Part 14

1. As to the former of these, namely, that which is inconsistent with the doctrine of justification by Christ’s righteousness. This is maintained by those who plead for justification by works; and consequently, they say, that we are justified by faith, and all other graces; which they call the conditions of our justification in the sight of God; and indeed to be justified by faith, according to them, is little other than to be justified for faith: whether they reckon it a meritorious condition or no, they must own it to be a pleadable condition; otherwise it would have no reference to justification; and if it be taken in this sense, our justification depends as much upon it, as though it had been meritorious. This is the account which some give of justification; and to prepare the way for this opinion, they suppose, that the terms of salvation, in the gospel, which are substituted in the room of those which were required under the first covenant made with Adam, are faith, repentance and sincere obedience, instead of perfect; and that God in justifying a penitent, believing sinner, pursuant to the performance of these conditions, declares his willingness, that there should be a relaxation of that law which man was at first obliged to obey; and accordingly, that sincerity is demanded by him instead of perfection, or substituted in the room of it; this they call the new law, or others style it a remedial law: so that instead of being justified by Christ’s yielding perfect obedience, or paying the out-standing debt, which we were obliged, by reason of the violation of the first covenant, to pay, we are to be justified by our own imperfect obedience.

But that which may be objected to this method of reasoning, is, that it is inconsistent with the holiness of the divine nature, and the glory of the justice of God, detracts from the honour of his law, and is, in effect, to maintain that we are justified without satisfaction given. For though these terms of our justification, and acceptance in the sight of God, may be falsely styled a valuable consideration; yet none will pretend to assert, that they are an infinite price; and nothing short of that (which is no other than Christ’s righteousness) is sufficient to answer this end. I am sensible, that they who lay down this plan of justification, allege in defence thereof; that though these terms of acceptance are of small value in themselves; yet God, by an act of grace, reckons the payment of a small debt equivalent to that of a greater, as has been before observed. And they speak of faith and repentance as having a value set upon them by their reference to the blood of Christ[51], who merited this privilege for us, that we should be justified in such a way, or upon these conditions performed: they call them indeed easier terms, or conditions, and include them all in the general word sincerity, instead of perfection. But they are nevertheless somewhat divided in their method of explaining themselves, inasmuch as some suppose these conditions to be wholly in our own power, without the aids of divine grace, as much as perfect obedience was in the power of our first parents; whereas others ascribe a little more to the grace of God, according as they explain the doctrine of effectual calling; though they do not suppose, that these conditions are altogether out of our own power; and they so far lay a foundation for the sinner’s glorying herein, as that, they suppose, our right to justification and eternal life is founded on them.

I cannot but think this method of explaining the doctrine of justification to be subversive of the gospel, and that it is highly derogatory to the glory of God to assert that he can dispense with the demand of perfect obedience, and justify a person on easier terms; which is little better than what the apostle calls _make void the law_: this, says he, we are far from doing _by faith_, or by our asserting the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ’s righteousness; _but we rather establish it_ hereby: and to say that God sets such a value on our performing these conditions of the new covenant, as that they are deemed equivalent to Christ’s performing perfect obedience for us, this reflects on his glory, as set forth, to be a propitiation for sin, to declare God’s righteousness in the remission thereof; and detracts from the obligation which we are laid under to him, for what he did and suffered in our behalf, for our justification.

Moreover, to assert that God sets this value on our performances, pursuant to Christ’s merit; or that they are highly esteemed by him, because they are tinctured with his blood; this is contrary to the design of his death, which was, not that such an estimate might be set on what is done by us; but rather, that the iniquities that attend our best performances may be forgiven; and that (though, when we have done all, we are unprofitable servants,) we may be made accepted in the Beloved; and having no justifying righteousness of our own, may be justified, and glory in that which he hath wrought out for us.

And as for the supposition, that faith, repentance, and new obedience, are not only conditions of justification, but easy to be performed: this plainly discovers, that they who maintain it, either think too lightly of man’s impotency and averseness to what is good, and his alienation from the life of God, or are strangers to their own hearts, and are not duly sensible that it is God that works in his people both to will and to do, of his own good pleasure.

The only thing that I shall add, in opposition to the doctrine of justification by works, is, that whatever is the matter or ground of our justification in the sight of God, must be pleadable at his bar; for we cannot be justified without a plea, and if any plea, taken from our own works, be thought sufficient, how much soever the proud and deluded heart of man may set too great a value upon them; yet God will not reckon the plea valid, so as to discharge us from guilt, and give us a right and title to eternal life on the account thereof; which leads us to consider,

2. The method taken to explain this doctrine in the answer before us, which we think agreeable to the divine perfections, and contains a true state of the doctrine of justification by faith. We before considered justification as a forensic act, that we might understand what is meant by our sins being imputed to Christ our Head and Surety, and his righteousness imputed to us, or placed to our account. And we are now to speak of this righteousness as pleaded by, or applied to us, as the foundation of our claim to all the blessings that were purchased by it. Here we must consider a sinner as bringing in his plea, in order to his discharge; and this is twofold.

(1.) If he be charged by men, or by Satan, with crimes not committed, he pleads his own innocency; if charged with hypocrisy, he pleads his own sincerity. Thus we are to understand several expressions in scripture to this purpose; as for instance, when a charge of the like nature was brought in against Job, Satan having suggested that he did not serve God for nought; and that if God would touch his bone and his flesh, he would curse him to his face: and his friends having often applied the character they give of the hypocrite to him, and so concluding him to be a wicked person, he says, _God forbid that I should justify you_; that is, that I should acknowledge your charge to be just; _till I die, I will not remove mine integrity from me: my righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live_, Job xxvii. 5, 6. that is, I never will own what you insinuate, that my heart is not right with God. And David, when complaining of the ill-treatment which he met with from his enemies and persecutors, who desired not only to _tread down his life upon the earth_, but to _lay his honour in the dust_; to murder his name as well as his person, he prays, _Judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me_, Psal. vii. 8. What could he plead against maliciousness and false insinuations, but his righteousness or his integrity? And elsewhere, when he says, _The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me: For I have kept the ways of the Lord; his judgments were before me. I was also upright before him, and have kept myself from mine iniquity_, 2 Sam. xxii. 21, _&c. seq._ it is nothing else but an intimation, that how much soever he might be charged with the contrary vices, he was, in this respect, innocent: and though God did not justify him at his tribunal, for this righteousness; yet, in the course of his providence, he seemed to approve of his plea, so far as that whatever the world thought of him, he plainly dealt with him as one who was highly favoured by him; or whom, by his dealings with him, he evidently distinguished from those whose hearts were not right with him. It is true, some who plead for justification by our own righteousness, allege these scriptures as a proof of it, without distinguishing between the justification of our persons in the sight of God, and the justification of our righteous cause; or our being justified when accused at God’s tribunal, and our being justified, or vindicated from those charges that are brought against us at man’s.

(2.) When a person stands at God’s tribunal, as we must suppose the sinner to do, when bringing in his plea for justification in his sight; then he has nothing else to plead but Christ’s righteousness; and faith is that grace that pleads it: and in that respect we are said to be justified by faith, or in a way of believing. Faith doth not justify by presenting or pleading itself, or any other grace that accompanies or flows from it, as the cause why God should forgive sin, or give us a right to eternal life; for they have not sufficient worth or excellency in them to procure these blessings. Therefore, when we are said to be justified by faith, it is by faith, as apprehending, pleading, or laying hold on Christ’s righteousness; and this gives occasion to divines to call it the instrument of our justification. Christ’s righteousness is the thing claimed or apprehended; and faith is that by which it is claimed or apprehended; and, agreeably to the idea of an instrument, we are said not to be justified for faith, but by it. Christ’s righteousness is that which procures a discharge from condemnation for all for whom it was wrought out; faith is the hand that receives it; whereby a person has a right to conclude, that it was wrought out for him. Christ’s righteousness is that which has a tendency to enrich and adorn the soul; and faith is the hand that receives it, whereby it becomes ours, in a way of fiducial application: and as the righteousness of Christ is compared, in scripture, to a glorious robe, which renders the soul beautiful, or is its highest and chief ornament; it is by faith that it is put on; and, in this respect, as the prophet speaks, its beauty is rendered _perfect through his comeliness, which is put upon him_, Ezek. xvi. 14. so that Christ’s righteousness justifies, as it is the cause of our discharge; faith justifies as the instrument that applies this discharge to us; thus when it is said, _the just shall live by faith_, faith is considered as that which seeks to, and finds this life in him; the effect is, by a metonymy, applied to the instrument; as when the husbandman is said to live or to be maintained by his plough, and the artist to live by his hands, or the beggar by his empty hand that receives the donative. If a person was in a dungeon, like the prophet Jeremiah, and a rope is let down to draw him out of it, his laying hold on it is the instrument, but the hand that draws him out, is the principal cause of his release from thence; or, that we may make use of a similitude that more directly illustrates the doctrine we are maintaining, suppose a condemned malefactor had a pardon procured for him, which gives him a right to liberty, or a discharge from the place of his confinement, this must be pleaded, and his claim be rendered visible; and after that he is no longer deemed a guilty person, but discharged, in open court, from the sentence that he was under. Thus Christ procures forgiveness by his blood; the gospel holds it forth, and describes those who have a right to claim it as belonging to him in particular: and hence arises a visible discharge from condemnation, and a right to claim the benefits that attend it. If we understand justification by faith, in this sense, we do not attribute too much to faith on the one hand, nor too little to Christ’s righteousness on the other.

And we rather choose to call faith an instrument, than a condition of our justification, being sensible, that the word _condition_ is generally used to signify that for the sake whereof, a benefit is conferred, rather than the instrument by which it is applied; not but that it may be explained in such a way, as is consistent with the doctrine of justification by faith, as before considered. We do not deny that faith is the condition of our claim to Christ’s righteousness; or that it is God’s ordinance, without which we have no ground to conclude our interest in it. We must therefore distinguish between its being a condition of forgiveness, and its being a condition of our visible and apparent right hereunto. This cannot be said to belong to us, unless we receive it; neither can we conclude that we have an interest in Christ’s redemption, any more than they for whom he did not lay down his life, but by this medium. We must first consider Christ’s righteousness as wrought out for all them that were given him by the Father; and faith is that which gives us ground to conclude, that this privilege, in particular, belongs to us.

This account of the use of faith in justification, we cannot but think sufficient to obviate the most material objections that are brought against our way of maintaining the doctrine of justification, _viz._ by Christ’s righteousness, in one respect, and by faith in another. It is an injurious suggestion to suppose that we deny the necessity of faith in any sense, or conclude, that we may lay claim to this privilege without it; since we strenuously assert the necessity, on the one hand, of Christ’s righteousness being wrought out for us, and forgiveness procured thereby; and, on the other hand, the necessity of our receiving it, each of which is true in its respective place. Christ must have the glory that is due to him, and faith the work, or office that belongs to it.

Thus we have considered Christ’s righteousness as applied by faith; and it may be also observed, that there is one scripture, in which it is said to be _imputed by faith_, as the apostle Paul, when speaking concerning Abraham’s justification by faith, in this righteousness, says, _It was imputed to him for righteousness_; and adds, that _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_, Rom. iv. 22, 23, 24. in which scripture, I conceive, that imputation is taken for application; and accordingly the meaning is, the righteousness of Christ is so imputed, as that we have ground to place it to our own account, if we believe; which is the same with applying it by faith.[52]

And whereas the apostle speaks elsewhere of _faith’s being counted for righteousness_, ver. 5. it must be allowed, that there is a great deal of difficulty in the mode of expression. If we assert that the act of believing is imputed for righteousness, as they who establish the doctrine of justification by works, or by faith as a work, we overthrow that which we have been maintaining: and if, on the other hand, we understand faith, for the object of faith, _viz._ what was wrought out by Christ, which faith is conversant about, and conclude, (as I conceive we ought to do,) that this, is imputed for righteousness, this is supposed, by some, to deviate too much from the common sense of words, to be allowed of: but if there be such a figurative way of speaking used in other scriptures, why may we not suppose that it is used in this text under our present consideration? If other graces are sometimes taken for the object thereof, why may not faith be taken, by a metonymy, for its object? Thus the apostle calls those whom he writes to, _his joy_, that is, the object, or matter thereof, Phil. iv. 1. And in the book of Canticles, the church calls Christ _her love_, Cant. iv. 8. that is, the object thereof. And elsewhere, hope is plainly taken for the object of it, when the apostle says, _Hope that is seen, is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?_ Rom. viii. 24. By which he plainly intends, that whatever is the object of hope, cannot be in our present possession: and Christ is farther styled, _The blessed hope_, Tit. ii. 13. that is, the person whose appearance we hope for. And Jacob speaks of God as _the fear of his father Isaac_, Gen. xxxi. 53. that is, the person whom he worshipped with reverential fear; in all which cases the phraseology is equally difficult with that of the text, under our present consideration. Thus concerning Christ’s righteousness, as wrought out for us, and applied by faith; which is the foundation of all our peace and comfort, both in life and death; and therefore cannot but be reckoned a doctrine of the highest importance: we shall now consider some things that may be inferred from it. And,

[1.] From what has been said concerning justification, as founded in Christ’s suretyship-righteousness, wrought out for us, by what was done and suffered by him, in his human nature; and the infinite value thereof, as depending on the glory of the divine nature, to which it is united, we cannot but infer the absurdity of two contrary opinions, namely, that of those who have asserted, that we are justified by the essential righteousness of Christ as God[57]; and that of others, who pretend, that because all mediatorial acts are performed by Christ only as man: therefore the infinite dignity of the divine nature, has no reference to their being satisfactory to divine justice. This is what they mean when they say, that we are justified by Christ’s righteousness as man, in opposition to our being justified by his essential righteousness as God[58]: whereas, I think, the truth lies in a _medium_ between both these extremes; on the one hand we must suppose, that Christ’s engagement to become a surety for us, and so stand in our room and stead, and thereby to pay the debt which we had contracted to the justice of God, could not be done in any other than the human nature; for the divine nature is not capable of being under a law, or fulfilling it, or, in any instance, of obeying, or suffering; and therefore, we cannot be justified by Christ’s essential righteousness, as God; and, on the other hand, what Christ did and suffered as man, would not have been sufficient for our justification, had it not had an infinite value put upon it, arising from the union of the nature that suffered with the divine nature, which is agreeable to the apostle’s expression, when he says, _God purchased the church with his own blood_, Acts, xx. 28.

[2.] From what has been said, concerning the fruits and effects of justification, as by virtue hereof our sins are pardoned, and we made accepted in the beloved, we infer; that it is not only an unscriptural way of speaking, but has a tendency to overthrow the doctrine we have been maintaining, to assert, as some do, that God is only rendered reconcileable by what was done and suffered by Christ. This seems to be maintained by those who treat on this subject, with a different view. Some speak of God’s being rendered reconcileable by Christ’s righteousness that they might make way for what they have farther to advance, namely, that God’s being reconciled to a sinner, is the result of his own repentance, or the amendment of his life, whereby he makes his peace with him; which is to make repentance or reformation the matter of our justification, and substitute it in the room of Christ’s righteousness: therefore, they who speak of God’s being made reconcileable in this sense, by his blood, are so far from giving a true account of the doctrine of justification, that, in reality, they overthrow it.

But there are others, who speak of God’s being reconcileable as the consequence of Christ’s satisfaction, that they might not be thought to assert that God is actually reconciled by the blood of Christ, to those who are in an unconverted state, which is inconsistent therewith; therefore they use this mode of expression, lest they should be thought to give countenance to the doctrine of actual justification before faith; but certainly we are under no necessity of advancing one absurdity to avoid another: therefore, let it be here considered, that the scripture speaks expressly of God’s being reconciled by the death of Christ; and accordingly he is said to have _brought_ him _again from the dead_, as a _God of peace_, Heb. xiii. 20. And elsewhere, he speaks of _God’s having reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ_, 2 Cor. v. 18. and not becoming reconcilable to us. Again, _When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved_, Rom. v. 10. that is, shall obtain the saving effects of this reconciliation _by his life_. And again, _Having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself: and you that were sometimes alienated, and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled, in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable, and unreprovable in his sight_, Col. i. 21, 22. Where he describes those who were reconciled as once enemies, and speaks of this privilege as being procured by the death of Christ, and of holiness here, and salvation hereafter, as the consequence of it; therefore it is such a reconciliation as is contained in our justification.

But though this appears very agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost, in scripture, yet it must be understood in consistency with those other scriptures, that represent persons in an unconverted state, as _children of wrath_, Eph. ii. 3. and being _hateful_, Tit. iii. 3. that is, not only deserving to be hated by God, but actually hated, as appears by the many threatnings that are denounced against them, and their being in a condemned state, that we may not give countenance to the doctrine of some, who, not distinguishing between God’s secret and revealed will, maintain that we are not only virtually, but actually justified before we believe; as though we had a right to claim Christ’s righteousness before we have any ground to conclude, that it was wrought out for us: but what has been already suggested concerning justification by faith, will, I think, sufficiently remove this difficulty.