and the Judge views him as standing fair in the eye of law; not considered in his own righteousness, but as clothed with the righteousness of the surety. His debt is cancelled, because another has paid it, and has caused it to be set to his credit. "We might, indeed, express the same idea without employing the word impute. No doubt, some, through prejudice against this word, do so; and firmly hold the doctrine, while they reject the language in which it has commonly been expressed. And some are disposed to ask, why be tenacious of a word? Why not avoid its use, since so many are offended by it? To which we answer, 1. Because the term is Scriptural. 2. It is convenient and expressive; we do not know any single word which so exactly expresses the truth, in this matter. 3. Because the opposition to the phrase is not all; there is an" aversion to the doctrine itself; and history teaches that errorists and heretics are accustomed to make the first attack on the established language of orthodoxy; but this is but a cover for their design to subvert the doctrine itself.

Again, it has been objected to the doctrine of imputed righteousness, that it is nothing else than to ascribe to God a false judgment, esteeming those to be righteous whom he knows to be not really so. They have represented the word imputed to be synonymous with putative, and have so far mistaken the whole thing as to assert, that a putative righteousness, was a mere suppositions thing; an erroneous judgment or estimation, which cannot be attributed to God without blasphemy. Now, we are surprised at such misrepresentations of our views. There is nothing false or suppositions in the case. When God imputes the righteousness of Christ to a sinner, he actually bestows it upon him for all the purposes of his complete justification. The sinner owes a righteousness to the law, which he cannot pay; but God in mercy reckons to him the perfect righteousness of another. For the sake then of Christ's satisfaction to the precept and penalty of the law he is pardoned and accepted as having a perfect righteousness in his Surety. The Psalmist says "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity." The non-imputation of sin is not a false judgment, but a gracious act by which no charge is made against the transgressor on account of his iniquities: they are remitted. So when God imputeth righteousness, the guilty sinner has his legal responsibilities changed. These are transferred to another who has borne the curse in his stead, and the righteousness of another is so charged to his account, that by it he is accepted as fully as if he had in his own person rendered a complete righteousness.

The idea of imputation is well understood in the transactions of men. As when one owes a debt for the payment of which a friend makes himself responsible, there is a transfer of legal obligation to the sponsor, and if the debtor be unable to pay, the surety is bound. When in law one man becomes bail for the appearance of another to answer on some certain day, he enters into a recognizance by which he incurs a penalty if the other should fail. But it will probably be alleged, that these cases of pecuniary suretyship and obligation are entirely different from cases of moral delinquency; where one man's good conduct is never made the ground of the justification of a guilty person. It is certainly true that no transactions among men can furnish a complete parallel to the mediation of Jesus Christ, and our justification through his perfect righteousness. This device is as much above human conception, as the heavens are higher than the earth: but still there are principles admitted in human transactions which may serve, in some small degree, to illustrate the Gospel plan of justification. Take the following case. Suppose a man to have become by his heroic acts and achievements, and by his wounds and sufferings, the Saviour of his country. The debt which the people owe him for his meritorious services can never be fully paid. Now suppose the son of this benefactor is detected in some treasonable practices against his sovereign. He is arraigned before the supreme tribunal of the kingdom. The evidence against him is full. Sentence is about to be pronounced, when the father presents Himself before his sovereign, and begs that his son may be pardoned on account of his services; and at the same time points to the scars of the numerous wounds which he received in lighting for his country. Moreover, he is willing to become responsible for the good conduct of his son in time to come. The king feeling the obligation which he is under to the father, for the sake of his services, agrees not only to remit the punishment, but to restore the offender to "all the rights and immunities which he had before enjoyed. If such a pardon could be granted consistently with the good of the state, no one would say that there was any thing wrong in the transaction. In this case the good conduct of the father is imputed to the son, and he is pardoned and restored to the favour of his prince, by the meritorious conduct of another. Indeed, the principle of treating with special favour the near connections of those whom we greatly love, or to whom we have been laid under peculiar obligations, is brought into view almost every day. But the wisdom and propriety of imputing Christ's righteousness for the justification of sinners does not depend on any resemblance to it which may be found among men. It is sufficient for us to know that God has revealed it as his chosen plan for the salvation of his redeemed people.

It is again objected to the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, especially his active obedience, that it releases the sinner from all obligation, any longer to obey the law. If this were a just inference from the doctrine it would indeed be an unanswerable objection; for it should be received as a first principle in theology, that the obligation to be conformed to the law of God can never cease. But there is not the least foundation for the objection. Suppose that the first Adam had continued to obey until his probation was finished, would any one think that afterwards either he or his posterity would be freed from the obligation to be holy? Well, what he failed to do, the second Adam has performed, but the obligation to be holy is immutable. It may be asked, does the law of God require a double obedience, one from our surety, and one from ourselves? We answer, that it requires but one righteousness in order to our justification; but it requires that the justified person continue in conformity with its holy precepts. Our obedience is not now required as a condition of justification; to entertain such an opinion would be to leave the covenant of grace, and to go back to the old covenant of works. It would be to fall from grace, as Paul expresses it, that is from the doctrines of grace. Suppose each one of us had a probation for life under the law, and that we had completed our obedience and obtained justification, we should be required to render no more obedience with a view to being justified, for this is supposed to be already done. But the obligation to obey God would not cease, because we were in a justified state. We would still be required to be conformed to the law, because that was our reasonable service, arising out of our natural relations to our Creator, and because holiness is pleasing to God, beneficial to men, and essential to the promotion of our own happiness. Another objection to imputation is, that if Christ's righteousness becomes ours in this way, then we shall be made as righteous as Christ was. This scarcely deserves a serious answer. Upon the second principle they ought to argue, that because our sins were imputed to Christ, He must by this be made as great a sinner as we are; which is blasphemy? But in both cases, the inference is false, and does not follow from the doctrine. If a rich man permit a poor debtor to draw upon him for as much money as will pay his debts, and obtain his release from prison, it does not follow that by this act the poor man is made as rich as his benefactor. When the king pardoned the treason of the son for the sake of the extraordinary merits of the father, this did not invest the son with personal merit equal to that of the father. The truth is, that the imputation of righteousness, although it procures perfect justification, produces no change in the inherent character of the man; but as we stated before, it merely changes his relation to the law; and therefore, the idea of our being made as righteous as Christ, is without reason alleged against this doctrine.

It has, moreover, been objected, that if the righteousness of Christ is imputed to every believer, then all must receive an equal reward in the world to conic; but the doctrine of Scripture is, that there are degrees of felicity and glory in heaven. It is true, that the righteousness of Christ is equally bestowed on all believers, and the consequence is, that they are all equally justified; but persons equally justified, and equally reconciled to a part of the heavenly inheritance, may partake of happiness in different degrees. Some may have a larger capacity than others, and may on this account enjoy more; and yet all have liberty to drink in as much as they can; just as if you throw empty vessels of different dimensions into the river, they will all be filled as full as they can hold, but the quantity in each will be very different.

Again, though the good works of believers are in no measure the ground of our justification, yet they will be exhibited at the day of judgment, for two reasons. The first is, that they may be a public evidence to the universe, that they are the genuine disciples of Christ; and secondly, that these acts of sincere but imperfect obedience may be the standard by which they shall receive their portion of happiness. "They who sow sparingly shall reap also sparingly; but they who sow bountifully shall reap also bountifully." Hence we so often read, that men shall be rewarded according to their works. And this mode of proceeding commends itself to our reason, as congruous. Some have attempted to evade the doctrine, by alleging, that not the righteousness of Christ but its effects are imputed to us. They who talk thus, do not seem to understand what they say. It must be by the imputation of the righteousness, that the good effects are derived to us; but the imputation of the effects themselves cannot be. To talk of imputing pardon—of imputing justification—imputing peace, etc. is to use words without meaning. What we are inquiring after is the reason why these blessings become ours. It cannot be on account of our own righteousness, which is of the law; it must be on account of the righteousness of Christ. The next question is, how does that righteousness avail to obtain for us pardon, justification, and peace with God? The answer is, by imputation; that is, H is set down to our credit. God accepts it on our behalf: yea he bestows it upon us. If there "be any such thing as imputation, it must be of the righteousness of Christ itself, and the benefits connected with salvation flow from this imputation. We conclude, therefore, that the righteousness of Christ can only justify us, by being imputed to us. The last objection which I shall mention to the imputation of Christ's righteousness, is, that it makes the sinner's justification a matter of justice, and not of grace; for if our debt is fully paid, and the law obeyed in our stead, the whole proceeding, upon this hypothesis, is one of law and justice, and not at all of mercy and grace; but the Scriptures teach nothing more clearly and constantly, than that our justification is "without law," and purely gratuitous.

As this is an old Socinian objection which has been borrowed and revived by men wishing to beesteemed orthodox, it will deserve a special attention.

And first, let it be observed, that all theories which suppose that grace is exercised at the expense of justice, or that in order to the manifestation of grace, law and justice must be suspended, labour under a radical mistake in theology, which cannot but introduce darkness and perplexity into their whole system. Indeed, if law and justice could have been set aside or suspended, there had been no occasion for the plan of redemption. The only reason why sinners could not be saved was, that the law and justice of God stood in the way; but if by a sovereign act, these obstacles could have been removed, salvation might have been accomplished without an atonement. But though the Scriptures, every where, ascribe salvation to grace—free grace; yet they never teach that this grace requires God to deny himself, as to his attribute of justice; or that law and justice are at all interfered with; or, for a moment suspended. On the contrary, the idea is continually kept in view, that grace reigns through righteousness; that the propitiation of Christ is necessary, that God may be just, and yet the justifier of the ungodly. Redemption is the obtaining deliverance by paying a price; and yet redemption and grace, so far from being inconsistent, are constantly united, as parts of the same glorious plan, according to the Scriptures. "In whom avc have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." (Ephes. i. 7.) The only way in which it was possible for grace to be exercised, was by a plan which made provision for the complete satisfaction of law and justice. This was the great problem, to the solution of which no finite wisdom was competent; but which the infinite wisdom of Jehovah has accomplished by the mission and sacrifice of his own dear Son. What is objected, therefore, is a thing essential to the exercise of grace. And the whole appearance of plausibility in the objection arises from not distinguishing between God's dealings with our substitute, and with us. To him, there was no mercy shown; the whole process was in strict execution of law and justice. The last farthing due, so to speak, was exacted, of our Surely, when he stood in our place, under the holy and sin avenging law of God. But this exercise of justice towards him, was the very thing which opened the way for superabounding mercy towards us. And this cost at which the sluices of grace were opened, so far from lessening, constitutes its riches and glory. If grace had required no sacrifice, such as has been made, its loveliness and glory would not have been half what they now are. If I were in prison for a heavy debt, and some generous friend should do me the favour of releasing me, by paying the debt, would I have any right to say, that there was no favour in the case, because justice was satisfied before I could be released? The idea is preposterous. And as to what is said about being justified, "without law," it has been explained already, to mean, without our own works of obedience to the law, as many parallel passages of Scripture show. Upon any other plan, the law and Gospel would be completely at variance; or the law would be made void by the Gospel, which the apostle rejects with so much vehemence, and declares that instead of being made void, it was established.

SECTION X.

JUSTIFICATION BY THE IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST IS OBTAINED BY THE EXERCISE OF A GENUINE FAITH.

It has already been shown that neither the act of believing, nor the evangelical obedience which flows from faith is the meritorious ground of a sinner's justification. It now remains to consider what part faith performs in obtaining justification for us. That it is an essential thing in this business is manifest throughout the Scriptures. "The just shall live by his faith," (Heb. ii. 4.) "The righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe." (Rom. iii. 22.) "Therefore being justified by faith," (Rom. v. 1.) "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ," (Gal. ii. IG.) The righteousness by which we are justified is called the righteousness of faith. "Not having on 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. 9.) "What shall we say then 1 that the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith," (Rom. ix. 30.) "But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise." (Rom. x. G.) That faith justifies is so clear in Scripture, that no words could make it plainer. The only tiling necessary is to ascertain how it justifies? And as much that might have been said here has been anticipated, we will confine our observations within narrower limits, than we otherwise should have done. The single question which needs to be now discussed is, whether faith justifies as a condition, or merely as an instrument. There is a sound sense in which faith may be called the condition of justification, and is so called by some of the most distinguished orthodox divines; and is once so denominated in our Larger Catechism, in the answer to the 32d Question, "and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him." They are not therefore to be censured as departing from orthodoxy, or from a sound theological language, who choose to retain this word. But it should be carefully remarked, that when they use the word condition, they neither mean a meritorious consideration on which the blessings of the new covenant are suspended; nor an act performed by our own strength previously to our receiving any benefit from this covenant, but as a duty which God requires to be performed by us prior to our justification. It is a condition in the sense, that without it justification cannot be enjoyed. But as the word condition is so vague, and as it has been so commonly used in an erroneous sense, it is expedient to drop the word as it relates to faith, in a sinner's justification; for all orthodox theologians acknowledge, that faith itself is one of the richest blessings of the covenant of grace, and cannot, therefore, be the condition of that covenant, in a strict and proper sense. The sound doctrine then is, that faith is the instrument of our justification; just as the hand is the instrument of receiving the food, which saves us from starvation; or the reprieve which delivers from death. It is well represented by the case of a drowning man to whom a rope from a boat is cast out to draw him in. If he neglects to seize the rope, whether owing to dependence on his own ability to buffet the waves, or from a suspicion of the weakness of the rope, or the want of sincerity and good-will in those who have thrown it out, he perishes with help within his reach. This is precisely the case of those who reject the Gospel. But, if the man, convinced of his own helplessness, and having confidence in the strength of the rope, and of the good-will of those who have extended this means of relief, grasps the rope, and is drawn into the boat, this seizing the offered help, will represent the act of faith by which the sinner obtains deliverance, and is brought into a state of safety; except that in his case the ability to stretch out the withered hand is given by him who commands it. The question has been often asked, whether justification is by faith alone; and if so, why has this grace in this business a prerogative above every other? Why does faith justify rather than love? That justification is by faith alone is clear from the testimonies of Scripture, already adduced. Other things are necessary to our complete salvation; but faith is the only instrument of our justification. We are never said to be justified by repentance, or by love, or by hope, nor by perseverance, and yet all these are necessary to our salvation; but they follow justification, and are evidences of it. The Scriptural doctrine is, that we are justified by faith, and nothing else, "is imputed for righteousness." Our justifying righteousness is "the righteousness of faith." This point may be considered too clearly established, by express testimonies of Scripture, to admit of doubt or controversy.

The question still arises, why is justification ascribed solely to faith, or how does faith justify. The common and correct answer is, because faith apprehends and receives the righteousness of Christ. But the subject requires some further explanation. In all cases where the good or bad acts of one are imputed to another, who did not personally perform them, it is in consequence of a very close and intimate union between the parties. Thus, if the acts of a wife are ascribed to the husband, it is because, in law, as in Scripture, they are considered not twain but one—" one flesh." When the child of a man condemned for treason, in Great Britain, loses the title and inheritance entailed on him, it is because he is closely connected, in blood, with the guilty person. When all Israel suffered a desolating plague because of the sin of David, it was because they all formed one body politic, of which he was the head. Upon this principle the posterity of Saul were executed on account of his sin towards the Gibeonites, which was imputed to them. On the same principle of union between the parties, God visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation; and the sins of many generations are punished at last upon one, when the cup of their iniquity is full; according to the words of Christ to the Jews, "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation," (Matt, xxiii. 35, 36.) But the only case which furnishes a complete parallel to the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers, is the imputation of Adam's first sin to all his posterity, on account of their double connection with him, first as their natural progenitor; and secondly as their federal head and legal representative in the first covenant. Upon these principles, there must be a union formed with Christ, before his acts of obedience to the law, and satisfaction to its penalty can be imputed to us. The first step towards this union is Christ's assumption of our nature, by which he becomes truly a man, like unto us, sin only excepted—bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh. But this union is not yet sufficiently intimate. As a man, Christ was equally united to our whole race; but before his righteousness can properly be imputed to us, we must become one with him by a close, and spiritual union. No truth of Scripture is more prominent or more strikingly illustrated than Christ's union with his elect people. He is the head, and they are the members; which, though many, constitute but "one body." He is the vine, they are the branches, and derive all their life and fruitfulness from him. He is the foundation of the spiritual temple, they are living stones builded upon this elect and precious corner stone. And lastly, He is the husband, and the spiritual Church is the spouse. "For as the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the Church," (Ephes. v. 23.) Where the apostle carries out the resemblance to a great length. Now if we inquire how this union is formed, it will readily appear that it is by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his," (Horn. viii. 9.) The converse of which is implied, If any man have the Spirit of Christ he is his. "For as the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body," (1 Cor xii. 12, 13.) The whole context shows, that the bond which unites all Christians to their Head, and to one another, so as to constitute one body, is the Holy Spirit. And in another place, the apostle says "He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit/' The soul thus united to Christ and a part of his mystical body, is brought into so close and intimate a union with him, that a foundation is laid for the imputation of his righteousness to them. But as God chooses to deal with his people according to the free and rational nature with which they are endowed, he has connected their justification, which is the commencement of their actual salvation, with their faith in Christ, which is the first act of the soul united to Christ, and by which Christ is apprehended and received. It is common to say that faith unites the soul to Christ; it would be more correct to say, that faith was the first fruit of this union, and its sure indication. Thus it appears, that we are clothed with this perfect and unspotted robe of our Redeemer's righteousness, as soon as we become one with him. He is now in reality our Mediator and sponsor; our wisdom and righteousness; and thus are we justified by faith, as the act or instrument by which we apprehend and receive Christ's righteousness. It is evident from what has just been said, that it is not every kind of faith which justifies; but only that which is produced by the Holy Spirit. It is the act of the soul which is united to Christ. Not such a historical assent as men commonly give to human testimony, but a lively, and deep persuasion of the truth and excellence of divine things, grounded on the illumination of the mind by the Holy Spirit. There is that in the truth of God which, when spiritually discerned, carries with it convincing evidence of its divine origin. A true faith is not a mere intellectual act which leaves the heart unaffected with the truth believed, but such a full persuasion of the excellence as well as the truth of God's revealed will, that it carries the heart along, and sweetly inclines the will to receive Christ as he is exhibited in the Gospel. As Christ, as our Redeemer, is the central object in divine revelation; so he is the primary object of justifying faith. There can be no faith where Christ is not known. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." The first views of believers are exceedingly various as to clearness; for while some regenerated souls have a mere glimmering of spiritual light, others are favored with such a bright shining of the light of the glorious Gospel, that their assurance of faith' is accompanied from the first, with the •' full assurance of hope." But although in believers there are different degrees of light and vigor in the exercise of their faith, yet all true faith is produced by the same agent, founded on the same kind of evidence, respects the same object, and produces the same sort of fruits. But it should not be imagined, that the weak believer is less justified than the strong; the very weakest child is as truly a child as the most vigorous; and the humblest believer is as completely justified as was Abraham or Paul. I cannot adopt the opinion maintained by some eminent theologians, that there is a difference between a saving faith and a justifying faith. They allege, that a justifying faith respects Christ only in his sacerdotal office; while a saving faith respects all divine truth. But although it is true, that Christ's work as a priest is the true ground of our justification, yet in the first exercises of faith, the mind does not always distinguish the several offices of the Redeemer, but receives him wholly, and for every purpose connected with salvation. But when the person is united to Christ, whatever may be the incipient exercises of faith, they are justifying; otherwise a soul might be supposed to be the subject of saving faith, and yet remain, for a time, in an unjustified state, which would be an unscriptural supposition. And if justification depended upon the clearness and distinctness of the views of the object, it would seem that the soul must fall from justification, when Christ as a priest was not distinctly ins view. Even regenerated infants, by virtue of union to Christ are justified; certainly then all who exercise a saving faith are justified; and the reason why faith is said to be saving is because it justifies, for that which does not justify cannot be saving.

Much has been' written about the various acts of faith; some making a greater and some a less number of essential acts; but although what they ascribe to faith belongs to its various actings, yet if we examine the matter more accurately, we shall find that faith is one simple exercise of the mind, including, however, both the understanding and will; and that all its various acts arise from the various truths brought into view. A full persuasion of the truth revealed, is faith, in every case; but when the truth believed is a divine promise, this persuasion is of the nature of trust or confidence. Most of the phrases which speak of faith are figurative, and express the common actings of faith in allusion to some analogous thing. Thus receiving, flying for refuge, looking, coming, hungering, and thirsting, &c. are used to convey to our minds in an intelligible and striking manner, the exercises of a soul when it believes in Christ, but cannot be considered so many distinct acts. Of these figurative expressions, no one is more frequently used, or better suited to express the whole of a genuine faith, than that of "receiving" Christ. "To a? many as received him gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that belie\re on his name." Thus it is described in our Larger Catechism. "Justifying faith is a saving grace wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and word of God; whereby, he being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures, to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the Gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness therein held forth, for the pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation." This view of the subject is at once accurate and practical. How refreshing would it be to the people of God to hear preaching in the strain and spirit of this, and many other answers in our Larger Catechism, instead of cold immoral harangues or metaphysical disquisitions, with which they are too frequently put off.

Another description of faith in our "Confession" is remarkable for giving, in few words, a just and comprehensive view of the nature of faith in its diversity of actings, under the view of truths of a different kind. It is as follows, "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word. "By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true, whatever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contained); yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace."

From the view which has been taken of this subject, it is plain, that the thing to be believed, is not that Christ is already mine; or that he died for me in particular; or that my sins are pardoned. All these things may be certainly believed to be true by him who has first received Christ as offered; but until this is done, he cannot have any just ground of evidence that these propositions, or others of a similar kind, re true. We may, and ought, however, to believe that God truly and sincerely offers Christ and all his benefits to us in the Gospel, and this gracious offer is the ground of our warrant for receiving him as our Saviour. Some choose to call this offer a grant of Christ to the world; and insist, therefore, that we ought to believe in the very first instance, that Christ is ours. On this subject, we hope there is no real difference of opinion at bottom; we like to adhere to the plain language of the Scriptures, and of our standards. If it be asked whether there is not an appropriating act of faith 1 I answer that no act of ours can be more of an appropriating nature than receiving. He who receives Christ receives him as his complete and all sufficient Saviour. If one offers to another a large estate, the acceptance of the offer is the appropriating act. It would, however, in our judgment, be more correct to say, that God appropriated Christ and his benefits to us, when he imputed to us Christ's righteousness, and justified our persons.

We must not, however, overlook the necessity of a real and deep conviction of sin; not as a preparation for regeneration, but as a process suited to us as rational, moral agents. It is suitable that a sinner, whom God is about to save, should be made sensible in some measure, of his true condition. How otherwise could he exercise due gratitude for redeeming mercy? "I through the law am dead to the law that I might live unto God." "For I had not known sin, unless the law had said thou shall not covet." So then, "And the commandment which was ordained unto life, I found to be unto death."

SECTION XL

THE TIME OF JUSTIFICATION.

On this subject men have erred on the widest possible extremes; for while some strenuously insist that justification is from eternity, thus confounding it with election, or the purpose to justify; others are equally confident, that there can lie no proper justification until after our account is rendered at the day of judgment; while a few would refer it, to the time of Christ's resurrection when he as our substitute received an acquittance, and arose from the dead as the triumphant Head of all his people. If we are justified by faith, we cannot obtain this blessing until we believe; and it is equally certain, that upon this principle, our justification cannot be postponed until the final judgment.

The orthodox opinion may be thus expressed. From eternity, God determined to justify his chosen people, freely, through the mediation of his Son; by the obedience and death of Christ a solid foundation was laid for their justification, in consistence with the demands of law and justice; when an elect sinner is united to Christ and believes, his faith is imputed for righteousness; that is, the righteousness of Christ which is the object of faith, is made over to him, and his sins are, in that moment, pardoned, and his person accepted as righteous, in the sight of God, or in other words he is justified; and at the day of judgment, there will be a public manifestation of their being the disciples of Christ and the servants of God, by bringing to view before the assembled universe all their works of piety, justice, and mercy. Their thoughts will then be made manifest, also their words, and deeds; and the Judge of all, will declare them to be exempt from every charge, and will assign to them a portion in the heavenly inheritance, according as their works shall be found. He will say, "Come ye blessed inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."

SECTION XII.

THE DOCTRINE OF JAMES.

There is an apparent contradiction of Paul's doctrine by lames, where he says, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered up Isaac his son upon (he altar." Again, "Ye see then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone."

"Likewise also, was not Rahab, the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out, another way."

The reconciliation of these declarations with those of. Paul can only be made by supposing James to speak of another kind of faith, and, perhaps, of another kind of justification, from Paul. And when the whole passage is carefully examined this thing becomes evident. He is censuring such as spoke good words to the needy, h\it gave no relief. "Even so," says he, "faith if it have not works is dead." Paul speaks of a genuine faith which works by love and purifies the heart; James of a barren and dead faith. "Though a man say he hath faith and hath not works can faith save him?" That is, can this empty profession of faith—this barren faith— save him? So through the whole passage he is evidently speaking of a mere empty profession of faith, or a mere historical faith, such as devils have. And some suppose that this is sufficient to remove the whole difficulty. They allege, that James evidently means a true faith distinguished by the works which it produces; and that all that he, aimed to establish was, that justification could not be obtained by a dead faith, but by a living operative, faith which could only be manifested to others by works. Hut if we suppose, that ho uses the word justify in a sense different from that of Paul, the difficulty will be still further relieved. Paul was speaking of a sinner's first acceptance with God by faith in Christ, James of cases in which a good man proves himself to be such by performing eminent works of righteousness, by which it became, manifest that his faith was genuine, for while nominal professors said they had faith, which they could not show, as having no works to evidence it, he justified himself, by showing his faith by his works, as Abraham did, when lie performed that extraordinary act of obedience of offering up his own son; and Hah ah, in concealing and sending away the spies at the peril of her own life. Abraham's first justification took place long before this memorable event; but by this he manifested to all men, the sincerity and vigor of his faith. "Seest thou," says James, "how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect." Faith was operative in producing good works, and these works served to evince the sincerity of his faith, showing most clearly, that his faith was of the right kind. What the apostle, James inculcates so earnestly is, that that faith which was imputed to Abraham for righteousness, was not a dead faith, such as these false professors boasted of, but was a faith productive of good works; and in this sense he was said to be justified by works.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion we will sum up the leading particulars; and add a few thoughts, not sufficiently brought forward in the body of the essay.

1. Justification is an act of God. "It is God that justifieth."

2. Justification is a forensic term, that is, borrowed from the proceedings of courts of justice among' men. It is the opposite of condemnation; and is not a work wrought within a man, but an act by which lie is acquitted from every charge, and declared to be righteous in the eye of the law.

3. Justification by the law is impossible to a sinner; for the law cannot justify a man whom it condemns as a sinner. But "by (be law is the knowledge of sin."

4. Justification without respect to some law, and some righteousness rendered to the law, is inconceivable.

5. His righteousness can be the ground of a sinner's justification, but one which is perfect; therefore faith cannot be our justifying righteousness; neither can our evangelical obedience and good works. When faith is said to be imputed for righteousness, we should understand the object of faith, namely Christ's righteousness. This is called (he righteousness of faith, because faith apprehends and receives it.

6. The righteousness of Christ consists of his perfect obedience to the law, and his atoning sacrifice; both of which are requisite to be set down to the sinner's account, before he can be justified.

7. Justification does not consist merely in the pardon of sin, but includes adoption, and the acceptance of our persons as righteous.

8. The righteousness of Christ by which we are justified does not become ours by transfusion, or by the transfer of his holy acts to our souls, but is the reckoning this to us, or granting it to us, and treating us accordingly.

9. Justification is complete in the first moment of believing It may be rendered more evident to ourselves and others by holy living, but our obedience adds nothing to the perfection of our justification.

10. Justification includes a full pardon for all our past sins, and an ample provision for the pardon of all which the believer may afterwards commit. Just as if a man owes a debt to a merchant, and some rich man deposits a sum and has it set down to his account, which is not only sufficient to cancel his debt already contracted, but also to be a setoff against debts which he may afterwards contract.

11. Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, through faith, is in consequence of the soul's union to Christ. What he has done and suffered for his people becomes actually and legally theirs, in virtue of their being one with him

12. Faith, justifies because it receives Christ and his righteousness; but a dead faith will justify no one. Our faith and profession must be justified by our works, as Abraham justified his faith and piety by offering up his son at the

command of God.

13. Justifying faith is the result of divine illumination. It is the gift of God, and the work of the Holy Spirit, and shows its genuineness by the works which follow it.

14. A justified stale is never lost. When a man is justified he is confirmed in a state of grace, and will never fall into condemnation; but the justified person continues to be in a justified state because his union to Christ is indissoluble. "They are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation."

15. Justified persons have the privilege of enjoying peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

16. When the Apostle James says, that a man is not justified by faith alone, he means a faith without works—an empty profession of faith—." a dead faith." When he says, that Abraham was justified by works, he means by a faith producing good works, and not by an unfruitful faith; or by justification he means the clear manifestation of his true character; showing his faith by his works.

17. Though all believers are equally justified, it is not a necessary consequence, that they will all enjoy an equal reward. While all have a title to the heavenly inheritance; those who shall appear at the day of judgment to have most good works will have bestowed upon them a greater reward; for they shall be rewarded according to their works.

18. Justification and sanctification though perfectly distinct, the one being a change of our legal relations and responsibilities; the other of our inherent character; yet are they never separated. The person who is justified, always has a commencement of the work of sanctification; and faith is a necessary instrument of both. A justifying faith is always a sanctifying faith.

19, Believers may go forward with confidence to judgment, because their sins are forgiven, and the robe of Christ's righteousness will cover all their shame, and render them glorious in the eyes of the whole universe and acceptable to the Judge.

20. Their poor works also will be mentioned to their honour; and will receive a reward surpassing all their hopes, and even all their conceptions. This will be a reward of pure grace. A reward which God bestows on them because of their union with Christ. As he is a King and .Priest, so shall they be made "kings and priests unto God." As he has overcome, so also shall they: and as he has sat down with his Father on his throne, so shall they sit down with him on his throne. But all words, all ideas of mortals, are perfectly inadequate to this subject. "Behold what manner of love (he Father hath bestowed upon us that we should be called (he sons of God. Beloved, now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but when he doth appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as lie is. And every man that hath this hope in him, purifies Himself even as he is pure."

THE END

Justification Before God

by Willliam Bates

No doctrine is more important than that of justification before God. This has long been the judgment of the Christian world. Luther says: "The article of justification being lost, all Christian doctrine perishes with it." He elsewhere calls justification "the article of a standing or falling church." Melancthon says: "We are brought into danger for the only reason—that we deny the Romish doctrine of justification." Calvin says: "If this one head were yielded safe and entire, it would not pay the cost to make any great quarrel about other matters in controversy with Rome." Hooker says: "The grand question, that hangs in controversy between us and Rome is about the matter of justifying righteousness." John Newman says: "A sinner's justification before God is a doctrine of great importance in the Christian religion." Usher says: "The strong bastion of our Reformed Church is justification by faith; erected upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. That gone, the temple is taken, the ark is in captivity; from the daughter of Zion all her beauty is departed." Hall says: "That point of justification, of all others, is exceeding important." John Newton says: "The great privilege of the elect, comprehensive of every blessing, is, that they are justified, finally and authoritatively justified.' Dr. Thomas Scott says: "'How should man be just with God?' All our eternal interests depend on the answer, which, in our creed and experience, we return to this question: for if God has, for the glory of his own name, law, and government, appointed a method of justifying sinners, and revealed it in the gospel; and they in the pride of their hearts, refuse to seek the blessing in this way, but will come for it according to their own devices; he may justly, and will certainly, leave them under merited condemnation."

The elder Edwards presents the following considerations in proof of the importance of the doctrine of justification by faith alone:

1. "The Scripture treats of this doctrine as a doctrine of very great importance."

2. "The adverse scheme lays another foundation of man's salvation, than which God has laid."

3. "It is in this doctrine that the most essential difference lies between the covenant of grace and the first covenant."

4. "This is the main thing for which fallen men stood in need of a divine revelation, to teach us how we who have sinned may come to be again accepted of God."

5. "The contrary scheme of justification derogates much from the honor of God and the Mediator."

6. "The opposite scheme does most directly tend to lead men to trust in their own righteousness for justification, which is a thing fatal to the soul."

One tells us that the Popish fathers and divines of the Council of Trent admitted that all the alleged errors of Luther could be traced to his views on justification, and that the only way to maintain the other dogmas of Rome was "to overthrow the heresy of justification by faith only." Socinus calls this doctrine base and pernicious, and says it is to be execrated and detested. Swedenborg and his followers direct their strongest efforts against this doctrine. The same is true of nearly all modern heretics. So that by the confession of the friends and the enemies of the true doctrine, the views men entertain on this subject are vastly important and control their belief on other points. Indeed Paul's epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians, written chiefly to teach and establish the truth on this subject, stand imperishable monuments of the judgment of that great and inspired man as to the weighty matter of justification before God. It could not be otherwise.

We rise or fall, we live or die, we are saved or lost, according as we are justified, or not. On such a subject we should conduct our inquiries with great sincerity and fair-mindedness, and adopt conclusions after much prayer, and in the fear of God. He, who heartily loves and adopts the truth here, may indeed be left to some other errors, which will mar the symmetry of his Christian character, impair his usefulness, and diminish his final reward—yet he shall not be cast off at last. But he, who at heart rejects the true ground of justification must finally, utterly, inevitably perish. So teaches Paul: "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames." 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.

This settles the question. Justification is the opposite of condemnation. Whatever one is, the other is not. In Scripture they are often set over against each other. "By your words you shall be justified, and by your words, you shall be condemned." Matt. 12:37. "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just—both are abomination to the Lord." Proverbs 17:15. "If there is a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked." Deut. 25:1. "If I justify myself, my own mouth shall condemn me." Job 9:20. "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 to justification of life." Romans 5:18.

These texts not only show that condemnation and justification are opposite to each other, but that these two words are borrowed from judicial proceedings, and so are properly said to be forensic. Justifying is declaring or pronouncing one righteous; as condemning is pronouncing or declaring one guilty. Often in Scripture these terms are said to belong to judicature, as in Psalm 37:33, "The Lord will not condemn him when he is judged;" Matt. 12:42, "The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it;" Psalm 119:7, "When he shall be judged, let him be condemned." "That you might be justified, when you speak, and be clear, when you judge." Yet, while the term is borrowed from the forum, it is not used precisely in the same sense in theology as when we apply it to judicial proceedings among men. At a human tribunal a man is said to be justified, when no crime has been proven against him, but his conduct has met with the approval of those by whom he was judged.

But when a man is said to be justified before God, the meaning is that a sinner has been pardoned and accepted in the Beloved. Had man never sinned, he would have been justified as one who had broken no law, and would have needed no pardon. But being a law-breaker, any trial in the sight of God will show him culpable, and in himself undone. If a sinner is justified, it must be by an act of grace. The Westminster Assembly thus taught: "Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardons all their sin, accepts and accounts their persons righteous, in his sight; not for anything wrought in them or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone." You will hardly find a better definition than this in uninspired writings. It is true, complete, guarded, comprehensive. Let us consider it somewhat in detail.

First, justification is an ACT.

It is not a work, or series of acts. It is not progressive. The weakest believer and the strongest saint are alike and equally justified. Justification admits of no degrees. A man is either wholly justified or wholly condemned in the sight of God. "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus." "Who shall lay ANYTHING to the charge of God's elect?" Romans 8:1, 33. And when a soul is condemned it is wholly condemned. "Whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is GUILTY OF ALL." James 2:10. "The soul that sins, IT SHALL DIE." Ezek. 18:4. When it is said in Luke 18:14, that the publican went down to his house justified rather than the pharisee, it does not mean that the pharisee was somewhat justified and the publican more justified. The sense is that the former was justified in preference to the other, to the exclusion of the other. The publican was perfectly justified, the pharisee was not at all justified. There is a moment, when a man is under the curse, and a moment when he comes to be under grace.

Secondly, justification is an act of GOD.

He alone is its author. He is called "the Justifier." "It is God who justifies." "It is one God who shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith." Romans 3:26, 30, and 8:33. We should not forget this great truth. We may justify ourselves, our neighbors may call us the excellent of the earth, pretended priests of God may blasphemously pronounce us absolved from all sin, but all this will avail us nothing; "for the Lord sees not as man sees; for man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart." 1 Sam. 16:17. Christ said to some, "You are those who justify yourselves before men; but God knows your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15.

Moreover it is one of the highest prerogatives of sovereignty to condemn and to justify. As it is God's government which we live under, as it is his law which we have broken, as it is his Son who died, as it is his tribunal, before which we must all appear; so it is right that he and not another should pass sentence upon us. The governor of one state, or the king of one country cannot punish or pardon an offence committed in the territorial limits of another. It is beyond his jurisdiction. In the moral government of the universe, God's authority is sole, supreme, exclusive. He alone is the Lawgiver, he alone is the Judge. No one has jurisdiction but himself, None can really or effectually justify or condemn but he.

Thirdly, justification is more than is of right due to any man.

Every man is a sinner, and whatever good thing comes to him must be of God's mere bounty. It is a gratuity, not a debt. So justification is "an act of God's FREE GRACE UNTO SINNERS." Considered in regard to holy angels, justification would have another signification. They have no sins to pardon. Their innocence is their shield. In the eye of the divine law they stand on the ground of perfect, personal, perpetual obedience. But the question is not, How are holy angels justified? but, How shall man be just with God? Had man never sinned he would have stood justified in the same way as his elder brethren in glory. Indeed the natural method of justification for all accountable creatures is by personal righteousness, but since man became a sinner, this door is shut up, and cherubim and a flaming sword forbid his entrance into life by that method. The Scripture does not deny that angels stand before God by their works. But it does say: "By the deeds of the law there shall no FLESH be justified in his sight;" "a MAN is not justified by the works of the law;" "by the works of the law shall no FLESH be justified." Romans 3:20, and Gal. 2:16. Paul expressly teaches that God "justifies the ungodly." Romans 4:5.

To say that the power of sight in the blind, whose eyes Christ opened, was the cause of the miracle by which they obtained vision, is absurd. Their ability to see came only from the love and power of the Son of God. To say that a sound condition of the body was the cause of the expulsion of the fever from the veins of Peter's wife's mother, is to speak foolishness. That disease was removed by Christ alone. Health did not precede; it followed the act of Christ. So God looks on sinners as ungodly, and in their ruin he pities them, and graciously pardons and accepts them. This doctrine must be insisted on at all times and at all hazards for three reasons.

First, it is the only doctrine which can properly be called Gospel, good news to sinners.

Secondly, God's honor is more completely staked on the maintenance, propagation and reception of this than of any other doctrine of revealed religion.

Thirdly, this is the only doctrine which produces genuine holiness of heart and life.

Three points of the definition of justification quoted have been considered. Four others, namely—the pardon of sin, the acceptance of the sinner in Christ, the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and the office of faith in justification, remain to be considered. Each of these is vastly important, and shall be distinctly treated. In the mean time let everyone exalt the loving-kindness of him, who allows us to hope for full justification by the blood and righteousness of the great Redeemer. If ever glad tidings of great joy reached the ears of mortals, here it is: "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Justification. The Pardon of Sin by Christ's Blood.

To holy angels innocence is a sweet word. But to humble, penitent sinners, forgiveness is music and life. In itself the former is better than the latter, as uninterrupted health is better than recovery from sickness; and unbroken friendship better than quarrels followed by reconciliations. Yet such is the wisdom of God in man's salvation that forgiveness has a sweetness and will be followed by glories, which never belonged to innocence. By the incarnation of Christ, human nature is married to the divine, and is thus exalted to a seat on the throne of the universe. And as Christ has shown by three parables that it is common to men to rejoice more over one thing lost and recovered, than over ninety-nine things never lost—so we may forever rejoice unspeakably more over a lost paradise regained, than we would have done over a paradise never lost. Surely the sweetest songs ever warbled, the most thrilling anthems ever sung, the loudest Alleluias ever thundered—relate to redemption and forgiveness, to salvation and the Lamb—the Lamb, the loving Lamb, The Lamb who died on Calvary. Should such, however, be the result, it will not be because sin is not in its own nature ineffably mischievous and malignant; but solely because Jehovah is infinite in skill and love, bringing light out of darkness; joy out of sorrow; good out of evil. Marvelous is his loving-kindness. Plenteous is he in mercy. God alone is great.

Many words in Scripture point towards forgiveness, such as—grace, mercy, peace with God, not imputing iniquity, taking away sin, bearing sin, making an end of transgression, covering sin, forgetting sin, not remembering iniquity, washing, cleansing and removing sin, casting it into the sea, or behind the back, scattering it like a cloud, burying it, blotting it out, pardoning it. When the scape-goat bore away the sins laid upon him to an uninhabited land, he only did in a figure and type, what Jesus does in fulfillment of this and many other types. In the Old Testament the word often rendered atonement is literally "covering," or covering up. As we bury our dead out of our sight, so God buries the sins of believers out of his sight. In old times accounts were often kept on tables of wax, and when a debt was paid or forgiven, the account was blotted out by rubbing a smooth surface over it. So God cancels our debts, blots out the handwriting that was against us, not because we have paid what we owed or any part of it, but because he pities us and is rich in mercy towards us. When a master does not wish to notice the errors of a servant, he turns his head another way. So God hides his face from our sins, and refuses to "behold iniquity in Jacob," or to "see perverseness in Israel." Num. 23:21.

Yes God hides our sins themselves, not from his omniscience, for that is impossible, but from his punitive justice. "In those days, and in that time, says the Lord, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I reserve." Jer. 1:20. As a man ceases to brood over an offence, which he has forgiven, and does not wish to cherish a remembrance of it, so says God: "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." Heb. 10:17. And as a thing which might do a child harm, is put far from it, so God's people sing: "As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us." Psalm 103:12. The Scripture fully informs us that our hope of pardon is in God alone. "To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him." Dan. 9:9. It no less distinctly lets us know that in pardoning us, God is self-moved to so gracious an act: "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and will not remember your sins." Isaiah 43:25.

The forgiveness of sins is free. It is "without money and without price." We can do nothing to merit it, or prepare ourselves for it. To deserve forgiveness is a solecism in language, an absurdity in law, a heresy in doctrine, and an impossibility in practice. When God pardons, he pardons all sins, original sin and actual sin, sins of omission and of commission, secret and open sins, sins of thought, word and deed. One unpardoned sin would destroy a soul forever. A single transgression can rouse an enlightened conscience to the wildest fury. And "every sin deserves the wrath and curse of God both in this life, and in that which is to come." Yet to those who believe in Jesus, all is freely forgiven. Full pardon, or none at all, is what God designs to give. This suits human necessities.

Nor is this gift ever revoked by God. When he forgives, he forgives forever. He, who is once pardoned, never again comes under the curse of the law. Upon new provocations, men sometimes revive old controversies. Not so God. Sin once pardoned by him is done with forever. He has cast it behind his back and will not return to search for it. Forgiveness of sins that are past is a sure pledge that future sins shall not have a condemning power. God forgives no sin until it is committed, but he executes his unchanging purposes of love to his people and judicially forgives their sins as soon as committed. 2 Sam. 12:13. This does not screen them from fatherly chastisement for their good and his glory; but they never come into penal condemnation.

At no time are believers under the law as a covenant of works, but they are always under grace. Christ is set upon the hill of Zion to grant repentance and remission of sins. The moving cause of forgiveness is his boundless love; but the procuring cause is his own most precious blood. "Without shedding of blood is no remission." "By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." "The blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, shall purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God." We have "boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he has consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh." Heb. 9:12, 14, 22, and 10:19, 20. "As for you also, by the blood of your covenant I have sent forth your prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water." Zech. 9:11. "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt. 26:28. "Being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Romans 5:9. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." "In Christ Jesus, you, who sometime were far off, are made near by the. blood of Christ." Eph. 1:7, and 2:13. He has "made peace through the blood of his cross." Col. 1:20. "The blood of Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin." 1 John 1:7.

So that nothing but extreme ignorance or extraordinary wickedness can induce a poor sinner to venture near to God except through the blood of Christ. By his stripes we are healed. By his chastisement is our peace. By his sorrows come our joys. By his death is our life. As our Surety, he pays all our debt. As the lamb of God he takes away the sins of the world. By his expiation we go free. No man is truly blessed until he has this blessing—the pardon of sin. It is the pledge and forerunner of all others. It is a fountain of life. It takes away the sting of death. Augustine says: "All my hope is in the death of my Lord. His death is my merit, my refuge, my salvation, my life and my resurrection. The mercy of the Lord is my merit; I am not without merit, so long as the Lord of mercies is not lacking. And if the mercies of the Lord be many, I abound in merits." Again, "the certainty of our whole confidence consists in the blood of Christ." The blood of sprinkling speaks better things than the blood of Abel. That called for vengeance, this for peace.

How highly the people of God prize this blessing of forgiveness may be learned from their history in all ages: "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, and whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes not iniquity." Psalm 32:1, 2. In enumerating the benefits he had received, David puts this first. "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: who forgives all your iniquities." Psalm 103:2, 3. So the Church of God has always held. The Confession of France says: "We affirm, that Jesus Christ is our perfect and entire washing; in whose death we obtain full satisfaction; whereby we are delivered from all those sins, whereof we are guilty, and from which we could not be acquitted by any other remedy." That of England says: "Our only support and refuge is to fly to the mercy of our Father by Jesus Christ, and assuredly to persuade our minds, that he is the obtainer of forgiveness for our sins; and that, by his blood, all our spots of sin be washed clean; that he has pacified, and set at one, all things by the blood of his cross." That of Scotland: "We confess and avow, that there remains no other sacrifice for sin." That of Belgia: "We account all things as dung, in respect of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord, finding, in his wounds and stripes, all manner of comfort that can be desired. Therefore, there is no need, that either we should wish for any other means, or devise any of our own brains, whereby we might be reconciled unto God, besides this one oblation once offered, by which all the faithful, who are sanctified, are consecrated, or perfected forever." That of Augsburg teaches that Christ, "who was born of the virgin Mary, did truly suffer, was crucified, dead and buried, that he might reconcile his Father unto us, and might be a sacrifice, not only for the original sin, but also for all actual sins, of men."

It is worthy of special notice that the nearness of death makes the pardon of sin and the blood of Christ very precious to the souls of godly men. Dr. Cornelius on his death-bed said: "The impression has been on my mind for these last three days, that this is my final sickness; and I bless God that I can look forward to the change before me with composure and hope. I feel that I am a poor sinner; I need to be washed from head to foot in the blood of atonement. I hope to be saved through the blood of Christ. Within the last year and especially of late, the Lord Jesus Christ has been becoming more and more precious to my soul. I feel that I can commit my immortal all to him—and here I wish to bear my dying testimony that I go to the judgment, relying on nothing but the blood of Christ. Without that I should have no hope."

JUSTIFICATION. ACCEPTANCE IN CHRIST

It is an error of some that they make our entire justification to consist in the pardon of sin. It is not here denied that by a well-known figure of speech, that remission, pardon and forgiveness, are each sometimes put for the whole of justification; just as fear, love and faith are each put for the whole of religion; and just as the cross of Christ is spoken of to signify the whole system of truths essentially connected with the cross. But precious as is the gift of pardon, and certainly as it is accompanied by acceptance in the Beloved--yet it is not itself such acceptance. Our case demands more than mere remission. Bare pardon would save us from hell. It could give us no title to heaven. It would bar the gates of death--but it would not open the gates of life. It breaks off our chains and opens our prison doors, but it does not beauteously array us, and send us forth in the garments of salvation. It destroys the fear and takes away the pains of hell, but gives not the hope of glory, nor secures the rewards of grace. Pardon turns the rebel loose, but it does not authorize him to sit at the table of the king. It secures to us remission; we need admission to the divine favor. Pardon brings us out of Egypt. Acceptance brings us into Canaan. Pardon causes us to cease to be heirs of hell. Acceptance makes us heirs of heaven.

It is also freely granted that forgiveness and acceptance, remission and a title to eternal glory--are never separated, though they are distinct and different; just as faith, hope and love are never separated, yet no man will contend that they are the same Christian virtues. As many as God pardons, he accepts in Christ, regenerates, sanctifies and glorifies. A separate link of this blessed chain is never found, yet each link is distinct. As this distinction is highly important, and the opposition to it sometimes violent and scornful, it may be well to give the views of those, whose names are of weight with nearly all good men. It is strange that such hatred of the precious truth of God should ever be indulged, but the friends of sound doctrine cannot abandon the defense of that, which is so precious. It is their life.

Calvin says: "We simply explain justification to be an acceptances by which God receives us into his favor, and esteems us as righteous people; and we say it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ." Owen says: "Had we not been sinners, we would 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."

How precious such doctrine is, how faith lays hold of it as with both hands! Hopkins says: "It is not therefore, O my soul, a mere negative mercy that God gives you in the pardon of your sins: it is not merely the removing of the curse and wrath, which your sins have deserved, though that alone can never be sufficiently admired. But the same hand which plucks you out of hell by pardoning grace and mercy, lifts you up to heaven by what it gives you together with your pardon, even a right and title to the glorious inheritance of saints above."

The bitterness, with which the present defenders of orthodox views in this matter are assailed, must justify the making of an extract from Thomas Scott: "The justification of a sinner must imply something distinct from a total and final remission of the deserved punishment; namely a renewed title to the reward of righteousness, as complete and effective as he would have had if he had never sinned, but had perfectly performed, during the term of his probation, all the demands of the divine law. The remission of sins would indeed place him in such a state, that no charge would lie against him; but then he would have no title to the reward of righteousness, until he had obtained it by performing, for the appointed time, the whole obedience required of him; for he would merely be re-admitted to a state of probation, and his justification or condemnation could not be decided until that were terminated. But the justification of the pardoned sinner gives him a present title to the reward of righteousness, independent of his future conduct, as well as without respect to his past actions. This is evidently the scriptural idea of justification: it is uniformly represented as immediate and complete, when the sinner believes in the Lord Jesus Christ; and not as a contingent advantage to be waited for until death or judgment: and the arguments, which some learned men have adduced, to prove that justification means nothing else than forgiveness of sins, only show that the two distinct blessings are never separately conferred. David, for instance, says, 'Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes not iniquity;' and Paul observes that in that passage, 'David describes the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputes righteousness without works.' This does not prove, that 'not imputing sin,' and 'imputing righteousness' are synonymous terms: but merely, that where God does not impute sin, he does impute righteousness' and that he confers the title to eternal life, on all those whom he rescues from eternal death. Indeed exemption from eternal punishment, and a right to an actual and vast reward, are such distinct things, that one cannot but wonder they should be so generally confounded as they are in theological discussions."

These extracts have been purposely given at length, because they fairly and cogently argue the question, because these writers are remarkable for sound and clear discrimination, because they were eminently earnest and deeply experienced Christians, because above most they were Bible theologians, and because they justly have great weight with good and sober people in settling the opinions of the wavering. It would be easy to swell the testimonies to this precious truth to a great number. Take the following as the only additional witness now offered. The Confession of Helvetia says: "To justify, in the apostle's disputation concerning justification, does signify to remit sins, to absolve from the fault and punishment thereof, to receive into favor, to pronounce a man just."

Still our dependence is on God's precious word for all our doctrinal principles. There we find the remission and the reward both stated. Jesus Christ says, "Verily I say unto you, he who hears my word, and believes on him who sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but has passed from death unto life." John 5:24. Here life and death, everlasting life and condemnation are opposite, and justification by faith is described, not merely as escape from death and condemnation, but as a passage already made from death unto life. In Acts 13:38, 39 are these words also: "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 who believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses." So Christ sent Paul to preach to the gentiles, "that they might receive forgiveness of sins, AND inheritance among those who are sanctified." Acts 26:18. Here both the blessings are distinctly stated as flowing from Christ. So in Romans 5:1-2, "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." Surely, the second verse here is not mere tautology. By the pardon of sin "there is no condemnation" to the believer; by his acceptance in the Beloved, "he is made an heir according to the hope of eternal life." Romans 8:1; Titus 3:7.

If the distinction has not been made clear, and also well established, perhaps it is hardly necessary to spend more time upon it. Its importance may be seen by asking--what is the true state of believers? Are they merely a company of pardoned wretches? or are they a glorious family of adopted children? Are they merely turned out of prison to wander at large? or are they through Christ entitled to eternal glory? Do they stand before God's tribunal as a reprieved felon stands before his king? or have they "a right to the tree of life?" But we are already trenching upon the subject of the next chapter, namely, the imputed righteousness of Christ. May this and that be a blessing to many a child of God. O that God's people knew their privileges and rejoiced in them continually. And "while we carry a sense of grace in our conscience to comfort us--let us carry a sense of sin in our memory to humble us."

Justification. Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers

As our works are the works of sinners—we must either stand before God, covered with the filthy rags of our own righteousness, or we must obtain some better righteousness than we are capable of working out for ourselves. We must either be justified by God without any cause, and this would be both connivance at sin—and approbation of it, to assert which of God would be blasphemy; or by works in their nature imperfect and sinful, as all ours confessedly are—and that would be an admission that the law had once demanded too much; or by the all-perfect work and infinite merit of Jesus Christ. This last is God's published plan.

Christ is "the Lord our righteousness." The end of his life on earth was that he might be the end of the law for righteousness to every one who believes. His righteousness is not imparted, but imputed to us. It does not cure our corruption, but it covers our nakedness. It is not infused into us, but it is reckoned to us. It is not inherent in us, but it is set down to our account. We do not imbibe it, but we are invested with it. We are not imbued, but endued with it. It does not give us a fitness for heaven, but a title to it. It is not Christ's work in us, but his work and sufferings for us—which give us an indefeasible title to the privileges of sons of God.

To enter the kingdom of God without a right would make us stand before him as presumptuous intruders, called by Christ "thieves and robbers, who had climbed up some other way." To enter it with a title less perfect than the law requires would be exalting mercy at the expense of justice, and relaxing all the bonds of God's moral government. To enter it with a title based upon our own merits would be a public and bold denial of our guilt and ruin. But here is Jehovah's way. "The grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded unto many." "Those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." "By the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." "By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." "Our righteousness," says Calvin, "is not in ourselves but in Christ."

"As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." What is placing our righteousness in the obedience of Christ, but asserting that we are accounted righteous only because his obedience is accepted for us as if it were our own?" Such Scriptures and such reasonings settle to the satisfaction of the great mass of God's people, the truth of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to his people.

The righteousness by which a sinner stands accepted is called the righteousness of God, because it is in opposition to the righteousness of men, because God provided and approves it and none other, and because he puts great honor upon it. It is called the righteousness of Christ, because our Lord Jesus being made under the law, was obedient to all its precepts, and suffered its dreadful penalty for us, and so he himself brought in everlasting righteousness for us. It is called the righteousness of faith, because it is apprehended and appropriated by faith. It is not a righteousness secured by working, but by believing. "We are justified by faith." This righteousness is at least once called the righteousness of the law, because in its absolute perfection it is all that the moral law, spotless and eternal, demands for the justification of a sinner in the sight of God.

It may well excite amazement that the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness should be so violently opposed as it sometimes is. Owen says: "In our day nothing in religion is more maligned, more reproached, more despised, than the imputation of righteousness unto us, or our imputed righteousness." Thomas Scott says, "the proud heart of man is prone to deny, or object to it, even with blasphemous enmity." And Archibald Alexander says: "No part of evangelical doctrine has met with a more determined opposition than the doctrine of imputation. It has been loaded with reproaches, as a doctrine the most unreasonable, the most dangerous, and the most impious. It is a remarkable circumstance, however, that all the objections, which have been made to it, are founded on a misapprehension or a misrepresentation of the true nature of imputation."

It is said that a divine of our own country has been so far left to himself as to say publicly that "imputed righteousness is imputed nonsense." The motives of those, who revile this doctrine, will be judged by Him, who cannot err. No human tribunal is competent to pronounce upon them. But the pretended arguments brought against the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's merits to his people, as they have often been, so they should again and again be fully and fairly answered. He who defends, and he who assails, this doctrine are busied at a vital point of Christianity. Some have really held and taught the substance of this doctrine, and yet rejected the term, imputation. If any ask, why we should insist on the use of the term and not yield it to such people and others, the answer is ready.

First, we have the example of inspired men on our side. Psalm 32:2, and 2 Cor. 5:9; Romans 4:6, 11, 23-25. If David and Paul use the word, why may not we also? If any man should propose to banish the word redemption from our theological vocabulary, what friend of truth would consent to it? Imputed righteousness is and ought to be just as dear to millions of God's people as redemption.

Secondly, we could not get on well without this term. It conveys the very idea we wish to present in the pulpit and in our writings. If a man gives due notice that henceforth he will always call a hat a spade, it cannot fairly be said that he deceives any one by such a misnomer, but surely he will give trouble both to himself and his friends. Nor will he gain any good, unless he esteems the reputation of singularity such. And he may mislead some one.

Thirdly, good theological terms are not easily obtained and agreed upon; and when they are settled they become out-posts to important truths, and should not be surrendered. The man, who asks that the people of the United States shall no more use the phrases, republican government, union, federative system, rights of the States—would be very confusing. It is an old art of enemies to assault, and of traitors to surrender the out-posts.

Fourthly, this phrase has long been in use, is incorporated into many symbols of faith, into many manuals of Christian doctrine, and into nearly all bodies of divinity, and so ought not to be given up. Those who have objected to it have suggested no better, indeed none so good. The Swiss Reformers in the Confession of Helvetia say: "God imputes the righteousness of Christ unto us for our own: so that now we are not only cleansed from our sin, and purged, and holy, but also endued with the righteousness of Christ. To speak properly, then; it is God alone who justifies us, and that only for Christ, by not imputing unto us our sin, but imputing Christ's righteousness unto us." Romans 4:23-25. The Augsburg Confession says: "When therefore we say, that 'we are justified by faith,' Romans 5:1, this is our meaning: that we do obtain remission of sins, and imputation of righteousness, by mercy showed us for Christ's sake." The confession of France says: "Casting away all opinion of virtues and merits, we do altogether rest in the only obedience of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to us, both that all our sins may be covered, and that we may obtain grace before God." The Confession of Saxony says: "Christ himself is our righteousness, because that by his merit we have remission, and God does impute his righteousness to us, and for him does account us just." The Confession of Belgia says: "Christ himself is our righteousness, which imputes all his merits unto us; faith is but the instrument, whereby we are coupled unto him." The Church of England says: "We are accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by faith; and not for our own works or deservings, therefore, that we are justified by faith alone—is a most wholesome doctrine and full of comfort." The Church of Ireland says: "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, applied by faith. And this righteousness, which we receive of God's mercy, and Christ's merits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted, and allowed of God, for our perfect and full justification." The Confession of Wirtemburg says, that "man is made acceptable to God and accounted just before him for the only Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, through faith; and when we appear before the judgment-seat of God, we must not trust to the merit of any of those virtues which we have, but only to the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose merit is ours by faith." The Confession of Sueveland says: "This whole justification is to be ascribed to the good pleasure of God, and to the merit of Christ, and to be received by faith alone." John 1:12, 13, Eph. 2:8-10.

The Savoy, the Cambridge and the Boston Congregational Confessions, and the London and Philadelphia Baptist Confessions hold forth these very words: "Those, whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them—but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness, but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death, for their whole." It is well known that all branches of the Presbyterian Church in North America and in Great Britain and her colonies, with the exception of a few Arians in Ireland and a few Unitarians in England, who for some reason wear the Presbyterian name, use almost verbatim the same formula on this subject.

The Heidelberg Catechism thus speaks:

"56. What do you believe concerning the forgiveness of sins? "That God, for the sake of Christ's satisfaction, will no more remember my sins, neither my corrupt nature, against which I have to struggle all my life long, but will graciously impute to me the righteousness of Christ, that I may never be condemned before the tribunal of God.

"59. But what does it profit you that you believe all this? "That I am righteous in Christ, before God, and an heir of eternal life.

"60. How are you righteous before God? "Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuses me that I have grossly transgressed all the commands of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin; yes, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.

"61. Why are you are righteous by faith alone? "Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but only because the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God, and that I cannot receive and apply the same to myself any other way than by faith only."

The Welch Calvinistic Methodists' Confession says: "Justification is an act of the grace of God, judging and proclaiming man to be righteous, through imputing to him the righteousness of Christ, which is received by the sinner through faith." "Justification includes in itself a forgiveness to the transgressor of all his iniquities, so that he shall not die on their account; an exaltation of the person to the favor of God; and a bestowing on him a lawful right to enjoy never-ending happiness."

We are made the righteousness of God in Christ, in the same sense in which he was made sin for us. As his receiving the curse for us did not defile his soul, or make him personally ill-deserving; so our receiving the blessing does not make us pure or personally meritorious. We are made righteous in Christ in the same way, in which we are made sinners in Adam. In neither case is there an identity of person. In neither case do the personal acts or qualities of these our representatives become our acts or qualities. In both cases are we counted, reckoned, regarded, held and treated in law—as if they were ours. As Christ did none of the acts which were imputed to him for expiation, so we have done none of the acts, which are imputed to us for justification.

Men sometimes say—How can we be justified by a righteousness not our own? It is freely admitted that our justifying righteousness is not inherently ours. Nor is it in any sense so ours that we can proudly boast of it, and so deny that in ourselves we are perishing sinners. Nor is our justifying righteousness ours by any hereditary right, nor until God imputes it to us, and we receive it by faith. But if the objectors mean that when we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and God imputes his righteousness to us, it does not become ours in the eye of the law, then they do contradict God's word and the sense of God's people in all ages. How is he "Jehovah our righteousness," (Jer. 23:6,) if his merits in no sense become ours? If these objectors are right, what sense is there in such passages of Scripture as those already quoted from the fifth chapter of Romans? or what is the meaning of these words: "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes?" Romans 10:4; or of this, "Christ is of God made unto us righteousness?" 1 Cor. 1:30; or of this, "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. 5:21. See also Romans 4:5, 6, and Gal. 3:6, 9, 22.

Augustine says: "There is a righteousness of God, which is made ours, when it is given unto us. It is called the righteousness of God, lest man should think that he had a righteousness of himself." Cowper says: "The righteousness of Christ is ours, and ours by as great a right, as any other thing which we possess; to wit, by the free gift of God; for it has pleased him to give a garment to us, who are naked, and to give us, who had none of our own—a righteousness answerable to justice." A. Alexander says: "Whatever Christ has done or suffered for our salvation, in order that it may be available to us, must in some way become ours." Again: "When God imputes the righteousness of Christ to a sinner, he actually bestows it upon him for all the purposes of his complete justification."

The doctrine commonly held by the Church of God is, that what Christ has done and suffered for his people becomes actually and legally theirs, in the sight of God, in virtue of their union with him. So that we do not, we dare not teach that a man is justified by a righteousness in no sense his own. The great difference between saints and sinners in the matter of justification is, that the former are partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and the latter are not. This is our title to life and immortality. This is the believer's claim to the infinite merits of Christ.

The doctrine maintained is simply that God looks upon believers in Christ as one with the Savior, that Christ's righteousness is counted, reckoned to them for righteousness; or that as their surety he meets all the demands of the law on them as transgressors, and makes over to them his perfect obedience as ground of their acceptance with God.

It is sometimes said that the doctrine of imputed righteousness sets aside the fulfillment of the law. But this is surely a mistake. Paul says, that God sent his Son to the very end "that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us." And Dr. Gill well says that "though righteousness does not come by our obedience to the law, yet it does by Christ's obedience to it. Though by the deeds of the law as performed by man, no flesh shall be justified; yet by the deeds of the law as performed by Christ, all the elect are justified." So that now "if we confess our sins, God is faithful and JUST to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9. On any other scheme than that which is here contended for—what sense is there in the word, just, in the text last quoted?

If the import of the objection is that the doctrine is unfriendly to the promotion of holiness among men, the answers are ready. In Romans 6:1, 2, Paul meets this objection thus: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid; how shall we who are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" In that and the next chapter he says much more to the same effect. Besides, the whole gospel plan goes on the supposition that the strongest motive, which can incline man's heart to holiness, is love. Now "love is the fulfilling of the law." "We love him because he first loved us." "The love of Christ constrains us, because we thus judge—that if one died for all, then were all dead, and that he died for all, that those who live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him that died for them." And the facts are all on one side. It would be impossible to find in any age an eminently holy man, who did not openly declare that his hope was in God's mercy—not in his own doings; in the righteousness of Christ—not in his own deservings.

There was as much agreement among the Reformed churches, for more than two hundred years from the days of Luther and Calvin, in receiving this doctrine, as that of the divinity of Christ, or the personality of the Holy Spirit. Some say, if we are justified on the ground of the merits of Christ, where are the grace and mercy of the gospel? The answer is that God's rich grace and abundant mercy shine forth in the whole work of salvation from first to last. The whole devising, execution, application and crowning of redemption flow from God's boundless grace, and infinite, eternal, and unchangeable love. Grace is not connivance at sin. Mercy is not contempt of law. The grace of Christ vindicates the justice and government of God, while it brings salvation to the guilty. Hear the language of the Baptist and Congregational Confessions, which have been already quoted in this chapter: "Christ by his obedience and death did fully discharge the debt of all those who are justified, and did by the sacrifice of himself, in the blood of his cross, undergoing in their stead the penalty due unto them, make a proper, real and full satisfaction to God's justice in their behalf; yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners."

The Presbyterian Confession has nearly the same words. To the question, "if our justification be thus purchased by the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ, how is it of free grace?" Thomas Boston replies, "Very well; for 1. God accepted our surety, when he might have held by the sinner himself, and insisted that the soul that sinned might die. Romans 5:8. God did this freely.

2. God himself provided the Surety. John 3:16. The Father gives the Son, and the Son assumes man's nature and pays the debt. What is there here but riches of grace to the justified sinner?

3. God demands nothing of us in payment for it. It is a rich purchase, a dear purchase, the price of blood; but the righteousness and justification are given to us most freely through faith. That is, we have it, for 'take-and-have.' And the very hand, wherewith we receive it, namely faith, is the free gift of God unto us. Eph. 2:8. So that most evident it is that we are justified freely by his grace."

Calvin says: "It betrays ignorance to oppose the merit of Christ to the mercy of God. For it is a common maxim, that between two things, of which one follows or is subordinate to the other, there can be no opposition. There is no reason therefore why the justification of men should not be gratuitous from the mere mercy of God, and why at the same time the merit of Christ should not intervene, which is subservient to the mercy of God." Thus the doctrine has been explained, it has been proven from Scripture, it has been shown to be interwoven with our best formulas of doctrine, and objections to it have been answered. In the next chapter some additional testimonies in its favor will be given.

The Office of FAITH in Justification

The Scriptures abound with assertions that our justification is by faith. Thus Habakkuk says: "The just shall live by faith." Chapter 2:4. We are at no loss for the sense of this passage; for we have an inspired interpretation of it given by Paul. Indeed it seems to have been a very favorite text with him. He quotes it in Romans 1:17, Gal. 3:11, Heb. 10:38. But we may go further back than the days of Habakkuk, even to the time of Abraham. Of him we read: "Abram believed the Lord, and He credited it to him as righteousness." Gen. 15:6. This passage is no less celebrated than that already quoted. It is also divinely interpreted by the inspiration of God in Romans 4:1-6, Gal. 3:6-14.

Upon the first part of Romans 4 Beza well says: "From this single example of Abraham, as deservedly selected from among all the fathers, the apostle intended to draw a conclusion, which would necessarily take in all believers. And that he might do this fairly, he intimates at the very entrance of the question, that he did not propose Abraham as one of the number of believers, but as the father of the Church; that he might properly reason from the father to his children, the foundation of which he lays in the thirteenth verse. In whatever way Abraham, the father of believers was justified, in the same must all his children (that is all believers) be justified; but Abraham was not justified, and made the father of the faithful, by any of his own works, either preceding or following his faith in Christ, as promised to him; but merely by faith in Christ, or the merit of Christ by faith imputed to him for righteousness. Therefore all his children become his children and are justified, not by their works, either preceding or following their faith; but by faith alone in the same Christ, who was at length to come; and thus they are at present justified, and shall be to the end of the world," And so "those who are of faith, shall be blessed with faithful Abraham." Gal. 3:9.

Indeed the Scriptures are very explicit on this point: "A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ." Gal. 2:16. "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 5:1. "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Gal. 3:24. "You stand by faith." Romans 11:20. "God shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith." Romans 3:30. Many other texts are no less clear.

But what is the meaning of the expression "we are justified by faith?" How are we justified by faith? Why are we never said to be justified by other Christian graces? Humility is an excellent grace, much commended in Scripture, and puts us where we ought to be—in the dust. Meekness bears the outrageous wrongs heaped upon us, with pity and forgiveness, and so makes us like Christ, who was brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent—so he opened not his mouth. Hope is an anchor to the soul, both sure and steadfast, and being lively, animates the soul in all times of trial. Love with her broad mantle covers the faults of others, fills the world with the fame of her deeds, and never fails. Penitence sits at the feet of Jesus, and bathes them with its tears. The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life to depart from the snares of death.

Excellent as all these graces are, yet it is nowhere said in Scripture that a man is justified by the fear of God, by charity, by penitence, by hope, by meekness, or by humility. But he is often said to be justified by faith. God does not put this honor upon faith because it is greater than other graces, for it is not. 1 Cor. 13:13. Love is greater. So are all graces, which shall flourish forever. But the reason why faith justifies—is because it receives Christ. In the language of the Bible, to receive Christ is to believe on him. "To as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to as many as believed on his name." John 1:12. The hand of the beggar receives the loaf, which charity offers him, and so he is fed by his hand and not by another member of his body. To believe in Christ is in Scripture said to be "looking to him." Isaiah 45:22, Heb. 12:2. Now although he who looks, may have all his other senses, and in other respects they may be of eminent use to him, yet he sees only with his eyes.

Faith is the vision of the new-born soul. It looks back thousands of years. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were made." It looks forward also thousands of years "Abraham rejoiced to see my day and he saw it and was glad." And as the dying Israelite looked to the brazen serpent and was healed, so de perishing sinners look by faith to Jesus and are saved. They look and live. Faith is a reliance upon testimony; and saving faith has special regard to the testimony of God concerning his Son. Even to men we extend our belief of their word in certain circumstances. "If we accept the testimony of men, God’s testimony is greater, because it is God’s testimony that He has given about His Son. (The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. The one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given about His Son.) And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. The one who has the Son has life. The one who doesn’t have the Son of God does not have life." 1 John 5:9-12. So that he, who believes he has need of a Savior and credits this testimony of God, does rest the whole weight of his salvation here and not elsewhere. He takes Christ as his sole, sufficient Redeemer.

Faith justifies us only as it receives Jesus Christ as "the Lord our Righteousness." It takes the robe of righteousness which he has wrought, and puts it on, and so hides the nakedness of the soul. The Westminster Confession says: "Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner, by the Spirit and word of God; whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability of himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness therein held forth, for the pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation." Hall says: "The spiritual hand whereby we receive the sweet offer of our Savior is faith; which in short is no other than an affiance in the Mediator. Receive peace, and be happy; believe, and you have received." Usher says: "Justifying faith consists in these two things, in having a mind to know Christ, and a will to rest upon him. Whoever sees so much excellency in Christ, that thereby he is drawn to embrace him as the only Rock of salvation, that man truly believes to justification." Others very well represent the office of faith when they say that by means of it a union is formed between Christ and believers.

Thus Luther says: "Faith unites the soul with Christ as a spouse with her husband. Everything which Christ has, becomes the property of the believing soul; everything which the soul has, becomes the property of Christ. Christ possesses all blessings and eternal life—they are thenceforth the property of the soul. The soul has all its iniquities and sins—they become thenceforward the property of Christ. It is then that a blessed change commences: Christ, who is both God and man, Christ who has never sinned, and whose holiness is perfect, Christ the Almighty, and Eternal, taking to himself, by his nuptial ring of faith, all the sins of the believer, those sins are lost and abolished in him; for no sins dwells before his infinite righteousness. Thus, by faith, the believer's soul is delivered from sins, and clothed with the eternal righteousness of her bridegroom, Christ. O happy union! the rich, the noble, the holy Bridegroom takes in marriage his poor, guilty and despised spouse, delivers her from every evil, and enriches her with the most precious blessings. Christ, a King and a Priest, shares this honor and glory with all Christians. The Christian is a king, and consequently possesses all things; he is a priest, and consequently possesses God, and it is faith, not works, which brings him all this honor. A Christian is free from all things, above all things, faith giving him richly all things."

Should any be startled at such expressions as "he possesses God," let them consider the import of these words: "You are my portion, O Lord." Psalm 119:57; "God is our refuge and strength." Psalm 46:1; "I am the Lord your God," and many such expressions of Scripture. On the other hand how many scores of times does God call the saints, "my people," "the lot of my inheritance," "my redeemed," "my love," etc. "All grace flows from Christ united to the soul, as all life flows from the soul united to the body." This union between Christ and believers shall never be broken. It is in perpetuity as to all its blessed consequences.

From all that has been said, it is very evident that there is no merit in our believing, though by believing we become savingly interested in the merits of Christ. If faith itself, the act of believing, were the ground of our acceptance, it would certainly be works, even the work of faith. And as no man's faith is absolutely perfect—we would then have justification by a work full of imperfection. Faith is indeed the instrument, but not the ground of salvation; the means, but not the cause of our justification. If faith itself were the ground of our acceptance, it would be our Savior, and it would be entitled to all the glory of our salvation. And as faith is an act of the soul, each man would then be entitled to the full honor of his own salvation; and instead of boasting being excluded, as Paul says (Romans 2:27,) all heaven would be filled with it, and each man would have a right to say that he came there by his own act, merit and virtue. And where then would be the glory of Christ? His reward would consist in nothing. Those, who should be saved, would owe him nothing. They would have saved themselves.

To be justified by faith itself as the ground of acceptance would surely be to be "justified by works of righteousness, which we had done." But Paul says this is impossible. The faith, by which a soul is united to Christ, is itself the gift of God, and a gift, which never could have been bestowed but for the finished work of Christ. That it is a gift from God is declared in Matt. 16:16, 17, in John 1:13, in Romans 12:3, in Eph. 2:8, in Phil. 1:29, and in many other places. The Savior is expressly called "the author and finisher of our faith." Heb. 12:1. Again it is expressly ascribed to God's Spirit: "The fruit of the Spirit is faith." Gal. 5:22. How then could itself be any just ground of acquitting the guilty, and of taking the undeserving into the favor of God? Faith makes no atonement for sin. Faith even when genuine is not in any case perfect and blameless. Should we have no better righteousness than this in which to appear before God—his holy eye would behold rips in every part of it. So that the Scriptures ascribe even our believing to the amazing kindness of God.

In Acts 18:27, men are in so many words, said to have "believed through grace." These general views of the subject are common to all evangelical Christians. The Augsburg Confession says: "Christ is given for a Mediator to us, and this honor is not to be transferred unto our works. When therefore we do say that 'we are justified by faith,' we do not mean that we are just for the worthiness of that virtue; but this is our meaning: that we do obtain remission of sins and imputation of righteousness by mercy shown us for Christ's sake. But now this mercy cannot be received but by faith. When Paul says, 'Faith is reckoned for righteousness,' he speaks of a trust and confidence of mercy, promised for Christ's sake; and his meaning is, that men are pronounced righteous, that is, reconciled, through mercy promised for Christ's sake, whom we must receive by faith.

Now the novelty of this figurative speech of Paul, 'We are justified by faith,' will not offend holy minds, if they understand that it is spoken properly of mercy, and that herein mercy is adorned with true and due praises. For what can be more acceptable to an afflicted and fearful conscience in great griefs, than to hear that this is the commandment of God, and the voice of the Bridegroom, Christ Jesus—that they should undoubtedly believe; that remission of sins, or reconciliation, is given unto them, not for their own worthiness, but freely, through mercy, for Christ's sake; that the benefit might be certain." The Confession of Helvetia says: "Because faith does apprehend Christ our righteousness, and does attribute all to the praise of God in Christ, in this respect justification is attributed to faith chiefly because of Christ, whom it receives, and not because it is a work of ours. For faith is the gift of God. Now, that we do receive Christ by faith, the Lord shows in the sixth chapter of John, where he puts eating for believing, and believing for eating. For as by eating we receive food, so by believing we are made partakers of Christ."

The Confession of Bohemia speaking "of true justification of faith" says: "This faith properly is an assent of a willing heart to the whole truth delivered in the gospel, whereby man is enlightened in his mind and soul, that he may rightly acknowledge and receive for his only Savior, his God, and Lord Jesus Christ, and upon him, as on a true rock, he may build his whole salvation; and love, follow and enjoy him, and repose all his hope and confidence in him." "But the lively and never dying spring of justification is in our Lord Jesus Christ alone—whose saving works give salvation." The Confession of Belgia says: "True faith does embrace Jesus Christ, with all his merits, and seeks for nothing besides him." "He, who by faith possesses Jesus Christ, has also perfect salvation." "Yet to speak properly, we do not mean that faith by itself, or of itself, does justify us. Faith is only the instrument, whereby we apprehend Christ, who is our righteousness. Christ therefore himself is our righteousness, which imputes all his merits unto us."

The London and Philadelphia Baptist Confessions, the Confessions of the Savoy, Cambridge and Boston, and the Confessions of Presbyterian Churches generally in Great Britain and America agree in saying, "Faith receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the sole instrument of justification; yet is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith—but works by love." Some of the old writers quaintly say, "We are justified by faith solely, but not solitary." Leighton says: "True it is, that this faith purifies the heart, and works holiness, and all graces flow from it. But in this work of justifying the sinner, it is alone, and cannot admit of any mixture, as Luther's analogy is, 'Faith is as the bride with Christ in the bed-chamber alone, but when she comes forth, has the attendance and train of her graces with her.'"

The Synod of Dort says: "To as many as truly believe, and through the death of Christ are delivered and saved from sin and condemnation—this benefit comes from the sole grace of God, which he owes to no man, given them in Christ from eternity." The Welch Calvinistic Methodists' Confession says: "It would be as improper to attribute the righteousness of Christ to faith itself, as to attribute the light of the sun to the medium through which it is transmitted to us." Further testimonies are needless. How clear and harmonious is God's way of saving sinners! And how safe is it to follow him in all things! Holiness no less than bliss, follows a true faith. "Reliance is the essence of faith. Christ is the object of faith. The word is the food of faith. Obedience is the proof of faith. True faith is a depending upon Christ for salvation in the way of obedience—as he is offered in the word." Well may all give thanks for such a gift. It is the pledge of salvation. "Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

Justification by Faith—Illustrated by Abram's Righteousness

by C. H. Spurgeon

"And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness."—Genesis 15:6.

YOU will remember that last Lord's-day morning we spoke upon the calling of Abram, and the faith by which he was enabled to enter upon that separated life at the bidding of the Most High. We shall today pass from the consideration of his calling to that of his justification, that being most remarkably next in order in his history, as it is in point of theology in the New Testament; for, "whom he called, them he also justified."

Referring to the chapter before us for a preface to our subject, note that after Abram's calling his faith proved to be of the most practical kind. Being called to separate himself from his kindred and from his country, he did not therefore become a recluse, a man of ascetic habits, or a sentimentalist, unfit for the battles of ordinary life—no; but in the noblest style of true manliness he showed himself able to endure the household trouble and the public trial which awaited him. Lot's herdsmen quarrelled with the servants of Abram, and Abram with great disinterestedness gave his younger and far inferior relative the choice of pasturage, and gave up the well-watered plain of Sodom, which was the best of the land. A little while after, the grand old man who trusted in his God showed that he could play the soldier, and fight right gloriously against terrible odds. He gathered together his own household servants, and accepted the help of his neighbours, and pursued the conquering hosts of the allied kings, and smote them with as heavy a hand as if from his youth up he had been a military man. Brethren, this every-day life faith is the faith of God's elect. There are persons who imagine saving faith to be a barren conviction of the truth of certain abstract propositions, leading only to a quiet contemplation upon certain delightful topics, or a separating ourselves from all sympathy with our fellow creatures; but it is not so. Faith, restricted merely to religious exercise, is not Christian faith, it must show itself in everything. A merely religious faith may be the choice of men whose heads are softer than their hearts, fitter for cloisters than markets; but the manly faith which God would have us cultivate, is a grand practical principle adapted for every day in the week, helping us to rule our household in the fear of God, and to enter upon life's rough conflicts in the warehouse, the farm, or the exchange. I mention this at the commencement of this discourse, because as this is the faith which came of Abram's calling, so also does it shine in his justification, and is, indeed, that which God counted unto him for righteousness.

Yet the first verse shows us that even such a believer as Abram needed comfort. The Lord said to him, "Fear not." Why did Abram fear? Partly because of the reaction which is always caused by excitement when it is over. He had fought boldly and conquered gloriously, and now he fears. Cowards tremble before the fight, and brave men after the victory. Elias slew the priests of Baal without fear, but after all was over, his spirit sank and he fled from the face of Jezebel. Abram's fear also originated in an overwhelming awe in the presence of God. The word of Jehovah came to him with power, and he felt that same prostration of spirit which made the beloved John fall at the feet of his Lord in the Isle of Patmos, and made Daniel feel, on banks of Hiddekel that there was no strength in him. "Fear not," said the Lord to the patriarch. His spirit was too deeply bowed. God would uplift his beloved servant into the power of exercising sacred familiarity. Ah, brethren, this is a blessed fear—let us cultivate it; for until it shall be cast out by perfect love, which is better still, we may be content to let this good thing rule our hearts. Should not a man, conscious of great infirmities, sink low in his own esteem in proportion as he is honoured with communion with the glorious Lord?

When he was comforted, Abram received on open declaration of his justification. I take it, beloved friends, that our text does not intend to teach us that Abram was not justified before this time. Faith always justifies whenever it exists, and as soon as it is exercised; its result follows immediately, and is not an aftergrowth needing months of delay. The moment a man truly trusts his God he is justified. Yet many are justified who do not know their happy condition; to whom as yet the blessing of justification has not been opened up in its excellency and abundance of privilege. There may be some of you here today who have been called by grace from darkness into marvellous light; you have been led to look to Jesus, and you believe you have received pardon of your sin, and yet, for want of knowledge, you know little of the sweet meaning of such words as these, "Accepted in the Beloved," "Perfect in Christ Jesus," "Complete in him." You are doubtless justified, though you scarcely understand what justification means; and you are accepted, though you have not realized your acceptance; and you are complete in Jesus Christ, though you have today a far deeper sense of your personal incompleteness than of the all-sufficiency of Jesus. A man may be entitled to property though he cannot read the title-deeds, or has not as yet heard of their existence; the law recognizes right and fact, not our apprehension thereof. But there will come a time, beloved, when you who are called will clearly realize your justification, and will rejoice in it; it shall be intelligently understood by you, and shall become a matter of transporting delight, lifting you to a higher platform of experience, and enabling you to walk with a firmer step, sing with a merrier voice, and triumph with an enlarged heart.

I intend now, as God may help me, first to note the means of Abram's justification; then, secondly, the object of the faith which justified him; and then, thirdly, the attendants of his justification.

I. First, brethren, HOW WAS ABRAM JUSTIFIED?

We see in the text the great truth, which Paul so clearly brings out in the fourth chapter of his epistle to the Romans, that Abram was not justified by his works. Many had been the good works of Abram. It was a good work to leave his country and his father's house at God's bidding; it was a good work to separate from Lot in so noble a spirit; it was a good work to follow after the robber-kings with undaunted courage; it was a grand work to refuse to take the spoils of Sodom, but to lift up his hand to God that he would not take from a thread even to a shoe latchet; it was a holy work to give to Melchisedec tithes of all that he possessed, and to worship the Most High God; yet none of these are mentioned in the text, nor is there a hint given of any other sacred duties as the ground or cause, or part cause of his justification before God. No, it is said, "He believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness." Surely, brethren, if Abram, after years of holy living, is not justified by his works, but is accepted before God on account of his faith, much more must this be the case with the ungodly sinner who, having lived in unrighteousness, yet believeth on Jesus and is saved. If there be salvation for the dying thief, and others like him, it cannot be of debt, but of grace, seeing they have no good works. If Abram, when full of good works, is not justified by them, but by his faith, how much more we, being full of imperfections, must come unto the throne of the heavenly grace and ask that we may be justified by faith which is in Christ Jesus, and saved by the free mercy of God!

Further, this justification came to Abram not by obedience to the ceremonial law any more than by conformity to the moral law. As the apostle has so plainly pointed out to us, Abram was justified before he was circumcised. The initiatory step into the outward and visible covenant, so far as it was ceremonial, had not yet been taken, and yet the man was perfectly justified. All that follows after cannot contribute to a thing which is already perfect. Abram, being already justified, cannot owe that justification to his subsequent circumcision—this is clear enough; and so, beloved, at this moment, if you and I are to be justified, these two things are certain: it cannot be by the works of the moral law; it cannot be by obedience to any ceremonial law, be it what it may—whether the sacred ritual given to Aaron, or the superstitious ritual which claims to have been ordained by gradual tradition in the Christian church. If we be indeed the children of faithful Abraham, and are to be justified in Abraham's way, it cannot be by submission to rites or ceremonies of any kind. Hearken to this carefully, ye who would be justified before God: baptism is in itself an excellent ordinance, but it cannot justify nor help to justify us; confirmation is a mere figment of men, and could not, even if commanded by God, assist in justification; and the Lord's-supper, albeit that it is a divine institution, cannot in any respect whatsoever minister to your acceptance or to your righteousness before God. Abram had no ceremonial in which to rest; he was righteous through his faith, and righteous only through his faith; and so must you and I be if we are ever to stand as righteous before God at all. Faith in Abram's case was the alone and unsupported cause of his being accounted righteous, for note, although in other cases Abram's faith produced works, and although in every case where faith is genuine it produces good works, yet the particular instance of faith recorded in this chapter was unattended by any works. For God brought him forth under the star-lit heavens, and bade him look up. "So shall thy seed be," said the sacred voice. Abram did what? Believed the promise—that was all. It was before he had offered sacrifice, before he had said a holy word or performed a single action of any kind that the word immediately and instanter went forth, "He believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness." Always distinguish between the truth, that living faith always produces works; and the lie, that faith and works co-operate to justify the soul. We are made righteous only by an act of faith in the work of Jesus Christ. That faith, if true, always produces holiness of life, but our being righteous before God is not because of our holiness in life in any degree or respect, but simply because of our faith in the divine promise. Thus saith the inspired apostle: "His faith was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

I would have you note that the faith which justified Abram was still an imperfect faith, although it perfectly justified him. It was imperfect beforehand, for he had prevaricated as to his wife, and bidden Sarai, "Say thou art my sister." It was imperfect after it had justified him, for in the next chapter we find him taking Hagar, his wife's handmaid, in order to effect the divine purpose, and so showing a want of confidence in the working of the Lord. It is a blessing for you and for me that we do not need perfect faith to save us. "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove." If thou hast but the faith of a little child, it shall save thee. Though thy faith be not always at the same pitch as the patriarch's when he staggered not at the promise through unbelief, yet if it be simple and true, if it confide alone in the promise of God—it is an unhappy thing that it is no stronger, and thou oughtest daily to pray, "Lord, increase my faith"—but still it shall justify thee through Christ Jesus. A trembling hand may grasp the cup which bears a healing draught to the lip—the weakness of the hand shall not lessen the power of the medicine.

So far, then, all is clear, Abram was not justified by works, nor by ceremonies, nor partly by works, and partly by faith, nor by the perfection of his faith—he is counted righteous simply because of his faith in the divine promise.

I must confess that, looking more closely into it, this text is too deep for me, and therefore I decline, at this present moment, to enter into the controversy which rages around it; but one thing is clear to me, that if faith be, as we are told, counted to us for righteousness, it is not because faith in itself has merit which may make it a fitting substitute for a perfect obedience to the law of God, nor can it be viewed as a substitute for such obedience. For, brethren, all good acts are a duty: to trust God is our duty, and he that hath believed to his utmost hath done no more than it was his duty to have done. He who should believe without imperfection, if this were possible, would even then have only given to God a part of the obedience due; and if he should have failed, in love, or reverence, or aught beside, his faith, as a virtue and a work, could not stand him in any stead. In fact, according to the great principle of the New Testament, even faith, as a work, does not justify the soul. We are not saved by works at all or in any sense, but alone by grace, and the way in which faith saves us is not by itself as a work, but in some other way directly opposite thereto.

Faith cannot be its own righteousness, for it is of the very nature of faith to look out of self to Christ. If any man should say, "My faith is my righteousness," then it is evident that he is confiding in his faith; but this is just the thing of all others which it would be unsafe to do, for we must look altogether away from ourselves to Christ alone, or we have no true faith at all. Faith must look to the atonement and work of Jesus, or else she is not the faith of Scripture. Therefore to say that faith in and of itself becomes our righteousness, is, it seems to me, to tear out the very bowels of the gospel, and to deny the faith which has been once delivered to the saints. Paul declares, contrary to certain sectaries who rail against imputed righteousness—that we are justified and made righteous by the righteousness of Christ; on this he is plain and positive. He tells us (Romans 5:19) that, "as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." The Old Testament verse before us as a text this morning, gives us but as it were the outward aspect of justification; it is brought to us by faith, and the fact that a man has faith entitles him to be set down as a righteous man; in this sense God accounts faith to a man as righteousness, but the underlying and secret truth which the Old Testament does not so clearly give us is found in the New Testament declaration, that we are accepted in the Beloved, and justified because of the obedience of Christ. Faith justifies, but not in and by itself, but because it grasps the obedience of Christ. "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." To the same effect is that verse in the second epistle general of Peter (first chapter, first verse), which runs in our version as follows: "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Now, everybody who is at all familiar with the original knows that the correct translation is "through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." The righteousness which belongs to the Christian is the righteousness of our God and Saviour, who is "made of God unto us righteousness." Hence the beauty of the old prophetic title of the Messiah, "The Lord our Righteousness." I do not wish to enter into controversy as to imputed righteousness this morning, we may discuss that doctrine another time; but we feel confident that this text cannot mean that faith in itself, as a grace or a virtue, becomes the righteousness of any man. The fact is, that faith is counted to us for righteousness because she has Christ in her hand; she comes to God resting upon what Christ has done, depending alone upon the propitiation which God has set forth; and God, therefore, writes down every believing man as being a righteous man, not because of what he is in himself, but for what he is in Christ. He may have a thousand sins, yet shall he be righteous if he have faith. He may painfully transgress like Samson, he may be as much in the dark as Jephtha, he may fall as David, he may slip like Noah; but, for all that, if he have a true and living faith, he is written down among the justified, and God accepteth him. While there be some who gloat over the faults of believers, God spieth out the pure gem of faith gleaming on their breast; he takes them for what they want to be, for what they are in heart, for what they would be if they could; and covering their sins with the atoning blood, and adorning their persons with the righteousness of the Beloved, he accepts them, seeing he beholds in them the faith which is the mark of the righteous man wherever it may be.

II. Let us pass on to consider THE PROMISE UPON WHICH HIS FAITH RELIED when Abram was justified.

Abram's faith, like ours, rested upon a promise received direct from God. "This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be." Had this promise been spoken by any other, it would have been a subject of ridicule to the patriarch; but, taking it as from the lip of God, he accepts it, and relies upon it. Now, brethren, if you and I have true faith we accept the promise, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved" as being altogether divine. If such a declaration were made to us by the priests of Rome, or by any human being on his own authority, we could not think it true; but, inasmuch as it comes to us written in the sacred word as having been spoken by Jesus Christ himself, we lean upon it as not the word of man, but the word of God. Beloved, it may be a very simple remark to make, but after all it is needful, that we must be careful that our faith in the truth is fixed upon the fact that God has declared it to be true, and not upon the oratory or persuasion of any of our most honoured ministers or most respected acquaintances. If your faith standeth in the wisdom of man, it is probably a faith in man; it is only that faith which believes the promise because God spake it which is real faith in God. Note that and try your faith thereby.

In the next place, Abram's faith was faith in a promise concerning the seed. It was told him before that he should have a seed in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed. He recognized in this the selfsame promise which was made to Eve at the gates of Paradise, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed." "Abraham saw my day," says our Lord, "he saw it and was glad." In this promise Abram saw the one seed, as saith the apostle in Galatians 3:16, "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." He saw Christ by the eye of faith, and then he saw the multitude that should believe in him, the seed of the father of the faithful. The faith which justifies the soul concerns itself about Christ and not concerning mere abstract truths. If your faith simply believeth this dogma and that, it saveth you not; but when your faith believes that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing unto them their trespasses; when your faith turns to God in human flesh and rests in him with its entire confidence, then it justifies you, for it is the faith of Abram. Dear hearer, have you such a faith as this? Is it faith in the promise of God? Is it faith that deals with Christ and looks alone to him?

Abram had faith in a promise which it seemed impossible could ever be fulfilled. A child was to be born of his own loins, but he was nearly a hundred years old, and Sarai also was said to be barren years before. His own body was now dead as it were, and Sarai, so far as childbearing was concerned, was equally so. The birth of a son could not happen unless the laws of nature were reversed; but he considered not these things, he put them all aside; he saw death written on the creature, but he accepted the power of life in the Creator, and he believed without hesitation. Now, beloved, the faith that justifies us must be of the same kind. It seems impossible that I should ever be saved; I cannot save myself; I see absolute death written upon the best hopes that spring of my holiest resolutions; "In me, that is, in my flesh, there dwelleth no good thing;" I can do nothing; I am slain under the law; I am corrupt through my natural depravity; but yet for all this I believe that through the life of Jesus I shall live, and inherit the promised blessing. It is small faith to believe that God will save you when graces flourish in your heart, and evidences of salvation abound, but it is a grand faith to trust in Jesus in the teeth of all your sins, and notwithstanding the accusations of conscience. To believe in him that justifieth not merely the godly but the ungodly (Romans 4:5). To believe not in the Saviour of saints, but in the Saviour of sinners; and to believe that if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous; this is precious, and is counted unto us for righteousness.

This justifying faith was faith which dealt with a wonderful promise, vase and sublime. I imagine the patriarch standing beneath the starry sky, looking up to those innumerable orbs. He cannot count them. To his outward eye, long accustomed in the land of the Chaldees to midnight observation, the stars appeared more numerous than they would to an ordinary observer. He looked and looked again with elevated gaze, and the voice said, "So shall thy seed be." Now he did not say, "Lord, if I may be the father of a clan, the progenitor of a tribe, I shall be well content; but it is not credible that countless hosts can ever come of my barren body." No, he believed the promise; he believed it just as it stood. I do not hear him saying, "It is too good to be true." No; God hath said it—and nothing is too good for God to do. The greater the grace of the promise, the more likely it is to have come from him, for good and perfect gifts come from the Father of Lights. Beloved, does your faith take the promise as it stands in its vastness, in its height, and depth, and length, and breadth? Canst thou believe that thou, a sinner, art nevertheless a child, a son, an heir, an heir of God, joint-heir with Christ Jesus? Canst thou believe that heaven is thine, with all its ecstacies of joy, eternity with its infinity of bliss, God with all his attributes of glory? Oh! This is the faith that justifies, far-reaching, wide-grasping faith, that diminishes not the word of promise, but accepts it as it stands. May we have more and more of this large-handed faith!

Once more, Abram showed faith in the promise as made to himself. Out of his own bowels a seed should come, and it was in him and in his seed that the whole world should be blessed. I can believe all the promises in regard to other people. I find faith in regard to my dear friend to be a very easy matter, but oh! When it comes to close grips, and to laying hold for yourself, here is the difficulty. I could see my friend in ten troubles, and believe that the Lord would not forsake him. I could read a saintly biography, and finding that the Lord never failed his servant when he went through fire and through water, I do not wonder at it; but when it comes to one's own self, the wonder begins. Our heart cries, "Whence is this to me? What am I, and what my father's house, that such mercy should be mine? I washed in blood and made whiter than snow today! Is it so? Can it be? I made righteous, through my faith in Jesus Christ, perfectly righteous! O can it be? What! For me the everlasting love of God, streaming from its perennial fountain? For me the protection of a special providence in this life, and the provision of a prepared heaven in the life to come? For me a harp, a crown, a palm branch, a throne! For me the bliss of for ever beholding the face of Jesus, and being made like to him, and reigning with him! It seems impossible. And yet this is the faith that we must have, the faith which lays on Christ Jesus for itself, saying with the apostle, "He loved me, and gave himself for me." This is the faith which justifies; let us seek more and more of it, and God shall have glory through it.

III. In the third place, let us notice THE ATTENDANTS OF ABRAM'S JUSTIFICATION.

With your Bibles open, kindly observe that after it is written his faith was counted to him for righteousness, it is recorded that the Lord said to him, "I am Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it." When the soul is graciously enabled to perceive its complete justification by faith, then it more distinctly discerns its calling. Now, the believer perceives his privileged separation and discerns why he was convinced of sin, why he was led away from self-righteousness and the pleasures of this world, to live the life of faith; now he sees his high calling and the prize of it, and from the one blessing of justification he argues the blessedness of all the inheritance to which he is called. The more clear a man is about his justification the more will he prize his calling, and the more earnestly will he seek to make it sure by perfecting his separation from the world and his conformity to his Lord. Am I a justified man? Then will I not go back to that bondage in which I once was held. Am I now accepted of God through faith? Then will I live no longer by sight, as I once did as a carnal man, when I understood not the power of trusting in the unseen God. One Christian grace helps another, and one act of divine grace casts a refulgence upon another. Calling gleams with double glory side by side with the twin star of justification.

Justifying faith receives more vividly the promises. "I have brought thee," said the Lord, "into this land to inherit it." He was reminded again of the promise God made him years before. Beloved, no man reads the promises of God with such delight and with such a clear understanding as the man who is justified by faith in Christ Jesus. "For now," saith he, "this promise is mine, and made to me. I have the pledge of its fulfillment in the fact that I walk in the favour of God. I am no longer obnoxious to his wrath; none can lay anything to my charge, for I am absolved through Jesus Christ; and, therefore, if when I was a sinner he justified me, much more, being justified, will he keep his promise to me. If when I was a rebel condemned, he nevertheless in his eternal mercy called me and brought me into this state of acceptance, much more will he preserve me from all my enemies, and give me the heritage which he has promised by his covenant of grace. A clear view of justification helps you much in grasping the promise, therefore seek it earnestly for your soul's comfort.

Abram, after being justified by faith, was led more distinctly to behold the power of sacrifice. By God's command he killed three bullocks, three goats, three sheep, with turtle doves and pigeons, being all the creatures ordained for sacrifice. The patriarch's hands are stained with blood; he handles the butcher's knife, he divides the beasts, he kills the birds he places them in an order revealed to him by God's Spirit at the time; there they are. Abram learns that there is no meeting with God except through sacrifice. God has shut every door except that over which the blood is sprinkled. All acceptable approaches to God must be through an atoning sacrifice, and Abram sees this. While the promise is still in his ears, while the ink is yet wet in the pen of the Holy Spirit, writing him down as justified, he must see a sacrifice, and see it, too, in emblems which comprehend all the revelation of sacrifice made to Aaron. So, brethren, it is a blessed thing when your faith justifies you, if it helps you to obtain more complete and vivid views of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The purest and most bracing air for faith to breathe is on Calvary. I do not wonder that your faith grows weak when you fail to consider well the tremendous sacrifice which Jesus made for his people. Turn to the annals of the Redeemer's sufferings given us in the Evangelists; bow yourself in prayer before the Lamb of God, blush to think you should have forgotten his death, which is the centre of all history; contemplate the wondrous transaction of substitution once again, and you will find your faith revived. It is not the study of theology, it is not reading books upon points of controversy, it is not searching into mysterious prophecy which will bless your soul, it is looking to Jesus crucified. That is the essential nutriment of the life of faith, and mind that you keep to it. As a man already justified, Abram looked at the sacrifice, all day long and till the sun went down, chasing away the birds of prey as you must drive off all disturbing thoughts. So must you also study the Lord Jesus, and view him in all his characters and offices, be not satisfied except you grow in grace and in the knowledge of your Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Perhaps even more important was the next lesson which Abram had to learn. He was led to behold the covenant. I suppose that these pieces of the bullock, the lamb, the ram, and the goat, were so placed that Abram stood in the midst with a part on this side and a part on that. So he stood as a worshipper all through the day, and towards nightfall, when a horror of great darkness came over him, he fell into a deep sleep. Who would not feel a horror passing over him as he sees the great sacrifice for sin, and sees himself involved therein? There in the midst of the sacrifice he saw, moving with solemn motion, a smoking furnace and a burning lamp, answering to the pillar of cloud and fire, which manifested the presence in later days to Israel in the wilderness. In these emblems the Lord passed between the pieces of the sacrifice to meet his servant, and enter into covenant with him. This has always been the most solemn of all modes of covenanting; and has even been adopted in heathen nations on occasions of unusual solemnity. The sacrifice is divided and the covenanting parties meet between the divided pieces. The profane interpretation was, that they imprecated upon each other the curse that if they broke the covenant they might be cut in pieces as these beasts had been; but this is not the interpretation which our hearts delight in. It is this. It is only in the midst of the sacrifice that God can enter into a covenant relationship with sinful man. God cometh in his glory like a flame of fire, but subdued and tempered to us as with a cloud of smoke in the person of Jesus Christ; and he comes through the bloody sacrifice which has been offered once for all through Jesus Christ on the tree. Man meets with God in the midst of the sacrifice of Christ. Now, beloved, you who are justified, try this morning to reach this privilege which particularly belongs to you at this juncture of your spiritual history. Know and understand that God is in covenant bonds with you. He has made a covenant of grace with you which never can be broken: the sure mercies of David are your portion. After this sort does that covenant run, "A new heart also will I give them, and a right spirit will I put within them. They shall be my people, and I will be their God." That covenant is made with you over the slaughtered body of the Son of God. God and you cross hands over him who sweat, as it were, great drops of blood falling to the ground. The Lord accepts us, and we enter with him into sacred league and amity, over the victim whose wounds and death ratify the compact. Can God forget a covenant with such sanctions? Can such a federal bond so solemnly sealed be ever broken? Impossible. Man is sometimes faithful to his oath, but God is always so; and when that oath is confirmed for the strengthening of our faith by the blood of the Only-begotten, to doubt is treason and blasphemy. God help us, being justified, to have faith in the covenant which is sealed and ratified with blood.

Immediately after, God made to Abram (and here the analogy still holds) a discovery, that all the blessing that was promised, though it was surely his, would not come without an interval of trouble. "Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years." When a man is first of all brought to Christ he often is so ignorant as to think, "Now my troubles are all over; I have come to Christ and I am saved: from this day forward I shall have nothing to do but to sing the praises of God." Alas! A conflict remains. We must know of a surety that the battle now begins. How often does it happen that the Lord, in order to educate his child for future trouble, makes the occasion when his justification is most clear to him the season of informing him that he may expect to meet with trouble! I was struck with that fact when I was reading for my own comfort the other night the fifth chapter of Romans; it runs thus— "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." See how softly it flows, a justification sheds the oil of joy upon the believer's head. But what is the next verse— "and not only so, but we glory in tribulation also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience," and so on. Justification ensures tribulation. Oh! Yes, the covenant is yours; you shall possess the goodly land and Lebanon, but, like all the seed of Abraham, you must go down into Egypt and groan, being burdened. All the saints must smart before they sing; they must carry the cross before they wear the crown. You are a justified man, but you are not freed from trouble. Your sins were laid on Christ, but you still have Christ's cross to carry. The Lord has exempted you from the curse, but he has not exempted you from the chastisement. Learn that you enter on the children's discipline on the very day in which you enter upon their accepted condition.

To close the whole, the Lord gave to Abram an assurance of ultimate success. He would bring his seed into the promised land, and the people who had oppressed them he would judge. So let it come as a sweet revelation to every believing man this morning, that at the end he shall triumph, and those evils which now oppress him shall be cast beneath his feet. The Lord shall bruise Satan under our feet shortly. We may be slaves in Egypt for awhile, but we shall come up out of it with great abundance of true riches, better than silver or gold. We shall be prospered by our tribulations, and enriched by our trials. Therefore, let us be of good cheer. If sin be pardoned, we may well bear affliction. "Strike, Lord," said Luther, "now my sins are gone; strike as hard as thou wilt if transgression be covered." These light afflictions which are but for a moment, are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Let us make it the first point of our care to be justified with Abraham's seed, and then whether we sojourn in Egypt or enjoy the peace of Canaan, it little matters: we are all safe if we are only justified by faith which is in Christ Jesus. Dear friends, this last word, and I send you home. Have you believed in God? Have you trusted Christ? O that you would do so today! To believe that God speaks truth ought not to be hard; and if we were not very wicked this would never need to be urged upon us, we should do it naturally. To believe that Christ is able to save us seems to me to be easy enough, and it would be if our hearts were not so hard. Believe thy God, man, and think it no little thing to do so. May the Holy Ghost lead thee to a true trust. This is the work of God, that ye believe on Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. Believe that the Son of God can save, and confide thyself alone in him, and he will save thee. He asks nothing but faith, and even this he gives thee; and if thou hast it, all thy doubts and sins, thy trials and troubles put together, shall not shut thee out of heaven. God shall fulfil his promise, and surely bring thee in to possess the land which floweth with milk and honey.

Justification: Forensic or Moral?

by Francis Turretin (1623-1687)

Is the word Justification always used in a forensic sense in this argument, or also in a moral and physical? The former we affirm, the latter we deny, against the Romanists.

I. As in the chain of salvation Justification follows Vocation, Rom. 8:30, and is everywhere set forth as the primary effect of faith. The topic concerning Vocation and Faith begets the Topic concerning Justification, which must be handled with the greater care and accuracy as this saving doctrine is of the greatest importance in religion. It is called by Luther, the article of a standing and falling church; by other Christians it is termed the characteristic and basis of Christianity not without reason, the principle rampart of the Christian religion, and, it being adulterated or subverted, it is impossible to retain purity of doctrine in other places. Whence Satan in every way has endeavored to corrupt this doctrine in all ages; as has been done especially in the Papacy: for which reason it is deservedly placed among the primary causes of our Secession from the Roman Church and of the Reformation.

II. Although, however, some of the more candid Romanists, conquered by the force of the truth, have felt and expressed themselves more soundly than others concerning this article; nor are there wanting also some among our divines, who influenced by a desire to lessen controversies, think there is not so great matter for dispute about it, and that there are here not a few logomachies: still it is certain that up to this time there are between us and the Romanists in this argument controversies not verbal, but real, many and of great importance, as will be made manifest in what follows.

III. Because from a false and preposterous explanation of the word, the truth of the thing itself has been wonderfully obscured, in the first place, its genuine sense, and in this question most especially, must be unfolded, which being settled we will be able the more easily to reach the nature of the thing itself.

Homonyms of the verb Justificare

IV. The [hebrew] verb tsayke, to which the greek dikaioun answers, and the Latin Justificare, is used in two ways in the Scriptures, Properly and Improperly. Properly the verb is forensic, put for to absolve any one in a trial, or to hold and to declare just, as opposed to the verb to condemn and to accuse, Ex. 23:7, Deut. 25:1, Prov. 17:15, Luke 18:14, Rom. 3-5. Thence apart from a trial it is used for to acknowledge and to praise one as just, and that too, either deservedly, as when it is terminated on God, in which way men are said to justify God, when they celebrate him as just, Ps. 51:4, Wisdom is said to be justifed of her children, Matt. 11:9, Luke 7:35, that is acknowledged and celebrated as such, or presumptously, as the Pharisees are said to justify themselves, Luke 16:15. Improperly it is used either ministerially, for to bring to righteousness, Dan. 12:3, where mtsdyqy seems to be exegetical of mskylym: because while the preachers of the gospel instruct and teach believers, by this very thing they justify them ministerially in the same sense in which they are said to save them, 1Tim. 4:16. Or by way of synecdeche, the antecedent being put for the consequent, for to free, Rom. 5:7, "He that is dead is justified from sin," that is, freed. Or comparatively, Ez. 16:51-52, where on account of a comparison between the sins of Israel and Samaria, Israel is said to justify Samaria, and, the sins of Judah increasing, Judah is said to have justified Israel, Jer. 3:11, because Israel was more just than Judah, that is, her sins were fewer than the sins of Judah.

State of the Question

V. Hence arises the Question of the Romanists, concerning the acceptation of this word, whether it is to be taken precisely in a forensic sense, in this affair; or, whether it ought also to be taken in a physical and moral sense for the infusion of righteousness and Justification, if it is allowable so to speak, either by the acquisition or the increase of it? For they do no deny, indeed, that the word Justification and the verb justificare are often taken in a forensic sense, and even in this affair, as Bellarmine, De Justificatione, chap. 1, Tirinus, Theologiae elenchticae, cont. 15.1, Toletus Ad Romanos, anno 13, and many others. But they do not wish this to be the constant meaning but that it often signifies a true production, acquisition, or increase of righteousness, and this is especially the case, when employed about the justification of man before God. Whence they distinguish Justification into first and second. The first is that by which man who is unjust is made just, the second, by which a just man is made more just. Whence Bellarmine, lib. ii, chap. 2, "Justification undoubtedly is a certain movement from sin to righteousness, and takes its name from the terminus to which it leads, as all other similar motions, illumination, calefaction; that is true justification, where some righteousness is acquired beyond the remission of sin." Thomas, I-II, q. 113, "Justification taken passively implies a motion to making righteous, just as calefaction a motion to heat." Now although we do not deny that this word has more than one signification, and is taken in different ways in the Scriptures, now properly, then improperly, as we have already aid, still we maintain that it is never taken for an infusion of righteousness, but always as often as the Scriptures speak professedly concerning our justification, it must be explained as a forensic term.

The word Justification is forensic

VI. The reasons are: 1) Because the passages, which treat of Justification, admit no other than a forensic sense, Job 9:3. Ps. 143:2, Rom. 3:28 and 4:1-3, Acts 13:39, and elsewhere, where a judicial process is set forth, and mention is made of an accusing law, of accused persons, who are guilty, Rom. 3:19, of a handwriting contrary to us, Col. 2:14, of divine justice demanding punishment, Rom. 3:24, 26, of an advocate pleading the cause, 1 John 2:1, of satisfaction and imputed righteousness, Rom. 4 and 5; of a throne of grace before which we are absolved, Heb. 4:16, of a Judge pronouncing sentence, Rom. 3:20, and absolving sinners, Rom. 4:5.

VII. 2) Because justification is here opposed to condemnation; "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?" Rom. 8:33. As therefore accusation and condemnation occur only in a trial; so also justification. Nor can it be conceived how God can be said to condemn or to justify, unless either by adjudging to punishment, or absolving us from it judicially, which Toletus is compelled to confess on this passage; "The word justification in this place is taken with that signification, which is opposed to its antithesis, namely, condemnation, so that it is the same in this place to justify as to pronounce just, as a Judge by his sentence absolves and pronounces innocent." Cornelius, a Lapide, who otherwise earnestly strives to obscure the truth still overcome by the force of the truth, acknowledges that God justifies,that is, absolves the threatened action of sin and the devil, and pronounces just.

VIII. 3) Because the equivalent phrases, by which our justification is described; such as not to come into judgment, John 5:24; not to be condemned, John 3:18; to remit sins, to impute righteousness, Rom. 4; to be reconciled, Rom. 5:10-11 2Cor. 5:19; and the like. 4) This word word ought to be employed in the sense in which it was used by Paul in his dispute against the Jews. And yet it is certain that he did not speak there of an infusion of righteousness, viz; whether from faith, or from the works of the law the habit of righteousness should be infused into man, but how the sinner could stand before the judgment seat of God, and obtain a right to life, whether by the works of the law, as the Jews imagined or by faith in Christ; and since the thought concerning Justification arose without doubt from a fear of divine judgment, and of the wrath to come, it cannot be used in any other than a forensic sense; as it was used in the origin of those questions, which were agitated in a former age upon the occasion of Indulgences, satisfactions and remission of sins. 5) Finally, unless this word is taken in a forensic sense, it would be confounded with sanctification, and that these are distinct, both the nature of the thing and the voice of Scripture frequently prove.

Sources of Explaination

IX. Although the word Justification in certain passages of scripture should recede from its proper signification, and be taken in another than a forensic sense, it would not follow that it is taken judicially by us falsely, because the propersense is to be looked to in those passages in which is the seat of this doctrine. 2) Although perchance it should not be taken precisely in a forensic sense, for to pronounce just, and to absolve in a trial, still we maintain that it cannot be taken in a physical sense for the infusion of righteousness, as the Romanists hold, as is easily proved from the passages brought by Bellarmine himself.

X. For, in Is. 53:11, where it is said Christ by his knowledge shall justify many; it is manifest that reference is made to the meritorious and instrumental cause of our absolution with God, namely, Christ, and the knowledge or belief of him. For the knowledge of Christ here ought not to be taken subjectively, concerning the knowledge by which he knows what was agreed upon between himself and the Father, which has nothing to do with our satisfaction. But objectively, concerning that knowledge, by which he is known by his people unto salvation, which is nothing else than faith, to which justification is everywhere ascribed. The following words show that no other sense is to be sought, when it is added, for he shall bear their iniquities, to denote the satisfaction of Christ, which faith ought to embrace, in order that we may be justified.

XI. No more does the passage of Daniel, 12:3, press us. Because, as we have already said, justification is ascribed to the ministers of the gospel, as elsewhere the salvation of believers, 1 Tim. 4:16, 1Cor. 9:22. Not assuredly by an infusion of habitual righteousness, which does not come within their power; but by the instruction of believers, by which, as they open the way of life, so they teach the mode, by which sinners can obtain justification in Christ by faith. Whence the Vulgate does not translate it justificantes, but erudientes ad justitiam.

XII. The passage Rev. 22:11, he that is righteous, let him be righteous still, does not favor our opponents, so as to denote an infusion or increase of righteousness. Because thus it would be tautological with the following words, he that is holy, let him be holy still, for that justification would not differ from sanctification. But it is best to refer it to the application and sense of justification, for although on the part of God justification does not take place successively, still on our part, it is apprehended by us by varied and repeated actions, while by new acts of faith we apply to ourselves from time to time the merit of Christ as a remedy for the daily sins into which we fall. Nay, although it should be granted that the exercise of righteousness is here meant, as in a manuscript we have dikaiosynen poiesato, that is may be opposed to the preceding words. He that is unjust, let him be more unjust, the opinion of the Romanists will not on that account be established.

XIII. The justification of the wicked, of which Paul speaks, Rom. 4:5, ought not to be referred to an infusion or increase of habitual righteousness, but belongs to the remission of sins, as it is explained by the Apostle from David. Nay, it would not be a justification of the wicked, if it were used in any other sense than for a judicial absolution at the throne of grace. I confess that God in declaring just, ought also for that very reason to make just, that his judgment may be according to truth. But man can be made just in two ways, either in himself, or in another, either from the law, or from the gospel. God therefore makes him just whom he justifies, not in himself as if from a sight of his inherent righteousness he declared him just, but from the view of the righteousness, imputed, of Christ. It is indeed an abomination to Jehovah to justify the wicked without a due satisfaction, but God in this sense justifies no wicked one, Christ having been given to us as a Surety, who received upon himself the punishment we deserved.

XIV. Although certain words of the same order with justification denote an effecting in the subject, there is not the same reason for this, which otherwise barbarous has been received into Latinity, to express the force of htsdyq and dikaioun, neither of which admit a physical sense. Thus we magnify and justify God, not by making him great from small, or just from unjust, but only declaratively celebrating him as such.

The Doctrine of Justification

by Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583)

Zacharias Ursinus was the primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism. The following text can be found in Ursinus' exposition of question and answer 59-64 in his "Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism," pp. 324-340 (english translation by G.W. Williard, 1852; reprinted by P & R).

Question 59. But what doth it profit thee now, that thou believest all this?

Answer. That I am righteous in Christ, before God, and an heir of eternal life.

Question 60. How art thou righteous before God?

Answer. Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me that I have grossly transgressed all the commands of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had, nor committed any sin; yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ hath accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.

EXPOSITION.

The doctrine of justification, which now follows, is one of the chief articles of our faith, not only because it treats of those things which are fundamental, but also because it is most frequently called in question by heretics. The controversies between the church and heretics have respect principally to two points: the one is concerning God, and the other concerning the justification of man in the sight of God. And such is the importance of these doctrines that if either one of them be overthrown,

other parts of our faith easily fall to pieces. Hence it becomes necessary for us to fortify and establish ourselves, especially in these doctrines, against all the assaults of heretics. Concerning the doctrine of justification (for we have already spoken of the doctrine concerning God) of which the above questions of the Catechism treat, the following things are to be considered:

I. What is righteousness in general

II. How manifold is it?

III. In what does righteousness differ from justification?

IV. What is our righteousness before God?

V. In what manner does it become ours, seeing it is without us?

VI. Why is it made ours, or wherefore does God impute it unto us for righteousness?

I. WHAT IS RIGHTEOUSNESS IS GENERAL?

Righteousness is derived from right, which is the law, and is a conformity with the law, as sin or unrighteousness is the transgression of the law. It may be defined in general, as consisting in a conformity with God and the divine law; although a definition can hardly be given so general as to agree at the same time with God and creatures. Uncreated righteousness is God himself, the foundation, and rule or pattern of all righteousness. Created righteousness is an effect of uncreated or divine righteousness in rational creatures. Righteousness, therefore, in general, as far as it has respect to creatures, consists in fulfilling those laws which pertain to rational creatures; or, it is a conformity on the part of rational creatures with those laws which have respect to them. Finally, righteousness is the fulfillment of the law, and a conformity with the law is righteousness itself. This must be observed and held fast to, because our justification can only be effected by fulfilling the law. Evangelical righteousness is the fulfilling of the law, and does not conflict with it in the least. The gospel does not abolish the law, but establishes it.

II. HOW MANIFOLD IS RIGHTEOUSNESS, OR JUSTICE?

Righteousness is in general either uncreated, as God himself is righteous, or it is created, as is the righteousness which belongs to rational creatures. Created righteousness is legal and evangelical. By legal righteousness we mean the fulfilling of the law by one, who is thereby declared righteous; or it is such a fulfilling of the law as that which is accomplished by one's own obedience; or it is a conformity to the law which he has who is declared righteous. This legal righteousness was the righteousness of Adam before the fall, and is in the angels, and in Christ as far as he is man. Evangelical righteousness is the fulfilling of the law, performed, not by us, but by another in our stead, and imputed unto us of God by faith.

Legal righteousness is performed, either by obedience to the law, or by punishment. The law requires one or the other. That which is performed by obedience is either universal or particular. Universal is the observing of all those laws which have respect to us; or it is obedience to all the laws which pertain to us. This righteousness is again of two kinds, perfect and imperfect. The former consists in internal and external obedience to all those laws which have respect to us; or it consists in perfect

conformity with the law, as it is Said: "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them" (Deut. 27:26). By a righteousness that is imperfect, we mean that conformity with the law which is only begun, and which does not comply with all the requirements of the law, nor perform them in the manner which it prescribes. This righteousness consists also of two kinds, philosophical and Christian. Philosophical is a knowledge of the law of God, and of virtue, which is imperfect, indistinct and small, and a certain purpose of the will and heart to do those things which are right as far as that knowledge extends, together with a course of conduct in accordance with the law. Christian righteousness consists in regeneration, or a knowledge of God and the divine law, imperfect, indeed, but yet more excellent and perfect than that which is philosophical, grounding itself in faith and the love of God, which the Holy Ghost kindles in the minds and hearts of the faithful through the gospel, and which is at the same time joined with a sincere desire to obey God according to all his commandments. This form of righteousness belongs properly to those who are regenerated, and flows from a justifying faith. That righteousness which is particular is that which renders to every one his own, and is either commutative as distributive. The former is that which preserves an equality in contracts, or in the exchange of things and their prices. Distributive justice is that which preserves a proportion in the distribution of offices, honors, goods, rewards and punishments, rendering to every one according to his just desert. Let the husbandman till the ground, the statesman direct the affairs of the republic, and the theologian instruct the church, and let rewards be given to the good, and punishments be inflicted upon the evil: "Render to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; honor to whom honor" (Rom. 13: 7).

Righteousness is also distinguished from the subjects into that of the person, and the cause. Righteousness of the person is when a person is just and conformable to the law; and that of the cause is when a person has a just and good cause in controversy, whether he himself be good or bad. David often comforts himself with this in the book of the Psalms. It is otherwise called the righteousness of a good conscience.

III. IN WHAT DOES RIGHTEOUSNESS DIFFER FROM JUSTIFICATION?

Righteousness is conformity with the law; or, it is the fulfilling, of the law, or that by which we are justified before God. Justification, on the other hand, is the application of this righteousness to anyone. They differ, therefore, as shape and the application of it to an object, or as whiteness and whitening, or making white. Justification admits of the same division which we have made of righteousness, into that which is legal and evangelical. Legal justification consists in effecting in us conformity with God and the law. This is commenced in us when we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Evangelical justification is the application of evangelical righteousness; or, it is the application of the righteousness of another, which is without us in Christ; or, it is the imputation and application of that righteousness which Christ wrought out for us by his death upon the cross, and by his resurrection from the dead. It is not a transfusion of righteousness, or of the qualities thereof; but it is the acquitting, or the declaring us free from sin in the judgment of God,

on the ground of the righteousness of another. Justification and the forgiveness of sins are, therefore, the same: for to justify is that God should not impute sin unto us, but accept of us and declare us righteous; or, which is the same thing, that he declare us righteous on the ground of the righteousness of Christ made over unto us. That this is the proper signification of the word is clear from these passages of Scripture in which it occurs: "In thy sight shall no man living be justified," that is, no one shall be acquitted, or declared just by inherent righteousness. "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity," etc. (Ps. 143:2; 31:1-2). Paul, in accordance with this declaration of the Psalmist, interprets justification to be the remission of sins, where the word impute is repeated seven times (Rom. 4: 7).

Obj. He that is righteous is conformable to the law. To justify is to make righteous. Therefore to justify is to make the subject thereof conformable to the law. Ans. We grant the whole argument. To justify is to make the subject of it conformable to the law, either in himself, by a righteousness which is called his own, and which is inherent, infused and legal; or it is to be made righteous in another which is called imputed righteousness, the righteousness of faith, of the gospel, and of another, because it is not inherent in us, but in Christ. This consists also in conformity with the law; for faith does not make void the law, but establishes it. And such we may remark is our righteousness and justification; for we now speak of that righteousness with which we as sinners are justified before God in this life; and not of that by which we shall be accounted righteous in another life, or by which we would have been righteous had we not sinned.

IV. WHAT IS OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS BEFORE GOD?

The righteousness with which we are here justified before God, is not our conformity with the law, nor our good works, nor our faith; but it is the satisfaction which Christ rendered to the law in our stead; or the punishment which he endured in our behalf; and therefore the entire humiliation of Christ, from the moment of his conception to his glorification, including, his assumption of humanity, his subjection to the law, his poverty, reproach, weakness, sufferings, death, etc., all of which he did willingly; yea, whatever he did and suffered to which he was not bound, as being righteous, and the Son of God, is all included in the satisfaction which he made for us, and in the righteousness which God graciously imputes to us, and all believers. This satisfaction is equivalent to the fulfilling of the law, or to the endurance of eternal punishment for sin, to one or the other of which the law binds all. "I determined to know nothing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." "Ye are complete in him." "By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." "With his stripes we are healed." "He was bruised for our iniquities." "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." "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." "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven." "Being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath

through him." "We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." "Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich." "He redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 Cor. 2:2, Col. 2:10, Rom. 5:19, Is. 53:5-6, Luke 22:20, Rom. 3:24, 45; 4:7; 5:9-10, 2 Cor. 8:9, Gal. 3:13, Eph. 1:7, 1 John 1: 7). Christ fulfilled the law by the holiness of his human nature, and by his obedience, even unto the death of the cross. The holiness of his human nature was necessary to his obedience; for it became our mediator to be holy and righteous in himself, that he might be able to perform obedience, and make satisfaction for us. "For such a High Priest became us, who is holy," etc. (Heb. 7: 26). This obedience now is our righteousness, and it is upon the ground of this that God is pleased with us. The blood of Christ is the satisfaction on account of which God receives us into his favor, and which he imputes unto us, as it is said, the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin, both of commission and omission. The shedding of his blood is the complement of his satisfaction, and is for this reason called our righteousness.

The questions, How can a rational creature be righteous before God? how can man, being a sinner, be just before God? and whether a rational creature can merit any thing at the hands of God? are to be distinguished from each other. We reply to the first question, that a rational creature may be just before God by an inherent conformity with the law, as the angels, and those that are blessed. To the second question we reply, that man as a sinner can be regarded as righteous only on the ground of the imputation of Christ's merits; and this is the question of which we speak when treating the subject of justification. That man cannot be declared righteous upon the ground of his works is evident from this, that his works are unholy before his justification -- that after his justification they are also imperfect, and that if they were perfect as they will be in another life, they could nevertheless, not satisfy for those sins which are past, and which still stand against us. To the third question we answer that man can merit nothing from God, for it is said, "When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, "We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do." (Luke 17:10). Nor is the obedience of Christ meritorious in this respect, as though it added anything to God, but it is called meritorious on account of the dignity of his person, because he who suffered was the Son of God.

V. HOW DOES THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST BECOME OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, SEEING THAT IT IS WITHOUT US?

At first view it seems absurd that we should be justified by anything without us, or by something that belongs to another. It is necessary, therefore, that we should explain more fully how the satisfaction, or obedience of Christ becomes ours; for unless it be made ours, or be applied unto us, we cannot be justified by it, just as little as a wall can be white, if whiteness be not applied, or fixed upon it. We remark, then, that there are two ways in which the satisfaction of Christ is made over unto us: 1. God himself applies it unto us, that is, he makes the righteousness of

Christ over unto us, and accepts of us as righteous on account of it, as if it were ours. 2. We apply it also unto ourselves when we receive the righteousness of Christ through faith, that is, we rest assured that God will grant it unto us, that he will regard us as righteous on account of it, and that he will free us from all guilt. There is, therefore, a double application; one in respect to God, and another in respect to us. The former is the imputation of Christ's righteousness, when God accepts of that righteousness which Christ wrought out, that it might avail in our behalf, and accounts us as righteous in view of it, as much so as if we had never sinned, or had at least fully satisfied for our sins. The other side of this application which has respect to us, is the act itself of believing, in which we are fully persuaded that it is imputed and given unto us. Both sides of this application must necessarily concur in our justification; for God applies the righteousness of Christ unto us upon the condition, that we also apply the same unto ourselves by faith. For although anyone were to offer another a benefit, yet if he to whom it is offered does not accept of it, it is not applied unto him, and so does not become his. Hence without this last application the former is of no account. And yet our application of the righteousness of Christ is from God; for he first imputes it unto us, and then works faith in us, by which we apply unto ourselves that which is imputed; from which it appears that the application of God precedes that which we make, (which is of faith) and is the cause of it, although it is not without ours, as Christ says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you" (John 15:16).

From what we have now said in regard to the application of the righteousness of Christ it appears, first, that it is no absurdity to say that we are justified by the righteousness of another; for the righteousness which is applied unto us by faith, and for which we are regarded as righteous, is not simply another's, but is made ours by application. The subject, indeed, in which this righteousness is found is Christ; but we are the object to which it has reference, inasmuch as it is imputed unto us. Secondly, the term imputation is not so comprehensive in its signification as application; for whilst the former is used in relation to God alone, the latter is used also in respect to us. Thirdly, that God applies the righteousness of Christ unto us in one way, and we apply it in another. God applies it by imputation whilst we apply it by faith, or by accepting of it. Fourthly, that to justify, in the sense in which the church uses the phrase, does not mean legally, which is to make one that is unjust, just, by infusing in him the qualities of righteousness; but evangelically, which is to regard one that is unrightous, as righteous, and to absolve him from guilt, and not to punish him, all of which is done on account of the satisfaction of another imputed unto him. It is in this sense that the Scriptures use the phrase, which may also be said of almost every language. In the Hebrew language it signifies to acquit one that is guilty, or to declare him innocent. "I will not justify the wicked." "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord" (Gen. 23:7, Prov. 17:15). So the Greek word dikaiun signifies sometimes to regard, or to declare one righteous, and again it means to inflict punishment, the cause being known by a proper trial, as Suidas observes. It is in this last sense that Christ says, "By thy words thou shalt be justified" (Matt. 12:37). The former signification is used in two ways in the Scriptures. It

signifies either, not to condemn, but to acquit on trial: "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?" "It is God that justifieth." "He went down justified, rather than the other" (Rom. 8:33, Luke 18:14). Or it signifies to recognise and declare one righteous. "Wisdom is justified of all her children." "That thou mightest be justified when thou speaketh" (Luke 7:35, Ps. 51:6). Both significations, however, are reduced to the same thing. But the phrase, to justify, is never used among the Latins, and especially not by Latin authors in the sense of making holy, or of infusing a habit of righteousness. And it is evidently used in a different sense in the Scriptures, as the following passages clearly prove, which cannot be understood otherwise than of the acquital, and free acceptance of the sinner. "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" "It is God that justifieth." "The publican went down justified," that is, absolved from guilt, and accepted of God rather than the Pharisee. "And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:39). To justify in this last passage manifestly means to acquit, and to receive the forgiveness of sins." "Being justified freely by his grace." "That he might be the justifier of him that believeth." "We conclude that a man is justified without works." "To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." "Being justified by his blood" (Rom. 3:24, 26, 28; 4:5; 5:9).

VI. WHY IS THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST MADE OURS, OR WHEREFORE DOES GOD IMPUTE IT UNTO US FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS?

God, out of his mere mercy and grace, imputes and applies unto us the righteousness of Christ, as he also predestinated us from everlasting to this grace, and freely chose us in Christ, as those to whom he might in his own time apply this righteousness "according to the good pleasure of his will," as Paul says, (Eph. 1 :5) not having been moved thereto by any goodness or holiness which he foresaw would be in us. And the reason of this arises from the fact, that there can be no goodness in us, except God first produce it. Hence all thoughts of merit on our part must be abandoned as inconsistent with the grace of God, and as a denial of it; for the mercy, and grace of God constitute the sole cause of each form of the application of the righteousness of Christ. God out of his infinite goodness applies, and makes over unto us the merits of Christ, that we may apply the same unto ourselves. The cause, therefore, on account of which this application is made is in God alone, and not at all in us, for it can neither be any thing foreseen in us, nor even the apprehension or reception of this righteousness itself. Whatever goodness there may be in us is the effect of the application of the merits of Christ; for "What hast thou that thou didst not receive." "For by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God" (1 Cor. 4:7, Eph. 2:8).

Christ then presents himself in various ways for our justification: 1. As the subject, and the ground of our righteousness. 2. As the moving cause; because he obtains it. 3. As the chief, and efficient cause; because he, together with the Father, justifies and gives us faith, by which we believe and receive it. The mercy of God is the moving cause of our justification as far as it respects God; the satisfaction of Christ is the

formal cause; whilst our faith is the instrumental cause, apprehending and applying to ourselves the righteousness of Christ. We must observe, therefore, that it cannot be said that we are justified in the same sense by the grace of God, by the merits of Christ, and by faith. The first must be understood of the moving cause, which is in God; the second of the formal cause, which is in Christ; and the third of the instrumental cause, which is in us. We are justified by the mercy or grace of God, as the chief moving cause, by which God was led to justify and save us. We are justified by the merits of Christ, partly as by the formal cause of our justification, inasmuch as God accepts of us in view of the obedience of Christ applied unto us, and account us as righteous seeing that we are covered with this, as with a garment; and partly as the moving and meritorious cause, inasmuch as God on account of this, acquits and frees us from the condemnation of the law. We are justified by faith, as by an instrumental cause, by which we apprehend the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us.

It is commonly said, that we are justified by faith correlatively, by which it is meant that we are justified by that which faith has respect to, which is the merit of Christ; or by that which it apprehends: for faith and the satisfaction of Christ have a mutual relation to each other; the one is that which receives, and the other is that which is received. This form of speech is correctly used, because when we thus speak, faith is understood to mean the formal cause of our justification, and the sense is, that the merit of Christ justifies us, and not faith; or that we are justified by that which is apprehended, and not by the instrument which apprehends. But justification may also be correctly attributed to faith, as the instrumental cause, without any such relation, for we may correctly say that we are justified by faith, meaning by it, that we are justified by it as a means: for the effect of an efficient cause is ordinarily attributed to the instrument. But when it is said, "faith is counted for righteousness," (Rom. 4:5) and when expressions of a similar character are used, they must necessarily be understood correlatively, in as much as faith is the instrument by which we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, or it is the hand with which we receive the righteousness of Christ.

Question. 61. Why sayest thou that thou art righteous by faith only?

Answer. Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God, and that I cannot receive and apply the same to myself any other way than by faith only.

EXPOSITION.

We are said to be justified by faith only: 1. Because we are justified by the object of faith alone, that is by the merits of Christ only, without which we can have no righteousness whatever: for we are justified for Christ's sake. Nothing but the merit of Christ can be our righteousness in the sight of God, either as a whole, or a part only. We are justified only by believing, and receiving the righteousness of another, and not by our own works, or merit. All works are excluded from our justification, yea even faith itself in as far as it is a virtue, or work.

2. Because the act which belongs properly to faith is to apprehend, and apply to itself the righteousness of Christ; yea, faith is nothing else than the acceptance itself, or the apprehension of the merits of Christ.

3. Because faith alone is the instrument which apprehends the satisfaction of Christ. Hence it is plain, why the exclusive particle only should be added, as it is in the Catechism, and be maintained against the Papist. It is done, 1. For the purpose of expressing what Paul affirms when he says: "We are justified freely by his grace, without the deeds of the law," and what Christ says; "only believe" (Rom. 4:24, 28, Mark 5:36). 2. That all our own works, and merits, as well as those of others, may be excluded as being the cause of our justification, that faith may be understood correlatively. We are justified by faith only, that is, by the merits of Christ alone. 3. That not only all our merits, but that even faith itself may be excluded from that which is received by faith; so that when we say, we are justified by faith only, the sense is, that it is not by meriting, but only by receiving; as when it is said, This beggar is enriched only by receiving alms, all works and merits are excluded there from, yea, even the very acceptance of alms, in as far as it is viewed as a merit. It is for this reason, that Paul always says, that we are justified by faith, and through faith, as by an instrument; and never on account of faith, as the Papists will have it, who indeed admit both forms of expression, as if faith might be the application of Christ's righteousness, and be also at the same time a certain work, or merit, by which we are counted worthy of being declared righteous, which is directly opposed to the very nature of faith. For if we were justified on account of our faith, then faith would no longer be the acceptance of the righteousness of another, but it would be the merit, and cause of our own righteousness; neither would it receive the satisfaction of another, for it would no longer stand in need of it. 4. That we may understand the necessity of faith for our justification, and may know that we are justified, not by the merit of faith, but yet just as little without faith, to receive the righteousness of Christ; because it is the province of faith to appropriate this to itself. 5. The orthodox Fathers often use the same form of speech, by faith only. Origen writes: "The Apostles say, that the justification OF FAITH ONLY is sufficient, so that if anyone ONLY BELIEVES, he may be justified, even though he does not perform any works." Ambrose says: "They are justified freely, who, without working or rendering anything in turn, are justified BY FAITH ONLY as the gift of God." Again; "How can the Jews suppose that they are justified by the works of the law, seeing they have the justification of Abraham set before them, who was justified, not by the works of the law, but BY FAITH ONLY. The law, therefore, is not necessary, when the sinner is justified before God by FAITH ONLY." And again, "God has decreed that he who believes in Christ, should be saved without works, receiving the remission of sins freely BY FAITH ONLY." We are therefore justified by faith only, which means that it is by the merits of Christ alone, apprehended by faith.

This we must firmly maintain, and believe: 1. For the glory of God, that so the sacrifice of Christ may not be impaired. 2. For our comfort, that we may be assured that our righteousness does not depend upon our works, (for if this were the case we should lose it thousands of times,) but upon the sacrifice and merit of Christ alone.

Question. 62. But why cannot our good works be the whole or part of our righteousness before God?

Answer. Because that the righteous which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, and in all respects conformable to the divine law, and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.

EXPOSITION.

Thus far we have explained, and established the true doctrine of justification by faith. We must now refute the false doctrine of the Papists, according to which we are justified by works; or partly by faith, and partly by works. This is the argument which we employ; It is necessary that that righteousness which will stand in the judgment of God must be absolutely perfect, and conformable to the law in every respect. But our best works in this life are imperfect, and defiled with sin. Therefore our best works cannot be the whole, nor even a part of our righteousness before God. The major proposition of this syllogism is proven from the law, which declares "He that doeth these things shall live in them." "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them" (Lev. 18:5, Deut. 27:26). The minor proposition is too plain to need any proof: for we do many things which we ought not to do, and leave many things undone, which we ought to do; yea, we mix much that is evil with the good we do; or in other words the good which we do, is done imperfectly. The complaints and daily prayers of the saints testify to the truth of this. "Forgive us our debts." "Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in," etc. (Matt. 5:92. Ps. 143:2). Therefore works which are imperfect cannot constitute perfect righteousness.

This is the first reason why we cannot be justified by our works, because our righteousness would be imperfect in as much as our works are imperfect. We may add many other reasons, such as these. 2. Because if our works were even perfect, yet they are still due from us, and so cannot acquit us, or make amends for past delinquences. "When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants," etc. (Luke 17:10). 3. Our good works are not of us, but of God, who works them in us. 4. They are temporal, and bear no proportion to eternal rewards; whereas there is a necessity that there should be some proportion between merit, and reward. 5. They are the effects of our justification, and so cannot be the cause of it. 6. If we could be justified by our works, we should have whereof to boast, which would be contrary to what the Scripture saith; "Not of works, lost any man, should boast" (Eph. 2:9). 7. Conscience would be deprived of true peace, and comfort. 8. Christ would then have died in vain. 9. The way of salvation would not be the same in both testaments, if Abraham had been justified by faith only, and we by works, whether it be by works alone, or by works joined with faith. 10. Christ would not be a perfect Saviour, because a certain part of righteousness, and salvation would then be independent of him.

Question 63. What! do not our good works merit, which yet God will reward in this and a future life?

Answer. This reward is not of merit, but of grace.

EXPOSITION.

This question anticipates an objection on the part of the Papists in favor of justification before God, on account of our works and merits. Reward, say they, presupposes merit, so that where the one is, there the other must be also, for they are correlatives. Everlasting life is proposed as a reward for good works. Therefore the merit of good works is everlasting life. Ans. The first proposition is sometimes true of creatures, because men may deserve something from each other; but it does not always follow even among men, that where there is merit, there is reward. Rewards are often given by men when there is nothing to deserve them. But it is improperly said of God that he bestows eternal life as the reward of our good works: for we cannot deserve anything at the hands of God by our works. Or the objection may be thus stated: That to which there is a reward attached is meritorious. There is a reward attached to good works. Therefore, according to the order of justice they are meritorious. Ans. That is meritorious to which a reward is attached by obligation; but the reward of good works is according to grace. There are two things to be considered in a reward: obligation and recompense. But here there is no obligation, and hence the reward which follows our good works is a reward which follows of grace. God bestows rewards upon our good works, that he may thereby testify that they are pleasing to him -- that he may teach us that eternal life is promised only to those who strive and agonize, and that he will just as certainly grant us this reward as if we had merited it. All the other arguments by which the Papists endeavor to prove that our good works are meritorious, may properly be referred to this place.

Obj. 2. We are justified by faith. Faith is a work. Therefore we are justified by works. Ans. We deny the consequence which is here drawn, because there is more in the conclusion than in the premises: for this is all that follows legitimately. Therefore we are justified by that work, which we grant, if understood in the sense of an instrument or means, and not as the Papists understand it: for we are justified by faith, as a means, but not for, nor on account of it. There is also in the above syllogism a different form of speech: for in the first proposition faith is understood correlatively, and in the second properly.

Obj. 3. Our righteousness is that by which we are formally made righteous. Faith is our righteousness. Therefore we are formally made righteous by faith. Ans. We deny the consequence which is here drawn, because the term faith, as used in this syllogism must be understood in a different sense in the major and minor propositions, or else it is not true: for properly speaking it is not faith, but the object of faith, or that which faith apprehends and applies to itself, which is the merit of Christ, that constitutes our righteousness. Or, we may reply that there are four terms in this syllogism; because the major speaks of legal, and the minor of evangelical righteousness, or else the major is not true: for evangelical righteousness is not formally in us, as whiteness in a wall; but it is without us in Christ; and becomes ours by the imputation and application of it through faith.

Obj. 4. We are counted righteous in view of that which is imputed unto us for righteousness. Faith is imputed unto us for righteousness. Therefore we are accounted righteous, not only by faith, but also on account

of it. Ans. There is here again a different kind of affirmation in the terms of this syllogism. The major is true of that which is properly and by itself imputed unto us for righteousness, whilst the minor is true of that which is imputed unto us correlatively; because, when it is said through faith, it means through the object of faith, which being apprehended, is properly the formal cause of our righteousness; the efficient cause is God applying unto us the merit of Christ, whilst faith is the instrumental cause. Hence the declaration, we are justified by faith, if understood legally as the Papists understand it, is not true, but blasphemy. But if understood evangelically, having respect to the merits of Christ, it is true: for the merit of Christ is the correlative of faith, and is apprehended by it as an instrument.

Obj. 5. Evil works condemn. Therefore good works justify. Ans. But evil works are wholly evil, whilst good works are only imperfectly good, so that these two declarations cannot be opposed to each other in the form in which they are here placed. And even if our works were perfectly good, yet they could not merit eternal life, inasmuch as they are due from us. A reward is due to evil works according to the order of justice; but but not unto good works, because we are bound to do them as the creatures of God; but no one can bind God, on the other hand, by any works, or means to confer any benefit upon him. Evil works, again, in their very design oppose and injure God, whilst good works add nothing to his felicity.

Obj. 6. He who does righteously is righteous (1 John 3:7). Therefore we are justified by works. Ans. He that works righteousness is righteous in the sight of men; but in the sight of God no one is righteous by working, but by believing, as the Scripture saith: "By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight" (Rom. 3:20). Again, John does not speak of the manner in which we become righteous, but declares who are righteous; as if he would say, He that is regenerated is also justified, because by doing righteousness he gives evidence that he is justified. There is, therefore, in this objection a fallacy in making that which is not the cause of our justification, the cause of it.

Obj. 7. But Christ said of Mary (Luke 7:47) her sins which were many were forgiven her, because she loved much. Therefore love is the cause of our justification. Ans. Christ here reasons from the effect to the cause. He concludes that because Mary loved much, and had a deep sense of her indebtedness to God for his mercy, that she must have received the forgiveness of many sins. That this is the meaning of Christ is evident from the parable itself. Again, not everything that is the cause of a consequence is also the cause of the consequent and thing itself, which would here be the case if it were added: therefore many sins were forgiven her, because she loved much. The particle because does not always signify the cause of the thing consequent: for this does not follow; the sun is risen, because it is day. Therefore the day is the cause of the rising of the sun. The contrary is rather true.

Question 64. But doth not this doctrine make men careless and profane?

Answer. By no means; for it is impossible that those who are implanted into Christ by a true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness.

EXPOSITION.

This Question is designed to meet the slander which the Papists bring against the doctrine of justification by faith, in which they affirm that it is calculated to make men careless and profane. But if such an effect as this does ever follow the preaching of free justification by faith, it can only follow by accident; for the natural effect of this doctrine is to produce an earnest desire of showing our gratitude to God. And further, if this does ever come to pass, it is not because those who are careless and profane apply, but because they do not apply, this doctrine of grace to themselves. To this it is objected: 1. Even those things which are evil by accident are to be abandoned. Therefore this doctrine which makes men worse by accident, must be rejected. Ans. Those things which are evil by accident must indeed be abandoned, unless there be greater and stronger reasons why they should not be omitted, but rather retained and taught, than that they may become evil to men by their own fault. Such reasons now there are in the present case; for the command and glory of God, together with the salvation of the elect, require that this doctrine should be taught, and by no means omitted in our instructions. 2. There is no need that we should fear that which cannot injure us. But according to the doctrine of justification by faith future sins cannot injure us, for Christ has satisfied for all sins, including those that are future, as well as those that are past. Therefore we need have no fears on account of future sins, which is absurd. Ans. We reply to the major of this syllogism by making the following distinction: that we need not fear that which cannot injure us, whether we have an eye to it or not. But future sins do not injure those who truly repent, but it is different with those who are careless and impenitent. We, therefore, also deny the minor proposition: for God is always offended at sin, which is the greatest offence of which any one can be guilty. Our sins likewise deprive us of conformity with God, and bring temporal punishment, even upon the faithful, although they are delivered from such as are eternal. The various other objections which the Papists bring against the doctrine of justification by faith properly belong here. We shall notice the following in addition to the one already refuted:

Obj. 2. That which is not in the Scriptures is not to be taught. But the Scriptures do not teach that we are justified by faith only. Therefore this doctrine is not to be taught. Ans. That doctrine which is not in the Scriptures, in plain and express terms, nor as to the sense of it, is not to be received. But the Scriptures do most clearly teach that we are justified by faith alone, as touching the sense of this doctrine; for they declare that we are justified freely by grace, without the works of the law, without the law, not of ourselves, not by works of righteousness which we have done, and that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. But to be justified by faith alone is the same thing as to be justified by the blood and merits of Christ apprehended by faith. We would here refer the reader to the reasons which were given in our exposition of the sixty-first Question of the Catechism for retaining the exclusive particle only, against the Papists.

Obj. 3. That which is not alone, does not justify by itself. Faith is not alone. Therefore it does not justify alone. Ans. If this be understood as resulting from the premises, that faith does not justify alone,

meaning that it does not exist alone, then the conclusion is proper; for justifying faith is never without its fruits or effects. But if it be understood to mean that faith alone does not accept of the righteousness of Christ, then there is more in the conclusion than in the premises, or else the major is false. I alone may speak in my chamber, and yet I may not be alone. A thing may not be alone, but joined with something else, and yet it alone may have this, or that act; as the will, for instance, is not alone, but joined with the understanding, and yet it alone wills; so the soul of man is not alone, but united with the body, and yet it alone perceives; and so the edge of a razor is not alone but joined with a handle and yet it alone cuts. This is what is usually, and correctly, called a fallacy of composition; for the exclusive particle only, which in the minor is connected with the verb is, is separated from it in the conclusion, and attached to the word justify.

Obj. 4. Faith does not justify without that which is required in those who are justified. Good works are required in those who are justified. Therefore, faith is not without good works, and so does not justify alone. Ans. There is here the same fallacy to which reference has just been made, on account of the doubtful construction of the particle without. Faith does not, indeed, justify without those things which are required in those who are justified. But although it never exists alone, and is always joined with love, by which it works, yet it alone justifies -- is the act of embracing and applying to itself the merits of Christ. The minor also must be more fully explained; for faith and good works are not required in the same sense in those who are justified. Faith, with its own peculiar act, (without which it cannot be considered) is required as the necessary instrument, by which we apply to ourselves the merits of Christ. Good works, on the other hand, are not required that by them we may apprehend the merits of Christ, much less that we may be justified on account of them; but that we may thereby prove our faith, which without good works is dead, and can only be known by their presence. Good works are required as the fruits of our faith, and as the evidences of our gratitude to God. That is not always necessary for the accomplishment of a certain result, which is necessarily connected with the cause of the same thing. So good works, although they are necessarily connected with faith, are nevertheless not necessary for the apprehension of the merits of Christ.

Obj. 5. Where there are a number of things required, there we cannot use any exclusive particles. But good works are required in addition to faith in them that are justified. Therefore, we cannot say by faith only. Ans. The same answer may be returned to this objection which we have given to the one just noticed. Many things are required, but not in the same sense. Faith is necessary as the means by which we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, whilst good works are necessary as the evidences of our faith and gratitude.

Obj. 6. Those who are justified by two things, are not justified by one only. We are justified by two things, by faith, and the merits of Christ. Therefore we are not justified by faith only. Ans. The same answer may again be returned to this objection; for we are justified by faith, and the merits of Christ in a different sense. We are justified by faith as that which apprehends the righteousness of Christ; whilst the merits of Christ are the formal cause of our righteousness.

Obj. 7. Knowledge does not justify. Faith is knowledge. Therefore faith does not justify. Ans. But justifying faith does not merely include a certain knowledge, but also an assured confidence, by which, as a means, we apply to ourselves the merits of Christ. Knowledge and confidence also differ widely. The former is in the understanding, the latter in the will. Confidence, therefore, does not only include a knowledge of a certain thing, but also a will, and purpose to do, or to apply that which we know, and to trust in it in such a manner as to find safety in it, and to rejoice concerning it. To have confidence is to possess what is called in German Bertrauen. To believe in God in this manner is not only to know him, but also to have confidence in him. The devil has a knowledge of God, and of the divine promises, but has no confidence in him. His knowledge is, therefore, no justifying faith, being only historical, of which the apostle James speaks, when he says, "The devils believe and tremble." (James 2:19). Of such a faith we readily grant the argument of the Papists, but not of a justifying faith.

Obj. 8. James says, (2:24) "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." Therefore faith only does not justify. Ans. There is here a double ambiguity. In the first place, the apostle James does not speak of that righteousness by which we are justified before God, or on account of which God regards us as just; but of that righteousness by which we are justified before men by our works. That this is so, is clear from the following considerations. In verse 18, he says, "Shew me thy faith without thy works." Shew me, he says. He, therefore, speaks of the manifestation of faith and righteousness in the sight of men. In verse 21, he says, "Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works, when he had offered his son upon the altar." This cannot be understood of justification in the sight of God; for Abraham was accounted righteous in this sense long before he offered his son. Paul also says, that Abraham was justified before God, not of works, but of faith. James, therefore, in the chapter to which reference is had, means that Abraham was justified before God by faith, because it is written, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness;" (Rom. 4:3) but he gave evidence to men of his righteousness, by his good works, and obedience to God. This is the first ambiguity in the word justify. The other is in the word faith; for when this apostle denies that we are justified by faith, he does not speak of a true, and living faith as Paul does, but of a dead faith, which consists in mere knowledge, without confidence and works. This is evident from what he says, in verse 17: "Even so faith if it hath not works is dead, being alone;" and attributes such a faith to the devils who certainly have no true justifying faith. Finally in verse 26, he compares that faith which he says does not justify to a dead body; but such is no true, or justifying faith. In a word, if the term justify, as used by the apostle James, is understood properly, of justification before God, then the term faith signifies a dead faith; and if we understand the faith here spoken of as true, or justifying faith, then the ambiguity in it is the word justify.

Obj. 9. It is not necessary to do that which is not required for our justification. But it is necessary to perform good works. Therefore they are required for our justification. Ans. We deny the major, because the same thing may have many ends. Good works, although they are not required for

our justification, are nevertheless necessary to show our gratitude, and the glory of God, as it is said: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16). This is one reason why good works should be performed. Other reasons will be assigned when we come to treat the subject of gratitude.

Obj. 10. The work of Phinehas (Ps. 106:30-31) is said to have been counted unto him for righteousness. Therefore we are justified by works. Ans. This, however, is a wrong interpretation of the passage alluded to for the sense is, that God approved of his work; but not that he was justified on account of it: for by the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified in the sight of God.

Obj. 11. Ten crowns are a part of a hundred crowns in the payment of a debt. Therefore, good works are also a certain part of our righteousness before God. Ans. The examples are not the same; for ten crowns, in the first place, are a whole part of a hundred crowns, and being multiplied ten times make the whole amount of the debt. But our works are not a perfect, but an imperfect part of the obedience due from us, and however frequently they may be multiplied, they, nevertheless, never constitute perfect obedience. Again, ten crowns may be received by a certain creditor as a part of a debt, because there may be some hope that the balance may be paid. God, however, cannot receive our good works as a part of our righteousness, because there is no hope of perfect satisfaction being made by us, whilst the law condemns the slightest imperfection.

Obj. 12. The righteousness which Christ accomplished is according to the prophet Daniel (9:24) an everlasting righteousness. That righteousness which is imputed unto us is not everlasting. Therefore it is not the righteousness of Christ which is imputed unto us. Ans. We deny the minor of this syllogism, because the righteousness which is imputed unto us is everlasting, both by the perpetual continuation of imputation in this life, and by the perfection of that righteousness which is begun in us, each of which is the righteousness of the Messiah, and will be everlasting: for God will forever delight in us on account of Christ his Son. Imputation will, therefore, also be continued, or it will rather be changed into our own righteousness. But some one will perhaps reply, where there is no sin, there cannot be any remission, or imputation. But there will be no sin in the life to come. Therefore there will be no remission or imputation. We grant the whole argument if it is properly understood. There will be no remission of sin in the life to come, that is, there will be no remission of present sin; yet there will be of past sins, because the remission which is here granted will continue and last forever; or, what is the same thing the sins which are here in this life forgiven, will never be imputed unto us in the life to come: yea, even that conformity which we shall have with God, in the life to come, will be the effect of the righteousness here imputed unto us.

0bj. 13. The Lord is our righteousness (Jer. 23:6). Therefore we are justified, not by imputed righteousness, but God himself dwelling essentially in us; this is our righteousness. Ans. In this declaration of the prophet, the effect, by a figure of speech, is put for the cause, the abstract for the concrete. The Lord is our righteousness, which means that he is our justifier, as Christ is said "to be made of God unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption;" (1 Cor. 1:30) which means

that he is a teacher of wisdom, a justifier, a sanctifier, and redeemer. The righteousness with which God justifies us is not in us, nor is it God himself dwelling in us, for he would then be an accident to the creature. Osiander, the author of this and the preceding objection, does not distinguish the cause from the effect, or the righteousness which is uncreated from that which is created. As we do not live, and are not wise by the essence of God, (for this would in effect be to say that we are as wise as God,) so we are not righteous by his essence. There is nothing more impious, therefore, than to say that the essential righteousness of the Creator is the righteousness of the creature, from which it would follow that we have the righteousness of God; yea, the very essence of God.

Justification

by Louis Berkhof

1. The Nature and Elements of Justification, Justification may be defined as that legal act of God by which He declares the sinner righteous on the basis of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. It is not an act or process of renewal, such as regeneration, conversion, or sanctification, and does not affect the condition but the-state of the sinner. It differs from sanctification in several particulars. Justification takes place outside of the sinner in the tribunal of God, removes the guilt of sin, and is an act which is complete at once and for all time; while sanctification takes place in man, removes the pollution of sin, and is a continuous and lifelong process. We distinguish two elements in justification, namely: (a) The forgiveness of sins on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. The pardon granted applies to all sins, past, present, and future, and therefore does not admit of repetition, Ps. 103: 12; Isa. 44:22; Rom. 5:21; 8:1, 32-34; Heb. 10:14. This does not mean that we need no more pray for forgiveness, for the consciousness of guilt remains, creates a feeling of separation, and makes it necessary to seek repeatedly the comforting assurance of forgiveness, Ps. 25:7; 32:5; 51:1; Matt. 6:12; Jas. 5:15; I John 1:9. (b) The adoption as children of God. In justification God adopts believers as His children, that is, places them in the position of children and gives them all the rights of children, including the right to an eternal inheritance, Rom. 8:17; I Pet. 1:4. This legal sonship of believers should be distinguished from their moral sonship through regeneration and sanctification. Both are indicated in the following passages: John 1:12, 13; Rom. 8:15, 16; Gal. 4:5, 6.

2. The Time of Justification. The word 'justification' is not always used in the same sense. Some even speak of a fourfold justification: a justification from eternity, a justification in the resurrection of Christ, a justification by faith, and a public justification in the final judgment. In explanation of this it may be said that in an ideal sense the righteousness of Christ is already accounted to believers in the counsel of redemption, and therefore from eternity, but this is not what the Bible means when it speaks of the justification of the sinner. We must distinguish between what was decreed in the eternal counsel of God and what is realized in the course of history. Again, there is some reason for speaking of a justification in the resurrection of Christ. In a sense it may be said that the resurrection was the justification of Christ, and that in Him the whole body of believers was justified. But this was a general and purely objective transaction, which should not be confused with the personal justification of the sinner. When the Bible speaks of the justification of the sinner, it usually refers to the subjective and personal application and appropriation of the justifying grace of God. The usual representation is that we are justified by faith. This implies that it takes place at the time when we accept Christ by faith. Faith is called the instrument or the appropriating organ of justification. By faith man appropriates, that is, takes unto himself, the righteousness of Christ, on the basis of which he is justified before God. Faith justifies in so far as it takes possession of Christ. Rom. 4:5; Gal. 2:16. We should guard against the error of the Roman Catholics and the Arminians, that man is justified on the basis of his own inherent righteousness, or of his faith. Man's own righteousness or faith can never be the ground of his justification. This can be found only in the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, Rom. 3:24; 10:4; II Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9.

3. Objections to the Doctrine of Justification. Various objections are raised to this doctrine. It is said that, if man is justified on the basis of the merits of Christ, he is not saved by grace. But justification, with all that it includes, is a gracious work of God. The gift of Christ, God's reckoning of His righteousness to us, and His dealing with sinners as righteous,-- it is all grace from start to finish. Again, it is said to be unworthy of God to declare sinners righteous. But God does not declare that they are righteous in themselves, but that they are clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ. And, finally, it is said that this doctrine is apt to make people indifferent as to their moral life. If they are justified apart from any consideration of works, why should they care for personal piety? But justification lays the foundation for a living relationship with Christ, and this is the surest guarantee for a truly godly life. The man who is really in living union with Christ cannot be morally indifferent. Rom. 3:5-8.

To memorize. Passages speaking of:

a. Justification in general:

Rom. 3:24. "Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

II Cor. 5:21. "Him who knew no sin He made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

b. Justification by faith, not by works:

Rom. 3:28. "We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law."

Rom. 4:5. "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness."

Gal. 2:16. "Yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

c. Justification and the forgiveness of sins:

Ps. 32:1, 2. "Blessed is the man whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom Jehovah imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile."

Acts 13:38, 39. "Be it known unto you therefore, brethren, that through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins; and by Him every one that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."

d. Adoption of children, heirs of eternal life:

John 1:12. "But as many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on His name."

Gal. 4:4, 5. "But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that He might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."

Rom. 8:17. "And if children, their heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him."

e. Justification based on the righteousness of Christ:

Rom. 3:21, 22. "But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe."

Rom. 5:18. "So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so though one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life."

For Further Study:

a. What fruits of justification are mentioned in Rom. 5:1-5?

b. Does not James teach that man is justified by works? Jas. 2:21-25.

c. With what objection to the doctrine of justification does Paul deal in Rom. 3:5-8?

Questions for Review

1. What is justification?

2. How does it differ from sanctification?

3. What elements does it comprise?

4. In how far are sins forgiven in justification?

5. Why must believers still pray for forgiveness?

6. What is included in the adoption of children?

7. Can we speak of justification from eternity and in the resurrection of Christ?

8. How is faith related to justification?

9. What is the ground of justification? What is the Arminian view?

10. What objections are raised to this doctrine? Can you answer them?

Imputation

by B. B. Warfield

Reprinted from "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge," edited by Samuel Macauley Jackson, D.D., LL.D., v. pp. 465-467 (copyright by Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York, 1909).

I. ORIGIN AND MEANING OF THE TERM

The theological use of the term "imputation" is probably rooted ultimately in the employment of the verb imputo in the Vulgate to translate the Greek verb logizesthai in Ps. xxxii. 2. This passage is quoted by Paul in Rom. iv. 8 and made one of the foundations of his argument that, in saving man, God sets to his credit a righteousness without works. It is only in these two passages, and in the two axiomatic statements of Rom. iv. 4 and v. 13 that the Vulgate uses imputo in this connection (cf., with special application, II Tim. iv. 16; Philemon 18). There are other passages, however, where it might just as well have been employed, but where we have instead reputo, under the influence of the mistaken rendering of the Hebrew ḥashabh in Gen. xv. 6. In these passages the Authorized English Version improves on the Latin by rendering a number of them (Rom. iv. 11, 22, 23, 24; II Cor. v. 19; James ii. 23) by "impute," and employing for the rest synonymous terms, all of which preserve the "metaphor from accounts" inherent in logizesthai (and ellogein) in this usage (cf. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, "Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans," iv. 3), such as "count" (Rom. iv. 3, 5), "account" (Gal. iii. 6), and "reckon" (Rom. iv. 4, 9, 10); the last of which the Revised English Version makes its uniform rendering of logizesthai. Even the meager employment of imputo in the Latin version, however, supplied occasion enough for the adoption of that word in the precise language of theology as the technical term for that which is expressed by the Greek words in their so-called "commercial  sense, or what may, more correctly, be called their forensic or "judicial" sense, "that is, putting to one's account," or, in its twofold reference to the credit and debit sides, "setting to one's credit" or "laying to one's charge."

II. THREE ACTS OF IMPUTATION

From the time of Augustine (early fifth century), at least, the term "imputation" is found firmly fixed in theological terminology in this sense. But the applications and relations of the doctrine expressed by it were thoroughly worked out only in the discussions which accompanied and succeeded the Reformation. In the developed theology thus brought into the possession of the Church, three several acts of imputation were established and expounded. These are the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity; the imputation of the sins of His people to the Redeemer; the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to His people. Though, of course, with more or less purity of conception and precision of application, these three great doctrines became the property of the whole Church, and found a place in the classical theology of the Roman, Lutheran, and Reformed alike. In the proper understanding of the conception, it is important to bear in mind that the divine act called "imputation" is in itself precisely the same in each of the three great transactions into which it enters as a constituent part. The grounds on which it proceeds may differ; the things imputed may be different; and the consequent treatment of the person or persons to which the imputation is made may and will differ as the things imputed to them differ. But in each and every case alike imputation itself is simply the act of setting to one's account; and the act of setting to one's account is in itself the same act whether the thing set to his account stands on the credit or debit side of the account, and whatever may be the ground in equity on which it is set to his account. That the sin of Adam was so set to the account of his descendants that they have actually shared in the penalty which was threatened to it; and that the sins of His people were so set to the account of our Lord that He bore them in His own body on the tree, and His merits are so set to their account that by His stripes they are healed, the entirety of historical orthodox Christianity unites in affirming.

III. PELAGIAN OPPOSITION TO THE DOCTRINE

Opposition to these doctrines has, of course, not been lacking in the history of Christian thought. The first instance of important contradiction of the fundamental principle involved is presented by the Pelagian movement (see "Pelagius, Pelagian Controversies"), which arose at the beginning of the fifth century. The Pelagians denied the equity and, therefore, under the government of God, the possibility of the involvement of one free agent in the acts of another; they utterly denied, therefore, that men either suffer harm from Adam's sin or profit by Christ's merits. By their examples only, they said, can either Adam or Christ affect us; and by free imitation of them alone can we share in their merits or demerits. It is not apparent why Pelagius permitted himself such extremity of denial. What he had at heart to assert was the inamissibility by the human subject of plenary ability of will to do all righteousness. To safeguard this he had necessarily to deny all subjective injury to men from Adam's sin (and from their own sins too, for that matter), and the need or actuality of subjective grace for their perfecting. But there was no reason growing out of this point of sight why he might not allow that the guilt of Adam's sin had been imputed to his posterity, and had supplied the ground for the infliction upon them of external penalties temporal or eternal; or that the merits of Christ might be imputed to His people as the meritorious ground of their relief from these penalties, as well as of the forgiveness of their own actual sins and of their reception into the favor of God and the heavenly blessedness. Later Pelagianizers found this out; and it became not uncommon (especially after Duns Scotus' strong assertion of the doctrine of "immediate imputation") for the imputation of Adam's sin to be exploited precisely in the interest of denial or weakening of the idea of the derivation of inherent corruption from Adam. A very good example of this tendency of thought is supplied by the Roman Catholic theologian Ambrosius Catharinus, whose admirable speech to this effect at the Council of Trent is reported by Father Paul ("History of the Council of Trent," E. T. London, 1676, p. 165). Even Zwingli was not unaffected by it. He was indeed free from the Pelagianizing attenuation of the corruption of nature which is the subjective effect on his posterity of Adam's sin. With him, "original sin" was both extensively and intensively a total depravity, the fertile source of all evil action. But he looked upon it rather as a misfortune than a fault, a disease than a sin; and he hung the whole weight of our ruin on our direct participation in Adam's guilt. As a slave can beget only a slave, says he, so all the progeny of man under the curse are born under the curse.

IV. IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE

In sharp contradiction to the current tendency to reduce to the vanishing-point the subjective injury wrought by Adam's sin on his posterity, the churches gave themselves to emphasizing the depth of the injury and especially its sinfulness. Even the Council of Trent acknowledged the transfusion into the entire human race of "sin, which is the death of the soul." The Protestants, who, as convinced Augustinians, were free from the Pelagianizing bias of Rome, were naturally even more strenuous in asserting the evil and guilt of native depravity. Accordingly they constantly remark that men's native guilt in the sight of God rests not merely upon the imputation to them of Adam's first sin, but also upon the corruption which they derive from him - a mode of statement which meets us, indeed, as early as Peter Lombard ("Sentences," II. xxx.) and for the same reason. The polemic turn given to these statements has been the occasion of a remarkable misapprehension, as if it were intended to subordinate the imputation of Adam's transgression to the transmission of his corrupted nature as the source of human guilt. Precisely the contrary is the fact. The imputation of Adam's transgression was not in dispute; all parties to the great debate of the age fully recognized it; and it is treated therefore as a matter of course. What was important was to make it clear that native depravity was along with it the ground of our guilt before God. Thus it was sought to hold the balance true, and to do justice to both elements in a complete doctrine of original sin. Meanwhile the recovery of the great doctrine of justification by faith threw back its light upon the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ which had been in the possession of the Church since Anselm; and the better understanding of this doctrine, thus induced, in turn illuminated the doctrine of sin, whose correlative it is. Thus it came about that in the hands of the great Protestant leaders of the sixteenth century, and of their successors, the Protestant systematizers of the seventeenth century, the threefold doctrine of imputation - of Adam's sin to his posterity, of the sins of His people to the Redeemer, and of the righteousness of Christ to His people - at last came to its rights as the core of the three constitutive doctrines of Christianity - the sinfulness of the human race, the satisfaction of Jesus Christ, and justification by faith. The importance of the doctrine of imputation is that it is the hinge on which these three great doctrines turn, and the guardian of their purity.

V. SOCINIAN, ARMINIAN, AND RATIONALISTIC OPPOSITION

Of course the Church was not permitted to enjoy in quiet its new understanding of its treasures of doctrine. Radical opponents arose in the Reformation age itself, the most important of whom were the Socinians (see "Socinus, Faustus, Socinians"). By them it was pronounced an inanity to speak of the transference of either merit or demerit from one person to another: we can be bad with another's badness, or good with another's goodness, they said, as little as we can be white with another's whiteness. The center of the Socinian assault was upon the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ: it is not possible, they affirmed, for one person to bear the punishment due to another. But their criticism cut equally deeply into the Protestant doctrines of original sin and justification by faith. The influence of their type of thought, very great from the first, increased as time went on and became a factor of importance both in the Arminian revolt at the beginning of the seventeenth century and in the rationalistic defection a hundred years later. Neither the Arminians (e.g. Limborch, Curcellaeus) nor the Rationalists (e.g. Wegscheider) would hear of an imputation of Adam's sin, and both attacked with arguments very similar to those of the Socinians also the imputation of our sins to Christ or of His righteousness to us. Rationalism almost ate the heart out of the Lutheran Churches; and the Reformed Churches were saved from the same fate only by the prompt extrusion of the Arminian party and the strengthening of their position by conflict with it. In particular, about the middle of the seventeenth century the "covenant" or "federal" method of exhibiting the plan of the Lord's dealings with men (see "Cocceius, Johannes, and his School") began to find great acceptance among the Reformed Churches. There was nothing novel in this mode of conceiving truth. The idea was present to the minds of the Church Fathers and the Schoolmen; and it underlay Protestant thought, both Lutheran and Reformed, from the beginning, and in the latter had come to clear expression, first in Ursinus. But now it quickly became dominant as the preferable manner of conceiving the method of the divine dealing with men. The effect was to throw into the highest relief the threefold doctrine of imputation, and to make manifest as never before the dependency of the great doctrines of sin, satisfaction, and justification upon it.

VI. LA PLACE AND LATER THEOLOGIANS AND SCHOOLS

About the same time a brilliant French professor, Josué de la Place (see "Placeus, Josua"), of the Reformed school at Saumur, reduced all that could be called the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity simply to this - that because of the sin inherent in us from our origin we are deserving of being treated in the same way as if we had committed that offense. This confinement of the effect of Adam's sin upon his posterity to the transmission to them of a sinful disposition - inherent sin - was certainly new in the history of Reformed thought: Andreas Rivetus (see "Rivet, Andre") had no difficulty in collecting a long line of "testimonies" from the confessions and representative theologians explicitly declaring that men are accounted guilty in God's sight, both because of Adam's act of transgression imputed to them and of their own sinful disposition derived from him. The conflict of views was no doubt rendered sharper, however, by the prevalence at the time of the "Covenant theology" in which the immediate imputation of Adam's transgression is particularly clearly emphasized. Thus "immediate" and "mediate" imputation (for by the latter name La Place came subsequently to call his view) were pitted against each other as mutually exclusive doctrines: as if the question at issue were whether man stood condemned in the sight of God solely on account of his "adherent" sin, or solely on account of his "inherent" sin. The former of these doctrines had never been held in the Reformed Churches, since Zwingli, and the latter had never been held in them before La Place. From the first both "adherent" and "inherent" sin had been confessed as the double ground of human guilt; and the advocates of the "Covenant theology" were as far as possible from denying the guilt of "inherent" sin. La Place's innovation was as a matter of course condemned by the Reformed world, formally at the Synod of Charenton (1644-1645) and in the Helvetic Consensus (1675) and by argument at the hands of the leading theologians - Rivetus, Turretin, Maresius, Driessen, Leydecker, and Marck. But the tendencies of the time were in its favor and it made its way. It was adopted by theologians like Wyttenbach, Endemann, Stapfer, Roell, Vitringa, Venema; and after a while it found its way through Britain to America, where it has had an interesting history-forming one of the stages through which the New England Theology (q.v.) passed on its way to its ultimate denial of the quality of sin involving guilt to anything but the voluntary acts of a free agent; and finally becoming one of the characteristic tenets of the so-called "New School Theology" of the Presbyterian Churches. Thus it has come about that there has been much debate in America upon "imputation," in the sense of the imputation of Adam's sin, and diverse types of theology have been framed, especially among the Congregationalists and Presbyterians, centering in differences of conception of this doctrine. Among the Presbyterians, for example, four such types are well marked, each of which has been taught by theologians of distinction. These are (1) the "Federalistic," characterized by its adherence to the doctrine of "immediate imputation," represented, for example, by Dr. Charles Hodge; (2) the "New School," characterized by its adherence to the doctrine of "mediate imputation," represented, for example, by Dr. Henry B. Smith; (3) the "Realistic," which teaches that all mankind were present in Adam as generic humanity, and sinned in him, and are therefore guilty of his and their common sin, represented, for example, by Dr. W. G. T. Shedd; and (4) one which may be called the "Agnostic," characterized by an attempt to accept the fact of the transmission of both guilt and depravity from Adam without framing a theory of the mode of their transmission or of their relations one to the other, represented, for example, by Dr. R. W. Landis. See "Adam"; "Atonement"; "Justification" "Redemption" "Satisfaction"; "Sin."

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The literature of the subject is the literature of "Sin," "Atonement," and "Justification" (qq. v.). Special treatment is usually given also in the systems of doctrinal theology, especially of the Calvinistic type. Consult: A. Rivetus, "Opera," Rotterdam, iii. 1660, pp. 798 ff.; R. Rüetschi, "Geschichte und Kritik der kirchlichen Lehre von . . . Sündenfall," Leiden, 1881; C. Hodge, in "Theological Essays," New York, 1846, pp. 128-217; A. Schweizer, "Die protestantischen Centraldogmen," Zürich, 1854-1856; W. Cunningham, "The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation," Edinburgh, 1866, pp. 371 ff.; J. Buchanan, "The Doctrine of Justification," Edinburgh, 1867, pp. 279, 321-323, 334, 337; G. P. Fisher, in the New Englander, xxvii. 1868, pp. 468-516; J. Müller, "The Christian Doctrine of Sin," Edinburgh, ii. 1868, pp. 342 ff.; T. J. Crawford, "The Doctrine of Holy Scripture respecting the Atonement," Edinburgh, 1871, pp. 181-183, 424; R. W. Landis, "The Doctrine of Original Sin as Received and Taught by the Churches of the Reformation," Richmond, 1884; W. G. T. Shedd, "Dogmatic Theology," New York, ii. 1888, pp. 29, 42, 57-63, 192-194; H. B. Smith, "System of Christian Theology," ed. W. S. Karr, New York, 1886, pp. 283-323; R. V. Foster, "Systematic Theology," Nashville, 1898, pp. 408-413; W. A. Brown, "Christian Theology in Outline," New York, 1906, pp. 285, 290-291, 311, 362.

Christ Rightly and Properly Said to Have Merited Grace & Salvation For Us

by John Calvin

The three leading divisions of this chapter are,—

I. A proof from reason and from Scripture that the grace of God and the merit of Christ (the prince and author of our salvation) are perfectly compatible, sec. 1 and 2.

II. Christ, by his obedience, even to the death of the cross, (which was the price of our redemption,) merited divine favour for us, sec. 3-5.

III. The presumptuous rashness of the Schoolmen in treating this branch of doctrine.

Sections.

1. Christ not only the minister, but also the author and prince of salvation. Divine grace not obscured by this mode of expression. The merit of Christ not opposed to the mercy of God, but depends upon it.

2. The compatibility of the two proved by various passages of Scripture.

3. Christ by his obedience truly merited divine grace for us.

4. This grace obtained by the shedding of Christ's blood, and his obedience even unto death.

5. In this way he paid our ransom.

6. The presumptuous manner in which the Schoolmen handle this subject.

1. A question must here be considered by way of supplement. Some men too much given to subtilty, while they admit that we obtain salvation through Christ, will not hear of the name of merit, by which they imagine that the grace of God is obscured; and therefore insist that Christ was only the instrument or minister, not the author or leader, or prince of life, as he is designated by Peter, (Acts 3: 15.) I admit that were Christ opposed simply, and by himself, to the justice of God, there could be no room for merit, because there cannot be found in man a worth which could make God a debtor; nay, as Augustine says most truly, "The Saviour, the man Christ Jesus, is himself the brightest illustration of predestination and grace: his character as such was not procured by any antecedent merit of works or faith in his human nature. Tell me, I pray, how that man, when assumed into unity of person by the Word, co-eternal with the Father, as the only begotten Son at God, could merit this."—"Let the very fountain of grace, therefore, appear in our head, whence, according to the measure of each, it is diffused through all his members. Every man, from the commencement of his faith, becomes a Christian, by the same grace by which that man from his formation became Christ." Again, in another passage, "There is not a more striking example of predestination than the mediator himself. He who made him (without any antecedent merit in his will) of the seed of David a righteous man never to be unrighteous, also converts those who are members of his head from unrighteous into righteous" and so forth. Therefore when we treat of the merit of Christ, we do not place the beginning in him, but we ascend to the ordination of God as the primary cause, because of his mere good pleasure he appointed a Mediator to purchase salvation for us. Hence the merit of Christ is inconsiderately opposed to the mercy of God. It is a well known rule, that principal and accessory are not incompatible, and therefore there is nothing to prevent the justification of man from being the gratuitous result of the mere mercy of God, and, at the same time, to prevent the merit of Christ from intervening in subordination to this mercy. The free favour of God is as fitly opposed to our works as is the obedience of Christ, both in their order: for Christ could not merit anything save by the good pleasure of God, but only inasmuch as he was destined to appease the wrath of God by his sacrifice, and wipe away our transgressions by his obedience: in one word, since the merit of Christ depends entirely on the grace of God, (which provided this mode of salvation for us,) the latter is no less appropriately opposed to all righteousness of men than is the former.

2. This distinction is found in numerous passages of Scripture: "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish," (John 3: 16.) We see that the first place is assigned to the love of God as the chief cause or origin, and that faith in Christ follows as the second and more proximate cause. Should any one object that Christ is only the formal cause, he lessens his energy more than the words justify. For if we obtain justification by a faith which leans on him, the groundwork of our salvation must be sought in him. This is clearly proved by several passages: "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins," (1 John 4: 10.) These words clearly demonstrate that God, in order to remove any obstacle to his love towards us, appointed the method of reconciliation in Christ. There is great force in this word "propitiation"; for in a manner which cannot be expressed, God, at the very time when he loved us, was hostile to us until reconciled in Christ. To this effect are all the following passages: "He is the propitiation for our sins;" "It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell, and having made peace by the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself;" "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;" "He has made us accepted in the Beloved," "That he might reconcile both into one body by the cross." The nature of this mystery is to be learned from the first chapter to the Ephesians, where Paul, teaching that we were chosen in Christ, at the same time adds, that we obtained grace in him. How did God begin to embrace with his favour those whom he had loved before the foundation of the world, unless in displaying his love when he was reconciled by the blood of Christ? As God is the fountain of all righteousness, he must necessarily be the enemy and judge of man so long as he is a sinner. Wherefore, the commencement of love is the bestowing of righteousness, as described by Paul: "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. 5: 21.) He intimates, that by the sacrifice of Christ we obtain free justification, and become pleasing to God, though we are by nature the children of wrath, and by sin estranged from him. This distinction is also noted whenever the grace of Christ is connected with the love of God, (2 Cor. 13: 13;) whence it follows, that he bestows upon us of his own which he acquired by purchase. For otherwise there would be no ground for the praise ascribed to him by the Father, that grace is his, and proceeds from him.

3. That Christ, by his obedience, truly purchased and merited grace for us with the Father, is accurately inferred from several passages of Scripture. I take it for granted, that if Christ satisfied for our sins, if he paid the penalty due by us, if he appeased God by his obedience; in fine, if he suffered the just for the unjust, salvation was obtained for us by his righteousness; which is just equivalent to meriting. Now, Paul's testimony is, that we were reconciled, and received reconciliation through his death, (Rom. 5: 11.) But there is no room for reconciliation unless where offence has preceded. The meaning, therefore, is, that God, to whom we were hateful through sin, was appeased by the death of his Son, and made propitious to us. And the antithesis which immediately follows is carefully to be observed, "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous," (Rom. 5: 19.) For the meaning is—As by the sin of Adam we were alienated from God and doomed to destruction, so by the obedience of Christ we are restored to his favour as if we were righteous. The future tense of the verb does not exclude present righteousness, as is apparent from the context. For he had previously said, "the free gift is of many offences unto justification."

4. When we say, that grace was obtained for us by the merit of Christ, our meaning is, that we were cleansed by his blood, that his death was an expiation for sin, "His blood cleanses us from all sin." "This is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins," (1 John 1: 7; Luke 22: 20.) If the effect of his shed blood is, that our sins are not imputed to us, it follows, that by that price the justice of God was satisfied. To the same effect are the Baptist's words, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world," (John 1: 29.) For he contrasts Christ with all the sacrifices of the Law, showing that in him alone was fulfilled what these figures typified. But we know the common expression in Moses—Iniquity shall be expiated, sin shall be wiped away and forgiven. In short, we are admirably taught by the ancient figures what power and efficacy there is in Christ's death. And the Apostle, skilfully proceeding from this principle, explains the whole matter in the Epistle to the Hebrews, showing that without shedding of blood there is no remission, (Heb. 9: 22.) From this he infers, that Christ appeared once for all to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Again, that he was offered to bear the sins of many, (Heb. 9: 12.) He had previously said, that not by the blood of goats or of heifers, but by his own blood, he had once entered into the holy of holies, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Now, when he reasons thus, "If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself to God, purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9: 13, 14,) it is obvious that too little effect is given to the grace of Christ, unless we concede to his sacrifice the power of expiating, appeasing, and satisfying: as he shortly after adds, "For this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of his death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance," (Heb. 9: 15.) But it is especially necessary to attend to the analogy which is drawn by Paul as to his having been made a curse for us, (Gal. 3: 13.) It had been superfluous and therefore absurd, that Christ should have been burdened with a curse, had it not been in order that, by paying what others owed, he might acquire righteousness for them. There is no ambiguity in Isaiah's testimony, "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him; and with his stripes we are healed," (Is. 53: 5.) For had not Christ satisfied for our sins, he could not be said to have appeased God by taking upon himself the penalty which we had incurred. To this corresponds what follows in the same place, "for the transgression of my people was he stricken," (Is. 53: 8.) We may add the interpretation of Peter, who unequivocally declares, that he "bare our sins in his own body on the tree," (1 Pet. 2: 24,) that the whole burden of condemnation, of which we were relieved, was laid upon him.

5. The Apostles also plainly declare that he paid a price to ransom us from death: "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," (Rom. 3: 24, 25.) Paul commends the grace of God, in that he gave the price of redemption in the death of Christ; and he exhorts us to flee to his blood, that having obtained righteousness, we may appear boldly before the judgement-seat of God. To the same effect are the words of Peter: "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold," "but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot," (1 Pet. 1: 18,19.) The antithesis would be incongruous if he had not by this price made satisfaction for sins. For which reason, Paul says, "Ye are bought with a price." Nor could it be elsewhere said, there is "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all," (1 Tim. 2: 5, 6,) had not the punishment which we deserved been laid upon him. Accordingly, the same Apostle declares, that "we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins," (Col. 1: 14;) as if he had said, that we are justified or acquitted before God, because that blood serves the purpose of satisfaction. With this another passage agrees, viz., that he blotted out "the handwriting of ordinances which was against us, which was contrary to us," (Col. 2: 14.) These words denote the payment or compensation which acquits us from guilt. There is great weight also in these words of Paul: "If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain," (Gal. 2: 21.) For we hence infer, that it is from Christ we must seek what the Law would confer on any one who fulfilled it; or, which is the same thing, that by the grace of Christ we obtain what God promised in the Law to our works: "If a man do, he shall live in them," (Lev. 18: 5.) This is no less clearly taught in the discourse at Antioch, when Paul declares, "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 13: 38, 39.) For if the observance of the Law is righteousness, who can deny that Christ, by taking this burden upon himself, and reconciling us to God, as if we were the observers of the Law, merited favour for us? Of the same nature is what he afterwards says to the Galatians: "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law," (Gal. 4: 4, 5.) For to what end that subjection, unless that he obtained justification for us by undertaking to perform what we were unable to pay? Hence that imputation of righteousness without works, of which Paul treats, (Rom. 4: 5,) the righteousness found in Christ alone being accepted as if it were ours. And certainly the only reason why Christ is called our "meat," (John 6: 55,) is because we find in him the substance of life. And the source of this efficacy is just that the Son of God was crucified as the price of our justification; as Paul says, Christ "has given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour," (Eph. 5: 2;) and elsewhere, he "was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification," (Rom. 4: 25.) Hence it is proved not only that salvation was given us by Christ, but that on account of him the Father is now propitious to us. For it cannot be doubted that in him is completely fulfilled what God declares by Isaiah under a figure, "I will defend this city to save it for mine own sakes and for my servant David's sake," (Isaiah 37: 35.) Of this the Apostle is the best witness when he says "Your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake," (1 John 2: 12.) For although the name of Christ is not expressed, John, in his usual manner, designates him by the pronoun "He," ("autos".) In the same sense also our Lord declares, "As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me," (John 6: 57.) To this corresponds the passage of Paul, "Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for his sake," (Phil. 1: 29.)

6. To inquire, as Lombard and the Schoolmen do, (Sent. Lib. 3 Dist. 18,) whether he merited for himself, is foolish curiosity. equally rash is their decision when they answer in the affirmative. How could it be necessary for the only Son of God to come down in order to acquire some new quality for himself? The exposition which God gives of his own purpose removes all doubt. The Father is not said to have consulted the advantage of his Son in his services, but to have given him up to death, and not spared him, because he loved the world, (Rom. 8.) The prophetical expressions should be observed: "To us a Son is born;" "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion: shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee," (Isaiah 9: 6; Zech. 9: 9.) It would otherwise be a cold commendation of love which Paul describes, when he says, "God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," (Rom. 5: 8.) Hence, again, we infer that Christ had no regard to himself; and this he distinctly affirms, when he says, "For their sakes I sanctify myself," (John 17: 19.) He who transfers the benefit of his holiness to others, testifies that he acquires nothing for himself. And surely it is most worthy of remark, that Christ, in devoting himself entirely to our salvation, in a manner forgot himself. It is absurd to wrest the testimony of Paul to a different effect: "Wherefore God has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name," (Phil. 2: 9.) By what services could a man merit to become the judge of the world, the head of angels, to obtain the supreme government of God, and become the residence of that majesty of which all the virtues of men and angels cannot attain one thousandth part? The solution is easy and complete. Paul is not speaking of the cause of Christ's exaltation, but only pointing out a consequence of it by way of example to us. The meaning is not much different from that of another passage: "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" (Luke 24: 26.)

The Immediate and Only Ground of Justification: The Imputed Righteousness of Christ

by James Buchanan (1804-1870)

Many have admitted that the Justification of sinners is connected with the Mediatorial work of Christ as its meritorious cause; while they have denied that it rests on His righteousness as its immediate[1] and only ground. They have not ventured to set aside His merits altogether or to say that His redeeming work had no influence in procuring our pardon and acceptance with God. On the contrary, they have professed to do signal homage[2] to the merits of Christ by acknowledging both their indispensable necessity and their certain efficacy;[3] but only as a means of procuring for us those terms of salvation and that measure of grace, which render it possible for us to be justified by our personal obedience, while they have utterly rejected the idea that His righteousness is or can be imputed to us. Others, again, have admitted a real and important, but partial and imperfect, imputation of His righteousness and have restricted it to the merits of His passive, as distinguished from that of His active, obedience—thereby leaving our Justification to rest, partly on His atoning sacrifice and partly on our personal holiness in heart and life. It is necessary, therefore, to show that His righteousness—considered as the entire merit of His whole Mediatorial work—is not only the meritorious cause, but also the immediate ground of our Justification; and for this end, to inquire what that righteousness is by which alone we can be justified; why it is said to be the righteousness of God or the merit of Christ; and how it becomes ours so as to be available for our Justification.

PROPOSITION: The righteousness, which is the ground of a sinner's Justification, is denoted or described by various terms in Scripture, so that its nature may be determined by simply comparing these terms with one another; and then ascertaining[4] whether there be any righteousness to which they are all equally applicable and in which they all coincide in the fullness of their combined meaning.

That righteousness is called in Scripture “the righteousness of God”; “the righteousness of Christ”; the “righteousness of One”; “the obedience of One”; the “free gift unto justification of life”; “the righteousness which is of” or “by” or “through faith”; “the righteousness of God without the law”; and “the righteousness which God imputes without works.”

It will be found that, while these various expressions are descriptive of its different aspects and relations, they are all employed with reference to the same righteousness—that there is one righteousness in which they all find their common center, as so many distinct rays converging towards the same focus, while each retains its distinctive meaning—and that there is no other righteousness to which they can all be applied or in which they can find their adequate explanation.

It is called preeminently and emphatically “the righteousness of God.” By this name it is distinguished from the righteousness of man and even contrasted with it as a ground of Justification. It is brought in as a divine righteousness, only when all human righteousness has been shut out. The Apostle first proves that “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin”; and then introduces another righteousness altogether, “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifest...even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ” (Rom 3:20, 21). He contrasts the two great revelations—the revelation of wrath, which is by the Law, and the revelation of righteousness, which is by the Gospel: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men”; but “the Gospel of Christ...is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth...for therein is the righteousness of God revealed” (Rom 1:16, 18). And, in his own case, he renounces his own personal righteousness altogether as the ground of his acceptance and hope: “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” (Phi 3:8). The two righteousnesses are not only distinct, but different; and not only different, but directly opposed and mutually exclusive considered as grounds of Justification, insomuch that he who is justified by the one cannot possibly be justified by the other. If the righteousness of man be sufficient, the righteousness of God is superfluous.[5] If the righteousness of God be necessary, the righteousness of man can have no place. Nor can any conciliation[6] or compromise be effected between them, so as to admit of their being combined in one complex ground of acceptance. For they represent two methods of Justification which are irreconcilably opposed—the one by grace, the other by works: “For 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” (Rom 4:4). “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” (Rom 6:6).

If we would understand the reason why it is called “the righteousness of God,” we must bear in mind that there was a twofold manifestation of righteousness in the Cross of Christ: there was first a manifestation of the righteousness of God the Father, in requiring a satisfaction to His justice and inflicting the punishment that was due to sin; and to this the Apostle refers when he says that “God set forth Christ to be a propitiation...to declare His righteousness, that He might be just, and the Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” There was, secondly, a work of righteousness by God the Son—His vicarious[7] righteousness as the Redeemer of His people, when He “became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross,” and thus became “the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” But these two—God's righteousness, which was declared, and Christ's righteousness, which was wrought out on the Cross—although they may be distinguished, cannot be separated from one another; for they were indissolubly[8] united in one and the same propitiation.[9] And while the righteousness which is revealed for our Justification may be called “the righteousness of God” with some reference to both, it properly consists in the merit of Christ's atoning sacrifice and perfect obedience, for these were offered by Him as our Substitute and Representative.

The same righteousness which is called “the righteousness of God,” is also called “the righteousness of Christ.” We obtain “precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”; or as it might be rendered, “through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (2Pe 1:1). “And this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS” (Jer 23:6). He is so called on account of the righteousness which He wrought out by His obedience unto death; for this righteousness is expressly connected with His Mediatorial work. “The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable” (Isa 42:21). By His vicarious sufferings and obedience, He fulfilled the Law both in its precept and its penalty and is now said to be “the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,” while His righteousness is identified with “the righteousness of God,” to which the unbelieving Jews refused to “submit themselves” and contrasted with “their own righteousness” which they “went about to establish,” “as it were by the works of the law” (Rom 10:3, 4 ).

PROPOSTION: This righteousness—being the merit of a work and not a mere quality of character—may become ours by being imputed to us, but cannot be communicated by being infused; and must ever continue to belong primarily and, in one important respect, exclusively to Him by whom alone that work was accomplished.

This statement consists of three distinct affirmations, which are directed against as many different errors, springing from a prevalent confusion of thought, in regard to the whole doctrine of Imputation. And it may be useful to consider each of them successively in connection with the proofs on which they severally depend.

It is affirmed, first, that the righteousness which is the ground of Justification, being the merit of a work undertaken and accomplished by Christ on behalf of His people, may become theirs by being imputed to them or reckoned to their account. This statement could scarcely be denied, if the merit of His work, done and finished “once for all,” were duly distinguished from an inherent and abiding quality of His personal character, and if that work were really regarded as having been undertaken and accomplished on the behalf of others, by One acting as their Substitute and Surety.[10] For the merit of one can never, in any case, become available for the benefit of others, except when it is imputed to them. It cannot, from the very nature of the case, become theirs by infusion. The merit of one may be reckoned or put down to the account of another; but how can the merit of any work be infused, as a personal property, as holiness may unquestionably be? But when we affirm that the righteousness of Christ or the merit of His Mediatorial work may become ours by being imputed to us, we are met with a counterstatement to the effect—not that there was no merit in His work or that His work was not accomplished on behalf of others, which are the only important elements in the case—but that biblical criticism forbids the use of the term “impute,” except when it is applied to personal properties and acts. “There is not in all the Scriptures,” says one, “an instance in which one man's sin or righteousness is said to be imputed to another....There is not in all the Bible one assertion that Adam's sin, or Christ's righteousness, is imputed to us; nor one declaration that any man's sin is ever imputed by God or man to another man.... Having followed (the Hebrew and Greek verbs) through the concordances, I hesitate not to challenge a single example which is fairly of this nature in all the Bible.” [Moses Stuart, Commentary on Romans]

These are bold statements and may seem to imply a denial of the doctrine, as well as a criticism on the term by which it has been usually expressed; but we refer at present only to the latter. Every reader of his English Bible without the aid of critical scholarship may discover—and it has never been denied, so far as we know, by any competent divine—that the verbs in question are applicable to cases, in which that which is imputed to any one was personally his own beforehand—that one man, for instance, who is righteous, is reckoned and treated as righteous; and that another man who is wicked, is reckoned and treated as wicked. But the question is, Whether the same verbs may not be equally applicable to other cases, in which that which is imputed to him was not personally his own, and did not previously belong to him, but became his only by its being put down to his account? The debt due and the wrong done by Onesimus to Philemon were not chargeable against Paul personally or previously, but he became chargeable with them simply by their being imputed to him: “If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account” or “impute that to me”; “I will repay it.” (Phm 18, 19).

In like manner, He was made “to be sin for us, who knew no sin,” and “bare our sins in his own body on the tree”—not that our sins were chargeable against Him personally or previously, but they became His by imputation on God's part and voluntary susception[11] on His own (2Co 5:21; 1Pe 2:24). If it be said that the mere word impute is not employed in this case, it may be asked whether there be any other which could more accurately express the fact, if it be a fact; and whether the word itself is not used in a parallel case, when God is said “to impute righteousness without works,” as often as “He justifieth the ungodly”? (Rom 4:5, 6) Indeed, Justification consists partly in the “non-imputation” of sin, which did belong personally to the sinner, and partly in the “imputation” of righteousness, of which he was utterly destitute before. And the meaning of the one may be ascertained from the meaning of the other, while both are necessary to express the full meaning of Justification. We conclude, therefore, that the righteousness of Christ—being the merit of a work done and finished—may be imputed for the Justification of His people, but cannot possibly be infused.

It is affirmed, secondly, that the righteousness of Christ, to be available for the benefit of His people, must become theirs by imputation and not by infusion. Most of the leading errors on the subject of Justification may be traced to obscure or defective views in regard to the nature or import of imputation, and have arisen from supposing either that it consists in the infusion of moral qualities, in which case Justification is confounded with Sanctification; or that, in so far as imputation may be distinguished from such infusion, it is founded, at least, on the moral qualities which thus become inherent, in which case Justification has for its immediate ground a personal and not a vicarious righteousness. The only effectual way of striking at the root of these prevailing and pernicious[12] errors is by forming distinct and definite conceptions of what is really meant by the general doctrine of Imputation, whether in regard to sin or to righteousness. And the likeliest means of doing so seems to be to take the three cases of Imputation which have been affirmed by divines to have the express sanction of Scripture—namely 1) that of the guilt of Adam's first sin to his posterity, 2) that of the guilt of our sins to Christ as our Substitute, and 3) that of His righteousness to us as the immediate ground of our Justification—to compare them with one another, to eliminate whatever is peculiar to each of them, and to frame our general idea of imputation by including in it only what is common to them all. For as each of the three is a specific example of the same generic class, we may hope, by means of this process of comparison and abstraction,[13] to arrive at a correct result and to retain whatever is essential to the nature of imputation, while we exclude only what is peculiar to each of its special exemplifications.[14] It may thus be made manifest that imputation, whether it be of sin or of righteousness, neither consists in the infusion of moral qualities, nor is in all cases necessarily connected with it.

Take the three cases of Imputation which have been specified and compare them with one another. We find that in two out of the three a change of moral character is the invariable concomitant[15] or consequent of imputation; for the imputation of Adam's guilt to his posterity was connected with their loss of original righteousness and the corruption of their whole nature. And the imputation of Christ's righteousness to His people is connected, in like manner, with their renewal and sanctification. But we also find that, in the third case—which is as real and as complete an instance of imputation as either of the other two—the imputation of our sins to Christ was not connected with any change in His holy character, or with the infusion of any, even the slightest, taint of moral evil. Whence we infer that imputation, so far from consisting in, is not even invariably connected with the infusion of moral qualities. We find again, that in two out of the three cases, representative and personal agency are so clearly distinguished as to make it manifest, that the party to whom anything is imputed is not supposed to have had any active participation in the doing of it: for our sins were really, and in the full sense of the term, imputed to Christ as our Substitute, yet He had no share in the commission of them. And His righteousness is, in like manner, imputed to us for our Justification, yet we had no share with Him in “finishing the work which the Father had given Him to do.” Whence we infer that, in the third case—the imputation of Adam's guilt to his posterity—it is so far from being necessary to suppose our personal participation in his act, that such a supposition would go far to destroy the doctrine of Imputation altogether, by setting aside the fundamental distinction between the agency of the representative and that of those who were represented by him. We find again that in all the three cases, imputation, whether of sin or of righteousness, is founded on a federal[16] relation subsisting between one and many—for Adam was constituted the head and representative of his race, and Christ the Substitute and Surety of His people. This relation may be fitly described as amounting to a union between them, in virtue of which they are regarded and treated as being, in some respects, one. But this union is not such as to destroy the distinction between their respective personalities or to confound their several acts: for it is still true, that the representative was personally different from those whom he represented, and that his obedience or disobedience was his own act and not theirs, although it is imputed to them.

These few specimens may suffice to illustrate the general doctrine of Imputation, and the best way of acquiring a distinct conception of its true meaning. They show that, while the righteousness of Christ, considered as the merit of His Mediatorial work, may become ours by being imputed to us, it is not communicated as an inherent habit or quality might be; and that our Justification, in so far as it depends on that righteousness neither consists in the infusion of moral qualities nor rests on these qualities, when they have been infused, as its proper ground.

It is affirmed, thirdly, that the righteousness of Christ, considered as the merit of His Mediatorial work, must ever continue, even when it is imputed to us, to belong primarily, and, in one important respect, exclusively, to Him by whom alone that work was accomplished. It is His righteousness in a sense in which it can never be ours: it is His, as having been wrought out by Him; and it is ours, only as it is imputed to us. It is His, as it was the merit of His personal obedience; and it is ours, only as it is derived to us from Him. He claims a special propriety[17] in it even when He makes it over to His people. The whole merit is His; the gracious imputation of it only is ours.

Endnotes:

1 immediate – without the intervention of another cause; direct.

2 signal homage – noteworthy or special honor expressed publicly.

3 efficacy – power to produce a desired effect; effectiveness.

4 ascertaining – discovering with certainty.

5 superfluous – being beyond what is required.

6 conciliation – reconciliation.

7 vicarious – acting in the place of someone else.

8 indissolubly – permanent.

9 propitiation – appeasing one offended and rendering him favorable.

10 surety – one who enters into a bond to undertake the responsibilities or debt of another.

11 susception – the act of taking.

12 pernicious – causing great harm; destructive.

13 abstraction – summarizing.

14 exemplifications – illustrating by example.

15 concomitant – conjoined with; accompanying.

16 federal – pertaining to a covenant or treaty.

17 propriety – exclusive right of possession; ownership.

Nine Strong Consolations of Imputed Righteousness

by Rev. Thomas Brooks (1608-1680)

1. First, let all believers know for their comfort that in this imputed righteousness of Christ there is enough to satisfy the justice of God to the uttermost farthing and to take off all His judicial anger and fury. The mediatory righteousness of Christ is so perfect, so full, so exact, so complete, and so fully satisfactory to the justice of God that divine justice cries out, "I have enough, and I require no more! I have found a ransom, and I am fully pacified towards you!" (Eze. 16:61-63; Hebrews. 10:10-12, 14; Isaiah 53:4-6). It is certain that Christ was truly and properly a sacrifice for sin. And it is as certain that our sins were the meritorious cause of His sufferings. He did put Himself into poor sinners' stead; He took their guilt upon Him and did undergo that punishment which they should have undergone. He did die and shed His blood, that He might thereby atone God and expiate sin (Romans. 5:6-12). Therefore we may safely and boldly conclude that Jesus Christ hath satisfied the justice of God to the uttermost so that now the believing sinner may rejoice and triumph in the justice as well as in the mercy of God (Hebrews 7:25); for doubtless the mediatory righteousness of Christ was infinitely more satisfactory and pleasing to God than all the sins of believers could be displeasing to Him. God took more pleasure and delight in the bruising of His Son, in the humiliation of His Son, and He smelled a sweeter savor in His sacrifice, than all our sins could possibly offend Him or provoke Him (Isaiah 53:10).

When a believer casts his eyes upon his many thousand sinful commissions and omissions, no wonder that he fears and trembles. But then, when he looks upon Christ's satisfaction, he may see himself acquitted and rejoice. For if there be no charge, no accusation against the Lord Jesus, there can be none against the believer (Romans. 8:33-37). Christ's expiatory sacrifice hath fully satisfied divine justice. And upon that very ground every believer hath cause to triumph in Christ Jesus, and in that righteousness of His by which he stands justified before the throne of God (2 Cor. 2:14; Revelation 14:4, 5).

Christ is a person of infinite, transcendent worth and excellency. And it makes highly for His honor to justify believers in the most ample and glorious way imaginable. And what way is that, but by working out for them, and then investing them with a righteousness adequate to the Law of God, a righteousness that should be every way commensurate to the miserable estate of fallen man and to the holy design of the glorious God. It is the high honor of the second Adam that He hath restored to fallen man a more glorious righteousness than that he lost in the first Adam. And it would be high blasphemy in the eyes of angels and men for any mortal to assert that the second Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ, was less powerful to save than the first Adam was to destroy! The second Adam is "able to save to the uttermost all such as come to God through him" (Hebrews. 7:25). He is able to save to the uttermost obligation of the Law—preceptive as well as penal—and to bring in perfect righteousness as well as perfect innocency. He is able to save to the uttermost demand of divine justice by that perfect satisfaction that He has given to divine justice. Christ is "mighty to save" (Isaiah 63:1); and as He is mighty to save, so He loves to save poor sinners in such a way wherein He may most magnify His own might. And therefore He will purchase their pardon with His blood (1 Peter 1:18, 19) and make reparation to divine justice for all the wrongs and injuries which fallen man had done to his Creator and His royal Law; and bestow upon him a better righteousness than that which Adam lost; and bring him into a more safe, high, honorable, and durable estate than that which Adam fell from when he was in his created perfection.

All the attributes of God do acquiesce in the imputed righteousness of Christ, so that a believer may look upon the holiness, justice, and righteousness of God and rejoice and lay himself down in peace (Psalm 4:8). Christ has put His coat, His robe of righteousness, upon every believer (Isaiah 61:10), upon which account all the judicial anger, wrath, and fury of God towards believers ceaseth. But,

2. Secondly, know for your comfort that this imputed, this mediatory righteousness of Christ takes away all your unrighteousness. It cancels every bond; it takes away all iniquity and answers for all your sins (Isaiah 53:5-7; Colossians 2:12-15). "Lord, here are my sins of omission, and here are my sins of commission"; but the righteousness of Christ hath answered for them all. "Here are my sins against the Law, and here are my sins against the Gospel. And here are my sins against the offers of grace, the tenders of grace, the strivings of grace, the bowels of grace"; but the righteousness of Christ hath answered for them all.

O sirs! It would be high blasphemy for any to imagine that there should be more demerit in any sin, yea, in all sin to condemn a believer, than there is merit in Christ's righteousness to absolve him, to justify him (Romans 8:1, 33-35). The righteousness of Christ was shadowed out by the glorious robes and apparel of the high priest (Exo 30). That attire in which the high priest appeared before God, what was it else but a type of Christ's righteousness? The filthy garments of Joshua, who represented the Church, were not only taken off from him, thereby signifying the removal of our sins (Zec. 3:4, 5); but also a new, fair garment was put upon him to signify our being clothed with the wedding-garment of Christ's righteousness. If any shall say, "How is it possible that a soul that is defiled with the worst of sins should be whiter than the snow, yea, beautiful and glorious in the eyes of God?" the answer is at hand: to whomsoever the Lord doth give the pardon of his sins, which is the first part of our justification, to them He doth also impute the righteousness of Christ, which is the second part of our justification before God.

Thus David describeth, saith the Apostle, the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works; saying, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered" (Romans 4:6, 7). Now to that man whose sins the Lord forgives, to him He doth impute righteousness also: "Take away the filthy garments from him," saith the Lord of Joshua, "and he said unto him, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment" (Zec. 3:4). And what was that change of raiment? Surely the perfect obedience and righteousness of the Lord Jesus, which God doth impute unto us; in which respect also we are said by justifying faith to put on the Lord Jesus (Romans 13:14); and to be clothed with Him as with a garment (Galatians 3:27). And no marvel if, being so appareled, we appear beautiful and glorious in the sight of God: "To her," that is, Christ's bride, "was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white, for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints" (Revelation 19:8). This perfect righteousness of Christ, which the Lord imputeth to us and wherewith as with a garment He clotheth us, is the only righteousness which the saints have to stand before God with. And having that robe of righteousness on, they may stand with great boldness and comfort before the judgment seat of God. But,

3. Thirdly, know for your comfort that this righteousness of Christ presents us perfectly righteous in the sight of God. He is made to us righteousness? (1 Cor. 1:30). The robe of innocency, like the veil of the temple, is rent asunder. Our righteousness is a ragged righteousness; our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:4). Look, as under rags the naked body is seen, so under the rags of our righteousnesses the body of death is seen. Christ is all in all in regard of righteousness: Christ is "the end of the law for righteousness to them that believe" (Romans 10:4). That is, through Christ we are as righteous as if we had satisfied the Law in our own persons. The end of the Law is to justify and save those which fulfill it. Christ subjected Himself thereto: He perfectly fulfilled it for us, and His perfect righteousness is imputed to us. Christ fulfilled the moral Law, not for Himself, but for us. Therefore Christ doing it for believers, they fulfill the Law in Christ. And so Christ by doing, and they believing in Him that doth it, do fulfill the Law.

Or Christ may be said to be the end of the Law because the end of the Law is perfect righteousness, that a man may be justified thereby, which end we cannot attain of ourselves through the frailty of our flesh. But by Christ we attain it, Who hath fulfilled the Law for us. Christ hath perfectly fulfilled the Decalogue for us and that three ways: (1.) in His pure conception; (2.) in His godly life; and (3.) in His holy and obedient sufferings and all for us. For whatsoever the Law required that we should be, do, or suffer, He hath performed in our behalf. We are discharged by Him before God. Christ in respect of the integrity and purity of His nature, being conceived without sin (Matthew 1:18); and in respect of His life and actions, being wholly conformed to the absolute righteousness of the Law (Luke 1:35); and in respect of the punishment which He suffered, to make satisfaction unto God's justice for the breach of the Law (2 Cor. 5:21; Colossians 1:20)—in these respects Christ is the perfection of the Law and "the end of the law for righteousness to them that believe."

The infinite wisdom and power of dear Jesus in reconciling the Law and the Gospel in this great mystery of justification is greatly to be magnified. This righteousness presents us in the sight of God as "all fair" (Song 4:7); as "complete" (Colossians 2:10); as "without spot or wrinkle" (Ephesians 5:27); as "without fault before the throne of God" (Revelation 14:5); as "holy, and unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight" (Colossians 1:22). Oh, the happiness and blessedness, the safety and glory, of those precious souls, who in the righteousness of Jesus Christ stand perfectly righteous in the sight of God! But,

4. Fourthly, know for your comfort that this imputed righteousness of Christ will answer to all the fears, doubts, and objections of your souls. How shall I look up to God? The answer is "in the righteousness of Jesus Christ." How shall I have any communion with a holy God in this world? The answer is "in the righteousness of Christ." How shall I find acceptance with God? The answer is "in the righteousness of Christ." How shall I die? The answer is "in the righteousness of Christ." How shall I stand before the judgment seat? The answer is "in the righteousness of Jesus Christ." Your sure and only way, under all temptations, fears, conflicts, doubts, and disputes is by faith to remember Christ and the sufferings of Christ as your Mediator and Surety. Say, "O Christ, Thou art my sin in being made sin for me; and Thou art my curse being made a curse for me" (2 Cor. 5:21; Galatians 3:13); or rather, "I am Thy sin, and Thou art my righteousness; I am Thy curse, and Thou art my blessing; I am Thy death, and Thou art my life; I am the wrath of God to Thee, and Thou art the love of God to me; I am Thy hell, and Thou art my heaven."

O sirs! If you think of your sins and of God's wrath; if you think of your guiltiness and of God's justice, your hearts will faint and fail. They will fear and tremble and sink into despair, if you do not think of Christ, if you do not stay and rest your souls upon the Mediator righteousness of Christ, the imputed righteousness of Christ. The imputed righteousness of Christ answers all cavils and objections though there were millions of them that can be made against the good estate of a believer. This is a precious truth—more worth than a world—that all our sins are pardoned, not only in a way of truth and mercy, but in a way of justice. But,

5. Fifthly, know for your comfort that the imputed righteousness of Christ is the best title that you have to show for "a kingdom that shakes not, for riches that corrupt not, for an inheritance that fadeth not away, and for an house not made with hands, but one eternal in the heavens" (Hebrews 12:28; 1 Peter 1:3-5; 2 Cor. 5:1-4). It is the fairest certificate that you have to show for all that happiness and blessedness that you look for in that other world. The righteousness of Christ is your life, your joy, your comfort, your crown, your confidence, your heaven, your all. Oh, that you were still so wise as to keep a fixed eye and an awakened heart upon the mediatory righteousness of Christ! For that is the righteousness by which you may safely and comfortably live and by which you may happily and quietly die.

Ah, that believers would dwell much upon this: they have a righteousness in Christ that is as full, perfect, and complete, as if they had fulfilled the Law . . . yea, the righteousness that believers have by Christ is in some respect better than that they should have had by Adam . . . the first Adam was a mere man; the second Adam is God and man . . . Adam was a mutable person. He lost his righteousness in one day, say some, and all that glory which his posterity should have possessed, if he had stood fast in innocency. But the righteousness of Christ cannot be lost. His righteousness is like Himself, from everlasting to everlasting. When once this white raiment is put upon a believer, it can never fall off; it can never be taken off. This splendid glorious righteousness of Jesus Christ is as really a believer's as if he had wrought it himself (Revelation 19:8). A believer is no loser, but a gainer, by Adam's fall. By the loss of Adam's righteousness is brought to light a more glorious and durable righteousness than ever Adam's was. And upon the account of an interest in this righteousness a believer may challenge all the glory of that upper world. But,

6. Sixthly, Know for your comfort that this imputed righteousness of Christ is the only true basis, bottom, and ground, for a believer to build his happiness upon, his joy and comfort upon, and the true peace and quiet of his conscience upon. What though Satan, or thy own heart, or the world condemn thee, yet in this thou mayest rejoice: God justifies thee. You see what a bold challenge Paul makes: "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth" (Romans 8:33). And if the judge acquit the prisoner at the bar, he cares not though the jailer or his fellow-prisoners condemn him. So here there are no accusers that a believer needs to fear, seeing that it is God Himself, Who is the Supreme Judge that absolves him as just. God absolves, and therefore it is to no purpose for Satan to accuse us (Revelation 12:10); nor for the Law of Moses to accuse us (John 5:45); nor for our own consciences to accuse us (Romans 2:25); nor for the world to accuse us. God is the highest Judge, and His tribunal-seat is the supreme judgment seat. Therefore from thence there is no appealing. As amongst men, persons accused or condemned may appeal till they come to the highest court. But if in the highest, they are absolved and discharged, then they are free and safe and well. Because the believer is absolved before God's tribunal-seat, there are no further accusations to be feared, all appeals from thence being void and of no force. The consideration of which should arm us and comfort us and strengthen us against all terrors of conscience, guilt of sin, accusation of the Law, and cruelty of Satan; inasmuch as these either dare not appear before God to accuse us or charge us; or if they do, it is but lost labor.

Ah! What a strong cordial would this be to all the people of God, if they would but live in the power of this glorious truth! It is God that justifies them, and there lies no accusation in the court of heaven against them!

The great reason why many poor Christians are under so many dejections, despondencies, and perplexities is because they drink no more of this water of life: "It is God that justifieth." Did Christians live more upon this breast, "It is God that justifieth," they would be no more like Pharaoh's lean kine, but would be fat and flourishing (Genesis 41:1-3).

The imputed righteousness of Christ is a real, sure, and solid foundation upon which a believer may safely build his peace, joy, and everlasting rest. Yea, it will help him to glory in tribulations and to triumph over all adversities . . . yea, you may be wonderfully cheered at this, and it is your greatest comfort that you have to deal with this just God, Who hath already received satisfaction for your sins.

Whilst Christians set up a righteousness of their own and build not upon the righteousness of Christ, how unsettled are they! (Romans 10:3) How miserably are they tossed up and down, sometimes fearing and sometimes hoping, sometimes supposing themselves in a good condition, and anon seeing themselves upon the very brink of hell! But now all is quiet and serene with that soul that builds upon the righteousness of Christ. For he being "justified by faith, hath peace with God" (Romans 5:1). Observe that noble description of Christ in Isaiah 32:2: "And a man," that is, the man Christ Jesus, "shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land." When a man is clothed with the righteousness of Christ, Who is God-man, it is neither wind nor tempest, it is neither drought nor weariness that can disturb the peace of his soul. For Christ and His righteousness will be a hiding-place, a covert, and rivers of water, and the shadow of a great rock unto him. Being at perfect peace with God, he may well say with the Psalmist, "I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LO R D, only makest me dwell in safety" (Psalm 4:6-8). The peace and comfort of an awakened sinner can never stand firm and stable, but upon the basis of a positive righteousness.

When a sensible sinner casts his eye upon his own righteousness, holiness, fasting, prayers, tears, humbling, meltings, he can find no place for the sole of his foot to rest firmly upon by reason of the spots, and blots, and blemishes, that cleave both to his graces and duties. He knows that his prayers need pardon, and that his tears need washing in the blood of the Lamb, and that his very righteousness needs another's righteousness to secure him from condemnation. "If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?" (Psalm 130:3; 1:5). That is, "stand" in judgment . . . the best man's life is fuller of sins than the firmament is of stars or the furnace of sparks. Therefore who can stand in judgment and not fall under the weight of Thy just wrath, which burneth as low as hell itself? None can stand. Were the faults of the best man alive but written in his forehead, he was never able to stand in judgment. When a man comes to the Law for justification, it convinceth him of sin.

When he pleads his innocence, that he is not so great a sinner as others are, when he pleads his righteousness, his duties, his good meanings, and his good desires, the Law tells him that they are all weighed in the balance of the sanctuary and found too light (Daniel 5:27). The Law tells him that the best of his duties will not save him and that the least of his sins will damn him. The Law tells him that his own righteousnesses are as filthy rags, do but defile him, and that his best services do but witness against him. The Law looks for perfect and personal obedience, and because the sinner cannot come up to it, it pronounceth him accursed (Galatians 3:10). And though the sinner sues hard for mercy, yet the Law will show him none, no, though he seeks it carefully with tears (Hebrews 12:17). But now, when the believing sinner casts his eye upon the righteousness of Christ, he sees that righteousness to be a perfect and exact righteousness, as perfect and exact as that of the Law.

The saints of old have always placed their happiness, peace, and comfort in their perfect and complete justification, rather than in their imperfect and incomplete sanctification . . . that text is worthy to be written in letters of gold: "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord," saith the sound believer, "my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness" (Isaiah 61:10). He hath imputed and given unto me the perfect holiness and obedience of my blessed Savior and made it mine. But,

7. Seventhly, then know for your comfort that you have the highest reason in the world to rejoice and triumph in Christ Jesus. "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 3:3; Galatians 6:14). We rejoice in the Person of Christ, and we rejoice in the righteousness of Christ: "Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ" (2 Cor. 2:14). God's grace was ever in Paul's mouth, and ever in Austin's mouth, and should be ever in a Christian's mouth, when his eye is fixed upon the righteousness of Christ. Every believer is in a more blessed and happy estate by means of the righteousness of Christ than Adam was in innocency and that upon a threefold account, which are just and noble grounds for every Christian to rejoice and triumph in Christ Jesus.

(1.) That righteousness which Adam had was uncertain and such as it was possible for him to lose. Yea, he did lose it (Genesis 3), and that in a very short time (Psalm 8:5). God gave him power and freedom of will either to hold it or lose it. And we know soon after, upon choice, he proved a bankrupt. But the righteousness that we have by Jesus Christ is made more firm and sure to us. Adam sinned away his righteousness, but a believer cannot sin away the righteousness of Jesus Christ. It is not possible for the elect of God so to sin as to lose Christ or to strip themselves of that robe of righteousness which Christ hath put upon them (1 John 3:9; Romans 8:35, 39). The gates of hell shall never be able to prevail against that soul that is interested in Christ, that is clothed with the righteousness of Christ (Matthew 16:18). Now what higher ground of joy and triumph in Christ Jesus can there be than this? But,

(2.) The righteousness that Adam had was in his own keeping. The spring and root of it was founded in himself, and that was the cause why he lost it so soon. Adam, like the prodigal son (Luke 15:12, 13), had all his portion, his happiness, his holiness, his blessedness, his righteousness, in his own hands, in his own keeping, and so quickly lost stock and block, as some speak.

Oh, but now, that blessed righteousness that we have by Jesus Christ is not in our own keeping, but in our Father's keeping. God the Father is the Lord Keeper, not only of our inherent righteousness, but also of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ unto us. "My sheep shall never perish," saith our Savior, "neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand" (John 10:28, 29). Though the saints may meet with many shakings and tossings in their various conditions in this world, yet their final perseverance till they come to full possession of eternal life is certain. God is so unchangeable in His purposes of love and so invincible in His power that neither Satan, nor the world, nor their own flesh shall ever be able to separate them from "a crown of righteousness" (2 Timothy 4:7, 8); "a crown of life" (Revelation 2:10); "a crown of glory" (1 Peter 5:4). The power of God is so far above all created opposition, that it will certainly maintain the saints in a state of grace. Now what a bottom and ground for rejoicing and triumphing in Christ Jesus is here! But,

(3.) Even if the righteousness that Adam had in his creation were unchangeable, and he could never have lost it; yet it had been but the righteousness of a man, of a mere creature. And what a poor, low righteousness would that have been, to that high and glorious righteousness that we have by Jesus Christ, which is the righteousness of such a Person as was God as well as man. Yea, that righteousness that we have by Jesus Christ is a higher righteousness and a more excellent, transcendent righteousness than that of the angels. Though the righteousness of the angels be perfect and complete in its kind, yet it is but the righteousness of mere creatures. But the righteousness of the saints in which they stand clothed before the throne of God is the righteousness of that Person which is both God and man.

Now what a well of salvation is here! What three noble grounds and what matchless bottoms are here for a Christian's joy and triumph in Christ Jesus, who hath put so glorious a robe as His own righteousness upon them! Ah, Christians, let not the consolations of God be small in your eyes (Job 15:11). Why take you no more comfort and delight in Christ Jesus? Why rejoice you no more in Him? Not to rejoice in Christ Jesus is a plain breach of that gospel command, "Rejoice in the Lord alway," that is, rejoice in Christ, "and again I say, rejoice," saith the Apostle (Philippians 4:4). He doubleth the mandate to show the necessity and excellency of the duty.

That joy lasts forever, whose object remains forever. Such an object is our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the joy of the saints should still be exercised upon our Lord Jesus Christ. Shall the worldling rejoice in his barns, the rich man in his bags, the ambitious man in his honors, the voluptuous man in his pleasures, and the wanton in his Delilahs; and shall not a Christian rejoice in Christ Jesus and in that robe of righteousness with which Christ hath covered him? (Isaiah 61:10)

The joy of that Christian that keeps a fixed eye upon Christ and His righteousness cannot be expressed, it cannot be painted. No man can paint the sweetness of the honeycomb, or the sweetness of a cluster of Canaan, or the fragrance of the rose of Sharon. As the being of things cannot be painted, so the sweetness of things cannot be painted. The joy of the Holy Ghost cannot be painted, nor that joy that arises in a Christian's heart, who keeps up a daily converse with Christ and His righteousness, cannot be painted; it cannot be expressed! Who can look upon the glorious body of our Lord Jesus Christ and seriously consider that even every vein of that blessed body did bleed to bring him to heaven, and not rejoice in Christ Jesus? Who can look upon the glorious righteousness of Christ imputed to him and not be filled with an exuberancy of spiritual joy in God his Savior? There is not the pardon of the least sin, nor the least degree of grace, nor the least drop of mercy, but cost Christ dear: for He must die, and He must be made a sacrifice, and He must be accursed, that pardon may be thine, and grace thine, and mercy thine! And oh, how should this draw out thy heart to rejoice and triumph in Christ Jesus! But,

8. Eighthly, The imputed righteousness of Christ may serve to comfort, support, and bear up the hearts of the people of God from fainting and sinking under the sense of the weakness and imperfection of their inherent righteousness. The church of old has lamentingly said, "We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness is as filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). When a Christian keeps a serious eye upon the spots, blots, blemishes, infirmities, and follies that cleave to his inherent righteousness, fears and tremblings arise to the saddening and sinking of his soul. But when he casts a fixed eye upon the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, then his comforts revive and his heart bears up. For though he hath no righteousness of his own by which his soul may stand accepted before God, yet he hath God's righteousness, which infinitely transcends his own. In God's account, it goes for his, as if he had exactly fulfilled the righteousness which the Law requires. According to the Apostle, "What shall we say then? the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith" (Romans 9:30).

Faith wraps itself in the righteousness of Christ and so justifieth us. The Gentiles sought righteousness, not in themselves but in Christ, which they apprehended by faith and were by it justified in the sight of God. The Jews, seeking it in themselves, and thinking by the goodness of their own works to attain to the righteousness of the Law, missed of it. Being in no man's power perfectly to fulfill the Law, only Christ hath exactly fulfilled it for all that by faith close savingly with Him.

O sirs! None can be justified in the sight of God by a righteousness of their own making.

Now remember that this imputed righteousness of Christ procures acceptance for our inherent righteousness. When a sincere Christian casts his eye upon the weaknesses, infirmities, and imperfections that daily attend his best services, he sighs and mourns. But if he looks upward to the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, it shall bring forth his infirm, weak, and sinful performances perfect, spotless, and sinless, and approved according to the tenor of the gospel. They become spiritual sacrifices, and he cannot but rejoice (1 Peter 2:5). For as there is an imputation of righteousness to the persons of believers, so there is also an imputation to their services and actions . . . so the imperfect good works that are done by believers are accounted righteousness, or as Calvin speaks, "are accounted for righteousness, they being dipped in the blood of Christ." They are accounted righteous actions; and so sincere Christians shall be judged according to their good works though not saved for them (Revelation 11:18; 20:12; Matthew 25:34-37).

And it is observable in that famous process of the last judgment (Matthew 25:34-37), that the supreme Judge makes mention of the bounty and liberality of the saints, and so bestows the crown of life and the eternal inheritance upon them. Though the Lord's faithful ones have eminent cause to be humbled and afflicted for the many weaknesses that cleave to their best duties, yet on the other hand, they have wonderful cause to rejoice and triumph that they are made perfect through Jesus Christ, and that the Lord looks at them through the righteousness of Christ as fruits of His own Spirit (Hebrews 13:20, 21; 1 Cor. 6:11). The saints' prayers being perfumed with Christ's odors are highly accepted in heaven (Revelation 8:3, 4). Upon this bottom of imputed righteousness, believers may have exceeding strong consolation and good hope through grace, that both their persons and services do find singular acceptation with God as having no spot or blemish at all in them. Surely righteousness imputed must be the top of our happiness and blessedness! But,

9. Ninthly and lastly, know for your comfort that imputed righteousness will give you the greatest boldness before God's judgment seat. There is an absolute and indispensable necessity of a perfect righteousness wherewith to appear before God. The holiness of God's nature, the righteousness of His government, the severity of His Law, and the terror of wrath calls aloud upon the sinner for a complete righteousness without which there is no standing in judgment (Psalm 1:5). That righteousness only is able to justify us before God which is perfect, and that hath no defect or blemish in it, such as may abide the trial before His judgment seat, such as may fitly satisfy His justice and make our peace with Him. And consequently, by this the Law of God is fulfilled…such a righteousness as He requires, as will stand before Him, and satisfy His justice (Romans 10:3).

This is the crowning comfort to a sensible and understanding soul, that he stands righteous before a judgment seat in that full, exact, perfect, complete, matchless, spotless, peerless, and most acceptable righteousness of Christ imputed to him.

It is a complete and unspotted righteousness, an unblameable righteousness, and unblemished righteousness. And therefore God can neither in justice except nor object to it. In this righteousness the believer lives, in this righteousness the believer dies, and in this righteousness believers shall arise and appear before the judgment seat of Christ to the deep admiration of all the elect angels, to the transcendent terror and horror of all reprobates, and to the matchless joy and triumph of all on Christ's right hand, who shall then shout and sing, "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with jewels" (Isaiah 61:10).

Oh, how Christ in this great day will be admired and glorified in all His saints (2 Thes. 1:10), when every saint, wrapped up in this fine linen, in this white robe of Christ's righteousness, shall shine more gloriously than ten thousand suns! In the great Day of the Lord, when the saints shall stand before the tribunal of God, clothed in the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, they shall then stand, they shall then be pronounced righteous even in the court of divine justice, which sentence will fill their souls with comfort and the souls of sinners with astonishment (Revelation 20:12; 12:10).

Suppose we saw the believing sinner holding up his hand at God's bar—the books opened, the accuser of the brethren present, the witnesses ready, and the Judge on the bench thus bespeaking the sinner at the bar (Romans 7:12, 14, 16; Galatians 3:10): "O sinner, sinner, thou standest here indicted before Me for many millions of sins of commission and for many millions of sins of omission. Thou hast broken My holy, just, and righteous Laws beyond all human conception or expression, and hereof thou art proved guilty. What hast thou now to say for thyself why thou shouldst not be eternally cast?" Upon this the sinner pleads guilty. But withal he earnestly desires that he may have time and liberty to plead for himself and to offer his reasons why that dreadful sentence "Go, you cursed…" should not be passed upon him (Matthew 25:41). The liberty desired being granted by the Judge, the sinner pleads that his Surety, Jesus Christ, hath by His blood and sufferings given full and complete satisfaction to divine justice and that He hath paid down upon the nail the whole debt at once, and that it can never stand with the holiness and unspotted justice of God to demand satisfaction twice (Hebrews 10:10, 14).

If the Judge shall further object, "Ay, but sinner, sinner, the Law requireth an exact and perfect righteousness in the personal fulfilling of it. Now, sinner, where is thy exact and perfect righteousness? (Galatians 3:10). Upon which the believing sinner very readily, cheerfully, humbly, and boldly replies, "My righteousness is upon the bench: 'In the Lord have I righteousness' (Isaiah 45:24). Christ, my Surety, hath fulfilled the Law on my behalf."

His obeying the Law to the full, His perfect conforming to its commands, His doing, as well as His dying obedience is by grace made over and reckoned to me in order to my justification and salvation. And this is my plea, by which I will stand before the Judge of all the world. Upon this, the sinner's plea is accepted as good in Law, and accordingly he is pronounced righteous and goes away glorying and rejoicing, triumphing and shouting it out, "Righteous, righteous, righteous, righteous!" "In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory" (Isaiah 45:25). And thus you see that there are nine springs of strong consolation that flow into your souls through the imputation of Christ's righteousness unto you.

From "The Golden Key to Open Hidden Treasures" in The Works of Thomas Brooks, Vol 5, reprinted by Banner of Truth.

Imputation of Sin to Christ and the Imputation of His

Righteousness to His People

John Brine 1703–1765

For He hath made Him to be Sin for us; who knew no Sin: That we might be made the Righteousness of God in Him. - 2 CORINTHIANS 5:21

IN Consequence of our Apostacy from God, the Depravation of our Nature, thereupon, and of that personal Guilt, which we have contracted: We cannot, according to the Tenor of the Law, be admitted to Fellowship with our Maker either here, or hereafter, without Satisfaction for our Violation of it, as through the Corruption of our Nature we desire it not. Of which important Doctrine the Apostle treats, in some of the preceding Verses. God was in Christ reconciling the World unto Himself, not imputing their Trespasses to them, and hath committed unto us the Word of Reconciliation, or, the Gospel of Peace, which Christ gave Commission to his Apostles and Ministers to preach. In the Words of my Text, we are informed, how this Reconciliation was effected and brought about. I suppose, that every intelligent Reader will easily observe, that they consist of three distinct Branches — Christ knew no Sin — He hath made Him to be Sin for us — That we might be made the Righteousness of God in Him.

I shall consider the Words in the Order I have now mentioned them.

I. Christ knew no Sin. Sometimes, Sin is put for our natural Depravity. Thus it is to be understood, in several Verses of the seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans: But Sin, that it might appear Sin, working Death in me, by that which is good, that Sin by the Commandment might become exceeding sinful (Romans 7:13.). Now then it is no more I that do it, but Sin that dwelleth in me (ver, 17.). The Apostle means the same Thing, by Sin, by Evil, by the Law of Sin, and by the Flesh. viz. That corrupt Fountain, Principle, or Spring of Action, from which all our criminal Acts proceed. Again, Sin designs illegal Acts: Whosoever committeth Sin, transgresseth also the Law; for Sin is the Transgression of the Law ( John 4:4.). In this Definition of Sin criminal Actions are intended. Christ knew no Sin, in either Sense mentioned, neither as a Principle, nor Act. Knowledge, sometimes means Approbation: The Lord knoweth the Way of the Righteous. The Import of which is, he approves thereof. In this Sense the Blessed Jesus knew no Sin. It was the Object of his utmost and invariable Detestation. He loved Righteousness, and hated Wickedness (Psalm 45:7.). And, by Knowledge, Experience is meant. Thus I think we are to understand it, in there Words: For I know, that in me, (that is, in my Flesh) dwelleth no good thing (Romans 7:18.). The Apostle expresses his Experience by the Phrase I know, in this Part of the Verse, as he does by the Phrase I find, in the following Branch of it. The Holy Jesus knew no Sin, in this Sense. He had not the least Experience of Evil in him, For, He was harmless, undefiled, and separate from Sinners (Hebrews 7:26.). A Lamb without Blemish, and without Spot (1 Peter 1:19.). No moral Taint or Imperfection attended him: And his Conduct was absolutely perfect. He did no Sin, nor was Guile found in his Mouth (Chap. 11:21.). I would offer to Consideration three Particulars, to shew, that it was impossible, that Christ should know Sin, in either Sense now mentioned.

1. His miraculous Conception in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin. Christ not being conceived in a natural, but supernatural Manner, he did not partake of our natural Corruption. It was impossible he should, because he was the supernatural Production of the holy Spirit. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall over-shadow thee: Therefore also, that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee (Luke 1:35.). This was an absolutely new Thing, the like was never before, nor ever will be. Behold a new Thing do I create, a woman shall compass a Man, i.e. a male Child by Conception, through the Agency of the divine Spirit. To us a Child is born, to us a Son is given. This was plainly a new Creation. The human Nature of our Lord being produced by the Exertion of the Power of the Spirit of God, no moral Taint or Impunity could attend it. For, the holy Spirit could not give Subsistence unto as unholy Nature.

2. The human Nature of Christ was replete with all the Gifts and Graces of the holy Spirit. The Spirit of the Lord God was upon him (Isaiah 61:1.). And the Father gave not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Superaddition of the Gifts and Graces of the Spirit unto the Purity of Christ's Nature, rendered it impossible that he should know sin. He having all the Gifts and Graces of the holy Spirit in their utmost Plenitude and Perfection, superadded unto the Purity of his Nature, nothing of Evil could possibly take Place in him: Such as the holy Spirit formed him, in the Virgin's Womb, such he infallibly preferred him, by his continual Presence with him, in the Fulness of all his Gifts and Graces.

3. The human nature of Christ hath its Subsistence in his Divine Person. That Individuum of our Nature which was miraculously produced by the Power of the Holy Ghost, the Son of God took into a personal Union with himself. He assumed it to be his own in a peculiar Manner, that it might be at his Disposal, and always under the Direction of his divine Will. The human Will, and the divine Will of our Saviour are, and eternally will be distinct; but his Will as Man is in absolute Subjection to, and in all Instances, acts under the Direction of his divine Will. And, therefore, it is not possible that he should ever know Sin. Moral evil can never take place in a Nature which is ineffably united with the Person of the Son of God.

There Things clearly evince the Falsehood of the Abomination of the Socinians, who impiously imagine, that Christ might have sinned, and, consequently, that the Design of our Salvation by him might have been entirely ruined. Than which, nothing more false and dishonourable to God, can depraved Reason devise. We grant, that the Will of the most holy Creature, is in itself mutable, and, therefore, if left unto itself, it may make an unfit and unwise Choice: But, since the human Nature of Christ is the Workmanship of the Holy Spirit, and is replenished with all his supernatural Gifts and Graces, and also is in Union with the eternal Son of God, and, therefore, his human Will acts in all Things under the Direction of his divine Will; it is absolutely impossible that his human Will, at any Time, or in any Instance, should make an unfit and unwise Choice. The supernatural production of our Lord, by the Power of the Holy Spirit, is a clear Proof of the Purity of his Nature, in his Formation. And the superaddition of his Gifts and Graces, and the Subsistence of that holy Nature, in the Person of the Son of God, certainly raise it above a Possibility of Defilement and unfit Acting, for evermore. I would make two Observations on these Particulars, before I proceed farther.

(1) Adam was not a Head to Christ. Our blessed Lord was not a Member of him, included in him, nor represented by him, in his public Capacity. He was the Representative of all his natural Descendants; but his Headship was not, nor could be of larger Extent; the holy Jesus not being so, he did represent him. The first Man could not be a Head to the second Man, who is the Lord from Heaven. It would be the highest Incongruity imaginable to conceive, that Adam was a Head to one who is so much his Superior in all Respects In Gifts, Graces, and in Nearness of Union with God. It was not possible that he, who is personally united with the eternal Son of God, should be a Member of, and be represented by Adam. And, therefore, our Lord had no Concern in his Guilt, as a Member of his. Which is the Case of all his natural Descendants. Original Guilt becomes theirs, in Consequence of their Relation to Adam, as a Representative to them. For which Reason it is imputed to them, It is not the divine Act of the Imputation of Adam's Sin that makes it ours; but because it is ours, in Consequence of our Relation to him as a Head, therefore it is imputed to us.

(2) Christ was not, nor could become Subject of the natural Consequence of Adam's first Sin By which Consequence, I understand, the Depravation of our Nature. That immediately followed, in Adam, as the natural Effect of his Transgression. And, it takes Place in us, because his Act of Offence was ours, tho' not committed by us; but by him; as our Representative. That Act of Sin being legally ours, we share with him, in the natural Consequence of it: Or, we derive Depravity from him, on Account of becoming guilty with him. This sad Effect does not follow upon the Imputation of his Sin, as the Cause thereof; but It follows upon his Sin being legally, ours, he acting therein, as our Representative Head, and no otherwise. Now Christ not being concerned in original Guilt, by Virtue of Union with him, as a Head, the natural Consequence of that Guilt could not take Place in him, as it does in us, by Reason it is ours, as we are Members of him. Thus the holy Jesus was separate from Sinners, and it was not possible, that he should participate with them, in that which is the natural Consequence of Sin, viz. Moral Defilement and Impurity. Unless the human Nature of our blessed Lord had been thus infallibly preserved from all moral Evil, both in Principle and Act, our whole Salvation would have been uncertain and precarious. For, if the holy Jesus had been under a Possibility of Defilement, and of acting illegally, in any Instance, the Design of our Salvation by him might possibly have been defeated, to the eternal Reproach of the Perfections of God, and the everlasting Ruin of the Church. The Thought of which must surely be shocking to every pious Mind! That which Christ knew not, nor could know, he was made.

II. He hath made him to be Sin for us. There are three Things to be considered in this important Subject: Whose Act this was — The Act itself — And, on whose Account, or, for whom Christ was made Sin: For us.

1. This was not the Act of any Creature, angelic or human: but the Act of the divine Father. We pray you in Christ's Stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be Sin for us. i.e. He to whom the Apostle prays the Corinthians to be reconciled, made him to be Sin for us. It would have been daring and impious Insolence, in any Creature, to will that the Son of God should be made Sin. God only had a Right to resolve upon it. and he alone could place it to his Account. This was the Contrivance of his infinite Wisdom, and the Determination of his sovereign Pleasure, In forming the Plan of our Reconciliation; he willed not to impute our Trespasses to us, and decreed to impute them unto Christ, in order to his making Atonement for them. And according unto this his sovereign Decree: He laid on him, or made to meet in him, the Iniquities of us all. The Foundation of this Procedure was it federal Agreement between the Father and Christ. Which is clearly expressed in a blessed divine Context by the inspired Writer to the Hebrews: Wherefore, when he cometh into the World, he saith, Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldest not; but a Body hast thou prepared e. In Burnt Offerings and Sacrifices for Sin thou hadst no Pleasure.

Then said I, Lo, I come, in the Volume of the Book it is written of me, I delight to do thy Will O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and Offering, and burnt Offerings, and Offerings for Sin, thou wouldst not, neither hadst Pleasure therein, which are offered by the Law: Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy Will O God; he taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are Sanctified, through the Offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.) In these Words it evidently appears, that it was the Will of the Father, that Christ should become an Offering for Sin; unto which he freely and fully consented. This Paction, or federal Agreement, was the Ground on which the Father made him to be Sin for us. And, therefore, wonderful as it is, there is not the least Injustice therein.

The divine Decree, to impute Sin to Christ, was an Act of absolute Sovereignty, and afore from the mere Pleasure of God, with a View to the Glory of his Perfections, in our Remission and Salvation. But the Act itself, of imputing our Guilt to him, hath for its Foundation, the free and full Consent of Christ to bear it, in compliance with the Will of the Father that he should. So that the Charge of our Crimes to him, comports with Justice, and no Injury was done to Christ in that Act. The Sovereignty of the Decree of the Imputation of Sin to him is a most clear Proof that God only could make him to be Sin for us. For, if it had been possible to any created Mind, to have devised this Method of the Expiation of Sin, which it was not, no Creature could have been inverted with a Right to will and move for the Imputation of it unto the innocent Jesus. As the Contrivance of this adorable Transaction was proper to infinite Wisdom: So it was peculiar to divine Sovereignty to resolve upon it. This Act, therefore, of making Christ to be Sin for us, was God's own, and not the Act of any Creature whatsoever.

2. The Act of making him to be Sin: Or how he was made Sin for us, is to be considered. I would do this negatively, and positively.

(1.) Negatively. It was not inherently: That was absolutely impossible. For, that would have been contrary to the infinite Purity of God, and ruinous to his Design of our Salvation by Christ. Besides, as has been before shewn, the miraculous Conception of our Lord, and the Super-addition of the Gifts and Graces of the Holy Spirit unto the Purity of his Nature, and the Subsistence of his human Nature, in his divine Person, rendered it impossible that any moral Taint, or Impurity, should ever take Place in him. This Act, therefore, of making him to be Sin, effected no internal Change in him. His Nature remained pure and spotless notwithstanding. And all his Actions corresponded with the sinless Perfection of his Nature.

(2.) I am to shew in a positive Sense, how Christ was made Sin. And He was made Sin in the same manner, as we are made the Righteousness of God in Him. Which is imputatively. Blessed is the Man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works. Imputation is, reckoning accounting or placing to Account, and esteeming thereupon. The Act of Imputation, therefore, whether, of Sin, or Righteousness, makes no internal Change in the Object of the Act. For it is not a transient Act; but it is an inward Act of the Mind, which cannot produce a physical Change, in the Object upon whom it passes. And, consequently, the Imputation of Sin to Christ, was not, nor could be productive of any internal Change in him. Notwithstanding the placing to his Account, in the divine Mind, our Guilt, or criminal Actions, he remained, innocent, pure, and spotless in himself. This one thing being duly attended unto, will enable us to answer various of the trifling Objections, which are raised against the Doctrine of the Imputation of our Sins to him, beyond any solid Reply. Some have objected, that if Sin itself was imputed to Christ, he must have been defiled by it. But that is a great Mistake: For Sin, as imputed, defiles not. If it did, the Imputation of it, would be impossible with God, not only with respect to Christ; but also, Sinners themselves; because infinite Purity, cannot put forth any Act which would render the Object of that Act morally impure. If the Imputation of Sin to the guilty Creature does not pollute him, which is a certain Truth: How should the Imputation of it to the Holy Jesus, defile him? Imputation is not Transfusion. In the latter a Person becomes the Subject of that which is transfused. But in the former, no one becomes the Subject of that which is imputed, by the Act of Imputation. And therefore, though the Transfusion of Sin, if that could be, which it cannot, would necessarily defile: The Imputation of it, does not pollute the Object of that Act. And, consequently, the Imputation of Sin to the Blessed Jesus did not, nor could pollute his holy Nature. This Doctrine contains no false, or mistaken Idea in it, on the Part of the Father, who imputed Sin to Christ; nor on the Part of Christ, to whom it was imputed. Not on the Part of the Father; for, he did not consider our criminal Actions, which he placed to the Account of Christ, as his Acts, or perpetrated by him; but as our Acts, or committed by us: So that his Judgment in this Affair was according to Truth and Fact. Nor, does this Doctrine on the Part of Christ, include any mistaken Conception in it: For, it does not suppose, that he had any Consciousness of the Perpetration of those criminal Actions, which were imputed to him: Or, that under the Charge of them to him, he considered and esteemed them Acts, which he himself had committed. Wherefore, this Doctrine is attended with no dangerous Consequence, relating to Christ, nor is any Thing contrary to Truth, supposed therein, respecting Sin, which he was made for us. Besides, if Guilt was not charged on Christ, his Sufferings could not be of a penal nature. For, Penalty, is suffering under a Charge of Offence, and without a just Imputation of Guilt, Punishment cannot, in Equity be inflicted, on any Subject. It is a most unrighteous thing to punish any one considered, as innocent. And, therefore, if it was not possible with God, to impute Sin to the innocent Jesus, neither could he inflict Punishment on him. And, if Christ did not endure proper Punishment, his Sufferings were not, nor could be satisfactory to the Law, and Justice of God for our Sins.

And it is in vain to hope for Salvation, through his Sufferings and Death. Of such Necessity and Importance, is the Doctrine of the Imputation of Sin to Christ

3. He was made Sin for us. Not for all the Individuals of Mankind. The latter Branch of the Text interprets this. Christ was made Sin for those, and only those, who are made the Righteousness of God in him. Now as Men universally are not made the Righteousness of God in Christ: So he was not made Sin for Men universally, The Extent of there two Things is exactly the same. Such, who remain dead in Sin, and go out of this World under the Dominion and Power of it, surely none can think are made the Righteousness of God in Christ; and there is no Reason to conceive, that he was made Sin for any of them. He bore the Guilt of no others than those to whom he is a Head, who are his Body, and for whom he became a Surety. For, that was the Foundation on which Sin was imputed to him: And, therefore, the Sins of such Persons only were imputed to him, who are related to him as Members. They are the Church which he loved, and gave himself for it, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having Spot or Wrinkle, or any such Thing (Ephesians 5:27.). The End of his being made Sin for us, was,

III. That we might be made the Righteousness of God in him.

The Things to be considered in this Branch of my Subject are the following: Righteousness — That this is the Righteousness of God — How we are made the Righteousness of God — And our being made the Righteousness of God in Christ.

1. I would shew what Righteousness is. And it consists of two distinct Branches.

(1.) Purity of Nature. The Lord requires Truth in the inward Part. The Law extends to the Mind. All its Dispositions and Acts must be perfectly holy. The eternal Rule of Righteousness allows of no internal Impurity, any more than it does of external unholy Acts. All vain Imaginations, all disorderly Thoughts, all irregular Desires and all evil Tendencies, in the Affections, are condemned by it. Righteousness, therefore, includes in it Holiness of Heart, and such Holiness as is answerable to the Requirement of the Law, viz. absolutely perfect and sinless.

(2.) Obedience to all the Precepts of the Law, in Conduct, is the other Branch of Righteousness. If any Act is done which the Law prohibits, or if any Defect and Imperfection attends those Actions, which it prescribes, Righteousness is wanting. For, if there is not a complete Conformity to the Law, in Heart and Life, or in all Acts, internal and external, both with Respect to the Matter and Manner of those Acts, the Lawgiver must necessarily, if his Judgment is according to Truth, esteem that Obedience imperfect, and not answerable to the Rule of Action. And, therefore, not such as will justify in his Sight. The Holiness of Christ's Nature, and his sinless Obedience in Life, are the two essential Branches of that Righteousness which is required in the Law: And both arc equally necessary unto our being constituted righteous in him; who is the Lord our Righteousness.

2. That Righteousness, which we are made, is the Righteousness of God.

(1.) This may be understood of God the Father. For, this Righteousness is the Contrivance of his infinite Wisdom. How guilty Men should be just with God, no created Understanding could determine. None but God, himself could resolve how this should be. And it is the Effect of his sovereign Goodwill and Pleasure Christ's Headship to us: Our Relation to him as Members: His Subjection to the Covenant of Works on our Account, are Effects of the Love of God to us, and the Result of his gracious Decree, concerning us. Besides, the Father accepts of this Righteousness for us, arid graciously imputes it unto us. And, therefore, this Righteousness is his free Gift. For which Reason it is called the Gift of Righteousness.

(2.) Christ, whole this Righteousness is, he as truly and properly God. He is the mighty God (Isaiah 9:6.). Over all, God blessed for ever (Romans 9:5.). In the Form of God, and thought it not Robbery to be equal with God (Philippians 2:6.). He who is our Righteousness, is Jehovah. This is therefore the Righteousness of a divine Person; but not his divine Righteousness. The human Nature of Christ is the immediate Subject of it. For, it is the Holiness and Obedience of that Nature, unto the Law, under which, as Man, he was made. As his human Nature hath its Subsistence in his divine Person; it is the Righteousness of God, as his Blood is the Blood of God. The Dignity of his Person is the Ground and Measure of the Merit and Value of both; his Person is infinite in Dignity, and that gives infinite Worth and Merit to his Obedience. And, therefore, it is properly deferring of all that Grace and Glory, which are and will be communicated to the Elect of God, even unto Eternity. And it is thro' this Righteousness that Grace will reign unto eternal Life. This is the Righteousness of the Mediator; but it is not his mediatorial Righteousness. For, that comprises the full Execution and faithful Discharge of the whole Will of God in his mediatorial Capacity, which is of far longer Extent than the Requirements of the Covenant of Works from us. This is that perfect Holiness and sinless Obedience, which that Covenant demands of us. Hence it is evident that though this Righteousness is included in his mediatorial Righteousness, yet it is not that Righteousness itself. These Things clear the Doctrine of the imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us, from several Objections which are brought against it.

3. The Act of making us Righteousness, is to be considered. This is not inherently, but imputatively. Blessed is the Man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works (Romans 4:5.). It is not the Transfusion of Christ's Righteousness into us For that is impossible. We do not become the Subjects of it. As he did not become the Subject of Sin, by being made Sin for us: So we do not become the Subjects of Righteousness, by being made the Righteousness of God in him. Sin which Christ was made was not inherent in him: And Righteousness which we are made, is not inherent in us. Sin is ours subjectively, and not Christ's. And Righteousness is his subjectively, and not ours. The Imputation of Sin to him, effected no internal Change in him: Nor does the Imputation of his Righteousness to us, produce any internal Change in us. A due Consideration of the Nature of the Act of Imputation, will enable us to see this clearly. Imputation is an internal Act of the Mind, whether it be of Sin or Righteousness, and, therefore, it cannot be productive of any inherent Change in the Object upon whom it passes. As Christ was not made sinful, by the Imputation of our Sins to him: So we are not made holy, or internally righteous, by the Imputation of his Righteousness to us. For, as the Imputation of Sin to him did not defile him: So the Imputation of Righteousness to us does not sanctify us. The Reason of which is clear, Imputation is not a Transfusion of that which is imputed, whether it be Sin or Righteousness; but it is reckoning, accounting, or placing to Account, and esteeming thereupon, as was before observed. The Object of this Act, therefore, must still be inherently the same as before, notwithstanding that Act passing on him, because it is not a transient; but an internal Act, which cannot produce a physical Change, in its Object. It is certainty true, that as God makes Christ Righteousness to us: So he also makes him Sanctification unto us; but not in the same Way. He makes him Righteousness to us, by the Imputation of his Righteousness to our Persons: He makes him Sanctification to us, by a Conveyance of Grace from him, into our Souls. So that his Grace, which is conveyed into our Hearts from him, becomes ours subjectively; but his Righteousness, which is imputed to us, does not so become ours. It is still in him, as its proper Subject, and not in us. And in the divine Imputation of this Righteousness to us, it Is not supposed, that God accounts it our personal Righteousness, or wrought out by us; but it is freely granted, and constantly asserted, that he esteems it, as it really is Christ's Righteousness, or wrought out by him: Nor, is It thought, that God considers this Righteousness as ours subjectively, or inherent in us; but that he reckons it to be the Righteousness of Christ subjectively, as it truly is. He accounts it ours, no otherwise than by free Gift, and gracious Imputation. And, therefore, this Doctrine contains in It nothing absurd, or any false and mistaken Conception, concerning God, Christ, or us.

4. It is in Christ that we are made the Righteousness of God:

(1.) We are in Christ: Or a Union between him and us subsists. The Act of Election terminated on our Persons in him. For we were chosen in him. In that gracious Decree, God willed him to be a Head to the Church, and appointed the Church to be his Body: Which Act of the divine Will, constituted a real Union between Christ, and the Church. And, the everlasting Covenant was made with him, considered as the Church's Head, which the Assembly of Divines well express: The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ, as Head, and with the Elect in him, as his Seed.

And, therefore, all the Blessings promised and granted, in that Covenant, were given to us in him. We were blessed with all spiritual Blessings, In heavenly Places in Christ (Ephesians 1:3.). And that Grace according o which, we are rived and called with an holy Calling, was given us in Christ, before the World began (2 Timothy 1:9.). Which necessarily supposes the Subsistence of a real Union between Christ, as Head, and us, as Members of him.

(2.) This foederal, or as some have called it, this Fountain-Union, is the Foundation of the Imputation of our Guilt to Christ and of the Imputation of his Righteousness to us. Because, we are mystically one with him, our Sin was imputed to him, and for that Reason, his Righteousness is imputed to us. Because, we were foederally, in the first Adam, as a Head to us, therefore, is his Act of Disobedience, charged on us: And, because we were foederally in the second Adam, as a Head to us, therefore, is his Obedience placed to our Account. And as we were in Adam prior to the Imputation of his Offence to us: So we were in Christ prior to the Imputation of his Righteousness to us. I lament, I greatly lament, that some even among ourselves, seem to suppose, (though I think they have no ill meaning) that the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us, is prior to any real Union with him, which Is a great Mistake. They do this left they should give Countenance, to what has been called Antinomianism, viz. Union with Christ from Everlasting. But the Truth is, a Denial of this everlasting foederal Union, between Christ and his People, leaves no Ground for the Imputation of their Sins to him, nor, the Imputation of his Righteousness to them. The divine Decree to impute our Sins to Christ, and to impute his Righteousness to us, was an Act of mere Sovereignty; but the Acts of the Imputation of our Sin to him, and the Imputation of his Righteousness to us, proceed on a fit and just Ground, which God in infinite Wisdom, fixed on, and that is a mystical Union between him and us, whereby it became proper and condecent, that he should bear our Guilt, and that his Obedience should be reckoned, or imputed to us. So that, the Act of Imputation, in neither Instance, is to be considered, as merely sovereign; but as righteous and just. And, therefore, a real Union between Christ and us must have subsisted, antecedent to the Imputation of our Sin to him, and the Imputation of his Righteousness to us.

Three Observations will close this Discourse.

Observ. 1. We ought to adore the Wisdom, Purity, Sovereignty, and Grace of God, which are herein discovered. What a Display of divine Wisdom is there in these Things! They are the Wisdom of God in a Mystery: His hidden Wisdom. That Mystery which was hid in God. No created Mind, how capacious soever could possibly have resolved how our Guilt might be expiated, fully atoned for, and our Persons constituted righteous: The Law magnified, and every divine Perfection shine forth, in its brighter Lustre, in our certain and complete Salvation. Upon a due Consideration of the Constitution of Christ's Person: The transfering of our Guilt to him: His Subjection to the Covenant of Works: His Obedience to it, and the infinite Merit of his Obedience, arising from the infinite Dignity of his Person, and that just Ground, whereon, his Obedience becomes ours, and, therefore, is imputed to us: Surely, we can't but say as the Apostle does, in a Way of holy Adoration: O the Depth of the Riches both of the Wisdom and Knowledge of God; how unsearchable are his Judgements, and his Ways past finding out Again, the Purity of God is clearly seen herein. Sin is not connived at, or spared: Nor, are any Allowances made for our moral Imperfections and Defects, in the Way of our Pardon and Salvation. Neither are our Persons justified, without a Righteousness perfectly commensurate to the extensive Requirements of the Law. And all spiritual Blessings are communicated to us on such a Foundation as is honourable to divine Justice, as well as it is to the Praise of the Glory of divine Grace. The infinite Holiness of God hath not, in any Thing, nor can have so illustrious a Shine, as it hath in making Christ to be sin for us, and in making us the Righteousness of God in him. Besides, the Sovereignty of God most manifestly appears in this whole Procedure. The supernatural Conception of Christ as Man, that he might not have any evil Taint, was the sovereign Appointment of God. The Ordination of his human Nature, unto a Subsistence in his divine Person, was a sovereign Decree. Yea, it was one of the highest Acts of Sovereignty that God ever did, or will put forth. The Decree, that the holy Spirit, in all his supernatural Gifts and Graces should reside in the human Nature of Christ, was a sovereign one. The Determination, that a Nature so dignified, and raised above the Condition of a mere Creature, by an ineffable Union with the eternal Son of God, should bear Sin, and become subject to the Covenant of Works, on our Account, was entirely owing to the sovereign Pleasure of God. And it was divine Sovereignty which fixed on the Persons whose Guilt he should bear, and for whom he should obey the Law. Than which, nothing can be more evident. For, both are the Effects of absolute Pleasure. And, therefore, it was free with God, to resolve on whose Account he should be made Sin: And to whom he should be made Righteousness. There are such Acts of Favour, as none have a Right to claim, and, consequently, God was at full Liberty to determine by a sovereign Act of his Will, whose Guilt he should bear, and who should be made righteous in him. Thus divine Sovereignty is the Basis of both these Things; thereupon they entirely rest, and into it they must be absolutely resolved, as the original Cause thereof. Farther, the Grace of God shines most gloriously in these Things. Infinite Love to our Persons is discovered in the Transfer of our Guilt from us, and in the Imputation of it to Christ, in order to his suffering the Penalty it demerits, that we might be pardoned and laved. That Redemption which we have through him, the Forgiveness of Sins, is according to the Riches of divine Grace. And the Decree, that he should come under the Covenant of Works, on our Account, and obey it for us, that we might be constituted righteous: justified in the Sight of God, and be made Heirs, according to the Hope of eternal Life, is an amazing Purpose of Kindness and Mercy.

Observ. 2. These important Truths are a most solid Ground of strong Consolation. It is the Will of God, that the Heirs of Promise, who have fled for Refuge, to lay hold on the Hope set before them, might enjoy such Consolation. Sin, in its Guilt, being transferred from us, and imputed to Christ, and atoned for by him, is a firm Foundation of spiritual Peace and Joy. We joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. by whom we have now received the Atonement (Romans 5:10.). Permit me to say it, (I shall express no ill Meaning) let not the Saints be afraid of Sin, in its Guilt. I do not say, fear not to commit Sin, no, God forbid, that they ought to fear above all Things. But fear not Sin in the Guilt of it. They sometimes have very terrifying Apprehensions, under a Sense of Guilt contracted, and are afraid to hope for Pardon, on Account of the heinous Nature, and the Aggravations of their Guilt. But they have no just Reason for it. Because Christ hath finished their Transgression, and made an End of their Sin, as to its Guilt. And, therefore, they have no Cause to fear it, in its Guilt, Christ having put it away by the Sacrifice of himself. We ought eternally to fear Sin, in the Love, Prevalence and Power of it, for, therein, it will certainly be ruinous for evermore. But Terrors of Conscience, occasioned by the Guilt of Sin, in those who are freed from the Dominion and Power of it, are groundless, because that is fully expiated, by the Sufferings and Death of the Son of God, who was made Sin. Again, Believers being made the Righteousness of God in Christ, they have just Cause of Triumph. And may say with holy Exultation: Who shall lay any thing to the Charge of God's Elect? it is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again (Romans 8:34, 35.) Whole Resurrection is a full Proof of their Justification. For, He was delivered for their Offences: And raised again for their Justification (Romans 4:25.). The Righteousness, which they are made, is an everlasting one, and everlasting Salvation is inseparably connected with it. Their joyful language, even under the deeper Sense of their Guilt, Imperfections ant! Unworthiness, in themselves, should be this: I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my Soul shall be joyful in my God, because he hath clothed me with the Garments of Salvation, and covered me with the Robe of Righteousness. (Isaiah 61:10.).

Observ. 3. These are Doctrines according to Godliness. It is a very gross Mistake to imagine, that these Principles are calculated to encourage Negligence, Sloth, or Evil. On the contrary, they are calculated to promote an Abhorrence of Sin, and a cordial Approbation of Righteousness, and true Holiness. What stronger Motive to forsake Sin can be thought of than Christ's bearing it, and his suffering the Penalty which it demerits? Wherein, divine Indignation against our Crimes was discovered to the utmost. And as his being made Righteousness to us, does not dissolve our Obligation to Obedience: So it is a most powerful Incitement unto it, in a Way of Gratitude for that eminent Favour. That our corrupt Nature may abuse these, and other evangelical Truths, is granted. As it may also abuse the Law. For, Sin will take Occasion by the Commandment to work in us all Manner of Concupiscence. But the Law is not culpable, and blame-worthy, on that Account. And the same evil Principle may abuse the Gospel, and turn the Doctrine of the Grace of God, into Lasciviousness. But the Gospel is not culpable, nor ought any Blame to he charged on it, for that Reason. Our Opinion of the Nature and Tendency of Doctrines, is not by any Means to be formed from that Use, which our depraved Minds are inclined to make thereof. If that may be allowed, we shall be led to entertain unworthy Conceptions of legal as well as of evangelical Truths. For, there is nothing, which the Flesh in us, will not pervert and abuse, unto the Gratification of its cursed Desires. If we have a real Acquaintance with the Nature of these most precious Truths, and act under their genuine Influence, we shall deny all Ungodliness, and worldly Lusts, and shall live soberly, and righteously, and godly, in this present World (Titus 2:12.).

The Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness Defended

by William Romaine

Surely shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness. (Isaiah 45:24)

He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

IT is the great and merciful design of the gospel to acquaint a sinner, who is guilty and condemned by the holy law of God, how he may be pardoned and justified. Every one of us is a sinner: for all have sinned, and therefore all of us stand in need of pardon, and ought to receive it with thankful hearts as soon as the gospel offers it to us. But the greatest part of mankind are not sensible of their guilt, nor apprehensive of their danger. Sin has nothing in it terrible to them. They love it, dream of happiness in the enjoyment of it, and while this delusion continues, they see not their want of, and therefore have no desire for, the gospel salvation. But when one of these persons awakes and opens his eyes, he is then terrified at the sight of his present state. Sin appears to him in a new light: he finds it to be exceeding sinful, and the wrath of God revealed from heaven against it to be beyond measure dreadful. His guilty conscience alarms him with an awful sense of his danger, and makes him feel some of the punishment due to sin, and then he cannot be easy, until he know that his sins may be pardoned, and he cannot be happy, until he has some evidence of their being pardoned. Now Christianity is the only religion, which can give such a person relief: because it alone teaches him by what means he may be pardoned and justified, and have peace with God. He may be pardoned freely through the grace of God, and justified through the righteousness of Jesus Christ, whom God the Father hath made sin for us, although he knew no sin in himself, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him; and being thus justified by faith in him, we might have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Although this doctrine be clearly taught throughout the scriptures, yet there are at present two sorts of men who are great enemies to it, and who strive to keep convinced sinners from the comfort of it; I mean the papists, who go about to establish their own righteousness, and the Pharisees among us, who will not submit to the righteousness of God. The notion of the papists concerning merit is the foundation of all their errors. They teach, that Christ merited the grace for them, which is in them, and then this grace in them merits their justification, and for this inherent grace God doth justify them. And thus they make a Saviour of inherent grace, and put it in the place of Christ, and give his glory to their own works. But if inherent grace be our righteousness before God, then how does God justify the ungodly, who have no grace, or how can he justify a man for those graces which are imperfect, and which want the benefit of Christ’s atonement? Absurd as this opinion of theirs is, yet they must defend it. Their cause rests upon it: for if you take away their doctrine of merit, down falls the whole superstructure of their superstition, all their indulgences, pardons, pilgrimages, masses, fasts, penances, and the mighty Babel of man’s inventions. When this doctrine was grown to a monstrous height, it pleased God to raise up Luther and the rest of the reformers to preach against it. Their principal aim and design was to overthrow the merit of works, and to establish justification by faith only, and they succeeded. Several nations were converted from the errors of popery, and among the rest the inhabitants of this island. Our forefathers threw off the Romish yoke, and received the pure doctrines of the gospel, which amidst our several changes and revolutions of government have been happily preserved, until there has been of late years a manifest departure from them. Great multitudes of Protestants are going fast back again to Popery, and seemingly without knowing it; for it is a received opinion in England, as much as in France, that man’s works are effectual and meritorious towards his justification before God. This is the fundamental heresy of the papists, and how many nominal Protestants have fallen into it, our enemies can tell. They see, with pleasure, that there is very little appearance of religion left among us, and that some of our most decent professors are become papists in that leading principle, which separates the popish from the protestant communion.

Things being in this unpromising state, the friends of the Reformation should bestir themselves. They should try to point out the old land marks. This is more especially incumbent upon the clergy. It is high time for them to hold forth to their people the fundamental doctrines of the established church, and to warn them against the errors of popery and pharisaism. With this view, I have chosen the words now read for your present meditation; and may the Lord give his blessing to what shall be spoken upon them. Oh that he may accompany with the effectual working of his power what shall be said,

- First, Concerning Christ’s unspotted innocence. He knew no sin. Yet,

- Secondly, God made him to be sin for us; and

- Thirdly, For this reason, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

And first, our Lord’s fitness to be made sin for us, is here set forth by his knowing no sin. He knew it not in the scripture sense of the word. He had no practical knowledge of sin, either in thought, word, or deed. Speculatively he knew it well, but that could not defile him; for it was the sin of others which he knew, and hated, and came to put away by the sacrifice of himself. Christ was perfectly acquainted with the holy, just, and good law of God; he saw clearly into the purity and spirituality of it, which could not suffer the least offence, being as holy, just, and good as God himself is, and being the copy of his most perfect mind and will. In this view our Lord beheld the odious nature of sin, and the exceeding sinfulness of it. He knew the hatred which the all-pure God had to it, the punishment it deserved, and the everlasting fire which it had kindled in the nethermost hell. No one ever understood these things so clearly as Christ did. He saw the destructive effects of sin, what disorder it had brought into the world, and to what temporal and eternal evils it had subject the bodies and the souls of men. He knew also that there was no help upon earth, and that no creature in heaven of the highest order of angels could deliver any one sinner from his distress, and much less a multitude; therefore his eye pitied us, and his compassion was moved at the sight of our lost and helpless state. Behold what manner of love he hath bestowed upon such sinners as you and me; a love which led him to do greater wonders to save, than he had before done to create us: for he, the most high God, blessed for ever, humbled himself to be made man. He, whom angels and archangels had been worshipping from the moment of their creation, took upon him the form of a servant, and came to save his people from their sins. Adore, my brethren, and praise this infinite condescension of the incarnate God: for it was for you who believe it by true faith, and for your salvation, that the Word was made flesh. He was equal to this great work, because he was perfect God and perfect man in one Christ, and as such he was absolutely free from sin, “he knew no sin,” he knew it not in practice. No sin, no inclination, no motion, or rising of sin, ever entered into his heart, and therefore he was pure from the least spot or stain of pollution.

The scripture is very plain upon this point. Christ was known in the times of the Old Testament by the titles of the Holy Name, the Holy One, the Holy One of Israel, and the prophet Isaiah speaks of the Lord the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One; and when the fulness of time was come, that this Holy One should be made flesh, he was conceived and born without the least taint of corruption, conceived of the Holy Spirit, and born of a pure virgin. Yea, the angel Gabriel pronounced him to be holy before his birth, in the message to the virgin, Luke 1:35. “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” He was born holy, and such was the life of the holy child Jesus, as his birth had been. We may see clearly how pure he came into the world, from the purity with which he lived in it. How different was his life from ours; he knew no sin in thought, word, or deed. The prophet says, “He had a clean heart,” all his thoughts were clean; “He had pure hands,” all his actions were pure; “and he had a mouth without guile,” no idle, false, or sinful word ever passed through his lips. He was altogether holy, harmless, and undefiled, and separate from sinners. In the law of the Lord was his study and his delight. He came to glorify it, and by keeping it in its spiritual nature, and in its full extent, with every faculty of soul and body, and at all times he made it honourable. He paid it that obedience which it demanded, and continued in all things that were written in the book of the law to do them. Thus in him was no sin, sin being the transgression of the law. And accordingly we find him challenging his bitterest enemies upon this point. “Which of you,” says he, (John 8:45,) “convinceth me of sin?” Nay, he went further, and defied Satan himself, as well as the Jews, “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me,” no sin of mine own to lay to my charge.

From these passages it plainly appears, that Christ knew no sin. He was a pure and spotless lamb, holy and without blemish; and it was necessary he should be so: because, if he ever had any sin of his own he could not have obeyed and suffered for the sins of others. The infinite purity of God’s law can pass by no sin. Upon the least transgression, if it be but a thought or motion in the heart, the law passes sentence and condemns, “Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them:” and if you continue not to do them, justice calls aloud for the inflicting of the threatened curse, and waits to see it fully executed; therefore unless Christ had continued to do all things which are written in the book of the law, he could not have obeyed and suffered for the sins of others; because he would then have suffered for his own, which must not be imagined. It would be blasphemy to suppose any such thing. When the last scene of his sufferings began, he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, a lamb without blemish and without spot, such as the ceremonial law required. You know, my brethren, that no creature could be offered in sacrifice to the Lord, if it had the least blemish or deformity. By this type was prefigured the perfect sinless purity, which was to be in the great sacrifice for sin. He was to be a lamb without blemish, without the least spot or stain of sin, either in his nature or in his life, and such an one was the lamb of God. The apostle says expressly, 1 Pet. 2:22, “He did NO sin;” and St. John, 1 Eph. 3:5, speaks to believers, “Ye know, that he was manifested to take away our sins, and in him is no sin:” this was a known and established truth, that in Christ there was NO sin. If judgment was laid to the line, and righteousness to the plummet, there would be found in him a perfect conformity to the law. And this his active obedience was necessary to prepare him for his passive, that having obeyed the law actively he might suffer passively whatever was due to our disobedience. And that righteousness, by which we are accounted righteous before God, is the effect of his being obedient unto death, of his obedience to the perceptive part of the law, which was his fulfilling the righteousness of the law, and of his obedience to the vindictive part of the law, which was his bearing the cures of it. His active obedience was absolutely perfect. He knew NO sin, and therefore was every way fit and qualified to suffer for sin, “to be made sin for us,” as the apostle expresses it in my text, which words I am in the second place to consider.

Although Christ knew no sin, yet he was made sin. How could that be? How could he be made sin, who knew no sin? He was made sin, not practically, but by imputation. He had no sin inherently in him, but had sin imputed to him, when the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all. In his own person there was no inherent spot or stain of sin, or any such thing. He could not touch the pollution of sin, nor could he practically know its filthy, defiling nature. He was not a drunkard, a whoremonger, a thief, or whatever you call a sinner as such. He neither was a sinner practically, nor had he ever the least inclination to be so; because his will was always in perfect harmony with the will of God. From whence it appears that Christ was not made a polluted sinner, nor yet a guilty sinner as to the merit and desert of sin. In this respect he was not capable of being made sin. he did not, as to himself, deserve the punishment of sin, for which he suffered. Punishment is due to transgressors, but Christ had not transgressed. Even when he suffered, according to St. Peter, he was just, and righteous in himself; 1 Pet. 3:18, “Christ also hath once suffered for sin, the just for the unjust.” He was perfectly just, and therefore capable of undertaking to suffer for the unjust, that as no suffering was due to him, the merit of what he suffered might be imputed unto them. And so it was. He freely entered into an obligation to stand in the place of the unjust, and to undergo the punishment due to them, and this with his own consent the Lord laid upon him, and in this sense he was made sin for us. He was made sin in the same way that we are made righteous. Now the righteousness by which we are justified is not inherent in ourselves, but it is in Christ, and is made ours through God’s imputing it to us. In like manner our sins were not inherent in Christ, but imputed to him and laid upon him. He was willing to become our surety, and to answer for our sins and to have them imputed to him, so as to be obliged to bear the punishment of them, even the wrath and curse, which, if he had not endured them, would have sunk everyone of us into the pit of hell. But Christ his own self bare them in his own body upon the tree. As the surety of all that shall believe in him he undertook to answer all the demands which law and justice had upon them. And he was willing to have all their sins imputed to him, and placed to his account, that he might satisfy for them. Accordingly we read that he was once offered to bear the sins of many, and that by his own blood he obtained eternal redemption for them. When their iniquities were laid upon him, although he knew no sin, yet he knew what it was to suffer for sin. He died the death and endured the pains, which were in nature and proportion due to them for their sins, and for the full satisfaction of law and justice.

In this sense Christ was made sin; but what would this avail, if he was a mere man? He might be made sin, and might suffer, but not for us. The apostle says, in my text, he was made sin for us. What was effectual to us, must be more than human, and could be nothing short of divine. Christ’s undertakings were too great to be performed by any person less than the most high God. And accordingly the scripture teaches us, that Christ was Jehovah, the true self-existent God, a co-equal and co-eternal person with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and in his person God and man were united in one Christ. By this personal union, what the manhood did and suffered partook of the infinite merit of the Godhead. The manhood of Christ had no sin in it, and therefore what it suffered for the sin imputed to it, was infinitely meritorious, because he who suffered was God as well as man. This most wonderful method of bringing many sons unto glory, was contrived by the ever blessed Trinity, and settled by the covenant of grace. God the Son was pleased to become their surety, and to stand up in their nature to act and to suffer for them. And what he undertook he could not fail of accomplishing; for all things are alike possible to his almighty power. When he acted for his people, he was God as well as man, his obedience was therefore divine and infinite, and by the merits of it shall many be made righteous. When he suffered for his people, his sufferings were of such infinite merit and efficacy that by his stripes they are healed and freed from suffering. He took their griefs and carried their sorrows, that they might never fell them. When he died, and paid the debt to justice, which they ought to have paid, he soon brought them a discharge: for although he was buried and descended into hell, yet on the third day he rose again from the dead, and thereby demonstrated, that all the ends were answered, for which he was made sin for them.

Here, my Christian brethren, let us stop and adore the free love and rich mercy of our Divine Redeemer. He, the most high God, blessed for ever, condescended to be made man for us, and for our salvation. O wonderful condescension! that there should be any mercy for such enemies and rebels as we have been, and how did he magnify his compassion, that when he might in justice have destroyed us, yet he humbled himself and stooped down to save us! But how great was his humiliation in vouchsafing to take on him the form of a servant, and to live in poverty and contempt. Considering who it was that became a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, we see the greatest wonder of all, the depth of his humiliation. He that was the lowest upon earth, was the highest in heaven. He came down to be made sin for us, to have our sins imputed to him, and to answer for them to law and justice. Accordingly they were laid upon him, and he bare them in his own body on the cross, and thereby saved us from our sins. Blessed, for ever blessed be the name of our dear Redeemer. Glory, and honour, and thanks never-ceasing be to him, who took all our suffering upon himself, because he could bear that which we could not, and because he could satisfy for that in a short time, which we could not in eternity, and who, having thus delivered us from sin and suffering, has righteousness to impute unto us, in which we may stand blameless at the bar of justice. Oh let us praise him with our lips and lives, who was made sin for us, that he might be made righteousness to us, which is the third point I was to consider.

He was a spotless lamb, and therefore capable of being made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Righteousness is a perfect conformity to the law and will of God, and without this no man shall see the Lord: “For the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God,” 1 Cor. 6:9, and we are all unrighteous, because we have all sinned and robbed God of his glory. The question then is, In what way or by what means can we attain righteousness? Can we attain it by the works of the law? No, it is impossible; because, if it was attainable by our own works, then we should be inherently righteous, and should have such a righteousness as the law demands; but the law demands perfect unsinning obedience, which we have not paid it. And upon our failing to pay it, the law pronounces us guilty, passes sentence, and leaves us, as to anything we can do, for ever under the curse, it being the irreversible decree of the almighty Law-giver, that since all flesh has sinned and broken the law, therefore by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

But if sinners cannot be justified by any inherent righteousness, what righteousness have they to plead at the bar of justice? They have a righteousness absolutely perfect and complete, called in scripture the righteousness of God, because the Lord our righteousness contrived and wrought it out. He came into the world, and took flesh in order to fulfill all righteousness. By his obedience and suffering he satisfied all the demands of law and justice, and paid that immense debt which none of us could pay, and hereby he was made of God unto us righteousness: God the Father constituted and ordained him to be the perfect righteousness of believers. In him is their righteousness, “Their righteousness is of me, said the Lord.” (Isaiah 54:17) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

If you ask how the righteousness of another can be made yours? it must be in the same way that Christ was made sin. He had no sin of his own, and yet he was made sin by imputation; and believers have no righteousness of their own, and yet are made righteous by imputation. Christ had no inherent sin of his own, nor have they any inherent righteousness; but he was made sin by having their sins imputed to him, and they are made righteous by having his righteousness imputed to them. The manner of God’s proceeding is the same in both cases. When the Psalmist says, “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity,” how is this to be understood? Has he no iniquity in him? Yes, he has original and inherent sin, and if he says he has no sin, he deceives himself; but he is a blessed man, because the Lord does not impute sin to him, nor charge him with it. So when David describeth the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness, has the man this righteousness in himself, and is he inherently righteous? No, but by an act of grace God accounts him righteous, and imputes righteousness unto him, and therefore he is blessed. And thus God imputes righteousness to them who believe, not for a righteousness which is in them, but for a righteousness which he imputes to them. As their iniquities were laid upon Christ, and satisfaction for them required of him as debt is of the bondsman, although he had none of the money, so is the righteousness of Christ laid upon them. In like manner, as their sins were made his, so is his righteousness made theirs. He is sin for them, not inherently, but by imputation; and they righteousness through him, not inherently, but by imputation.

This is the righteousness in which alone a sinner can stand acquitted at God’s bar? There he must make mention of this righteousness, even of this only: for none but this can answer the demands of the law, and expiate the curse of it, and this righteousness can be made his by no other way than by God’s imputing it to him; which, as it is the great truth held forth in my text, I will endeavour more fully to explain and defend by the following reasons:

And first, the ceremonial law taught this doctrine very clearly. Whenever a person had sinned, he was to bring his sacrifice to the priest, and to lay his hands upon its head, confessing his sins over it, and then the guilt was transferred to the sacrifice, and its blood was shed instead of his. This is mentioned several times in Leviticus 4. And of the scapegoat we read, Lev. 16:21, “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.” All the sins of the children of Israel were passed over to the goat, but were they put into the goat, or were they inherent in him? No, this is too absurd to be supposed, but they were put upon the goat. And this was a very expressive image of our sins being laid upon Christ; for all the sacrifices represented him. As the scapegoat had imputed to him all the people’s iniquities, so had Christ all his people’s iniquities imputed to him; and as the goat did bear upon him all their iniquities, so Christ did bear all their sins in his own body upon the tree. What was prefigured by the type, was fulfilled by the reality, when Christ suffered once for sin, the just for the unjust: for then he was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Our righteousness is in him; this is a —

Second argument; That righteousness which is our justification before God is IN Christ. Believers have it not in themselves. They have not an inherent righteousness wrought out and attained by their own works, but their justifying righteousness was wrought out by another, and it is in him. How then can it be made theirs in any other way than by imputation? Must it not be transferred to them in the same way that their sins were transferred to him? And how were they transferred to him? They were imputed, not inherent; they were laid upon him, not into him. So his righteousness is in him, as their sins were in them, and it is imputed, not inherent; it is not put into them, but upon them. Their righteousness is in him, and he is the Lord their righteousness, and consequently that righteousness for which they are justified, cannot be in them; but it is made theirs when God imputes it to them, and they by faith receive it. The manner of receiving it, which is by faith, is the —

Third argument I shall bring in support of the apostle’s doctrine. Faith is the only instrument which God is pleased to use in applying Christ’s righteousness. The apostle calls it the righteousness of faith, because faith alone is employed in the application of this righteousness. It is never called the righteousness of any other grace, but of faith. We never read of the righteousness of humility, meekness, or charity; these are of great price in the sight of God, but they have no office in justifying a sinner. This belongs solely to faith: for to him that worketh not, but believeth, is righteousness imputed. It is not by working, but by believing, that sinners are justified. When they are convinced of sin, find no righteousness in themselves, hear the dreadful sentence of the law against the unrighteous, and feel in their guilty consciences some of the miseries which they deserve, then they are stirred up to seek for a righteousness in which they may stand acquitted before the judgment-seat of God. The scripture offers to them such a righteousness in Christ, and then God enables them to rest and to rely upon it for their justification, they then by faith have peace with God through Jesus Christ their Lord. Thus the convinced sinner is forced to seek a righteousness out of himself, and to rely upon the righteousness of another, and how can this be made or accounted his in any other way, than by imputation? how can he be made righteous in Christ, but by having Christ’s righteousness imputed to him?

If these arguments be well considered, they will, I hope, establish the doctrine of the text; for they clearly prove, that God hath appointed the Lord Jesus Christ to be the only righteousness of his people. He was made sin for them, their sins being laid upon him, as the sins of the children of Israel were laid upon the scapegoat. And he was made of God unto them righteousness, and their righteousness is in him, not an inherent but an imputed righteousness, and received by faith, which submits to be justified by the righteousness of another, and rests with full trust and confidence upon it. This is the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, and the direct contrary is the fundamental doctrine of popery.

At the reformation the Lord raised up faithful witnesses to bear their testimony against that reigning heresy of the papists, which places merit in man’s works; yea, such merit as to justify a sinner before God; yea, still greater merit, for they maintain, that a man can do more than the moral law requires, and can perform works of supererogation, the merit of which may be imputed to another person, and yet, at the same time, they deny the imputation of Christ’s merits. The first reformers preached boldly against those blasphemies, and that blessed servant of God, Luther, was bold indeed. He knew well the dangerous tendency of the doctrine of merit, and therefore he principally wrote and preached against it, and God gave him great success. A sinner made righteous by the righteousness of Christ, is, as he used to say, the doctrine upon which a church stands or falls. Upon it our church was established, and has long stood; but do we stand upon it now? Are we all champions for the protestant doctrine, or are we in general departed from it? Alas! our enemies can tell, with triumph they tell of the increase of the popish interest among us. And why does it increase? Whence is it that they make so many converts? Is it not because our people are not well established in this protestant doctrine? If it was taught and preached more, our churches would not be so empty as they are, nor the mass houses so full. Many of our people know not what it is to be a protestant, and therefore they become an easy prey to the papists, who are so busy and successful in making converts, that they pretend they have on one Lord’s day more communicants at the mass house in Lincoln’s-inn-fields, than we have on the same day at all the churches in London. I fear this may be true; but is it not greatly alarming, and ought it not to stir up the protestant clergy, to try to put a stop to the spreading of popery? But how can they do this more effectually, than by laying the axe to the root, and striking at the doctrine of merit, which is the fundamental error of the papists? Overthrow this, and popery cannot stand. A man cannot be a papist, who believes that his justifying righteousness is in Christ, and whoever does not believe this is not a protestant. May the Lord raise us up faithful and able men, (for we greatly want them,) to defend his righteousness against them who have established a meritorious righteousness of their own, and will not submit to the righteousness of God.

But, besides the papists, we have other enemies to the doctrine in the text. The careless sinner treats it with great contempt; for he does not see its value, nor his own want of it, and therefore he lives easy and secure in the practice of sin. The scripture has revealed the wrath of heaven against all his unrighteousness, but he does not regard the revelation. The law brings him in guilty and condemns him but he gives himself no concern about the threatenings of the law. The gospel offers him mercy, and its ministers entreat him to accept of it, but he stops his ears. Neither the grace of the gospel, nor the terrors of the law, can prevail upon him. Although he has no righteousness of any kind, yet the lives as if he was in no danger. Oh deluded man: if thou didst but know thy state, thou wouldst cry earnestly to the Redeemer, and seek to be accepted in his righteousness. May he take pity upon thee, and send his good spirit to convince thee of sin, and to convince thee of righteousness.

The formalist is another enemy to the doctrine in the text. He will not receive justification by imputed righteousness, but will have his own righteousness seated on the throne along with Christ. He falls into this great mistake from his ignorance of the perfect nature of God’s law, which has made no provision for any failing, but for the very first passes sentence, “Cursed is every one who continueth not in ALL things,” &c., and since all have failed, consequently all are under the curse, and can never be justified by that law which has condemned them. And his mistake arises also from his ignorance of the gospel. He takes the gospel to be a proposal of terms and conditions, mitigating the rigour of the law, and so he makes Christ only a milder law-giver than Moses, requiring not perfect but sincere obedience of his creatures. Whereas Christ came to redeem us from the curse of the law, by obeying its precepts, and by suffering its penalties, and our righteousness comes to us from him as the fulfiller of the law, and is received by faith, without any of our works or deservings.

If any of you, my brethren, have fallen into this mistake, weigh and consider attentively what has been before said upon the moral law, and upon the law of faith, and if you are not convinced, can you ask God to direct you in the right way? If you can, he has promised to give you wisdom; he will teach you the true doctrine, and will enable you to submit to the righteousness of God. But if you are convinced, are you waiting for the precious gift of faith, or have you received it? If you are waiting for it, remember whose gift it is. The Holy Spirit alone can work faith in your heart. It requires his power, even that almighty power, which raised up Jesus from the dead. The Scriptures ascribes to him the office of convincing sinners of Christ’s righteousness, and of giving them faith to rest upon it for their justification. Look up to him for this blessing. Wait in his appointed ways, hoping for it. And when the Spirit shall be poured upon you from on high, then you will be justified by faith in Christ’s righteousness, and the work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness, quietness, and assurance for ever.

Happy are you, my Christian brethren, who have received the righteousness of faith, and knowing whom you have believed. Since Christ’s righteousness is yours, bring forth its proper fruits, and shew publicly, that there is an inseparable connexion between justifying faith and sanctifying grace. By justifying faith the believer is united to Christ, and receives life from him, as a graft does from the stock upon which it grows. By virtue of this union, Christ liveth in the believer, and enables him to put forth the proper acts of spiritual life, as the stock upon which the graft grows supplies it with sap and juices to put forth leaves, and blossom, and fruit. This is the certain effect of the abiding of a branch in the vine; it will bring forth fruit; and if any one fancy himself to be a believer, and neither brings forth nor is seeking to bring forth any fruit, he only deceives himself, and the truth is not in him: for whosoever has Christ for a Savior, will have the Holy Spirit for a sanctifier, and will bring forth fruit to the Glory of God.

See then, my Christian brethren, that ye value and prize this righteousness, and give it its proper honour, both with your hearts and lives. While you are bringing forth its peaceable fruits, you will continually find the comforts of it. This righteousness is one of the pieces of Christian armour. It is called a breast-plate: because it is the proper armour for the vital parts. Your life is always safe while you have your breast-plate on; you need not fear the terror by night, nor the arrow that flieth by day. Let thousands fall, you are safe. You are defended from outward attacks: for although many be the afflictions of the righteous, yet the Lord delivereth him out of them all; and you are kept in inward peace: for the work of righteousness is peace, and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance for ever. In time of sickness this righteousness will be a perpetual cordial. It will not suffer the heart to sink, although the body grows weak and faint; for this breast-plate is not only proof against the pains of sickness, but also against the weapons of death. “Righteousness delivereth from death;” Prov. 11:4; not by keeping the justified person from dying, but by keeping him from the fear of the first, and from the power of the second death. The righteous man, armed with this invulnerable breastplate, can challenge all his enemies. Who shall separate me from the love of Christ? shall tribulation or distress, or persecution or death? Nay, clothed in the robe of Christ’s righteousness, I shall not be afraid to go through the valley and shadow of death, nor yet to stand at the awful bar of God’s infinite justice. Why should he fear to stand there to be tried? For who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God himself that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again for their justification, and in his righteousness they shall stand holy and unblameable and unreprovable before the judgment-seat of God.

Since these are some of the benefits of having on the breastplate of righteousness, let us, my Christian brethren, keep it always in use. Since we are fighting under the Captain of our salvation, let us be ever armed with his righteousness; and may we all wear it upon our breasts, that neither guilt within, nor troubles without, may ever separate us from the love of Christ Jesus our Lord; but may we, in life and death, find the blessedness of this armour, by its protecting us from the threatenings of the broken law, and from the vengeance of almighty justice; and may we in time and in eternity live to his glory, who humbled himself to be made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Grant this, holy Father, for the sake of they dear Son, Jesus Christ: to whom, with thee and the Holy Spirit, three persons in one Jehovah, be honour and glory, and blessing and praise, for ever and ever. Amen.

Imputation

by Caspar Wistar Hodge

From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

im-pu-ta'-shun:

I. MEANING AND USE OF THE TERM

II. THE THREEFOLD USE OF THE TERM IN THEOLOGY

Original Sin, Atonement, Justification

III. THE SCRIPTURAL BASIS OF THESE DOCTRINES

1. Imputation of Adam's Sin to His Posterity

2. Imputation of the Sins of His People to Christ

3. Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to His People

LITERATURE

I. Meaning and Use of the Term.

The word "imputation," according to the Scriptural usage, denotes an attributing of something to a person, or a charging of one with anything, or a setting of something to one's account. This takes place sometimes in a judicial manner, so that the thing imputed becomes a ground of reward or punishment. The word is used in the King James Version a number of times to translate the Hebrew verb chashabh and the Greek verb logizomai. These words, both of which occur frequently in Scripture, and which in a number of instances mean simply "to think," express the above idea. That this is the case is clear also from the other English words used in the King James Version to translate these Hebrew and Greek words, as, for example, "to count," "to reckon," "to esteem." Thus chashabh is translated in the King James Version by the verb "to impute" (Leviticus 7:18; Leviticus 17:4; II Samuel 19:19); by the verb "to reckon" (II Samuel 4:2); by "to count" as something (Leviticus 25:31 English versions). The verb in I Samuel 22:15 is sim. Similarly, logizomai is translated by the verb "to impute" (Romans 4:6, Romans 4:8, Romans 4:11, Romans 4:22-24; II Corinthians 5:19; James 2:23); by the verb "to count" (Romans 2:26; Romans 4:3, Romans 4:5); "to account" (Galatians 3:6); and by the verb "to reckon" (Romans 4:4, Romans 4:9-10). In the Revised Version (British and American) the word used to render logizomai is the verb "to reckon."

These synonyms of the verb "to impute" bring out the idea of reckoning or charging to one's account. It makes no difference, so far as the meaning of imputation is concerned, who it is that imputes, whether man (I Samuel 22:15) or God (Psalms 32:2); it makes no difference what is imputed, whether a good deed for reward (Psalms 106:30 f.) or a bad deed for punishment (Leviticus 17:4); and it makes no difference whether that which is imputed is something which is personally one's own prior to the imputation, as in the case above cited, where his own good deed was imputed to Phinehas (Psalms 106:30 f.), or something which is not personally one's own prior to the imputation, as where Paul asks that a debt not personally his own be charged to him (Philemon 1:18). In all these cases the act of imputation is simply the charging of one with something. It denotes just what we mean by our ordinary use of the term. It does not change the inward state or character of the person to whom something is imputed. When, for example, we say that we impute bad motives to anyone, we do not mean that we make such a one bad; and just so in the Scripture the phrase "to impute iniquity" does not mean to make one personally bad, but simply to lay iniquity to his charge. Hence, when God is said "to impute sin" to anyone, the meaning is that God accounts such a one to be a sinner, and consequently guilty and liable to punishment. Similarly, the non-imputation of sin means simply not to lay it to one's charge as a ground of punishment (Psalms 32:2). In the same manner, when God is said "to impute righteousness" to a person, the meaning is that He judicially accounts such a one to be righteous and entitled to all the rewards of a righteous person (Romans 4:6, Romans 4:11).

II. The Threefold Use of the Term in Theology.

Original Sin, Atonement, Justification:

Three acts of imputation are given special prominence in the Scripture, and are implicated in the Scriptural doctrines of Original Sin, Atonement and Justification, though not usually expressed by the words chashabh and logizomai. Because, however, of its "forensic" or "judicial" meaning, and possibly through its use in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) to translate logizomai in Romans 4:8, the term "imputation" has been used in theology in a threefold sense to denote the judicial acts of God by which the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity; by which the sins of Christ's people are imputed to Him; and by which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. The act of imputation is precisely the same in each case. It is not meant that Adam's sin was personally the sin of his descendants, but that it was set to their account, so that they share its guilt and penalty. It is not meant that Christ shares personally in the sins of men, but that the guilt of his people's sin was set to his account, so that He bore its penalty. It is not meant that Christ's people are made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to them, but that His righteousness is set to their account, so that they are entitled to all the rewards of that perfect righteousness.

These doctrines have had a place in theology of the Christian church from the earliest Christian centuries, though the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ was first fully and clearly stated at the time of and following the Reformation. The first two of these doctrines have been the possession of the entire Christian church, while the third one of them is affirmed by both the Reformed and Lutheran branches of Protestantism.

III. The Scriptural Basis of These Doctrines.

These three doctrines have a basis in the Scripture, and underlie the Scripture doctrines of Original Sin, Atonement, and Justification.

1. Imputation of Adam's Sin to His Posterity:

The doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity is implied in the account of the Fall in Gen. 2 and 3, taken in connection with the subsequent history of the human race as recorded in Gen. and in the rest of the Old Testament. Many ancient and modern interpreters regard this narrative as an allegorical, mythical or symbolical representation in historical form, either of a psychological fact, i.e. of something which takes place in every individual, or of certain general truths concerning sin. By some exegetes, following Kant, it has been held to depict an advance of the race in culture or ethical knowledge (Reuss; against which view compare Budde, Clemen); by others it has been regarded as a symbolical representation of certain truths concerning sin (Oehler, Schultz); by others it has been regarded as historical (Delitzsch). This latter view is the one which accords with the narrative itself. It is evidently intended as historical by its author, and is so regarded by the New Testament writers. It is, moreover, introduced to explain, not an advance of the race, but the entrance of sin into the world, and the connection of certain penal evils with sin. It does this by showing how these evils came upon Adam as a punishment for his disobedience, and the subsequent history shows that his posterity were subjected to the same evils. It is true that the threat of punishment to Adam in case of disobedience was made to him alone, and that the penalties threatened are said to have come only upon him and Eve (Genesis 3:16-19). Nevertheless, it is clear from the account of the subsequent history of the race that it actually shared in the punishments inflicted upon Adam, and that this was in consequence of his sin. This implies that in Genesis 2:16 f. are contained the terms of a covenant in which Adam acted as the representative of the race. If, therefore, the race shares in the penalty of Adam's sin, it must also share in his guilt or the judicial obligation to suffer punishment. And this is precisely what theology of the entire Christian church has meant by saying that the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity. This is in accordance with God's method of dealing with men in other recorded instances (Genesis 19:15; Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 1:37; Deuteronomy 3:26); and the assertion of the principle of personal responsibility by Ezekiel and Jeremiah against an abuse of the principle of representative responsibility implies a recognition of the latter (Ezekiel 18:2, Ezekiel 18:4; Ezekiel 33:12; Jeremiah 31:29).

The universality of sin and death is not brought into connection with the Fall of Adam by the other Old Testament writers. This is done, however, by Paul. In I Corinthians 15:21 f., Paul says that the death of all men has its cause in the man Adam in the same way in which the resurrection from the dead has its cause in the man Christ. The death of all men, accordingly, is not brought about by their personal sins, but has come upon all through the disobedience of Adam. Upon what ground this takes place, Paul states in the passage Romans 5:12-21. He introduces the subject of Adam's relation to the race to illustrate his doctrine of the justification of sinners on the ground of a righteousness which is not personally their own. In order to do this he takes the truth, well known to his readers, that all men are under condemnation on account of Adam's sin. The comparison is between Adam and Christ, and the specific point of the comparison is imputed sin and imputed righteousness. Hence, in Romans 5:12 Paul does not mean simply to affirm that as Adam sinned and consequently died, so men sin and die. Nor can he mean to say that just as God established a precedent in Adam's case that death should follow sin, so He acts upon this precedent in the case of all men because all sin, the real ground of the reign of death being the fact that all sin, and the formal ground being this precedent (B. Weiss); nor that the real ground is this precedent and the subordinate ground the fact that all sin (Hunefeld). Neither can Paul intend to say that all men are subject to death because they derive a corrupt nature from Adam (Fritzsche); nor that men are condemned to die because all have sinned (Pfleiderer). Paul's purpose is to illustrate his doctrine of the way in which men are delivered from sin and death by the way in which they are brought into condemnation. The main thought of the passage is that, just as men are condemned on account of the imputation to them of the guilt of Adam's sin, so they are justified on account of the imputation to them of the righteousness of Christ. Paul says that it was by one man that sin and death entered into the world, and it was by one man that death passed to all men, because all were implicated in the guilt of that one man's Sin (Romans 5:12). In proof of this the apostle cites the fact that death as a punishment was reigning during a period in which the only possible judicial ground of this fact must have been the imputation of the guilt of that one man's sin (Romans 5:13-14). Hence, there is a precise parallel between Adam and Christ. Just as men are condemned on account of Adam's disobedience, so they are justified on account of the obedience of Christ (Romans 5:18-19). The thought of the passage is imputed sin and imputed righteousness as the ground of condemnation and of justification respectively.

2. Imputation of the Sins of His People to Christ:

That our sins are imputed to Christ is not expressly stated in the Scripture, but is implied in those passages which affirm that Christ "bore our sins," and that our iniquities were "laid upon him" by Yahweh. To bear inquity or sin, though it may sometimes mean to bear it away or remove it, is an expression often applied in Scripture to persons charged with guilt and subjected to the punishment of their own sin (Leviticus 5:17; Leviticus 7:18; Leviticus 19:8; Leviticus 22:9). That the Hebrew verb nasa' has this meaning is also indicated by its being interchanged with the verb cabhal, which means "to bear as a burden" and is used to denote the bearing of the punishment of sin (Isaiah 53:11). In the Old Testament sacrificial system, which according to the New Testament is typical of the sacrifice of Christ, the imposition of hands on the head of the victim signified the substitution of it for the offender and the transfer of his guilt to it. This idea is brought out clearly in the case of the two goats on the great Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). When, therefore, the Servant of Yahweh in Isa. 53 is said "to bear iniquity" (Isaiah 53:11), or that "the chastisement of our peace was upon him" (Isaiah 53:5), or that "Yahweh hath laid (literally, "caused to fall") on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6), the idea expressed is that Christ bore the punishment of our sin vicariously, its guilt having been imputed to Him. The thought of the prophecy is, as Delitzsch says, that of vicarious punishment, which implies the idea of the imputation of the guilt of our sins to Christ.

The same idea underlies these expressions when they occur in the New Testament. When Peter wishes to hold up Christ as an example of patience in suffering, he takes up the thought of Isa, and adduces the fact that Christ "his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree". (I Peter 2:24). The context indicates that Peter had the prophecy of Isa. 53 in mind, so that his meaning is, not that Christ carried our sins even up to the cross, but that in His death on the cross Christ bore the punishment of our sin, its guilt having been imputed to Him. The same thought is expressed by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the contrast between the first and second advents of Christ is made to hinge upon the fact that in the first He came to be sacrificed as a sin-bearer, burdened with the guilt of the sin of others, whereas in His second coming He will appear without this burden of imputed or vicarious guilt (Hebrews 9:28). Paul also gives expression to the same thought when he says that Christ was "made. to be sin on our behalf" (II Corinthians 5:21), and that He became "a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13). In the former passage the idea of substitution, although not expressed by the preposition huper which indicates that Christ's work was for our benefit, is nevertheless clearly implied in the thought that Christ, whose sinlessness is emphasized in the ver, is made sin, and that we sinners become righteous in Him. Paul means that Christ was made to bear the penalty of our sin and that its guilt was imputed to Him in precisely the same way in which we sinners become the righteousness of God in Him, i.e. by the imputation of His righteousness to us. The same thought is expressed in Galatians 3:13, where the statement that Christ was made a curse for us means that He was made to endure the curse or penalty of the broken law. In all these passages the underlying thought is that the guilt of our sin was imputed to Christ.

3. Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to His People:

The righteousness upon the ground of which God justifies the ungodly is, according to Paul, witnessed to in the Old Testament (Romans 3:21). In order to obtain the blessedness which comes from a right relation to God, the pardon or non-imputation of sin is necessary, and this takes place through the "covering" of sin (Psalms 32:1-2). The nature of this covering by the vicarious bearing of the penalty of sin is made clear in Isa. 53. It is, moreover, the teaching of the Old Testament that the righteousness which God demands is not to be found among men (Psalms 130:3; Psalms 143:2; Isaiah 64:6). Accordingly, the prophets speak of a righteousness which is not from man's works, but which is said to be in Yahweh or to come from Him to His people (Isaiah 32:16 f.; Isaiah 45:23 ff.; Isaiah 54:17; Isaiah 58:8; Isaiah 61:3; Jeremiah 51:10; Hosea 10:12). This idea finds its clearest expression in connection with the work of the Messiah in Jeremiah 33:16, where Jerusalem is called "Yahweh our righteousness" because of the coming of the Messianic king, and in Jeremiah 23:6 where the same name is given to the Messiah to express His significance for Israel. Although the idea of the imputation of righteousness is not explicitly asserted in these passages, the idea is not merely that the righteousness spoken of is recognized by Yahweh (Cremer), but that it comes from Him, so that Yahweh, through the work of the Messiah, is the source of His people's righteousness.

This idea is taken up by Paul, who makes explicit the way in which this righteousness comes to sinners, and who puts the idea of imputed righteousness at the basis of his doctrine of Justification. By the righteousness of Christ Paul means Christ's legal status, or the merit acquired by all that He did in satisfying the demands of God's law, including what has been called His active and passive obedience. Notwithstanding the fact that most of the modern expositors of Paul's doctrine have denied that he teaches the imputation of Christ's obedience, this doctrine has a basis in the apostle's teaching. Justification leads to life and final glorification (Romans 5:18; Romans 8:30); and Paul always conceives the obtaining of life as dependent on the fulfillment of the law. If, therefore, Christ secures life for us, it can only be in accordance with this principle. Accordingly, the apostle emphasizes the element of obedience in the death of Christ, and places this act of obedience at the basis of the sinner's justification (Romans 5:18). He also represents the obedience of the cross as the culminating point of a life of obedience on Christ's part (Philippians 2:8). Moreover, Paul affirms that our redemption from all the demands of the law is secured by the fact that Christ was born under law (Galatians 4:4). This cannot be restricted to the fact that Christ was under the curse of the law, for He was born under law and the result of this is that we are free from all of its demands. This doctrine is also implied in the apostle's teaching that Justification is absolutely gracious, taken in connection with the fact that it leads to a complete salvation.

The importance in Paul's thought of the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer can be seen from the fact that the question how righteousness was to be obtained occupied a central place in his religious consciousness, both before and after his conversion. The apostle's conversion by the appearance of the risen Christ determined his conception of the true way of obtaining righteousness, since the resurrection of Christ meant for Paul the condemnation of his entire past search for righteousness by works of the law.

That the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer does lie at the basis of Paul's doctrine of Justification can be further seen from the fact that Justification is absolutely free and unmerited so far as the sinner is concerned (Romans 3:24; Romans 5:15; Galatians 5:4; Titus 3:7); its object being one who is ungodly (Romans 4:5); so that it is not by works (Romans 3:20, Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:11; Galatians 5:4; Philippians 3:9); and yet that it is not a mere pardon of sin, but is a strictly "forensic" or judicial judgment, freeing the sinner from all the claims of the law, and granting him the right to eternal life. This last truth is plain because God's retributive righteousness lies at the basis of Paul's doctrine of Justification (Rom. 2); is manifested in it (Romans 3:25 f.); because Christ's expiatory work is its ground (Romans 3:25); and because our redemption from the curse of the law rests upon Christ's having borne it for us, and our redemption from all the demands of the law depends upon their fulfillment by Christ (Galatians 3:13; Galatians 4:4). Hence, the gracious character of Justification, according to Paul, does not consist in its being merely a gracious pardon without any judicial basis (Ritschl); or in God's acceptance of a subjective righteousness produced by Him in the sinner (Tobac); or in the acceptance of faith instead of a perfect righteousness (Cremer). The gracious character of Justification consists for Paul in the fact that the righteousness on the ground of which God justifies the ungodly is a righteousness which is graciously provided by God, and which Paul contrasts with his own righteousness which comes from law works (Philippians 3:9). The sinner, therefore, is pardoned and accepted as a righteous person, not on account of anything in himself, but only on account of what Christ has done for him, which means that the merits of Christ's suffering and obedience are imputed to the sinner as the ground of his justification.

This truth is explicitly affirmed by Paul, who speaks of God's imputing righteousness without works, and of righteousness being imputed (Romans 4:6, Romans 4:11). The idea of the imputation of righteousness here is made clear by the context. The one who is declared righteous is said to be "ungodly" (Romans 4:5). Hence, he is righteous only by God's imputation of righteousness to him. This is also clear from the contrast between imputation according to grace and according to debt (Romans 4:4). He who seeks righteousness by works would be justified as a reward for his works, in antithesis to which, imputation according to grace would be the charging one with a righteousness which he does not possess. Accordingly, at the basis of Justification there is a reckoning to the sinner of an objective righteousness. This same idea is also implied and asserted by Paul in the parallel which he draws between Adam and Christ (Romans 5:18 f.). The apostle says that just as men are condemned on account of a sin not their own, so they are justified on account of a righteousness which is not their own. The idea of imputed sin and imputed righteousness, as was said, is the precise point of the parallelism between condemnation in Adam and justification in Christ. This is also the idea which underlies the apostle's contrast of the Old and New Covenants (II Corinthians 3:9). The New Covenant is described as a "ministry of righteousness," and contrasted with the Old Covenant which is described as a "ministry of condemnation." If, therefore, this last expression does not denote a subjective condition of men under the old dispensation, but their relation to God as objects of His condemnation, righteousness must denote the opposite of this relation to the law, and must depend on God's judicial acquittal. The same truth is expressed by Paul more concretely by saying that Christ has been "made unto us righteousness from God" (I Corinthians 1:30). Here the concrete mode of expression is chosen because Paul speaks also of Christ being our sanctification and redemption, so that an expression had to be chosen which would cover all of these ideas. One of the clearest statements concerning this objective righteousness is Philippians 3:9. The apostle here affirms that the righteousness which the believer in Christ obtains is directly opposite to his own righteousness. This latter comes from works of the law, whereas the former comes from God and through faith in Christ. It is, therefore, objective to man, comes to him from God, is connected with the work of Christ, and is mediated by faith in Christ.

The idea clearly stated in this last passage of a righteousness which is objective to the sinner and which comes to him from God, i.e. the idea of a new legal standing given to the believer by God, explains the meaning, in most cases, of the Pauline phrase "righteousness of God." This phrase is used by Paul 9 t: Romans 1:17; Romans 3:5, Romans 3:21 f., Romans 3:25 f.; Romans 10:3 (twice); II Corinthians 5:21. It denotes the Divine attribute of righteousness in Romans 3:5, Romans 3:25 f. The customary exegesis was to regard the other instances as denoting the righteousness of a sinner which comes to him from God, in accordance with Philippians 3:9. More recently Haering, following Kolbing in general, has interpreted all these instances as denoting God's justifying action. But this interpretation is most strained in II Corinthians 5:21, where we are said to "become the righteousness of God," and in Romans 10:3-6, where the righteousness of God is identified with the righteousness which comes from faith, this latter being contrasted with man's own inward righteousness. That a righteousness of man which he receives from God is here referred to, is confirmed by the fact that the reason given for the error of the Jews in seeking a righteousness from law works is the fact that the work of Christ has made an end of this method of obtaining righteousness (Romans 10:4). This righteousness, therefore, is one of which man is the possessor. The phrase, however, cannot mean a righteousness which is valid in God's sight (Luther), although this thought is elsewhere expressed by Paul (Romans 3:20; Galatians 3:11). It means a righteousness which comes from God and of which He is the author. This is not, however, by making man inwardly righteous, since all the above passages show the purely objective character of this righteousness. It is the righteousness of Philippians 3:9; the righteousness which God imputes to the believer in Christ. Thus we "become the righteousness of God" in precisely the same sense in which Christ was "made to be sin" (II Corinthians 5:21). Since Christ was made sin by having the guilt. of our sin imputed to Him so that He bore its penalty, Paul must mean that we "become the righteousness of God" in this same objective sense through the imputation to us of the righteousness of Christ. In the same way, in Romans 10:3, the contrast between God's righteousness and the Jew's righteousness by works of the law shows that in each case righteousness denotes a legal status which comes from God by imputation. It is this same imputed righteousness which makes the gospel the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:17), which has been revealed by the law and the prophets, which is received by faith in Christ by whose expiatory death God's retributive righteousness has been made manifest (Romans 3:21-22, Romans 3:25-26), and which is represented by Peter as the object of Christian faith (II Peter 1:1).

In two passages Paul affirms that Abraham believed God and "it was imputed to him for righteousness" (Romans 4:3 the King James Version; Galatians 3:6). The old Arminian theologians, and some modern exegetes (H. Cremer) assert that Paul means that Abraham's faith was accepted by God instead of a perfect righteousness as the meritorious ground of his justification. This, however, cannot be the apostle's meaning. It is diametrically opposed to the context where Paul introduces the case of Abraham for the very purpose of proving that he was justified without any merit on his part; it is opposed to Paul's idea of the nature of faith which involves the renunciation of all claim to merit, and is a simple resting on Christ from whom all its saving efficacy is derived; and this interpretation is also opposed to Paul's doctrine of the absolutely gracious character of Justification. The apostle in these passages wishes to illustrate from the case of Abraham the gracious character of Justification, and quotes the untechnical language of Genesis 15:6. His meaning is simply that Abraham was justified as a believer in God, and not as one who sought righteousness by works.

See SIN; ATONEMENT; JUSTIFICATION.

LITERATURE.

Besides the Comm., see works on Old Testament Theology by Dillmann, Davidson, Oehler, Schultz; and on New Testament Theology by H. Holtzmann, B. Weiss, Schmidt; also Chemnitz, De Vocabulo Imputationis, Loc. Theol., 1594, II, 326 ff.; J. Martin, The Imputation of Adam's Sin, 1834, 20-46; Clemen, Die Christliche Lehre yon der Sande, I, 1897, 151-79; Dietzsch, Adam und Christus, 1871; Hunefeld, Romans 5:12-21, 1895; Crawford, The Doctrine of the Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonements, 1876, 33-45, 188-90. Compare also the appropriate sections in the Works on the Scripture doctrine of Justification, and especially on Paul's doctrine of Justification, e.g. Owen, Justification, 1st American edition, 185-310; Ritschl, Die Christliche Lehre yon der Rechtfertigung und VersShnung, II2, 1882, 303-31; Bohl, Von der Rechtfertigung durch den Glauben, 1890, 115-23; Nosgen, Schriftbeweis fur die evangel. Rechfertigungslehre, 1901, 147-96; Pfleiderer, Die Paulinische Rechtfertigung, ZWT (Hilgenfeld herausg.), 1872, 161-200; Paulinism, English translation, I, 171-86; with which compare Pfleiderer's later view of Paul's teachings, 2nd edition, 1890, 178-89; G. Schwarz, Justitia Imputata? 1891; H. Cremer, Paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 1900, 329-49; Tobac, Le problame de la justification dans Saint Paul, 1908, 206-25. On Paul's doctrine of the righteousness of God, of the many monographs the following may be mentioned: Fricke, Der Paulinische Grundbegriff der erortert auf Grund v. Rom. III, 21-26, 1888; Kolbing, Studien zur Paulinische Theologie, TSK, 1895, 7-51; Haring bei Paulus, 1896.

Caspar Wistar Hodge

Two Kinds of Righteousness

by Martin Luther

Brethren, “have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of god, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped”  [Phil.  2:5-6]

[1] There are two kinds of Christian righteousness, just as man’s sin is of two kinds.  The first is alien righteousness, that is the righteousness of another, instilled from without.  This is the righteousness of Christ by which he justifies though faith, as it is written in I Cor. 1:30:  “whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”  In John 11:25-26, Christ himself states:  “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me.....shall never die.”  Later he adds in John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.”  This righteousness, then, is given to men in baptism and whenever they are truly repentant.  Therefore a man can with confidence boast in Christ and say:  “Mine are Christ’s living, doing, and speaking, his suffering and dying, mine as much as if I had lived, done, spoken, suffered, and died as he did.”  Just as a bridegroom possesses all that is his bride’s and she all that is his—for the two have all things in common because they are one flesh[Gen. 2:24]—so Christ and the church are one spirit [Eph. 5:29-32].  Thus the blessed God and Father of mercies has, according to Peter, granted to us very great and precious gifts in Christ [II Pet. 1:4].  Paul writes in II Cor. 1:3; “Blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.”

[2] This inexpressible grace and blessing was long ago promised to Abraham in Gen. 12:3; “And in thy seed (that is in Christ) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”  Isaiah 9:6 says, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given.” “To us,” it says, because he is entirely ours with all his benefits if we believe in him, as we read in Rom. 8:32, “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?”  Therefore everything which Christ has is ours, graciously bestowed on us unworthy men out of God’s sheer mercy, although we have rather deserved wrath and condemnation, and hell also.  Even Christ himself, therefore, who says he came to do the most sacred will of his Father [John 6:38], became obedient to him; and whatever he did, he did it for us and desired it to be ours, saying, “I am among you as one who serves” [Luke 22:27].  He also states, “This is my body, which is given for you” [Luke 22:19].  Isaiah 43:24 says, “You have burdened me with your sins, you have wearied me with your iniquities.”

[3] Through faith in Christ, therefore, Christ’s righteousness becomes our righteousness and all that he has becomes ours; rather, he himself becomes ours.  Therefore the Apostle calls it “the righteousness of God” in Rom. 1:17; For in the gospel “the righteousness of God is revealed...; as it is written, “The righteous shall live by his faith.” Finally, in the same epistle, chapter 3:28, such a faith is called “the righteousness of God”:  “We hold that a man is justified by faith.”  This is an infinite righteousness, and one that swallows up all sins in a moment, for it is impossible that sin should exist in Christ.  On the contrary, he who trusts in Christ exists in Christ; he is one with Christ, having the same righteousness as he.  It is therefore impossible that sin should remain in him.  This righteousness is primary; it is the basis, the cause, the source of all our own actual righteousness. For this is the righteousness given in place of the original righteousness lost in Adam.  It accomplishes the same as that original righteousness would have accomplished; rather, it accomplishes more.

[4] It is in this sense that we are to understand the prayer in Psalm 30: “in thee, O Lord, do I seek refuge; let me never be put to shame; in thy righteousness deliver me!”  It does not say “in my” but “in thy righteousness,” that is, in the righteousness of Christ my God which becomes ours through faith and by the grace and mercy of god.  In many passages of the Psalter, faith is called “the work of the Lord,” “confession,” “power of God,” “mercy,” “truth,” “righteousness.”  All these are names for faith in Christ, rather, for the righteousness which is in Christ.  The Apostle therefore dares to say in Gal. 2:20, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”  He further states in Eph. 3:14-17:  “I bow my knee before the Father . . . that . . . he may grant . . . that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.”

[5] Therefore this alien righteousness, instilled in us without our works by grace alone—while the Father, to be sure, inwardly draws us to Christ—is set opposite original sin, likewise alien, which we acquire without our works by birth alone.  Christ daily drives out the old Adam more and more in accordance with the extent to which faith and knowledge of Christ grow.  For alien righteousness is not instilled all at once, but it begins, makes progress, and is finally perfected at the end through death.

[6] The second kind of righteousness is our proper righteousness, not because we alone work it, but because we work with that first and alien righteousness.  This is that manner of life spent profitably in good works, in the first place, in slaying the flesh and crucifying the desires with respect to the self, of which we read in Gal. 5:24, “And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”  In the second place, this righteousness consists in love to one’s neighbor, and in the third place, in meekness and fear towards God.  The Apostle is full of references to these, as is all the rest of Scripture.  He briefly summarizes everything, however, in Titus 2:12, “ In this world let us live soberly (pertaining to crucifying one’s own flesh), justly (referring to one’s neighbor), and devoutly (relating to God).”

[7] This righteousness is the product of the righteousness of the first type, actually its fruit and consequence, for we read in Gal. 5:22, “But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.”  For because the works mentioned are works of men, it is obvious that in this passage a spiritual man is called “spirit.”  In John 3:6 we read, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”  This righteousness goes on to complete the first for it ever strives to do away with the old Adam and to destroy the body of sin. Therefore it hates itself and loves its neighbor; it does not seek its own good, but that of another, and in this its whole way of living consists.  For in that it hates itself and does not seek its own, it crucifies the flesh.  Because it seeks the good of another, it works love.  Thus in each sphere it does God’s will living soberly with self, justly with neighbor, devoutly toward God.

[8] This righteousness follows the example of Christ in this respect and is transformed into his likeness.  It is precisely this that Christ requires.  Just as he himself did all things for us, not seeking his own good but ours only—and in this he was most obedient to God the Father—so he desires that we also should set the same example for our neighbors.

[9] We read in Rom. 6:19 that this righteousness is set opposite our own actual sin:  “For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.”  Therefore through the first righteousness arises the voice of the bridegroom who says to the soul, “I am yours,” but through the second comes the voice of the bride who answers, “I am yours.”  Then the marriage is consummated; it becomes strong and complete in accordance with the Song of Solomon 2:16, “My beloved is mine and I am his.”  Then the soul no longer seeks to be righteous in and for itself, but it has Christ as its righteousness and therefore seeks only the welfare of others.  Therefore the Lord of the Synagogue threatens through the  prophet “And I will make to cease from the cities of Judah and from the streets of Jerusalem the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride” [Jer 7:34].

[10] This is what the text we are now considering says:  “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” [Phil. 2:5].  This means you should be as inclined and disposed toward one another as you see Christ was disposed toward you.  How?  Thus, surely, that “though he was in the form of God, [he] did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of servant” [Phil. 2:6-7].  The term “form of God” here does not mean the “essence of God” because Christ never emptied himself of this.  Neither can the phrase “form of a servant” be said to mean “human essence.”  But the “form of God” is wisdom, power, righteousness, goodness—and freedom too; for Christ was a free, powerful, wise man, subject to none of the vices or sins to which all other men are subject.  He was pre-eminent in such attributes as are particularly proper to the form of God.  Yet he was not haughty in that form; he did not please himself; nor did he disdain and despise those who were enslaved and subjected to various evils.

[11] He was not like the Pharisee who said, “God, I thank thee that I am not like other men” [Luke 18:11], for that man was delighted that others were wretched; at any rate he was unwilling that they should be like him.  This is the type of robbery by which a man usurps things for himself—rather, he keeps what he has and does not clearly ascribe to God the things that are God’s, nor does he serve others with them that he may become like other men.  Men of this kind wish to be like god, sufficient in themselves, pleasing themselves, glorying in themselves, under obligation to no one, and so on.  Not thus, however, did Christ think; not of this stamp was his wisdom.  He relinquished that form to God the Father and emptied himself, unwilling to use his rank against us, unwilling to be different from us.  Moreover, for our sakes he became as one of us and took the form of a servant, that is, he subjected himself to all evils.  And although he was free, as the Apostle says of himself also, he made himself servant of all, living as if all the evils which were ours were actually his own.

[12] Accordingly he took upon himself our sin and our punishment, and although it was for us that he was conquering those things, he acted as though he were conquering them for himself.  Although as far as his relationship to us was concerned, he had the power to be our God and Lord, yet he did not will it so, but rather desired to become our servant, as it is written in Rom. 15:1-3, “We...ought...not to please ourselves...For Christ did not please himself; but, as it is written, ‘The reproaches of those who reproached thee fell on me.’”  The quotation from the Psalmist has the same meaning as the citation from Paul.

. . . . The Apostle means that each individual Christian shall become the servant of another in accordance with the example of Christ.  If one has wisdom, righteousness, or power with which one can excel others and boast in the “form of God,” so to speak, one should not keep all this to himself, but surrender it to God and become altogether as if he did not posses it [II Cor. 6:10], as one of those who lack it.

[13] Paul’s meaning is that when each person has forgotten himself and emptied himself of God’s gifts, he should conduct himself as if his neighbor’s weakness, sin, and foolishness were his very own.  He should not boast or get puffed up.  Nor should he despise or triumph over his neighbor as if he were his god or equal to God.  Since God’s prerogatives ought to be left to God alone, it becomes robbery when a man in haughty foolhardiness ignores this fact.  It is in this way, then that one takes the from of a servant, and that command of the Apostle in Gal. 5:13 is fulfilled:  “Through love be servants of one another.”  Through the figure of the members of the body Paul teaches in Rom. 12:4-5 and I Cor. 12:12-27 how the strong, honorable, healthy members do not glory over those that are weak, less honorable, and sick as if they were their masters and gods; but on the contrary they serve them the more, forgetting their own honor, health, and power.  For thus no member of the body serves itself; nor does it seek its own welfare but that of the other.  And the weaker, the sicker, the less honorable a member is, the more the other members serve it “that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another,” to use Paul’s words [I Cor. 12:25].  From this it is now evident how one must conduct himself with his neighbor in each situation.

[14] . . . . [W]henever we, on the ground of our righteousness, wisdom, or power, are haughty or angry with those who are unrighteous, foolish, or less powerful than we . . . —and this is the greatest perversion—righteousness works against righteousness, wisdom against wisdom, power against power.  For you are powerful, not that you may make the weak weaker by oppression, but that you may make them powerful by raising them up and defending them.  You are wise, not in order to laugh at the foolish and thereby make them more foolish, but that you may undertake to teach them as you yourself would wish to be taught.  You are righteous that you may vindicate and pardon the unrighteous, not that you may only condemn, disparage, judge, and punish.  For this is Christ’s example for us, as he says, “For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:17).  He further says in Luke 9:55-56, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of man came not to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”

[15] But the carnal nature of man violently rebels, for it greatly delights in punishment, in boasting of its own righteousness, and in its neighbor’s shame and embarrassment at his unrighteousness.  Therefore it pleads its own case and it rejoices that this is better that its neighbor’s.  But it opposes the case of its neighbor and wants it to appear mean.  This perversity is wholly evil, contrary to love, which does not seek its own good, but that of another.  It ought to be distressed that the condition of its neighbor is not better than its own.  It ought to wish that its neighbor’s condition were better than its own, and if its neighbor’s condition is the better, it ought to rejoice no less than it rejoices when its own is the better.  “For this is the law and the prophets” [Matt. 7:12].

[16] But you say, “Is it not permissible to chasten evil man?  Is it not proper to punish sin?  Who is not obliged to defend righteousness?  To do otherwise would give occasion for lawlessness.”  I answer:  A single solution to this problem cannot be given.  Therefore one must distinguish among men.  For men can be classified either as public or private individuals.  The things which have been said do not pertain at all to public individuals, that is to those who have been placed in a responsible office by God.  It is their necessary function to punish and judge evil men, to vindicate and defend the oppressed, because it is not they but God who does this.  They are his servants in this very matter, as the Apostle shows at some length in Rom. 13:4, “He does not bear the sword in vain, etc.”  But this must be understood as pertaining to the cases of other men, not to one’s own.  For no man acts in God’s place for the sake of himself and his own things, but for the sake of others.  If, however, a public official has a case of his own, let him ask for someone other than himself to be God’s representative, for in that case he is not a judge, but one of the parties.  But on these matters let others speak at other times, for it is too broad a subject to cover now.

[17] Private individuals with their own cases are of three kinds.  First, there are those who seek vengeance and judgment from the representatives of God, and of these there is now a very great number.  Paul tolerates such people, but he does not approve of them when he says in I Cor. 6:12, “‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful.”  Rather he says in the same chapter, “To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you.”  But yet to avoid a greater evil he tolerates this lesser one lest they should vindicate themselves and one should use force on the other, returning evil for evil, demanding their own advantages.  Nevertheless such will not enter the kingdom of heaven unless they have changed for the better by forsaking things that are merely lawful and pursuing those that are helpful.  For that passion for one’s own advantage must be destroyed.

[18] In the second class are those who do not desire vengeance.  On the other hand, in accordance with the Gospel [Matt. 5:40], to those who would take their coats, they are prepared to give their cloaks as well, and they do not resist any evil.  These are sons of God, brothers of Christ, heirs of future blessings.  In Scripture therefore they are called “fatherless,” “widows,” “desolate”; because they do not avenge themselves, God wishes to be called their “Father” and “Judge” [Ps. 68:5].  Far from avenging themselves, if those in authority should wish to seek revenge in their behalf, they either do not desire it or seek it, or they only permit it.  Or, if they are among the most advanced, they forbid and prevent it, prepared rather to lose their other possessions also.

[19] Suppose you say, “Such people are very rare, and who would be able to remain in this world were he to do this?”  I answer:  This is not a discovery of today, that few are saved and that the gate is narrow leads to life and those who find it are few [Matt. 7:14].  But if none were doing this, how would the Scripture stand which calls all the poor, the orphans, and the widows “the people of Christ?”  Therefore those in this second class grieve more over the sin of their offenders than over the loss or offense to themselves.  And they do this that they may recall those offenders from their sin rather than avenge the wrongs they themselves have suffered.  Therefore they put off the form of their own righteousness and put on the form of those others, praying for their persecutors, blessing those who curse, doing good to evil-doers, prepared to pay the penalty and make satisfaction for their very enemies that they may be saved [Matt. 5:44].  This is the gospel and the example of Christ [Luke 23:34].

[20] In the third class are those who in persuasion are like the second type just mentioned, but are not like them in practice.  They are the ones who demand back their own property or seek punishment to be meted out, not because they seek their own advantage, but through the punishment and restoration of their own things they seek the betterment of the one who has stolen or offended.  They discern that the offender cannot be improved without punishment.  These are called “zealots” and the Scriptures praise them.  But no one ought to attempt this unless he is mature and highly experienced in the second class just mentioned, lest he mistake wrath for zeal and be convicted of doing from anger and impatience that which he believes he is doing from love of justice.  For anger is like zeal, and impatience is like love of justice so that they cannot be sufficiently distinguished except by the most spiritual.  Christ exhibited such zeal when he made a whip and cast out the sellers and buyers from the temple, as related in John 2:14-17.  Paul did likewise when he said, “Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness? [I Cor. 4:21].          FINIS

The Active Obedience of Christ

by J Gresham Machen

LAST Sunday afternoon, in outlining the Biblical teaching about the work of Christ in satisfying for us the claims of God’s law, I said nothing about one very important part of that work. I pointed out that Christ by His death in our stead on the cross paid the just penalty of our sin, but I said nothing of another thing that He did for us. I said nothing about what Christ did for us by His active obedience to God’s law. It is very important that we should fill out that part of the outline before we go one step further.

Suppose Christ had done for us merely what we said last Sunday afternoon that He did. Suppose He had merely paid the just penalty of the law that was resting upon us for our sin, and had done nothing more than that; where would we then be? Well, I think we can say — if indeed it is legitimate to separate one part of the work of Christ even in thought from the rest — that if Christ had merely paid the penalty of sin for us and had done nothing more we should be at best back in the situation in which Adam found himself when God placed him under the covenant of works.

That covenant of works was a probation. If Adam kept the law of God for a certain period, he was to have eternal life. If he disobeyed he was to have death. Well, he disobeyed, and the penalty of death was inflicted upon him and his posterity. Then Christ by His death on the cross paid that penalty for those whom God had chosen.

Well and good. But if that were all that Christ did for us, do you not see that we should be back in just the situation in which Adam was before he sinned? The penalty of his sinning would have been removed from us because it had all been paid by Christ. But for the future the attainment of eternal life would have been dependent upon our perfect obedience to the law of God. We should simply have been back in the probation again.

Moreover, we should have been back in that probation in a very much less hopeful way than that in which Adam was originally placed in it. Everything was in Adam’s favour when he was placed in the probation. He had been created in knowledge, righteousness and holiness. He had been created positively good. Yet despite all that, he fell. How much more likely would we be to fall — nay, how certain to fall — if all that Christ had done for us were merely to remove from us the guilt of past sin, leaving it then to our own efforts to win the reward which God has pronounced upon perfect obedience!

But I really must decline to speculate any further about what might have been if Christ had done something less for us than that which He has actually done. As a matter of fact, He has not merely paid the penalty of Adam’s first sin, and the penalty of the sins which we individually have committed, but also He has positively merited for us eternal life. He was, in other words, our representative both in penalty paying and in probation keeping. He paid the penalty of sin for us, and He stood the probation for us.

That is the reason why those who have been saved by the Lord Jesus Christ are in a far more blessed condition than was Adam before he fell. Adam before he fell was righteous in the sight of God, but he was still under the possibility of becoming unrighteous. Those who have been saved by the Lord Jesus Christ not only are righteous in the sight of God but they are beyond the possibility of becoming unrighteous. In their case, the probation is over. It is not over because they have stood it successfully. It is not over because they have themselves earned the reward of assured blessedness which God promised on condition of perfect obedience. But it is over because Christ has stood it for them; it is over because Christ has merited for them the reward by His perfect obedience to God’s law.

I think I can make the matter plain if I imagine a dialogue between the law of God and a sinful man saved by grace.

‘Man,’ says the law of God, ‘have you obeyed my commands?’

‘No,’ says the sinner saved by grace. ‘I have disobeyed them, not only in the person of my representative Adam in his first sin, but also in that I myself have sinned in thought, word and deed.’

‘Well, then, sinner,’ says the law of God, ‘have you paid the penalty which I pronounced upon disobedience?’

‘No,’ says the sinner, ‘I have not paid the penalty myself; but Christ has paid it for me. He was my representative when He died there on the cross. Hence, so far as the penalty is concerned, I am clear.’

‘Well, then, sinner,’ says the law of God, ‘how about the conditions which God has pronounced for the attainment of assured blessedness? Have you stood the test? Have you merited eternal life by perfect obedience during the period of probation?’

‘No,’ says the sinner, ‘I have not merited eternal life by my own perfect obedience. God knows and my own conscience knows that even after I became a Christian I have sinned in thought, word and deed. But although I have not merited eternal life by any obedience of my own, Christ has merited it for me by His perfect obedience. He was not for Himself subject to the law. No obedience was required of Him for Himself, since He was Lord of all. That obedience, then, which He rendered to the law when He was on earth was rendered by Him as my representative. I have no righteousness of my own, but clad in Christ’s perfect righteousness, imputed to me and received by faith alone, I can glory in the fact that so far as I am concerned the probation has been kept and as God is true there awaits me the glorious reward which Christ thus earned for me.’

Such, put in bald, simple form, is the dialogue between every Christian and the law of God. How gloriously complete is the salvation wrought for us by Christ! Christ paid the penalty, and He merited the reward. Those are the two great things that He has done for us.

Theologians are accustomed to distinguish those two parts of the saving work of Christ by calling one of them His passive obedience and the other of them His active obedience. By His passive obedience — that is, by suffering in our stead — He paid the penalty for us; by His active obedience — that is, by doing what the law of God required — He has merited for us the reward.

I like that terminology well enough. I think it does set forth as well as can be done in human language the two aspects of Christ’s work. And yet a danger lurks in it if it leads us to think that one of the two parts of Christ’s work can be separated from the other.

How shall we distinguish Christ’s active obedience from His passive obedience? Shall we say that He accomplished His active obedience by His life and accomplished His passive obedience by His death? No, that will not do at all. During every moment of His life upon earth Christ was engaged in His passive obedience. It was all for Him humiliation, was it not? It was all suffering. It was all part of His payment of the penalty of sin. On the other hand, we cannot say that His death was passive obedience and not active obedience. On the contrary, His death was the crown of His active obedience. It was the crown of that obedience to the law of God by which He merited eternal life for those whom He came to save.

Do you not see, then, what the true state of the case is? Christ’s active obedience and His passive obedience are not two divisions of His work, some of the events of His earthly life being His active obedience and other events of His life being His passive obedience; but every event of His life was both active obedience and passive obedience. Every event of His life was a part of His payment of the penalty of sin, and every event of His life was a part of that glorious keeping of the law of God by which He earned for His people the reward of eternal life. The two aspects of His work, in other words, are inextricably intertwined. Neither was performed apart from the other. Together they constitute the wonderful, full salvation which was wrought for us by Christ our Redeemer.

We can put it briefly by saying that Christ took our place with respect to the law of God. He paid for us the law’s penalty, and He obeyed for us the law’s commands. He saved us from hell, and He earned for us our entrance into heaven. All that we have, then, we owe unto Him. There is no blessing that we have in this world or the next for which we should not give Christ thanks.

As I say that, I am fully conscious of the inadequacy of my words. I have tried to summarise the teaching of the Bible about the saving work of Christ; yet how cold and dry seems any mere human summary — even if it were far better than mine — in comparison with the marvellous richness and warmth of the Bible itself. It is to the Bible itself that I am going to ask you to turn with me next Sunday afternoon. Having tried to summarise the Bible’s teaching in order that we may take each part of the Bible in proper relation to other parts, I am going to ask you next Sunday to turn with me to the great texts themselves, in order that we may test our summary, and every human summary, by what God Himself has told us in His Word. Ah, when we do that, what refreshment it is to our souls! How infinitely superior is God’s Word to all human attempts to summarise its teaching! Those attempts are necessary; we could not do without them; everyone who is really true to the Bible will engage in them. But it is the very words of the Bible that touch the heart, and everything that we — or for the matter of that even the great theologians — say in summary of the Bible must be compared ever anew with the Bible itself.

This afternoon, however, just in order that next Sunday we may begin our searching of the Scriptures in the most intelligent possible way, I am going to ask you to glance with me at one or two of the different views that men have held regarding the cross of Christ.

I have already summarised for you the orthodox view. According to that view, Christ took our place on the cross, paying the penalty of am that we deserved to pay. That view can be put in very simple language. We deserved eternal death because of sin; Jesus, because He loved us, took our place and died in our stead on the cross. Call that view repulsive if you will. It is indeed repulsive to the natural man. But do not call it difficult to understand. A little child can understand it, and can receive it to the salvation of his soul.

Rejecting that substitutionary view, many men have advanced other views. Many are the theories of the atonement. Yet I do think that their bewildering variety may be reduced to something like order if we observe that they fall into a very few general divisions.

Most common among them is the theory that Christ’s death upon the cross had merely a moral effect upon man. Man is by nature a child of God, say the advocates of that view. But unfortunately he is not making full use of his high privilege. He has fallen into terrible degradation, and having fallen into terrible degradation he has become estranged from God. He no longer lives in that intimate relationship of sonship with God in which he ought to live.

How shall this estrangement between man and God be removed; how shall man be brought back into fellowship with God? Why, say the advocates of the view of which we are now speaking, simply by inducing man to turn from his evil ways and make full use of his high privilege as a child of God. There is certainly no barrier on God’s side; the only barrier lies in man’s foolish and wicked heart. Once overcome that barrier and all will be well. Once touch man’s stony heart so that he will come to see again that God is his Father, once lead him also to overcome any fear of God as though God were not always more ready to forgive than man is to be forgiven; and at once the true relationship between God and man can be restored and man can go forward joyously to the use, in holy living, of his high privilege as a child of the loving heavenly Father.

But how can man’s heart be touched, that he may be led to return to his Father’s house and live as befits a son of God? By the contemplation of the cross of Christ, say the advocates of the view that we are now presenting. Jesus Christ was truly a son of God. Indeed, He was a son of God in such a unique way that He may be called in some sort the Son of God. When therefore God gave Him to die upon the cross and when He willingly gave Himself to die, that was a wonderful manifestation of God’s love for sinning, erring humanity. In the presence of that love all opposition in man’s heart should be broken down. He should recognise at last the fact that God is indeed his Father, and recognising that, he should make use of his high privilege of living the life that befits a child of God.

Such is the so-called ‘moral-influence theory’ of the atonement. It is held in a thousand different forms, and it is held by thousands of people who have not the slightest notion that they are holding it.

Some of those who have held it have tried to maintain with it something like a real belief in the deity of Christ. If Christ was really the eternal Son of God, then the gift of Him on the cross becomes all the greater evidence of the love of God. But the overwhelming majority of those who hold the moral-influence view of the atonement have given up all real belief in the deity of Christ. These persons hold simply that Jesus on the cross gave us a supreme example of self-sacrifice. By that example we are inspired to do likewise. We are inspired to sacrifice our lives, either in actual martyrdom in some holy cause or in sacrificial service. Sacrificing thus our lives, we discover that we have thereby attained a higher life than ever before. Thus the cross of Christ has been the pathway that leads us to moral heights.

Read most of the popular books on religion of the present day, and then tell me whether you do not think that that is at bottom what they mean. Some of them speak about the cross of Christ. Some of them say that Christ’s sufferings were redemptive. But the trouble is they hold that the cross of Christ is not merely Christ’s cross but our cross; and that while Christ’s sufferings were redemptive our sufferings are redemptive too. All they really mean is that Christ on Calvary pointed out a way that we follow. He hallowed the pathway of self-sacrifice. We follow in that path and thus we obtain a higher life for our souls.

That is the great central and all-pervading vice of most modern books that deal with the cross. They make the cross of Christ merely an example of a general principle of self-sacrifice. And if they talk still of salvation, they tell us that we are saved by walking in the way of the cross. It is thus, according to this view, not Christ’s cross but our cross that saves us. The way of the cross leads us to God. Christ may have a great influence in leading us to walk in that way of the cross, that way of self-sacrifice; but it is our walking in it and not Christ’s walking in it which really saves us. Thus we are saved by our own efforts, not by Christ’s blood after all. It is the same old notion that sinful man can save himself. It is that notion just decked out in new garments and making use of Christian terminology.

Such is the moral-influence theory of the atonement. In addition to it, we find what is sometimes called the governmental theory. What a strange, compromising, tortuous thing that governmental theory is, to be sure!

According to the governmental view, the death of Christ was not necessary in order that any eternal justice of God, rooted in the divine nature, might be satisfied. So far the governmental view goes with the advocates of the moral-influence theory. But, it holds, the death of Christ was necessary in order that good discipline might be maintained in the world. If sinners were allowed to get the notion that sin could go altogether unpunished, there would be no adequate deterrent from sin. Being thus undeterred from sin, men would go on sinning and the world would be thrown into confusion. But if the world were thus thrown into moral confusion that would not be for the best interests of the greatest number. Therefore God held up the death of Christ on the cross as an indication of how serious a thing sin is, so that men may be deterred from sinning and so order in the world may be preserved.

Having thus indicated — so the governmental theory runs — how serious a thing sin is, God proceeded to offer salvation to men on easier terms than those on which He had originally offered it. He had originally offered it on the basis of perfect obedience. Now He offered it on the basis of faith. He could safely offer it on those easier terms, and He could safely remit the penalty originally pronounced upon sin, because in the awful spectacle of the cross of Christ He had sufficiently indicated to men that sin is a serious offence and that if it is committed something or other has to be done about the matter in order that the good order of the universe may be conserved.

Such is the governmental theory. But do you not see that really at bottom it is just a form of the moral-influence theory? Like the moral-influence theory, it holds that the only obstacle to fellowship between man and God is found in man’s will. Like the moral-influence theory it denies that there is any eternal justice of God, rooted in His being, and it denies that the eternal justice of God demands the punishment of sin. Like the moral-influence theory it plays fast and loose with God’s holiness, and like the moral-influence theory, we may add, it loses sight of the real depths of God’s love. No man who holds the light view of sin that is involved in these man-made theories has the slightest notion of what it cost when the eternal Son of God took our place upon the accursed tree.

People sometimes say, indeed, that it makes little difference what theory of the atonement we may hold. Ah, my friends, it makes all the difference in the world. When you contemplate the cross of Christ, do you say merely, with modern theorists, ‘What a noble example of self-sacrifice; I am going to attain favour with God by sacrificing myself as well as He.’ Or do you say with the Bible, ‘He loved me and gave Himself for me; He took my place; He bore my curse; He bought me with His own most precious blood.’ That is the most momentous question that can come to any human soul. I want you all to turn with me next Sunday afternoon to the Word of God in order that we may answer that question aright.

Christ's Active Obedience

by John Calvin

From Institutes 2.16.5 (Battles edition):

Now someone asks, How has Christ abolished sin, banished the separation between us and God, and acquired righteousness to render God favorable and kindly toward us? To this we can in general reply that he has achieved this for us by the whole course of his obedience. This is proved by Paul's testimony: "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience we are made righteous" [Romans 5:19]. In another passage, to be sure, Paul extends the basis of the pardon that frees us from the curse of the law to the whole life of Christ: "But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, subject to the law, to redeem those who were under the law" [Galatians 4:4-5]. Thus in his very baptism, also, he asserted that he fulfilled a part of righteousness in obediently carrying out his Father's commandment [Matthew 3:15]. In short, from the time when he took on the form of a servant, he began to pay the price of liberation in order to redeem us.

Yet to define the way of salvation more exactly, Scripture ascribes this as peculiar and proper to Christ's death. He declares that "he gave his life to redeem many" [Matthew 20:28]. Paul teaches that "Christ died for our sins" [Romans 4:25]. John the Baptist proclaimed that he came "to take away the sins of the world," for he was "the Lamb of God" [John 1:29]. In another passage Paul teaches that "we are freely justified through the redemption which is in Christ, because he was put forward as a reconciler in his blood" [Romans 3:24-25]. Likewise: "We are …justified by his blood …and reconciled …through his death." [Romans 5:9-10.] Again: "For our sake he who knew no sin was made sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." [2 Corinthians 5:21] I shall not pursue all the testimonies, for the list would be endless, and many of them will be referred to in their order. For this reason the so-called "Apostles' Creed" passes at once in the best order from the birth of Christ to his death and resurrection, wherein the whole of perfect salvation consists. Yet the remainder of the obedience that he manifested in his life is not excluded. Paul embraces it all from beginning to end: "He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant …and

was obedient to the Father unto death, even death on a cross"

The following is an excerpt from Truth for all Time by John Calvin

When he taught that the whole law is contained in two articles, our Lord Jesus Christ declared to us clearly enough what is the real purpose of all the commandments of the Law. The first article is that we should love the Lord, our God, with all our heart, with all our soul and all our strength. The second article is that we should love our neighbor as much as we love ourself. And he has taken this interpretation from the Law itself, for the first part is found in Deuteronomy 6:5, and we see the other in Leviticus 19:18. There, then, is the standard and pattern of a holy and righteous life, and even a most perfect picture of righteousness; so that if someone expresses the Law of God in his life, he will not lack before the Lord anything of what is required of perfection. To bear this out, the God promises to those who will have carried out his Law not only the great blessings of the present life which are referred to in Leviticus 26:3-13 and Deuteronomy 28:1-14, but also the reward of eternal life (Lev. 18:5).

On the other hand, God announces the retribution of eternal death for those who will not have accomplished by their deeds all that is commanded in this Law (Deuternomy 28:15-68). Also Moses, having made the Law known, takes heaven and earth to witness that he has just put before the people good and evil, life and death (Deut 30:19-20). But although the Law shows the path ot life, yet we have to see how it can benefit us. Of course, if our will were fully trained and disposed to obey God's will, just to know the Law would be more than enough to save us. As it is, however, our carnal and corrupt nature fights all the time, and in every way, against the Spiritual Law of God. The teaching of this Law does not improve our nature in any way at all. so it is that this same Law (which was given for salvation if it found hearers who were good and capable of keeping it) turns into something which results in sin and death. For since we are all convicted of being transgressors of the Law, the more clearly the Law reveals to us the righteousness of God, the more clearly, on the other hand, it uncovers our unrighteousness. Consequently, the more the Law catches us going further into transgression, the heavier will be the judgment of God of which it finds us guilty. The promise of eternal life being removed, all that remains for us is the curse which, by the Law, falls on us all.

The evidence given by the Law proves the unrighteousness and transgression of all of us. Its purpose in this, however, it not that we might fall into despair nor, being totally discouraged, that we should founder in ruin. Admittedly, the Apostle testifies that we are all condemned by the Law's judgment, so that every mouth may be closed and the entire world be found guilty before God (Rom 3:19). However, he himself teaches elsewhere that God has imprisoned all men under the power of unbelief, not in order to ruin them or let them perish, but that he might have mercy on all (Rom 11:32). Having then used the Law to tell us of our weakness and impurity, the Lord comforts us through trust in his power and mercy. And it is in Christ, his Son, that he reveals himself as being benevolent and favourably disposed to us. In the Law God only appears as the rewarder of perfect righteousness - of which we are completely bereft - and, on the other hand, as the upright and strict Judge of sins, in Christ, his face is full of grace and gentleness, and shines on miserable, unworthy sinners. For this is the admirable display of his infinite love that he gave to us: he delivered up his own son for us and, in Him, opened to us all the treasures of his mercy and goodness.

The Active and Passive Obedience of Christ

by Loraine Boettner

We have said that the two great objectives to be accomplished by Christ in His mission to this world are, first, the removal of the curse under which His people labored as a result of the fall, and second, their restoration to the image and fellowship of God. It is perfectly evident that both of these elements were essential to salvation. In the preceding section we pointed out that because of the federal relationship which, through appointment of God, Adam bore to his posterity, all mankind since that time have been born into the state into which he fell, and that the purpose of Christ was to rescue His people from that condition and to bring them into a state of holiness and blessedness. In order that He might accomplish that purpose He entered into a vital relationship with them by taking their nature upon Himself through incarnation. Then, acting as their federal head and representative in precisely the same manner that Adam had acted when he plunged the race into sin, He assumed their place before the divine law fulfilling, on the one hand, its every precept, and on the other, receiving in His own person the penalty due for their transgressions. He thus lived the particular kind of life and suffered the particular kind of death that we read of in the Gospels. These two phases of His work are known as His ‘Active’ and His ‘Passive’ obedience.

Throughout the history of the Church most theological discussions have stressed Christ’s passive obedience (although not often calling it by that name), but have had very little to say about His active obedience. The result is that many professing Christians who readily acknowledge that Christ suffered and died for them seem altogether unaware of the fact that the holy, sinless life which He lived was also a vicarious work in their behalf, wrought out by Him in His representative capacity and securing for them title to eternal life.

A moment’s reflection should convince us that the suffering and death of Christ, although fully effective in paying the debt which His people owed to divine justice, was in a sense only a negative service. Being of the nature of a penalty it could relieve His people from the liability under which they labored, but it could not provide them with a positive reward. Its effect was to bring them back up to the zero point, back to the position in which Adam stood before the fall. It provided for their rescue from sin and its consequences, but it did not provide for their establishment in heaven. Life in heaven is the reward for the perfect keeping of the moral law through a probationary period. Had the work of Christ stopped with the mere payment of the debt which was owed by His people, then they, like Adam, would still have been under obligation to have earned their own salvation through a covenant of works and, also like Adam, subject again to eternal death if they disobeyed. But the covenant of works had had its day and had failed. Very evidently if salvation is to be attempted a second time it will be on a different plan. For what would be the sense of rescuing a man from a torrent which had proved too strong for him merely to put him back into the same situation? Having rescued his people once God would not permit them to be lost a second time and in precisely the same way. This time not man but God will be the Actor; not works but grace (which is the free and undeserved love or favor of God exercised toward the undeserving, toward sinners) will be the basis; and not failure but complete success will crown the effort. Hence Christ, in His human nature and as a perfectly normal man among men, rendered perfect obedience to the moral law by living a sinless life during the thirty-three years of His earthly career, and thus fulfilled the second and vitally important part of His work of redemption.

THE SINLESS LIFE OF CHRIST

That Christ did live this life of perfect love and unselfish service to God and man is clearly set forth in Scripture. He ‘did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.’ 1 Peter 2.22. He was ‘holy guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners,’ says the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews 7:26. ‘I do always the things that are pleasing to Him,’ said Jesus, John 8:29. ‘Which of you convicteth me of sin?’ was His challenge to His enemies, John 8:46. Even the demons bore witness that He was ‘the Holy One of God,’ Luke 4:34. As He was being crucified He prayed, ‘Father, forgive them.’ But never did He pray, Father, forgive me. It is not uncommon for the greatest of saints, when they come to the hour of death, to pour out their souls in fresh confessions; desiring to obtain renewed consciousness of sins forgiven. But there is no trace of sin-consciousness to be found anywhere in the life of Jesus. He made no confession of sin, nor did He at any time offer a sacrifice for Himself in the temple. At the time of His death there was no shadow of a cloud between Him and the Father except as He assumed the consequences of sin on behalf of others.

By that life of spotless perfection, then, Jesus acquired for His people a positive righteousness which is imputed to them and which secures for them life in heaven. All that Christ has done and suffered is regarded as having been done and suffered by them. In Him they have fulfilled the law of perfect obedience, as also in Him they have borne the penalty for their sins. By His passive obedience they have been rescued from hell; and by His active obedience they are given entrance into heaven.

SALVATION BY GRACE

Paul’s teaching that we are saved, not by a self-acquired, but by an imputed righteousness is very clear and definite. He strongly rebuked those of His own race who, ‘being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God,’ Rom. 10:3; and he declared that he willingly suffered the loss of all things in order that he might ‘gain Christ, and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of mine own, even that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ,’ Phil. 3:9. ‘Him who knew no sin He made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in Him,’ II Cor. 5:21,-that is, our guilt and punishment was transferred to Christ, in order that His righteousness and purity might be transferred to us. To the Ephesians he wrote, ‘We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them,’ 2:10. Notice that he does not say that this change in character came about because we did good works, but that he ascribes the workmanship to God and says that its purpose was that we might bear fruit in good works and that these were not original on our part but that they were afore prepared or planned out that we should do them. In his declarations that, ‘If there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law,’ Gal. 3:21, and ‘If righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought,’ Gal. 2:21, he disposes completely of the notion that man can earn his own salvation by good works. If we had been able to have worked out our own salvation there would have been no need for Christ to have become incarnate and to have submitted to such humiliation and suffering. And, of course, in that case He most certainly would not have done so. How profoundly grateful we should be that not only our suffering for sin, but also our probation for heaven, has been assumed for us by Christ, that each of these is now a thing of the past, and that we are safe forever in God’s care!

The salvation which the Scriptures offer to mankind is therefore a salvation provided entirely by God Himself. It is not adulterated in any way by human works. And because it is of this nature the Scripture writers never tire of asserting that it is by grace and not by works. Even the faith through which salvation is received is induced by the Holy Spirit and is a gift: ‘By grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory,’ Eph. 2:8, 9. We are ‘justified freely by His grace,’ Rom. 3:24. Man’s own righteousness, in the words of Isaiah, is as but ‘a polluted garment’ (or, as the King James Version expresses it, ‘as filthy rags’) in the sight of God, 64:6. ‘Not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,’ Titus 3:5. To Paul’s assertion that Christ is ‘all, and in all’ in matters of salvation, Col. 3:11, we can add that man is nothing at all as to that work, and has not anything in himself which merits salvation. We are, in fact, nothing but receivers; we never bring any adequate reward to God, and we are always receiving from Him, and shall be unto all eternity. Good works are in no sense the meritorious ground, but rather the fruits and proof of salvation. They are performed not with the purpose of earning salvation, but as an expression of love and gratitude for the salvation which has already been conferred upon us. Good works, done with right motives toward God, are a result of our having been regenerated, not the means of our regeneration. Our part in this system is to praise God, to honor Him by keeping His commandments, and to reflect His glory in all possible ways. And just because salvation is by grace and does not have to be earned by works it is possible even for one who repents on his death bed, or for one like the thief on the cross, to turn to Jesus in the last hour and be saved.

In another connection the present writer has said: ‘We hold that the law of perfect obedience which was originally given to Adam was permanent, that God has never done anything which would convey the impression that the law was too rigid in its requirements, or too severe in its penalty, or that it stood in need either of abrogation or of derogation. We believe that the requirement for salvation now as originally is perfect obedience, perfect conformity to the will and character of God, that the merits of Christ’s obedience are imputed to His people as the only basis of their salvation, and that they enter heaven clothed only with the cloak of His perfect righteousness and utterly destitute of any merit properly their own. Thus grace, pure grace, is extended not in lowering the requirements for salvation, but in the substitution of Christ for His people. He took their place before the law and did for them what they could not do for themselves. This Calvinistic principle is fitted in every way to impress upon us the absolute perfection and unchangeable obligation of the law which was originally given to Adam. It is not relaxed or set aside, but fittingly honored so that its excellence is shown. In behalf of those who are saved, for whom Christ died, and in behalf of those who are subjected to everlasting punishment, the law in its majesty is enforced and executed.’—The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 154.

This doctrine of the sufficiency of Christ’s work in regard both to His active and passive obedience is beautifully set forth in the Westminster Confession, which declares that ‘The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father; hath purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father had given Him’ (Ch. VIII, Sec. 5). And in the Shorter Catechism in answer to the question, ‘What is justification?’ we are told that ‘Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein He pardoneth all our sins and accepteth us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.’

But while it enables us to understand more clearly and fully the work which Christ has accomplished for us, if we view it as having an active and a passive side, we must not imagine that these two phases can be separated in His life. We cannot even say that His active obedience was accomplished by His life and His passive obedience by His death. For in varying degrees these two works were accomplished simultaneously and concurrently. Throughout all of His life He was perfectly obedient to the moral law in all that He thought and said and did. And in varying degrees every moment of His life on earth involved humiliation or suffering or both,—it involved humiliation beyond our power to comprehend for the King of Glory, the Creator of the universe, the One who is altogether holy and blessed and powerful and rich to be born a helpless babe, and that in the most humble condition, to subject Himself to the limitations of incarnate man for a period of thirty-three years, to endure the temptations presented by the Devil, to bring His holy and sensitive nature into close association with sinful men so that He would hear their failings and curses and be confronted with their ingratitude and opposition and hatred, to experience fatigue and hunger, and to look forward through all of His public ministry to the most shameful and painful death by crucifixion. And nowhere else was His active obedience so prominently displayed as on the cross, for there in particular as He suffered He also resisted all temptation to doubt God, or hate His enemies, or commit the slightest offense against those who treated Him so shamefully. Throughout His entire life as He actively obeyed He passively endured, and as He passively endured He actively obeyed. These two aspects of His work, while distinct in nature, were inextricably intertwined in time. Together they secure the wonderful, full salvation which was wrought out vicariously for us.

THE CRUCIFIXION ON CALVARY

Death by crucifixion is, of course, horrible in the extreme. The usual procedure was that the crosspieces would be laid flat on the ground, the person then stretched upon it, and a soldier would drive iron spikes through the hands and feet into the rough wood. Then the cross with its attached victim would be lifted and set in the hole prepared for it. The person was left to writhe in his agony, with the swelling wounds, the parched thirst, the burning fever, until death brought the welcome release. Human ingenuity has never devised greater agony than crucifixion. Yet that is what Christ endured for us.

But not for a minute would we be understood as inferring that we can really fathom the depths of Christ’s suffering. We are only given partial information concerning it. His physical suffering was that of a perfectly normal man in crucifixion. Yet that was not all, nor even the most important part, of His suffering. His cry, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me’ indicates a spiritual suffering more intense and more baffling than the physical. We have already seen that the penalty originally inflicted for sin was not merely the separation of the soul from the body, which is physical death, but the separation of the soul from God, which is spiritual death. That Jesus suffered this latter form of the penalty as well as the former is attested by His despairing cry. During those hours that Jesus hung on the cross as the sin-offering for His people that unique spiritual relationship which had existed between His human soul and the Father, and which had so enriched Him during the entire period of His earthly life, was completely withdrawn. No glimpse of Divinity any longer broke in upon Him. God had literally hid His face from Him. His human soul, which in Gethsemane ‘began to be greatly amazed and sore troubled,’ was now entirely cut off from all divine enlightenment. Being limited in knowledge and comprehension as all human souls are, utterly distressed by the ordeal through which He was passing, and engaged in this last desperate combat with the Devil and the forces of the evil world which through His entire earthly career had sought untiringly to cause His downfall and to defeat His purpose. His human soul was unable to understand fully this complete abandonment of the righteous soul by God the Father.

Not only was all special grace withdrawn from Him, but also all common grace. No sedative was allowed to dull His pain. Ordinarily those who were sentenced to be crucified were given a stupefying drug, in order that their suffering might be somewhat alleviated. Doubtless the two thieves who were crucified at the same time received that treatment. But Jesus, realizing that such a drug would incapacitate Him for carrying the very burden of suffering for which He had come to that hour and that it would therefore defeat His purpose of redemption, rejected the wine and myrrh and determined to suffer with His senses fully alert. All of His friends forsook Him. Only His enemies remained to taunt. His clothes (also a gift of common grace, clothes being designed since the time of the fall to cover the body and to serve as a restraint on human sin) were removed, leaving Him shamefully exposed to the vulgar rabble. The light, which is one of the greatest gifts of common grace, was denied Him, and for three hours He was left to suffer in the terrifying darkness. Calvary presents a spectacle such as had never been seen before and can never be seen again. For Jesus did not suffer and die passively, as one helplessly submitting to the inevitable, but actively, as one keeping a schedule or as one fulfilling a purpose. Had we been able to have looked within the soul of Christ we would have witnessed the most colossal struggle that the universe has ever known. Far from being the passive sufferer that He appeared to those who witnessed the crucifixion, He was upholding the pillars of the moral universe by rendering full satisfaction to divine justice. For as the sinner’s substitute and in his stead Jesus stood before the awful tribunal of God,—before the Judge who abhors sin and burns against it with inexpressible indignation. Justice severe and inexorable was meted out. As He endured the break in the spiritual relationship with the Father He literally descended into hell; for hell is primarily separation from God, a condition the exact opposite of the blessed environment of the divine presence. This does not mean that His soul suffered remorse or any sense of guilt, which is one of the torments of lost souls; for He had no personal sin. Nor does it mean that this condition continued after His death. All was completed on the cross. When the allotted suffering was finished the divine light again broke in upon His soul, and we hear His triumphant cry, ‘It is finished’ (that is, the atonement, God’s objective provision for man’s salvation, was completed); and that was followed almost immediately by the affectionate words, ‘Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.’ Every detail of the account is so presented that we are compelled to recognize the full price of our redemption was paid for by Christ alone, without human assistance of any kind. And thus through the infinite mercy of God and in a manner that shall forever bring glory to His name there was made available a way, the only possible way, through which sinners might be saved.

And after all, does not this Christian doctrine of the atonement stand forth as the only reasonable and logical explanation of the suffering and death of Christ? God has so ordered this world that sin and suffering are inseparably connected. Where there is no sin God cannot under any conditions inflict suffering,—for the simple reason that it would be unjust for Him to punish an innocent person. Christ’s suffering can have no other explanation than that it was vicarious, rendered not for Himself but for others. For there One who was sinless and undefiled suffered the extreme of pain and agony and disgrace as though He were the worst of sinners. Unless Christ was acting on behalf of others and as their substitute, God Himself is put under eternal indictment for inflicting such suffering without a cause.

Moreover, if it be denied that Christ’s suffering was vicarious and substitutionary, His voluntary acceptance of crucifixion is utterly unreasonable,-in fact it is scandalous, because suicidal. The plain teaching of Scripture is that He accepted this ordeal voluntarily. ‘I lay down my life for the sheep ... No one taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself,’ John 10:15, 18. Rebuking Peter for His well-intended but misguided use of the sword He said, ‘Put up the sword into the sheath: the cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?’ John 18.11. Now it is perfectly evident, of course, that no creature, not even a sinless angel, has the right to dispose of his own life. That prerogative belongs only to the Creator to whom he belongs. But Christ did have that right, because He was the King of the universe. Since He had within Himself divine as well as human life He could dispose of Himself without fatal or permanent injury either to Himself or to any other person. When seen in the light of the doctrines of substitution, satisfaction, sacrifice, the death of Christ appears as a great divine achievement, a glorious and unapproachable priestly action through which the suffering Messiah offered Himself in order that divine justice might be safeguarded and that sinful man might be reconciled to God. Logic drives us to the conclusion that the death of Christ on the cross was no ordinary death, but a mighty transaction through which God provided redemption for His people.

Unless Christ was what He claimed to be, Deity incarnate giving His life a ransom for many, the Unitarians and modernists are right in saying that the doctrine of the Atonement is a colossal hoax and that it is ridiculous for anyone to believe that he can obtain salvation through faith in a mere man, a Jew, who was crucified in Palestine nineteen hundred years ago. Either the Christian system is true and we are saved through the supernatural work of Christ as the Bible teaches and as devout people in all ages have believed, or we are left to save ourselves through some humanistic or naturalistic system as skeptics and unbelievers have held.

On the basis of any teaching rightfully calling itself Christian the active and passive obedience of Christ emerges as the only basis of our spiritual and eternal life. Since the demand that sin must be punished was met by Him in His representative capacity, justice was not injured; and since His life of perfect obedience to the moral law was also rendered in His representative capacity, the gift of spiritual cleansing and of eternal life is now conferred upon His people as their right and privilege. He saves them from hell, and establishes them in heaven. There is no blessing in this world or in the next for which they should not give Christ thanks.

THE IMPUTATION OF THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST UNTO THE LAW DECLARED AND INDICATED

by John Owen

SECTION XII

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 parcular, 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 receptive 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 receptive 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 fulfill the receptive 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 reassume 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 3 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 2 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 3 cap. 5. De Servat.: "Jamo vero manifestum est, Christum quia homo natus fuerat, et quidem, ut inquit Paulus, factus sub lege, legi divinae inquam, quae aeterna et immutabilis est, non minus quam caeteri homines obnoxium fuisse. Alioqui potuisset Christus aeternam Dei legem negligere, sive etiam universam si voluisset infringere, quod impium est vel cogitare. Immo ut supra alicubi explicatum fuit, nisi ipse Christus legi divinae servandae obnoxius fuisset, ut ex Paulu verbis colligitur, nonpotuisset iis, qui ei legi servandae obnoxii sunt, opem ferre et eos ad immortalitatis firmam spem traducere. Non differebat igitur hac quidem ex parte Christus, quando homo natus erat, a caeteris hominibus. Quocirca nec etiam pro aliis, magis quam quilibet alius homo, legem livinam 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 show 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 20:28. 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 "energemata", or immediate operation, were the acting of his distinct natures,--some of the divine and some of the human, immediately; but as unto their "apotelesmata", 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 "hupo nomon",--"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.4:4. 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 2:28; 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 owns such as the law is, nor can it have an authoritative, commanding power over it, as it must have if it were made "hupo nomon",--"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.7. 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.2:9; Luke 24:26; Rom.14:9; yet absolutely his glory was an immediate consequent of the hypostatical union, Heb.1:6; Matt.2:11.

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.

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.2:14; Phil.2:5-8.

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; abut 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 fulfill 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 defense 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.

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.2:8,9. 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.

<

It is granted, therefore, that the human nature of Christ was made "hupo nomon", 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.2:6-8,--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 "hupodikoi tooi Theooi". 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.44:33. 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, "Ei de ti edikese se, e ofeilen, touto emoi ellogei, egoo apotisoo", verse 18,--"'If he has 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 has wronged thee, or oweth thee ought." Hereon he proposes himself, and obliges himself by his express obligation: "Ego Paulos egrapsa tei emei cheiri",--"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.

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.

2. 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 "hupo nomon",--"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.

Answer. 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 arguing 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 Josh 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 2:26. 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 innocence, but not of obedience. But it cannot give a righteousness of innocence 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 receptive 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 in separate 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 receptive 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 fulfill 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 praemium, illud satisfctioni, hoc merito Christi distincte tribuit vetus ecclesia. Satisfactio consistit in meritorum translatione, meritum in perfectissimae obedientiae pro nobis praestitiae 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.1:7. 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.4:6-8, "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.3:13,14; 4:4,5; and so does our Lord Jesus Christ, Acts 26:18, "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." "Afesis hamartioon", 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 coheirs 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.3:4,5, "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 metre upon his head. So they set a fair metre 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.61:10, "He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness;" which the apostle alludes unto, Phil.3:9. 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.16:6-12.

This place I had formerly urged to this purpose about communion with God; 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.61:10, 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,--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.64:6, "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 personae," 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 caviling 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 offense 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 offense 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.5. 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.8:3,4; for he was "the end of the law" (the whole end of it), "for righteousness unto them that do believe," chap.10:4. 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.18:3, 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, "dikaiooma" and "hupako-e", "righteousness" and "obedience," as "isodunamounta"--of the same signification, Rom.5:18,19. 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 "kat' exochen",--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 "kata sungeneian",--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 terrae", Bernard. And so it is also ascribed unto his resurrection "kat' endeixin", with respect unto evidence and manifestation; but the death of Christ exclusively, as unto his obedience, is nowhere asserted as the cerise 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.9:6; 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. 8:3,4. 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 "hupo nomon",--"under the law," Gal.4:4. 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 act 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.4:21, "Tell me, ye that desire to be "hupo nomon",--"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 fulfill," Matt.5:17. 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.2:14-16. But the law "kat' exochen", that which obliges all men unto obedience unto God always, he came not "katalusai", to destroy,--that is "athetesai", to abolish it, as an "athetesis" is ascribed unto the Mosaical law, Heb.9:26 (in the same sense is the word used, Matt.24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mark 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Luke 21:6; Acts 5:38,39; 6:14; Rom.14:20; 2 Cor.5:l; Gal.2:18, mostly with an accusative case, of the things spoken of), or "katare-esai", which the apostle denies to be done by Christ, and faith in him. Rom.3:31, "Nomon oun katareoumen dia tes pisteoos; me genoito. alle nomon histoomen",--"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." "Nomon histanai" 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 "pleroosai". "Pleroosai ton nomon", in the Scripture, is the same with "emplesai ton nomon" in other writers; that is, to yield full, perfect obedience unto the commands of the law, whereby they are absolutely fulfilled. "Pleroosai nomon" is not to make the law perfect; for it was always "nomos teleios",--a "perfect law," James 1:25; but to yield perfect obedience unto it: the same that our Saviour calls "pleroosai pasan dikaiosunen", Matt.3:15, "to fulfill 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.13:8, "He that loveth another has 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 "pleroosai" and "katalusai",--"to fulfill" 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.5:19. 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.5:18,19, "Therefore, as by the offense 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.2:8. 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.5:8.

(2.) In this place, [Rom.5] "hupako-e", verse 19, and "dikaiooma", 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 "dikaiooma", 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 "tooi paraptoomati",--to the offence: "By the offense of one." But the offense intended was an actual transgression of the law; so is "paraptooma", a fall from, or a fall in, the course of obedience. Wherefore the "dikaiooma", 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.

Of the Active Obedience of Christ in His State of Humiliation

by John Gill

The humiliation of Christ may be seen in his obedience to God, through the whole course of his life, even unto death; in order to which,

1. First, He took upon him the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7), and really became one; even the Servant of God: and this is an instance of his amazing humility and condescension; that he, who was the Son of God, of the same nature with God, and equal to him, the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, should voluntarily become the Servant of him; which the apostle observes with astonishment; "though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered!" (Heb. 5:8). He was chosen of God, in his eternal purposes, to be his Servant; and therefore is called, his Servant elect (Isa. 42:1). He called him to the work and office of a servant; and said unto him, in the everlasting council and covenant of grace and peace, "Thou art my Servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified" (Isa.. 49:3). And Christ, the Son of God, accepted of this office; agreed to be the Servant of God, to come into the world, and do his will and work (Ps. 40:7,8). And accordingly, he was prophesied of as the Servant of the Lord, that should come (Zech. 3:8; Isa. 42:1). In the fulness of time he was sent, and came not to be ministered unto, as a monarch, but to minister as a servant; and he quickly appeared to be under a law, and was subject to the law of circumcision; and being had in his infancy to Egypt, the house of servants; to his ancestors, according to the flesh, was an emblem of that servile state he was come into: and very early did he declare, that he must be about his Father’s business: as a servant, he had work to do, and much work, and that very laborious; which lay, not only in working miracles, which were works his Father gave him to finish, as demonstrations of his Deity, and prods of his Messiahship; nor only in going about from place to place, healing all manner of diseases, and so doing good to the bodies of men; nor only in preaching the gospel, for which he was qualified and sent, and thereby did good to the souls of men; but chiefly in fulfilling the law of God, both in the preceptive and penal part of it, in the room and stead of his people; and thereby wrought out the great work of all he came to do, the redemption and salvation of men; for this was the work assigned him by God his Father, as his servant; "to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel"; that is, to redeem and save the chosen people: this was the work his Father gave him to do; this was the work which was before him when be came; and this is the work which he has finished; for he has obtained eternal redemption; and is become the author of eternal salvation. Now throughout the whole of his work, as a servant, he appeared very diligent and constant; very early he discovered an inclination to be about it; very eager was he at it; when in it, it was his meat and drink; and he was continually, constantly employed in it (John 4:34; 9:4). Nor did he leave working till he had completed the whole. In all which he was faithful to him that appointed him; and very justly did he obtain the character of God’s "righteous Servant" (Isa. 11:5; 53:11).

2. Secondly, When Christ became incarnate, and took upon him the form of a servant, and really was one; he, as such, was subject to the law of God: hence these two things are joined together, as having a close connection with each other; "Made of a woman; made under the law" (Gal. 4:4).

2a. First, Christ was made under the judicial, or civil law of the Jews; he was by birth a Jew, and is called one (Zech. 8:23). It is manifest that he sprung from the tribe of Judah; which tribe, in process of time, gave the name of Jews to the whole people of Israel; and because our Lord was of that tribe, he is called the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Heb 7:14; Rev. 5:5). He was born at Bethlehem, in the tribe of Judah, and was of the seed of David, who was of that tribe; and is therefore said to be the root and offspring of David (Rev. 22:16). Wherefore, since he, the salvation of God, and Saviour of men, as to his human nature, was of the Jews; it was fit and proper he should be subject to their civil government, and to the laws of it, as he was: for though he was charged with sedition, yet falsely, for he was subject to their government, though it was then in the hands of the Romans; and not only paid tribute himself, but directed others to do the same, saying, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (Matthew 17:24-27; 22:17-21). And to this law he submitted,

2a1. That it might appear he was of the nation of the Jews, as it was prophesied of, and promised he should; as, that he should be of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, and of the Jewish fathers, according to the flesh; all which he was (Gen. 22:18; 49:10; Matthew 1:1; Rom. 9:5).

2a2. That it might be manifest that he came before the Jewish polity was at an end; as it was foretold he should (Gen. 49:10). And Christ being under and subject to the civil law, showed that the sceptre and lawgiver had not departed, but civil government yet continued; though now, for many hundreds of years it has wholly departed, and is not, in any form or shape, among that people; which has fulfilled the prophecy in Hosea 3:4. "The children of Israel shall be many days without a king"; and therefore the Messiah must be come long ago, before they were without one, as he did; for Herod was king when he was born.

2a3. Christ became subject to the civil law, to teach his followers subjection to civil magistrates; and this is the doctrine of his apostles, frequently inculcated by them, to be subject to the higher powers, to obey magistrates, and submit to every ordinance of men (Rom. 13:1; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13).

2b. Secondly, Christ was made under the ceremonial law, and became subject to that; he was circumcised when eight days old, according to that law; and was presented in the temple at the time of his mother’s purification, as the law required: at twelve years of age he came with his parents to Jerusalem, to keep the passover; and when he had entered on his public office, it was his custom constantly to attend synagogue worship; and it was one of the last actions of his life, to keep the passover with his disciples. Now he became subject to this law,

2b1. Because it looked to him, and centered in him; it was a shadow of good things to come by him: the feasts of tabernacles, passover, and Pentecost; the sabbaths of the seventh day of the week, and of the seventh year, and of the seven times seventh year, were shadows, of which he is the substance: all the ablutions, washings, and purifications enjoined by it, were typical of cleansing by his blood: and all the sacrifices of it, daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly, all pointed to his sacrifice.

2b2. He was made under this law, in order to fulfil it; for it became him to fulfil all righteousness, ceremonial as well as moral righteousness; and all things in it were to have an end, and had an end, even a fulfilling end in him.

2b3. He was made under it, that by fulfilling it he might abolish it, and put an end to it; for when it was fulfilled, it was no longer useful; and there was a necessity of the disannulling of it, because of its weakness and unprofitableness; and accordingly, this law of commandments was abolished; this handwriting of ordinances was blotted out; this middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles was broken down; and the rituals of it pronounced weak and beggarly elements; and believers in Christ were directed to take care they were not entangled with this yoke of bondage; nor should they judge and condemn one another for any neglect of it; Christ has answered to the whole, by being made under it.

2c. Thirdly, Christ was made under the moral law; under this he was as a man; being "made of a woman", in course he was made under the law; for every man, as a creature of God, is subject to him, its Creator and Lawgiver; and to his law: to fear God, and keep his commandments, is the whole duty of man; and is the duty of every man; and was the duty of Christ, as man. But besides this, Christ was made under it, as the surety and substitute of his people; as he became their surety, he engaged to fulfil the law in their room and stead; this is a very principal part of that will of God, which he declared his readiness to come and do; saying, "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God! thy law is within my heart" (Ps. 40:7,8).

2c1. He was made under it, in order to fulfil the precepts of it; which to do is righteousness (Deut. 6:25), and is that righteousness which he undertook to work out in perfect agreement with the commands of the law; and which he perfectly obeyed; for he always did the things which pleased the Father, and all that was pleasing to him; even every command of his righteous law; nor did he fail in anyone instance; he never committed one sin; and so did not transgress the law in anyone particular; but was holy and harmless throughout the whole of his life and conversation.

2c2. He submitted to the penal part of the law; the law pronounces a curse on all those that do not perfectly observe its precepts; Christ being the Surety of his people, was made a curse for them; or endured the curse of the law in their stead, that he might redeem them from it (Gal. 3:10,13). The penal sanction of the law was death; it threatened with it, in case of sin or disobedience to it; the wages of sin is death; Christ therefore, as the substitute of his people became obedient to death, even the death of the cross, for them.

2c3. All this he became and did, to fulfil the law in their room; and that the righteousness of it might be fulfilled in them, and so deliver them from the bondage, curse, and condemnation of it; that being, through Christ, dead to them, and they to that, that they might live unto God in a spiritual and evangelic manner.

3. Thirdly, Christ taking upon him the form of a servant, in human nature, and being made under the law, he was obedient to it, throughout the whole course of his life, to the time of his death; which is meant by that phrase, "Became obedient unto death"; that is, until death, as well as in it, and by submission to it. And,

3a. There is the obedience of Christ to men; he was obedient to his earthly parents; he not only lived in a state of subjection to them in his childhood and youth, but continued his filial affection for them, and regard to them, particularly to his mother, when a grown man: his words to her in John 2:4 do not express irreverence towards her; nor did she so understand them, showing no resentment at them; but the contrary: nor do those in Matthew 12:48,49 signify any disrespect to her, nor want of affection to her; but his great affection for his spiritual relations: and that he retained his filial duty and regard to her to the last, appears by his bequeathing her to the care of one of his disciples (John 19:27). Christ also yielded obedience to civil magistrates, as before observed, by paying the tribute money; hence in prophecy he is called, the Servant of rulers (Isa. 49:7). But,

3b. There is the obedience of Christ to God; for his Servant he was; and it was his law he was made under; and to which he yielded obedience; and is that obedience by which his people are made righteous; though there are many things in which Christ was obedient to God, which do not come into the account of his obedience for the justification of men. As,

3b1. The miraculous actions which were performed by him: these were necessary to be done, for they were predicted of him, and were expected from him; hence the Jews said, "When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?" (John 7:31; Isa. 35:5,6). And these were done to prove his proper Deity, that he was truly God; that he was in the Father, and the Father in him; that is, that he was of the same nature with him, and equal to him; for the truth of which he appeals to those works of his (John 10:38 14:11). These were also proofs of his being the true Messiah; and were given by him as evidences of it to the two disciples John sent to him, to know whether he was the Messiah expected or not (Matthew 11:3-5). Now these were done in obedience to his Father; he gave him those works to finish, and because they were done by his direction, and in his name, and by his authority, they are called the works of his Father (John 5:36; 10:25,37). And yet these are no part of that obedience by which men are made righteous; these were done to answer the above ends; and they are recorded, that we might believe in the Son of God, and in his righteousness; but, as Dr. Goodwin observes [Works, vol. 3. part 3. p. 336.], they are not ingredients in that righteousness in which we believe. Nor,

3b2. His obedience in the ministration of the gospel: he had from God his mission and commission to preach the gospel; he was qualified for it as man, through the unction of the Holy Spirit; he was sent of God to preach to this and the other city; to these and the other people: he became the minister of the circumcision, or a minister to the circumcised Jews; both for the truth and faithfulness of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers; and in obedience to the will of God, who gave him a commandment what he should say, and what he should speak; and accordingly he said and spoke what was delivered to him; not his own doctrine, but his Father’s, in which he sought, not his own, but his glory; and so showed himself to be true, and no unrighteousness in him (Rom. 15:8; John 8:28; 12:49,50; 7:16-18). But now it was not his faithful execution of this his prophetic office, nor of the whole of his office as Mediator, which is the obedience or righteousness by which a sinner is justified; for though it is the righteousness of the Mediator; yet not the fidelity and righteousness he exercised in the execution of his office, is that by which men are justified. Nor,

3b3. His obedience to the ceremonial law, which he was under, as has been shown; and to which he yielded obedience; of which many instances have been given; but this is no part of our justifying righteousness; for the greater number of those that are made righteous by Christ’s obedience, were never under this law; and so under no obligation to yield obedience to it; nor their surety for them. But,

3b4. It is Christ’s obedience to the moral law, which he was under, and to which he was obedient throughout his life, unto death; and is what all men are subject, and ought to be obedient to; and for lack of which obedience, Christ has yielded a perfect one, in the room and stead of his people; concerning which may be observed, his qualifications and capacity for it, his actual performance of it, and the excellency of his obedience, whereby it appears to have answered the end and design of it.

3b4a. First, The qualifications and capacity of Christ to yield perfect obedience to the law.

3b4a1. His assumption of human nature, which was necessary to his obedience: as God he could not obey; he therefore took upon him a nature in which he could be subject to God, and yield obedience to him; and which was fit and proper to be done in that nature in which disobedience had been committed.

3b4a2. He was made under the law, for this purpose; which has been particularly explained and enlarged on.

3b4a3. He had a pure and holy nature, quite conformable to the pure, holy, and righteous law of God; clear of all irregular affections, desires, motions, or lusts; is called, "the holy Thing", said to be "without spot or blemish", harmless and undefiled; entirely free from both original and actual transgression, and so fit for pure and perfect obedience to be performed in it.

3b4a4. Was possessed of a power of free will to that which is holy, just, and good, agreeable to the law of God. In the state of innocence the will of man was free to that which is good only: in man fallen, his will is only free to that which is evil: in a man regenerate, there being two principles in him, there is a will to that which is good, and a will to that which is evil; so that he cannot do oftentimes what he would: but the human will of Christ was entirely free to that which is good; and as he had a will and power to do, so he always did the things which pleased his Father.

3b4a5. He had a natural love to righteousness, and an hatred of sin (Ps. 45:7), and from this principle flowed an entire conformity to the law, throughout the whole of his life, and all the actions of it.

3b4b. Secondly, His actual performance of it; for as he came to fulfil it, he has fulfilled it; and is become the end of it, for righteousness, to everyone that believes. The moral law consists of two tables; and is reduced, by Christ, to two points, love to God, and love to our neighbour; and both have been exactly observed and obeyed by Christ.

3b4b1. The first table of the law; which includes,

3b4b1a. Love to God; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart", &c. (Matthew 22:37,38) and which was never obeyed and fulfilled to such perfection and purity as by Christ; and which he has fully shown by his regard to the whole will of his Father, to all his commands, even to the laying down of his life for men; and therefore voluntarily went forth to meet the prince of this world in the garden, and deliver up himself into the hands of his emissaries, in order to suffer and die, according to his Father’s will; hence he said, "That the world may know that I love the Father---Arise, let us go hence" (John 14:31).

3b4b1b. Faith and trust in God; for to believe God, and to believe in him, is to have him before us, as the law requires: Christ very early exercised faith and hope on him as his God; even when he was upon his mother’s breasts; and when in the midst of his enemies, and in suffering circumstances, he expressed the strongest degree of confidence in him; "The Lord God will help me, therefore I shall not be ashamed" (Ps. 22:9,10; Isa. 50:7-9).

3b4b1c. The whole worship of God; not only internal, which lies in the exercise of faith, hope, love, &c. just observed; but external, as prayer and praise; both which Christ was often in the exercise of (Luke 6:12; 10:21), and who not only directed to the worship and service of God, and of him only; but set an example by his constant attendance on public worship on sabbath days; and he showed his regard to it, by inveighing against all innovations in it, the doctrines, traditions, and commandments of men, as vain and superstitious; and by resenting every degree of profanation, even of the place of public worship (Matthew 4:10; 13:54; 15:3,6,9; 21:12,13).

3b4b1d. Honour and reverence of the name of God; and though Christ himself was dishonored by men, he was careful to honour his God and Father, and not take his name in vain; "I honour my Father", says he, "and ye dishonor me". With what reverence does he address him in his prayer; saying, "Holy Father, and righteous Father?" (see John 8:49; 17:11,25).

3b4b1e. Sanctification of the sabbath; for though Christ was charged with breaking it, by doing acts of mercy on it; which he vindicated, and so cleared himself from the aspersion of his enemies; yet he was constant in the observation of it for religious service; it was his constant custom to go to the synagogue on sabbath days, and there either hear or read the scriptures, and expound them (Luke 4:16,31).

3b4b2. The second table of the law; which includes,

3b4b2a. Honoring of parents, and obedience to them; the first commandment with promise, and the first in this table; and which, how it was observed by Christ, both in youth and manhood, has been remarked already; (see Luke 2:51), and in which he was a pattern to others of filial obedience.

3b4b2b. Love to our neighbour as one’s self, and which is the second commandment, and like to the first (Matthew 22:39). And this was never fulfilled by any as by Christ; who has shown the greatest love, pity, and compassion, both to the bodies and souls of men: greater love hath no man, than what he has expressed to men, by suffering and dying for them, and working out their salvation (John 15:13).

3b4b2c. Doing all good to men the law requires: and no injury to the persons and properties of men, which that forbids; and which Christ punctually observed: he went about continually from place to place, doing good to the bodies of men, by healing all manner of diseases; and to the souls of men, by preaching wholesome doctrine to them: nor did he ever, in one single instance, do any injury to the person of any man, by striking, smiting, or killing; nor to the property any one; he did "no violence", committed no act of rapine or robbery, or took away any man’s substance by fraud or force (Acts 10:38; Isa. 53:9).

3b4b2d. As all malice, impurity, and evil concupiscence, are forbidden in this table of the law; none of these appeared in Christ; no, not the least shadow of them; no malice prepense, nor hatred of any man’s person; no unchaste desires, looks, words, and actions; no evil covetousness, or lust after what is another’s; nor after any worldly riches and grandeur: so that the law, in both its tables, was precisely obeyed by him.

3b4c. Thirdly, The obedience which Christ yielded to the law, has these peculiar excellencies in it.

3b4c1. It was voluntary; he freely offered himself to become man, to be made under the law, and yield obedience to it; or, in other words, to do the will of God; saying, "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God!" and when he was come, it was meat and drink; or, he took as much delight and pleasure in doing the will and work of God, and went about it as willingly and as cheerfully, as a man does in eating and drinking (Heb 10:7; John 4:34).

3b4c2. It is perfect and complete; there is no command but what Christ inviolably kept; no one, in anyone instance, was broken by him; "He did no sin": whatever was commanded, he did; and whatever was forbidden, he avoided: hence those that are justified by his obedience and righteousness, are all fair, without spot, perfectly comely through his comeliness put upon them.

3b4c3. It excels the obedience of men and angels; not only the obedience and righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, who pretended to a strict observance of the law, but of the most truly righteous persons; for "there is not a just man upon earth, that does good and sinneth not" (Eccl. 7:20). But Christ did all that was good, without sin: the obedience and holiness of angels is chargeable with folly, in comparison of the purity and holiness of God: but the obedience and righteousness of Christ is without any blemish, weakness, or imperfection.

3b4c4. It was wrought out in the room and stead of his people; he obeyed the law, and satisfied it in all its demands, that the righteousness of it might be fulfilled in them, or for them, in him, as their head and representative; hence he, being the end of the law for righteousness unto them, it is unto them, and comes upon them.

3b4c5. It is the measure and matter of the justification of them that believe in him; "By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19), that is, by the imputation of this obedience, or righteousness, unto them; (see 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21).

3b4c6. It is an obedience well pleasing in the sight of God; because voluntary, perfect, superior excellency, performed in the room and stead of his people, and by which they are justified. God is well pleased with his Son, and with his people, considered in him; and with his righteousness and obedience imputed to them; because by it the law is magnified and made honorable; Christ always did the things which pleased his Father; his obedience, in all the parts of it, is acceptable to him; and so are his people on account of it, in whose room and stead it was performed; this is what is commonly called the active obedience of Christ, which he performed in life, agreeable to the precepts of the law.

Jesus Satisfies Both the Law's Demands and it's Curses

by John Colquhoun

The second Adam’s perfect holiness of human nature, and obedience of life to the precept of the law as a covenant, are as necessary to the justification of sinners as is His suffering of its penalty. The doctrine of justification by faith establishes the law, the whole law, the honor of the precept as well as that of the penal sanction. But this it could not do if it did not represent the righteousness of Jesus Christ as consisting in His active obedience as well as in His passive. Active obedience, strictly speaking, cannot be said to satisfy vindictive justice for sin. And, on the other hand, suffering for punishment gives right and title unto nothing, it only satisfies for something; nor does it deserve any reward, as John Owen mentions in his work on justification. Christ’s satisfaction for sin could not render His perfect obedience to the precept unnecessary; nor could His perfect obedience make His satisfaction for sin by suffering the penalty unnecessary, because it was not of the same kind. The one is that which answers the law’s demand of perfect obedience as the ground of title to eternal life; the other is that which answers its demand of complete satisfaction to divine justice for sin. The meritorious obedience of Christ to the precept could not satisfy the penal sanction; and the sufferings and death of Christ, could not satisfy the precept of the law. The commandment of the law as a covenant requires doing for life; the curse of that law demands dying as the punishment of sin. These, though they are never to be separated as grounds of justification, yet are carefully to be distinguished. The perfect obedience of Christ is as necessary to entitle believers to eternal life as His suffering of death is to secure them from eternal death. His satisfaction for sin, applied by faith, renders them innocent or guiltless of death; and His obedience makes them righteous or worthy of life (Romans 5:19). As the latter, then, is as necessary to complete their justification, according to the gospel, as the former, so it is as requisite as the former to establish the honor of the law.

Excerpt from A Treatise on the Law and Gospel by John Colquhoun

Do This and Live: The Principle of Works Binding the Conscience of All Men

by John Hendryx

"He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury." (Rom 2:6-8)

"For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them." (Romans 10:5)

"...Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life? ... If you would enter life, keep the commandments." Matthew 19:15-17

"For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death." Rom 7

"God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us" Rom 8

What are we to make of the above statements by Paul and Jesus? Both of these texts plainly state that eternal life will be granted those who obey God's commandments. Since we know that salvation only comes by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, how are we to interpret such passages?

In light of these and other passages, my aim here is to show from Scripture that the law brings a curse upon those who do not do everything it prescribes (Gal 3:10) but the blessing of eternal life upon those who do (Rom 10:5, Gal 3:12; Lev 18:5) and that Gentiles who do not have the written law have this same law written on their conscience which will serve to either condemn or justify them at the last Day. A corresponding aim is to show that the continuing use of the law after the fall of the human race is not to reveal another way of salvation in addition to the covenant of grace revealed to Abraham and fulfilled in Christ, but to bind all men under sin and thus serve the pedagogical purpose of driving them to Christ who alone has fulfilled the broken covenant of works. The incarnate Christ’s full obedience to all the prescriptions of the divine law makes available a perfect righteousness before the law that is imputed or reckoned to those who put their trust in him. Likewise by bearing all the sanctions imposed by that law (for our transgressions against it) Christ also redeems the sinner from the curse of the law.

The popular cultural mythology about Christianity states that good people will go to heaven and evil people go to hell. Perhaps it is understandable because the Bible itself teaches that “those who have done good [will go] to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:29). But as I will show you, such statements eternal life through perfect law-keeping serve not to show the way to everlasting life (impossible in a fallen world) but as a teaching tool that reveals humanity’s utter hopelessness in the face of it. For those who undertake to follow this road of law-keeping are “obligated to keep the whole law” (Gal. 5:3). "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." (James 2:10) “… for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them" (Gal 3:10).

All unbelievers are now under this principle of works: that they are obligated to keep the whole law. This is because by rejecting Christ, they have chosen not to have a mediator, but instead, to represent themselves at the Divine bar of justice on that Day. The Scripture declares that they will be judged according to what they have done in the body, according to their works. But have you noticed that sometimes explaining this does not even scratch the surface of the skeptics conscience because they reason to themselves that God will either grade on a curve or will somehow overlook sin and see that they had relatively good intentions overall. Because some have difficulty believing they are sinners deserving the wrath of a holy God, I often find this to be an effective opening when sharing the gospel. When people say I have made some mistakes but “I am not a sinner” I simply take them to read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapter’s 5-7) and when finished reading ask them if they have done this. The answer is, of course, always the same – that they have woefully fallen short - which proves Paul’s declaration of the intent of the divine legislation in Romans 3:20 that "...through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Now admittedly, many persons, such as Romans Catholics object to this interpretation saying that “God doesn't give impossible demands, it's not His nature.” But with Romans 3:20 in mind it is important to remember that the commands in the Scripture are in the imperative mood which declare, not man's ability, but his duty. Martin Luther in his classic, Bondage of the Will, explained that:

“…the commandments are not given inappropriately or pointlessly; but in order that through them the proud, blind man may learn the plague of his impotence, should he try to do as he is commanded. Again imperative passages, by which is signified, not what we can do, or do do...but what we ought to do, and what is required of us, so that our impotence may be made known to us and the knowledge of sin may be revealed in us. . Does it follow from: 'turn' that therefore you can turn? Does it follow from "'Love the Lord you God with all your heart' (Deut 6.5) that therefore you can, by nature, love with all your heart? What do arguments of this kind prove, but that the 'free-will' does not need the grace of God, but can do all things by its own power.”

To make more sense the idea that God can and does give us commands that we are incapable of fulfilling, consider as an example, that if you were to borrow $10 million to set up a new company but soon after squandered it in a week of wild living in Vegas, you will return to the bank empty-handed. Yet it is common knowledge that inability to repay the huge debt does not alleviate you of the responsibility to do so. Your creditor still has every right to ask you for the money even though you cannot repay. The commands of God are given for a similar reason. He commands what we have a responsibility to obey, but after the fall, we are morally unable to do so, apart from Christ. So we can see that the problem is not with the law but with the human heart. As Augustine once said, the condition of one who is unregenerate is "not able not to sin" (non posse non peccare). We are unable to pay the debt we owe but in his mercy Christ does for us what we are unable to do for ourselves. That is why we call him a Savior, not simply someone who helps us help ourselves.

So even though a human being is morally incapable of obeying the law perfectly to receive eternal life, yet preaching the law to an unbeliever is not pointless. When we preach the law we are, in effect, declaring to them the biblical principle "do this and live". Scripture, in fact, actually reveals two ways that one might be saved. These two antithetical covenants can be filtered down to "Do this and live" (Leviticus 18:5; Romans 2:13; 10:5), and "The just shall live by faith" (Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 10:6; Galatians 3:11). These covenants are both based in the eternal covenant of redemption which was made in the eternal counsels of the Triune God (John 6:37-39). Both will come into play through the historical Christ. This first covenant was revealed in Eden in what theologians call the Covenant of Works. In its most basic form it consisted of the command "Do not eat, or you will die." It is easy enough to see that if you restate L for ~L, you get "Do this and live." When Adam failed to live up to the terms of the covenant, he plummeted he and his posterity into the curse of death. Now all who are "in Adam" are incapable of life through that original covenant. It should be noted that God also mentions, after the fall, that the way to the tree of life is blocked lest man eat and live. So there was a means by which Adam could have avoided the fall, that is, by obedience to God for a period or perhaps by eating from the tree of life. Considering all of the above there is a works principle operative in the garden and restated in the Mosaic covenant, and while it promised life for perfect obedience (Lev. 18:2) its purpose, rather, was to instill in us a loss of all hope in ourselves. In other words, the call to perfect obedience functioned for redemptive-historical, pedagogical purposes like reminding us of our fall in Adam and our inability to perfectly obey it, which would ultimately drive us to Christ who was Himself “born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons" (Gal 4:4) because Jesus fulfills all the conditions from our side. This alone drives us to understand that we have no hope except in Christ's perfect, abiding, and eternally-significant obedience in both his life and death for us (Rom. 5:19).

The entire human race, therefore, stands condemned under the covenant of works and no person can extricate themselves from it through their own exertions (Rom 9:16). In case non-Jews (who do not have the written law) think they can escape this responsibility, this condemnation also includes all people because, according to the Scripture, God has reveled the moral law to the conscience of all men. Man cannot escape the fact that he must make moral decisions at every hour of the day and all people know in their heart that sanctions must take place when injustice takes place. Strong support for this idea can be found in Romans chapters 1-2, a passage where Paul is proving that both Jews and Gentiles are both under sin. So to prove that Gentiles who do not have God’s written law, are still accountable to it because God has placed it in their conscience consider:

“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.” (Rom 2:14-15)

This is a classic proof-text for God’s law in natural revelation. This argument begins in the first chapter where Paul says that “…his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” But they “by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.” (Rom. 1:18-20). So all people will be inexcusable before God at the time of judgment even though they did not have access to special revelation. In other words, in nature God reveals a sense of morality and justice to the hearts of all, such that those who fail to keep it know that they deserve Divine wrath. So it becomes abundantly clear that God has written the works principle on every mans’ conscience including the knowledge of its obligations and sanctions for not keeping it.

In light of this, what are we to make of passages such as "He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life" (Rom 2:6-7)?

This text is given to us by Paul in the context of building up a massive case for the universal sinfulness of both Jews and Gentiles alike; that all persons fall short of God's infinitely holy standard and justly deserve death. So in this part of his argument, Paul is, in effect, explaining that that “DO THIS AND LIVE" is placed before all humanity. But in what follows Paul tears down this edifice by showing that man is incapable of life by that covenant.

I agree with both Douglas Moo and Charles Hodge’s interpretation that this passage is still in keeping with Paul's’ argument [that all are under sin] and that this is a statement of the law and of what will take place to the wicked when they stand before God in the end. It’s standard is perfect obedience which no one will be able to reach, with the exception of Jesus Christ. This passage, therefore, further demonstrates Paul’s argument that no one can be justified by works of the law, since through the law men may learn the plague of their impotence, when they actually thy to do as they are commanded.

But thanks be to God for Jesus who obeyed ALL the prescriptions of the divine law. Being a human being "under the law" was a necessary part of the work Jesus did on our behalf. We could not be declared righteous apart from Christ's active obedience. This means being killed as an infant by Herod would not have been sufficient. His incarnation had great significance because in it He succeeded where both Adam and the nation of Israel failed. Jesus, the True Israel, declared that he came "not to abolish the law but to fulfill it". That is, fulfill all of God's righteous demands that God commands of humans who are unable, due to sin, to accomplish themselves. Likewise to John the Baptist, Jesus (who did not need to be baptized Himself) said he should rather be baptized by John to "fulfill all righteousness." Further, His priestly duties required and who was both blameless and without sin for God first desires obedience, not sacrifice. Consider that Jesus obedience is said to have made him perfect enabling Him to become the source of eternal salvation: "In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 5:7-9) Jesus' humanity and law keeping is, therefore, an integral part of His work for us. Lets now return to the question that God calls us to do things that we are morally incapable of. Why? Because the covenant of works still stands to those who are not in Christ ... even though they are incapable of fulfilling that covenant. God has given all men over to sin that have might have mercy on them all in Christ. God has, therefore, not rescinded His law which says "Do this and Live". We herald the law (and the gospel) to people, (1) to let them know that if they would live they must perfectly obey the commandments of God, (2) so that persons will recognize they are morally impotent to do so. It is then that the law serves its pedagogical function – for in seeing their own inability and spiritual bankruptcy can only flee to Christ for salvation.

So Christ is not being disingenuous when he tells the rich young ruler that if he wants eternal life he must obey the commandments. As we can see from the story, it served a pedagogical purpose in showing that no man can be saved by his own efforts. But when the disciples discern that the standard is too high when they ask ‘who then can be saved?” Jesus adds, “what is impossible with man is possible with God.” When we abandon hope in our own efforts, and instead, trust in Jesus Christ we are saved by someone who was not only sinless, but who obeyed the covenant of works perfectly from our side, obeying where Adam failed (Rom 5:19). He lived the life we should have lived and died the death we justly deserve. So, in fact, the reason we can be saved by grace alone is because Jesus took it upon Himself to do for us what we could not do for ourselves (i.e. obey the Law as a human being). For among fallen humanity no one is able to keep the Law because of original sin and total depravity, but in Him we are counted as having kept the Law (Rom 8:3,4). Those who trust in Christ alone can be assured that they have a perfect Savior who saves them from all their sin. In the new covenant in Christ's blood, God “remembers” not to treat us as our sins justly deserve.

"For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us..." (Rom 8:3,4)

Is There More Than One Way to God?

by John Hendryx

Today I wish to propose and explore with you whether there are places in Scripture which teach that belief in Jesus Christ may not be the only way to God.    I Believe it or not, Jesus Himself speaks of another way. Stay with me.

But before we do that I would like for us to take a look at a recent debate that took place on the Donahue show between Phil Donahue and Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Seminary. The context of the debate is the recent move be by the Catholic church to no longer evangelize the Jews since they have stated that God has given them some kind of special plan or dispensation. This debate also typifies many of the debates that occur between Christians and non-Christians these days with regard to our exclusive claim that Christ is the only way to be saved for both Jew and Gentile.  In America’s current climate of postmodern, multicultural, political correctness, the claim by Christians that Christ is the only gives rise to accusations of hate and intolerance as we shall see in the following excerpts of this interesting dialogue between Donahue, Albert Mohler & Rabbi Shmuley Boteach:

DONAHUE:  Well, Dr. Mohler, sir, nice to see you again. You’re how many strong these days, the southern Baptists?

REV. ALBERT MOHLER, SOUTHERN BAPTIST MINISTER: About 16 million members, Phil, and about 40,000 churches. It’s good to be with you tonight.

DONAHUE: Thank you. Do these 16 million people believe Jews can go to heaven?

MOHLER: Southern Baptists, with other Christians, believe that all persons can go to heaven who come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And there is no discrimination on the basis of ethnic or racial or national issues, related to who will go to the Scriptures. It’s those who are in Christ. The defining issue is faith in Christ.

DONAHUE: So a good Jew is not going to heaven.

MOHLER: Well, all persons are sinners in need of a savior. Jesus Christ is the sole mediator. And the gospel, we are told by the Apostle Paul, comes first to the Jews and then to the gentiles. And salvation is found in his name, and in his name alone, through faith in Christ.

DONAHUE: So if a Nazi killed a Jew, a good Jew, practicing Jew, the Jew goes to hell, but the Nazi still has a chance to get to heaven. That would be the consequence of your position.

MOHLER: Well, the gospel is not just for the worst of us. The gospel is for all of us. And the scripture tells us the hard truth, that all have sinned. And that Nazi guard is going to be punished for his sin, and it will be judged as sin. His only hope would be the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. And the profound truth of the gospel is that the salvation that can come to any person who comes to faith in Christ-can come to that Jew who was killed and to that guard who does the killing. That’s the radical nature of the gospel.

DONAHUE: Well, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is with us. You’re author of “Judaism For Everyone.” You know, Reverend Mohler, this is such a vast organization. You have so many wonderful members. This just breeds anti-Semitism. I am sorry. You cannot possibly look a person in the eye and say, if you don’t come to Jesus, if you don’t change your faith, you’re not going to heaven. Reeks of prejudice, and also stirs the soul to evil behavior, in my opinion.

MOHLER: Well, if the church had just come up with this in the 20th century as a novel idea, perhaps it should be subjected to such a critique. But this is the gospel that has been received from the Lord Jesus Christ himself, who said he came, first of all, for the people and children of Israel, and then also for the gentiles. And he himself declared that he is the way, the truth and the light, and no man comes to the Father but through him. He spoke as a man born of the Jewish race, but who was also the son of God.

DONAHUE: Well, three cheers for the Catholic bishops. And it’s been a while since anybody has given them cheers. Well, Rabbi, it took us long enough, but we are no longer calling upon our faithful, Catholic faithful, to evangelize and convert the Jews. Praise the lord for that, whichever lord may be your favorite.

RABBI SHMULEY BOTEACH, AUTHOR, “JUDAISM FOR EVERYONE”: Amen. John Paul II is one of the great friends of the Jewish people. Christians are our brothers and sisters, but they have to finally acknowledge that there is a 2,000-year repulsive, malignant history of the church, of trying to spiritually annihilate Jews by removing every last Jew on the face of the earth and converting them to Christianity and Jesus. And Reverend Mohler, however intelligent of a scholar he may be, he is a spiritual Neanderthal with repulsive, revolting views. Because we know in history that Christian, anti-Judaism has always led to racial anti-Semitism. This is the modern equivalent, Phil, of spiritual terrorism. ....

OK I think you get the idea...

Today let's consider the Biblical, Theological and Philosophical consequences of Donahue and the Rabbi's position.   My first thought after hearing Donahue and the Rabbi was that it was ironic that they were excluding Mohler for being exclusive. They were calling him evil for not seeing it their way. Are they not doing the very thing that they accuse him of? This, at the very least, is hypocritical.

But let's revisit my first question as to whether or not belief in Jesus Christ is only way to God.  In fact lets' have a look at the Scriptures where Jesus Himself spoke of a different way.  Al Mohler is one of the great reformers of our time and I think he is courageous to go on the Donahue show where he knew the audience would be taking swings at him. I liked his answers but hope we can, if possible, even improve upon what he said so that we can preach as clearly as we can to those who do not yet know Christ..  It is our duty to take the time to explain exactly what we believe more clearly.  Christian jargon and terminology often clouds the issue rather than clarifies it.

When Donahue said, "So a good Jew is not going to heaven." Instead of answering, "we are all sinners in need of a savior," as Mohler did, perhaps an even more memorable answer may have been "Yes, all good Jews will go to heaven, and not only Jews but all good people of all races will go to heaven. If they can live a good life, obey all the commandments, they will live (see Rom 2:6-8). When asked what must he do to gain eternal life by the Rich Young Ruler, Jesus said the same thing: "If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." Matt 19:17

Let's take a closer look at that passage -- an exposé.

Matt 19:16-26 The Rich Young Man

16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

18"Which ones?" the man inquired.

19Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' "

20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me."

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

When Jesus says, “why do you ask me about what is good? There is only One who is good,” He is driving the point home right away that no one even approaches God’s holy standards.  Someone might think he means by this verse that He Himself is not good but when weighed against other scripture (He who was without sin, became sin for us…He was tempted in every way as we were yet without sin and He says to the Pharisees Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?”) it is obvious He had specific intentions in mind.  His point here was to get the Rich man to see his own failure.  Then He tells him “If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”   Jesus is serious here I believe. He does not merely say believe in me and you will live since He knows his hearts' disposition and tailors the message specifically for him.  He is saying if you can keep the commandments perfectly then you will live.  But His point in doing so was to use the law to reveal his shortcomings. The object of these words is to expose the pride of his heart, and to reveal his absolute need of a Savior from sin due to the impossibility of keeping the law. The Rich man obviously didn’t get it for he answered? Which ones?  Jesus is showing unregenerate man that if he is to recover himself in this way he must perfectly keep the commandments without stumbling.

Next the rich man asked him which commandments to keep  --- Jesus  replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' " ---- Notice that Jesus mentions all the commandments in the second table of the law except for the last one (though shall not covet) since Jesus has in mind to expose his failure at this point.  The man replies that he has keep all these commands since youth, which means that he still doesn’t get it.  But he feels there must be something more (which is right) so he asks what he still lacks.  Jesus here finally pierces his dark soul where it hurt the most by telling him to sell everything and follow him.  Jesus knew the man loved money and would be unwilling to let it go.  His sin was exposed and he went away sad.

When Jesus says: "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."  He is merely exposing this one man's vice.  His disciples understood the ramifications of His statement that none can be saved when they asked, “Who then can be saved?”

In other words the way to heaven is blocked for all men. The angel with the flaming sword has barred the way to the tree of life.  Our spiritual condition before God is utterly bankrupt.  There is no hope for a man to do anything that will win him acceptance with God.  We are in God's debt; He is not in ours.  But that which is impossible with man - salvation, is possible with God.  We can contribute nothing and deserve God's wrath just like the next guy.

So now lets review my original statement once again that belief in Jesus is not the only way to God.  We have discovered that there is indeed another way: Obey the commandments and you will live.  The difficulty arises however, in that there is no one who fits that description.  This little passage demonstrates the folly of any person who thinks they can reach God through obedience to His commandments, since our fallen condition leaves us spiritually impotent.  To tell our fellow human beings that it is folly to trust in their own efforts to attain heaven, is not only the opposite of intolerance but is the most considerate thing we can do for them.  We often fail to communicate that we also are sinners saved by grace and are not morally any better than they are.

Those who believe they are good enough to be pleasing to God have a low view of God’s holiness. If God can forgive sin and injustice without payment then He would have to commit an unjust act.  One sin against an infinitely holy God is such an offense against His Person that it must be met with the outpouring of His fierce wrath if justice is to be satisfied.  He is pure justice and for Him to accept anything less than sinless perfection from us would render Him less than God. Therefore, the question from the world should not be how could a just God send anyone to hell; it should be how can a just God send anyone to heaven and remain just? Those who believe that if we live a relatively good life can win God’s acceptance/approval have a god that is too small; a god that is not perfectly just and a god that is not holy.  In other words, it is a sad excuse for a god: A man-made god.  But God owes no man anything.  He is no man’s debtor.  Anyone who says that God should reward those who are good are actually saying that God owes them.  Their decent, moral life has placed God in their debt.  Furthermore, those who believe that God won’t judge sin are pinning their hopes on an unjust god. Donahue's only real hope is that God will overlook all injustices. This god is neither holy nor just, therefore it is a corrupt god.  If God is not perfectly holy and just then He is not God and has horrible imperfections.

So then why is Jesus the only way?

Where Adam failed Jesus succeeded. Where Adam disobeyed, Jesus obeyed. God required of us a perfect obedience to His law and we all failed. But God looked upon us in mercy, became flesh in order to fulfill the covenant from our side.

As a human being Jesus was the second Adam. While we justly deserve God's wrath for breaking the law of a holy God, Jesus obeyed God's commands perfectly, the only human being ever to do so. At every moment of his life he fully obeyed the ten commandments and the highest ideal to love God with all His heart, mind, soul and strength and love His neighbor as Himself. He was tempted in every way as we were yet without sin. Temptation is a neutral term meaning to test. He never internalized nor desired sin ever in His life, thus God was fully pleased with Him. He took every thought captive and made it obedient to God. He did all this for us so that He might bear the wrath of God on our behalf. God's wrath is now turned aside from us.

John MacArthur once said that there are two religions in the world: human attainment and divine accomplishment. All other religions in the world trust in some degree in human merit for salvation. Christianity alone understands we have fallen short of God's demands and can find life only by trusting in the only one is history to have obeyed the covenant.

There is an element of human pride in all other attempts. The Donahue's of the world who think good intentions will get us to heaven are like the Pharisee who prays in the temple, "thank you God that I am not like other men; adulterers, thieves and like this tax collector over here. I obey and give a tenth of all I have. In Donahue's case, "thank you God that I am not like this Nazi." Do you see the connection/ He is boasting in his relatively decent life and thinks that now God somehow owes Him heaven. He is trusting in his own merit but forgetting that he falls woefully short of God's demands on his life. The tax collector understands his own spiritual bankruptcy however. He looks down and beats his chest saying, "forgive me Lord, the sinner. Jesus said it was he that went home justified.

As Christians this should be our character. We should always keep in mind in every situation that but for the grace of God we would be lost. There is nothing to boast of in ourselves or our good works. We are not in God's favor because we are any better than the pagans and may I suggest that, in many instances, pagans may have lived a more moral life than you or I.

Brokenness before God is his requirement for us and it is only by grace that we even have this realization. All trust in our merit, flesh or abilities will fail. So when Donahue asks if a good person will go to heaven, the answer is the same one Jesus gave. Yes he would - obey the commandments and you will live, but there is no one who is good but God alone. This devastates any hope of heaven through self effort. The Law drives us to God's mercy and it is found in Jesus alone.

We must first be totally convinced of our woeful condition and God’s holy perfection. If people better understood the inconsistent position they have in believing in a less than holy God and that the true God is holy and just then our position before Him becomes more clear.   We also need to do a better job explaining what fallen or natural man’s condition is.  Christian jargon that we are all familiar with needs to be defined, explained to an unbeliever. "Pretend" they have no knowledge at all of Christianity and start from the beginning rather than first saying that that God loves them but they are sinners and need Jesus. Such a statement would be meaningless, or worse to someone who has never been to church. I believe it is important that we go into detail about man’s spiritually bankrupt state and our present condition before God. Explain it.

But we can tell people that if you are confident that they have never sinned against God's revealed law, then of course they don't need Jesus. Jesus is for sinners not for people who are good enough to please God on their own.

“Natural religion in all its forms presupposes holy character and conduct as the essential antecedent condition of God's favor. Christianity in all its genuine forms presupposes the favor of God as the essential antecedent condition of holy character and conduct.” - A.A. Hodge

"The idea that there are really no substantive differences between religions needs to be held up to careful scrutiny and declared fraudulent. For example, Islam says that Jesus was not crucified. Christianity says He was. Only one of us can be right. Judaism says Jesus was not the Messiah. Christianity says He was. Only one of us can be right. Hinduism says God has often been incarnate. Christianity says God was incarnate only in Jesus. We cannot both be right. Buddhism says that the world's miseries will end when we do what is right. Christianity says we cannot do what is right. The world's miseries will end when we believe what is right" - Alistar Begg, Made For His Pleasure , 126

There are other problems of a philosophical nature to consider with Donahue's position...

The position is basically that Christianity is not true because it is intolerant and judgmental.  The problem with the position is that even those who deny truth’s exclusivity, in effect, exclude those who do not deny it. They are themselves taking a position of truth … a belief that all ways are true as long as they do not claim exclusivity, but in doing so it establishes its own truth claim which excludes others who do not believe all ways are true, thereby canceling itself out.  They say "stop being intolerant by claiming Christ is the only way" while their very statement has intolerantly imposing its own values on Christians with the intent that they will conform to their political correctness.  They have become their own worst enemy, in other words...self-contradictory.  Christians know they are claiming Jesus to be exclusive and must always bring truth and love together. Historically we have certainly been guilty of losing balance to one side or the other and we must always remain vigilant to never lose sight of both. But post-moderns often fail to see their own hypocrisy since their tolerance; their highest virtue is often used as a weapon of intolerance.

Lets look closer at the well-known parable of the elephant as described by John Bowen: “Blind men are trying to discover the nature of an elephant. Yet each offers a different description, according to the part of the elephant he touches. The one who feels the head concludes that an elephant is like a pot; the one with the ear says, `An elephant is like a winnowing basket;' the one feeling the tusk argues that an elephant is like a plough share; and so on. The conclusion is obvious: religious views are different because each grasps only a portion of the truth. The differences are more apparent than real. The truth is only to be found in taking all the parts together…[but] how do the observers come to be in a position of omniscience, able to survey the whole scene, superior to everyone else, sighted while others are blind? By what right do they say, `This is how things really are'? The parable claims to show that nobody has `objective truth'. Unfortunately, the story itself claims to be the objective truth about world religions and Ultimate Reality! “

“What initially appears to be a benign and liberal analogy proves in fact to be just as intolerant of diversity as the views it seeks to relativize maybe more so because it appears at first sight to be so broad minded.”

To conclude, let's have a closer look at a part of the Westminster Confession. It shines a light and clarifies what we just considered.

Note: The Westminster Confession Chapter 7 Of God's Covenant with Man. States:

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

Justification and Sanctification: How to they Differ?

by J. C. Ryle

I now propose to consider, in the last place, the distinction between justification and sanctification. Wherein do they agree, and wherein do they differ?

This branch of our subject is one of great importance, though I fear it will not seem so to all my readers. I shall handle it briefly, but I dare not pass it over altogether. Too many are apt to look at nothing but the surface of things in religion, and regard nice distinctions in theology as questions of" words and names," which are of little real value. But I warn all who are in earnest about their souls, that the discomfort which arises from not" distinguishing things that differ" in Christian doctrine is very great indeed;and I especially advise them, if they love peace, to seek clear views about the matter before us. Justification and sanctification are two distinct things we must always remember. Yet there are points in which they agree and points in which they differ. Letus try to find out what they are.

In what, then, are justification and sanctification alike?

(a) Both proceed originally from the free grace of God. It is of His gift alone that believers are justified or sanctified at all.

(b) Both are part of that great work of salvation which Christ, in the eternal covenant, has undertaken on behalf of His people. Christ is the fountain of life, from which pardon and holiness both flow. The root of each is Christ.

(c) Both are to be found in the same persons. Those who are justified are always sanctified, and those who are sanctified are always justified. God has joined them together, and they cannot be put asunder.

(d) Both begin at the same time. The moment a person begins to be a justified person; he also begins to be a sanctified person. He may not feel it, but it is a fact.

(e) Both are alike necessary to salvation. No one ever reached heaven without a renewed heart as well as forgiveness, without the Spirit's grace as well as the blood of Christ, without a meetness for eternal glory as well as a title. The one is just as necessary as the other.

Such are the points on which justification and sanctification agree. Let us now reverse the picture, and see wherein they differ.

(a) Justification is the reckoning and counting a man to be righteous for the sake of another, even Jesus Christ the Lord. Sanctification is the actual making a man inwardly righteous, though it may be in a very feeble degree.

(b) The righteousness we have by our justification is not our own, but the everlasting perfect righteousness of our great Mediator Christ, imputed to us, and made our own by faith. The righteousness we have by sanctification is our own righteousness, imparted, inherent, and wrought in us by the Holy Spirit, but mingled with much infirmity and imperfection.

(c) In justification our own works have no place at all, and simple faith in Christ is the one thing needful.

(d) In sanctification our own works are of vast importance and God bids us fight, and watch, and pray, and strive, and take pains, and labour Justification is a finished and complete work, and a man is perfectly justified the moment he believes. Sanctification is an imperfect work, comparatively, and will never be perfected until we reach heaven.

(e) Justification admits of no growth or increase: a man is as much justified the hour he first comes to Christ by faith as he will be to all eternity. Sanctification is eminently a progressive work, and admits of continual growth and enlargement so long as a man lives.

(f) Justification has special reference to our persons, our standing in God's sight, and our deliverance from guilt. Sanctification has special reference to our natures, and the moral renewal of our hearts.

(g) Justification gives us our title to heaven, and boldness to enter in. Sanctification gives us our meetness for heaven, and prepares us to enjoy it when we dwell there.

(h) Justification is the act of God about us, and is not easily discerned by others. Sanctification is the work of God within us, and cannot be hid in its outward manifestation from the eyes of men.

I commend these distinctions to the attention of all my readers, and I ask them to ponder them well. I am persuaded that one great cause of the darkness and uncomfortable feelings of many well-meaning people in the matter of religion is their habit of confounding, and not distinguishing, justification and sanctification. It can never be too strongly impressed on our minds that they are two separate things. No doubt they cannot be divided, and everyone that is a partaker of either is a partaker of both. But never, never ought they to be confounded, and never ought the distinction between them to be forgotten. It only remains for me now to bring this subject to a conclusion by a few plain words of application. The nature and visible marks of sanctification have been brought before us. What practical reflections ought the whole matter to raise in our minds?

(1) For one thing, let us all awake to a sense of the perilous state of many professing Christians."Without holiness no man shall see the Lord"; without sanctification there is no salvation. (Heb.xii. 14.) Then what an enormous amount of so-called religion there is which is perfectly useless! What an immense proportion of church-goers and chapel-goers are in the broad road that leadeth to destruction! The thought is awful, crushing, and overwhelming.Oh, that preachers and teachers would open their eyes and realize the condition of souls around them! Oh, that man could be persuaded to"flee from the wrath to come"I If unsanctified souls can be saved and go to heaven, the Bible is not true. Yet the Bible is true and cannot lie! What must the end be!

(2) For another thing, let us make sure work of our own condition, and never rest till we feel and know that we are" sanctified" ourselves. What are our tastes, and choices, and likings, and in clinations? This is the great testing question. It matters little what we wish, and what we hope, and what we desire to be before we die. Where are we now? What are we doing? Are we sanctified or not? If not, the fault is all our own.

(3) For another thing, if we would be sanctified, our course is clear and plain— we must begin with Christ. We must go to Him as sinners, with no plea but that of utter need, and cast our souls on Him by faith, for peace and reconciliation with God. We must place ourselves in His hands, as in the hands of a good physician, and cry to Him for mercy and grace. We must wait for nothing to bring with us as a recommendation. The very first step towards sanctification, no less than justification, is to come with faith to Christ. We must first live and then work.

(4) For another thing, if we would grow in holiness and become more sanctified, we must continually go on as we began,, and be ever making fresh applications to Christ. He is the Head from which every member must be supplied. (Ephes. iv. 16.) To live the life of daily faith in the Son of God, and to be daily drawing out of His fulness the promised grace and strength which He has laid up for His people—this is the grand secret of progressive sanctification. Believers who seem at a standstill are generally neglecting close communion with Jesus, and so grieving the Spirit. He that prayed,"Sanctify them," the last night before His crucifixion, is infinitely willing to help everyone who by faith applies to Him for help, and desires to be made more holy.

(5) For another thing, let us not expect too much from our own hearts here below. At our best we shall find in ourselves daily cause for humiliation, and discover that we are needy debtors to mercy and grace every hour. The more light we have, the more we shall see our own imperfection. Sinners we were when we began, sinners we shall find ourselves as we go on; renewed, pardoned, justified—yet sinners to the very last. Our absolute perfection is yet to come, and the expectation of it is one reason why we should long for heaven.

(6) Finally, let us never be ashamed of making much of sanctification,, and contending for a high standard of holiness. While some are satisfied with a miserably low degree of attainment, and others are not ashamed to live on without any holiness at all—content with a mere round of church-going and chapel-going, but never getting on, like a horse in a mill—let us stand fast in the old paths, follow after eminent holiness ourselves, and recommend it boldly to others. This is the only way to be really happy.

Let us feel convinced, whatever others may say, that holiness is happiness, and that the man who gets through life most comfortably is the sanctified man. No doubt there are some true Christians who from ill-health, or family trials, or other secret causes, enjoy little sensible comfort, and go mourning all their days on the way to heaven. But these are exceptional cases. As a general rule, in the long run of life, it will be found true that"sanctified people are the happiest people on earth. They have solid comforts which the world can neither give nor take away."The ways of wisdom are ways of pleasantness."—" Great peace has they that love Thy law."—It was said by One who cannot lie,"My yoke is easy, and my burden is light."—But it is also written,"There isno peace unto the wicked." (Prov iii. 17; Ps. cxix. 165; Matt, xi. 30; Is. xlviii. 22.)

Sanctification & Justification

by Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)

This article is extracted from Kuyper's classic book, The Work of the Holy Spirit (1888; American edition 1900) vol. 3, chapters 3-4.

Yield your members servants to righteousness unto sanctification." --Rom. vi. 19.

SANCTIFICATION must remain Sanctification. It may not arbitrarily be robbed of its significance, nor be exchanged for something else. It must always signify the making holy of what is unholy or less holy.

Care must be taken not to confound sanctification with justification; a common mistake, frequently made by thoughtless Scripture readers. Hence the importance of a thorough understanding of this difference. Being left unnoticed, it may lead to confused preaching, which causes one-sidedness; and active and thoughtful men invariably systematize their one-sidedness.

What, then, is the difference? According to our ancient theologians it is fourfold:

1. Justification works for man; sanctification in man.

2. Justification removes the guilt; sanctification the stain.

3. Justification imputes to us an extraneous righteousness: sanctification works a righteousness inherent as our own.

4. Justification is at once completed; sanctification increases gradually; hence remains imperfect.

In the main the answer is correct, but insufficient to meet present error. It is shallow, external, and incomplete, makes too much of righteous-making and holy-making, while it does not consider righteousness and holiness, a correct. idea of which is absolutely necessary for the clear understanding of justification and sanctification.

Let us examine these fundamental ideas, first, in God Himself. It becomes evident at once that the words, "Our God is righteous," Impress us otherwise than. "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord I"

The latter impresses us with the feeling that the name of Jehovah is infinitely exalted above the low level of this impure and sinful life; we discover a distance between Him and ourselves which, as it widens in more transcendent holiness, casts us back into ourselves as impure creatures, while it causes His Being to be resplendent in the light unapproachable. If the angels exalting His holiness cover their faces with their wings, how much more ought we sinful men consider it with covered face and in godly fear! "The Lord is of purer eyes than to behold evil," impresses us with the deep sense of God's unspeakable sensitiveness, which is so keen that even the faintest suggestion of sin or impurity arouses in Him such antipathy that He can not bear the sight of it.

But guilt is out of the question. In the presence of the divine holiness we do not feel guilty, but are overwhelmed by the consciousness of our utter uncleanness and wickedness. Even among men we do not always feel quite satisfied with ourselves. Our brother's warmer zeal and love often make us feel ashamed. Yet the feeling does not amount to loathing of self. But in the presence of the holiness of God we feel at once with Isaiah our spiritual impurity, and are inclined to cry for a live coal from the altar to sanctify our lips; and the word "loathing of self" is not too strong to express our feeling as we prostrate ourselves before the holiness of the Lord Jehovah.

This establishes the antithesis at once. The divine holiness in its most exalted aspect affects us, not with fear of punishment, or with anguish, because we owe a debt that we can not pay; but with dissatisfaction with ourselves, with abhorrence of our uncleanness, and contempt for our righteousnesses which are as filthy rags. It makes us feel, not our guilt, but our sin; not our condemnation, but our hopeless wickedness; it does not crush us under the penalty of the law, but it causes us to be consumed by our impurity; it does not overwhelm us by righteousness, but it uncovers our unholiness and inward corruption.

But the divine righteousness affects us altogether differently. It does not impress me with the transcendence of His exalted Covenant name as the divine holiness; but in God's hand it oppresses me, pursues me, leaves me no rest, seizes me, and breaks me to pieces under its weight. His holiness makes the soul thirst after holiness, and with sorrow we see His majesty depart. But His righteousness antagonizes the soul, which does not desire it. but struggles to escape from it.

Sometimes it seems different, but only seemingly so. Godly men in the Old and New Covenants frequently invoke the divine righteousness. "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" This divine upholding of the right is the strength, the prospect, and the consolation of His oppressed people. This is why in the closing article of their Confession our fathers cry for the day of judgment, when as the righteous judge He shall destroy all His enemies and ours. Yet the difference is only seeming. In this case the divine right is directed against others, not ourselves; but the effect is the same. It is His people's prayer and hope that the divine right pursue those enemies, and deal with them according to their deserts.

Hence God's righteousness impresses us, first, with the fact of His authority over us; that not we, but He must determine what is right, and how we ought to be; that all our opposition is vain, for His power will enforce the right; hence that we must suffer the effects of that righteousness.

But it is not merely the power of the right that impresses us, neither the consciousness that we are taken and judged, but much more, that we are taken and judged righteously. And not this arbitrarily; on the contrary, we feel inwardly that the divine might is right, and therefore may and must overpower us.

Hence the divine righteousness includes the creature's acknowledgment: "The prerogative to determine the right is not mine, but His." And not only this, but our souls are deeply conscious that God's decisions are not only right and good, but absolutely righteous and superlatively good.

The divine righteousness brings us face to face with a direct working of the divine sovereignty. All earthly sovereignty is but a feeble reflection of the divine; but sufficiently clear to show us its fundamental features. A sovereign is deemed sufficiently wise to see how things ought to be; and qualified to determine that so they shall be; and powerful to resist him who dares be otherwise. This applies also to the King of kings; or rather, it applies, not to Him also, but to Him alone. He alone is the Wisdom with absolute certainty to choose, and according to this choice to see how everything must be to be its best. He alone is the holy Qualified One, according to this to determine how everything must be. And He is the alone-Mighty to condemn and destroy what dares be otherwise.

And this reveals the deepest features of the contrast. The holiness of God relates to His Being,; the righteousness of God to His Sovereignty. Or, His righteousness touches His relation and position to the creature; His holiness points to His own inward Being.

He that is holy, let him be holy still." -Rev. xxii. 11.

THE divine Righteousness, having reference to the divine Sovereignty, in one sense does not manifest itself until God enters into relationship with the creatures. He was glorious in holiness from all eternity, for man's creation did not modify His Being; but His righteousness could not be displayed before creation, because right presupposes two beings sustaining the jural relation.

An exile on an uninhabited island can not be righteous nor do righteously; he can not even conceive of the jural relation so long as there is -no man present whose rights he must respect, or who can deny his rights. The arrival of other men will necessarily create the jural relation between him and them. But so long as he remains alone, he may be holy or unholy, but he can not be said to be righteous or unrighteous. In like manner it may be said of God that before creation He was holy, but could not display His righteousness simply because there were no creatures sustaining toward Him the jural relation. But immediately after the creation the display of righteousness became possible.

Still the illustration can be applied to God only to a certain extent. Essentially God is not alone, but Triune in persons; hence there is between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit a mutual relation. This relation, being the highest, tenderest, and most intimate, contains from eternity the completest expression of righteousness. And even with reference to the creature, the divine righteousness did not originate until after the creation, but finds perfect expression in the eternal counsel. That counsel not only determines every possible jural relation between the creatures and the Creator, and the creatures themselves, but indicates also the means whereby this relation must be restored when broken or disturbed.

Hence His righteousness is as eternal as His Being; yet, in order to express clearly the difference between holiness and righteousness, we may say that as His holiness was glorious from eternity, so is His righteousness displayed and exercised only in time, i.e., since the creature began to exist. It did not originate then, but became perceptible then. Whatever may be said on the subject, the fundamental difference remains that God is holy even though considered alone by Himself; while His righteousness begins to radiate when He is considered in relation to His creatures.

God is holy essentially; before the least impurity existed, there was in Him vital pressure to repel all foreign mingling with His Being. But only as Sovereign could He determine the right, maintain the violated right, and execute righteousness upon the violater.

In its fundamental features this applies to us as men. Even in us righteousness is entirely different from holiness; the former has exclusive reference to our relation to and position before God, man, and angel; while holiness refers, not to any relation, but to the quality of our inner being. We speak of righteousness only when it concerns our relation to God or man. Noah is said to have been a righteous man "in his generation," which indicates not his essential quality, but his relation to others.

Righteousness implies right, which is unthinkable but as existing between two persons in connection with the qualification of either one or of a third to determine that right. Hence man's righteousness with reference to God has a twofold aspect:

First, it implies the acknowledgment of God's sovereign qualifications to determine man's relation to God and man.

Second, it implies reverence for the divine laws and ordinances enacted with regard to man's service of God.

A man may keep strictly some of these ordinances, not from the motive of reverence, but because he is compelled to approve them. In some respects he gives God His due; but His position is wrong. He fails to honor God as his sovereign Ruler, to acknowledge God as God, and to bow before His majesty.

Or he may reverence the divine authority in the abstract, but in practise constantly rob God of His right.

Therefore original righteousness, which has reference to man's status before God as a creature, and derived righteousness, which refers to the act of honoring the divine ordinances, are two different things. Both are righteousness--i.e., the act of occupying the position divinely ordained. But the first refers to our personal standing in the position determined by God; the second to the act of conforming our thoughts, words, and deeds to His divine requirements.

It is unnecessary to speak particularly of righteousness with reference to men. Whatever we do in relation to them is righteous or unrighteous according to its conformity or non-conformity to the divine ordinance, and every transgression against the neighbor becomes sin only because it is in non-conformity to the righteousness of God.

Briefly, man's righteousness consists of two parts:

First, that his status be what God has determined.

Second, that his thoughts, words, and deeds be conformed to the divine ordinances. Hence our righteousness need not be the product of our own soul's labor. The original righteousness of Adam and Eve lacked nothing, although they had not done anything to it personally. They simply stood in the right position before God--a position not self-assumed, but divinely determined. And so may the right, after it is disturbed, be restored independently of the violator, by a third person. The question is not how the right relation was restored, but whether it agrees again with God's sovereign will.

He that delivers a debtor from imprisonment by paying his debts restores him to his right relation to his former creditors, even though the prisoner himself did not pay a farthing of the debt. Because righteousness has reference to mutual relations, the right is satisfied as soon as the disturbed relation is restored and the lost position recovered. How it was accomplished is immaterial.

This gives us a deeper insight into the profound significance of the cross, and why it is that our righteousness can not be increased nor decreased, although it does not affect our essential character.

Entirely different is the soul's holiness, which touches directly the quality of person and character; as our ancient theologians correctly expressed it: "Justification acts for man; sanctification inheres in man."

The ungodly is justified, ie., the very moment that he believes; before sanctification has begun to operate in him, he knows that he stands before God perfectly right. He is not merely beginning to be right; partly right, to be a little more right to-morrow, and perfectly right when he enters heaven; but perfectly right now, henceforth, and forevermore. He is righted not only for the present and for all eternity, but also for the past. He is assured of standing before God in flawless right, as though be had never been wrong, nor ever could be wrong again.

Hence the consciousness of being justified is instantaneous and at once complete, and can not be increased nor decreased. And this is possible because this righteousness has nothing to do with his being, but has exclusive reference to the relation in which be sees himself placed. This relation was miserable and wholly unrighteous; but another, outside of himself, has restored that relation and made it what it ought to be. Hence he stands right, without any reference whatever to his personal being. This is the deep significance of the confession that he who is justified is always an ungodly person.

But this is not the case in regard to man's holiness; that touches his person and can act be effected outside of his inward being.

The Difference Between Justification & Sanctification; Or, Righteousness Imputed & Grace Imparted

by Ralph Erskine (1685-1752)

The following selection is taken from Erkine's Gospel Sonnets as found in "The Sermons and Practical Works of Ralph Erskine" (Glasgow: W. Smith and J. Bryce Booksellers, 1778) vol. 10, pp. 283-290. The original title appears as follows: "The Believer's Principles concerning Justification and Sanctification, their Difference and Harmony"

Kind Jesus spent his life to spin

My robe of perfect righteousness;

But by his Spirit's work within

He forms my gracious holy dress.

He as a Priest me justifies,

His blood does roaring conscience still;

But as a King he sanctifies,

And subjugates my stubborn will.

He justifying by his merit,

Imputes to me his righteousness;

But sanctifying by his Spirit,

Infuses in me saving grace.

My justifying righteousness

Can merit by condignity;

But nothing with my strongest grace

Can be deserv'd by naughty me.

This justifying favour sets,

The guilt of all my sin remote:

But sanctifying grace delets

The filth and blackness of its blot.

The former is my Judge's act

Of condonation full and free:

The latter his commenced fact,

And gradual work advanc'd in me.

The former's instantaneous,

The moment that I first believe:

The latter is, as Heav'n allows,

Progressive while on earth I live.

The former pardons ev'ry sin,

And counts me righteous, free, and just:

The latter quickens grace within,

And mortifies my sin and lust.

My righteousness is infinite,

Both subjectively and in kind;

My holiness most incomplete,

And daily wavers like the wind.

So lasting is my outer dress,

It never wears nor waxes old;

My inner garb of grace decays

And fades, if Heav'n do not uphold.

My righteousness and pardon is

At once most perfect and complete;

But sanctity admits degrees,

Does vary, fluctuate, and fleet.

Hence fix'd, my righteousness divine

No real change can undergo;

But all my graces wax and wane,

By various turnings ebb and flow.

I'm by the first as righteous now,

As e'er hereafter I can be:

The last will to perfection grow,

Heav'n only is the full degree.

The first is equal, wholly giv'n,

And still the same in ev'ry saint;

The last unequal and unev'n,

While some enjoy what others want.

My righteousness divine is fresh,

For ever pure and heav'nly both;

My sanctity is partly flesh,

And justly term'd a menstrual cloth.

My righteousness I magnify,

'Tis my triumphant lofty flag;

But, pois'd with this, my sanctity

Is nothing but a filthy rag.

I glory in my righteousness,

And loud extol it with my tongue;

But all my grace, compar'd with this,

I under-rate as loss and dung.

By justifying grace I'm apt

Of divine favour free to boast;

By holiness I'm partly shap'd

Into his image I had lost.

The first to divine justice pays

A rent to still the furious storm;

The last to divine holiness

Instructs me duly to perform.

The first does quench the fiery law,

Its rigor cov'nant fully stay;

The last its rule embroider'd draw,

To deck my heart, and gild my way.

Though all my graces precious are,

Yea, perfect also in desire;

They cannot stand before the bar

Where awful justice is umpire:

But, in the robe that Christ did spin,

They are of great and hight request;

They have acceptance wrapt within

My elder Brother's bloody vest.

My righteousness proclaims me great

And fair, even in the sight of God;

But sanctity's my main off-set

Before the gazing world abroad.

More justify'd I cannot be

By all my most religious acts;

But these increase my sanctity,

That's still attended with defects.

My righteousness the safest ark

'Midst ev'ry threat'ning flood will be;

My graces but a leaking bark

Upon a stormy raging sea.

My righteousness is that which draws

My thankful heart to this respect:

The former then is first the cause,

The latter is the sweet effect.

Christ is in justifying me,

By name, The Lord my righteousness:

But as he comes to sanctify,

The Lord my strength and help he is.

The former does annul my woe,

By God's judicial sentence past;

The latter makes my graces grow,

Faith, love, repentance, and the rest.

The first does divine pard'ning love

Most freely manifest to me;

The last makes shining graces prove

Mine int'rest in the pardon free.

My soul in justifying grace

Does full and free acceptance gain;

In sanctity I heav'nward press

By sweet assistance I obtain.

The first declares I'm free of debt,

And nothing left for me to pay;

The last makes me a debtor yet,

But helps to pay it ev'ry day.

My righteousness with wounds and blood

Discharg'd both law and justice' score;

Hence with the debt of gratitude

I'll charge myself for evermore.

The following selection is taken from "The Beaties of Erskine" (1745), and it appears below as it was orginally printed. An additional selection is presented below under the title, "The Baxterian Scheme opposite to the Gospel Doctrine," and refers to the views of Richard Baxter and his followers. This brief paragraph includes the original footnote (a selection from "Marshall" on the subject of Sanctification).

1. In Justification, God loves us, and shows his love in Christ; in sanctification we love God, and show our love to him: for the sum of active holiness is love, which is the fulfilling of the law.

2. In justification, we have the favour of God; in sanctification, we have the image of God and the special part of his image is love.

3. In justification, we are passive, as when God set his love upon us; but in sanctification, we are active, while his love causes us to act in loving him.

4. Justification is God's act of love without us, in and through the merit and righteousness of Christ imputed to us; sanctification is God's work of grace within us, by the Spirit of Christ imparted to us as a Spirit of love, as well as of other graces.

5. Justification is perfect, equal, and always the same, like the love of God the original cause, and the righteousness of Christ the meritorious cause of it; but sanctification is imperfect, unequal, and changeable, for the love of the saints is up and down.

6. Justification is the cause, sanctification is the effect; even as God's love is the cause of our love.

7. Faith in justification is an instrument, receiving Christ as the Lord our righteousness, and apprehending the love and mercy of God in him; but faith in sanctification is an agent, employing Christ as the Lord our strength, to enable us to manifest our love to, him.

Thus we see the priority of divine love and favour, and acceptation and justification, before any work of ours; and so how any can maintain that actual gospel repentance, which must be a work of ours, and a piece of sanctification at least, doth go before and is necessary in order to justification, let the judicious reader consider, without receding from our standards, and binding their faith to the belt of any fallible creatures, councils, or acts. That legal repentance, or humiliation and conviction, and sense of sin, do go before justification, in order of divine operation, is plain; and that habitual sanctification or regeneration is also precious, is not denied but that gospel repentance, or any part of actual sanctification, is necessary in order to justification and pardon, I do not see how it is possible to maintain that, without running into the Roman camp, and fighting with Popish weapons, and inverting the order of our text, making any part of our love to God necessary first, in order to God's loving us. But sure God's method of doing will stand in spite of earth and hell; "We love him. because he first loved us."

The Baxterian Scheme Opposite to the Gospel Doctrine

The Baxterians tell us that God hath made a new law with mankind, and, that obedience to this new law and its commands is our righteousness; and that, this obedience gives us a title to heaven, and a title to Christ's blood, and to pardon; and that the act of faith is our righteousness, not as it accepts of Christ's righteousness, but as it is an obedience to this new law. The very act and work of faith is, according to them, the righteousness itself and this faith includes all kinds of works, namely, repentance, love, obedience, and ten or twelve duties of that sort; and all these together are our righteousness for justification. Really as one says upon this very head, if the Apostle Paul were alive he would excommunicate such ministers.*

*Those that endeavour to perform sincere obedience to all the commands of Christ, as the condition whereby they are to procure for themselves a right and title to salvation, and a good ground to trust on him for the same, do seek their salvation by the works of the law, and not by the faith of Christ as he is, revealed in the gospel and they shall never be able to perform sincerely any true holy obedience by all such endeavours. For,

First, All that seek salvation by the sincere performance of good works, as the procuring condition, are condemned by the apostle Paul, for seeking righteousness by the works of the law, and not by faith, Rom. ix. 32. and for seeking to be justified by the law, and falling from the grace of Christ, Gal. v. 4. This one assertion, if it can be proved, is enough to pluck off the fallacious vizard from the condition of sincere obedience, and to make man abhor it as a damning legal doctrine, that bereaveth its followers of all salvation by Christ. And the proof of it is not difficult. The Jews and Judaizing Christians, against whom the apostle chiefly disputed in his whole controversy, did not profess any hope of being justified by perfect obedience, according to the rigour of the law, but only by such obedience as they accounted to be sincere and not hypocritical. And they might as readily judge sincere obedience to be the condition of justification under the law, as we can judge it to be the condition under the gospel. And the apostle evidently condemns them for seeking salvation by their own works. And they could as well acknowledge their salvation to be by faith as the assertors of salvation by sincere obedience can in these days; for they accounted that their sincere obedience was wrought in them by believing the word of God, which contained gospel as well as legal doctrine in it, and therfore it must be included in the nature of faith, if faith were taken for the condition of their whole salvation. Let the assertors of the condition of sincere obedience learn from hence that they are building again that Judaism which the apostle Paul destroyed, whereby the Jews stumbled at Christ, Rom. ix. 32. and the Galatians were in danger of falling from Christ and grace, Gal. v.2, 4. and let them beware of falling under the curse which he hath denounced, on this very occasion, against any man or angel that shall preach any other gospel than that which he hath preached.

Secondly, The difference between the law and the gospel doth not all consist in this, that the one requireth perfect doing, the other only sincere doing, but in this, that the one requireth doing, the other not doing but believing, for life and salvation. Their terms are different, not only in degree, but in their whole nature.

Thirdly, Christ or his apostles never taught a gospel that requireth such a condition of works for salvation as they plead for. The texts of scripture which they usually allege for their purpose, are either contrary to it or widely distant from it. I shall instance briefly only in a few of these texts. That obedience of faith mentioned by the apostle Paul, as the great design of gospel preaching, Rom. i. 5. is as contrary to their condition of sincere obedience for salvation as the law of faith is to the law of works, Rom. iii. 23. It is an obedience that consisteth in believing the report of the gospel, as the apostle explaineth himself, Rom. x. 16. They have not all obeyed the gospel, for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? Faith is to be imputed for righteousness, not because it is a work of righteousness itself, but because we do by it renounce all confidence in any righteous works whatsoever, and trust on him that justifieth the ungodly, as is clear by that very text which they usually pervert for their purpose, Rom. iv. 5. They grossly pervert these words of Paul, Rom. ii. 6, 7. "Who will render to every man according to his deeds; to them who, by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honour, and immortality, eternal life;" where they will have Paul to be declaring the terms of the gospel, when be is evidently declaring the terms of the law, to prove that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, and that no flesh can be justified by the works of the law, as appeareth by the tenor of his following discourse, Rom. iii. 9, 10. They join evidently with the Papists, against the concurrent judgment of the best Protestant divines, in the interpretation of the text, James ii. 24. "You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only;" where they will have James to deliver the doctrine of justification in more proper expressions than the apostle Paul, who teacheth justification by faith without works, though Paul treated on this doctrine as his principal subject, and James doth only speak of it occasionally as a motive to the practice of good works, whereby we may easily judge which of their expressions are to be taken for the most proper. Protestants have showed sufficiently, that James speaketh not of a true saving faith, but of such a dead faith as devils have; not of justification in a proper sense, but of the declaration and manifestation of it by its fruits. Besides he speaks of justification by works as commanded in the law given by Moses, as appeareth by his citing the commandments of the law, ver. 8, 11. which our contrivers of the new divinity would have nothing to do with in their model of the doctrine of justification. Another text alleged by them, is, Rev. xxii. 14. "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." But the Greek word which is here translated right, is translated power or privilege, John 1. 12. It signifieth here, a rightful possession of the fruit of the tree of life, and not a mere title to it. So this text proveth no more than what the Protestants generally aknowledge that good works are the way wherein we are to walk to the enjoyment and possession of the glory of Christ; though a title to Christ and his glorious salvation be freely [given] without any procuring condition of works. They account also, that when the happiness of heaven is called a reward, it must needs imply a procuring condition of words, as Rev. xxii. 12. Mat. v. 12. But though it be called a reward, because it is given after the doing of good works, and because it recompenseth good works better than any wages on earth can recompense the labourer, yet it is a reward of grace, not of debt, Rom. iv. 4. It is no proper wages, but a free gift, Rom. vi. 24. "For the wages of sin, is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." --Marshall on Sanctification.

Faith and Works

by J. Gresham Machen

Because of the fundamental nature of faith, as it has been set forth, on the basis of the New Testament teaching, in the last chapter, it is natural to find that in the New Testament faith, as the reception of a free gift, is placed in sharpest contrast with any intrusion of human merit; it is natural to find that faith is sharply contrasted with works. The contrast is really implied by the New Testament throughout, and in one book, the Epistle to the Galatians, it forms the express subject of the argument. That book from the beginning to the end is a mighty polemic in defence of the doctrine of justification by faith alone; and as such it has rightly been called the Magna Charta of Christian liberty. At the beginning of the sixteenth century the world was lying in darkness; but God then raised up a man who read this Epistle with his own eyes, and the Reformation was born. So it may be in our own day. Again, the world is sinking into bondage; the liberty of the sons of God is again giving place to the bondage of a religion of merit: but God still lives, and His Spirit again may bring the charter of our liberty to light.

Meanwhile a strange darkness covers the eyes of men; the message of the great Epistle, so startlingly clear to the man whose eyes have been opened, is hidden by a mass of misinterpretation as absurd in its way as the mediaeval rubbish of the fourfold sense of Scripture which the Reformation brushed aside. Grammatico-historical interpretation is still being favored in theory, but despite is being done to it (by preachers if not by scholars) in practice; and the Apostle is being made to say anything that men wish him to have said. A new Reformation, we think, like the Reformation of the sixteenth century, would be marked, among other things, by a return to plain common sense; and the Apostle would be allowed, despite our likes and dislikes, to say what he really meant to say.

But what did the Apostle, in the Epistle to the Galatians, really mean to say; against what was he writing in that great polemic; and what was he setting up in place of that which he was endeavoring to destroy?

The answer which many modern writers are giving to this question is that the Apostle is arguing merely against an external ceremonial religion in the interests of a religion based on great principles; that he is arguing against a piecemeal conception of morality which makes morality consist in a series of disconnected rules, in the interests of a conception that draws out human conduct naturally from a central root in love; that he is arguing, in other words, against the “letter of the law” in the interests of its “spirit.”

This interpretation, we think, involves an error which cuts away the very vitals of the Christian religion. Like other fatal errors, indeed, it does contain an element of truth; in one passage, at least, in the Epistle to the Galatians Paul does seem to point to the external character of the ceremonial law as being inferior to the higher (or to use modern terminology, more “spiritual”) stage to which religion, under the new dispensation, had come. But that passage is isolated merely, and certainly does not in itself give the key to the meaning of the Epistle. On the contrary, even in that passage, when it is taken in its context, the inferiority of the old dispensation as involving ceremonial requirements is really put merely as a sign of an inferiority that is deeper still; and it is that deeper inferiority which the Epistle as a whole is concerned to set forth. The ceremonial character of the Old Testament law, so inferior to the inwardness of the new dispensation, was intended by God to mark the inferiority of any dispensation of law as distinguished from a dispensation of grace.

Of course a word of caution should again at this point be injected. Paul never means to say that the old dispensation was merely a dispensation of law; he always admits, and indeed insists upon, the element of grace which ran through it from beginning to end, the element of grace which appeared in the Promise. But his opponents in Galatia had rejected that element of grace; and their use of the Old Testament law, as distinguished from its right use as a schoolmaster unto Christ, really made of the old dispensation a dispensation of law and nothing more.

What then, according to Paul, was the real, underlying inferiority of that dispensation of law; how was it to be contrasted with the new dispensation which Christ had ushered in? It is hard to see how the answer to this question can really be regarded as obscure: the Apostle has poured forth his very soul to make the matter plain. Most emphatically the contrast was not between a lower law and a higher law; it was not between an external, piecemeal conception of the law and a conception which reduces it to great underlying principles; but it was a contrast between any kind of law, no matter how sublimated, provided only it be conceived of as a way of obtaining merit, and the absolutely free grace of God.

This contrast is entirely missed by the interpretation that prevails popularly in the Modernist Church: the advocates of “salvation by character” have supposed that the polemic of the Apostle was turned merely against certain forgotten ceremonialists of long ago, while in reality it is turned quite as much against them. It is turned, indeed, against any man who seeks to stand in God’s sight on the basis of his own merit instead of on the basis of the sacrifice which Christ offered to satisfy divine justice upon the cross. The truth is that the prevailing Modernist interpretation of Galatians, which is in some respects apparently just the interpretation favored by the Roman Church, makes the Apostle say almost the exact opposite of what he means.

The Modernist return to mediaevalism in the interpretation of Galatians is no isolated thing, but is only one aspect of a misinterpretation of the whole Bible; in particular it is closely akin to a misinterpretation of a great sentence in one of the other Epistles of Paul. The sentence to which we refer is found in II Corinthians iii. 6: “The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.”

That sentence is perhaps the most frequently misused utterance in the whole Bible. It has indeed in this respect much competition: many phrases in the New Testament are being used today to mean almost their exact opposite, as for example, when the words, “God in Christ” and the like, are made to be an expression of the vague pantheism so popular just now, or as when the entire gospel of redemption is regarded as a mere symbol of an optimistic view of man against which that doctrine was in reality a stupendous protest, or as when the doctrine of the incarnation is represented as indicating the essential oneness of God and man! One is reminded constantly at the present time of the way in which the Gnostics of the second century used Biblical texts to support their thoroughly unBiblical systems. The historical method of study, in America at least, is very generally being abandoned; and the New Testament writers are being made to say almost anything that twentieth-century readers could have wished them to say.

This abandonment of scientific historical method in exegesis, which is merely one manifestation of the intellectual decadence of our day, appears at countless points in contemporary religious literature; but at no point does it appear with greater clearness than in connection with the great utterance in II Corinthians to which we have referred, The words: “The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life,” are constantly interpreted to mean that we are perfectly justified in taking the law of God with a grain of salt; they are held to indicate that Paul was no “literalist,” but a “Liberal,” who believed that the Old Testament was not true in detail and the Old Testament law was not valid in detail, but that all God requires is that we should extract the few great principles which the Bible teaches and not insist upon the rest. In short, the words are held to involve a contrast between the letter of the law and “the spirit of the law”; they are herd to mean that literalism is deadly, while attention to great principles keeps a man intellectually and spiritually alive.

Thus has one of the greatest utterances in the New Testament been reduced to comparative triviality — a triviality with a kernel of truth in it, to be sure, but triviality all the same. The triviality, indeed, is merely relative; no doubt it is important to observe that attention to the general sense of a book or a law is far better than such a reading of details as that the context in which the details are found is ignored. But all that is quite foreign to the meaning of the Apostle in this passage, and is, though quite true and quite important in its place, trivial in comparison with the tremendous thing that Paul is here endeavoring to say.

What Paul is really doing here is not contrasting the letter of the law with the spirit of the law, but contrasting the law of God with the Spirit of God. When he says, “The letter killeth,” he is making no contemptuous reference to a pedantic literalism which shrivels the soul; but he is setting forth the terrible majesty of God’s law. The letter, the “thing written,” in the law of God, says Paul, pronounces a dread sentence of death upon the transgressor; but the Holy Spirit of God, as distinguished from the law, gives life.

The law of God, Paul means, is, as law, external. It is God’s holy will to which we must conform; but it contains in itself no promise of its fulfilment; it is one thing to have the law written, and quite another thing to have it obeyed. In fact, because of the sinfulness of our hearts, because of the power of the flesh, the recognition of God’s law only makes sin take on the definite form of transgression; it only makes sin more exceeding sinful. The law of God was written on tables of stone or on the rolls of the Old Testament books, but it was quite a different thing to get it written in the hearts and lives of the people. So it is today. The text is of very wide application. The law of God, however it comes to us, is “letter”; it is a “thing written.” external to the hearts and lives of men. It is written in the Old Testament; it is written in the Sermon on the Mount; it is written in Jesus’ stupendous command of love for God and one’s neighbor; it is written in whatever way we become conscious of the commands of God. Let no one say that such an extension of the text involves that very anti-historical modernizing which we have just denounced; on the contrary it is amply justified by Paul himself. “When the Gentiles,” Paul says, “which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.”1 The Old Testament law is just a clear, authentic presentation of a law of God under which all men stand.

And that law, according to Paul, issues a dreadful sentence of eternal death. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die”; not the hearer of the law is justified but the doer of it. And, alas, none are doers; all have sinned. The law of God is holy and just and good; it is inexorable; and we have fallen under its just condemnation.

That is at bottom what Paul means by the words, “The letter killeth.” He does not mean that attention to pedantic details shrivels and deadens the soul. No doubt that is true, at least within certain limits; it is a useful thought. But it is trivial indeed compared with what Paul means. Something far more majestic, far more terrible, is meant by the Pauline phrase. The “letter” that the Apostle means is the same as the curse of God’s law that he speaks of in Galatians; it is the dreadful handwriting of ordinances that was against us; and the death with which it kills is the eternal death of those who are forever separated from God.

But that is not all of the text. “The letter killeth,” Paul says, “but the Spirit giveth life.” There is no doubt about what be means by “the Spirit.” He does not mean the “spirit of the law” as contrasted with the letter; be certainly does not mean the lax interpretation of God’s commands which is dictated by human lust or pride; he certainly does not mean the spirit of man. No real student of Paul, whatever be his own religious views, can doubt, I think, but that the Apostle means the Spirit of God. God’s law brings death because of sin; but God’s Spirit, applying to the soul the redemption offered by Christ, brings life. The thing that is written killeth; but the Holy Spirit, in the new birth, or, as Paul says, the new creation, giveth life.

The contrast runs all through the New Testament. Hopelessness under the law is described, for example, in the seventh chapter of Romans. “Oh wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”2 But this hopelessness is transcended by the gospel. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”3 The law’s just sentence of condemnation was borne for us by Christ who suffered in our stead; the handwriting of ordinances which was against us — the dreadful “letter” — was nailed to the cross, and we have a fresh start in the full favor of God. And in addition to this new and right relation to God, the Spirit of God also gives the sinner a new birth and makes him a new creature. The New Testament from beginning to end deals gloriously with this work of grace. The giving of life of which Paul speaks in this text is the new birth, the new creation; it is Christ who liveth in us. Here is the fulfillment of the great prophecy of Jeremiah: “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.”4 The law is no longer for the Christian a command which it is for him by his own strength to obey, but its requirements are fulfilled through the mighty power of the Holy Spirit. There is the glorious freedom of the gospel. The gospel does not abrogate God’s law, but it makes men love it with all their hearts.

How is it with us? The law of God stands over us; we have offended against it in thought, word and deed; its majestic “letter” pronounces a sentence of death against our sin. Shall we obtain a specious security by ignoring God’s law, and by taking refuge in an easier law of our own devising? Or shall the Lord Jesus, as He is offered to us in the gospel, wipe out the sentence of condemnation that was against us, and shall the Holy Spirit write God’s law in our heart, and make us doers of the law and not hearers only? So and only so will the great text be applied to us: “The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.”

The alternative that underlies this verse, then, and that becomes explicit in Galatians also, is not an alternative between an external or ceremonial religion and what men would now call (by a misuse of the New Testament word) a “spiritual” religion, important though that alternative no doubt is; but it is an alternative between a religion of merit and a religion of grace. The Epistle to the Galatians is directed just as much against the modern notion of “salvation by character” or salvation by “making Christ Master” in the life or salvation by a mere attempt to put into practice “the principles of Jesus,” as it is directed against the Jewish ceremonialists of long ago: for what the Apostle is concerned to deny is any intrusion of human merit into the work by which salvation is obtained. That work, according to the Epistle to the Galatians and according to the whole New Testament, is the work of God and of God alone.

At this point appears the full poignancy of the great Epistle with which we have been dealing. Paul is not merely arguing that a man is justified by faith — so much no doubt his opponents, the Judaizers, admitted — but he is arguing that a man is justified by faith alone. What the Judaizers said was not that a man is justified by works, but that he is justified by faith and works — exactly the thing that is being taught by the Roman Catholic Church today. No doubt they admitted that it was necessary for a man to have faith in Christ in order to be saved: but they held that it was also necessary for him to keep the law the best he could; salvation, according to them, was not by faith alone and not by works alone but by faith and works together. A man’s obedience to the law of God, they held, was not indeed, sufficient for salvation, but it was necessary; and it became sufficient when it was supplemented by Christ.

Against this compromising solution of the problem, the Apostle insists upon a sharp alternative: a man may be saved by works (if he keeps the law perfectly), or he may be saved by faith; but he cannot possibly be saved by faith and works together. Christ, according to Paul, will do everything or nothing; if righteousness is in slightest measure obtained by our obedience to the law, then Christ died in vain; if we trust in slightest measure in our own good works, then we have turned away from grace and Christ profiteth us nothing.

To the world, that may seem to be a hard saying: but it is not a hard saying to the man who has ever been at the foot of the Cross; it is not a hard saying to the man who has first known the bondage of the law, the weary effort at establishment of his own righteousness in the presence of God, and then has come to understand, as in a wondrous flash of light, that Christ has done all, and that the weary bondage was vain. What a great theologian is the Christian heart — the Christian heart that has been touched by redeeming grace! The man who has felt the burden of sin roll away at the sight of the Cross, who has said of the Lord Jesus, “He loved me and gave Himself for me,” who has sung with Toplady: “Nothing in my hand I bring, Simply to Thy cross I cling” — that man knows in his heart of hearts that the Apostle is right, that to trust Christ only for part is not to trust Him at all, that our own righteousness is insufficient even to bridge the smallest gap which might be left open between us and God, that there is no hope unless we can safely say to the Lord Jesus, without shadow of reservation, without shadow of self-trust: “Thou must save, and Thou alone.”

That is the centre of the Christian religion — the absolutely undeserved and sovereign grace of God, saving sinful men by the gift of Christ upon the cross. Condemnation comes by merit; salvation comes only by grace: condemnation is earned by man; salvation is given by God. The fact of the grace of God runs through the New Testament like a golden thread; indeed for it the New Testament exists. It is found in the words which Jesus spoke in the days of His flesh, as in the parables of the servant coming in from the field and of the laborers in the vineyard; it is found more fully set forth after the redeeming work was done, after the Lord had uttered his triumphant “It is finished” upon the cross. Everywhere the basis of the New Testament is the same — the mysterious, incalculable, wondrous, grace of God, “The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”5

The reception of that gift is faith: faith means not doing something but receiving something; it means not the earning of a reward but the acceptance of a gift. A man can never be said to obtain a thing for himself if be obtains it by faith; indeed to say that he obtains it by faith is only another way of saying that he does not obtain it for himself but permits another to obtain it for him. Faith, in other words, is not active but passive; and to say that we are saved by faith is to say that we do not save ourselves but are saved only by the one in whom our faith is reposed; the faith of man presupposes the sovereign grace of God.

Even yet, however, we have not sounded the full depths of the New Testament teaching; we have not yet fully set forth the place in salvation which the Bible assigns to the grace of God. A sort of refuge, in what we have said so far, may seem to have been left for the pride of man. Man does not save himself, we have said; God saves him. But man accepts that salvation by faith; and faith, though a negative act, seems to be a kind of act: salvation is freely offered by God; the offer of it does not depend at all upon man; yet a man might seem to obtain a sort of merit by not resisting that offer when once it is given him by God.

But even this last refuge of human pride is searched out and destroyed by the teaching of God’s Word; for the Bible represents even faith itself — little merit as it could in any case involve — as the work of the Spirit of God. The Spirit, according to a true summary of the New Testament, works faith in us and thereby unites us to Christ in our effectual calling; sovereign and resistless is God’s grace; and our faith is merely the means which the Spirit uses to apply to us the benefits of Christ’s redeeming work.

The means was of God’s choosing, not ours; and it is not for us to say, “What doest Thou?” Yet even we, weak and ignorant though we are, can see, I think, why this particular means was chosen to unite us to Christ; why faith was chosen instead of love, for example, as the channel by which salvation could enter into our lives. Love is active; faith is passive; hence faith not love was chosen. If the Bible had said that we are saved by love, then even though our love was altogether the gift of the Spirit, we might have thought that it was our own, and so we might have claimed salvation as our right. But as it is, not only were we saved by grace, but because of the peculiar means which God used to save us, we knew that we were saved by grace; it was of the very nature of faith to make us know that we were not saving ourselves. Even before we could love as we ought to love, even before we could do anything or feel anything aright, we were saved by faith; we were saved by abandoning all confidence in our own thoughts or feelings or actions and by simply allowing ourselves to be saved by God.

In one sense, indeed, we were saved by love; that indeed is an even profounder fact than that we were saved by faith. Yes, we were saved by love, but it was by a greater love than the love in our cold and sinful hearts; we were saved by love, but it was not our love for God but God’s love for us, God’s love for us by which he gave the Lord Jesus to die for us upon the cross. “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” That love alone is the love that saves. And the means by which it saves is faith.

Thus the beginning of the Christian life is not an achievement but an experience; the soul of the man who is saved is not, at the moment of salvation, active, but passive; salvation is the work of God and God alone. That does not mean that the Christian is unconscious when salvation enters his life; it does not mean that he is placed in a trance, or that his ordinary faculties are in abeyance; on the contrary the great transition often seems to be a very simple thing; overpowering emotional stress is by no means always present; and faith is always a conscious condition of the soul. There is, moreover, a volitional aspect of faith, in which it appears to the man who believes to be induced by a conscious effort of his will, a conscious effort of his will by which he resolves to cease trying to save himself and resolves to accept, instead, the salvation offered by Christ. The preacher of the gospel ought to appeal, we think, in every way in his power, to the conscious life of the man whom he is trying to win; he ought to remove intellectual objections against the truth of Christianity, and adduce positive arguments; he ought to appeal to the emotions; he ought to seek, by exhortation, to move the will. All these means may be used, and have been used countless times, by the Spirit of God; and certainly, we have not intended to disparage them by anything that we have just said. But what we do maintain is that though necessary they are not sufficient; they will never bring a man to faith in Christ unless there is with them the mysterious, regenerating power of the Spirit of God. We are not presuming to treat here the psychology of faith; and certainly we do not think that such a psychology of faith is at all necessary to the man who believes; indeed the less he thinks about his own states of consciousness and the more be thinks about Christ the better it will often be for his soul. But this much at least can be said: even conscious states can be induced in supernatural fashion by the Spirit of God, and such a conscious state is the faith by which a man first accepts Christ as his Saviour from sin.

But if the beginning of the Christian life is thus not an achievement but an experience, if a man is not really active, but passive, when be is saved, if faith is to be placed in sharp contrast with works, what becomes of the ethical character of the Christian religion, what becomes of the stimulus which it has always given to human individuality and to the sense of human worth, what becomes of the vigorous activity which, in marked contrast with some of the other great religions of the world, it has always encouraged in its adherents? Such questions are perfectly legitimate; and they show that we are very far from having given, up to the present point, any adequate account of the relation, in the Christian religion, between faith and works, or between doctrine and life.

That relation must therefore now be examined, though still briefly, a little more in detail.

The examination may best be begun by a consideration of what has been regarded by some devout readers of the Bible as a serious difficulty, namely the apparent contradiction between the second chapter of Galatians and the second chapter of the Epistle of James. “A man is not justified by the works of the law, but only through faith in Christ Jesus,” says Paul;7 “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only,” says James.8 These two verses in their juxtaposition constitute an ancient Biblical difficulty. In the verse from Galatians a man is said to become right with God by faith alone apart from works; in the verse from James he is said to become right with God not by faith alone but by faith and works. If the verses are taken out of their wider context and placed side by side, a contradiction could scarcely seem to be more complete.

The Pauline doctrine of justification by faith alone, which we have just treated at considerable length, is, as we have seen, the very foundation of Christian liberty. It makes our standing with God dependent not at all upon what we have done, but altogether upon what God has done. If our salvation depended upon what we had done, then, according to Paul, we should still be bondslaves; we should still be endeavoring feverishly to keep God’s law so well that at the end we might possibly win His favor. It would be a hopeless endeavor because of the deadly guilt of sin; we should be like debtors endeavoring to pay, but in the very effort getting deeper and deeper into debt. But as it is, in accordance with the gospel, God has granted us His favor as an absolutely free gift; He has brought us into right relation to Himself not on the basis of any merit of ours, but altogether on the basis of the merit of Christ. Great is the guilt of our sins; but Christ took it all upon Himself when He died for us on Calvary. We do not need, then, to make ourselves good before we become God’s children; but we can come to God just as we are, all laden with our sins, and be quite certain that the guilt of sin will be removed and that we shall be received. When God looks upon us, to receive us or to cast us off, it is not us that He regards but our great Advocate, Christ Jesus the Lord.

Such is the glorious certainty of the gospel. The salvation of the Christian is certain because it depends altogether upon God; if it depended in slightest measure upon us, the certainty of it would be gone. Hence appears the vital importance of the great Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone; that doctrine is at the very centre of Christianity. It means that acceptance with God is not something that we earn; it is not something that is subject to the wretched uncertainties of human endeavor; but it is a free gift of God. It may seem strange that we should be received by the holy God as His children; but God has chosen to receive us; it has been done on His responsibility not ours; He has a right to receive whom He will into His presence; and in the mystery of His grace He has chosen to receive us.

That central doctrine of the Christian faith is really presupposed in the whole New Testament; but it is made particularly plain in the Epistles of Paul. It is such passages as the eighth chapter of Romans, the second and third chapters of Galatians, and the fifth chapter of II Corinthians, which set forth in plainest fashion the very centre of the gospel.

But in the Epistle of James there seems at first sight to be a discordant note in this great New Testament chorus. “Ye see then,” says James, “how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” If that means that a man is pronounced righteous before God partly because of the merit of his own works and only partly because of the sacrifice of Christ accepted by faith, then James holds exactly the position of the bitter opponents of Paul who are combated in the Epistle to the Galatians. Those opponents, the “Judaizers” as they are called, held, as we have seen, that faith in Christ is necessary to salvation (in that they agreed with Paul), but they held that the merit of one’s own observance of the law of God is also necessary. A man is saved, not by faith alone and not by works alone, but by faith and works together — that was apparently the formula of the Judaizing opponents of Paul. The Apostle rightly saw that that formula meant a return to bondage. If Christ saves us only part way, and leaves a gap to be filled up by our own good works, then we can never be certain that we are saved. The awakened conscience sees clearly that our own obedience to God’s law is not the kind of obedience that is really required; it is not that purity of the heart which is demanded by the teaching and example of our Lord. Our obedience to the law is insufficient to bridge even the smallest gap; we are unprofitable servants, and if we ever enter into an account with our Judge we are undone. Christ has done nothing for us or He has done everything; to depend even in smallest measure upon our own merit is the very essence of unbelief; we must trust Christ for nothing or we must trust Him for all. Such is the teaching of the Epistle to the Galatians.

But in the Epistle of James we seem at first sight to be in a different circle of ideas. “Justified by faith alone,” says Paul; “Justified not by faith alone,” says James. It has been a difficulty to many readers of the Bible. But like other apparent contradictions in the Bible, it proves to be a contradiction merely of form and not of content; and it serves only to lead the devout reader into a deeper and fuller understanding of the truth.

The solution of the difficulty appears in the definition of the word “faith.” The apparent contradiction is due simply to the fact that when James in this chapter says that “faith” alone is insufficient, he means a different thing by the word “faith” from that which Paul means by it when he says that faith is all-sufficient. The kind of faith which James is pronouncing insufficient is made clear in the nineteenth verse of the same chapter: “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” The kind of faith which James pronounces insufficient is the faith which the devils also have; it is a mere intellectual apprehension of the facts about God or Christ, and it involves no acceptance of those facts as a gift of God to one’s own soul. But it is not that kind of faith which Paul means when he says that a man is saved by faith alone. Faith is indeed intellectual; it involves an apprehension of certain things as facts; and vain is the modern effort to divorce faith from knowledge. But although faith is intellectual, it is not only intellectual. You cannot have faith without having knowledge; but you will not have faith if you have only knowledge. Faith is the acceptance of a gift at the hands of Christ. We cannot accept the gift without knowing certain things about the gift and about the giver. But we might know all those things and still not accept the gift. We might know what the gift is and still not accept it. Knowledge is thus absolutely necessary to faith, but it is not all that is necessary. Christ comes offering us that right relation to God which He wrought for us on the cross. Shall we accept the gift or shall we hold it in disdain? The acceptance of the gift is called faith, It is a very wonderful thing; it involves a change of the whole nature of man; it involves a new hatred of sin and a new hunger and thirst after righteousness. Such a wonderful change is not the work of man; faith itself is given us by the Spirit of God. Christians never make themselves Christians; but they are made Christians by God.

All that is clear from what has already been said. But it is quite inconceivable that a man should be given this faith in Christ, that he should accept this gift which Christ offers, and still go on contentedly in sin. For the very thing which Christ offers us is salvation from sin — not only salvation from the guilt of sin, but also salvation from the power of sin. The very first thing that the Christian does, therefore, is to keep the law of God: he keeps it no longer as a way of earning his salvation — for salvation has been given him freely by God — but he keeps it joyously as a central part of salvation itself. The faith of which Paul speaks is, as Paul himself says, a faith that works through love; and love is the fulfilling of the whole law. Paul would have agreed fully with James that the faith of which James speaks in our passage is quite insufficient for salvation. The faith that Paul means when he speaks of justification by faith alone is a faith that works.

But if the faith regarded insufficient by James is different from the faith commended by Paul, so also the works commended by James are different from the works regarded inefficacious by Paul. Paul is speaking of works of the law, heis speaking of works that are intended to acquire merit in order that God’s favor may be earned; James on the other hand is speaking of works like Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac that are the result of faith and show that faith is real faith.

The difference, then, between Paul and James is a difference of terminology, not of meaning. That difference of terminology shows that the Epistle of James was written at a very early time, before the controversy with the Judaizers had arisen and before the terminology had become fixed. If James had been writing after the terminology had become fixed, what he would have said is that although a man is justified by faith alone and not at all by works, yet one must be sure that the faith is real faith and not a mere intellectual assent like that of the demons who believe and tremble. What he actually does is to say just that in different words. James is not correcting Paul, then; he is not even correcting a misinterpretation of Paul; but he is unconsciously preparing for Paul; he is preparing well for the clearer and more glorious teaching of the great Epistles.

The Epistle of James ought to be given its due place in the nurture of the Christian life. It has sometimes been regarded as the Epistle of works. But that does not mean that this Epistle ignores the deeper and more meditative elements in the Christian life. James is no advocate of a mere “gospel of street-cleaning”; he is no advocate of what is falsely called today a “practical,” as distinguished from a doctrinal, Christianity; he is not a man who seeks to drown an inward disquiet by a bustling philanthropy. On the contrary he is a great believer in the power of prayer; he exalts faith and denounces doubt; he humbles man and glorifies God: “Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain; whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.”9 The man who wrote these words was no mere advocate of a “practical” religion of this world; he was no mere advocate of what is called today “the social gospel”; but he was a man who viewed this world, as the whole New Testament views it, in the light of eternity.

So the lesson of James may be learned without violence being done to the deepest things of the Christian faith — certainly without violence being done to the gospel which Paul proclaims. It was as clear to Paul as it was to James that men who had been saved by faith could not continue to live unholy lives. “Be not deceived,” says Paul: “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers . . . nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”10 It is difficult to see how anything could be much plainer than that. Paul just as earnestly as James insists upon the ethical or practical character of Christianity; Paul as well as James insists upon purity and unselfishness in conduct as an absolutely necessary mark of the Christian life. A Christian, according to Paul (as also really according to James), is saved not by himself but by God; but be is saved by God not in order that he may continue in sin, but in order that he may conquer sin and attain unto holiness.

Indeed so earnest is Paul about this matter that at times it looks almost as though he believed Christians even in this life to be altogether sinless, as though he believed that if they were not sinless they were not Christians at all. Such an interpretation of the Epistles would indeed be incorrect; it is contradicted, in particular, by the loving care with which the Apostle exhorted and encouraged those members of his congregations who had been overtaken in a fault. As a pastor of souls, Paul recognized the presence of sin even in those who were within the household of faith; and dealt with it not only with severity but also with patience and love. Nevertheless, the fact is profoundly significant that in the great doctrinal passages of the Epistles Paul makes very little reference (though such reference is not altogether absent) to the presence of sin in Christian men. How is that fact to be explained? I think it is to be explained by the profound conviction of the Apostle that although sin is actually found in Christians it does not belong there; it is never to be acquiesced in for one single moment, but is to be treated as a terrible anomaly that simply ought not to be.

Thus according to Paul the beginning of the new life is followed by a battle — a battle against sin. In that battle, as is not the case with the beginning of it, the Christian does cooperate with God; he is helped by God’s Spirit, but he himself, and not only God’s Spirit in him, is active in the fight.

At the beginning of the Christian life there is an act of God and of God alone. It is called in the New Testament the new birth or (as Paul calls it) the new creation. In that act, no part whatever is contributed by the man who is born again. And no wonder I A man who is dead — either dead in physical death or “dead in trespasses and sins” — can do nothing whatever, at least in the sphere in which he is dead. If he could do anything in that sphere, he would not be dead. Such a man who is dead in trespasses and sins is raised to new life in the new birth or the new creation. To that new birth, he himself cannot contribute at all, any more than he contributed to his physical birth. But birth is followed by life; and though a man is not active in his birth he is active in the life that follows. So it is also in the spiritual realm. We did not contribute at all to our new birth; that was an act of God alone. But that new birth is followed by a new life, and in the new life we have been given by Him who begat us anew the power of action; it is that power of action that is involved in birth. Thus the Christian life is begun by an act of God alone; but it is continued by cooperation between God and man. The possibility of such cooperation is due indeed only to God; it has not been achieved in slightest measure by us; it is the supreme wonder of God’s grace. But once given by God it is not withdrawn.

Thus the Christian life in this world is not passive but active; it consists in a mighty battle against sin. That battle is a winning battle, because the man that engages in it has been made alive in the first place by God, and because he has a great Companion to help him in every turn of the fight. But, though a winning battle, it is a battle all the same; and it is not only God’s battle but ours. The faith of which we have been speaking consists not in doing something but in receiving something; but it is followed every time by a life in which great things are done.

This aspect of faith is put in classic fashion by the Apostle Paul in a wonderful phrase in the Epistle to the Galatians. “Neither circumcision availeth any thing,” says Paul, “nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”11 In that phrase, “faith which worketh by love,” or, more literally, “faith working through love,” a whole world of experience is compressed within the compass of four words.

Surely that is a text for a practical age; the world may perhaps again become interested in faith if it sees that faith is a thing that works. And certainly our practical age cannot afford to reject assistance wherever it can be found; for the truth is that this practical age seems just now to be signally failing to accomplish results even on its own ground; it seems to be signally failing to “make things go.”

Strangely enough the present failure of the world to make things go is due just to that emphasis upon efficiency which might seem to make failure impossible; it is the paradox of efficiency that it can be attained only `by those who do not make it the express object of their desires. The modern one-sided emphasis upon the practical has hindered the progress of humanity, we think, in at least two ways.

The first way has already been treated in what precedes. Men are so eager about the work, we observed, that they have neglected a proper choice of means to accomplish it; they think that they can make use of religion, as a means to an end, without settling the question of the truth of any particular religion; they think that they can make use of faith as a beneficent psychological phenomenon without determining whether the thing that is believed is true or false. The whole effort, as we observed, is vain; such a pragmatist use of faith really destroys the thing that is being used. If therefore the work is to proceed, we cannot in this pragmatist fashion avoid, but must first face and settle, the question of the means.

In the second place, men are so eager today about the work that they are sometimes indifferent to the question what particular kind of work it shall be. The efficient, energetic man is often being admired by the world at large, and particularly by himself, quite irrespective of the character of his achievements. It often seems to make little difference whether a man engages in the accumulation of material wealth or in the quest of political power or in the management of schools and hospitals and charities. Whether he engages in robbery or in missions, he is sure of recognition, provided only be succeeds, provided only he is “a man who does things.” But however stimulating such a prizing of work for its own sake may be to the individual, it is obviously not conducive to any great advance for humanity as a whole. If my labor is going to be opposed to the work of my neighbor, we might both of us enjoy a good, old-fashioned, comfortable rest, so far as any general progress is concerned. Our efforts simply cancel each other. Consequently, although a great deal of energy is being displayed in the world today, one cannot help having the feeling that a vast deal of it is being wasted. The truth is that if we are to be truly practical men, we must first be theorizers. We must first settle upon some one great task and some one great force for its accomplishment.

The Pauline text makes proposals in both directions. It proposes both a task and a force to accomplish it. “Faith working itself out through love” — love is the work, faith the means.

It should be noticed in the first place that this work and this means are open to everyone. In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision; there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male and female; nothing is required except what is common to all men. If we like the work we cannot say that it is beyond our reach.

The work is love, and what that is Paul explains in the last division of the same Epistle. It is not a mere emotion, it is not even a mere benevolent desire; it is a practical thing. We sometimes say of a rather unprincipled and dissipated man: “He is weak, but he has a good heart.” Such mere good-heartedness is not Christian love. Christian love includes not merely the wish for the welfare of one’s fellow men, not merely even the willingness to help, but also the power. In order to love in the Christian sense, a man must be not only benevolent, but also strong and good; he must love his fellow men enough to build up his own strength in order to use it for their benefit.

Such a task is very different from much of the work that is actually being done in the world. In the first place, it is a spiritual not a material work. It is really astonishing how many men are almost wholly absorbed in purely material things. Very many men seem to have no higher conception of work than that of making the dirt fly: the greatest nation is thought to be the nation that has the largest income and the biggest battleships; the greatest university, even, to be the one that has the finest laboratories. Such practical materialism need not be altogether selfish; the production of material goods may be desired for others as well as for one’s self. Socialism may be taken as an example. It is not altogether selfish. But — at least in its most consistent forms — it errs in supposing that the proper distribution of material wealth will be a panacea. Indeed, such a habit of thought has not been altogether absent from the Church itself. Wherever the notion is cherished that the relief of physical suffering is somehow more important — more practical — than the welfare of the human spirit, there material things are being made the chief object of pursuit. And that is not Christian love. Christian love does not, indeed, neglect men’s physical welfare; it does not give a man a sermon when he needs bread. It relieves distress; it delights in affording even the simplest pleasure to a child. But it always does these things with the consciousness of the one inestimable gift that it has in reserve.

In the second place, Christian love is not merely intellectual or emotional, but also moral. It involves nothing less than the keeping of the whole moral law. “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”12 Christianity may provide a satisfactory worldview, it may give men comfort and happiness, it may deprive death of its terrors, it may produce the exaltation of religious emotion; but it is not Christianity unless it makes men better. Furthermore, love is a peculiar kind of observance of the moral law. It is not a mere performance of a set of external acts. That may be hypocrisy or expediency. Nor is it a mere devotion to duty for duty’s sake. That is admirable and praiseworthy, but it is the childhood stage of morality. The Christian is no longer under the schoolmaster; his performance of the law springs not from obedience to a stern voice of duty but from an overpowering impulse; he loves the law of the Lord; he does right because he cannot help it.

In the third place, love involves, I think, a peculiar conception of the content of the law. It regards morality primarily as unselfishness. And what a vast deal of the culture of the world, with all its pomp and glitter, is selfish to the core! Genius exploits the plain men; Christ died for them: and His disciples must follow in the footsteps of their Lord.

In the fourth place, Christian love is not merely love for man; it is also, and even primarily, love for God. We have observed that love for God is not the means by which we are saved: the New Testament does not say “Thy love hath saved thee,” but “Thy faith hath saved thee”; it does not say, “Love the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,” but “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” But that does not mean that the New Testament depreciates love; it does not mean that if a man did love, and always had loved, God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ and his fellow-men, as he ought to love them, he would not be a saved man; it only means that because of sin no unregenerate man who has ever lived has actually done that. Love, according to the New Testament, is not the means of salvation, but it is the finest fruit of it; a man is saved by faith, not by love; but he is saved by faith in order that he may love.

Such, then, is the work. How may it be accomplished? “Simply by accomplishing it,” says the “practical” man; “no appeal need be made except to the sovereign will; any time a man desires to stop his evil ways and begin to serve God and his fellow-men, the way is perfectly open for him to do it.” Yet here is the remarkable thing: the way is always perfectly open, and yet the man never enters upon it; he always can, but never does. Some of us feel the logical necessity of seeking a common cause for such a uniform effect. And the common cause that we find is sin.

Of course if there is no such thing as sin, then nothing is needed to overcome it, and nothing stands in the way of Christian love. The existence of sin, as we observed, is quite generally denied in the modern world. It is denied in at least two ways. In the first place, men sometimes say in effect that there is no sin, but only imperfection; what we call “sin” is just one form of imperfection. If so, it may perhaps well be argued that the human will is sufficient for human tasks. We have obviously made at least some progress, it is said; we have advanced beyond the “stone age”; a continuation of the same efforts will no doubt bring us still further on our way; and as for perfection — that is as impossible for us in the very nature of things as infinity. In the second place, it is said, there is no sin but only sins. It is admitted that moral evil is different in kind from imperfection, but it is thought to possess no unity; every individual choice is thought to be independent of every other; a man is thought to be free every time to choose either good or evil; no one else can help him, it is said, and no one need help him.

Paul’s view of sin is opposed to both of these. In the first place, sin, according to Paul, is deadly guilt, and in the second place, it is not inherent merely in the individual acts. It is a mighty power, in the presence of which man is helpless. “It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.”13 “But,” it may be objected, “what a dangerous form of expression that 1st If it is no more I that do it, my responsibility is gone; how can I still feel guilt? If I am to be guilty, then sin must be a property simply and solely of my conscious acts.” Yet experience curiously reverses such a priori reasoning; history teaches that the men who have actually felt most deeply the guilt of sin have been just the men who regarded it as a great force lying far beneath the individual acts. And a closer examination reveals the reason. If each act stands by itself, then a wrong choice at any particular time is, comparatively speaking, a trifling thing; it may easily be rectified next time. Such a philosophy can hardly produce any great horror and dread of sin. But if sin is regarded as a unitary power, irreconcilably opposed to what is good, then acts of sin, apparently trifling in themselves, show that we are under the dominion of such a power; the single wrong action can no longer be regarded by itself, but involves assent to a Satanic power, which then leads logically, irresistibly to the destruction of every right feeling, of every movement of love, of pity, of sympathy. When we come to see that what Paul calls the flesh is a mighty power, which is dragging us resistlessly down into an abyss of evil that has no bottom, then we feel our guilt and misery, then we look about for something stronger to help us than our own weak will.

Such a power is found by the Apostle Paul in faith; it is faith, he says, that produces, or works itself out in, the life of love. But what does Paul mean when he says that “faith works”? Certainly he does not mean what the modern pragmatist skeptic means when be uses the same words; certainly he does not mean that it is merely faith, considered as a psychological phenomenon and independent of the truth or falsehood of its object, that does the work. What he does mean14 is made abundantly clear in the last section of this same Epistle to the Galatians, where the life of love is presented in some detail, In that section nothing whatever is said about faith; it is not faith that is there represented as producing the life of love but the Spirit of God; the Spirit is there represented as doing exactly what, in the phrase “faith working through love,” is ascribed to faith. The apparent contradiction leads us on to the right conception of faith, True faith, strictly speaking, does not do anything; it does not give, but receives. So when one says that we do something by faith that is just another way of saying that we do nothing — at least that we do nothing of ourselves. It is of the very nature of faith, strictly speaking, to do nothing. So when it is said that faith works through love, that means that through faith, instead of doing something for ourselves we allow some one else to help us. That force which enters our life at the beginning through faith, before we could do anything at all to please God, and which then strengthens and supports us in the battle that it has enabled us to begin, is the power of the Spirit of God.

So in the midst of a practical world, the Christian exhibits a practical life of love — a busy life of helpfulness, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, receiving the strangers, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and the prisoners. And all that accomplished not by his own unaided efforts, not even merely by his own faith, but by the great object of his faith, the all-powerful God.

The Christian preacher, then, comes before the world with a great alternative. Shall we continue to depend upon our own efforts, or shall we receive by faith the power of God? Shall we content ourselves with the materials which this world affords, seeking by endlessly new combinations to produce a building that shall endure; or shall we build with the materials that have no flaw? Shall we give men new motives, or ask God to give them a new power? Shall we improve the world, or pray God to create a new world? The former alternatives have been tried and found wanting: the best of architects can produce no enduring building when all the materials are faulty; good motives are powerless when the heart is evil. Struggle as we may, we remain just a part of this evil world until, by faith, we cry: “Not by might, nor by power, but by Thy Spirit. O Lord of Hosts.”

Notes

1. Rom. ii: 14.

1. Rom. vii: 24.

2. Rom. viii: 2.

3. Jer. xxxi: 33.

4. Rom. vi: 23.

5. I John iv: 10.

6. Gal. ii: 16. It is evident from the immediate context that this is the correct translation.

7. James ii: 24.

8. James iv: 13 f.

9. I Cor. vi: 9 f.

10. Gal. v: 6.

11. Ga1. v: 14.

12. Rom vii: 17.

13. Compare Christianity and Liberalism, 1923, pp. 146 ff.

Reconciling Paul and James

by William Pemble (1591-1623)

We are to give you warning of that stumbling stone which St. James (as it may seem) has laid in our way, lest any should dash his faith upon it and fall, as our adversaries have done, into that error of justification by works. That blessed apostle, in the second chapter of his epistle, seems not only to give occasion to, but directly to teach this doctrine of justification by works. For in verse 21 and following, he expressly says that Abraham was justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar, and also that Rahab was in like manner justified by works when she entertained the spies. Whence also he sets down a general conclusion that man is justified by works and not by faith alone (Jam 2:24).

Now at first glance, nothing can be spoken more contrary to St. Paul's doctrine in Romans and elsewhere. For speaking of the same example of Abraham, he says (exactly to the contrary) that Abraham was not justified by works, for then he might have boasted (Rom 4:2). And treating generally of man's justification by faith, after a strong dispute he draws forth the conclusion that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law (Rom 3:28). This conclusion appears contradictory to that of St. James. This harsh discord between these apostles appears to some as impossible to resolve by any qualification; knowing that the Holy Ghost never forgets Himself, some have concluded that if the Spirit of truth spoke by St. Paul, it was doubtless the spirit of error that spoke by the author of this epistle of James.

But this medicine is worse than the disease and is rather violence than skill thus to cut the knot where it cannot be readily untied. A safer and milder course may be held, and some means found out for the resolving of this grand difference, without robbing the Church of so much precious treasure of divine knowledge as is stored up in this epistle. Wherefore both they of the Romish and we of the Reformed Churches, admitting this epistle as canonical,[1] do each search after a fit reconciliation between the apostles. But they and we are irreconcilable in our various reconciliations of them.

There are two ways whereby [the Reformed] reconcile this seeming difference.

The first way is by distinguishing the word justification, which may be taken either for the absolution[2] of a sinner in God's judgment or for the declaration of a man's righteousness before men. This distinction is certain and has its ground in Scripture, which uses the word justify in both ways, for the acquitting of us in God's sight and for the manifestation of our innocence before man against accusation or suspicion of fault. They apply this distinction to reconcile the two apostles thus: Paul speaks of justification in the forum of God; James speaks of justification in the forum of man. A man is justified by faith without works, says Paul; that is, in God's sight a man obtains remission of sins and is reputed to be just only for his faith in Christ, not for his works' sake. A man is justified by works and not by faith only, says James; that is, in man's sight we are declared to be just by our good works and not by our faith only, which with other inward and invisible graces is made visible unto man only in the good works which they see us perform. That this application is not unfit to reconcile this difference may be shown by the following analysis.

First, as for Paul, it is agreed on all sides that he speaks of man's justification in God's sight (Rom 3:20).

Second, as for James, we are to show that with just probability he may be understood as referring to the declaration of our justification and righteousness before men. For proof thereof, the text affords us these reasons.

“Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works” (Jam 2:18). Here the true Christian, speaking to the hypocritical boaster of his faith, requires of him a declaration of his faith and justification thereby by a real proof, not a verbal profession, promising for his part to manifest and prove the truth of his own faith by his good works. Whence it appears that, before man, none can justify the soundness of his faith but by his works thence proceeding.

Abraham is said to be justified “when he offered up his son Isaac upon the altar” (Jam 2:21). Now it is manifest that Abraham was justified in God's sight long before, even 25 years earlier (Gen 15:6). Therefore, by that admirable work of his in offering his son he was declared before all the world to be a just man and a true believer. And for this purpose God tempted[3] Abraham in that trial of his faith, that thereby all believers might behold a rare pattern of a lively and justifying faith and see that Abraham was not without good cause called “the father of the faithful.”

It is said that Abraham's faith “wrought with his works, and by works was his faith made perfect” (Jam 2:22). Even in the judgment of popish expositors, such as Lorinus,[4] this is to be understood of the manifestation of Abraham's faith by his works. His faith directed his works; his works manifested the power and perfection of his faith.

It is not, then, without good probability of reason that Calvin and other expositors on our side have given this solution to the problem. This now is the first way of reconciling these two passages. Nevertheless, although this approach may be defended against anything that our adversaries object to the contrary, yet many very learned divines choose rather to tread in another path and more nearly to press the apostles' steps, whom also in this point I willingly follow.

The second way, then, of reconciling these passages is by distinguishing the word “faith,” which is taken in a double sense. It is first taken for that faith which is true and living (faith which works through love) and is fruitful in all manner of obedience. Second, it is taken for that faith which is false and dead, being only a bare acknowledgment of the truth of all articles of religion accompanied with an outward formality of profession, but yet destitute of sincere obedience.

This distinction of this word “faith” is certain by the Scriptures, as has heretofore been shown in our discussions of that grace. Our men now apply it thus: When Paul affirms that we are justified by faith only, he speaks of that faith which is true and living, working by charity. When James denies that a man is justified by faith only, he disputes against that faith which is false and dead, without power to bring forth any good works. So that the apostles speak no contradiction because Paul teaches that we are justified by a true faith and James affirms that we are not justified by a false faith.

Again, Paul says we are not justified by works; James says we are justified by works. Neither is there any contradiction at all here. For James understands by “works” a working faith, in opposition to the idle and dead faith before spoken of, by a metonymy[5] of the effect. Whence it is plain that these two propositions, that we are not justified by works (which is Paul's) and that we are justified by a working faith (which is James's), sweetly consort together. Paul severs works from our justification, but not from our faith. James joins works to our faith, but not to our justification.

Let me make this a little plainer by a similitude or two. There is a great difference between these two sayings: A man lives by a reasonable soul, and a man lives by reason. The former is true and shows us what qualities and power are essential unto that soul whereby a man lives. But the latter is false, because we do not live by the quality or power of reason, though we live by that soul which has that quality necessarily belonging to it, without which it is no human soul. So also in these propositions: The shoot lives through its authoring life breath; the shoot lives through its growth. Any puny mind can tell that the former is true and the other false. For, although in the vegetative soul whereby plants live, there are necessarily required for its existence those three faculties of nourishment, growth, and procreation, yet it is not the faculty of growing that gives life unto plants, for they live when they are not growing.

In like manner, these two propositions—that we are justified by a working faith and that we are justified by works—differ greatly. The first is true and shows us what qualities are necessarily required unto the existence of that faith, whereby the just shall live, namely that beside the power of believing in the promise there is also a habitual proneness[6] and resolution unto the doing of all good works joined with it. But the later proposition is false. For although true faith is equally as apt to work in bringing forth universal obedience to God's will as it is apt to believe and trust perfectly in God's promises, yet nevertheless we are not justified by it as it brings forth good works, but as it embraces the promises of the gospel.

Now, then, James affirms that which is true, that we are justified by a working faith; and Paul denies that which is false, that we are justified by works.

Endnotes:

1 canonical – of or appearing in the biblical canon, i.e., the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament or the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.

2 absolution –sentence of a judge declaring an accused person innocent.

3 tempted – tested.

4 Lorinus, John – 1569-1634, Jesuit commentator.

5 metonymy – figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted for another with which it is closely associated, as in the use of Washington for the U. S. government.

6 proneness – tendency; inclination.

MONERGISM BOOKS

The Sufficiency of Jesus Christ Alone: Classic Essays on the Doctrine of Justification Edited by John Hendryx, Copyright © 2011

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of Monergism Books.

ePub and .mobi Editions November 2011 Requests for information should be addressed to: Monergism Books, 14875 S.W. 72nd Ave, Tigard, OR 97224

Table of Contents

Preface

Justification is by Grace Alone

Of Justification

Justification by Faith Alone

Justified!

The Alien Righteousness

Discourse on Justification by Faith

Free Justification

Anothers' Righteousness For Us

Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine Concerning Justification

The Doctrine of Justification Opened and Applied

Justification

Antidote to the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent on the Doctrine of Justification

Justification by Faith

Part I:

Part II:

Part III:

Stand Before God

The Everlasting Righteousness

The Doctrine of Justification

Of Grace as it Reigns in our Justification

Our Righteousness is Not in Ourselves

Of Justification by Faith

Faith and Justification

A Treatise On Justification by Faith

Justification Before God

Justification by Faith—Illustrated by Abram's Righteousness

Justification: Forensic or Moral?

Imputation

Christ Rightly and Properly Said to Have Merited Grace & Salvation For Us

The Immediate and Only Ground of Justification: The Imputed Righteousness of Christ

Nine Strong Consolations of Imputed Righteousness

Imputation of Sin to Christ and the Imputation of His Righteousness to His People

A Discourse on Imputed Righteousness Defended

Two Kinds of Righteousness

The Active Obedience of Christ

Christ's Active Obedience

The Active and Passive Obedience of Christ

The Imputation of the Obedience of Christ unto the Law Declared and Indicated

Of the Active Obedience of Christ in His State of Humiliation

Jesus Satisfies Both the Law’s Demands and it's Curses

Do This and Live

Is There More than One Way to God?

Justification and Sanctification: How to they Differ?

Sanctification & Justification

The Difference Between Justification & Sanctification; Or, Righteousness Imputed & Grace Imparted

Faith and Works

Reconciling Paul and James

Copyright

1