Owen, Justification
The doctrine of Justification by Faith,
through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ;
explained, confirmed, and vindicated

by John Owen

Search the Scriptures--John 5:29


Contents

     Prefatory Note

     To the Reader

      General Considerations, previous unto the Explanation  of  the
  Doctrine of Justification
First,  The general nature of justification--State of the person  to
     be  justified  antecedently  thereunto,  Rom.4:5;  3:19;  1:32;
     Gal.3:10;  John  3:18,36; Gal.3:22--The sole  inquiry  on  that
     state--Whether  it be any thing that is our own inherently,  or
     what  is  only imputed unto us, that we are to trust  unto  for
     our  acceptance  with God--The sum of this inquiry--The  proper
     ends  of  teaching and learning the doctrine of justification--
     Things to be avoided therein
Secondly,  A  due consideration of God, the Judge of all,  necessary
     unto  the  right  stating and apprehension of the  doctrine  of
     justification, Rom.8:33; Isa.43:25; 45:25; Ps.143:2;  Rom.3:20-
     -What thoughts will be ingenerated hereby in the minds of  men,
     Isa.33:14;  Micah 6:6,7; Isa.6:5--The plea of Job  against  his
     friends,  and  before God, not the same, Job  40:3-5,  43:406--
     Directions  for visiting the sick given of old--Testimonies  of
     Jerome  and Ambrose--Sense of men in their prayers, Dan.9:7,18;
     Ps.143:2,  130:3,4--Paraphrase of Austin on that  place--Prayer
     of Pelagius--Public liturgies
Thirdly,  A  due sense of our apostasy from God, the depravation  of
     our  nature  thereby,  with the power and  guilt  of  sin,  the
     holiness  of  the law, necessary unto a right understanding  of
     the  doctrine of justification--Method of the apostle  to  this
     purpose,  Rom.1,2,3--  Grounds  of  the  ancient  and   present
     Pelagianism, in the denial of these things--Instances  thereof-
     -Boasting of perfection from the same ground--Knowledge of  sin
     and grace mutually promote each other
Fourthly, Opposition between works and grace, as unto justification-
     -Method  of  the  apostle, in the Epistle  to  the  Romans,  to
     manifest   this   opposition--A  scheme  of   others   contrary
     thereunto--Testimonies witnessing this opposition--Judgment  to
     be  made  on  them--Distinctions whereby they  are  evaded--The
     uselessness  of  them--Resolution  of  the  case  in  hand   by
     Bellarmine, Dan.9:18; Luke 17:10
Fifthly,   A   commutation   as  unto  sin  and  righteousness,   by
     imputation,  between Christ and believers, represented  in  the
     Scripture--The  ordinance  of the scapegoat,  Lev.16:21,22--The
     nature  of  expiatory sacrifices, Lev.4:29, etc.--Expiation  of
     an  uncertain  murder,  Deut.21:1-9--The  commutation  intended
     proved  and  vindicated,  Isa.53:5,6;  2  Cor.5:21;  Rom.8:3,4;
     Gal.3:13,14;  1  Pet.2:24;  Deut.21:23--Testimonies  of  Justin
     Martyr,   Gregory   Nyseen,  Augustine,  Chrysostom,   Bernard,
     Taulerus,  Pighius,  to  that purpose--The  proper  actings  of
     faith  with  respect thereunto, Rom.5:11; Matt.11:28;  Ps.38:4;
     Gen.4:13;  Isa.53:11; Gal.3:1; Isa.45:22; John 3:14,15--A  bold
     calumny answered
Sixthly,  Introduction of grace by Jesus Christ into  the  whole  of
     our  relation unto God, and its respect unto all the  parts  of
     our  obedience--No mystery of grace in the covenant of  works--
     All  religion  originally commensurate unto reason--No  notions
     of  natural light concerning the introduction of the  mediation
     of  Christ  and  mystery of grace, into our  relation  to  God,
     Eph.1:17-19--Reason,  as corrupted,  can  have  no  notions  of
     religion  but  what are derived from its primitive state--Hence
     the   mysteries  of  the  gospel  esteemed  folly--Reason,   as
     corrupted,  repugnant  unto the mystery of grace--Accommodation
     of   spiritual   mysteries  unto  corrupt   reason,   wherefore
     acceptable  unto  many--Reasons of it--Two parts  of  corrupted
     nature's  repugnancy unto the mystery of the  gospel:--1.  That
     which  would  reduce it unto the private reason of  men--Thence
     the  Trinity  denied, and the incarnation of the  Son  of  God;
     without  which the doctrine of justification cannot stand--Rule
     of  the  Socinians  in the interpretation of the  Scripture--2.
     Want of a due comprehension of the harmony that is between  all
     the  parts  of  the  mystery  of grace--This  harmony  proved--
     Compared  with  the  harmony  in the  works  of  nature--To  be
     studied--But it is learned only of them who are taught of  God;
     and   in  experience--Evil  effects  of  the  want  of  a   due
     comprehension hereof--Instances of them--All applied  unto  the
     doctrine of justification
Seventhly,   General  prejudices  against  the  imputation  of   the
     righteousness of Christ: --1. That it is not in terms found  in
     the  Scripture, answered--2. That nothing is said of it in  the
     writings  of  the  evangelists, answered, John 20:30,31--Nature
     of  Christ's personal ministry--Revelations by the Holy  Spirit
     immediately  from  Christ--Design  of  the  writings   of   the
     evangelists--3. Differences among Protestants themselves  about
     this doctrine, answered--Sense of the ancients herein--What  is
     of real difference among Protestants, considered
Eighthly,  Influence of the doctrine of justification into the first
     Reformation--Advantages unto the world  by  that  Reformation--
     State  of the consciences of men under the Papacy, with respect
     unto justification before God--Alterations made therein by  the
     light  of  this  doctrine, though not received--Alterations  in
     the   Pagan   unbelieving   world  by   the   introduction   of
     Christianity--Design and success of the first reformers herein-
     -Attempts   for  reconciliation  with  the  Papists   in   this
     doctrine,  and  their success--Remainders of the  ignorance  of
     the  truth in the Roman church--Unavoidable consequences of the
     corruption of this doctrine

     I. Justifying faith; the causes and object of it declared
Justification  by  faith generally acknowledged--The meaning  of  it
     perverted--The  nature  and  use  of  faith  in   justification
     proposed  to  consideration--Distinctions  about  it  waived--A
     twofold  faith  of the gospel expressed in the Scripture--Faith
     that  is  not justifying, Acts 8:13; John 2:23,24;  Luke  8:13;
     Matt.7:22,23--Historical faith; whence it  is  so  called,  and
     the  nature  of it--Degrees of assent in it--Justification  not
     ascribed unto any degree of it--A calumny obviated--The  causes
     of  true  saving faith--Conviction of sin previous unto it--The
     nature  of  legal  conviction, and  its  effects--Arguments  to
     prove  it  antecedent unto faith--Without the consideration  of
     it,  the  true nature of faith not to be understood--The  order
     and relation of the law and gospel, Rom.1:17--Instance of Adam-
     -Effects of conviction--Internal: Displicency and sorrow;  fear
     of  punishment;  desire  of  deliverance--External:  Abstinence
     from  sin;  performance  of  duties; reformation  of  life--Not
     conditions  of justification; not formal disposition  unto  it;
     not   moral   preparations  for  it--The  order   of   God   in
     justification--The proper object of justifying  faith--Not  all
     divine  verity equally; proved by sundry arguments--The  pardon
     of  our  own sins, whether the first object of faith--The  Lord
     Christ  in the work of mediation, as the ordinance of  God  for
     the  recovery of lost sinners, the proper object of  justifying
     faith--The  position explained and proved, Acts  10:43;  16:31;
     4:12;  Luke  24:25-27; John 1:12; 3:16,36; 6:29,47; 7:38;  Acts
     26:18;   Col.2:6;   Rom.3:24,25;  1   Cor.1:30;   2   Cor.5:21;
     Eph.1:7,8; 2 Cor.5:19

     II. The nature of justifying faith
The nature  of  justifying faith in particular, or of faith  in  the
     exercise   of   it,  whereby  we  are  justified--The   heart's
     approbation  of the way of the justification and  salvation  of
     sinners   by   Christ,   with  its  acquiescency   therein--The
     description  given,  explained  and  confirmed:--1.  From   the
     nature  of  the  gospel--Exemplified in its  contrary,  or  the
     nature   of   unbelief,  Prov.1:30;  Heb.2:3;  1   Pet.2:7;   1
     Cor.1:23,24;  2  Cor.4:3--What  it  is,  and  wherein  it  does
     consist.--2.  The design of God in and by the  gospel--His  own
     glory   his  utmost  end  in  all  things--The  glory  of   his
     righteousness, grace, love, wisdom, etc.--The  end  of  God  in
     the  way of the salvation of sinners by Christ, Rom.3:25;  John
     3:16;  1  John 3:16; Eph.1:5,6; 1 Cor.1:24; Eph.3:10; Rom.1:16;
     4:16;  Eph.3:9;  2  Cor.4:6--3.  The  nature  of  faith  thence
     declared--Faith alone ascribes and gives this glory  to  God.--
     4.  Order  of  the acts of faith, or the method in  believing--
     Convictions previous thereunto--Sincere assent unto all  divine
     revelations, Acts 26:27--The proposal of the gospel  unto  that
     end, Rom.10:11-17; 2 Cor.3:18,etc.--State of persons called  to
     believe--Justifying faith does not consist in  any  one  single
     habit  or  act  of the mind or will--The nature of  that  about
     which  is  the first act of faith--Approbation of  the  way  of
     salvation  by  Christ, comprehensive of the special  nature  of
     justifying   faith--What   is   included   there   in:--1.    A
     renunciation   of   all   other  ways,  Hos.14:2,3;   Jer.3:23;
     Ps.71:16;  Rom.10:3.--2. Consent of the  will  unto  this  way,
     John  14:6--3. Acquiescency of the heart in God, 1  Pet.1:21.--
     4.  Trust  in God.--5. Faith described by trust--The reason  of
     it--Nature  and  object of this trust inquired  into--A  double
     consideration of special mercy--Whether obedience  be  included
     in  the  nature of faith, or be of the essence of it--A sincere
     purpose  of  universal  obedience inseparable  from  faith--How
     faith  alone  justifies--Repentance, how required in  and  unto
     justification--How   a   condition  of   the   new   covenant--
     Perseverance in obedience is so also--Definitions of faith

      III.  The  use of faith in justification; its especial  object
  farther cleared
Use of  faith  in  justification; various conceptions  about  it--By
     whom  asserted as the instrument of it; by whom denied--In what
     sense  it  is  affirmed  so  to  be--The  expressions  of   the
     Scripture  concerning the use of faith in  justification;  what
     they  are,  and how they are best explained by an  instrumental
     cause--Faith,  how  the instrument of God in justification--How
     the  instrument  of  them  that do believe--The  use  of  faith
     expressed   in   the  Scripture  by  apprehending,   receiving;
     declared  by an instrument--Faith, in what sense the  condition
     of  our justification--Signification of that term, whence to be
     learned

     IV. Of justification; the notion and signification of the Word in
  Scripture
The proper  sense  of  these words, justification, and  to  justify,
     considered--Necessity     thereof--Latin     derivation      of
     justification--Some  of  the ancients  deceived  by  it  --From
     "jus",   and   "justum";  "justus  filius",   who--The   Hebrew
     "hitsdik"--Use  and  signification of it--Places  where  it  is
     used  examined,  2  Sam.15:4; Deut.25:1; Prov.17:15;  Isa.5:23;
     50:8,9;  1  Kings 8:31,32; 2 Chron.6:22,23; Ps.82:3; Exod.23:7;
     Job  27:5;  Isa.53:11; Gen.44:16; Dan.12:3--The constant  sense
     of  the word evinced--"Diakaio-oo", use of it in other authors,
     to  punish--What it is in the New Testament, Matt.11:19; 12:37;
     Luke  7:29; 10:29; 16:15; 18:14; Acts 13:38,39; Rom.2:13; 3:4--
     Constantly  used  in a forensic sense--Places seeming  dubious,
     vindicated,  Rom.8:30;  1  Cor.6:11; Tit.3:5-7;  Rev.22:11--How
     often  these words, "diakaio-oo" and "dikaioumai", are used  in
     the  New  Testament--Constant sense of this--The  same  evinced
     from   what   is   opposed  unto  it,  Isa.1:8,9;   Prov.17:15;
     Rom.5:116,18;  8:33,34--And  the declaration  of  it  in  terms
     equivalent, Rom.4:6,11; 5:9,10; 2 Cor.5:20,21; Matt.1:21;  Acts
     13:39;   Gal.2:16,   etc.--Justification  in   the   Scripture,
     proposed  under  a juridical scheme, and of a forensic  title--
     The parts and progress of it--Inferences from the whole
Distinction  of a first and second justification--The whole doctrine
     of  the Roman church concerning justification grounded on  this
     distinction--The first justification, the nature and causes  of
     it,  according  unto  the Romanists--The second  justification,
     what  it  is in their sense--Solution of the seeming difference
     between  Paul and James, falsely pretended by this distinction-
     -The  same  distinction received by the Socinians and  others--
     The   latter   termed   by  some  the   continuation   of   our
     justification--The     distinction     disproved--Justification
     considered,  either as unto its essence or its  manifestation--
     The manifestation of it twofold, initial and final--Initial  is
     either unto ourselves or others--No second justification  hence
     ensues--Justification before God, legal and  evangelical--Their
     distinct natures--The distinction mentioned derogatory  to  the
     merit  of Christ--More in it ascribed unto ourselves than  unto
     the  blood  of  Christ,  in  our justification--The  vanity  of
     disputations    to   this   purpose--All   true   justification
     overthrown by this distinction--No countenance given unto  this
     justification  in  the Scripture--The second justification  not
     intended  by the apostle James--Evil of arbitrary distinctions-
     -Our  first justification so described in the Scripture  as  to
     leave  no  room  for  a  second--Of  the  continuation  of  our
     justification;  whether  it  depend  on  faith  alone,  or  our
     personal   righteousness,   inquired--Justification   at   once
     completed,  in  all the causes and effects  of  it,  proved  at
     large--Believers,  upon  their  justification,   obliged   unto
     perfect  obedience--The commanding power of the law constitutes
     the nature of sin in them who are not obnoxious unto its curse-
     -Future   sins,   in   what  sense  remitted   at   our   first
     justification--The continuation of actual pardon,  and  thereby
     of  a justified estate; on what it does depend--Continuation of
     justifications  the  act of God; whereon  it  depends  in  that
     sense--On   our   part,  it  depends  on  faith  alone--Nothing
     required hereunto but the application of righteousness imputed-
     -The  continuation  of our justification  is  before  God--That
     whereon   the   continuation  of  our  justification   depends,
     pleadable before God--This not our personal obedience, proved:-
     -1.  By  the  experience  of all believers--2.  Testimonies  of
     Scripture--3. Examples--The distinction mentioned rejected

     VI. Evangelical personal righteousness, the nature and use of it--
  Final judgment, and its respect unto justification
Evangelical  personal  righteousness; the nature  and  use  of  it--
     Whether  there be an angelical justification on our evangelical
     righteousness, inquired into--How this is by some affirmed  and
     applauded--Evangelical personal righteousness asserted  as  the
     condition  of  our righteousness, or the pardon of sin--Opinion
     of   the  Socinians--Personal  righteousness  required  in  the
     gospel--Believers   hence   denominated   righteous--Not   with
     respect  unto righteousness habitual, but actual only--Inherent
     righteousness  the  same with sanctification,  or  holiness--In
     what  sense  we  may  be  said  to  be  justified  by  inherent
     righteousness--No  evangelical justification  on  our  personal
     righteousness--The  imputation of the righteousness  of  Christ
     does  not  depend  thereon--None have this  righteousness,  but
     they  are antecedently justified--A charge before God,  in  all
     justification  before God--The instrument of this  charge,  the
     law or the gospel--From neither of them can we be justified  by
     this   personal   righteousness--The  justification   pretended
     needless   and   useless--It  has  not  the   nature   of   any
     justification  mentioned in the Scripture, but is  contrary  to
     all  that  is so called--Other arguments to the same  purpose--
     Sentential  justification at the last day--Nature of  the  last
     judgement--Who  shall  be  then justified  --A  declaration  of
     righteousness,  and an actual admission into glory,  the  whole
     of  justification  at the last day--The argument  that  we  are
     justified  in  this life in the same manner, and  on  the  same
     grounds,  as we shall be judged at the last day, that judgement
     being  according unto works, answered; and the impertinency  of
     it declared

     VII. Imputation, and the nature of it; with the imputation of the
  righteousness of Christ in particular
Imputation,  and  the  nature  of it--The first  express  record  of
     justification  determines  it to be by  imputation,  Gen.15:6--
     Reasons of it--The doctrine of imputation cleared by Paul;  the
     occasion  of  it--Maligned and opposed by many--Weight  of  the
     doctrine  concerning imputation of righteousness, on all  hands
     acknowledged--Judgment   of  the  Reformed   churches   herein,
     particularly of the church of England--By whom opposed, and  on
     what  grounds--Signification  of the  word--Difference  between
     "reputare"  and  "imputare"--Imputation of  two  kinds:--1.  Of
     what  was ours antecedently unto that imputation, whether  good
     or  evil--Instances in both kinds--Nature of this  imputation--
     The  thing  imputed by it, imputed for what it is, and  nothing
     else.  --2.  Of  what  is  not  ours  antecedently  unto   that
     imputation,  but  is  made  so by it--General  nature  of  this
     imputation--Not judging of others to have done what  they  have
     not   done--Several  distinct  grounds  and  reasons  of   this
     imputation:--1.  "Ex  justitia";  --(1.)  "Propter   relationem
     foederalem;"--(2.)  "Propter  relationem  naturalem;"--2.   "Ex
     voluntaria    sponsione"--Instances,   Philem.18;    Gen.43:9--
     Voluntary  sponsion,  the ground of the imputation  of  sin  to
     Christ.  --3.  "Ex  injuria",  1  Kings  1:21.  --4.  "Ex  mera
     gratia,"  Rom.  4--Difference between  the  imputation  of  any
     works  of ours, and of the righteousness of God--Imputation  of
     inherent  righteousness is "ex justitia"--Inconsistency  of  it
     with  that which is "ex mera gratia," Rom.4--Agreement of  both
     kinds  of  imputation--The true nature  of  the  imputation  of
     righteousness unto justification explained--Imputation  of  the
     righteousness  of  Christ--The thing itself  imputed,  not  the
     effect of it; proved against the Socinians

     VIII. Imputation of the sins of the church unto Christ--Grounds of
  it--The  nature  of his suretiship--Causes of the  new  covenant--
  Christ and the church one mystical person--Consequents thereof
Imputation  of  sin  unto Christ--Testimonies of the  ancients  unto
     that  purpose--Christ  and  the church  one  mystical  person--
     Mistakes about that state and relation--Grounds and reasons  of
     the  union  that  is  the foundation of this imputation--Christ
     the  surety of the new covenant; in what sense, unto what ends-
     -Heb.7:22,  opened--Mistakes about the causes and ends  of  the
     death   of  Christ--The  new  covenant,  in  what  sense  alone
     procured  and purchased thereby --Inquiry whether the guilt  of
     our  sins  was imputed unto Christ--The meaning of  the  words,
     "guilt," and "guilty"--The distinction of "reatus culpae",  and
     "reatus poenae", examined--Act of God in the imputation of  the
     guilt  of our sins unto Christ--Objections against it answered-
     -The truth confirmed

     IX. The formal cause of justification, or the righteousness on the
  account  whereof  believers are justified  before  God--Objections
  answered
Principal  controversies  about  justification:--1.  Concerning  the
     nature of justification, stated--2. Of the formal cause of  it-
     -3.  Of  the way whereby we are made partakers of the  benefits
     of  the mediation of Christ--What intended by the formal  cause
     of  justification, declared--The righteousness on  the  account
     whereof  believers  are justified before  God  alone,  inquired
     after  under  these  terms--This the righteousness  of  Christ,
     imputed  unto  them--Occasions  of  exceptions  and  objections
     against  this doctrine--General objections examined--Imputation
     of  the righteousness of Christ consistent with the free pardon
     of  sin,  and  with  the necessity of evangelical  repentance--
     Method  of  God's  grace  in our justification  --Necessity  of
     faith  unto justification, on supposition of the imputation  of
     the  righteousness of Christ--Grounds of that  necessity--Other
     objections,  arising  mostly  from  mistakes  of   the   truth,
     asserted, discussed, and answered

      X.  Arguments  for  justification by  the  imputation  of  the
  righteousness  of Christ. The first argument from the  nature  and
  use of our own personal righteousness
Arguments  for  justification by the imputation of the righteousness
     of  Christ--Our  own personal righteousness  not  that  on  the
     account  whereof  we  are  justified  in  the  sight  of  God--
     Disclaimed  in  the Scriptures, as to any such  end--The  truth
     and  reality  of it granted--Manifold imperfection accompanying
     it,  rendering  it  unmeet  to  be  a  righteousness  unto  the
     justification of life

      XIV.  The exclusion of all sorts of works from an interest  in
  justification--What is intended by "the law," and the  "works"  of
  it, in the epistles of Paul
All works  whatever are expressly excluded from any interest in  our
     justification  before God--What intended by the  works  of  the
     law--Not  those of the ceremonial law only--Not  perfect  works
     only,  as required by the law of our creation--Not the  outward
     works  of  the law, performed without a principle of faith--Not
     works  of  the Jewish law--Not works with a conceit of  merit--
     Not  works  only wrought before believing, in the  strength  of
     our    own   wills--Works   excluded   abso1utely   from    our
     justification, without respect unto a distinction  of  a  first
     and  second  justification--The true sense of the  law  in  the
     apostolical  assertion  that none are justified  by  the  works
     thereof--What  the Jews understood by the law--Distribution  of
     the  law under the Old Testament--The whole law a perfect  rule
     of  all  inherent moral or spiritual obedience --What  are  the
     works  of  the  law,  declared  from  the  Scripture,  and  the
     argument  thereby  confirmed --The nature of  justifying  faith
     farther declared

     XV. Faith alone
Of faith alone

      XVI.  The  truth pleaded farther confirmed by  testimonies  of
  Scripture.--Jer.23:6
Testimonies  of  Scripture confirming the doctrine of  justification
     by  the  imputation  of the righteousness of  Christ--Jer.23:6,
     exp1sined and indicated

     XVII. Testimonies out of the evangelists considered
Testimonies  out  of  the  evangelists  considered--Design  of   our
     Saviour's  sermon on the mount--The purity and penalty  of  the
     law  vindicated  by  him--Arguments from thence--Luke  18:9-14,
     the  parable of the Pharisee and publican explained and applied
     to  the  present  argument--Testimonies out of  the  gospel  by
     John, chap. 1:12; 3:14-18, etc.

     XVIII. The nature of justification as declared in the epistles of
  St. Paul, in that unto the Romans especially.--Chap. 3 [4,5,10;  1
  Cor.1:30; 2 Cor.5:21; Gal.2:16; Eph.2:8-10; Phil.3:8,9.]
Testimonies  out of the Epistles of Paul the apostle--His design  in
     the  fifth  chapter  to the Romans--That  design  explained  at
     large,   and  applied  to  the  present  argument--Chap.3:24-26
     explained,  and  the  true sense of the  words  vindicated--The
     causes of justification enumerated--Apostolical inference  from
     the  consideration of them--Chap.4, design of  the  disputation
     of  the apostle therein Analysis of his discourse--Verses 4, 5,
     particularly  insisted  on; their true  sense  vindicated--What
     works  excluded  from the justification of Abraham--Who  it  is
     that  works  not--In what sense the ungodly are  justified--All
     men  ungodly antecedently unto their justification--Faith alone
     the   means   of  justification  on  our  part--Faith   itself,
     absolutely  considered, not the righteousness that  is  imputed
     unto us--Proved by sundry arguments
Rom.5:l2-21--Boasting  excluded in ourselves, asserted  in  God--The
     design  and sum of the apostle's argument--Objection of Socinus
     removed--Comparison  between the  two  Adams,  and  those  that
     derive   from  them--Sin  entered  into  the  world--What   sin
     intended--Death,  what it comprises, what intended  by  it--The
     sense  of  these  words,  "inasmuch," or,  "in  whom  all  have
     sinned,"  cleared and vindicated--The various oppositions  used
     by  the  apostle in this discourse: principally between sin  or
     the  fall, and the free gift; between the disobedience  of  the
     one,  and  the obedience of another; judgment on the one  hand,
     and justification unto life on the other--The whole context  at
     large  explained,  and  the argument for justification  by  the
     imputation of the righteousness of Christ, fully confirmed
Rom.10:3,4, explained and insisted on to the same purpose
1 Cor.1:30--Christ,  how of God made righteousness  unto  us--Answer
     of  Bellarmine  unto  this testimony removed--That  of  Socinus
     disproved--True sense of the words evinced
2 Cor.5:21--In  what  sense  Christ knew no  sin--Emphasis  in  that
     expression--How  he was made sin for us--By the  imputation  of
     sin unto him--Mistakes of some about this expression--Sense  of
     the  ancients--  Exception of Bellarmine  unto  this  testimony
     answered,  with  other reasonings of his to the same  purpose--
     The exceptions of others also removed
Gal.2:16
Eph.2:8-10--Evidence of this testimony--Design of the  apostle  from
     the  beginning  of the chapter--Method of the  apostle  in  the
     declaration  of  the  grace of God--Grace alone  the  cause  of
     deliverance from a state of sin--Things to be observed  in  the
     assignation  of  the  causes of spiritual  deliverances--Grace,
     how  magnified by him--Force of the argument and evidence  from
     thence--State  of  the  case  here proposed  by  the  apostle--
     General  determination of it, "By grace are ye saved"--What  is
     it  to  be  saved, inquired into--The same as to be  justified,
     but  not  exclusively--The causes of our justification declared
     positively and negatively--The whole secured unto the grace  of
     God  by  Christ, and our interest therein through faith alone--
     Works  excluded--What works?--Not works of the law  of  Moses--
     Not  works antecedent unto believing--Works of true believers--
     Not only in opposition to the grace of God, but to faith in us-
     -Argument  from those words--Reason whereon this  exclusion  of
     works  is  founded--To exclude boasting on our  part--Boasting,
     wherein it consists--Inseparable from the interest of works  in
     justification--Danger  of  it--Confirmation  of  this   reason,
     obviating  an  objection--The objection stated--If  we  be  not
     justified by works, of what use are they? answered
Phil.3:8,9--Heads  of  argument from this testimony--Design  of  the
     context--Righteousness the foundation of acceptance with  God--
     A  twofold  righteousness considered by  the  apostle--Opposite
     unto  one  another, as unto the especial and  inquired  after--
     Which  of these he adhered unto, his own righteousness, or  the
     righteousness  of God; declared by the apostle  with  vehemency
     of  speech--Reasons  of  his  earnestness  herein--The  turning
     point  whereon he left Judaism--The opposition made  unto  this
     doctrine   by  the  Jews--The  weight  of  the  doctrine,   and
     unwillingness of men to receive it--His own sense  of  sin  and
     grace--Peculiar  expressions  used  in  this  place,  for   the
     reasons  mentioned,  concerning Christ; concerning  all  things
     that  are  our  own--The choice to be made on the case  stated,
     whether  we will adhere unto our own righteousness, or that  of
     Christ's,   which   are  inconsistent  as   to   the   end   of
     justification--Argument from this place--Exceptions  unto  this
     testimony,  and  argument  from thence,  removed--Our  personal
     righteousness inherent, the same with respect unto the law  and
     gospel  --External righteousness only required by the  law,  an
     impious  imagination--Works wrought before faith only rejected-
     -The  exception  removed--Righteousness before conversion,  not
     intended by the apostle

      XIX.  Objections against the doctrine of justification by  the
  imputation  of the righteousness of Christ--Personal holiness  and
  obedience not obstructed, but furthered by it
Objections  against the doctrine of justification by the  imputation
     of  the  righteousness of Christ--Nature of these  objections--
     Difficulty in discerning aright the sense of some men  in  this
     argument--Justification by works, the  end  of  all  declension
     from  the  righteousness  of  Christ--Objections  against  this
     doctrine   derived  from  a  supposition  thereof  alone--First
     principal  objection:  Imputed  righteousness  overthrows   the
     necessity  of a holy life--This objection, as managed  by  them
     of  the  church  of Rome, an open calumny--How insisted  on  by
     some  among  ourselves--Socinus' fierceness in this charge--His
     foul   dishonesty  therein--False  charges  on  men's  opinions
     making  way  for  the  rash  condemnation  of  their  persons--
     Iniquity  of  such  censures--The  objection  rightly  stated--
     Sufficiently  answered  in the previous  discourses  about  the
     nature  of  faith, and force of the moral law--The  nature  and
     necessity   of   evangelical   holiness   elsewhere   pleaded--
     Particular  answers unto this objection--All who  profess  this
     doctrine  do  not  exemplify it in their lives--The  most  holy
     truths  have  been abused--None by whom this  doctrine  is  now
     denied  exceeds  them  in  holiness  by  whom  it  is  formerly
     professed, and the power of it attested--The contrary  doctrine
     not  successful  in  the reformation of the lives  of  men--The
     best  way  to  determine  this  difference--The  one  objection
     managed  against the doctrine of the apostle in his own  days--
     Efficacious  prejudices against this doctrine in the  minds  of
     men--The  whole doctrine of the apostle liable to  be  abused--
     Answer  of  the  apostle  unto this  objection--He  never  once
     attempts  to  answer it by declaring the necessity of  personal
     righteousness, or good works, unto justification  before  God--
     He  confines the cogency of evangelical motives unto  obedience
     only  unto believers--Grounds of evangelical holiness  asserted
     by  him,  in  compliance with his doctrine of justification:--1
     Divine  ordination--Exceptions  unto  this  ground  removed--2.
     Answer  of  the apostle vindicated--The obligation of  the  law
     unto  obedience--Nature of it, and consistency with grace--This
     answer  of  the  apostle vindicated--Heads of other  principles
     that might be pleaded to the same purpose

     XX. The doctrine of the apostle James concerning faith and works--
  Its agreement with that of St Paul
Seeming  difference,  no  real contradiction, between  the  apostles
     Paul  and James, concerning justification--This granted by all-
     -Reasons  of  the  seeming difference--The  best  rule  of  the
     interpretation  of  places of Scripture  wherein  there  is  an
     appearing  repugnancy--The doctrine of justification  according
     unto  that rule principally to be learned from the writings  of
     Paul--The  reasons of his fulness and accuracy in the  teaching
     of  that  doctrine--The importance of the truth; the opposition
     made unto it, and abuse of it--The design of the apostle James-
     -  Exceptions  of  some  against  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,
     scandalous  and  unreasonable--Not,  in  this  matter,  to   be
     interpreted  by the passage in James insisted on, chap.2.--That
     there  is  no  repugnancy  between  the  doctrine  of  the  two
     apostles  demonstrated--Heads and grounds of the demonstration-
     -Their scope, design, and end, not the same--That of Paul;  the
     only  case  stated  and determined by him--The  design  of  the
     apostle  James;  the  case proposed by  him  quite  of  another
     nature--The occasion of the case proposed and stated  by  him--
     No  appearance of difference between the apostles,  because  of
     the  several cases they speak unto--Not the same faith intended
     by  them--Description of the faith spoken of by  the  one,  and
     the  other--Bellarmine's  arguments to  prove  true  justifying
     faith  to  be  intended  by James, answered--Justification  not
     treated of by the apostles in the same manner, nor used in  the
     same   sense,   nor  to  the  same  end--The  one   treats   of
     justification,  as unto its nature and causes;  the  other,  as
     unto  its  signs and evidence--Proved by the instances insisted
     on--How  the Scripture was fulfilled, that Abraham believed  in
     God,  and  it was counted unto him for righteousness,  when  he
     offered  his son on the altar--Works the same, and of the  same
     kind,  in  both the apostles--Observations on the discourse  of
     James--No  conjunction made by him between faith nor  works  in
     our  justification,  but  an opposition--No  distinction  of  a
     first  and second justification in him--Justification  ascribed
     by  him  wholly  unto works--In what sense--Does not  determine
     how  a  sinner may be justified before God; but how a professor
     may  evidence himself so to be--The context opened  from  verse
     14, to the end of the chapter






Prefatory Note

There  is  a pregnant and striking passage in one of the charges  of
Bishop  Horsley,  which  may be said to  embody  the  substance  and
intimate  the scope of the following work on justification,--a  work
which  has  been esteemed one of the best productions  of  Dr  Owen.
"That  man is justified," says Horsley, "by faith, without the works
of the law, was the uniform doctrine of our first Reformers. It is a
far more ancient doctrine,--it was the doctrine of the whole college
of  apostles; it is more ancient still,--it was the doctrine of  the
prophets; it is older than the prophets,--it was the religion of the
patriarchs;  and  no  one who has the least  acquaintance  with  the
writings  of the first Reformers will impute to them, more  than  to
the  patriarchs, the prophets, or apostles, the absurd opinion, that
any  man leading an impenitent, wicked life, will finally, upon  the
mere  pretence of faith (and faith connected with an impenitent life
must always be a mere pretence), obtain admission into heaven."
   Dr  Owen, in the "general considerations" with which he opens the
discussion  of  this momentous subject, shows that the  doctrine  of
justification by faith was clearly declared in the teaching  of  the
ancient  church. Among other testimonies, he adduces the  remarkable
extract  from  the  epistle  to Diognetus,  which,  though  commonly
printed  among  the works of Justin Martyr, has been  attributed  by
Tillemont  to  some author in the first century. Augustine,  in  his
contest  with Pelagian error, powerfully advocated the doctrines  of
grace.  That  he clearly apprehended the nature of justification  by
grace  appears  from  the principle so tersely  enunciated  by  him,
"Opera  bona non faciunt justum, sed justificatus facit bona opera."
The  controversy,  however in which he was  the  great  champion  of
orthodox opinions, turned mainly upon the renovation of the heart by
a  divine and supernatural influence; not so directly on the  change
of state effected by justifying grace. It was the clear apprehension
and  firm grasp of this doctrine which ultimately emancipated Luther
from  the thraldom of Romish error, and he clung to it with  a  zeal
proportioned to his conviction of the benefit which his own soul had
derived  from it. He restored it to its true place and  bearings  in
the Christian system, and, in emphatic expression of its importance,
pronounced it "Articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae." It had  to
encounter, accordingly, strong opposition from all who were  hostile
to  the  theology  of the Reformation. Both Socinus  and  Bellarmine
wrote  against it,--the former discussing the question in connection
with  his general argument against orthodox views on the subject  of
the  person  and  work  of Christ; the latter  devoting  a  separate
treatise expressly to the refutation of the doctrine of the Reformed
churches  regarding  justification. Several Roman  Catholic  authors
followed in his wake, to whom Dr Owen alludes in different parts  of
his  work. The ability with which Bellarmine conducted his  argument
cannot be questioned; though sometimes, in meeting difficulties  and
disposing  of objections to his views from Scripture, he evinces  an
unscrupulous  audacity  of  statement.  His  work  still  continues,
perhaps  the  ablest and most systematic attempt  to  overthrow  the
doctrine of justification by faith. In supplying an antidote to  the
subtle  disquisitions of the Romish divine, Dr Owen  is  in  reality
vindicating that doctrine at all the points where the acumen of  his
antagonist had conceived it liable to be assailed with any  hope  of
success.
  To counteract the tendency of the religious mind when it proceeded
in  the  direction  of Arminianism, Calvinistic  divines,  naturally
engrossed with the points in dispute, dwelt greatly on the  workings
of  efficacious grace in election, regeneration, and conversion,  if
not to the exclusion of the free offer of the gospel, at least so as
to  cast  somewhat into the shade the free justification offered  in
it.   The  Antinomianism  which  arose  during  the  time   of   the
Commonwealth has been accounted the reaction from this defect. Under
these circumstances, the attention of theologians was again drawn to
the  doctrine  of justification. Dissent could not, in those  times,
afford  to  be weakened by divisions; and partly under the influence
of  his  own pacific dispositions, and partly to accomplish a public
service  to  the  cause  of  religion, Baxter  made  an  attempt  to
reconcile  the  parties at variance, and to soothe  into  unity  the
British  churches.  Rightly  conceiving  that  the  essence  of  the
question  lay in the nature of justification, he published  in  1649
his  "Aphorisms  on Justification," in opposition to the  Antinomian
tendencies  of  the  day,  and  yet  designed  to  accommodate   the
prevailing  differences;  on  terms,  however,  that  were  held  to
compromise  the  gratuitous  character  of  justification.  He   had
unconsciously,  by  a  recoil common in every attempt  to  reconcile
essentially  antagonistic principles, made  a  transition  from  the
ground  of justification by faith, to views clearly opposed  to  it.
Though  his  mind was the victim of a false theory,  his  heart  was
practically  right;  and he subsequently modified  and  amended  his
views.  But  to  his  "Aphorisms" Bishop  Barlow  traces  the  first
departure from the received doctrine of the Reformed churches on the
subject  of  justification.  In  1669,  Bishop  Bull  published  his
"Apostolical  Harmony,"  with the view of reconciling  the  apostles
Paul  and James. There is no ambiguity in regard to his views as  to
the  ground  of  a sinner's acceptance with God. According  to  Bull
"faith denotes the whole condition of the gospel covenant; that  is,
comprehends in one word all the works of Christian piety." It is the
just  remark  of Bickersteth, that "under the cover of justification
by faith, this is in reality justification by works."
A  host of opponents sprung up in reply to Baxter and Bull; but they
were not left without help in maintaining their position. In support
of  Baxter,  Sir Charles Wolsley, a baronet of some reputation,  who
had  been  a member of Cromwell's Council of State, and who  sat  in
several  parliaments after the Restoration, published, in 1667,  his
"Justification  Evangelical." In a letter to Mr Humfrey,  author  of
the  "Peaceable Disquisition", published subsequently to Owen's work
and  partly in refutation of it, Sir Charles, referring to Dr  Owen,
remarks,  "I suppose you know his book of Justification was  written
particularly against mine." There is reason to believe that Owen had
a  wider  object  in  view  than the refutation  of  any  particular
treatise. In the preface to his great work, which appeared in  1677,
he  assures  the  reader that, whatever contests  prevailed  on  the
subject of justification, it was his design to mingle in no personal
controversy with any author of the day. Not that his seasonings  had
no  bearing on the pending disputes, for, from the brief  review  we
have  submitted of the history of this discussion, it is clear that,
with  all  its other excellencies, the work was eminently seasonable
and  much needed; but he seems to have been under a conviction, that
in  refuting  specially Socinus and Bellarmine,  he  was  in  effect
disposing  of the most formidable objections ever urged against  the
doctrine   of   justification  by  grace,  while  he   avoided   the
impleasantness of personal collision with the Christian men  of  his
own  times  whose  views might seem to him deeply erroneous  on  the
point;  and  the very coincidence of these views, both in  principle
and  tendency, with Socinian and Popish heresies, would  suggest  to
his  readers, if not a conclusive argument against them, at least  a
good  reason why they should be carefully examined before they  were
embraced.  His  work,  therefore, is  not  a  meagre  and  ephemeral
contribution  to  the controversy as it prevailed in  his  day,  and
under  an  aspect in which it may never again be revived.  It  is  a
formal  review of the whole amount of truth revealed to us in regard
to  the justification of the sinner before God; and, if the scope of
the  treatise  is  considered,  the  author  cannot  be  blamed  for
prolixity  in the treatment of a theme so wide. On his own  side  of
the  question,  it  is  still the most complete  discussion  in  one
language  of  the important doctrine to which it relates.  Exception
has been taken to the abstruse definitions and distinctions which he
introduces.  He had obviously no intention to offend  in  this  way;
for, at the close of chap.14, he makes a quaint protest against  the
admission   of  "exotic  learning,"  "philosophical  notions,"   and
"arbitrary distinctions," into the exposition of spiritual truth. In
the  refutation of complicated error, there is sometimes a necessity
to  track  it  through various sinuosities; but, in  the  main,  the
treatise is written in a spirit which proves how directly the author
was  resting on divine truth as the basis of his own faith and hope,
and  how  warily he strove and watched that his mind might  not  "be
corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ".
   "A  curious  fact",  says  Mr Orme,  "respecting  this  book,  is
mentioned  in the Life of Mr Joseph Williams, of Kidderminster:--'At
last,  the time of his (Mr Grimshawe's, an active clergyman  of  the
Church  of  England) deliverance came. At the house of  one  of  his
friends  he  lays his hand on a book, and opens it,  with  his  face
towards  a  pewter  shelf. Instantly his face  is  saluted  with  an
uncommon flash of heat. He turns to the title-page, and finds it  to
be  Dr Owen on Justification. Immediately he is surprised with  such
another  flash. He borrows the book, studies it, is led  into  God's
method  of  justifying the ungodly, has a new heart given unto  him;
and now, behold, he prays!' Whether these flashes were electrical or
galvanic, ss Southey in his Life of Wesley supposes, it deserves  to
be  noticed, that it was not the flash but the book which  converted
Grimshawe. The occurrence which turned his attention to  it,  is  of
importance  merely as the second cause, which, under the  mysterious
direction of Providence, led to s blessed result."

Analysis.--The  causes,  object,  nature,  and  use  of  faith   are
successively  considered, chap.1-3. The nature of  justification  is
next  discussed;--first, under an inquiry into the  meaning  of  the
different terms commonly employed regarding it; and, secondly, by  a
statement  of the juridical and forensic aspect under  which  it  is
represented  in Scripture, 4. The theory of a twofold justification,
as  asserted by the Church of Rome, and another error which ascribes
the   initial  justification  of  the  sinner  to  faith,  but   the
continuance   of  his  state  as  justified  to  his  own   personal
righteousness,  are  examined,  and  proved  untenable,  5.  Several
arguments  are  urged  in  disproof of  a  third  erroneous  theory,
broached and supported by Socinians, that justification depends upon
evangelical   righteousness   as  the   condition   on   which   the
righteousness  of Christ is imputed, 6. A general statement  follows
of  the nature of imputation, and of the grounds on which imputation
proceeds,  7. A full discussion ensues of the doctrine that  sin  is
imputed  to Christ, grounded upon the mystical union between  Christ
and  the  church,  the suretiship of the former  in  behalf  of  the
church,  and  the  provisions  of the new  covenant,  8.  The  chief
controversies   in   regard  to  justification  are   arranged   and
classified, and the author fixes on the point relating to the formal
cause   of  justification  as  the  main  theme  of  the  subsequent
reasonings, 9.
   At this stage, the second division of the treatise may be held to
begin,--the  previous  disquisitions being  more  of  a  preliminary
character. The scope of what follows is to prove that the sinner  is
justified,  through faith, by the imputed righteousness  of  Christ.
This  part  of the work embraces four divisions;--general  arguments
for the doctrine affirmed; testimonies from Scripture in support  of
it;  the  refutation of objections to it; and the reconciliation  of
the  passages in the Epistles of Paul and James which have  appeared
to some to be inconsistent.
   Under  the  head  of "general arguments", he rebuts  briefly  the
general objections to imputation, and contends for the imputation of
Christ's righteousness as the ground of justification;--first,  from
the insufficiency of our own righteousness, or, in other words, from
the  condition of guilt in which all men are by nature involved, 10;
secondly,   from   the  nature  of  the  obedience   required   unto
justification,  according to the eternal obligation  of  the  divine
law, 11; and, as a subsidiary and collateral consideration, from the
necessity  which  existed that the precept  of  the  law  should  be
fulfilled  as  well  as that atonement should be  rendered  for  the
violation  of it,--in short, from the active as well as the  passive
righteousness of Christ; and here the three objections of  Socinius,
that  such  an  imputation  of  Christ's  obedience  is  impossible,
useless,  and  pernicious,  receive  s  detailed  confutation,   12;
thirdly,  from  the  difference between the two covenants,  13;  and
fourthly,  from  the express terms in which all works  see  excluded
from justification in Scripture, 14; while faith is exhibited in the
gospel  as  the  sole instrument by which we are interested  in  the
righteousness  of Christ, 15. The "testimony of Scripture"  is  then
adduced  at  great length,--passages being quoted and  commented  on
from  the  prophets,  16; from the evangelists,  17;  and  from  the
epistles   of  Paul,  18.  The  "objections"  to  the  doctrine   of
justification  are reviewed, and the chief objection,--namely,  that
the doctrine overthrows the necessity of holiness and subverts moral
obligation,--is repelled by a variety of arguments, 19. Lastly,  the
concluding  chapter is devoted to an explanation of the passages  in
Paul  and  James which are alleged to be at variance but  which  are
proved to be in perfect harmony, 20.--Ed.



To the Reader

I  shall not need to detain the reader with an account of the nature
and  moment  of  that doctrine which is the entire  subject  of  the
ensuing   discourse;  far  although  sunder  persons,   even   among
ourselves,  have various apprehensions concerning it, yet  that  the
knowledge of the truth therein is of the highest importance unto the
souls  of  men  is  on  all hands agreed unto. Nor,  indeed,  is  it
possible  that  any  man  who knows himself  to  be  a  sinner,  and
obnoxious thereon to the judgment of God, but he must desire to have
some knowledge of it, as that alone whereby the way of delivery from
the  evil  state and condition wherein he finds himself is revealed.
There  are,  I  confess, multitudes in the world who, although  they
cannot  avoid  some  general convictions of  sin,  as  also  of  the
consequent  of  it, yet do fortify their minds against  a  practical
admission of such conclusions as, in a just consideration of things,
do necessarily and unavoidably ensue thereon. Such persons, wilfully
deluding themselves with vain hopes and imaginations, do never  once
seriously  inquire by what way or means they may obtain  peace  with
God  and  acceptance before him, which, in comparison of the present
enjoyment of the pleasures of sin, they value not at all. And it  is
in  vain  to recommend the doctrine of justification unto  them  who
neither  desire nor endeavour to be justified. But where any persons
are really made sensible of their apostasy from God, of the evil  of
their  natures and lives, with the dreadful consequences that attend
thereon,  in the wrath of God and eternal punishment due  unto  sin,
they  cannot well judge themselves more concerned in any thing  than
in  the  knowledge of that divine way whereby they may be  delivered
from  this condition. And the minds of such persons stand in no need
of  arguments  to satisfy them in the importance of  this  doctrine;
their  own  concernment in it is sufficient to that purpose.  And  I
shall assure them that, in the handling of it, from first to last, I
have  had  no other design but only to inquire diligently  into  the
divine  revelation of that way, and those means, with the causes  of
them,  whereby  the  conscience of a distressed  sinner  may  attain
assured  peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.  I  lay  more
weight on the steady direction of one soul in this inquiry, than  on
disappointing the objections of twenty wrangling or fiery disputers.
The  question,  therefore, unto this purpose being  stated,  as  the
reader will find in the beginning of our discourse, although it were
necessary  to  spend some time in the explication  of  the  doctrine
itself, and terms wherein it is usually taught, get the main  weight
of  the  whole  lies in the interpretation of scripture testimonies,
with  the  application of them unto the experience of  them  who  do
believe,  and  the state of them who seek after salvation  by  Jesus
Christ.  There are, therefore, some few things that I  would  desire
the  reader  to take notice of, that he may receive benefit  by  the
ensuing  discourse; at least, if it be not his own fault,  be  freed
from prejudices against it, or a vain opposition unto it.
   1.  Although  there  are at present various  contests  about  the
doctrine  of justification, and may books published in  the  way  of
controversy about it, yet this discourse was written with no  design
to  contend with or contradict any, of what sort or opinion  soever.
Some   few  passages  which  seem  of  that  tendency  are,  indeed,
occasionally inserted; but they are such as every candid reader will
judge  to  have been necessary. I have ascribed no opinion unto  any
particular person,--much less wrested the words of any, reflected on
their persons, censured their abilities, taken advantage of presumed
prejudices against them, represented their opinions in the  deformed
reflections  of  strained  consequences, fancied  intended  notions,
which  their  words do not express, nor, candidly interpreted,  give
any  countenance unto,--or endeavoured the vain pleasure of  seeming
success  in  opposition unto them; which, with the like  effects  of
weakness  of  mind  and disorder of affections,  are  the  animating
principles  of  many  late controversial writings.  To  declare  and
vindicate the truth, unto the instruction and edification of such as
love   it  in  sincerity,  to  extricate  their  minds  from   those
difficulties  (in this particular instance) which some endeavour  to
cast on all gospel mysteries, to direct the consciences of them that
inquire after abiding peace with God, and to establish the minds  of
them  that  do  believe,  are the things I have  aimed  at;  and  an
endeavour unto this end, considering all circumstances, that station
which God has been pleased graciously to give me in the church,  has
made necessary unto me.
   2.  I  have  written nothing but what I believe to be  true,  and
useful  unto the promotion of gospel obedience. The reader  may  not
here  expect  an extraction of other men's notions, or a  collection
and  improvement of their arguments, either by artificial seasonings
or  ornament  of  style and language; but a naked inquiry  into  the
nature  of the things treated on, as revealed in the Scripture,  and
as evidencing themselves in their power and efficacy on the minds of
them  that  do  believe.  It  is  the  practical  direction  of  the
consciences  of men, in their application unto God by  Jesus  Christ
for  deliverance  from the curse due unto the  apostate  state,  and
peace with him, with the influence of the way thereof unto universal
gospel  obedience, that is alone to be designed in the  handling  of
this doctrine. And, therefore, unto him that would treat of it in  a
due  manner, it is required that he weigh every thing he asserts  in
his  own  mind  and  experience, and not dare to propose  that  unto
others  which  he  does not abide by himself, in the  most  intimate
recesses of his mind, under his nearest approaches unto God, in  his
surprisals  with  dangers, in deep afflictions, in his  preparations
for  death, and most humble contemplations of the infinite  distance
between  God  and  him.  Other notions and  disputations  about  the
doctrine  of  justification, not seasoned  with  these  ingredients,
however condited unto the palate of some by skill and language,  are
insipid  and  useless, immediately degenerating into an unprofitable
strife of words.
   3.  I know that the doctrine here pleaded for is charged by  many
with   an  unfriendly  aspect  towards  the  necessity  of  personal
holiness,  good  works, and all gospel obedience  in  general,  yea,
utterly to take it away. So it was at the first clear revelation  of
it  by  the  apostle  Paul, as he frequently  declares.  But  it  is
sufficiently evinced by him to be the chief principle of, and motive
unto,  all  that obedience which is accepted with God through  Jesus
Christ, as we shall manifest afterwards. However, it is acknowledged
that  the objective grace of the gospel, in the doctrine of  it,  is
liable  to abuse, where there is nothing of the subjective grace  of
it in the hearts of men; and the ways of its influence into the life
of  God  are uncouth unto the seasonings of carnal minds. So was  it
charged by the Papists, at the first Reformation, and continues  yet
so  to  be.  Yet, as it gave the first occasion unto the Reformation
itself,  so  was  it  that whereby the souls of men,  being  set  at
liberty from their bondage unto innumerable superstitious fears  and
observances,  utterly inconsistent with true gospel  obedience,  and
directed into the ways of peace with God through Jesus Christ,  were
made  fruitful in real holiness, and to abound in all those  blessed
effects  of  the  life  of God which were never  found  among  their
adversaries. The same charge as afterwards renewed by the Socinians,
and  continues still to be managed by them. But I suppose  wise  and
impartial  men will not lay much weight on their accusations,  until
they  have  manifested the efficacy of their contrary persuasion  by
better effects and fruits than yet they have done. What sort of  men
they were who first coined that system of religion which they adhere
unto, one who knew them well enough, find sufficiently inclined unto
their Antitrinitarian opinions, declares in one of the queries  that
he  proposed unto Socinus himself and his followers. "If this," says
he,  "be  the truth which you contend for, whence comes it  to  pass
that  is  is declared only by persons 'nulla pietatis commendatione,
nulla  laudato prioris vitae exemplo commendatos; imo  ut  prerumque
videmus,  per  vagabundos,  et  contentionum  zeli  carnalis  plenos
homines,  alios ex castris, aulis, graneis, prolatam esse.  Scrupuli
ab  excellenti  viro  propositi, inter oper. Socin.'"  The  fiercest
charges   of  such  men  against  any  doctrines  they   oppose   as
inconsistent  with  the  necessary motives  unto  godliness,  are  a
recommendation of it unto the minds of considerative men. And  there
cannot  be  a more effectual engine plied for the ruin of  religion,
than  for  men  to declaim against the doctrine of justification  by
faith alone, and other truths concerning the grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ, as those which overthrow the necessity of moral duties, good
works,  and  gospel  obedience; whilst, under  the  conduct  of  the
opinions  which they embrace in opposition unto them, they give  not
the  least evidence of the power of the truth or grace of the gospel
upon  their  own hearts, or in their lives. Whereas, therefore,  the
whole  gospel  is the truth which is after godliness, declaring  and
exhibiting  that  grace  of  God  which  teaches  us  "to  deny  all
ungodliness and worldly lusts, and that we should live soberly,  and
righteously,  and godly in this world;" we being fallen  into  those
times  wherein,  under  great  and fierce  contests  about  notions,
opinions,  and practices in religion, there is a horrible  decay  in
true  gospel  purity and holiness of life amongst the generality  of
men,  I shall readily grant that, keeping a due regard unto the only
standard  of  truth,  a  secondary trial of doctrines  proposed  and
contended  for  may  and  ought to be  made,  by  the  ways,  lives,
walkings,  and conversations of them by whom they are  received  and
professed. And although it is acknowledged that the doctrine pleaded
in  the  ensuing discourse be liable to be abused, yea, turned  into
licentiousness, by men of corrupt minds, through the  prevalence  of
vicious habits in them (as is the whole doctrine of the grace of God
by Jesus Christ); and although the way and means of its efficacy and
influence  into  universal obedience unto God, in righteousness  and
true  holiness,  be not discernible without some beam  of  spiritual
light, nor will give an experience of their power unto the minds  of
men  utterly destitute of a principle of spiritual life; yet, if  it
cannot  preserve  its station in the church by  this  rule,  of  its
useful  tendency unto the promotion of godliness, and its  necessity
thereunto, in all them by whom it is really believed and received in
its proper light and power, and that in the experience of former and
present times, I shall be content that it be exploded.
   4.  Finding that not a few have esteemed it compliant with  their
interest to publish exceptions against some few leaves which, in the
handling  of a subject of another nature, I occasionally wrote  many
years  ago  on  this  subject, I am not without apprehensions,  that
either  the  same persons or others of a like temper and principles,
may  attempt  an  opposition unto what is  here  expressly  tendered
thereon.  On supposition of such an attempt, I shall, in  one  word,
let  the authors of it know wherein alone I shall be concerned. For,
if  they  shall  make it their business to cavil at expressions,  to
wrest  my words, wire-draw inferences and conclusions from them  not
expressly  owned by me,--to revile my person, to catch at advantages
in  any  occasional  passages, or other  unessential  parts  of  the
discourse,--labouring for an appearance of success and reputation to
themselves   thereby,  without  a  due  attendance  unto   Christian
moderation, candour, and ingenuity,--I shall take no more notice  of
what   they   say  or  write  than  I  would  do  of  the   greatest
impertinencies that can be reported in this world. The  same  I  say
concerning  oppositions of the like nature unto another writings  of
mine,--a  work which, as I hear, some are at present engaged  in.  I
have  somewhat else to do than to cast away any part  of  the  small
remainder  of  my life in that kind of controversial writings  which
good  men  bewail,  and  wise men deride.  Whereas,  therefore,  the
principal  design  of  this discourse is to state  the  doctrine  of
justification  from  the  Scripture,  and  to  confirm  it  by   the
testimonies  thereof, I shall not esteem it spoken  against,  unless
our exposition of Scripture testimonies, and the application of them
unto   the   present  argument,  be  disproved  by  just  rules   of
interpretation,  and  another sense of them be  evinced.  All  other
things  which I conceive necessary to be spoken unto, in order  unto
the  right  understanding and due improvement of the  truth  pleaded
for, are comprised and declared in the ensuing general discourses to
that purpose. These few things I thought meet to mind the reader of.
                                                                J.O.
From my study, May the 30th, 1677.





The Doctrine of Justification by Faith





General  Considerations,  previous  unto  the  Explanation  of   the
Doctrine of Justification


First,  The general nature of justification--State of the person  to
be  justified antecedently thereunto, Rom.4:5; 3:19; 1:32; Gal.3:10;
John  3:18,36; Gal.3:22--The sole inquiry on that state--Whether  it
be  any  thing  that is our own inherently, or what is only  imputed
unto  us, that we are to trust unto for our acceptance with God--The
sum  of  this inquiry--The proper ends of teaching and learning  the
doctrine of justification--Things to be avoided therein

That we may treat of the doctrine of justification usefully unto its
proper  ends, which are the glory of God in Christ, with  the  peace
and  furtherance  of  the obedience of believers,  some  things  are
previously to be considered, which we must have respect unto in  the
whole  process  of our discourse. And, among others  that  might  be
insisted  on  to the same purpose, these that ensue are  not  to  be
omitted:--
   1.  The first inquiry in this matter, in a way of duty, is  after
the  proper  relief  of  the conscience  of  a  sinner  pressed  and
perplexed with a sense of the guilt of sin. For justification is the
way  and  means whereby such a person does obtain acceptance  before
God, with a right and title unto a heavenly inheritance. And nothing
is  pleadable in this cause but what a man would speak unto his  own
conscience in that state, or unto the conscience of another, when he
is   anxious  under  that  inquiry.  Wherefore,  the  person   under
consideration  (that  is, who is to be justified)  is  one  who,  in
himself,  is "asethes", Rom.4:5,--"ungodly;" and thereon  "hupodikos
tooi  Theooi", chap.3:19,--"guilty before God;" that is,  obnoxious,
subject,  liable,  "tooi dikaioomati tou Theou", chap.1:32,--to  the
righteous sentential judgment of God, that "he who committeth  sin,"
who  is any way guilty of it, is "worthy of death." Hereupon such  a
person  finds himself "hupo kataran", Gal.3:10,--under "the  curse,"
and  "the  wrath of God" therein abiding on him," John  3:18,36.  In
this  condition he is "anapologetos",--without plea, without excuse,
by  any thing in and from himself, for his own relief; his "mouth is
stopped,"  Rom.3:19. For he is, in the judgment of God, declared  in
the  Scripture, "sungkekleismenos huph' hamartian", Gal.3:22,--every
way "shut up under sin" and all the consequents of it. Many evils in
this condition are men subject unto, which may be reduced unto those
two of our first parents, wherein they were represented. For, first,
they  thought foolishly to hide themselves from God; and then,  more
foolishly,  would have charged him as the cause of  their  sin.  And
such,  naturally,  are the thoughts of men under their  convictions.
But  whoever is the subject of the justification inquired after, is,
by  various means, brought into his apprehensions who cried,  "Sirs,
what must I do to be saved?"
   2.  With respect unto this state and condition of men, or men  in
this  state  and condition, the inquiry is, "What that is  upon  the
account  whereof God pardons all their sins, receives them into  his
favour, declares or pronounces them righteous and acquitted from all
guilt,  removes the curse, and turns away all his wrath  from  them,
giving  them  right  and title unto a blessed, immortality  or  life
eternal?"  This is that alone wherein the consciences of sinners  in
this estate are concerned. Nor do they inquire after any thing,  but
what  they may have to oppose unto or answer the justice of  God  in
the  commands  and  curse  of the law,  and  what  they  may  retake
themselves unto for the obtaining of acceptance with him  unto  life
and salvation.
   That  the  apostle does thus, and no otherwise, state this  whole
matter,  and, in an answer unto this inquiry, declare the nature  of
justification  and  all the causes of it, in the  third  and  fourth
chapters  of  the  Epistle to the Romans, and  elsewhere,  shall  be
afterwards declared and proved. And we shall also manifest, that the
apostle James, in the second chapter of his epistle, does not  speak
unto  this  inquiry,  nor give an answer  unto  it;  but  it  is  of
justification in another sense, and to another purpose,  whereof  he
treats.  And  whereas we cannot either safely or usefully  treat  of
this  doctrine, but with respect unto the same ends for which it  is
declared,  and whereunto it is applied in the Scripture,  we  should
not, by any pretences, be turned aside from attending unto this case
and its resolution, in all our discourses on this subject; for it is
the  direction, satisfaction, and peace of the consciences  of  men,
and  not the curiosity of notions or subtlety of disputations, which
it  is  our  duty to design. And, therefore, I shall, as much  as  I
possibly  may, avoid all these philosophical terms and  distinctions
wherewith  this evangelical doctrine has been perplexed rather  than
illustrated; for more weight is to be put on the steady guidance  of
the  mind and conscience of one believer, really exercised about the
foundation  of  his  peace and acceptance  with  God,  than  on  the
confutation of ten wrangling disputers.
  3. Now the inquiry, on what account, or for what cause and reason,
a  man  may be so acquitted or discharged of sin, and accepted  with
God,  as  before declared, does necessarily issue in this:--"Whether
it  be  any  thing  in ourselves, as our faith and repentance,  thee
renovation  of  our  natures, inherent habits of grace,  and  actual
works of righteousness which we have done, or may do? Or whether  it
be  the obedience, righteousness, satisfaction, and merit of the Son
of  God our mediator, and surety of the covenant, imputed unto  us?"
One  of these it must be,--namely, something that is our own, which,
whatever  may  be  the influence of the grace of  God  unto  it,  or
causality of it, because wrought in and by us, is inherently our own
in  a  proper  sense; or something which, being  not  our  own,  nor
inherent in us, nor wrought by us, is yet imputed unto us,  for  the
pardon  of our sins and the acceptation of our persons as righteous,
or the making of us righteous in the sight of God. Neither are these
things  capable of mixture or composition, Rom.11:6. Which of  these
it  is  the duty, wisdom, and safety of a convinced sinner  to  rely
upon and trust unto, in his appearance before God, is the sum of our
present inquiry.
   4.  The way whereby sinners do or ought to betake themselves unto
this  relief, on supposition that it is the righteousness of Christ,
and  how they come to be partakers of, or interested in, that  which
is  not  inherently  their own, unto as good  benefit  and  as  much
advantage  as  if it were their own, is of a distinct consideration.
And  as this also is clearly determined in the Scripture, so  it  is
acknowledged  in the experience of all them that do  truly  believe.
Neither  are we in this matter much to regard the senses or  arguing
of  men who were never thoroughly convinced of sin, nor have ever in
their own persons "fled for refuge unto the hope set before them."
   5.  These things, I say, are always to be attended unto,  in  our
whole  disquisition  into  the nature of evangelical  justification;
for,  without a constant respect unto them, we shall quickly  wander
into  curious  and perplexed questions, wherein the  consciences  of
guilty  sinners  are  not  concerned; and which,  therefore,  really
belong not unto the substance or truth of this doctrine, nor are  to
be  immixed  therewith. It is alone the relief of those who  are  in
themselves "hupodikoi tooi Theoo",--guilty before, or obnoxious  and
liable to, the judgment of God,--that we inquire after. That this is
not  any  thing in or of themselves, nor can so be,--that  it  is  a
provision  without them, made in infinite wisdom and  grace  by  the
mediation of Christ, his obedience and death therein,--is secured in
the  Scripture against all contradiction; and it is the  fundamental
principle of the gospel, Matt.11:28.
   6.  It is confessed that many things, for the declaration of  the
truth, and the order of the dispensation of God's grace herein,  are
necessary  to  be  insisted on,--such are the nature  of  justifying
faith,  the place and use of it in justification, and the causes  of
the new covenant, the true notion of the mediation and suretiship of
Christ, and the like; which shall all of them be inquired into. But,
beyond  what  tends  directly unto the guidance  of  the  minds  and
satisfaction  of  the  souls of men, who seek  after  a  stable  and
abiding foundation of acceptance with God, we are not easily  to  be
drawn  unless  we are free to lose the benefit and comfort  of  this
most  important  evangelical  truth  in  needless  and  unprofitable
contentions.  And  amongst  many other miscarriages  which  men  are
subject  unto, whilst they are conversant about these things,  this,
in an especial manner, is to be avoided.
   7.  For  the doctrine of justification is directive of  Christian
practice,  and  in no other evangelical truth is the  whole  of  our
obedience  more concerned; for the foundation, reasons, and  motives
of  all  our  duty towards God are contained therein. Wherefore,  in
order  unto  the due improvement of them ought it to be taught,  and
not  otherwise. That which alone we aim (or ought so to do) to learn
in  it and by it, is how we may get and maintain peace with God, and
so  to  live unto him as to be accepted with him in what we  do.  To
satisfy  the minds and consciences of men in these things,  is  this
doctrine  to  be  taught.  Wherefore,  to  carry  it  out   of   the
understandings  of ordinary Christians, by speculative  notions  and
distinctions, is disserviceable unto the faith of the  church;  yea,
the mixing of evangelical revelations with philosophical notions has
been,  in sundry ages, the poison of religion. Pretence of accuracy,
and  artificial  skill in teaching, is that which gives  countenance
unto  such  a  way  of  handling sacred things.  But  the  spiritual
amplitude  of divine truths is restrained hereby, whilst low,  mean,
philosophical  senses  are imposed on them. And  not  only  so,  but
endless  divisions and contentions are occasioned  and  perpetuated.
Hence,  when  any  difference in religion  is,  in  the  pursuit  of
controversies  about  it,  brought  into  the  old  of  metaphysical
respects  and  philosophical terms, whereof there  is  "polus  nomos
entha  kai  entha"--sufficient  provision  for  the  supply  of  the
combatants on both sides,--the truth for the most part, as unto  any
concernment of the souls of men therein, is utterly lost and  buried
in  the  rubbish of senseless and unprofitable words. And  thus,  in
particular,  those who seem to be well enough agreed  in  the  whole
doctrine of justification, so far as the Scripture goes before them,
and  the experience of believers keeps them company, when once  they
engage into their philosophical definitions and distinctions, are at
such  an  irreconcilable variance among themselves, as if they  were
agreed on no one thing that does concern it. For as men have various
apprehensions  in  coining such definitions  as  may  be  defensible
against objections, which most men aim at therein; so no proposition
can  be so pain, (at least in "materia probabili,") but that  a  man
ordinarily versed in pedagogical terms and metaphysical notions, may
multiply distinctions on every word of it.
   8.  Hence,  there  has been a pretence and appearance  of  twenty
several   opinions   among  Protestants  about   justification,   as
Bellarmine and Vasguez, and others of the Papists, charge it against
them  out  of Osiander, when the faith of them all was one  and  the
same,  Bellar., lib 5 cap. l; Vasq. in 1, 2, quest. 113, disp.  202;
whereof  we  shall speak elsewhere. When men are once advanced  into
that  field  of disputation, which is all overgrown with  thorns  of
subtleties,  perplexed  notions, and futilous  terms  of  art,  they
consider  principally how they may entangle others in it, scarce  at
all  how they may get out of it themselves. And in this posture they
oftentimes  utterly  forget  the  business  which  they  are  about,
especially  in this matter of justification,--namely, how  a  guilty
sinner  may come to obtain favour and acceptance with God.  And  not
only  so, but I doubt they oftentimes dispute themselves beyond what
they  can  well  abide  by,  when they return  home  unto  a  sedate
meditation of the state of things between God and their souls. And I
cannot  much value their notions and sentiments of this matter,  who
object  and answer themselves out of a sense of their own appearance
before God; much less theirs who evidence an open inconformity  unto
the grace and truth of this doctrine in their hearts and lives.
   9.  Wherefore, we do but trouble the faith of Christians, and the
peace   of  the  true  church  of  God,  whilst  we  dispute   about
expressions, terms, and notions, when the substance of the  doctrine
intended  may  be  declared  and believed,  without  the  knowledge,
understanding,  or use of any of them. Such are all those  in  whose
subtle  management  the captious art of wrangling  does  principally
consist.  A diligent attendance unto the revelation made  hereof  in
the Scripture, and an examination of our own experience thereby,  is
the sum of what is required of us for the right understanding of the
truth  herein. And every true believer, who is taught of God,  knows
how to put his whole trust in Christ alone, and the grace of God  by
him,  for  mercy, righteousness, and glory, and not at  all  concern
himself  with  those loads of thorns and briers,  which,  under  the
names of definitions, distinctions, accurate notions, in a number of
exotic   pedagogical  and  philosophical  terms,  some  pretend   to
accommodate them withal.
   10.  The Holy Ghost, in expressing the most eminent acts  in  our
justification, especially as unto our believing, or  the  acting  of
that  faith whereby we are justified, is pleased to make use of many
metaphorical expressions. For any to use them now in the  same  way,
and  to the same purpose, is esteemed rude, undisciplinary, and even
ridiculous;  but on what grounds? He that shall deny that  there  is
more spiritual sense and experience conveyed by them into the hearts
and  minds  of  believers (which is the life and  soul  of  teaching
things   practical),   than  in  the  most  accurate   philosophical
expressions, is himself really ignorant of the whole truth  in  this
matter.  The  propriety of such expressions belongs and is  confined
unto natural science; but spiritual truths are to be taught, "not in
the  words  which man's wisdom teacheth, but which  the  Holy  Ghost
teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual." God  is  wiser
than  man;  and  the  Holy  Ghost knows better  what  are  the  most
expedient ways for the illumination of our minds with that knowledge
of  evangelical truths which it is our duty to have and attain, than
the  wisest  of  us all. And other knowledge of or  skill  in  these
things, than what is required of us in a way of duty, is not  to  be
valued.
   It  is, therefore, to no purpose to handle the mysteries  of  the
gospel  as  if Hilcot and Bricot, Thomas and Gabriel, with  all  the
Sententiarists,  Summists,  and Quodlibetarians  of  the  old  Roman
peripatetical school, were to be raked out of their graves to be our
guides.  Especially will they be of no use unto us in this  doctrine
of  justification. For whereas they pertinaciously adhered unto  the
philosophy  of Aristotle, who knew nothing of any righteousness  but
what  is  a  habit inherent in ourselves, and the acts of  it,  they
wrested  the  whole  doctrine  of justification  unto  a  compliance
wherewithal.  So  Pighius himself complained of  them,  Controv.  2,
"Dissimulate  non  possumus, hanc vel primam  doctrinae  Christianae
partem  (de  justificatione)  obscuram  magis  quam  illustratam   a
scholasticis,  spinosis plerisque quaestionibus, et  definitionibus,
secundum   quas   nonnulli  magno  supercilio  primam   in   omnibus
autoritatem arrogantes", etc.

Secondly,  A  due consideration of God, the Judge of all,  necessary
unto  the  right  stating  and  apprehension  of  the  doctrine   of
justification,  Rom.8:33; Isa.43:25; 45:25; Ps.143:2; Rom.3:20--What
thoughts  will be ingenerated hereby in the minds of men, Isa.33:14;
Micah  6:6,7;  Isa.6:5--The plea of Job  against  his  friends,  and
before  God,  not  the  same,  Job  40:3-5,  43:406--Directions  for
visiting  the sick given of old--Testimonies of Jerome and Ambrose--
Sense  of  men  in  their prayers, Dan.9:7,18;  Ps.143:2,  130:3,4--
Paraphrase  of  Austin  on  that place--Prayer  of  Pelagius--Public
liturgies

   Secondly, A due consideration of him with whom in this matter  we
have  to do, and that immediately, is necessary unto a right stating
of  our  thoughts about it. The Scripture expresses it emphatically,
that  it is "God that justifieth," Rom.8:33; and he assumes it  unto
himself as his prerogative to do what belongs thereunto. "I, even I,
am  he  that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake,  and
will  not  remember  thy sins," Isa.43:25. And it  is  hard,  in  my
apprehension,  to suggest unto him any other reason or consideration
of  the pardon of our sins, seeing he has taken it on him to  do  it
for  his own sake; that is, "for the Lord's sake," Dan.9:17, in whom
"all  the  seed of Israel are justified," Isa.45:25. In  his  sight,
before  his  tribunal,  it is that men are justified  or  condemned.
Ps.143:2,  "Enter  not into judgment with thy servant;  for  in  thy
sight  shall  no  man living be justified." And the  whole  work  of
justification, with all that belongs thereunto, is represented after
the  manner of a juridical proceeding before God's tribunal;  as  we
shall  see afterwards. "Therefore," says the apostle, "by the  deeds
of  the  law  shall  no flesh be justified in his sight,"  Rom.3:20.
However  any man be justified in the sight of men or angels  by  his
own obedience, or deeds of the law, yet in his sight none can be so.
   Necessary it is unto any man who is to come unto a trial, in  the
sentence whereof he is greatly concerned, duly to consider the judge
before whom he is to appear, and by whom his cause is finally to  be
determined.  And  if  we  manage  our disputes  about  justification
without  continual  regard unto him by  whom  we  must  be  cast  or
acquitted, we shall not rightly apprehend what our plea ought to be.
Wherefore  the  greatness, the majesty, the holiness, and  sovereign
authority of God, are always to be present with us in a due sense of
them, when we inquire how we may be justified before him. Yet is  it
hard  to  discern  how the minds of some men are influenced  by  the
consideration  of  these things, in their fierce  contests  for  the
interest  of  their own works in their justification: "Precibus  aut
pretio  ut  in  aliqua  parte  haereant."  But  the  Scripture  does
represent unto us what thoughts of him and of themselves,  not  only
sinners,  but saints also, have had, and cannot but have, upon  near
discoveries  and  effectual conceptions of God  and  his  greatness.
Thoughts  hereof ensuing on a sense of the guilt of sin, filled  our
first  parents  with fear and shame, and put them  on  that  foolish
attempt  of hiding themselves from him. Nor is the wisdom  of  their
posterity  one  jot  better  under  their  convictions,  without   a
discovery  of  the  promise. That alone  makes  sinners  wise  which
tenders  them relief. At present, the generality of men are  secure,
and  do  not much question but that they shall come off well enough,
one  way  or  other, in the trial they are to undergo. And  as  such
persons   are   altogether  indifferent  what  doctrine   concerning
justification  is  taught and received; so for the  most  part,  for
themselves,  they  incline unto that declaration of  it  which  best
suits  their own reason, as influenced with self-conceit and corrupt
affections. The sum whereof is, that what they cannot do themselves,
what  is  wanting that they may be saved, be it more or less,  shall
one  way or other be made up by Christ; either the use or the  abuse
of  which  persuasion is the greatest fountain of sin in the  world,
next unto the depravation of our nature. And whatever be, or may be,
pretended  unto  the  contrary, persons not convinced  of  sin,  not
humbled  for  it,  are in all their ratiocinations  about  spiritual
things,  under the conduct of principles so vitiated and  corrupted.
See  Matt.18:3,4. But when God is pleased by any means  to  manifest
his  glory  unto sinners, all their prefidences and contrivances  do
issue in dreadful horror and distress. An account of their temper is
given  us,  Isa.33:14, "The sinners in Zion are afraid;  fearfulness
has  surprised  the hypocrites. Who among us shall  dwell  with  the
devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?"
Nor  is  it thus only with some peculiar sort of sinners.  The  same
will  be  the thoughts of all guilty persons at some time or  other.
For  those  who,  through sensuality, security, or superstition,  do
hide  themselves from the vexation of them in this world,  will  not
fail  to  meet  with them when their terror shall be increased,  and
become  remediless. Our "God is a consuming fire;" and men will  one
day  find how vain it is to set their briers and thorns against  him
in  battle  array.  And  we  may see what  extravagant  contrivances
convinced sinners will put themselves upon, under any real  view  of
the majesty and holiness of God, Mic.6:6,7, "Wherewith," says one of
them, "shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the  high
God? Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves of  a
year  old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousand of rams,  or  with
ten  thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first born  for  my
transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" Neither
shall  I  ever  think  them meet to be contended  withal  about  the
doctrine  of  justification who take no notice of these things,  but
rather despise them.
   This  is the proper effect of the conviction of sin, strengthened
and  sharpened with the consideration of the terror of the Lord, who
is  to  judge concerning it. And this is that which, in the  Papacy,
meeting  with an ignorance of the righteousness of God, has produced
innumerable  superstitious  inventions  for  the  appeasing  of  the
consciences of men who by any means fall under the disquietments  of
such convictions. For they quickly see that nothing of the obedience
which God requires of them, as it is performed by them, will justify
them  before this high and holy God. Wherefore they seek for shelter
in  contrivances about things that he has not commanded, to  try  if
they  can  put  a cheat upon their consciences, and find  relief  in
diversions.
    Nor   is  it  thus  only  with  profligate  sinners  upon  their
convictions;  but  the  best of men, when they  have  had  near  and
efficacious representations of the greatness, holiness, and glory of
God,  have  been  cast  into  the deepest self-abasement,  and  most
serious  renunciation of all trust or confidence in  themselves.  So
the  prophet Isaiah, upon his vision of the glory of the  Holy  One,
cried  out,  "Woe is me! For I am undone; because  I  am  a  man  of
unclean lips," chap. 6:5;--nor was he relieved but by an evidence of
the  free  pardon of sin, verse 7. So holy Job, in all his  contests
with  his friends, who charged him with hypocrisy, and his  being  a
sinner  guilty  in a peculiar manner above other men,  with  assured
confidence  and  perseverance therein, justified his sincerity,  his
faith and trust in God, against their whole charge, and every parcel
of  it.  And this he does with such a full satisfaction of  his  own
integrity,  as that not only he insists at large on his vindication,
but  frequently appeals unto God himself as unto the  truth  of  his
plea;  for  he directly pursues that counsel, with great  assurance,
which the apostle James so long after gives unto all believers.  Nor
is  the  doctrine of that apostle more eminently exemplified in  any
one  instance  throughout the whole Scripture than in  him;  for  he
shows  his faith by his works, and pleads his justification thereby.
As  Job  justified himself, and was justified by his  works,  so  we
allow   it  the  duty  of  every  believer  to  be.  His  plea   for
justification by works, in the sense wherein it is so, was the  most
noble  that  ever  was  in the world, nor was ever  any  controversy
managed upon a greater occasion.
   At  length this Job is called into the immediate presence of Gods
to  plead  his  own cause; not now, as stated between  him  and  his
friends, whether he were a hypocrite or no, or whether his faith  or
trust in God was sincere; but as it was stated between God and  him,
wherein  he  seemed to have made some undue assumptions on  his  own
behalf. The question was now reduced unto this,--on what grounds  he
might or could be justified in the sight of God? To prepare his mind
unto  a  right judgment in this case, God manifests his  glory  unto
him,  and  instructs him in the greatness of his majesty and  power.
And this he does by a multiplication of instances, because under our
temptations we are very slow in admitting right conceptions of  God.
Here  the  holy man quickly acknowledged that the state of the  case
was  utterly altered. All his former pleas of faith, hope, and trust
in God, of sincerity in obedience, which with so much earnestness he
before  insisted  on, are now quite laid aside. He saw  well  enough
that  they  were not pleadable at the tribunal before which  he  now
appeared,  so that God should enter into judgment with him  thereon,
with  respect  unto  his justification. Wherefore,  in  the  deepest
self-abasement  and  abhorrence, he retakes himself  unto  sovereign
grace  and mercy. For "then Job answered the LORDS and said, Behold,
I  am  vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon  my
mouth. Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but  I
will  proceed no farther," Job 40:3-5. And again, "Hear,  I  beseech
thee, and I will speak; I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto
me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye
seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself; and repent in dust and ashes,"
chap.42:4-6.  Let any men place themselves in the condition  wherein
now Job was,--in the immediate presence of God; let them attend unto
what he really speaks unto them in his word,--namely, what they will
answer  unto the charge that he has against them, and what  will  be
their  best plea before his tribunal, that they may be justified.  I
do  not believe that any man living has more encouraging grounds  to
plead  for  an  interest  in his own faith  and  obedience,  in  his
justification  before God, than Job had; although I suppose  he  had
not  so much skill to manage a plea to that purpose, with scholastic
notions and distinctions, as the Jesuits have; but however we may be
harnessed with subtle arguments and solutions, I fear it will not be
safe for us to adventure farther upon God than he durst to do.
   There  was  of old a direction for the visitation  of  the  sick,
composed,  as  they  say,  by  Anselm,  and  published  by  Casparus
Ulenbergius,  which expresses a better sense of  these  things  than
some  seem to be convinced of:--"Credisne te non posse salvari  nisi
per mortem Christi? Respondet infirmus, 'Etiam". Tum dicit illi, Age
ergo  dum  superest  in te anima, in hac sola  morte  fiduciam  tuam
constitue;  in  nulla  alia re fiduciam habe  huic  morti  te  totum
committe,  hac sola te totum contege totum immisce te in hac  morte,
in  hac  morte totum te involve. Et si Dominus te voluerit judicare,
dic, 'Domine, mortem Domini nostri Jesus Christi objicio inter me et
tuum  judicium, aliter tecum non contendo'. Et si tibi eixerit  quia
peccator es, dic, 'Mortem Domini nostri Jesus Christi pono inter  me
et  peccte  mea'.  Si dixerit tibi quot meruisti  damnationem;  dic,
'Domine, mortem Domini nostri Jesus Christi obtendo inter te et mala
merita  mea,  ipsiusque merita offero pro merito quod ego  debuissem
habere  nec  habeo'. Si dixerit quod tibi est iratus, dic,  'Domine,
mortem Domini Jesu Christi oppono inter me et iram tuam;'"--that is,
"Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved but by the death  of
Christ?  The sick man answers, 'Yes,' then let it be said unto  him,
Go  to,  then,  and  whilst thy soul abideth in thee,  put  all  thy
confidence  in this death alone, place thy trust in no other  thing;
commit thyself wholly to this death, cover thyself wholly with  this
alone,  cast  thyself wholly on this death, wrap thyself  wholly  in
this  death.  And if God would judge thee, say, 'Lord, I  place  the
death  of  our  Lord Jesus Christ between me and thy  judgment;  and
otherwise I will not contend or enter into judgment with thee.'  And
if  he shall say unto thee that thou art a sinner, say, 'I place the
death  of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sins.' If he shall
say  unto thee that thou hast deserved damnation, say, 'Lord, I  put
the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between thee and all my sins; and
I  offer his merits for my own, which I should have, and have  not.'
If  he say that he is angry with thee, say, 'Lord, I place the death
of  our Lord Jesus Christ between me and thy anger.'" Those who gave
these  directions seem to have been sensible of what it is to appear
before  the tribunal of God, and how unsafe it will be for us  there
to insist on any thing in ourselves. Hence are the words of the same
Anselm  in  his  Meditations: "Conscientia mea meruit damnation,  et
poenitentia mea non sufficit ad satisfactionem; set certum est  quod
misericordia  tua  superat omnem offensionem;"--"My  conscience  has
deserved  damnation,  and  my  repentance  is  not  sufficient   for
satisfaction; but most certain it is that thy mercy aboundeth  above
all  offense."  And this seems to me a better direction  than  those
more  lately given by some of the Roman church;--such as the  prayer
suggested  unto  a  sick man by Johan. Polandus,  lib.  Methodus  in
adjuvandis morientibus: "Domine Jesus, conjunge, obsecro,  obsequium
meum  cum  omnibus  quae  tu egisti, et  pssus  s  ex  tam  perfecta
charitate et obedientia. Et cum divitiis satisfactionum et meritorum
dilectionis,  patri aeterno, illud offere digneris." Or  that  of  a
greater  author, Antidot. Animae, fol. 17, "Tu hinc o rosea martyrum
turba  offer pro me nunc et in hora mortis mee, merita, fidelitatum,
constantiae,  et  pretiosi sanguinis, cum sanguine agni  immaculati,
pro  omnium salute effusi." Jerome, long before Anselm, spake to the
same  purpose:  "Cum dies judicii aut dormitionis  advenerit,  omnes
manus  dissolventur; quibus dicitur in alio loco, confortamini manus
dissolutae;  dissolventur autem manus, quia nullum opus  dignum  Dei
justitia  reperiatur, et non justificabitur in conspectu ejus  omnis
vivens,  unde  propheta  dicit in psalmo,  'Si  iniquitates  attends
Domine, quis sustinebit'", lib. 6 in Isa.13:6,7; --"When the day  of
judgment or of death shall come, all hands will be dissolved"  (that
is,  faint  or fall down); "unto which it is said in another  place,
'Be  strengthened, ye hands that hang down.' But all hands shall  be
melted down" (that is, all men's strength and confidence shall  fail
them),  "because  no  works  shall be found  which  can  answer  the
righteousness of God; for no flesh shall be justified in his  sight.
Whence the prophet says in the psalm, 'If thou, LORD, shouldest mark
iniquity,  who  should stand?" "And Ambrose, to  the  same  purpose:
"Nemo  ergo sibi arroget, nemo de meritis glorietur, nemo de  ostate
se  jactet, omnes speremus per Dominum Jesus misericordiam invenire,
quoniam  omnes ante tribunal ejus stabimus. De illo veniam, de  illo
indulgentiam postulabo. Quaenam spes alia peccatoribus?" in  Ps.119.
Resh,--"Let no man arrogate any thing unto himself, let no man glory
in  his own merits or good deeds, let no man boast of his power: let
us  all hope to find mercy by our Lord Jesus; for we shall all stand
before  his judgment-seat. Of him will I beg pardon, of him  will  I
desire indulgence; what other hope is there for sinners?"
   Wherefore, if men will be turned off from a continual regard unto
the greatness, holiness, and majesty of God, by their inventions  in
the   heat   of   disputation;  if  they  do  forget  a  reverential
consideration  of what will become them, and what  they  may  retake
themselves unto when they stand before his tribunal; they may engage
into  such  apprehensions as they dare not abide  by  in  their  own
personal trial. For "how shall man be just with God?" Hence  it  has
been  observed, that the schoolmen themselves, in their  meditations
and devotional writings, wherein they had immediate thoughts of God,
with  whom  they had to do, did speak quite another language  as  to
justification   before  God  than  they  do  in   their   wrangling,
philosophical, fiery disputes about it. And I had rather learn  what
some  men  really  judge  about their own justification  from  their
prayers than their writings. Nor do I remember that I did ever  hear
any good man in his prayers use any expressions about justification,
pardon  of sin, and righteousness before God, wherein any plea  from
any thing in ourselves was introduced or made use of. The prayer  of
Daniel   has,   in  this  matter,  been  the  substance   of   their
supplications: "O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but  unto
us  confusion  of faces. We do not present our supplications  before
thee  for  our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.  O  Lord,
hear;  O  Lord,  forgive;  for thine  own  sake,  O  my  God,"  Dan.
9:7,18,19.  Or  that of the psalmist, "Enter not into judgment  with
thy  servant,  0  Lord,  for in thy sight shall  no  man  living  be
justified," Ps.143:2. Or, "If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities,
O  LORD,  who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee,  that
thou mayest be feared," Ps.130:3,4. On which words the exposition of
Austin  is  remarkable,  speaking of David,  and  applying  it  unto
himself:  "Ecce clamat sub molibus iniquitatum suarum.  Circumspexit
se,   circumspexit   vitam  suam,  vidit  illam  undique   flagitiis
coopertam;  quacunque  respexit, nihil in se boni  invenit:  et  cum
tante  et  tam  multa peccata undique videret, tanquam  expavescens,
exclamavit,  'Si  iniquitates observaris Domine,  quis  sustinebit?'
Vidit   enim  prope  totam  vitam  humanam  circumlatrari  peccatis;
accusari  omnes  conscientias cogitationius suis; non  inveniri  cor
castum  praesumens  de  justitia; quod  quia  inveniri  non  potest,
praesumat  ergo omnium cor de misericordi Domini Dei sui,  et  dicat
Deo,  'Si  iniquitates observaris Domine, Domine  quis  sustinebit?'
Quae  autem est spes? Quoniam apud te propitiatio est". And  whereas
we  may  and ought to represent unto God, in our supplications,  our
faith, or what it is that we believe herein, I much question whether
some men can find in their hearts to pray over and plead before  him
all  the  arguments and distinctions they make use of to  prove  the
interest of our works and obedience in our justification before him,
or  "enter  into judgment" with him upon the conclusions which  they
make  from  them.  Nor will many be satisfied to make  use  of  that
prayer which Pelagius taught the widow, as it was objected to him in
the  Diospolitan  Synod:  "To  nosti,  Domine,  quam  sanctae,  quam
innocentes, quam purae ab omni fraude et rapina quas ad  te  expando
manus; quam justa, quam immaculata labia et ab omni mendacio libera,
quibus  tibi  ut  mihi miserearis preces fundo;"--"Thou  knowest,  O
Lord,  how holy, how innocent, how pure from all deceit and  rapine,
are  the  hands  which  I stretch forth unto  thee;  how  just,  how
unspotted with evil, how free from lying, are those lips wherewith I
pour  forth prayers unto thee, that thou wouldst have mercy on  me."
And  yet,  although  he  taught her so  to  plead  her  own  purity,
innocency,  and righteousness before God, he does it  not  as  those
whereon she might be absolutely justified, but only as the condition
of  her  obtaining  mercy.  Nor have  I  observed  that  any  public
liturgies (the mass-book only excepted, wherein there is a  frequent
recourse unto the merits and intercession of saints) do guide men in
their  prayers  before God to plead any thing for  their  acceptance
with  him, or as the means or condition thereof, but grace, mercy,--
the righteousness and blood of Christ alone.
   Wherefore I cannot but judge it best (others may think of  it  as
they  please),  for those who would teach or learn the  doctrine  of
justification  in  a due manner, to place their consciences  in  the
presence  of God, and their persons before his tribunal,  and  then,
upon   a   due  consideration  of  his  greatness,  power,  majesty,
righteousness, holiness,--of the terror of his glory  and  sovereign
authority,  to inquire what the Scripture and a sense of  their  own
condition direct them unto as their relief and refuge, and what plea
it  becomes them to make for themselves. Secret thoughts of God  and
ourselves, retired meditations, the conduct of the spirit in  humble
supplications,  deathbed  preparations for an  immediate  appearance
before  God,  faith  and  love in exercise on  Christ,  speak  other
things, for the most part, than many contend for.

Thirdly,  A  due sense of our apostasy from God, the depravation  of
our nature thereby, with the power and guilt of sin, the holiness of
the  law,  necessary unto a right understanding of the  doctrine  of
justification--Method  of the apostle to this  purpose,  Rom.1,2,3--
Grounds  of  the ancient and present Pelagianism, in the  denial  of
these  things--Instances thereof--Boasting of  perfection  from  the
same ground--Knowledge of sin and grace mutually promote each other

   Thirdly.  A clear apprehension and due sense of the greatness  of
our  apostasy from, God, of the depravation of our natures  thereby,
of  the power and guilt of sin, of the holiness and severity of  the
law,  are  necessary unto a right apprehension of  the  doctrine  of
justification.  Therefore,  unto the  declaration  of  it  does  the
apostle premise a large discourse, thoroughly to convince the  minds
of  all  that  seek  to be justified with a sense of  these  things,
Rom.1,2,3.  The  rules which he has given us, the  method  which  he
prescribes, and the ends which he designs, are those which we  shall
choose  to  follow.  And  he  lays it down  in  general,  "That  the
righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith;" and that "the
just  shall  live  by  faith," chap.1:17. But  he  declares  not  in
particular  the causes, nature, and way of our justification,  until
he  has  fully evinced that all men are shut up under the  state  of
sin,  and manifested how deplorable their condition is thereby;  and
in  the  ignorance of these things, in the denying or palliating  of
them,  he  lays the foundation of all misbelief about the  grace  of
God.  Pelagianism, in its first root, and all its present  branches,
is  resolved  whereinto.  For, not apprehending  the  dread  of  our
original  apostasy  from  God, nor the  consequence  of  it  in  the
universal  depravation  of  our nature, they  disown  any  necessity
either of the satisfaction of Christ or the efficacy of divine grace
for  our  recovery or restoration. So upon the matter the  principal
ends  of  the mission both of the Son of God and of the Holy  Spirit
are  renounced; which issues in the denial of the deity of  the  one
and  the  personality of the other. The fall which we had being  not
great, and the disease contracted thereby being easily curable,  and
there  being  little  or  no  evil in those  things  which  are  now
unavoidable  unto our nature, it is no great matter to he  freed  or
justified  from  all by a mere act of favour on our own  endeavours;
nor  is  the  efficacious  grace of God any  way  needful  unto  our
sanctification and obedience; as these men suppose.
  When these or the like conceits are admitted, and the minds of men
by  them kept off from a due apprehension of the state and guilt  of
sin,  and  their consciences from being affected with the terror  of
the Lord, and curse of the law thereon, justification is a notion to
be  dealt  withal pleasantly or subtlety, as men see  occasion.  And
hence arise the differences about it at present,--I mean those which
are  really such, and not merely the different ways whereby  learned
men express their thoughts and apprehensions concerning it.
  By some the imputation of the actual apostasy and transgression of
Adam, the head of our nature, whereby his sin became the sin of  the
world,  is  utterly  denied. Hereby both  the  grounds  the  apostle
proceeds on in evincing the necessity of our justification,  or  our
being  made  righteous  by the obedience of  another,  and  all  the
arguments brought in the confirmation of the doctrine of it, in  the
fifth  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  are  evaded  and
overthrown. Socinus, de Servitor. par.4 cap. 6, confesses that place
to  give great countenance unto the doctrine of justification by the
imputation  of  the righteousness of Christ; and therefore  he  sets
himself to oppose, with sundry artifices, the imputation of the  sin
of  Adam  unto his natural posterity. For he perceived  well  enough
that,   upon   the   admission  thereof,  the  imputation   of   the
righteousness  of  Christ unto his spiritual seed would  unavoidably
follow, according unto the tenor of the apostle's discourse.
   Some  deny  the depravation and corruption of our  nature,  which
ensued  on our apostasy from God, and the loss of his image; or,  if
they  do  not  absolutely deny it, yet they so extenuate  it  as  to
render  it  a  matter of no great concern unto us. Some disease  and
distemper  of  the  soul  they will acknowledge,  arising  from  the
disorder  of our affections, whereby we are apt to receive  in  such
vicious habits and customs as are in practice in the world; and,  as
the  guilt hereof is not much, so the danger of it is not great. And
as  for any spiritual filth or stain of our nature that is in it, it
is  clean  washed away from all by baptism. That deformity  of  soul
which  came  upon  us in the loss of the image of God,  wherein  the
beauty  and  harmony of all our faculties, in all  their  acting  in
order unto their utmost end, did consist; that enmity unto God, even
in   the  mind,  which  ensued  thereon;  that  darkness  which  our
understandings  were  clouded, yea, blinded  withal,--the  spiritual
death which passed on the whole soul, and total alienation frorn the
life  of God; that impotency unto good, that inclination unto  evil,
that deceitfulness of sin, that power and efficacy of corrupt lusts,
which the Scriptures and experience so fully charge on the state  of
lost  nature, are rejected as empty notions or fables. No wonder  if
such  persons  look upon imputed righteousness as the  shadow  of  a
dream,  who esteem those things which evidence its necessity  to  be
but fond imaginations. And small hope is there to bring such men  to
value  the righteousness of Christ, as imputed to them, who  are  so
unacquainted with their own unrighteousness inherent in them.  Until
men  know  themselves  better, they will care very  little  to  know
Christ at all.
   Against  such  as  these  the doctrine of  justification  may  be
defended, as, we are obliged to contend for the faith once delivered
unto  the saints, and as the mouths of gainsayers are to be stopped;
but  to endeavor their satisfaction in it, whilst they are under the
power of such apprehensions, is a vain attempt. As our Saviour  said
unto  them  unto whom he had declared the necessity of regeneration,
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye
believe  if I tell you heavenly things" so may we say, If  men  will
not  believe those things, whereof it would be marvelous,  but  that
the reason of it is known, that they have not an undeniable evidence
and  experience  in themselves, how can they believe those  heavenly
mysteries  which  respect a supposition of  that  within  themselves
which they will not acknowledge?
   Hence  some  are  so  far  from  any  concernment  in  a  perfect
righteousness  to  be imputed unto them, as that  they  boast  of  a
perfection  in themselves. So did the Pelagians of old  glory  in  a
sinless  perfection  in  the  sight of  God,  even  when  they  were
convinced  of sinful miscarriages in the sight of men; as  they  are
charged  by  Jerome, lib. 2 Dialog.; and by Austin,  lib.  2  contra
Julian.,  cap. 8. Such persons are not "subjects capacia  auditionis
evangelicae."  Whilst  men have no sense in  their  own  hearts  and
consciences of the spiritual disorder of their souls, of the  secret
continual  acting of sin with deceit and violence,  obstructing  all
that  is good, promoting all that is evil, defiling all that is done
by  them  through the lusting of the flesh against  the  Spirit,  as
contrary  unto it, though no outward perpetration of sin  or  actual
omission of duty do ensue thereon, who are not engaged in a constant
watchful conflict against the first motions of sin,--unto whom  they
are not the greatest burden and sorrow in this life, causing them to
cry  out for deliverance from them,--who can despise those who  make
acknowledgments in their confession unto God of their sense of these
things, with the guilt wherewith they are accompanied,--[they] will,
with an assured confidence, resect and condemn what is offered about
justification  through  the obedience and  righteousness  of  Christ
imputed to us. For no man will be so fond as to be solicitous  of  a
righteousness  that is not his own, who has at home in  a  readiness
that  which is his own, which will serve his turn. It is, therefore,
the  ignorance  of these things alone that can delude  men  into  an
apprehension of their justification before God by their own personal
righteousness.  For if they were acquainted with  them,  they  would
quickly  discern such an imperfection in the best of  their  duties,
such  a  frequency  of  sinful irregularities  in  their  minds  and
disorders  in their affections, such an unsuitableness in  all  that
they  are  and do, from the inward frames of their hearts  unto  all
their  outward actions, unto the greatness and holiness of  God,  as
would  abate  their  confidence in placing any trust  in  their  own
righteousness for their justification.
   By  means  of  these  and  the like presumptuous  conceptions  of
unenlightened minds, the consciences of men are kept off from  being
affected  with  a due sense of sin, and a serious consideration  how
they may obtain acceptance before God. Neither the consideration  of
the holiness or terror of the Lord, nor the severity of the law,  as
it  indispensably  requires a righteousness in compliance  with  its
commands;  nor the promise of the gospel, declaring and tendering  a
righteousness,  the righteousness of God, in answer  whereunto;  nor
the  uncertainty of their own minds upon trials and  surprisals,  as
having  no  stable  ground of peace to anchor on; nor  the  constant
secret  disquietment of their consciences, if not seared or hardened
through  the  deceitfulness  of sin, can  prevail  with  them  whose
thought  are prepossessed with such slight conceptions of the  state
and  art  of  sin to fly for refuge unto the only hope that  is  set
before  them, or really and distinctly to comport with the only  way
of deliverance and salvation.
   Wherefore,  if  we would either teach or learn  the  doctrine  of
justification in a due manner, a clear apprehension of the greatness
of  our  apostasy from God, a due sense of the guilt of sin, a  deep
experience of its power, all with respect unto the holiness and  law
of  God, are necessary unto us. We have nothing to do in this matter
with   men,  who,  through  the  fever  of  pride,  have  lost   the
understanding  of  their own miserable condition. For,  "Natura  sic
apparet  vitiata, ut hoc majoris vitii sit non videre", Austin.  The
whole  need  not the physician, but the sick. Those who are  pricked
unto the heart for sin, and cry out, "What shall we do to be saved?"
will  understand what we have to say. Against others we must  defend
the truth, as God shall enable. And it may be made good by all sorts
of   instances,  that  as  men  rise  in  their  notions  about  the
extenuation of sin, so they fall in their regard unto the  grace  of
our  Lord  Jesus Christ. And it is no less true also, on  the  other
hand,  as  unbelief  works  in men a disesteem  of  the  person  and
righteousness  of  Christ,  they are cast  inevitably  to  seek  for
countenance unto their own consciences in the extenuation of sin. So
insensibly are the minds of men diverted from Christ, and seduced to
place  their  confidence in themselves. Some confused  respect  they
have  unto him, as a relief they know not how nor wherein; but  they
live  in  that  pretended  height  of  human  wisdom,  to  trust  to
themselves.  So  they  are instructed to  do  by  the  best  of  the
philosophers:   "Unum  bonum  est,  quod  beatae  vitae   causa   et
firmamentum est, sibi fidere", Senec. Epist. 31. Hence, also, is the
internal sanctifying grace of God, among many, equally despised with
the  imputation  of the righteousness of Christ. The  sum  of  their
faith, and of their arguments in the confirmation of it, is given by
the learned Roman orator and philosopher. "Virtutem", says he, "nemo
unquam  Deo  acceptam retulit; nimirum recte. Propter virtutem  enim
jure  landamur, et in virtute recte gloriamur, quod non contingeret,
si donum a Deo, non a nobis haberemus", Tull. de Nat. Deor.

Fourthly, Opposition between works and grace, as unto justification-
-Method  of  the apostle, in the Epistle to the Romans, to  manifest
this  opposition--A scheme of others contrary thereunto--Testimonies
witnessing   this  opposition--Judgment  to  be   made   on   them--
Distinctions  whereby  they are evaded--The  uselessness  of  them--
Resolution of the case in hand by Bellarmine, Dan.9:18; Luke 17:10

   Fourthly.  The opposition that the Scripture makes between  grace
and  works  in  general,  with the exclusion  of  the  one  and  the
assertion  of  the other in our justification, deserves  a  previous
consideration. The opposition intended is not made between grace and
works,  or  our  own obedience, as unto their essence,  nature,  and
consistency, in the order and method of our salvation; but only with
respect unto our justification. I do not design herein to plead  any
particular  testimonies of Scripture, as unto their especial  sense,
or  declaration  of the mind of the Holy Ghost in them,  which  will
afterward be with some diligence inquired into; but only to  take  a
view  which  way  the eye of the Scripture guides our apprehensions,
and  what  compliance  there  is in our  own  experience  with  that
guidance.
   The principal seat of this doctrine, as will be confessed by all,
is  in the Epistles of Paul unto the Romans and Galatians, whereunto
that  also to the Hebrews may be added: but in that unto the  Romans
it  is  most  eminently declared; for therein is it handled  by  the
apostle ex professo at large, and that both doctrinally and  in  the
way  of controversy with them by whom the truth was opposed. And  it
is  worth  our  consideration  what process  he  makes  towards  the
decoration of it, and what principles he proceeds upon therein.
   He  lays it down as the fundamental maxim which he would  proceed
upon,  or  as a general thesis, including the substance of  what  he
designed to explain and prove, that in the gospel the "righteousness
of  God is revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The  just
shall  live  by  faith," Rom.1:17. All sorts  of  men  who  had  any
knowledge of God and themselves, were then, as they must be  always,
inquiring, and in one degree or other laboring, after righteousness.
For  this they looked on, and that justly, as the only means  of  an
advantageous  relation between God and themselves. Neither  had  the
generality  of  men any other thoughts, but that this  righteousness
must  be  their own,--inherent in them, and performed  by  them;  as
Rom.10:3. For as this is the language of a natural conscience and of
the  law,  and suited unto all philosophical notions concerning  the
nature  of righteousness; so whatever testimony was given of another
kind  in the law and the prophets (as such a testimony is given unto
a  "righteousness of God without the law," chap.3:21), there  was  a
vail  upon  it,  as to the understanding of all sorts  of  men.  As,
therefore,  righteousness is that which  all  men  seek  after,  and
cannot but seek after, who design or desire acceptance with God;  so
it  is  in  vain  to inquire of the law, of natural  conscience,  of
philosophical reason, after any righteousness but what  consists  in
inherent  habits  and  acts  of our own. Neither  law,  nor  natural
conscience,  nor  reason, do know any other. But in opposition  unto
this  righteousness of our own, and the necessity thereof, testified
unto  by the law in its primitive constitution, by the natural light
of  conscience,  and  the apprehension of the nature  of  things  by
reason,  the apostle declares, that in the gospel there is  revealed
another  righteousness, which is also the righteousness of  another,
the righteousness of God, and that from faith to faith. For not only
is   the  righteousness  itself  reveals  alien  from  those   other
principles, but also the manner of our participation of it,  or  its
communication unto us, "from faith to faith" (the faith  of  God  in
the  revelation, and our faith in the acceptation of it, being  only
here  concerned),  is an eminent revelation. Righteousness,  of  all
things,  should  rather seem to be from works unto works,--from  the
work  of  grace in us to the works of obedience done by us,  as  the
Papists  affirm.  "No,"  says the apostle, "it  is  'from  faith  to
faith;'" whereof afterward.
  This is the general thesis the apostle proposes unto confirmation;
and  he seems therein to exclude from justification every thing  but
the  righteousness of God and the faith of believers.  And  to  this
purpose  he  considers all persons that did or  might  pretend  unto
righteousness, or seek after it, and all ways and means whereby they
hoped  to  attain  unto  it, or whereby it might  most  probably  be
obtained,   declaring   the  failing  of  all   persons,   and   the
insufficiency  of  all  means as unto  them,  for  the  obtaining  a
righteousness of our own before God. And as unto persons,--
  1. He considers the Gentiles, with all their notions of God, their
practice in religious worship, with their conversation thereon:  and
from the whole of what might be observed amongst them, he concludes,
that  they neither were nor could be justified before God; but  that
they  were all, and most deservedly, obnoxious unto the sentence  of
death.  And  whatever men may discourse concerning the justification
and salvation of any without the revelation of the righteousness  of
God   by  the  gospel,  "from  faith  to  faith,"  it  is  expressly
contradictory to his whole discourse, chap. 1, from verse 19 to  the
end.
   2.  He  considers the Jews, who enjoyed the written law, and  the
privileges  wherewith  it  was  accompanied,  especially   that   of
circumcision, which was the outward seal of God's covenant:  and  on
many considerations, with many arguments, he excludes them also from
any possibility of attaining justification before God, by any of the
privileges they enjoyed, or their own compliance wherewithal,  chap.
2.  And  both  sorts he excludes distinctly from this  privilege  of
righteousness before God, with this one argument, that both of  them
sinned  openly  against that which they took for the rule  of  their
righteousness,--namely, the Gentiles against the  light  of  nature,
and  the  Jews  against the law; whence it inevitably follows,  that
none  of them could attain unto the righteousness of their own rule.
But he proceeds farther, unto that which is common to them all; and,-
-
   3.  He proves the same against all sorts of persons, whether Jews
or  gentiles, from the consideration of the universal depravation of
nature in them all, and the horrible effects that necessarily  ensue
thereon in the hearts and lives of men, chap. 3; so evidencing  that
as they all were, so it could not fall out but that all must be shut
up  under sin, and come short of righteousness. So, from persons  he
proceeds to things, or means of righteousness. And,--
   4. Because the law was given of God immediately, as the whole and
only  rule of our obedience unto him, and the works of the  law  are
therefore all that is required of us, these may be pleaded with some
pretence,  as  those  whereby  we may be  justified.  Wherefore,  in
particular,  he  considers the nature, use,  and  end  of  the  law,
manifesting   its  utter  insufficiency  to  be  a  means   of   our
justification before God, chap.3:19,20.
   5. It may be yet objected, that the law and its works may be thus
insufficient, as it is obeyed by unbelievers in the state of nature,
without  the  aids  of grace administered in the promise;  but  with
respect unto them who are regenerate and do believe, whose faith and
works  are  accepted with God, it may be otherwise. To obviate  this
objection, he gives an instance in two of the most eminent believers
under the Old Testament,--namely, Abraham and David, declaring  that
all  works  whatever were excluded in and from their  justification,
chap. 4.
   On  these  principles,  and  by this gradation,  he  peremptorily
concludes  that all and every one of the sons of men,  as  unto  any
thing  that is in themselves, or can be done by them, or be  wrought
in  them, are guilty before God, obnoxious unto death, shut up under
sin, and have their mouths so stopped as to be deprived of all pleas
in  their  own  excuse; that they had no righteousness wherewith  to
appear  before  God;  and that all the ways and  means  whence  they
expected it were insufficient unto that purpose.
  Hereon he proceeds with his inquiry, how men may be delivered from
this condition, and come to be justified in the sight of God. And in
the  resolution  hereof  he  makes  no  mention  of  any  thing   in
themselves,  but only faith, whereby we receive the atonement.  That
whereby  we  are  justified, he says, is "the righteousness  of  God
which  is  by the faith of Christ Jesus;" or, that we are  justified
"freely   by  grace  through  the  redemption  that  is   in   him,"
chap.3:22-24. And not content here with this answer unto the inquiry
how  lost  convinced sinners may come to be justified before  God,--
namely, that it is by the "righteousness of God, revealed from faith
to  faith, by grace, by the blood of Christ," as he is set forth for
a  propitiation,--he immediately proceeds unto a positive  exclusion
of  every  thing  in  and of ourselves that might  pretend  unto  an
interest   herein,   as   that  which  is  inconsistent   with   the
righteousness  of God as revealed in the gospel, and witnessed  unto
by  the  law and the prophets. How contrary their scheme of divinity
is  unto  this design of the apostle, and his management of it,  who
affirm,  that  before the law, men were justified by obedience  unto
the  light of nature, and some particular revelations made unto them
in  things of their own especial private concernment; and that after
the  giving of the law, they were so by obedience unto God according
to  the  directions thereof! as also, that the heathen might  obtain
the  same benefit in compliance with the dictates of reason,--cannot
be contradicted by any who have not a mind to be contentious.
   Answerable  unto this declaration of the mind of the  Holy  Ghost
herein  by  the  apostle,  is the constant tenor  of  the  Scripture
speaking  to  the  same purpose. The grace of God,  the  promise  of
mercy,  the  free pardon of sin, the blood of Christ, his obedience,
and  the  righteousness of God in him, rested  in  and  received  by
faith,  are  everywhere  asserted as the causes  and  means  of  our
justification,  in  opposition  unto  any  thing  in  ourselves,  so
expressed as it uses to express the best of our obedience,  and  the
utmost  of our personal righteousness. Wherever mention is  made  of
the  duties,  obedience, and personal righteousness of the  best  of
men,  with  respect unto their justification, they are all renounced
by  them, and they betake themselves unto sovereign grace and  mercy
alone. Some places to this purpose may be recounted.
   The foundation of the whole is laid in the first promise; wherein
the  destruction  of the work of the devil by the suffering  of  the
seed  of  the woman is proposed as the only relief for sinners,  and
only  means  of the recovery of the favour of God. "It shall  bruise
thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise his heel,"  Gen.3:15.  "Abraham
believed  in  the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness,"
Gen.15:6. "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head  of  the
live  goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the  children
of  Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,  putting
them upon the head of the goat; and the goat shall bear upon him all
their  iniquities unto a land not inhabited," Lev.16:21,22. "I  will
go  in  the  strength of the Lord GOD: I will make  mention  of  thy
righteousness,  even  of  thine only,"  Ps.71:16.  "If  thou,  LORD,
shouldest  mark iniquities, O LORD, who shall stand?  But  there  is
forgiveness  with  thee,  that thou mayest be  feared,"  Ps.130:3,4.
"Enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no
man  living be justified," Ps.143:2. "Behold, he put no trust in his
servants;  and his angels he charged with folly: how  much  less  in
them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust?"
Job 4:18,19. "Fury is not in me: who would set the briers and thorns
against  me  in battle? I would go through them, I would  burn  them
together.  Or  let him take hold of my strength, that  he  may  make
peace  with  me;  and  he  shall make peace  with  me,"  Isa.27:4,5.
"Surely,  shall  one  say,  In the LORD  have  I  righteousness  and
strength: in the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and
shall glory," chap.45:24,25. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we
have  turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on  him
the  iniquity of us all. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant
justify  many;  for  he shall bear their iniquities,"  chap.53:6,11.
"This  is  his  name  whereby  he shall  be  called,  The  LORD  our
Righteousness," Jer.23:6. "But ye are all as an unclean  thing,  and
all  our  righteousnesses are as filthy rags," Isa.64:6.  "He  shall
finish  the  transgression,  and make  an  end  of  sins,  and  make
reconciliation    for   iniquity,   and   bring    in    everlasting
righteousness," Dan.9:24. "As many as received him, to them gave  he
power  to become the sons of God, even to them that believe  on  his
name," John 1:12. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
even  so  must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth
in  him should not perish, but have eternal life," chap.3:14,15. "Be
it  known  unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through  this
man  is  preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by  him  all
that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could  not
be  justified  by the law of Moses," Acts 13:38,39. "That  they  may
receive  forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them  which  are
sanctified  by  faith that is in me," chap.26:18.  "Being  justified
freely  by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;
whom  God  has set forth to be a propitiation through faith  in  his
blood,  to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins  that
are  past,  through the forbearance of God; to declare at this  time
his  righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of  him
which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By
what  law?  Of  works?  Nay; but by the law of faith.  Therefore  we
conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds  of  the
law,"  Rom.3:24-28. "For if Abraham were justified by works, he  has
whereof  to glory; but not before God. For what saith the Scriptures
Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but  of
debt.  But  to  him  that  worketh not, but believeth  on  him  that
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even
as  David  also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom  God
imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose
iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is  the
man  to whom the Lord will not impute sin," chap.4:2-8. "But not  as
the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of
one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace,
which  is by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded unto many. And  not
as  it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment  was
by  one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses  unto
justification.  For 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.  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," chap.5:15-19. "There is therefore now no condemnation to
them  which  are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh,  but
after  the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus
has  made  me free from the law of sin and death. For what  the  law
could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his
own  Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin
in  the  flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled
in  us,"  chap.8:l-4.  "For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for
righteousness to every one that believeth," chap.10:4.  "And  if  by
grace,  then  is  it no more of works; otherwise grace  is  no  more
grace.  But  if it be of works, then is it no more grace;  otherwise
work  is  no  more work," chap.11:6. "But of him are  ye  in  Christ
Jesus,  who  of  God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness,  and
sanctification, and redemption," 1 Cor.1:30. "For he has made him to
be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no sin; that  we  might  be  made  the
righteousness of God in him," 2 Cor.5:21. "Knowing that a man is not
justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,
even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by
the  faith  of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for  by  the
works  of the law shall no flesh he justified," Gal.2:16. "But  that
no  man  is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident:
for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but,
The  man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ has redeemed  us
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us," chap.3:11-13.
"For  by  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith;  and  that  not  of
yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should
boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good
works,  which God has before ordained that we should walk in  them,"
Eph.2:8-10. "Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for  the
excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have
suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that  I
may   win  Christ,  and  be  found  in  him,  not  having  mine  own
righteousness,  which is of the law, but that which is  through  the
faith  of  Christ,  the righteousness which is  of  God  by  faith,"
Phil.3:8,9.  "Who has saved us, and called us with a  holy  calling,
not  according  to our works, but according to his own  purpose  and
grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," 2
Tim.1:9. "That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs
according to the hope of eternal life," Tit.3:7. "Once in the end of
the world has he appeared, to put away sin," Heb.9:26,28. "Having by
himself  purged  our sins," chap.1:3. "For by one  offering  he  has
perfected forever them that are sanctified," chap.10:14. "The  blood
of  Jesus  Christ God's Son cleanseth us from all sin," 1 John  1:7.
Wherefore, "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our  sins  in
his  own  blood, and has made us kings and priests unto God and  his
Father;  to  him  be  glory and dominion forever  and  ever.  Amen,"
Rev.1:5,6.
    These  are  some  of  the  places  which  at  present  occur  to
remembrance,  wherein the Scripture represents unto us the  grounds,
causes,  and  reasons,  of our acceptation with  God.  The  especial
import  of many of them, and the evidence of truth that is in  them,
will  be afterwards considered. Here we take only a general view  of
them.  And  every thing in and of ourselves, under any consideration
whatever,  seems to be excluded from our justification  before  God,
faith  alone  excepted,  whereby  we  receive  his  grace  and   the
atonement. And, on the other side, the whole of our acceptation with
him  seems to be assigned unto grace, mercy, the obedience and blood
of  Christ;  in opposition unto our own worth and righteousness,  or
our  own works and obedience. And I cannot but suppose that the soul
of  a convinced sinner, if not prepossessed with prejudice, will, in
general,  not judge amiss whether of these things, that are  set  in
opposition one to the other, he should retake himself unto, that  he
may be justified.
   But  it  is  replied,--These things  are  not  to  be  understood
absolutely,   and  without  limitations.  Sundry  distinctions   are
necessary, that we may come to understand the mind of the Holy Ghost
and  sense  of  the Scripture in these ascriptions unto  grace,  and
exclusions  of  the  law, our own works and righteousness  from  our
justification.  For,--1.  The  law  is  either  the  moral  or   the
ceremonial  law. The latter, indeed, is excluded from any  place  in
our  justification, but not the former. 2. Works required by the law
are  either wrought before faith, without the aid of grace; or after
believing,  by the help of the Holy Ghost. The former  are  excluded
from  our  justification, but not the latter. 3. Works of  obedience
wrought  after  grace received may be considered either  as  sincere
only,  or  absolutely  perfect, according  to  what  was  originally
required  in  the  covenant of works. Those of the latter  sort  are
excluded from any place in our justification, but not those  of  the
former. 4. There is a twofold justification before God in this life,-
-a  first and a second; and we must diligently consider with respect
unto  whether  of these justifications any thing is  spoken  in  the
Scripture.  5.  Justification may be considered  either  as  to  its
beginning or as unto its continuation;--and so it has divers  causes
under  these diverse respects. 6. Works may be considered either  as
meritorious "ex condigno", so as their merit should arise from their
own  intrinsic  worth; or "ex congruo" only, with respect  unto  the
covenant  and promise of God. Those of the first sort are  excluded,
at  least  from the first justification: the latter may  have  place
both  in the first and second. 7. Moral causes may be of many sorts:
preparatory,  dispository, meritorious, conditionally efficient,  or
only  "sine  quibus  non". And we must diligently  inquire  in  what
sense,  under  the  notion of what cause or causes,  our  works  are
excluded  from  our justification, and under what notions  they  are
necessary  thereunto. And there is no one of these distinctions  but
it  needs many more to explain it; which, accordingly, are made  use
of  by  learned men. And so specious a colour may be  put  on  these
things, when warily managed by the art of disputation, that very few
are  able  to  discern  the ground of them,  or  what  there  is  of
substance  in that which is pleaded for; and fewer yet,  on  whether
side the truth does lie. But he who is really convinced of sin, and,
being  also sensible of what it is to enter into judgment  with  the
holy  God, inquires for himself, and not for others, how he may come
to  be accepted with him, will be apt, upon the consideration of all
these distinctions and sub-distinctions wherewith they are attended,
to  say to their authors, "Fecistis probe, incertior sum multo, quam
dudum."  My  inquiry is, How shall I come before the Lord,  and  bow
myself  before the high God? How shall I escape the wrath  to  come?
What  shall I plead in judgment before God, that I may be  absolved,
acquitted, justified? Where shall I have a righteousness  that  will
endure  a  trial  in his presence? If I should be harnessed  with  a
thousand of these distinctions, I am afraid they would prove  thorns
and briers, which he would pass through and consume.
   The inquiry, therefore is, upon the consideration of the state of
the  person to be justified, before mentioned and described, and the
proposal  of  the  reliefs in our justification  as  now  expressed,
whether it be the wisest and safest course for such a person seeking
to  be justified before God, to retake himself absolutely, his whole
trust  and  confidence, unto sovereign grace, and the  mediation  of
Christ, or to have some reserve for, or to place some confidence in,
his  own graces, duties, works, and obedience? In putting this great
difference  unto umpirage, that we may not be thought to  fix  on  a
partial arbitrator we shall refer it to one of our greatest and most
learned adversaries in this cause. And he positively gives us in his
determination  and resolution in those known words,  in  this  case:
"Propter  incertitudinem  propriae justitiae,  et  periculum  inanis
gloriae, tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola misericordia  Dei  et
benignitate reponere", Bellar. de Justificat., lib. 5 cap. 7,  prop.
3;--"By reason of the uncertainty of our own righteousness, and  the
danger  of  vain glory, it is the safest course to repose our  whole
trust in the mercy and kindness or grace of God alone."
   And this determination of this important inquiry he confirms with
two  testimonies of Scripture, as he might have done  it  with  many
more.   But  those  which  he  thought  meet  to  mention  are   not
impertinent.  The  first  is  Dan.9:18,  "We  do  not  present   our
supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great
mercies;" and the other is that of our Saviour, Luke 17:10, "When ye
shall  have done all those things which are commanded you,  say,  We
are   unprofitable  servants."  And  after  he  has  confirmed   his
resolution  with sundry testimonies of the fathers,  he  closes  his
discourse  with this dilemma: "Either a man has true merits,  or  he
has  not. If he has not, he is perniciously deceived when he  trusts
in  any  thing  but  the  mercy of God alone, and  seduces  himself,
trusting in false merits; if he has them, he loses nothing whilst he
looks  not to them, but trusts in God alone. So that whether  a  man
have any good works or no, as to his justification before God, it is
best and safest for him not to have any regard unto them, or put any
trust  in  them." And if this be so, he might have  spared  all  his
pains  he took in writing his sophistical books about justification,
whose principal design is to seduce the minds of men into a contrary
opinion. And so, for aught I know, they may spare their labour also,
without any disadvantage unto the church of God or their own  souls,
who  so earnestly contend for some kind of interest or other for our
own duties and obedience in our justification before God; seeing  it
will  be  found that they place their own whole trust and confidence
in the grace of God by Jesus Christ alone. For to what purpose do we
labour   and  strive  with  endless  disputations,  arguments,   and
distinctions, to prefer our duties and obedience unto some office in
our justification before God, if; when we have done all, we find  it
the safest course in our own persons to abhor ourselves with Job  in
the  presence of God, to retake ourselves unto sovereign  grace  and
mercy  with  the publican, and to place all our confidence  in  them
through the obedience and blood of Christ?
   So  died  that  great emperor, Charles V, as  Thuanus  gives  the
account  of  his Novissima. So he reasoned with himself: "Se  quidem
indignum  esse, qui propriis meritis regnum coelorum obtineret;  set
Dominum  Deum  suum  qui  illud duplici  jure  obtineat,  et  Patris
haereditate,  et  passionis merito, altero contentum  esse,  alterum
sibi  donare;  ex  cujus  dono illud sibi  merito  vendicet,  hacque
fiducia  fretus  minime confundatur; neque enim oleum  misericordiae
nisi  in  vase  fiduciae  poni; hanc  hominis  fiduciam  esse  a  se
deficientis  et  innitentis  domino suo; alioquin  propriis  meritis
fidere,  non  fidei  esse  sed perfidiae;  peccata  deleri  per  Dei
indulgentiam,  ideoque credere nos debere peccata deleri  non  posse
nisi  ab eo cui soli peccavimus, et in quem peccatum non cadit,  per
quem  solum  nobis peccata condonentur;"--"That in  himself  he  was
altogether unworthy to obtain the kingdom of heaven by his own works
or  merits; but that his Lord God, who enjoyed it on a double  right
or  title,  by inheritance of the Father, and the merit of  his  own
passion, was contented with the one himself, and freely granted unto
him  the other; on whose free grant he laid claim thereunto, and  in
confidence thereof he should not be confounded; for the oil of mercy
is  poured only into the vessel of faith or trust: that this is  the
trust  of  a  man despairing in himself, and resting  in  his  Lord;
otherwise, to trust unto his own works or merits, is not faith,  but
treachery:  that  sins  are blotted out by the  mercy  of  God;  and
therefore we ought to believe that our sins can be pardoned  by  him
alone, against whom alone we have sinned, with whom there is no sin,
and by whom alone sins are forgiven."
   This is the faith of men when they come to die, and those who are
exercised  with temptations whilst they live. Some are  hardened  in
sin,  and endeavour to leave this world without thoughts of another;
some are stupidly ignorant, who neither know nor consider what it is
to  appear in the presence of God, and to be judged by him; some are
seduced  to  place their confidence in merits, pardons, indulgences,
and  future suffrages for the dead: but such as are acquainted  with
God  and themselves in any spiritual manner, who take a view of  the
time  that  is past, and approaching eternity, into which they  must
enter  by  the judgment-seat of God, however they may have  thought,
talked, and disputed about their own works and obedience, looking on
Christ  and his righteousness only to make up some small defects  in
themselves, will come at last unto a universal renunciation of  what
they have been, and are, and retake themselves unto Christ alone for
righteousness  or  salvation. And in the whole ensuing  discourse  I
shall  as  little  as  is  possible  immix  myself  in  any  curious
scholastical disputes. This is the substance of what is pleaded for,-
-that  men  should renounce all confidence in themselves, and  every
thing that may give countenance whereunto; retaking themselves  unto
the  grace  of God by Christ alone for righteousness and  salvation.
This  God designs in the gospel, 1 Cor.1:29-31; and herein, whatever
difficulties  we  may  meet  withal  in  the  explication  of   some
propositions   and   terms  that  belong  unto   the   doctrine   of
justification, about which men have various conceptions, I doubt not
of  the  internal concurrent suffrage of them who know any thing  as
they ought of God and themselves.

Fifthly, A commutation as unto sin and righteousness, by imputation,
between  Christ  and  believers, represented in  the  Scripture--The
ordinance  of  the scapegoat, Lev.16:21,22--The nature of  expiatory
sacrifices,  Lev.4:29,  etc.--Expiation  of  an  uncertain   murder,
Deut.21:1-9--The   commutation  intended  proved   and   vindicated,
Isa.53:5,6;   2  Cor.5:21;  Rom.8:3,4;  Gal.3:13,14;   1   Pet.2:24;
Deut.21:23--Testimonies of Justin Martyr, Gregory Nyseen, Augustine,
Chrysostom, Bernard, Taulerus, Pighius, to that purpose--The  proper
actings  of  faith  with  respect thereunto,  Rom.5:11;  Matt.11:28;
Ps.38:4;  Gen.4:13; Isa.53:11; Gal.3:1; Isa.45:22;  John  3:14,15--A
bold calumny answered

   Fifthly.  There  is  in  the  Scripture  represented  unto  us  a
commutation   between  Christ  and  believers,  as  unto   sin   and
righteousness;  that is, in the imputation of their sins  unto  him,
and   of  his  righteousness  unto  them.  In  the  improvement  and
application hereof unto our own souls, no small part of the life and
exercise of faith does consist.
   This  was  taught  the  church of God  in  the  offering  of  the
scapegoat: "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of  the
live  goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the  children
of  Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,  putting
them upon the head of the goat. And the goat shall bear upon him all
their  iniquities," Lev.16:21,22. Whether this goat sent  away  with
this  burden  upon him did live, and so was a type of  the  life  of
Christ  in his resurrection after his death; or whether he  perished
in  the  wilderness, being cast down the precipice of a rock by  him
that  conveyed  him  away,  as the Jews  suppose;  it  is  generally
acknowledged,  that what was done to him and with  him  was  only  a
representation  of  what  was done really in  the  person  of  Jesus
Christ.  And Aaron did not only confess the sins of the people  over
the  goat, but he also put them all on his head, "wenatan 'otam  al-
rosh  hassa'ir",--"And he shall give them all to be on the  head  of
the  goat."  In answer whereunto it is said, that he bare  them  all
upon  him. This he did by virtue of the divine institution,  wherein
was  a ratification of what was done. He did not transfuse sin  from
one  subject into another, but transferred the guilt of it from  one
to  another; and to evidence this translation of sin from the people
unto  the  sacrifice, in his confession, "he put and fixed both  his
hands  on his head." Thence the Jews say, "that all Israel was  made
as  innocent  on the day of expiation as they were  on  the  day  of
creation;"  from verse 30. Wherein they came short of perfection  or
consummation thereby the apostle declares, Heb.10. But this  is  the
language  of every expiatory sacrifice, "Quod in ejus caput  sit;"--
"Let  the  guilt be on him." Hence the sacrifice itself  was  called
"chatat" and "'ashan",--"sin" and "guilt," Lev.4:29; 7:2; 10:17. And
therefore,  where there was an uncertain murder, and none  could  be
found  that was liable to punishment thereon, that guilt  might  not
come upon the land, nor the sin be imputed unto the whole people,  a
heifer was to be slain by the elders of the city that was next  unto
the place where the murder was committed, to take away the guilt  of
it, Deut.21:1-9. But whereas this was only a moral representation of
the  punishment  due to guilt, and no sacrifice, the  guilty  person
being  not known, those who slew the heifer did not put their  hands
on  him, so as to transfer their own guilt to him, but washed  their
hands over him, to declare their personal innocence. By these means,
as in all other expiatory sacrifices, did Cod instruct the church in
the  transferring of the guilt of sin unto Him who was to  bear  all
their iniquities, with their discharge and justification thereby.
   So  "God laid on Christ the iniquities of us all," that  "by  his
stripes  we might be healed," Isa.53:5,6. Our iniquity was  laid  on
him, and he bare it, verse 11; and through his bearing of it we  are
freed from it. His stripes are our healing. Our sin was his, imputed
unto  him; his merit is ours, imputed unto us. "He was made sin  for
us,  who knew no sin; that we might become the righteousness of  God
in  him," 2 Cor.5:21. This is that commutation I mentioned:  he  was
made  sin  for us; we are made the righteousness of God in him.  God
not  imputing sin unto us, verse 19, but imputing righteousness unto
us,  does it on this ground alone that "he was made sin for us." And
if by his being made sin, only his being made a sacrifice for sin is
intended,  it is to the same purpose; for the formal reason  of  any
thing  being made an expiatory sacrifice, was the imputation of  sin
unto  it  by divine institution. The same is expressed by  the  same
apostle,  Rom.8:3,4, "God sending his own Son  in  the  likeness  of
sinful  flesh,  and for sin, condemned sin in the  flesh;  that  the
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us." The sin was made
his,  he  answered for it; and the righteousness which God requireth
by  the  law is made ours: the righteousness of the law is fulfilled
in  us, not by our doing it, but by his. This is that blessed change
and  commutation  wherein alone the soul of a convinced  sinner  can
find  rest and peace. So he "has redeemed us from the curse  of  the
law,  being made a curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham  might
come  on  us," Gal.3:13,14. The curse of the law contained all  that
was  due  to  sin. This belonged unto us; but it was transferred  on
him. He was made a curse; whereof his hanging on a tree was the sign
and token. Hence he is said to "bear our sins in his own body on the
tree," 1 Pet.2:24; because his hanging on the tree was the token  of
his  bearing the curse: "For he that is hanged is the curse of God,"
Dent.21:23.   And   in   the  blessing  of  faithful   Abraham   all
righteousness  and  acceptation with God is  included;  for  Abraham
believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.
   But because some, who, for reasons best known unto themselves, do
take all occasions to except against my writings, have in particular
raised  an  impertinent  glamour  about  somewhat  that  I  formerly
delivered to this purpose, I shall declare the whole of my  judgment
herein  in  the  words  of some of those whom they  can  pretend  no
quarrel against, that I know of.
   The  excel1ent  words of Justin Martyr deserve the  first  place:
"Autos ton idion huion apedoto lutron huper hemoon, ton hagion huper
anomoon,  ton  akakon  huper toon kakoon,  ton  dikaion  huper  toon
adikoon,  ton aftarton huper toon ftartoon, ton atanaton huper  toon
tnetoon,  ti  gar  allo  tas hamartias hemoon  edunete  kalupsai,  e
ekeinou dikaiosune; en tini dikaiootenai dunaton tous anomous  hemas
kai  aseteis,  e  en monooi tooi huioo tou Theou;  oo  tes  glukeias
antallages, oo tes anexichniastou demiourgias, oo toon aprosdoketoon
euergesioon,  hina  anomia  men  polloon  en  dikaiooi  heni  krute,
dikaiosune de henos pollous anomous dikaioosei," Epist. ad Diognet.;-
-"He gave his Son a ransom for us;--the holy for transgressors;  the
innocent  for the nocent; the just for the unjust; the incorruptible
for  the corrupt; the immortal for mortals. For what else could hide
or  cover  our  sins but his righteousness? In whom  else  could  we
wicked and ungodly ones be justified, or esteemed righteous, but  in
the Son of God alone? O sweet permutation, or change! O unsearchable
work,  or  curious operation! O blessed beneficence,  exceeding  all
expectations  that the iniquity of many should be hid  in  one  just
one,   and   the   righteousness  of   one   should   justify   many
transgressors."  And  Gregory Nyssen speaks  to  the  same  purpose:
"Metatheis  gar  pros  heauton ton toon  hemoon  hamartioon  thupon,
metedooke  moi  tes heautou kathapotetos, koinoonon me  tou  heautou
kallous apergasamenos", Orat. 2 in Cant.;--"He has transferred  unto
himself  the filth of my sins, and communicated unto me his  purity,
and  made  me  partaker  of his beauty." So Augustine,  also:  "Ipse
peccatum  ut nos justitia, nec nostra sed Dei, nec in nobis  sed  in
ipso;  sicut ipse peccatum, non suum sed nostrum, nec in se  sed  in
nobis  constitutum",  Enchirid. ad Laurent., cap.41;--"He  was  sin,
that  we  might be righteousness; not our own, but the righteousness
of  God;  not in ourselves, but in him; as he was sin, not his  own,
but  ours,--not  in  himself, but in us." The old Latin  translation
renders  those words, Ps.22:1, "divrei sha'agati"--"Verba delictorum
meorum".  He  thus  comments  on the  place:  "Quomodo  ergo  dicit,
'Delictorum  meorum?' nisi quia pro delictis nostris ipse  precatur;
et  delicta  nostra  delicta sua fecit, ut  justitiam  suam  nostram
justitiam faceret;"--"How says he, 'Of my sins?' Because he  prayeth
for  our  sins; he made our sins to be his, that he might  make  his
righteousness  to  be ours. "Oo tes glukeias antallages."  "O  sweet
commutation  and  change!" And Chrysostom, to the same  purpose,  on
those   words  of  the  apostle,--  "That  we  might  be  made   the
righteousness  of  God  in  him:" Poios  tauta  logos,  poios  tauta
parastesai   dunesetai  vous;  ton  gar  dikaion,  fesin,   epoiesen
hamartoolon, hina tous hamartoolous poiesei dikaious, mallon de oude
houtoos  eipen,  alla ho pollooi mekzon en, ou gar  hexin  ethekein,
all'  auten  ten poioteta, ou gar eipen, epoiesen hamartoolon,  all'
hamartian,  ouchi ton me hamartanonta monon, alla  ton  mede  gnonta
hamartian,  hina  kai  hemeis genoometha, ouk  eipe,  dikaioi,  alle
dikaiosune, kai Theou dikaiosune, Theou gar estin haute, hotan me ex
ergoon  (hotan  kai  kelida  ananke tina me  heurethenai)  all'  apo
xaritos dikaioothoomen, entha pasa hamartia efanistai", 2 Epist.  ad
Corinth.  cap.5 Hom.11;--"What word, what speech is this? What  mind
can  comprehend  or express it? For he says, 'He made  him  who  was
righteous to be made a sinner, that he might make sinners righteous.
Nor  yet  does he say so neither, but that which is far more sublime
and excellent; for he speaks not of an inclination or affection, but
expresses the quality itself. For he says not, he made him a sinner,
but   sin;  that  we  might  be  made,  not  merely  righteous,  but
righteousness,  and  that the righteousness  of  God,  when  we  are
justified  not  by works (for if we should, there must  be  no  spot
found  in  them), but by grace, whereby all sin is blotted out."  So
Bernard  also, Epist.190, ad Innocent:--"Homo siquidem  qui  debuit;
homo  qui  solvit. Nam 'si unus,' inquit, 'pro omnibus mortuus  est,
ergo  omnes  mortui  sunt;' ut videlicet satisfactio  unius  omnibus
imputetur,  sicut omnium peccata unus ille portavit: nec  alter  jam
inveniatur,  qui  forisfecit, alter qui satisfecit;  quia  caput  et
corpus  unus  est  Christus." And many  more  speak  unto  the  same
purpose. Hence Luther, before he engaged in the work of reformation,
in  an  epistle  to one George Spenlein, a monk, was not  afraid  to
write  after this manner: "Mi dulcis frater, disce Christum et  hunc
crucifixum, disce ei cantare, et de teipso desperant dicere  ei;  tu
Domine  Jesu  es  justitia  mea, ego autem  sum  peccatum  tuum;  tu
assumpsisti meum, et dedisti mihi tuum; assumpsisti quod  non  eras,
et dedisti mihi quod non eram. Ipse suscepit te et peccata tua fecit
sua,  et suam justitiam fecit tuam; maledictus qui haec non credit!"
Epist. an. 1516, tom.1
  If those who show themselves now so quarrelsome almost about every
word that is spoken concerning Christ nd his righteousness, had ever
been  harassed in their consciences about the guilt of sin, as  this
man was, they would think it no strafe matter to speak and write  as
he did. Yea, some there are who have lived and died in the communion
of  the church of Rome itself, that have given their testimony  unto
this  truth.  So  speaks  Taulerus, Meditat.  Vitae  Christ.  cap.7:
"Christus  omnia  mundi peccata in se recepit, tantumque  pro  illis
ultro  sibi assumpsis dolerem cordis, ac si ipse ea perpetrasset;"--
"Christ  took  upon  him all the sins of the  world,  and  willingly
underwent  that  grief  of heart for them,  as  if  he  himself  had
committed  them".  And  again, speaking in  the  person  of  Christ:
"Quandoquidem  peccatum  Adae multum abire non  potest,  obsecro  te
Pater  coelestis,  ut ipsum in me vindices. Ego  enim  omnia  illius
peccata in me recipio. Si haec irae tempestas, propter me orta  est,
mitte me in mare amarissimae passionis;"--"Whereas the great sin  of
Adam  cannot go away, I beseech thee, heavenly Father, punish it  in
me.  For  I take all his sins upon myself If, then, this tempest  of
anger  be  risen  for me, cast me into the sea  of  my  most  bitter
passion."  See, in the justification of these expressions, Heb.10:5-
10.  The discourse of Albertus Pighius to this purpose, though often
cited  and  urged, shall be once again repeated, both for its  worth
and  truth, as also to let some men see how fondly they have pleased
themselves  in reflecting on some expressions of mine, as  though  I
had  been singular in them. His words are, after others to the  same
purpose:  "Quoniam quidem inquit (apostolus) Deus erat  in  Christo,
mundum  reconcilians sibi, non imputans hominibus  sua  delicta,  et
deposuit apud nos verbum reconciliationis; in illo ergo justificamur
coram  Deo, non in nobis; non nostra sed illius justitia, quae nobis
cum  illo jam communicantibus imputatur. Propriae justitiae  inopes,
extra  nos,  in  illo  docemur justitiam quaerere.  Cum  inquit,  ui
peccatum  non  noverat, pro nobis peccatum fecit; hoc  est,  hostiam
peccati  expiatricem, ut nos efficeremur justitia Dei in  ipso,  non
nostra,  sed  Dei  justitia justi efficimur in  Christo;  quo  jure?
Amicitiae,  quae communionem omnium inter amicor facit, juxta  vetus
et  celebratissimum proverbium; Christo insertis, conglutinatis,  et
unitis,  et  sua nostra facit, suas divitias nobis communicat,  suam
justitiam  inter Patris judicium et nostram injustitiam  interponit,
et  sub  ea  veluti sub umbone ac clypeo a divina, quam commeruimus,
ira nos abscondit, tuetur ac protegit; imo eandem nobis impertit  et
nostram facit, qua tecti ornatique audacter et secure jam divino nos
sistamus  tribunali et judicio: justique non solum  appareamus,  sed
etiam  simus.  Quemadmodum enim unius delicto peccatoris  nos  etiam
factor   affirmat   apostolus:  ita  unius  Christi   justitiam   in
justificandis   nobis  omnibus  efficacem   esse;   et   sicut   per
inobedientiam unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi sic per
obedientiam  unius  justi  (inquit) constituentur  multi.  Haec  est
christi justitia,ejus obedientia, qua voluntatem Patris sui perfecit
in  omnibus; sicut contra nostra injustitia est nostra inobedientia,
et  mandatorum  Dei praevaricatio. In Christi autem obedientia  quod
nostra  collocatur justitia inde est, quod nobis illi  incorporatis,
ac  si  nostra esset, accepta ea fertur: ut ea ipsa etiam nos  justi
habeamur.  Et velut ille quondam Jacob, quum nativitate primogenitus
non  esset, sub habitu fratris occultatus, atque ejus veste indutus,
quae  odorem  optimum  spirabat, seipsum insinuavit  patri,  ut  sub
aliena  persona benedictionem primogeniturae acciperet: ita  et  nos
sub   Christi   primogeniti   fratris   nostri   preciosa   puritate
delitescere, bono ejus odore fragrare, ejus perfectione vitia nostra
sepeliri  et  obtegi,  atque  ita nos  pissimo  Patri  ingerere,  ut
justitiae  benedictionem  ab  eodem assequamur,  necesse  est".  And
afterwards:  "Justificat erno nos Deus Pater bonitate sua  gratuita,
qua  nos  in Christo complectitur, dum eidem insertos innocentia  et
justitia Christi nos induit; quae una et vera et perfecta est,  quae
Dei  sustinere  conspectum potest, ita unam pro nobis sisti  oportet
tribunali  divini  judicii  et veluti causae  nostrae  intercessorem
eidem  repraesentari: qua subnixi etiam hic obtineremus  remissionem
peccatorum nostrorum assiduam: cujus puritate velatae non imputentur
nobis   sordes  nostrae,  imperfectionum  immunditiae,  sed   veluti
sepultae conteguntur, ne in judicium Dei veniant: donec confecto  in
nobis, et plane extincto veteri homine, divina bonitas nos in beatam
pacem  cum  novo  Adam recipiat;"--"'God was in  Christ,'  says  the
apostle, 'reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing unto  men
their sins,' ['and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.']
In  him,  therefore, we are justified before God; not in  ourselves,
not  by our own, but by his righteousness, which is imputed unto us,
now communicating with him. Wanting righteousness of our own, we are
taught  to seek for righteousness without ourselves, in him.  So  he
says,  'Him who knew no sin, he made to be sin for us' (that is,  an
expiatory   sacrifice  for  sin),  'that  we  might  be   made   the
righteousness of God in him.' We are made righteous in  Christ,  not
with our own, but with the righteousness of God. By what right?  The
right of friendship, which makes all common among friends, according
unto  the ancient celebrated proverb. Being in grafted into  Christ,
fastened,  united  unto him, he makes his things ours,  communicates
his  riches  unto  us,  interposes  his  righteousness  between  the
judgment of God and our unrighteousness: and under that, as under  a
shield and buckler, he hides us from that divine wrath which we have
deserved, he defends and protects us therewith; yea, he communicates
it  unto us and makes it ours, so as that, being covered and adorned
therewith,  we  may boldly and securely place ourselves  before  the
divine  tribunal  and judgment, so as not only to appear  righteous,
but  so  to  be. For even as the apostle affirms, that by one  man's
fault  we  were all made sinners, so is the righteousness of  Christ
alone  efficacious in the justification of us all: 'And  as  by  the
disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so by the  obedience
of  one  man,'  says  he,  'many are made righteous.'  This  is  the
righteousness of Christ, even his obedience, whereby in  all  things
he  fulfilled  the will of his Father; as, on the  other  hand,  our
unrighteousness  is  our disobedience and our transgression  of  the
commands  of  God.  But  that our righteousness  is  placed  in  the
obedience  of  Christ, it is from hence, that we being  incorporated
into  him,  it is accounted unto us as if it were ours; so  as  that
therewith we are esteemed righteous. And as Jacob of old, whereas he
was not the firstborn, being hid under the habit of his brother, and
clothed  with his garment, which breathed a sweet savour,  presented
himself  unto  his  father, that in the person of another  he  might
receive  the blessing of the primogeniture; so it is necessary  that
we  should lie hid under the precious purity of the First-born,  our
eldest brother, be fragrant with his sweet savour, and have our  sin
buried  and  covered  with  his perfections,  that  we  may  present
ourselves  before  our  most holy Father, to  obtain  from  him  the
blessing of righteousness." And again: "God, therefore, does justify
us by his free grace or goodness, wherewith he embraces us in Christ
Jesus, when he clotheth us with his innocence and righteousness,  as
we  are  ingrafted into him; for as that alone is true  and  perfect
which only can endure in the sight of God, so that alone ought to be
presented  and  pleaded for us before the divine  tribunal,  as  the
advocate of or plea in our cause. Resting hereon, we here obtain the
daily pardon of sin; with whose purity being covered, our filth, and
the  uncleanness of our imperfections are not imputed unto  us,  but
are  covered as if they were buried, that they may not come into the
judgment of God; until, the old man being destroyed and slain in us,
divine goodness receives us into peace with the second Adam". So far
he, expressing the power which the influence of divine truth had  on
his  mind,  contrary  to the interest of the cause  wherein  he  was
engaged, and the loss of his reputation with them; for whom  in  all
other  things he was one of the fiercest champions. And  some  among
the  Roman church, who cannot bear this assertion of the commutation
of sin and righteousness by imputation between Christ and believers,
no more than some among ourselves, do yet affirm the same concerning
the  righteousness  of  other men: "Mercaturam  quandam  docere  nos
Paulus  videtur.  Abundatis, inquit, vos pecunia,  et  estis  inopes
justitiae;  contra, illi abundant justitia et sunt inopes  pecuniae;
fiat quaedam commutatio; date vos piis egentibus pecuniam quae vobis
affluit,  et  illis  deficit;  sic futurum  est,  ut  illi  vicissim
justitiam  suam  qua  abundant, et qua vos  estis  destituti,  vobis
communicent." Hosius, De Expresso Dei Verbo, tom. 2 p.21. But I have
mentioned  these testimonies, principally to be a relief  unto  some
men's ignorance, who are ready to speak evil of what they understand
not.
   This  blessed  permutation  as  unto  sin  and  righteousness  is
represented  unto us in the Scripture as a principal object  of  our
faith,-- as that whereon our peace with God is founded. And although
both these (the imputation of sin unto Christ, and the imputation of
righteousness unto us) be the acts of God, and not ours, yet are  we
by  faith to exemplify them in our own souls, and really to  perform
what on our part is required unto their application unto us; whereby
we  receive  "the atonement," Rom.5:11. Christ calls  unto  him  all
those that "labour and are heavy laden," Matt.11:28. The weight that
is  upon  the consciences of men, wherewith they are laden,  is  the
burden  of  sin.  So the psalmist complains that his  "sins  were  a
burden too heavy for him," Ps.38:4. Such was Cain's apprehension  of
his  guilt, Gen.4:13. This burden Christ bare, when it was  laid  on
him  by  divine  estimation.  For so it  is  said,  "wa'awonotam  hu
jisbol", Isa.53:11,-- "He shall bear their iniquities" on him  as  a
burden. And this he did when God made to meet upon him "the iniquity
of  us all," verse 6. In the application of this unto our own souls,
as  it  is required that we be sensible of the weight and burden  of
our  sins and how it is heavier than we can bear; so the Lord Christ
calls us unto him with it, that we may be eased. This he does in the
preachings of the gospel, wherein he is "evidently crucified  before
our  eyes," Gal.3:1. In the view which faith has of Christ crucified
(for faith is a "looking unto him," Isa.45:22; 65:1, answering their
looking  unto the brazen serpent who were stung with fiery serpents,
John 3:14,15), and under a sense of his invitation (for faith is our
coming unto him, upon his call and invitation) to come unto him with
our  burdens,  a  believer  considers that  God  has  laid  all  our
iniquities upon him; yea, that he has done so, is an especial object
whereon faith is to act itself, which is faith in his blood.  Hereon
does the soul approve of and embrace the righteousness and grace  of
God, with the infinite condescension and love of Christ himself.  It
gives  its  consent  that  what is thus done  is  what  becomes  the
infinite  wisdom  and grace of God; and therein  it  rests.  Such  a
person seeks no more to establish his own righteousness, but submits
to  the  righteousness of God. Herein, by faith, does he leave  that
burden on Christ which he called him to bring with him, and complies
with the wisdom and righteousness of God in laying it upon him.  And
herewithal does he receive the everlasting righteousness  which  the
Lord   Christ  brought  in  when  he  made  an  end  of   sin,   and
reconciliation for transgressors.
  The reader may be pleased to observe, that I am not debating these
things  argumentatively, in such propriety  of  expressions  as  are
required   in  a  scholastic  disputation;  which  shall   be   done
afterwards,  so  far as I judge it necessary. But I  am  doing  that
which  indeed is better, and of more importance,--namely,  declaring
the experience of faith in the expressions of the Scripture, or such
as  are analogous unto them. And I had rather be instrumental in the
communication of light and knowledge unto the meanest believer, than
to   have   the  clearest  success  against  prejudiced   disputers.
Wherefore,  by  faith thus acting are we justified, and  have  peace
with  God. Other foundation in this matter can no man lay, that will
endure the trial.
   Nor  are we to be moved, that men who are unacquainted with these
things in their reality and power do reject the whole work of  faith
herein, as an easy effort of fancy or imagination. For the preaching
of  the cross is foolishness unto the best of the natural wisdom  of
men; neither can any understand them but by the Spirit of God. Those
who  know the terror of the Lord, who have been really convinced and
made  sensible of the guilt of their apostasy from God, and of their
actual  sins in that state, and what a fearful thing it is  to  fall
into  the  hands of the living God,--seeking thereon  after  a  real
solid  foundation whereon they may be accepted with him,--have other
thoughts of these things, and do find believing a thing to be  quite
of  another nature than such men suppose. It is not a work of  fancy
or  imagination unto men, to deny and abhor themselves, to subscribe
unto  the  righteousness of God in denouncing death as due to  their
sins,  to  renounce all hopes and expectations of  relief  from  any
righteousness  of  their own, to mix the word  and  promise  of  God
concerning  Christ and righteousness by him with  faith,  so  as  to
receive the atonement, and wherewithal to give up themselves unto  a
universal  obedience unto God. And as for them  unto  whom,  through
pride  and self-conceit on the one hand, or ignorance on the  other,
it  is so, we have in this matter no concernment with them. For unto
whom these things are only the work of fancy, the gospel is a fable.
   Something  unto  this  purpose I had written  long  since,  in  a
practical  discourse concerning "Communion with  God."  And  whereas
some  men  of  an inferior condition have found it useful,  for  the
strengthening  themselves in their dependencies  on  some  of  their
superiors, or in compliance with their own inclinations, to cavil at
my  writings and revile their author, that book has been principally
singled out to exercise their faculty and good intentions upon. This
course  is  steered  of late by one Mr Hotchkis,  in  a  book  about
justification,  wherein, in particular, be falls  very  severely  on
that  doctrine,  which,  for the substance  of  it,  is  here  again
proposed,  p.81.  And were it not that I hope  it  may  be  somewhat
useful  unto him to be a little warned of his immoralities  in  that
discourse, I should not in the least have taken notice of his  other
impertinencies. The good man, I perceive, can be angry with  persons
whom  he  never saw, and about things which he can not or  will  not
understand, so far as to revile them with most opprobrious language.
For  my part, although I have never written any thing designedly  on
this  subject, or the doctrine of justification, before now, yet  he
could  not but discern, by what was occasionally delivered  in  that
discourse, that I maintain no other doctrine herein but what was the
common faith of the most learned men in all Protestant churches. And
the reasons why I am singled out for the object of his petulancy and
spleen  are too manifest to need repetition. But I shall yet  inform
him  of what, perhaps, he is ignorant,--namely, that I esteem it  no
small  honour that the reproaches wherewith the doctrine opposed  by
him is reproached do fall upon me. And the same I say concerning all
the reviling and contemptuous expressions that his ensuing pages are
filled withal. But as to the present occasion, I beg his excuse if I
believe  him not, that the reading of the passages which he mentions
out  of  my  book  filled him with "horror and indignation,"  as  he
pretends. For whereas he acknowledges that my words may have a sense
which  he  approves of (and which, therefore, must of  necessity  be
good  and sound), what honest and sober person would not rather take
them  in  that sense, then wrest them unto another, so  as  to  cast
himself under the disquietment of a fit of horrible indignation?  In
this fit I suppose it was, if such a fit, indeed, did befall him (as
one  evil  begets  another),  that he  thought  he  might  insinuate
something  of  my  denial  of  the necessity  of  our  own  personal
repentance and obedience. For no man who had read that book only  of
all  my  writings,  could, with the least regard  to  conscience  or
honesty,  give countenance unto such a surmise, unless his mind  was
much discomposed by the unexpected invasion of a fit of horror.  But
such  is his dealing with me from first to last; nor do I know where
to  fix on any one instance of his exceptions against me, wherein  I
can  suppose he had escaped his pretended fit and was returned  unto
himself,--that is, unto honest and ingenuous thoughts;  wherewith  I
hope  he  is  mostly  conversant. But though I cannot  miss  in  the
justification  of  this charge by considering any  instance  of  his
reflections,  yet  I  shall at present take that  which  he  insists
longest  upon, and fills his discourse about it with most scurrility
of expressions. And this is in the 164th page of his book, and those
that  follow; for there he disputes fiercely against me  for  making
this  to be an "undue end of our serving God,--namely, that  we  may
flee  from  the wrath to come". And who would not take this  for  an
inexpiable crime in any, especially in him who has written  so  much
of  the nature and use of threatening under the gospel, and the fear
that  ought to be in generated by them in the hearts of  men,  as  I
have  done Wherefore so great a crime being the object of them  all,
his  revilings seem not only to be excused but allowed. Eat what  if
all  this should prove a wilful prevarication, not becoming  a  good
man,  much less a minister of the gospel? My words, as reported  and
transcribed  by  himself; are these: "Some there  are  that  do  the
service  of  the  house of God as the drudgery of their  lives;  the
principle  they  yield obedience upon is a spirit  of  bondage  unto
fear;  the  rule they do it by is the law in its dread  and  rigour,
exacting  it of them to the utmost without mercy or mitigation;  the
end  they  do  it  for is to fly from the wrath to come,  to  pacify
conscience, and to seek for righteousness as it were by the works of
the  law." What follow unto the same purpose he omits, and  what  he
adds  as  my words are not so, but his own; "ubi pudor, ubi  fides?"
That  which I affirmed to be a part of an evil end, when and  as  it
makes  up  one  entire end, by being mixed with sundry other  things
expressly mentioned, is singled out, as if I had denied that in  any
sense  it  might be a part of a good end in our obedience:  which  I
never  thought, I never said; I have spoken and written much to  the
contrary.  And  yet,  to countenance himself  in  this  disingenuous
procedure,  besides many other untrue reflections, he  adds  that  I
insinuate,  that  those  whom I describe are "Christians  that  seek
righteousness  by faith in Christ", p.167. I must  needs  tell  this
author  that  my faith in this matter is, that such works  as  these
will  have no influence in his justification; and that the principal
reason  why I suppose I shall not, in my progress in this discourse,
take  any  particular notice of his exceptions, either  against  the
truth  or me,--next unto this consideration, that they are all trite
and obsolete, and, as to what seems to be of any force in them, will
occur unto me in other authors from whom they are derived,--is, that
I  may not have a continual occasion to declare how forgetful he has
been  of all the rules of ingenuity, yea, and of common honesty,  in
his  dealing  with  me. For that which gave the occasion  unto  this
present  unpleasing  digression,--it  being  no  more,  as  to   the
substance  of  it, but that our sins were imputed unto  Christ,  and
that  his righteousness is imputed unto us,--it is that in the faith
whereof  I  am assured I shall live and die, though he should  write
twenty  as  learned books against it as those which he  has  already
published;  and  in what sense I do believe these  things  shall  be
afterwards  declared.  And  although  I  judge  no  men   upon   the
expressions  that fall from them in polemical writings, wherein,  on
many occasions, they do affront their own experience, and contradict
their  own prayers; yet, as to those who understand not that blessed
commutation  of sins and righteousness, as to the substance  of  it,
which  I  have pleaded for, and the acting of our faith with respect
thereunto, I shall be bold to say, "that if the gospel be hid, it is
hid to them that perish."

Sixthly, Introduction of grace by Jesus Christ into the whole of our
relation  unto  God,  and its respect unto  all  the  parts  of  our
obedience--No  mystery  of  grace  in  the  covenant  of  works--All
religion originally commensurate unto reason--No notions of  natural
light  concerning the introduction of the mediation  of  Christ  and
mystery of grace, into our relation to God, Eph.1:17-19--Reason,  as
corrupted, can have no notions of religion but what are derived from
its  primitive  state--Hence the mysteries of  the  gospel  esteemed
folly--Reason, as corrupted, repugnant unto the mystery  of  grace--
Accommodation of spiritual mysteries unto corrupt reason,  wherefore
acceptable unto many--Reasons of it--Two parts of corrupted nature's
repugnancy  unto  the mystery of the gospel:--1.  That  which  would
reduce it unto the private reason of men--Thence the Trinity denied,
and the incarnation of the Son of God; without which the doctrine of
justification   cannot   stand--Rule  of  the   Socinians   in   the
interpretation  of the Scripture--2. Want of a due comprehension  of
the  harmony that is between all the parts of the mystery of grace--
This  harmony  proved--Compared with the harmony  in  the  works  of
nature--To be studied--But it is learned only of them who are taught
of  God;  and  in  experience--Evil effects of the  want  of  a  due
comprehension  hereof--Instances  of  them--All  applied  unto   the
doctrine of justification

   Sixthly.  We can never state our thoughts aright in this  matter,
unless  we  have a clear apprehension of, and satisfaction  in,  the
introduction of grace by Jesus Christ into the whole of our relation
unto  God,  with its respect unto all parts of our obedience.  There
was  no  such  thing, nothing of that nature or kind, in  the  first
constitution  of  that relation and obedience  by  the  law  of  our
creation. We were made in a state of immediate relation unto God  in
our  own persons, as our creator, preserver, and rewarder. There was
no  mystery of grace in the covenant of works. No more was  required
unto  the  consummation of that state but what was given us  in  our
creation,  enabling  us  unto rewardable obedience.  "Do  this,  and
live," was the sole rule of our relation unto God. There was nothing
in religion originally of that which the gospel celebrates under the
name  of  the  grace,  kindness, and love of  God,  whence  all  our
favourable relation unto God does now proceed, and whereinto  it  is
resolved;  nothing of the interposition of a mediator  with  respect
unto  our  righteousness before God, and acceptance with him;--which
is  at  present the life and soul of religion, the substance of  the
gospel,  and  the  centre  of all the truths  revealed  in  it.  The
introduction  of  these things is that which makes  our  religion  a
mystery,  yea, a "great mystery," if the apostle may be believed,  1
Tim.3:16.  All  religion at first was suited and commensurable  unto
reason;  but being now become a mystery, men for the most  part  are
very  unwilling to receive it. But so it must be; and unless we  are
restored  unto our primitive rectitude, a religion suited  unto  the
principles of our reason (of which it has none but what answer  that
first state) will not serve our turns.
   Wherefore, of this introduction of Christ and grace in  him  into
our  relation  unto  God,  there  are  no  notions  in  the  natural
conceptions of our minds; nor are they discoverable by reason in the
best  and  utmost  of  its  exercise, 1  Cor.2:14.  For  before  our
understanding  were darkened, and our reason debased  by  the  fall,
there  were  no such things revealed or proposed unto us;  yea,  the
supposition  of  them is inconsistent with, and contradictory  unto,
that  whole  state and condition wherein we were to live  to  God,--
seeing  they all suppose the entrance of sin. And it is  not  likely
that our reason, as now corrupted, should be willing to embrace that
which  it  knew  nothing  of in its best condition,  and  which  was
inconsistent  with  that  way  of  attaining  happiness  which   was
absolutely suited unto it: for it has no faculty or power  but  what
it  has  derived from that state; and to suppose it is now of itself
suited  and  ready to embrace such heavenly mysteries of  truth  and
grace  as  it  had no notions of, nor could have, in  the  state  of
innocence,  is to suppose that by the fall our eyes were  opened  to
know good and evil, in the sense that the serpent deceived our first
parents  with an expectation of. Whereas, therefore, our reason  was
given  us  for  our  only  guide in the first  constitution  of  our
natures,  it is naturally unready to receive what is above it;  and,
as corrupted, has an enmity thereunto.
  Hence, in the first open proposal of this mystery,--namely, of the
love  and  grace of God in Christ, of the introduction of a mediator
and  his righteousness into our relation unto God, in that way which
God in infinite wisdom had designed,--the whole of it was looked  on
as  mere folly by the generality of the wise and rational men of the
world,  as the apostle declares at large, 1 Cor.1; neither  was  the
faith  of them ever really received in the world without an  act  of
the  Holy Ghost upon the mind in its renovation. And those who judge
that  there  is nothing more needful to enable the mind  of  man  to
receive  the mysteries of the gospel in a due manner but the outward
proposal  of  the doctrine thereof, do not only deny the depravation
of our nature by the fall, but, by just consequence, wholly renounce
that grace whereby we are to be recovered. Wherefore, reason (as has
been  elsewhere proved), acting on and by its own innate  principles
and  abilities, conveyed unto it from its original state, and as now
corrupted,  is  repugnant unto the whole introduction  of  grace  by
Christ into our relation unto God, Rom.8:7. An endeavour, therefore,
to  reduce  the doctrine of the gospel, or what is declared  therein
concerning  the hidden mystery of the grace of God in  Christ,  unto
the principles and inclinations of the minds of men, or reason as it
remains in us after the entrance of sin,--under the power, at least,
of  those  notions  and  conceptions of things  religious  which  it
retains  from  its  first  state and condition,--is  to  debase  and
corrupt them (as we shall see in sundry instances), and so make  way
for their rejection.
  Hence, very difficult it is to keep up doctrinally and practically
the  minds  of  men unto the reality and spiritual  height  of  this
mystery; for men naturally do neither understand it nor like it: and
therefore,  every attempt to accommodate it unto the principles  and
inbred notions of corrupt reason is very acceptable unto many,  yea,
unto the most; for the things which such men speak and declare, are,
without  more ado,--without any exercise of faith or prayer, without
any supernatural illumination,--easily intelligible, and exposed  to
the  common  sense  of  mankind. But whereas a  declaration  of  the
mysteries  of the gospel can obtain no admission into the  minds  of
men  but by the effectual working of the Spirit of God, Eph.1:17-19,
it  is  generally looked on as difficult, perplexed, unintelligible;
and  even the minds of many, who find they cannot contradict it, are
yet not at all delighted with it. And here lies the advantage of all
them  who, in these days, do attempt to corrupt the doctrine of  the
gospel, in the whole or any part of it; for the accommodation of  it
unto  the  common notions of corrupted reason is the whole  of  what
they design. And in the confidence of the suffrage hereof, they  not
only  oppose  the things themselves, but despise the declaration  of
them  as enthusiastical canting. And by nothing do they more prevail
themselves than by a pretence of reducing all things to reason,  and
contempt of what they oppose, as unintelligible fanaticism. But I am
not more satisfied in any thing of the most uncontrollable evidence,
than  that  the understandings of these men are no just  measure  or
standard  of  spiritual truth. Wherefore, notwithstanding  all  this
fierceness of scorn, with the pretended advantages which some  think
they have made by traducing expressions in the writings of some men,
it  may  be improper, it maybe only not suited unto their own genius
and  capacity  in  these things, we are not to be  "ashamed  of  the
gospel of Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation to  every
one that believeth".
  Of this repugnancy unto the mystery of the wisdom and grace of God
in  Christ, and the foundation of its whole economy, in the distinct
operations of the persons of the holy Trinity therein, there are two
parts or branches:--
  1. That which would reduce the whole of it unto the private reason
of  men,  and their own weak, imperfect management thereof. This  is
the entire design of the Socinians. Hence,--
   (1.) The doctrine of the Trinity itself is denied, impugned, yea,
derided by them; and that solely on this account. They plead that it
is  incomprehensible  by reason; for there is  in  that  doctrine  a
declaration of things absolutely infinite and eternal, which  cannot
be   exemplified  in,  nor  accommodated  unto,  things  finite  and
temporal.  This  is  the substance of all their  pleas  against  the
doctrine  of the holy Trinity, that which gives a seeming  life  and
sprightly vigour to their objections against it; wherein yet,  under
the  pretence  of  the use and exercise of reason,  they  fall,  and
resolve  all  their seasonings into the most absurd  and  irrational
principles  that  ever  the minds of men were besotted  withal.  For
unless  you  will  grant them that what is above their  reason,  is,
therefore, contradictory unto true reason; that what is infinite and
eternal  is  perfectly comprehensible, and in all its  concerns  and
respects  to be accounted for; that what cannot be in things  finite
and  of  a  separate existence, cannot be in things infinite,  whose
being and existence can be but one; with other such irrational, yea,
brutish  imaginations; all the arguments of these pretended  men  of
reason  against the Trinity become like chaff that every  breath  of
wind will blow away. Hereon they must, as they do, deny the distinct
operations of any persons in the Godhead in the dispensation of  the
mystery  of grace; for if there are no such distinct persons,  there
can  be no such distinct operations. Now, as upon a denial of  these
things  no one article of faith can be rightly understood,  nor  any
one duty of obedience be performed unto God in an acceptable manner;
so,  in  particular, we grant that the doctrine of justification  by
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ cannot stand.
   (2.)  On  the same ground the incarnation of the Son  of  God  is
rejected as "atopoon atopootaton",--the most absurd conception  that
ever  befell  the minds of men. Now it is to no purpose  to  dispute
with  men  so  persuaded, about justification; yea, we  will  freely
acknowledge  that  all  things we believe about  it  are  "graoodeis
muthoi",--no  better than old wives' tales,--if the  incarnation  of
the  Son of God be so also. For I can as well understand how he  who
is  a  mere  man,  however exalted, dignified,  and  glorified,  can
exercise  a spiritual rule in and over the hearts, consciences,  and
thoughts  of all the men in the world, being intimately  knowing  of
and present unto them all equally at all times (which is another  of
their  fopperies),  as how the righteousness and  obedience  of  one
should  be esteemed the righteousness of all that believe,  if  that
one  be no more than a man, if he be not acknowledged to be the  Son
of God incarnate.
   Whilst  the  minds of men are prepossessed with such  prejudices,
nay,  unless  they firmly assent unto the truth in these foundations
of  it, it is impossible to convince them of the truth and necessity
of  that  justification of a sinner which is revealed in the gospel.
Allow  the  Lord Christ to be no other person but what they  believe
him  to  be,  and  I  will  grant there  can  be  no  other  way  of
justification than what they declare; though I cannot  believe  that
ever  any sinner will be justified thereby. These are the issues  of
an  obstinate  refusal  to  give way unto the  introduction  of  the
mystery  of  God  and his grace into the way of  salvation  and  our
relation unto him.
   And  he  who would desire an instance of the fertility  of  men's
inventions  in  forging  and  coining  objections  against  heavenly
mysteries,  in  the justification of the sovereignty  of  their  own
reason,  as unto what belongs to our relation unto God, need  go  no
farther  than  the  writings of these men against  the  Trinity  and
incarnation of the eternal Word. For this is their fundamental rule,
in  things  divine  and doctrines of religion,--That  not  what  the
Scripture says is therefore to be accounted true, although it  seems
repugnant  unto  any reasonings of ours, or is  above  what  we  can
comprehend; but what seems repugnant unto our reason, let the  words
of  the Scripture be what they will, that we must conclude that  the
Scripture does not say so, though it seem never so expressly  so  to
do.  "Itaque non quia utrumque Scripture dicat, propterea haec inter
se  non  pugnare  concludendum est; sed potius quia  haec  inter  se
pugnant, ideo alterutrum a Scriptura non dici statuendum est",  says
Schlichting  ad Meisn. Def. Socin. p.102;--"Wherefore,  because  the
Scripture  affirms both these" (that is the efficacy of God's  grace
and  the freedom of our wills), "we cannot conclude from thence that
they  are not repugnant; but because these things are repugnant unto
one another, we must determine that one of them is not spoken in the
Scripture:"--no,  it seems, let it say what it  will.  This  is  the
handsomest way they can take in advancing their own reason above the
Scripture; which yet savours of intolerable presumption. So  Socinus
himself,  speaking  of the satisfaction of Christ,  says,  in  plain
terms:  "Ego  quidem  etiamsi non semel sed  saepius  id  in  sacris
monumentis  scriptum extaret, non idcirco tamen ita prorsus  rem  se
habere  crederem,  ut vos opinamini; cum enim id  omnino  fieri  non
possit  non  secus atque in multis llis Scripturae Testimoniis,  una
cum  caeteris omnibus facio; aliqua, quae minus incommoda videretur,
interpretatione adhibita, eum sensum ex ejusmodi verbis elicerem qui
sibi  constaret;"--"For my part, if this (doctrine) were extant  and
written in the holy Scripture, not once, but often, yet would I  not
therefore  believe it to be so as you do; for where  it  can  by  no
means  be  so (whatever the Scripture says), I would, as I  do  with
others   in  other  places,  make  use  of  some  less  incommodious
interpretation, whereby I would draw a sense out of the  words  that
should  be  consistent with itself." And how he  would  do  this  he
declares  a little before: "Sacra verba in alium sensum, quam  verba
sonant, per inusitatos etiam tropos quandoque explicantur". He would
explain  the  words  into  another sense than  what  they  sound  or
propose, by unusual tropes. And, indeed, such uncouth tropes does he
apply,  as  so many engines and machines, to pervert all the  divine
testimonies   concerning   our   redemption,   reconciliation,   and
justification by the blood of Christ.
   Having  therefore fixed this as their rule, constantly to  prefer
their  own  reason  above the express words of the Scripture,  which
must,  therefore, by one means or other, be so perverted or  wrested
as  to  be made compliant therewith, it is endless to trace them  in
their multiplied objections against the holy mysteries, all resolved
into  this one principle, that their reason cannot comprehend  them,
nor  does  approve  of them. And if any man would have  an  especial
instance of the serpentine wits of men winding themselves from under
the power of conviction by the spiritual light of truth, or at least
endeavouring  so  to  do, let him read the comments  of  the  Jewish
rabbins on Isaiah, chap.53, and of the Socinians on the beginning of
the Gospel of John.
  2. The second branch of this repugnancy springs from the want of a
due  comprehension of that harmony which is in the mystery of grace,
and between all the parts of it. This comprehension is the principal
effect  of that wisdom which believers are taught by the Holy Ghost.
For  our  understanding of the wisdom of God in a mystery is neither
an  art nor a science, whether purely speculative or more practical,
but  a  spiritual  wisdom.  And this spiritual  wisdom  is  such  as
understands and apprehends things, not so much, or not only  in  the
notion  of  them, as in their power, reality, and efficacy,  towards
their  proper  ends. And, therefore, although it may  be  very  few,
unless they be learned, judicious, and diligent in the use of  means
of  all  sorts,  do  attain unto it clearly and  distinctly  in  the
doctrinal  notions  of  it;  yet are all true  believers,  yea,  the
meanest  of them, directed and enabled by the Holy Spirit,  as  unto
their own practice and duty, to act suitably unto a comprehension of
this  harmony,  according to the promise that  "they  shall  be  all
taught  of  God."  Hence,  those things  which  appear  unto  others
contradictory and inconsistent one with another, so as that they are
forced to offer violence unto the Scripture and their own experience
in  the rejection of the one or the other of them, are reconciled in
their minds and made mutually useful or helpful unto one another, in
the  whole  course  of  their obedience. But these  things  must  be
farther spoken unto.
   Such an harmony as that intended there is in the whole mystery of
God. For it is the most curious effect and product of divine wisdom;
and  it  is  no  impeachment of the truth of  it,  that  it  is  not
discernible by human reason. A full comprehension of it no  creature
can  in  this world arise unto. Only, in the contemplation of faith,
we  may arrive unto such an understanding admiration of it as  shall
enable  us to give glory unto God, and to make use of all the  parts
of  it  in practice as we have occasion. Concerning it the holy  man
mentioned  before  cried  out,  "O  anexichniastou  demiourgias"--"O
unsearchable contrivance and operations". And so is it expressed  by
the  apostle, as that which has an unfathomable depth of  wisdom  in
it, "O bathos ploutou", etc.--"O the depth of the riches both of the
wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and
his  ways  past  finding  Rom.11:33-36. See  to  the  same  purpose,
Eph.3:8-10.
   There is a harmony, a suitableness of one thing unto another,  in
all  the works of creation. Yet we see that it is not perfectly  nor
absolutely  discoverable unto the wisest and most diligent  of  men.
How  far  are they from an agreement about the order and motions  of
the  heavenly  bodies,  of the sympathies and  qualities  of  sundry
things  here  below,  in  the relation of causality  and  efficiency
between  one thing and another! The new discoveries made  concerning
any  of  them,  do  only evidence how far men are from  a  just  and
perfect comprehension of them. Yet such a universal harmony there is
in  all the parts of nature and its operations, that nothing in  its
proper  station and operation is destructively contradictory  either
to the whole or any part of it, but every thing contributes unto the
preservation and use of the universe. But although this  harmony  be
not  absolutely comprehensible by any, yet do all living  creatures,
who  follow the conduct or instinct of nature, make use of  it,  and
live upon it; and without it neither their being could be preserved,
nor their operations continued.
   But  in  the  mystery  of  God and his  grace,  the  harmony  and
suitableness of one thing unto another, with their tendency unto the
same  end,  is  incomparably more excellent and glorious  than  that
which is seen in nature or the works of it. For whereas God made all
things at first in wisdom, yet is the new creation of all things  by
Jesus  Christ  ascribed  peculiarly unto  the  riches,  stores,  and
treasures of that infinite wisdom. Neither can any discern it unless
they  are  taught of God; for it is only spiritually discerned.  But
yet is it by the most despised. Some seem to think that there is  no
great wisdom in it; and some, that no great wisdom is required  unto
the  comprehension of it: few think it worth the while to spend half
that  time in prayer, in meditation, in the exercise of self-denial,
mortification,  and holy obedience, doing the will of  Christ,  that
they  may  know of his word, to the attaining of a due comprehension
of  the  mystery of godliness, as some do in diligence,  study,  and
trial of experiments, who design to excel in natural or mathematical
sciences. Wherefore there are three things evident herein:--
   1.  That such an harmony there is in all the parts of the mystery
of  God, wherein all the blessed properties of the divine nature are
glorified,  our duty in all instances is directed and  engaged,  our
salvation in the way of obedience secured, and Christ, as the end of
all,  exalted. Wherefore, we are not only to consider and  know  the
several  parts  of  the  doctrine  of  spiritual  truths  but  their
relation, also, one unto another, their consistency one with another
in  practice, and their mutual furtherance of one another unto their
common  end. And a disorder in our apprehensions about any  part  of
that  whose  beauty  and  use arises from its  harmony,  gives  some
confusion of mind with respect unto the whole.
   2. That unto a comprehension of this harmony in a due measure, it
is necessary that we be taught of God; without which we can never be
wise  in the knowledge of the mystery of his grace. And herein ought
we  to  place the principal part of our diligence, in our  inquiries
into the truths of the gospel.
   3. All those who are taught of God to know his will, unless it be
when  their  minds are disordered by prejudices, false opinions,  or
temptations,  have  an  experience  in  themselves  and  their   own
practical obedience, of the consistency of all parts of the  mystery
of  God's  grace  and  truth in Christ among  themselves,--of  their
spiritual  harmony  and  cogent tendency  unto  the  sane  end.  The
introduction  of  the grace of Christ into our  relation  unto  God,
makes  no  confusion or disorder in their minds, by the conflict  of
the  principles  of  natural reason, with  respect  unto  our  first
relation  unto  God,  and  those of grace, with  respect  unto  that
whereunto we are renewed.
  From the want of a due comprehension of this divine harmony it is,
that   the  minds  of  men  are  filled  with  imaginations  of   an
inconsistency between the most important parts of the mystery of the
gospel, from whence the confusions that are at this day in Christian
religion do proceed.
   Thus  the Socinians can see no consistency between the  grace  or
love  of God and the satisfaction of Christ, but imagine if the  one
of them be admitted, the other must be excluded out of our religion.
Wherefore  they principally oppose the latter, under a  pretence  of
asserting  and  vindicating the former. And where these  things  are
expressly conjoined in the same proposition of faith,--as  where  it
is  said  that "we are justified freely by the grace of God, through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God has set forth to be
a  propitiation through faith in his blood," Rom.3:24,25,--they will
offer violence unto common sense and reason, rather than not disturb
that  harmony  which  they cannot understand.  For  although  it  be
plainly  affirmed  to  be a redemption by his  blood,  as  he  is  a
propitiation, as his blood was a ransom or price of redemption,  yet
they  will contend that it is only metaphorical,--a mere deliverance
by power, like that of the Israelites by Moses. But these things are
clearly stated in the gospel; and therefore not only consistent, but
such  as that the one cannot subsist without the other. Nor is there
any  mention of any especial love or grace of God unto sinners,  but
with  respect  unto the satisfaction of Christ as the means  of  the
communication  of  all  its  effects  unto  them.  See  John   3:16;
Rom.3:23-25; 8:30-33; 2 Cor.5:19-21; Eph.1:7; etc.
    In  like  manner,  they  can  see  no  consistency  between  the
satisfaction of Christ and the necessity of holiness or obedience in
them  that do believe. Hence they continually glamour, that, by  our
doctrine  of  the mediation of Christ, we overthrow all  obligations
unto  a  holy  life. And by their sophistical reasonings  unto  this
purpose, they prevail with many to embrace their delusion, who  have
not  a spiritual experience to confront their sophistry withal.  But
as  the  testimony of the Scripture lies expressly against them,  so
those  who  truly believe, and have real experience of the influence
of  that  truth into the life of God, and how impossible  it  is  to
yield any acceptable obedience herein without respect thereunto, are
secured from their snares.
   These  and the like imaginations arise from the unwillingness  of
men  to  admit of the introduction of the mystery of grace into  our
relation  unto God. For suppose us to stand before God  on  the  old
constitution of the covenant of creation, which alone natural reason
likes and is comprehensive of, and we do acknowledge these things to
be  inconsistent. But the mystery of the wisdom and grace of God  in
Christ cannot stand without them both.
   So,  likewise,  God's  efficacious grace  in  the  conversion  of
sinners, and the exercise of the faculties of their minds in  a  way
of  duty,  are  asserted  as  contradictory  and  inconsistent.  And
although they seem both to be positively and frequently declared  in
the Scripture, yet, say these men, their consistency being repugnant
to their reason, let the Scripture say what it will, yet is it to be
said  by us that the Scripture does not assert one of them. And this
is from the same cause; men cannot, in their wisdom, see it possible
that  the  mystery  of  God's grace should be  introduced  into  our
relation and obedience unto God. Hence have many ages of the church,
especially  the last of them, been filled with endless disputes,  in
opposition to the grace of God, or to accommodate the conceptions of
it unto the interests of corrupted reason.
  But there is no instance more pregnant unto this purpose than that
under  our  present consideration. Free justification,  through  the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, is cried out against,  as
inconsistent  with a necessity of personal holiness  and  obedience:
and  because  the Socinians insist principally on this pretence,  it
shall  be  fully and diligently considered apart; and that  holiness
which,  without  it, they and others deriving from them  do  pretend
unto, shall be tried by the unerring rule.
   Wherefore I desire it may be observed, that in pleading for  this
doctrine, we do it as a principal part of the introduction of  grace
into our whole relation unto God. Hence we grant,--
  1. That it is unsuited, yea foolish, and, as some speak, childish,
unto  the  principles  of unenlightened and unsanctified  reason  or
understandings  of  men. And this we conceive to  be  the  principal
cause  of  all the oppositions that are made unto it,  and  all  the
deprivations of it that the church is pestered withal. Hence are the
wits of men so fertile in sophistical cavils against it, so ready to
load it with seeming absurdities, and I know not what unsuitableness
unto  their wondrous rational conceptions. And no objection  can  be
made  against it, be it never so trivial, but it is highly applauded
by  those  who  look on that introduction of the mystery  of  grace,
which is above their natural conceptions, as unintelligible folly.
   2.  That  the  necessary relation of these things, one  unto  the
other,--namely,   of  justification  by  the   imputation   of   the
righteousness  of  Christ,  and  the  necessity  of   our   personal
obedience,--will not be clearly understood, nor duly  improved,  but
by  and in the exercise of the wisdom of faith. This we grant  also;
and  let  who  will make what advantage they can of this concession.
True faith has that spiritual light in it, or accompanying of it, as
that  it  is  able  to  receive it, and to  conduct  the  soul  unto
obedience  by  it. Wherefore, reserving the particular consideration
hereof unto its proper place, I say, in general,--
   (1.)  That  this  relation is evident unto that spiritual  wisdom
whereby  we  are enabled, doctrinally and practically, to comprehend
the  harmony of the mystery of God, and the consistency of  all  the
parts of it, one with another.
   (2.) That it is made evident by the Scripture, wherein both these
things--justification through the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ,  and  the  necessity of our personal obedience--are  plainly
asserted and declared. And we defy that rule of the Socinians,  that
seeing  these things are inconsistent in their apprehension or  unto
their  reason, therefore we must say that one of them is not  taught
in  the Scripture: for whatever it may appear unto their reason,  it
does  not  so to ours; and we have at least as good reason to  trust
unto  our own reason as unto theirs. Yet we absolutely acquiesce  in
neither,  but  in  the authority of God in the Scripture;  rejoicing
only  in this, that we can set our seal unto his revelations by  our
own experience. For,--
   (3.)  It is fully evident in the gracious conduct which the minds
of them that believe are under, even that of the Spirit of truth and
grace, and the inclinations of that new principle of the divine life
whereby they are acted; for although, from the remainders of sin and
darkness that are in them, temptations may arise unto a continuation
in sin because grace has abounded, yet are their minds so formed and
framed  by  the  doctrine  of this grace,  and  the  grace  of  this
doctrine, that the abounding of grace herein is the principal motive
unto their abounding in holiness, as we shall see afterward.
   And  this we aver to be the spring of all those objections  which
the  adversaries  of  this  doctrine  do  continually  endeavour  to
entangle it withal. As,--1. If the passive righteousness (as  it  is
commonly called), that is, his death and suffering, be imputed  unto
us,  there is no need, nor can it be, that his active righteousness,
or  the obedience of his life, should be imputed unto us; and so  on
the contrary: for both together are inconsistent. 2. That if all sin
be  pardoned, there is no need of the righteousness; and so  on  the
contrary,  if the righteousness of Christ be imputed unto us,  there
is  no room for, or need of, the pardon of sin. 3. If we believe the
pardon of our sins, then are our sins pardoned before we believe, or
we   are  bound  to  believe  that  which  is  not  so.  4.  If  the
righteousness of Christ be imputed unto us, then are we esteemed  to
have done and suffered what, indeed, we never did nor suffered;  and
it  is  true,  that if we are esteemed our selves to have  done  it,
imputation  is overthrown. 5. If Christ's righteousness  be  imputed
unto  us, then are we as righteous as was Christ himself. 6. If  our
sins  were imputed unto Christ, then was he thought to have  sinned,
and was a sinner subjectively. 7. If good works be excluded from any
interest  in our justification before God, then are they of  no  use
unto  our  salvation. 8. That it is ridiculous to think  that  where
there  is  no sin , there is not all the righteousness that  can  be
required.  9.  That  righteousness imputed is  only  a  putative  or
imaginary righteousness, etc.
  Now, although all these and the like objections, however subtilely
managed  (as  Socinus  boasts that he had used  more  than  ordinary
subtlety  in this cause,--"In quo, si subtilius aliquanto quam  opus
esse  videretur, quaedam a nobis disputate sunt", De Servat., par.4,
cap.4.),  are  capable of plain and clear solutions,  and  we  shall
avoid  the examination of none of them; yet at present I shall  only
say,  that  all the shades which they cast on the minds  of  men  do
vanish   and  disappear  before  the  light  of  express   Scripture
testimonies, and the experience of them that do believe, where there
is  a  due  comprehension of the mystery of grace in  any  tolerable
measure.

Seventhly,  General  prejudices  against  the  imputation   of   the
righteousness of Christ: --1. That it is not in terms found  in  the
Scripture,  answered--2. That nothing is said of it in the  writings
of  the  evangelists,  answered, John 20:30,31--Nature  of  Christ's
personal  ministry--Revelations by the Holy Spirit immediately  from
Christ--Design  of  the writings of the evangelists--3.  Differences
among Protestants themselves about this doctrine, answered--Sense of
the  ancients  herein--What is of real difference among Protestants,
considered

   Seventhly.  There are some common prejudices,  that  are  usually
pleaded  against the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness
of  Christ;  which,  because they will  not  orderly  fall  under  a
particular consideration in our progress, may be briefly examined in
these general previous considerations:--
   1.  It  is usually urged against it, that this imputation of  the
righteousness  of  Christ  is  nowhere mentioned  expressly  in  the
Scripture.  This  is the first objection of Bellarmine  against  it.
"Hactenus",  says he, "nullum omnino locum invenire  putuerunt,  ubi
legeretur  Christi  justitiam nobis imputari ad justitiam;  vel  nos
justos  esse per Christi justitiam nobis imputatam", De Justificat.,
lib.2  cap.7;--an objection, doubtless, unreasonably and  immodestly
urged  by  men  of  this  persuasion; for  not  only  do  they  make
profession  of their whole faith, or their belief of all  things  in
matters  of religion, in terms and expressions nowhere used  in  the
Scripture,  but  believe many things also, as they say,  with  faith
divine,  not  at  all  revealed or contained in the  Scripture,  but
drained  by  them  out of the traditions of the church.  I  do  not,
therefore, understand how such persons can modestly manage  this  as
an  objection against any doctrine, that the terms wherein  some  do
express  it are not "rhetoos",--found in the Scripture just in  that
order  of one word after another as by them they are used; for  this
rule  may be much enlarged, and yet be kept strait enough to exclude
the  principal  concerns  of their church out  of  the  confines  of
Christianity.  Nor can I apprehend much more equity in  others,  who
reflect  with severity on this expression of the imputation  of  the
righteousness of Christ as unscriptural, as if those  who  make  use
thereof   were  criminal  in  no  small  degree,  when   themselves,
immediately  in the declaration of their own judgment, make  use  of
such  terms, distinctions, and expressions, as are so far from being
in  the  Scripture, as that it is odds they had never  been  in  the
world,  had  they escaped Aristotle's mint, or that of  the  schools
deriving from him.
   And thus, although a sufficient answer has frequently enough  (if
any  thing  can  be  so)  been  returned  unto  this  objection   in
Bellarmine,  yet  has  one  of  late  amongst  ourselves  made   the
translation  of  it into English to be the substance  of  the  first
chapter of a book about justification; though he needed not to  have
given  such  an early intimation unto whom he is beholding  for  the
greatest  part of his ensuing discourse, unless it be what is  taken
up  in despiteful revilings of other men. For take from him what  is
not  his  own, on the one hand, and impertinent cavils at the  words
and  expressions of other men, with forged imputations  on  some  of
them,  on  the  other, and his whole book will disappear.  But  yet,
although  he affirms that none of the Protestant writers, who  speak
of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us (which were
all  of them, without exception, until of late), have precisely kept
to  the  form of wholesome words, but have rather swerved and varied
from  the  language of the Scripture; yet he will excuse  them  from
open  error,  if they intend no more thereby but that  we  are  made
partakers  of  the benefits of the righteousness of Christ.  But  if
they intend that the righteousness of Christ itself imputed unto  us
(that  is, so as to be our righteousness before God, whereon we  are
pardoned  and  accepted with him, or do receive the  forgiveness  of
sins, and a right to the heavenly inheritance), then are they guilty
of  that  error  which makes us to be esteemed to do ourselves  what
Christ did; and so on the other side, Christ to have done what we do
and  did,  chap.2,3. But these things are not so.  For,  if  we  are
esteemed  to  have done any thing in our own persons, it  cannot  be
imputed unto us as done for us by another; as it will appear when we
shall  treat  of  these things afterwards. But the  great  and  holy
persons  intended,  are as little concerned in  the  accusations  or
apologies  of  some writers, as those writers seem to be  acquainted
with  that  learning, wisdom, and judgment, wherein they did  excel,
and the characters whereof are so eminently conspicuous in all their
writings.
But the judgment of most Protestants is not only candidly expressed,
but  approved of also by Bellarmine himself in another  place.  "Non
esset",  says he, "absurdum, si quis diceret nobis imputari  Christi
justitiam  et merita; cum nobis donentur et applicentur; ac  si  nos
ipsi Deo satisfecissemus". De Justif., lib.2, cap.10;--"It were  not
absurd,  if any one should say that the righteousness and merits  of
Christ are imputed unto us, when they are given and applied unto us,
as  if  we  ourselves had satisfied God." And this he confirms  with
that  saying of Bernard, Epist. ad Innocent. 190, "Nam 'si unus  pro
omnibus   mortuus  est,  ergo  omnes  mortui  sunt,'  ut   videlicet
satisfactio unius omnibus imputetur, sicut omnium peccata unus  ille
portavit".  And those who will acknowledge no more in  this  matter,
but  only  a participation "quovis modo", one way or other,  of  the
benefits  of the obedience and righteousness of Christ,  wherein  we
have  the  concurrence of the Socinians also, might do  well,  as  I
suppose, plainly to deny all imputation of his righteousness unto us
in  any  sense, as they do, seeing the benefits of his righteousness
cannot  be said to be imputed unto us, what way soever we  are  made
partakers  of them. For to say that the righteousness of  Christ  is
imputed  unto us, with respect unto the benefits of it, when neither
the righteousness itself is imputed unto us, nor can the benefits of
it  be  imputed  unto us, as we shall see afterward,  does  minister
great occasion of much needless variance and contests. Neither do  I
know  any  reason why men should seek countenance unto this doctrine
under such an expression as themselves reflect upon as unscriptural,
if  they  be contented that their minds and sense should be  clearly
understood and apprehended;--for truth needs no subterfuge.
   The Socinians do now principally make use of this objection. For,
finding the whole church of God in the use of sundry expressions, in
the declaration of the most important truths of the gospel, that are
not  literally  contained  in  the  Scripture,  they  hoped  for  an
advantage   from  thence  in  their  opposition  unto   the   things
themselves.  Such  are  the terms of the Trinity,  the  incarnation,
satisfaction,  and merit of Christ, as this also, of the  imputation
of  his  righteousness. How little they have prevailed in the  other
instances, has been sufficiently manifested by them with  whom  they
have  had  to  do.  But  as unto that part of this  objection  which
concerns  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  unto,
believers, those by whom it is asserted do say,--
   (1.) That it is the thing alone intended which they plead for. If
that  be not contained in the Scripture, if it be not plainly taught
and confirmed therein, they will speedily relinquish it. But if they
can  prove  that the doctrine which they intend in this  expression,
and  which  is  thereby plainly declared unto the understandings  of
men, is a divine truth sufficiently witnessed unto in the Scripture;
then  is this expression of it reductively scriptural, and the truth
itself  so expressed a divine verity. To deny this, is to take  away
all use of the interpretation of the Scripture, and to overthrow the
ministry  of  the church. This, therefore, is to be  alone  inquired
into.
   (2.)  They  say,  the same thing is taught and expressed  in  the
Scripture  in  phrases  equipollent. For it  affirms  that  "by  the
obedience  of  one"  (that is Christ), "many  are  made  righteous",
Rom.5:19;  and  that  we are made righteous  by  the  imputation  of
righteousness  unto us, "Blessed is the man unto whom  God  imputeth
righteousness without works," chap.4:6. And if we are made righteous
by  the  imputation  of  righteousness unto us,  that  obedience  or
righteousness whereby we are made righteous is imputed unto us.  And
they  will  be  content with this expression of this doctrine,--that
the  obedience  of  Christ whereby we are  made  righteous,  is  the
righteousness that God imputes unto us. Wherefore, this objection is
of no force to disadvantage the truth pleaded for.
   2.  Socinus  objects,  in particular, against  this  doctrine  of
justification by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ,  and
of  his  satisfaction,  that there is nothing  said  of  it  in  the
"Evangelists", nor in the "report of the sermons of Christ unto  the
people,  nor  yet  in  those  of  his private  discourses  with  his
disciples";  and  he urges it vehemently and at  large  against  the
whole  of  the  expiation of sin by his death, De Servator.,  par.4,
cap.9. And as it is easy "malis inventis pejora addere", this notion
of  his  is  not only made use of and pressed at large by one  among
ourselves,  but improved also by a dangerous comparison between  the
writings  of  the  evangelists and the other  writings  of  the  New
Testament. For to enforce this argument, that the histories  of  the
gospel,  wherein  the  sermons of Christ are recorded,  do  make  no
mention of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (as in  his
judgment  they  do  not),  nor  of his satisfaction,  or  merit,  or
expiation of sin, or of redemption by his death (as they do  not  in
the  judgment of Socinus), it is added by him, that for his part  he
is  "apt to admire our Saviour's sermons, who was the author of  our
religion, before the writings of the apostles, though inspired men".
Whereunto  many  dangerous  insinuations  and  reflections  on   the
writings  of St Paul, contrary to the faith and sense of the  church
in all ages, are subjoined. See pp.240,241.
   But  this boldness is not only unwarrantable, but to be abhorred.
What  place of Scripture, what ecclesiastical tradition, what single
precedent  of  any  one  sober Christian  writer,  what  theological
reason,  will countenance a man in making the comparison  mentioned,
and  so determining thereon? Such juvenile boldness, such want of  a
due   apprehension  and  understanding  of  the  nature  of   divine
inspiration, with the order and design of the writings  of  the  New
Testament, which are the springs of this precipitate censure,  ought
to  be reflected on. At present, to remove this pretence out of  our
way, it may be observed,--
   (1.)  That  what  the Lord Christ taught his  disciples,  in  his
personal ministry on the earth, was suited unto that economy of  the
church which was antecedent unto his death and resurrection. Nothing
did  he  withhold  from  them  that  was  needful  to  their  faith,
obedience,  and consolation in that state. Many things he instructed
them  in  out  of the Scripture, many new revelations he  made  unto
them,  and many times did he occasionally instruct and rectify their
judgments;  howbeit he made no clear, distinct revelation  of  those
sacred mysteries unto them which are peculiar unto the faith of  the
New  Testament,  nor  were to be distinctly apprehended  before  his
death and resurrection.
   (2.)  What the Lord Christ revealed afterward by his Spirit  unto
the  apostles,  was no less immediately from himself  than  was  the
truth which he spoke unto them with his own mouth in the days of his
flesh.  An  apprehension to the contrary is destructive of Christian
religion. The epistles of the apostles are no less Christ's  sermons
than that which he delivered on the mount. Wherefore--
   (3.)  Neither in the things themselves, nor in the way  of  their
delivery  or revelation, is there any advantage of the one  sort  of
writings above the other. The things written in the epistles proceed
from the same wisdom, the same grace, the same love, with the things
which he spoke with his own mouth in the days of his flesh, and  are
of the same divine veracity, authority, and efficacy. The revelation
which  he  made  by his Spirit is no less divine and immediate  from
himself,  than  what he spoke unto his disciples on  the  earth.  To
distinguish  between  these things, on any  of  these  accounts,  is
intolerable folly.
   (4.) The writings of the evangelists do not contain the whole  of
all  the  instructions which the Lord Christ gave unto his disciples
personally  on  the  earth.  For he  was  seen  of  them  after  his
resurrection  forty  days,  and  spoke  with  them  of  "the  things
pertaining to the kingdom of God," Acts 1:3; and yet nothing  hereof
is  recorded  in  their  writings,  but  only  some  few  occasional
speeches.  Nor  had he given before unto them a clear  and  distinct
understanding  of those things which were delivered  concerning  his
death and resurrection in the Old Testament; as is plainly declared,
Luke  24:25-27.  For it was not necessary for them,  in  that  state
wherein they were. Wherefore,--
   (5.)  As  to  the extent of divine revelations objectively  those
which  he  granted,  by  his Spirit, unto  his  apostles  after  his
ascension, were beyond those which he personally taught them, so far
as they are recorded in the writings of the evangelists. For he told
them plainly, not long before hit death, that he had many things  to
say  unto them which "then they could not bear," John 16:12. And for
the  knowledge of those things, he refers them to the coming of  the
Spirit  to make revelation of them from himself, in the next  words,
"Howbeit  when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will  guide  you
into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he
shall  hear,  that shall he speak: and he will show  you  things  to
come.  He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and  shall
show  it  unto you," verses 13,14. And on this account he  had  told
them  before, that it was expedient for them that he should go away,
that  the Holy Spirit might come unto them, whom he would send  from
the  Father,  verse  7.  Hereunto he referred  the  full  and  clear
manifestation of the mysteries of the gospel. So false, as  well  as
dangerous and scandalous, are those insinuations of Socinus and  his
followers.
   (6.)  The writings of the evangelists are full unto their  proper
ends  and purposes. These were, to record the genealogy, conception,
birth,  acts, miracles, and teachings of our Saviour, so far  as  to
evince  him  to be the true, only-promised Messiah. So he  testifies
who wrote the last of them: "Many other signs truly did Jesus, which
are  not written in this book: but these are written, that ye  might
believe  that  Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God," John  22:30,31.
Unto  this end every thing is recorded by them that is needful  unto
the  ingenerating and establishing of faith. Upon this confirmation,
all  things  declared in the Old Testament concerning him--all  that
was  taught in types and sacrifices--became the object of faith,  in
that sense wherein they were interpreted in the accomplishment;  and
that  in  them  this doctrine was before revealed, shall  be  proved
afterward. It is, therefore, no wonder if some things, and those  of
the  highest  importance, should be declared  more  fully  in  other
writings  of  the  New  Testament than they  are  in  those  of  the
evangelists
   (7.)  The pretence itself is wholly false; for there are as  many
pregnant  testimonies given unto this truth  in  one  alone  of  the
evangelists  as in any other book of the New Testament,--namely,  in
the  book  of  John. I shall refer to some of them,  which  will  be
pleaded in their proper place, chap.1:12,17; 3:14-18,36; 5:24.
   But  we  may pass this by, as one of those inventions  concerning
which Socinus boasts, in his epistle to Michael Vajoditus, that  his
writings  were  esteemed  by  many for  the  singularity  of  things
asserted in them.
   3.  The  difference that has been among Protestant writers  about
this  doctrine is pleaded in the prejudice of it. Osiander,  in  the
entrance of the reformation, fell into a vain imagination,  that  we
were justified or made righteous with the essential righteousness of
God,  communicated  unto  us by Jesus Christ.  And  whereas  he  was
opposed  herein  with some severity by the most learned  persons  of
those  days, to countenance himself in his singularity, he pretended
that  there  were "twenty different opinions amongst the Protestants
themselves about the formal cause of our justification before  God".
This  was quickly laid hold on by them of the Roman church,  and  is
urged  as  a  prejudice against the whole doctrine,  by  Bellarmine,
Vasquez, and others. But the vanity of this pretence of his has been
sufficiently discovered; and Bellarmine himself could fancy but four
opinions  among them that seemed to be different from  one  another,
reckoning  that of Osiander for one, De Justificat.,  lib.2,  cap.1.
But whereas he knew that the imagination of Osiander was exploded by
them  all, the other three that he mentions are indeed but  distinct
parts of the same entire doctrine. Wherefore, until of late it might
be truly said, that the faith and doctrine of all Protestants was in
this  article  entirely the same. For however they differed  in  the
way,  manner,  and methods of its declaration, and too many  private
men  were  addicted unto definitions and descriptions of their  own,
under  pretence  of  logical accuracy in  teaching,  which  gave  an
appearance  of  some  contradiction among them;  yet  in  this  they
generally  agreed, that it is the righteousness of Christ,  and  not
our  own,  on  the  account whereof we receive the  pardon  of  sin,
acceptance with God, are declared righteous by the gospel, and  have
a right and title unto the heavenly inheritance. Hereon, I say, they
were  generally  agreed, first against the Papists,  and  afterwards
against the Socinians; and where this is granted, I will not contend
with any man about his way of declaring the doctrine of it.
   And  that I may add it by the way, we have herein the concurrence
of   the   fathers  of  the  primitive  church.  For   although   by
justification,  following the etymology  of  the  Latin  word,  they
understood   the   making  us  righteous  with   internal   personal
righteousness,--at  least  some  of  them  did  so,  as  Austin   in
particular,--yet that we are pardoned and accepted with God  on  any
other account but that of the righteousness of Christ, they believed
not.   And  whereas,  especially  in  their  controversy  with   the
Pelagians,  after  the rising of that heresy, they plead  vehemently
that  we are made righteous by the grace of God changing our  hearts
and  natures, and creating in us a principle of spiritual  life  and
holiness, and not by the endeavours of our own free will,  or  works
performed in the strength thereof, their words and expressions  have
been abused, contrary to their intention and design.
   For  we wholly concur with them, and subscribe unto all that they
dispute about the making of us personally righteous and holy by  the
effectual grace of God, against all merit of works and operations of
our  own  free will (our sanctification being every way as  much  of
grace  as  our  justification, properly  so  called);  and  that  in
opposition  unto the common doctrine of the Roman church  about  the
same  matter:  only  they call this our being  made  inherently  and
personally   righteous  by  grace,  sometimes   by   the   name   of
justification,  which we do not. And this is  laid  hold  on  as  an
advantage  by those of the Roman church who do not concur with  them
in  the way and manner whereby we are so made righteous. But whereas
by  our  justification before God, we intend only that righteousness
whereon  our  sins are pardoned, wherewith we are made righteous  in
his sight, or for which we are accepted as righteous before him,  it
will  be  hard  to find any of them assigning of it unto  any  other
causes than the Protestants do. So it is fallen out, that what  they
design  to prove, we entirely comply with them in; but the  way  and
manner  whereby  they prove it is made use of by  the  Papists  unto
another end, which they intended not.
   But  as to the way and manner of the declaration of this doctrine
among  Protestants  themselves, there  ever  was  some  variety  and
difference  in  expressions; nor will it  otherwise  be  whilst  the
abilities and capacities of men, whether in the conceiving of things
of  this nature, or in the expression of their conceptions,  are  so
various  as  they are. And it is acknowledged that these differences
of  late  have  had  by some as much weight laid upon  them  as  the
substance  of  the  doctrine generally agreed in.  Hence  some  have
composed  entire books, consisting almost of nothing but impertinent
cavils  at  other  men's  words and expressions.  But  these  things
proceed  from the weakness of some men, and other vicious habits  of
their  minds,  and  do not belong unto the cause  itself.  And  such
persons, as for me, shall write as they do, and fight on until  they
are  weary.  Neither  has the multiplication of questions,  and  the
curious discussion of them in the handling of this doctrine, wherein
nothing ought to be diligently insisted on but what is directive  of
our  practice, been of much use unto the truth itself, though it has
not been directly opposed in them.
   That  which is of real difference among persons who agree in  the
substance of the doctrine, may be reduced unto a very few heads; as,-
-(1.)  There  is  something of this kind about the nature  of  faith
whereby we are justified, with its proper object in justifying,  and
its  use in justification. And an instance we have herein, not  only
of  the  weakness of our intellects in the apprehension of spiritual
things, but also of the remainders of confusion and disorder in  our
minds;  at  least,  how true it is that we know only  in  part,  and
prophesy only in part, whilst we are in this life. For whereas  this
faith  is an act of our minds, put forth in the way of duty to  God,
yet  many  by  whom it is sincerely exercised, and that continually,
are  not agreed either in the nature or proper object of it. Yet  is
there  no  doubt but that some of them who differ amongst themselves
about  these  things,  have  delivered their  minds  free  from  the
prepossession   of  prejudices  and  notions  derived   from   other
artificial  seasonings imposed on them, and do really express  their
own  conceptions as to the best and utmost of their experience.  And
notwithstanding this difference, they do yet all of them please  God
in the exercise of faith, as it is their duty, and have that respect
unto  its  proper  object  as secures both their  justification  and
salvation. And if we cannot, on this consideration, bear  with,  and
forbear, one another in our different conceptions and expressions of
those  conceptions about these things, it is a sign we have a  great
mind  to be contentious, and that our confidences are built on  very
weak  foundations. For my part, I had much rather my lot  should  be
found  among  them  who  do  really  believe  with  the  heart  unto
righteousness,  though  they  are  not  able  to  give  a  tolerable
definition  of faith unto others, than among them who can  endlessly
dispute  about it with seeming accuracy and skill, but are negligent
in  the  exercise  of it as their own duty. Wherefore,  some  things
shall  be  briefly  spoken  of in this matter,  to  declare  my  own
apprehensions  concerning the things mentioned,  without  the  least
design to contradict or oppose the conceptions of others.
   (2.) There has been a controversy more directly stated among some
learned  divines  of the Reformed churches (for  the  Lutherans  are
unanimous  on the one side), about the righteousness of Christ  that
is  said to be imputed unto us. For some would have this to be  only
his  suffering of death, and the satisfaction which he made for  sin
thereby, and others include therein the obedience of his life  also.
The  occasion,  original,  and progress  of  this  controversy,  the
persons by whom it has been managed, with the writings wherein it is
so,  and  the  various  ways  that have  been  endeavoured  for  its
reconciliation,  are sufficiently known unto all who  have  inquired
into  these things. Neither shall I immix myself herein, in the  way
of  controversy, or in opposition unto others, though I shall freely
declare  my own judgment in it, so far as the consideration  of  the
righteousness of Christ, under this distinction, is inseparable from
the substance of the truth itself which I plead for.
    (3.)   Some  difference  there  has  been,  also,  whether   the
righteousness  of Christ imputed unto us, or the imputation  of  the
righteousness of Christ, may be said to be the formal cause  of  our
justification  before  God; wherein there appears  some  variety  of
expression among learned men, who have handled this subject  in  the
way  of  controversy  with the Papists. The  true  occasion  of  the
differences about this expression has been this, and no other: Those
of  the  Roman  church do constantly assert, that the  righteousness
whereby  we  are  righteous before God is the formal  cause  of  our
justification;  and  this  righteousness,  they  say,  is  our   own
inherent,  personal  righteousness, and  not  the  righteousness  of
Christ  imputed  unto  us:  wherefore  they  treat  of  this   whole
controversy--namely,  what  is  the  righteousness  on  the  account
whereof  we are accepted with God, or justified--under the  name  of
the  formal  cause  of justification; which is the  subject  of  the
second  book  of Bellarmine concerning justification. In  opposition
unto  them,  some  Protestants, contending  that  the  righteousness
wherewith  we  are esteemed righteous before God, and accepted  with
him, is the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, and not our own
inherent, imperfect, personal righteousness, have done it under this
inquiry,--namely,  What is the formal cause  of  our  justification?
Which  some  have said to be the imputation of the righteousness  of
Christ,  some,  the righteousness of Christ imputed. But  what  they
designed  herein  was,  not  to  resolve  this  controversy  into  a
philosophical inquiry about the nature of a formal cause,  but  only
to  prove that that truly belonged unto the righteousness of  Christ
in  our justification which the Papists ascribed unto our own, under
that  name. That there is a habitual, infused habit of grace,  which
is  the  formal cause of our personal, inherent righteousness,  they
grant:  but  they all deny that God pardons our sins, and  justifies
our  persons,  with respect unto this righteousness, as  the  formal
cause  thereof; nay, they deny that in the justification of a sinner
there  either is, or can be, any inherent formal cause  of  it.  And
what  they mean by a formal cause in our justification, is only that
which gives the denomination unto the subject, as the imputation  of
the righteousness of Christ does to a person that he is justified.
   Wherefore, notwithstanding the differences that have  been  among
some  in  the various expression of their conceptions, the substance
of  the doctrine of the reformed churches is by them agreed upon and
retained  entire. For they all agree that God justifies no sinner,--
absolves  him not from guilt, nor declares him righteous, so  as  to
have a title unto the heavenly inheritance,--but with respect unto a
true and perfect righteousness; as also, that this righteousness  is
truly  the  righteousness  of him that is so  justified;  that  this
righteousness  becomes ours by God's free grace  and  donation,--the
way  on  our  part  whereby  we come to be  really  and  effectually
interested  therein being faith alone; and that this is the  perfect
obedience  or  righteousness of Christ imputed  unto  us:  in  these
things,  as  they  shall  be  afterwards  distinctly  explained,  is
contained the whole of that truth whose explanation and confirmation
is  the  design of the ensuing discourse. And because those by  whom
this  doctrine  in  the substance of it is of late impugned,  derive
more from the Socinians than the Papists, and make a nearer approach
unto their principles, I shall chiefly insist on the examination  of
those original authors by whom their notions were first coined,  and
whose weapons they make use of in their defense.

Eighthly, Influence of the doctrine of justification into the  first
Reformation--Advantages unto the world by that Reformation--State of
the   consciences  of  men  under  the  Papacy,  with  respect  unto
justification before God--Alterations made therein by the  light  of
this   doctrine,  though  not  received--Alterations  in  the  Pagan
unbelieving  world  by the introduction of Christianity--Design  and
success  of  the first reformers herein--Attempts for reconciliation
with the Papists in this doctrine, and their success--Remainders  of
the   ignorance  of  the  truth  in  the  Roman  church--Unavoidable
consequences of the corruption of this doctrine

   Eighthly.  To close these previous discourses, it is  worthy  our
consideration what weight was laid on this doctrine of justification
at  the  first Reformation and what influence it had into the  whole
work thereof. However the minds of men may be changed as unto sundry
doctrines  of faith among us, yet none can justly own  the  name  of
Protestant, but he must highly value the first Reformation: and they
cannot well do otherwise whose present even temporal advantages  are
resolved  thereinto.  However, I intend none  but  such  as  own  an
especial  presence and guidance of God with them who were  eminently
and  successfully  employed therein. Such persons cannot  but  grant
that  their  faith  in  this matter, and the  concurrence  of  their
thoughts about its importance, are worthy consideration.
   Now it is known that the doctrine of justification gave the first
occasion  to the whole work of reformation, and was the  main  thing
whereon  it  turned. This those mentioned declared to be  "Articulus
stantis  aut  cadentis eccleseae", and that the vindication  thereof
alone  deserved all the pains that were taken in the whole  endeavor
of  reformation.  But things are now, and that by  virtue  of  their
doctrine  herein, much changed in the world, though  it  be  not  so
understood  or acknowledged. In general, no small benefit  redounded
unto  the world by the Reformation, even among them by whom  it  was
not, nor is received, though many bluster with contrary pretensions:
for  all  the evils which have accidentally ensued thereon,  arising
most of them from the corrupt passions and interests of them by whom
it  has  been  opposed, are usually ascribed unto it;  and  all  the
light,  liberty,  and  benefit of the minds  of  men  which  it  has
introduced, are ascribed unto other causes. But this may be signally
observed  with respect unto the doctrine of justification, with  the
causes  and effects of its discovery and vindication. For the  first
reformers  found  their own, and the consciences of  other  men,  so
immersed  in darkness, so pressed and harassed with fears,  terrors,
and  disquietments under the power of it, and so  destitute  of  any
steady  guidance into the ways of peace with God, as that  with  all
diligence  (like  persons sensible that herein their  spiritual  and
eternal interest was concerned) they made their inquiries after  the
truth  in  this  matter; which they knew must be the only  means  of
their deliverance. All men in those days were either kept in bondage
under  endless  fears and anxieties of mind upon the convictions  of
sin,   or  sent  for  relief  unto  indulgences,  priestly  pardons,
penances,  pilgrimages,  works  satisfactory  of  their   own,   and
supererogatory  of  others, or kept under  chains  of  darkness  for
purgatory  unto  the  last day. Now, he is no way  able  to  compare
things  past  and present, who sees not how great an  alteration  is
made  in  these  things  even in the papal church.  For  before  the
Reformation,  whereby the light of the gospel,  especially  in  this
doctrine  of justification, was diffused among men, and  shone  even
into  their minds who never comprehended nor received it, the  whole
almost of religion among them was taken up with, and confined  unto,
these things. And to instigate men unto an abounding sedulity in the
observation  of  them, their minds were stuffed with traditions  and
stories  of  visions,  apparitions,  frightful  spirits,  and  other
imaginations  that  poor mortals are apt to be  amazed  withal,  and
which their restless disquitments gave countenance unto.
     "Somnia, terrores magici, miracula, sagae
     Nocturni lemures, portentaque Thessala,"--[Hor., Ep.2,2,209.]
were  the  principal  objects of their creed, and  matter  of  their
religious  conversation.  That very church itself  comparatively  at
ease  from  these  things unto what it was before  the  Reformation;
though so much of them is still retained as to blind the eyes of men
from  discerning  the  necessity  as  well  as  the  truth  of   the
evangelical doctrine of justification.
   It  is  fallen out herein not much otherwise than it did  at  the
first  entrance  of Christianity into the world. For  there  was  an
emanation  of  light  and truth from the gospel which  affected  the
minds  of  men, by whom yet the whole of it, in its general  design,
was opposed and persecuted. For from thence the very vulgar sort  of
men  became to have better apprehensions and notions of God and  his
properties, or the original and rule of the universe, than they  had
arrived  unto  in  the midnight of their paganism.  And  a  sort  of
learned speculative men there were, who, by virtue of that light  of
truth  which sprung from the gospel, and was now diffused  into  the
minds  of  men, reformed and improved the old philosophy, discarding
many  of  those falsehoods and impertinencies wherewith it had  been
encumbered.  But  when  this was done, they still  maintained  their
cause  on the old principles of the philosophers. And, indeed, their
opposition unto the gospel was far more plausible and pleadable than
it was before. For after they had discarded the gross conceptions of
the  common  sort about the divine nature and rule, and had  blended
the  light  of  truth which brake forth in Christian  religion  with
their  own  philosophical notions, they made a vigorous attempt  for
the  reinforcement  of heathenism against the  main  design  of  the
gospel. And things have not, as I said, fallen out much otherwise in
the  Reformation. For as by the light of truth which  therein  brake
forth,  the consciences of even the vulgar sort are in some  measure
freed  from those childish affrightments which they were  before  in
bondage  unto; so those who are learned have been enabled to  reduce
the  opinions  and practices of their church into a more  defensible
posture,  and  make their opposition unto the truths of  the  gospel
more plausible than they formerly were. Yea, that doctrine which, in
the  way  of  its teaching and practice among them, as also  in  its
effects  on  the  consciences of men, was  so  horrid  as  to  drive
innumerable  persons from their communion in that and  other  things
also,  is  now, in the new representation of it, with the artificial
covering  provided  for its former effects in practice,  thought  an
argument meet to be pleaded for a return unto its entire communion.
   But  to root the superstitions mentioned out of the minds of men,
to  communicate unto them the knowledge of the righteousness of God,
which  is revealed from faith to faith, and thereby to deliver  them
from their bondage, fears, and distress, directing convinced sinners
unto  the  only way of solid peace with God, did the first reformers
labour  so  diligently  in the declaration and  vindication  of  the
evangelical doctrine of justification; and God was with them. And it
is  worth  our consideration, whether we should, on every cavil  and
sophism of men not so taught, not so employed, not so tried, not  so
owned  of  God  as they were, and in whose writings  there  are  not
appearing  such  characters  of wisdom,  sound  judgment,  and  deep
experience,  as in theirs, easily part with that doctrine  of  truth
wherein  alone  they found peace unto their own souls,  and  whereby
they  were instrumental to give liberty and peace with God unto  the
souls  and consciences of others innumerable, accompanied  with  the
visible  effects of holiness of life, and fruitfulness in the  works
of righteousness, unto the praise of God by Jesus Christ.
   In  my  judgment,  Luther spake the truth when he  said,  "Amisso
articulo   justificationis,   simul   amissa   est   tota   doctrina
Christiana".  And  I wish he had not been a true  prophet,  when  he
foretold  that in the following ages the doctrine thereof  would  be
again obscured; the causes whereof I have elsewhere inquired into.
   Some late writers, indeed, among the Protestants have endeavoured
to  reduce the controversy about justification with the Papist  unto
an  appearance of a far less real difference than is usually  judged
to  be  in  it.  And a good work it is, no doubt, to  pare  off  all
unnecessary  occasions  of  debate  and  differences  in   religion,
provided we go not so near the quick as to let out any of its  vital
spirits.  The way taken herein is, to proceed upon some  concessions
of the most sober among the Papists, in their ascriptions unto grace
and  the  merit of Christ, on the one side; and the express judgment
of  the  Protestants, variously delivered, of the necessity of  good
works  to them that are justified, on the other. Besides, it appears
that in different expressions which either party adhere unto, as  it
were  by tradition, the same things are indeed intended. Among  them
who  have  laboured  in  this  kind, Ludovicus  le  Blanc,  for  his
perspicuity  and  plainness,  his  moderation  and  freedom  from  a
contentious frame of spirit, is "pene solus legi dignus". He is like
the  ghost of Tiresias in this matter. But I must needs say, that  I
have  not  seen  the  effect  that might  be  desired  of  any  such
undertaking.  For, when each party comes unto the interpretation  of
their  own  concessions, which is, "ex communi jure", to be  allowed
unto  them,  and  which they will be sure to do in  compliance  with
their  judgment  on the substance of the doctrine wherein  the  main
stress  of the difference lies, the distance and breach continue  as
wide  as ever they were. Nor is there the least ground towards peace
obtained  by  any  of our condescensions or compliance  herein.  For
unless  we can come up entirely unto the decrees and canons  of  the
Council  of Trent, wherein the doctrine of the Old and New Testament
is  anathematized,  they  will  make  no  other  use  of  any  man's
compliance,  but  only to increase the glamour of differences  among
ourselves. I mention nothing of this nature to hinder any  man  from
granting  whatever he can or please unto them, without the prejudice
of the substance of truths professed in the protestant churches; but
only  to intimate the uselessness of such concessions, in order unto
peace and agreement with them, whilst they have a Procrustes' bed to
lay us upon, and from whose size they will not recede.
   Here  and there one (not above three or four in all may be named,
within  this  hundred and thirty years) in the Roman  communion  has
owned our doctrine of justification, for the substance of it. So did
Albertus  Pighius,  and  the  Antitagma  Coloniense,  as  Bellarmine
acknowledges. And what he says of Pighius is true, as we  shall  see
afterwards;  the  other I have not seen. Cardinal Contarinus,  in  a
treatise  of justification, written before, and published about  the
beginning  of the Trent Council, delivers himself in the  favour  of
it.  But upon the observation of what he had done, some say  he  was
shortly after poisoned; though I must confess I know not where  they
had the report.
   But  do what we can for the sake of peace, as too much cannot  be
done  for it, with the safety of truth, it cannot be denied but that
the doctrine of justification, as it works effectually in the church
of  Rome, is the foundation of many enormities among them,  both  in
judgment and practice. They do not continue, I acknowledge, in  that
visible predominancy and rage as formerly, nor are the generality of
the  people in so much slavish bondage unto them as they  were;  but
the  streams of them do still issue from this corrupt fountain, unto
the  dangerous  infection  of  the  souls  of  men.  For  missatical
expiatory  sacrifices for the tiring and the dead, the necessity  of
auricular   confession,  with  authoritative  absolution,  penances,
pilgrimages,   sacramentals,   indulgences,   commutations,    works
satisfactory  and  supererogatory, the  merit  and  intercession  of
saints departed, with especial devotions and applications to this or
that  particular saint or angel, purgatory, yea, on the matter,  the
whole  of monastic devotion, do depend thereon. They are all nothing
but  ways invented to pacify the consciences of men, or divert  them
from  attending to the charge which is given in against them by  the
law of God; sorry supplies they are of a righteousness of their own,
for  them who know not how to submit themselves to the righteousness
of  God.  And if the doctrine of free justification by the blood  of
Christ   were   once   again  exploded,  or   corrupted   and   made
unintelligible, unto these things, as absurd and foolish as now unto
some  they seem to be, or what is not one jut better, men  must  and
will  again  betake themselves. For if once they are  diverted  from
putting their trust in the righteousness of Christ, and grace of God
alone,  and  do practically thereon follow after, take up  with,  or
rest  in, that which is their own, the first impressions of a  sense
of  sin  which shall befall their consciences will drive  them  from
their  present hold, to seek for shelter in any thing  that  tenders
unto  them the least appearance of relief. Men may talk and  dispute
what  they  please,  whilst they are at peace in  their  own  minds,
without a real sense either of sin or righteousness, yea, and  scoff
at  them who are not under the power of the same security; but  when
they  shall be awakened with other apprehensions of things than  yet
they are aware of, they will be put on new resolutions. And it is in
vain to dispute with any about justification, who have not duly been
convinced of a state of sin, and of its guilt; for such men  neither
understand what they say, nor that whereof they dogmatize.
  We have, therefore, the same reasons that the first reformers had,
to  be careful about the preservation of this doctrine of the gospel
pure and entire; though we may not expect the like success with them
in  our endeavours unto that end. For the minds of the generality of
men are in another posture than they were when they dealt with them.
Under  the  power of ignorance and superstition they were;  but  yet
multitudes of them were affected with a sense of the guilt  of  sin.
With  us,  for  the most part, things are quite otherwise.  Notional
light,  accompanied with a senselessness of sin, leads  men  unto  a
contempt  of  this  doctrine, indeed of the  whole  mystery  of  the
gospel.  We have had experience of the fruits of the faith which  we
now  plead  for in this nation, for many years, yea,  now  for  some
ages;  and  it cannot well be denied, but that those who  have  been
most  severely  tenacious of the doctrine of  justification  by  the
imputation  of  the  righteousness of Christ,  have  been  the  most
exemplary  in  a  holy life: I speak of former  days.  And  if  this
doctrine  be yet farther corrupted, debased, or unlearned among  us,
we  shall quickly fall into one of the extremes wherewith we are  at
present  urged on either side. For although the reliefs provided  in
the  church of Rome, for the satisfaction of the consciences of men,
are at present by the most disliked, yea, despised, yet, if they are
once brought to a loss how to place their whole trust and confidence
in  the righteousness of Christ, and grace of God in him, they  will
not  always live at such an uncertainty of mind as the best of their
own  personal obedience will hang them on the briers of; but  retake
themselves  unto  somewhat  that  tenders  them  certain  peace  and
security,  though at present it may seem foolish unto  them.  And  I
doubt   not  but  that  some,  out  of  a  mere  ignorance  of   the
righteousness  of God, which either they have not  been  taught,  or
have had no mind to learn, have, with some integrity in the exercise
of  their  consciences, betaken themselves unto that pretended  rest
which  the church of Rome offers unto them. For being troubled about
their  sins,  they  think it better to retake themselves  unto  that
great  variety  of  means  for  the  ease  and  discharge  of  their
consciences which the Roman church affords, than to abide where they
are,  without the least pretence of relief; as men will find in  due
time,  there is no such thing to be found or obtained in themselves.
They  may  go  on for a time with good satisfaction unto  their  own
minds;  but  if  once  they  are brought unto  a  loss  through  the
conviction  of sin, they must look beyond themselves for  peace  and
satisfaction,  or  sit down without them to eternity.  Nor  are  the
principles and ways which others take up withal in another  extreme,
upon the rejection of this doctrine, although more plausible, yet at
all more really useful unto the souls of men than those of the Roman
church  which they reject as obsolete, and unsuited unto the  genius
of  the present age. For they all of them arise from, or lead  unto,
the  want of a due sense of the nature and guilt of sin, as also  of
the  holiness  and righteousness of God with respect thereunto.  And
when such principles as these do once grow prevalent in the minds of
men,  they quickly grow careless, negligent, secure in sinning,  and
end  for the most part in atheism, or a great indifference, as  unto
all religion, and all the duties thereof.





I. Justifying faith; the causes and object of it declared

Justification  by faith generally acknowledged--The  meaning  of  it
perverted--The nature and use of faith in justification proposed  to
consideration--Distinctions about it waived--A twofold faith of  the
gospel  expressed  in the Scripture--Faith that is  not  justifying,
Acts  8:13; John 2:23,24; Luke 8:13; Matt.7:22,23--Historical faith;
whence  it is so called, and the nature of it--Degrees of assent  in
it--Justification  not  ascribed unto any degree  of  it--A  calumny
obviated--The  causes  of  true  saving  faith--Conviction  of   sin
previous  unto it--The nature of legal conviction, and its effects--
Arguments   to   prove   it  antecedent  unto   faith--Without   the
consideration of it, the true nature of faith not to be understood--
The order and relation of the law and gospel, Rom.1:17--Instance  of
Adam--Effects of conviction--Internal: Displicency and sorrow;  fear
of punishment; desire of deliverance--External: Abstinence from sin;
performance  of  duties;  reformation  of  life--Not  conditions  of
justification;   not   formal  disposition  unto   it;   not   moral
preparations  for it--The order of God in justification--The  proper
object of justifying faith--Not all divine verity equally; proved by
sundry  arguments--The  pardon of our own sins,  whether  the  first
object  of faith--The Lord Christ in the work of mediation,  as  the
ordinance of God for the recovery of lost sinners, the proper object
of  justifying faith--The position explained and proved, Acts 10:43;
16:31; 4:12; Luke 24:25-27; John 1:12; 3:16,36; 6:29,47; 7:38;  Acts
26:18;  Col.2:6; Rom.3:24,25; 1 Cor.1:30; 2 Cor.5:21;  Eph.1:7,8;  2
Cor.5:19



The  means  of  justification on our part  is  faith.  That  we  are
justified  by faith, is so frequently and so expressly  affirmed  in
the  Scripture, as that it cannot directly and in terms  by  any  be
denied.  For  whereas some begin, by an excess of partiality,  which
controversial engagements and provocations do incline them unto,  to
affirm that our justification is more frequently ascribed unto other
things, graces or duties, than unto faith, it is to be passed by  in
silence,  and  not contended about. But yet, also,  the  explanation
which  some  others make of this general concession,  that  "we  are
justified  by  faith",  does  as fully overthrow  what  is  affirmed
therein as if it were in terms rejected; and it would more advantage
the  understandings of men if it were plainly refused upon its first
proposal,  than to be led about in a maze of words and  distinctions
unto  its  real  exclusion, as is done both  by  the  Romanists  and
Socinians.  At present we may take the proposition as  granted,  and
only  inquire into the true, genuine sense and meaning of  it:  That
which  first occurs unto our consideration is faith; and that  which
does  concern it may be reduced unto two heads:--1. Its  nature.  2.
Its use in our justification.
   Of  the  nature  of faith in general, of the especial  nature  of
justifying  faith,  of its characteristical distinctions  from  that
which  is  called  faith but is not justifying, so  many  discourses
(divers  of  them the effects of sound judgment and good experience)
are  already extant, as it is altogether needless to engage at large
into a farther discussion of them. However, something must be spoken
to  declare in what sense we understand these things;--what is  that
faith  which we ascribe our justification unto, and what is its  use
therein.
   The distinctions that are usually made concerning faith (as it is
a  word  of  various significations), I shall wholly pretermit;  not
only  as  obvious and known, but as not belonging unto  our  present
argument.  That which we are concerned in is, that in the  Scripture
there  is  mention  made  plainly of a twofold  faith,  whereby  men
believe  the gospel. For there is a faith whereby we are  justified,
which  he who has shall be assuredly saved; which purifies the heart
and  works  by love. And there is a faith or believing,  which  does
nothing  of  all  this;  which who has, and  has  no  more,  is  not
justified, nor can be saved. Wherefore, every faith, whereby men are
said  to  believe, is not justifying. Thus it is said of  Simon  the
magician, that he "believed," Acts 8:13, when he was in the "gall of
bitterness and bond of iniquity;" and therefore did not believe with
that  faith  which "purifieth the heart," Acts 15:9. And  that  many
"believed on the name of Jesus, when they saw the miracles  that  he
did;  but  Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because  he  knew
what was in man," John 2:23,24. They did not believe on his name  as
those do, or with that kind of faith, who thereon "receive power  to
become  the sons of God," John 1:12. And some, when they  "hear  the
word  receive  it  with joy, believing for a while,"  but  "have  no
root,"  Luke 8:13. And faith, without a root in the heart, will  not
justify  any;  for "with the heart men believe unto  righteousness,"
Rom.10:10.  So is it with them who shall cry, "Lord, Lord"  (at  the
last  days, "we have prophesied in thy name," whilst yet  they  were
always "workers of iniquity", Matt.7:22,23.
    This  faith  is  usually  called  historical  faith.  But   this
denomination is not taken from the object of it, as though  it  were
only  the  history  of  the  Scripture,  or  the  historical  things
contained  in it. For it respects the whole truth of the word,  yea,
of  the promises of the gospel as well as other things. But it is so
called from the nature of the assent wherein it does consist; for it
is  such  as  we  give  unto  historical things  that  are  credibly
testified unto us.
   And this faith has divers differences or degrees, both in respect
unto the grounds or reasons of it, and also its effects. For as unto
the  first, all faith is an assent upon testimony; and divine  faith
is an assent upon a divine testimony. According as this testimony is
received,  so  are  the differences or degrees of this  faith.  Some
apprehend  it  on human motives only, and its credibility  unto  the
judgment of reason; and their assent is a mere natural act of  their
understanding, which is the lowest degree of this historical  faith.
Some  have  their  minds enabled unto it by spiritual  illumination,
making a discovery of the evidences of divine truth whereon it is to
be  believed; the assent they give hereon is more firm and operative
than that of the former sort.
   Again;  it has its differences or degrees with respect  unto  its
effects.  With  some it does no way, or very little,  influence  the
will  or the affections, or work any change in the lives of men.  So
is  it with them that profess they believe the gospel, and yet  live
in  all  manner of sins. In this degree, it is called by the apostle
James "a dead faith," and compared unto a dead carcass, without life
or  motion; and is an assent of the very serene nature and kind with
that  which devils are compelled to give; and this faith abounds  in
the world. With others it has an effectual work upon the affections,
and that in many degrees, also, represented in the several sorts  of
ground  whereinto  the seed of the word is cast, and  produces  many
effects in their lives. In the utmost improvement of it, both as  to
the  evidence  it proceeds from and the effects it produces,  it  is
usually  called temporary faith; for it is neither permanent against
all  oppositions, nor will bring any unto eternal rest. The name  is
taken  from  that  expression  of our  Saviour  concerning  him  who
believeth with this faith,--"Proskairos esti", Matt.13:21.
   This  faith I grant to be true in its kind, and not merely to  be
equivocally so called: it is not "pistis pseudoonumos". It is so  as
unto  the  general nature of faith; but of the same  special  nature
with  justifying faith it is not. Justifying faith is not a  higher,
or  the  highest  degree of this faith, but is of  another  kind  or
nature.  Wherefore,  sundry things may be observed  concerning  this
faith, in the utmost improvement of it unto our present purpose. As-
-
  1. This faith, with all the effects of it, men may have and not be
justified;  and,  if  they have not a faith of  another  kind,  they
cannot be justified. For justification is nowhere ascribed unto  it,
yea,  it is affirmed by the apostle James that none can be justified
by it.
  2. It may produce great effects in the minds, affections and lives
of  men,  although not one of them that are peculiar unto justifying
faith.  Yet such they may be, as that those in whom they are wrought
may  be, and ought, in the judgment of charity, to be looked  on  as
true believers.
   3.  This  is  that faith which may be alone. We are justified  by
faith  alone;  but we are not justified by that faith which  can  be
alone. Alone, respects its influence into our justification, not its
nature  and  existence.  And  we absolutely  deny  that  we  can  be
justified  by  that  faith which can be alone; that  is,  without  a
principle of spiritual life and universal obedience, operative in of
it, as duty does require.
   These  things I have observed, only to obviate that  calumny  and
reproach   which   some  endeavour  to  fix  on  the   doctrine   of
justification  by faith only, through the mediation of  Christ.  For
those  who assert it, must be Solifidians, Antinomians, and  I  know
not  what;--such  as  oppose  or deny  the  necessity  of  universal
obedience,  or  good works. Most of them who manage it,  cannot  but
know in their own consciences that this charge is false. But this is
the way of handling controversies with many. They can aver any thing
that  seems to advantage the cause they plead, to the great  scandal
of  religion.  If by Solifidians, they mean those who  believe  that
faith  alone is on our part the means, instrument, or condition  (of
which afterward) of our justification, all the prophets and apostles
were  so,  and  were so taught to be by Jesus Christ;  as  shall  be
proved. If they mean those who affirm that the faith whereby we  are
justified is alone, separate, or separable, from a principle and the
fruit of holy obedient, they must find them out themselves, we  know
nothing  of  them. For we allow no faith to be of the same  kind  or
nature  with  that whereby we are justified, but what virtually  and
radically  contains in it universal obedience, as the effect  is  in
the  cause,  the  fruit in the root, and which acts  itself  in  all
particular duties, according as by rule and circumstances  they  are
made so to be. Yea, we allow no faith to be justifying, or to be  of
the same kind with it, which is not itself, and in its own nature, a
spiritually vital principle of obedience and good works. And if this
be not sufficient to prevail with some not to seek for advantages by
such  shameful  calumnies, yet is it so with others, to  free  their
minds from any concernment in them.
  [As] for the especial nature of justifying faith, which we inquire
into,  the things whereby it is evidenced may be reduced unto  these
four  heads:--1. The causes of it on the part of God. 2. What is  in
us  previously required unto it. 3. The proper object of it. 4.  Its
proper peculiar acts and effects. Which shall be spoken unto so  far
as is necessary unto our present design:--
  1. The doctrine of the causes of faith, as unto its first original
in  the divine will, and the way of its communication unto us, is so
large,  and  so  immixed  with that of the way  and  manner  of  the
operation  of efficacious grace in conversion (which I have  handled
elsewhere),  as  that I shall not here insist upon  it.  For  as  it
cannot in a few words be spoken unto, according unto its weight  and
worth, so to engage into a full handling of it would too much divert
us  from  our  present argument. This I shall only  say,  that  from
thence it may be uncontrollable evidenced, that the faith whereby we
are  justified  is of an especial kind or nature, wherein  no  other
faith,  which  justification is not inseparable from,  does  partake
with it.
  2. Wherefore, our first inquiry is concerning what was proposed in
the  second place,--namely, What is on our part, in a way  of  duty,
previously required thereunto; or, what is necessary to be found  in
us  antecedaneously  unto our believing unto  the  justification  of
life?  And  I  say there is supposed in them in whom this  faith  is
wrought,  on  whom it is bestowed, and whose duty it is  to  believe
therewith,  the  work  of  the law in the  conviction  of  sin;  or,
conviction  of sin is a necessary antecedent unto justifying  faith.
Many  have  disputed  what belongs hereunto,  and  what  effects  it
produces  in  the mind, that dispose the soul unto the receiving  of
the   promise  of  the  gospel.  But  whereas  there  are  different
apprehensions about these effects or concomitants of conviction  (in
compunction,   humiliation,  self-judging,  with  sorrow   for   sin
committed,  and  the like), as also about the degrees  of  them,  as
ordinarily prerequired unto faith and conversion unto God,  I  shall
speak  very  briefly unto them, so far as they are inseparable  from
the  conviction asserted. And I shall first consider this conviction
itself, with what is essential thereunto, and then the effects of it
in  conjunction with that temporary faith before spoken of. I  shall
do  so,  not as unto their nature, the knowledge whereof I take  for
granted, but only as they have respect unto our justification.
   (1.)  As  to the first, I say, the work of conviction in general,
whereby the soul of man has a practical understanding of the  nature
of  sin,  its  guilt, and the punishment due unto it;  and  is  made
sensible  of  his own interest therein, both with respect  unto  sin
original  and  actual,  with  his own utter  disability  to  deliver
himself  out  of the state and condition wherein on the  account  of
these things he finds himself to be,--is that which we affirm to  be
antecedaneously  necessary unto justifying faith; that  is,  in  the
adult, and of whose justification the word is the external means and
instrument.
  A convinced sinner is only "subjectum capax justificationis",--not
that  every  one  that  is  convinced  is  or  must  necessarily  be
justified. There is not any such disposition or preparation  of  the
subject by this conviction, its effects, and consequent, as that the
form  of  justification, as the Papists speak, or justifying  grace,
must  necessarily ensue or be introduced thereon. Nor is  there  any
such preparation in it, as that, by virtue of any divine compact  or
promise, a person so convinced shall be pardoned and justified.  But
as  a man may believe with any kind of faith that is not justifying,
such  as  that before mentioned, without this conviction; so  it  is
ordinarily previous and necessary so to be, unto that faith which is
unto  the  justification of life. The motive unto  it  is  not  that
thereon a man shall be assuredly justified; but that without  it  he
cannot be so.
   This, I say, is required in the person to be justified, in  order
of  nature antecedaneously unto that faith whereby we are justified;
which  we shall prove with the ensuing arguments:--For, [1.] Without
the  due  consideration and supposition of it, the  true  nature  of
faith  can  never  be  understood. For, as we  have  showed  before,
justification  is  God's  way of the deliverance  of  the  convinced
sinner, or one whose mouth is stopped, and who is guilty before God,-
-obnoxious to the law, and shut up under sin. A sense, therefore, of
this  estate,  and  all  that  belongs unto  it,  is  required  unto
believing. Hence Le Blanc, who has searched with some diligence into
these things, commends the definition of faith given by Mestrezat,--
that it is "the fight of a penitent sinner unto the mercy of God  in
Christ."  And there is, indeed, more sense and truth in it  than  in
twenty others that seem more accurate. But without a supposition  of
the   conviction  mentioned,  there  is  no  understanding  of  this
definition of faith. For it is that alone which puts the soul upon a
flight  unto the mercy of God in Christ, to be saved from the  wrath
to come. Heb.6:18, "Fled for refuge."
   [2.]  The  order, relation, and use of the law and the gospel  do
uncontrollably evince the necessity of this conviction previous unto
believing.  For  that which any man has first to deal  withal,  with
respect  unto  his eternal condition, both naturally  and  by  God's
institution, is the law. This is first presented unto the soul  with
its  terms of righteousness and life, and with its curse in case  of
failure. Without this the gospel cannot be understood, nor the grace
of  it  duly valued. For it is the revelation of God's way  for  the
relieving the souls of men from the sentence and curse of  the  law,
Rom.1:17. That was the nature, that was the use and end of the first
promise,  and of the whole work of God's grace revealed in  all  the
ensuing promises, or in the whole gospel. Wherefore, the faith which
we  treat of being evangelical,--that which, in its especial  nature
and  use,  not the law but the gospel requires, that which  has  the
gospel  for its principle, rule, and object,--it is not required  of
us,  cannot  be acted by us, but on a supposition of  the  work  and
effect  of the law in the conviction of sin, by giving the knowledge
of  it,  a  sense of its guilt, and the state of the sinner  on  the
account  thereof. And that faith which has not respect hereunto,  we
absolutely   deny  to  be  that  faith  whereby  we  are  justified,
Gal.3:22-24; Rom.10:4.
   [3.] This our Saviour himself directly teaches in the gospel. For
he  calls  unto  him  only those who are weary  and  heavily  laden;
affirms  that  the  "whole have no need of the  physician,  but  the
sick;"  and that he "came not to call the righteous, but sinners  to
repentance."  In  all  which he intends not those  who  were  really
sinners,  as  all men are,--for he makes a difference between  them,
offering the gospel unto some and not unto others,--but such as were
convinced of sin, burdened with it, and sought after deliverance.
   So  those unto whom the apostle Peter proposed the promise of the
gospel,  with  the  pardon of sin thereby as the  object  of  gospel
faith, were "pricked to the heart" upon the conviction of their sin,
and  cried,  "What shall we do?" Acts 2:37-39. Such, also,  was  the
state of the jailer unto whom the apostle Paul proposed salvation by
Christ,  as  what  he  was  to  believe for  his  deliverance,  Acts
16:30,31.
  [4.] The state of Adam, and God's dealing with him therein, is the
best  representation of the order and method of these things. As  he
was  after the fall, so are we by nature, in the very same state and
condition. Really he was utterly lost by sin, and convinced  he  was
both of the nature of his sin and of the effects of it, in that  act
of  God by the law on his mind, which is called the "opening of  his
eyes." For it was nothing but the communication unto his mind by his
conscience  of a sense of the nature, guilt, effects, and consequent
of  sin;  which the law could then teach him, and could  not  do  so
before.  This  fills  him with shame and fear;  against  the  former
whereof he provided by fig-leaves, and against the latter by  hiding
himself among the trees of the garden. Nor, however they may  please
themselves  with  them,  are any of the  contrivances  of  men,  for
freedom  and  safety from sin, either wiser or more likely  to  have
success. In this condition God, by an immediate inquisition into the
matter of fact, sharpens this conviction by the addition of his  own
testimony unto its truth, and casts him actually under the curse  of
the  law,  in a juridical denunciation of it. In this lost, forlorn,
hopeless condition, God proposes the promise of redemption by Christ
unto him. And this was the object of that faith whereby he was to be
justified.
   Although  these  things  are not thus  eminently  and  distinctly
translated  in the minds and consciences of all who are called  unto
believing  by the gospel, yet for the substance of them, and  as  to
the previousness of the conviction of sin unto faith, they are found
in all that sincerely believe.
   These things are known, and, for the substance of them, generally
agreed  unto. But yet are they such as, being duly considered,  will
discover  the vanity and mistakes of many definitions of faith  that
are  obtruded on us. For any definition or description of  it  which
has  not  express, or at least virtual, respect hereunto, is  but  a
deceit,  and  no  way  answers the experience  of  them  that  truly
believe.  And  such are all those who place it merely in  an  assent
unto  divine revelation, of what nature soever that assent  be,  and
whatever effects are ascribed unto it. For such an assent there  may
be, without any respect unto this work of the law. Neither do I,  to
speak  plainly, at all value the most accurate disputations  of  any
about  the  nature  and act of justifying faith, who  never  had  in
themselves  an  experience of the work of the law in conviction  and
condemnation for sin, with the effects of it upon their consciences;
or  [who]  do  omit the due consideration of their  own  experience,
wherein  what they truly believe is better stated than in all  their
disputations.  That faith whereby we are justified is,  in  general,
the  acting  of  the soul towards God, as revealing himself  in  the
gospel,  for  deliverance out of this state and condition,  or  from
under the curse of the law applied unto the conscience, according to
his mind, and by the ways that he has appointed. I give not this  as
any  definition  of  faith, but only express what  has  a  necessary
influence unto it, whence the nature of it may be discerned.
   (2.) The effects of this conviction, with their respect unto  our
justification,  real  or pretended, may also be briefly  considered.
And  whereas this conviction is a mere work of the law, it  is  not,
with  respect  unto these effects, to be considered  alone,  but  in
conjunction with, and under the conduct of, that temporary faith  of
the  gospel  before  described. And these two, temporary  faith  and
legal conviction, are the principles of all works or duties in  unto
justification; and which, therefore, we must deny to  have  in  them
any  causality thereof. But it is granted that many acts and duties,
both  internal  and external, will ensue on real convictions.  Those
that are internal may be reduced unto three heads:--[1.] Displicency
and sorrow that we have sinned. It is impossible that any one should
be  really convinced of sin in the way before declared, but  that  a
dislike of sin, and of himself that he has sinned, shame of it,  and
sorrow  for it, will ensue thereon. And it is a sufficient  evidence
that  he  is  not really convinced of sin, whatever he  profess,  or
whatever  confession  he  make,  whose  mind  is  not  so  affected,
Jer.36:24.  [2.]  Fear  of punishment due  to  sin.  For  conviction
respects  not only the instructive and receptive part  of  the  law,
whereby the being and nature of sin are discovered, but the sentence
and   curse  of  it  also,  whereby  it  is  judged  and  condemned,
Gen.4:13,14. Wherefore, where fear of the punishment threatened does
not ensue, no person is really convinced of sin; nor has the law had
its   proper  work  towards  him,  as  it  is  previous   unto   the
administration of the gospel. And whereas by faith we "fly from  the
wrath to come," where there is not a sense and apprehension of  that
wrath  as  due  unto  us,  there is no  ground  or  reason  for  our
believing.  [3.] A desire of deliverance from that state  wherein  a
convinced  sinner finds himself upon his conviction  is  unavoidable
unto  him. And it is naturally the first thing that conviction works
in  the  minds  of men, and that in various degrees of  care,  fear,
solicitude, and restlessness; which, from experience and the conduct
of  Scripture  light, have been explained by many,  unto  the  great
benefit of the church, and sufficiently derided by others. Secondly,
These  internal  acts of the mind will also produce sundry  external
duties, which may be referred unto two heads:--[1.] Abstinence  from
known sin unto the utmost of men's power. For they who begin to find
that  it is an evil thing and a bitter that they have sinned against
God,  cannot but endeavour a future abstinence from it. And as  this
has  respect unto all the former internal acts, as causes of it,  so
it  is  a  peculiar exurgency of the last of them, or  a  desire  of
deliverance from the state wherein such persons are. For  this  they
suppose  to  be the best expedient for it, or at least that  without
which  it  will not be. And herein usually do their spirits  act  by
promises and vows, with renewed sorrow on surprisals into sin, which
will  befall  them in that condition. [2.] The duties  of  religious
worship,  in prayer and hearing of the word, with diligence  in  the
use  of the ordinances of the church, will ensue hereon. For without
these  they  know that no deliverance is to be obtained. Reformation
of  life and conversation in various degrees does partly consist  in
these  things,  and partly follow upon them. And  these  things  are
always so, where the convictions of men are real and abiding.
   But  yet  it  must be said, that they are neither  severally  nor
jointly,   though   in   the   highest  degree,   either   necessary
dispositions, preparations, previous congruities in a way of  merit,
nor conditions of our justification. For,--
  [1.] They are not conditions of justification. For where one thing
is  the  condition  of  another, that other thing  must  follow  the
fulfilling of that condition, otherwise the condition of  it  it  is
not;  but they may be all found where justification does not  ensue:
wherefore,  there is no covenant, promise, or constitution  of  God,
making them to be such conditions of justification, though, in their
own nature, they may be subservient unto what is required of us with
respect thereunto; but a certain infallible connection with  it,  by
virtue of any promise or covenant of God (as it is with faith), they
have  not. And other condition, but what is constituted and made  to
be  so  by  divine  compact or promise, is not to  be  allowed;  for
otherwise, conditions might be endlessly multiplied, and all things,
natural as well as moral, made to be so. So the meat we eat may be a
condition of justification. Faith and justification are inseparable;
but  so are not justification and the things we now insist upon,  as
experience does evince.
   [2.]  Justification  may be, where the outward  acts  and  duties
mentioned,   proceeding  from  convictions  under  the  conduct   of
temporary  faith, are not. For Adam was justified without  them;  so
also  were the converts in the Acts, chap. 2,--for what is  reported
concerning  them  is all of it essentially included  in  conviction,
verse 37; and so likewise was it with the jailer, Acts 16:30,31; and
as unto many of them, it is so with most that do believe. Therefore,
they  are  not conditions; for a condition suspends the event  of  a
condition.
   [3.] They are not formal dispositions unto justification; because
it  consists  not  in the introduction of any new form  or  inherent
quality in the soul, as has been in part already declared, and shall
yet  afterwards  be  more fully evinced. Nor,-[4.]  Are  they  moral
preparations for it; for being antecedent unto faith evangelical, no
man can have any design in them, but only to "seek for righteousness
by   the   works   of  the  law,"  which  is  no  preparation   unto
justification. All discoveries of the righteousness of God, with the
soul's adherence unto it, belong to faith alone. There is, indeed, a
repentance which accompanies faith, and is included in the nature of
it,  at least radically. This is required unto our justification But
that  legal  repentance which precedes gospel faith, and is  without
it,  is  neither  a disposition, preparation, nor condition  of  our
justification.
  In brief, the order of these things may be observed in the dealing
of  God  with  Adam, as was before intimated. And  there  are  three
degrees in it:--[1.] The opening of the eyes of the sinner,  to  see
the  filth  and guilt of sin in the sentence and curse  of  the  law
applied unto his conscience, Rom.8:9,10. This effects in the mind of
the  sinner the things before mentioned, and puts him upon  all  the
duties   that   spring  from  them.  For  persons  on  their   first
convictions,  ordinarily judge no more but that  their  state  being
evil and dangerous, it is their duty to better it; and that they can
or  shall do so accordingly, if they apply themselves thereunto. But
all  these  things,  as  to  a protection or  deliverance  from  the
sentence of the law, are no better than fig-leaves and hiding.  [2.]
Ordinarily,  God  by his providence, or in the dispensation  of  the
word,  gives life and power unto this work of the law in a  peculiar
manner; in answer unto the charge which he gave unto Adam after  his
attempt  to  hide  himself.  Hereby the  "mouth  of  the  sinner  is
stopped," and he becomes, as thoroughly sensible of his guilt before
God,  so  satisfied  that there is no relief or  deliverance  to  be
expected  from any of those ways of sorrow or duty that he  has  put
himself  upon. [3.] In this condition it is a mere act of  sovereign
grace, without any respect unto these things foregoing, to call  the
sinner   unto   believing,  or  faith  in  the  promise   unto   the
justification  of life. This is God's order; yet  so  as  that  what
precedes his call unto faith has no causality thereof.
   3.  The  next thing to be inquired into is the proper  object  of
justifying faith, or of true faith, in its office, work,  and  duty,
with  respect  unto  our justification. And  herein  we  must  first
consider  what  we  cannot so well close withal. For  besides  other
differences  that  seem  to  be about it  (which,  indeed,  are  but
different  explanations of the same thing for the substance),  there
are  two  opinions which are looked on as extremes, the  one  in  an
excess,  and  the other in defect. The first is that  of  the  Roman
church,  and those who comply with them therein. And this  is,  that
the  object of justifying faith, as such, is all divine verity,  all
divine revelation, whether written in the Scripture or delivered  by
tradition,  represented unto us by the authority of the  church.  In
the latter part of this description we are not at present concerned.
That  the  whole  Scripture, and all the parts of it,  and  all  the
truths,  of what sort soever they be, that are contained in it,  are
equally the objects of faith in the discharge of its office  in  our
justification, is that which they maintain. Hence, as to the  nature
of it, they cannot allow it to consist in any thing but an assent of
the  mind. For, supposing the whole Scripture, and all contained  in
it,--laws, precepts, promises, threatening, stories, prophecies, and
the  like,--to  be the object of it, and these not as containing  in
them   things   good  or  evil  unto  us,  but  under  this   formal
consideration as divinely revealed, they cannot assign or allow  any
other act of the mind to be required hereunto, but assent only.  And
so confident are they herein,--namely, that faith is no more than an
assent  unto  divine revelation,--as that Bellarmine, in  opposition
unto  Calvin, who placed knowledge in the description of  justifying
faith,  affirms  that  it is better defined  by  ignorance  than  by
knowledge.
   This  description of justifying faith and its object has been  so
discussed,  and  on  such evident grounds of  Scripture  and  reason
rejected  by Protestant writers of all sorts, as that it is needless
to  insist  much  upon  it again. Some things  I  shall  observe  in
relation unto it, whereby we may discover what is of truth  in  what
they  assert,  and wherein it falls short thereof. Neither  shall  I
respect  only them of the Roman church who require no more to  faith
or  believing,  but  only  a bare assent of  the  mind  unto  divine
revelations, but them also who place it wholly in such a firm assent
as  produces obedience unto all divine commands. For as it does both
these, as both these are included in it, so unto the especial nature
of it more is required. It is, as justifying, neither a mere assent,
nor any such firm degree of it as should produce such effects.
   (1.) All faith whatever is an act of that power of our souls,  in
general,  whereby we are able firmly to assent unto the  truth  upon
testimony, in things not evident unto us by sense or reason.  It  is
"the  evidence  of  things not seen." And all  divine  faith  is  in
general  an  assent  unto the truth that is proposed  unto  us  upon
divine  testimony.  And  hereby, as it is  commonly  agreed,  it  is
distinguished from opinion and moral certainty on the one hand,  and
science or demonstration on the other.
   (2.)  Wherefore, in justifying faith there is an assent unto  all
divine  revelation upon the testimony of God, the  revealer.  By  no
other act of our mind, wherein this is not included or supposed, can
we be justified; not because it is not justifying, but because it is
not  faith. This assent, I say, is included in justifying faith. And
therefore we find it often spoken of in the Scripture (the instances
whereof are gathered up by Bellarmine and others) with respect  unto
other  things, and not restrained unto the especial promise of grace
in Christ; which is that which they oppose. But besides that in most
places  of  that  kind the proper object of faith as  justifying  is
included and referred ultimately unto, though diversely expressed by
some  of  its causes or concomitant adjuncts, it is granted that  we
believe  all  divine  truth  with that very  faith  whereby  we  are
justified, so as that other things may well be ascribed unto it.
   (3.)  On these concessions we yet say two things:--[1.] That  the
whole  nature  of  justifying faith does not consist  merely  in  an
assent  of the mind, be it never so firm and steadfast, nor whatever
effects  of  obedience it may produce. [2.] That  in  its  duty  and
office  in  justification, whence it has that especial  denomination
which  alone  we  are  in the explanation of, it  does  not  equally
respect  all  divine revelation as such, but has a  peculiar  object
proposed  unto it in the Scripture. And whereas both these  will  be
immediately  evinced  in our description of the  proper  object  and
nature  of  faith, I shall, at present, oppose some few things  unto
this  description of them, sufficient to manifest how  alien  it  is
from the truth.
   1st. This assent is an act of the understanding only,--an act  of
the  mind with respect unto truth evidenced unto it, be it  of  what
nature  it  will.  So we believe the worst of things  and  the  most
grievous  unto  us,  as well as the best and the  most  useful.  But
believing is an act of the heart; which, in the Scriptures comprises
all  the faculties of the soul as one entire principle of moral  and
spiritual duties: "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness,"
Rom.10:10.  And it is frequently described by an act  of  the  will,
though  it be not so alone. But without an act of the will,  no  man
can  believe  as  he ought. See John 5:40; 1:12; 6:35.  We  come  to
Christ in an act of the will; and "let whosoever will, come." And to
be  willing  is  taken  for to believe, Ps.110:3;  and  unbelief  is
disobedience, Heb.3:18,19.
   2dly.  All divine truth is equally the object of this assent.  It
respects not the especial nature or use of any one truth, be  it  of
what  kind  it will, more than another; nor can it do so,  since  it
regards  only  divine revelation. Hence that Judas was the  traitor,
must  have  as  great  an influence into our justification  as  that
Christ  died  for  our  sins.  But how contrary  this  is  unto  the
Scripture,  the  analogy of faith, and the experience  of  all  that
believe, needs neither declaration nor confirmation.
   3dly.  This  assent unto all divine revelation may  be  true  and
sincere, where there has been no previous work of the law,  nor  any
conviction of sin. No such thing is required thereunto, nor are they
found  in many who yet do so assent unto the truth. But, as we  have
showed, this is necessary unto evangelical, justifying faith; and to
suppose  the contrary, is to overthrow the order and use of the  law
and  gospel,  with  their  mutual  relation  unto  one  another,  in
subserviency unto the design of God in the salvation of sinners.
   4thly. It is not a way of seeking relief unto a convinced sinner,
whose mouth is stopped, in that he is become guilty before God. Such
alone  are  capable subjects of justification, and do  or  can  seek
after  it  in a due manner. A mere assent unto divine revelation  is
not  peculiarly suited to give such persons relief: for it  is  that
which  brings them into that condition from whence they  are  to  be
relieved;  for the knowledge of sin is by the law. But  faith  is  a
peculiar acting of the soul for deliverance.
  5thly. It is no more than what the devils themselves may have, and
have,  as  the  apostle James affirms. For that  instance  of  their
believing one God, proves that they believe also whatever  this  one
God,  who is the first essential truth, does reveal to be true.  And
it  may  consist  with  all manner of wickedness,  and  without  any
obedience; and so make God a liar, 1 John 5:10. And it is no  wonder
if men deny us to be justified by faith, who know no other faith but
this.
   6thly.  It  no  way answers the descriptions that  are  given  of
justifying faith in the Scripture. Particularly, it is by  faith  as
it  is  justifying that we are said to "receive" Christ, John  1:12;
Col.2:6;-- to "receive" the promise, the word, the grace of God, the
atonement,  James  1:21;  John  3:33;  Acts  2:41;  11:1;  Rom.5:11;
Heb.11:17;  to "cleave unto God," Deut.4:4; Acts 11:23. And  so,  in
the  Old Testament it is generally expressed by trust and hope. Now,
none  of these things are contained in a mere assent unto the truth;
but  they  require other acting of the soul than what  are  peculiar
unto the understanding only.
   7thly.  It answers not the experience of them that truly believe.
This  all  our  inquiries and arguments in  this  matter  must  have
respect  unto.  For the sum of what we aim at is, only  to  discover
what  they do who really believe unto the justification of life.  It
is  not what notions men may have hereof, nor how they express their
conceptions, how defensible they are against objections by  accuracy
of  expressions and subtle distinctions; but only what we  ourselves
do,  if  we  truly believe, that we inquire after. And although  our
differences about it do argue the great imperfection of  that  state
wherein we are, so as that those who truly believe cannot agree what
they do in their so doing,--which should give us a mutual tenderness
and  forbearance towards each other;--yet if men would  attend  unto
their own experience in the application of their souls unto God  for
the  pardon  of  sin and righteousness to life, more than  unto  the
notions which, on various occasions, their minds are influenced  by,
or   prepossessed   withal,   many   differences   and   unnecessary
disputations about the nature of justifying faith would be prevented
or  prescinded. I deny, therefore, that this general assent unto the
truth, how firm soever it be, or what effects in the way of duty  or
obedience soever it may produce, does answer the experience  of  any
one  true  believer,  as containing the entire acting  of  his  soul
towards God for pardon of sin and justification.
   8thly.  That  faith alone is justifying which  has  justification
actually   accompanying  of  it.  For  thence  alone  it  has   that
denomination. To suppose a man to have justifying faith, and not  to
be justified, is to suppose a contradiction. Nor do we inquire after
to nature of any other faith but that whereby a believer is actually
justified.  But  it is not so with all them in whom this  assent  is
found; nor will those that plead for it allow that upon it alone any
are immediately justified. Wherefore it is sufficiently evident that
there  is somewhat more required unto justifying faith than  a  real
assent  unto all divine revelations, although we do give that assent
by the faith whereby we are justified.
   But,  on the other side, it is supposed that, by some, the object
of  justifying  faith is so much restrained, and the  nature  of  it
thereby  determined  unto such a peculiar acting  of  the  mind,  as
comprises  not  the whole of what is in the Scripture ascribed  unto
it.  So  some  have  said  that it is the pardon  of  our  sins,  in
particular,   that  is  the  object  of  justifying   faith;--faith,
therefore,  they make to be a full persuasion of the forgiveness  of
our  sins through the mediation of Christ; or, that what Christ  did
and suffered as our mediator, he did it for us in particular: and  a
particular  application of especial mercy unto  our  own  souls  and
consciences is hereby made the essence of faith; or, to believe that
our  own  sins  are forgiven seems hereby to be the first  and  most
proper  act  of  justifying  faith.  Hence  it  would  follow,  that
whosoever  does  not believe, or has not a firm  persuasion  of  the
forgiveness of his own sins in particular, has no saving  faith,--is
no  true believer; which is by no means to be admitted. And  if  any
have  been  or  are of this opinion, I fear that they were,  in  the
asserting of it, neglective of their own experience; or, it may  be,
rather,  that they knew not how, in their experience, all the  other
acting of faith, wherein its essence does consist, were included  in
this  persuasion, which in an especial manner they aimed at: whereof
we  shall speak afterwards. And there is no doubt unto me, but  that
this  which  they propose, faith is suited unto, aims at,  and  does
ordinarily effect in true believers, who improve it, and grow in its
exercise in a due manner.
   Many  great  divines,  at  the first  Reformation,  did  (as  the
Lutherans  generally yet do) thus make the mercy of God  in  Christ,
and thereby the forgiveness of our own sins, to be the proper object
of justifying faith, as such;--whose essence, therefore, they placed
in  a  fiducial trust in the grace of God by Christ declared in  the
promises,  with  a  certain  unwavering  application  of  them  unto
ourselves. And I say, with some confidence, that those who endeavour
not  to  attain  hereunto,  either  understand  not  the  nature  of
believing, or are very neglective, both of the grace of God  and  of
their own peace.
   That  which inclined those great and holy persons so  to  express
themselves in this matter, and to place the essence of faith in  the
highest  acting of it (wherein yet they always included and supposed
its  other acts), was the state of the consciences of men with  whom
they had to do. Their contest in this article with the Roman church,
was  about  the way and means whereby the consciences of  convinced,
troubled sinners might come to rest and peace with God. For at  that
time  they were no otherwise instructed, but that these things  were
to  be  obtained, not only by works of righteousness which  men  did
themselves, in obedience unto the commands of God, but also  by  the
strict observance of many inventions of what they called the Church;
with  an  ascription  of a strange efficacy to the  same  ends  unto
missatical   sacrifices,   sacramentals,   absolutions,    penances,
pilgrimages, and other the like superstitions. Hereby they  observed
that  the  consciences of men were kept in perpetual  disquietments,
perplexities, fears and bondage, exclusive of that rest,  assurance,
and  peace  with God through the blood of Christ, which  the  gospel
proclaims  and tenders; and when the leaders of the people  in  that
church had observed this, that indeed the ways and means which  they
proposed  and presented would never bring the souls of men to  rest,
nor  give them the least assurance of the pardon of sins, they  made
it  a  part of their doctrine, that the belief of the pardon of  our
own sins, and assurance of the love of God in Christ, were false and
pernicious. For what should they else do, when they knew well enough
that  in their way, and by their propositions, they were not  to  be
attained? Hence the principal controversy in this matter, which  the
reformed  divines had with those of the church of Rome, was  this,--
Whether there be, according unto and by the gospel, a state of  rest
and  assured peace with God to be attained in his life?  And  having
all  advantages  imaginable  for the proof  hereof,  from  the  very
nature,  use,  and  end of the gospel,--from the  grace,  love,  and
design of God in Christ,--from the efficacy of his mediation in  his
oblation  and intercession,--they assigned these things  to  be  the
especial object of justifying faith, and that faith itself to  be  a
fiduciary trust in the especial grace and mercy of God, through  the
blood of Christ, s proposed in the promises of the gospel;--that is,
they  directed  the  souls of men to seek for peace  with  God,  the
pardon of sin, and a right unto the heavenly inheritance, by placing
their sole trust and confidence in the mercy of God by Christ alone.
but  yet,  withal, I never read any of them (I know not what  others
have  done) who affirmed that every true and sincere believer always
had  a  full assurance of the especial love of God in Christ, or  of
the  pardon  of  his  own sins,--though they  plead  that  this  the
Scripture  requires  of them in a way of duty, and  that  this  they
ought to aim at the attainment of.
  And these things I shall leave as I find them, unto the use of the
church. For I shall not contend with any about the way and manner of
expressing  the  truth, where the substance of it is retained.  That
which  in these things is aimed at, is the advancement and glory  of
the  grace  of God in Christ, with the conduct of the souls  of  men
unto  rest  and peace with him. Where this is attained or aimed  at,
and  that  in the way of truth for the substance of it,  variety  of
apprehensions  and expressions concerning the same things  may  tend
unto the useful exercise of faith and the edification of the church.
Wherefore, neither opposing nor rejecting what has been delivered by
others  as  their judgments herein, I shall propose my own  thoughts
concerning  it;  not  without  some hopes  that  they  may  tend  to
communicate  light  in  the knowledge of the thing  itself  inquired
into,  and  the reconciliation of some differences about it  amongst
learned  and holy men. I say, therefore, that the Lord Jesus  Christ
himself,  as  ordinance of God, in his work  of  mediation  for  the
recovery  and  salvation  of lost sinners,  and  as  unto  that  end
proposed  in  the  promise of the gospel, is  the  adequate,  proper
object of justifying faith, or of saving faith in its work and  duty
with respect unto our justification.
   The  reason why I thus state the object of justifying  faith  is,
because  it completely answers all that is ascribed unto it  in  the
Scripture, and all that the nature of it does require. What  belongs
unto  it as faith in general, is here supposed; and what is peculiar
unto  it  as  justifying, is fully expressed. And a few things  will
serve  for the explication of the thesis, which shall afterwards  be
confirmed.
   (1.)  The Lord Jesus Christ himself is asserted to be the  proper
object  of  justifying  faith. For so it is required  in  all  those
testimonies  of  Scripture where that faith is declared  to  be  our
believing in him, on his name, our receiving of him, or looking unto
him;  whereunto  the promise of justification and  eternal  life  is
annexed: whereof afterwards. See John 1:12; 3:16,36; 6:29,47;  7:38;
14:12; Acts 10:43; 13:38,39; 16:31; 26:18; etc.
   (2.)  He  is  not proposed as the object of our  faith  unto  the
justification of life absolutely, but as the ordinance of God,  even
the  Father,  unto  that end: who therefore also  is  the  immediate
object  of  faith as justifying; in what respects we  shall  declare
immediately. So justification is frequently ascribed unto  faith  as
peculiarly acted on him, John 5:24, "He that believeth on  him  that
sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment; but
is passed from death unto life." And herein is comprised that grace,
love, and favour of God, which is the principal moving cause of  our
justification, Rom.3:23,24. Add hereunto John 6:29, and  the  object
of  faith is complete: "This is the work of God, that ye believe  on
him  whom  he has sent." God the Father as sending, and the  Son  as
sent,-- that is, Jesus Christ in the work of his mediation,  as  the
ordinance of God for the recovery and salvation of lost sinners,  is
the object of our faith. See 1 Pet.1:21.
   (3.) That he may be the object of our faith, whose general nature
consists  in  assent, and which is the foundation of all  its  other
acts,  he  is  proposed  in the promises  of  the  gospel;  which  I
therefore place as concurring unto its complete object. Yet do I not
herein  consider the promises merely as peculiar divine revelations,
in  which sense they belong unto the formal object of faith; but  as
they  contain, propose, and exhibit Christ as the ordinance of  God,
and  the benefits of his mediation, unto them that do believe. There
is  an especial assent unto the promises of the gospel, wherein some
place the nature and essence of justifying faith, or of faith in its
work  and duty with respect unto our justification. And so they make
the  promises of the gospel to be the proper object of  it.  And  it
cannot  be but that, in the acting of justifying faith, there  is  a
peculiar  assent unto them. Howbeit, this being only an act  of  the
mind,  neither  the  whole nature nor the whole work  of  faith  can
consist  therein. Wherefore, so far as the promises  concur  to  the
complete  object  of  faith, they are considered materially  also,--
namely, as they contain, propose, and exhibit Christ unto believers.
And  in that sense are they frequently affirmed in the Scripture  to
be  the  object  of our faith unto the justification of  life,  Acts
2:39;  26:6;  Rom.4:16,20; 15:8; Gal.3:16,18;  Heb.4:1;  6:13;  8:6;
10:36.
   (4.)  The  end  for which the Lord Christ, in  the  work  of  his
mediation,  is  the ordinance of God, and as such  proposed  in  the
promises of the gospel,--namely, the recovery and salvation of  lost
sinners,--belongs unto the object of faith as justifying. Hence, the
forgiveness of sin and eternal life are proposed in the Scripture as
things  that are to be believed unto justification, or as the object
of our faith, Matt.9:2; Acts 2:38,39; 5:31; 26:18; Rom. 3:25; 4:7,8;
Col.2:13;  Tit.1:2; etc. And whereas the just  is  to  live  by  his
faith,  and  every  one  is  to believe  for  himself,  or  make  an
application  of the things believed unto his own behoof,  some  from
hence have affirmed the pardon of our own sins and our own salvation
to  be  the  proper  object  of faith; and  indeed  it  does  belong
thereunto, when, in the way and order of God and the gospel, we  can
attain unto it, 1 Cor.15:3,4; Gal.2:20; Eph.1:6,7.
   Wherefore,  asserting the Lord Jesus Christ, in the work  of  his
mediation, to be the object of faith unto justification,  I  include
therein  the  grace of God, which is the cause; the pardon  of  sin,
which  is the effect; and the promises of the gospel, which are  the
means,  of  communicating Christ and the benefits of  his  mediation
unto us.
   And all these things are so united, so intermixed in their mutual
relations and respects, so concatenated in the purpose of  God,  and
the  declaration  made  of  his will in  the  gospel,  as  that  the
believing  of any one of them does virtually include the  belief  of
the rest. And by whom any one of them is disbelieved, they frustrate
and make void all the rest, and so faith itself.
   The due consideration of these things solves all the difficulties
that  arise about the nature of faith, either from the Scripture  or
from  the  experience of them that believe, with  respect  unto  its
object. Many things in the Scripture are we said to believe with  it
and  by  it, and that unto justification; but two things  are  hence
evident:--First,  That  no one of them can be  asserted  to  be  the
complete, adequate object of our faith. Secondly, That none of  them
are  so absolutely, but as they relate unto the Lord Christ, as  the
ordinance of God for our justification and salvation.
   And this answers the experience of all that do truly believe. For
these  things  being united and made inseparable in the constitution
of  God,  all of them are virtually included in every one  of  them.
(1.)  Some fix their faith and trust principally on the grace, love,
and  mercy  of God; especially they did so under the Old  Testament,
before the clear revelation of Christ and his mediation. So did  the
psalmist,  Ps.130:3,4; 33:18,19; and the publican, Luke  18:13.  And
these  are, in places of the Scripture innumerable, proposed as  the
causes of our justification. See Rom.3:24; Eph.2:4-8; Tit.3:5-7. But
this  they  do not absolutely, but with respect unto the "redemption
that  is  in the blood of Christ," Dan.9:17. Nor does the  Scripture
anywhere  propose  them  unto us but under that  consideration.  See
Rom.3:24,25; Eph.1:6-8. For this is the cause, way, and means of the
communication  of  that grace, love, and mercy unto  us.  (2.)  Some
place  and  fix them principally on the Lord Christ, his  mediation,
and  the benefits thereof. This the apostle Paul proposes frequently
unto us in his own example. See Gal.2:20; Phil.3:8-10. But this they
do  not absolutely, but with respect unto the grace and love of God,
whence it is that they are given and communicated unto us, Rom.8:32;
John  3:16; Eph.1:6-8. Nor are they otherwise anywhere proposed unto
us  in  the Scripture as the object of our faith unto justification.
(3.) Some in a peculiar manner fix their souls, in believing, on the
promises.  And  this  is  exemplified in the  instance  of  Abraham,
Gen.15:6; Rom.4:20. And so are they proposed in the Scripture as the
object  of  our faith, Acts 2:39; Rom.4:16; Heb.4:1,2; 6:12,13.  But
this  they do not merely as they are divine revelations, but as they
contain and propose unto us the Lord Christ and the benefits of  his
mediation, from the grace, love, and mercy of God. Hence the apostle
disputes  at  large,  in  his Epistle unto the  Galatians,  that  if
justification be any way but by the promise, both the grace  of  God
and  the death of Christ are evacuated and made of none effect.  And
the  reason is, because the promise is nothing but the way and means
of  the communication of them unto us. (4.) Some fix their faith  on
the  things themselves which they aim at,--namely, the pardon of sin
and  eternal life. And these also in the Scripture are proposed unto
us  as the object of our faith, or that which we are to believe unto
justification, Ps.130:4; Acts 26:18; Tit.1:2. But this is to be done
in its proper order, especially as unto the application of them unto
our  own souls. For we are nowhere required to believe them, or  our
own  interest in them, but as they are effects of the grace and love
of  God,  through Christ and his mediation, proposed in the promises
of  the  gospel.  Wherefore the belief of them is  included  in  the
belief of these, and is in order of nature antecedent thereunto. And
the belief of the forgiveness of sins, and eternal life, without the
due exercise of faith in those causes of them, is but presumption.
  I have, therefore, given the entire object of faith as justifying,
or  in  its  work  and duty with respect unto our justification,  in
compliance with the testimonies of the Scripture, and the experience
of them that believe.
   Allowing,  therefore, their proper place unto the  promises,  and
unto  the effect of all in the pardon of sins and eternal life, that
which I shall farther confirm is, that the Lord Christ, in the  work
of  his  mediation,  as the ordinance of God for  the  recovery  and
salvation  of  lost  sinners,  is  the  proper  adequate  object  of
justifying faith. And the true nature of evangelical faith  consists
in  the  respect of the heart (which we shall immediately  describe)
unto  the  love,  grace, and wisdom of God; with  the  mediation  of
Christ,  in  his  obedience; with the sacrifice,  satisfaction,  and
atonement  for  sin  which he made by his blood.  These  things  are
impiously  opposed by some as inconsistent; for the second  head  of
the  Socinian impiety is, that the grace of God and satisfaction  of
Christ are opposite and inconsistent, so as that if we allow of  the
one  we must deny the other. But as these things are so proposed  in
the  Scripture,  as that without granting them both neither  can  be
believed; so faith, which respects them as subordinate,--namely, the
mediation of Christ unto the grace of God, that fixes itself on  the
Lord  Christ  and  that redemption which is in  his  blood,--as  the
ordinance  of God, the effect of his wisdom, grace, and love,  finds
rest in both, and in nothing else.
   For the proof of the assertion, I need not labour in it, it being
not  only  abundantly  declared in the  Scripture,  but  that  which
contains in it a principal part of the design and substance  of  the
gospel.  I  shall,  therefore, only refer unto some  of  the  places
wherein it is taught, or the testimonies that are given unto it.
   The  whole is expressed in that place of the apostle wherein  the
doctrine  of  justification  is most  eminently  proposed  unto  us,
Rom.3:24,25,  "Being  justified freely  by  his  grace  through  the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God has set forth to  be  a
propitiation   through   faith  in  his  blood;   to   declare   his
righteousness  for  the remission of sins." Whereunto  we  may  add,
Eph.1:6,7, "He has made us accepted in the Beloved; in whom we  have
redemption through his blood, according to the riches of his grace."
That  whereby we are justified, is the especial object of our  faith
unto  justification. But this is the Lord Christ in the work of  his
mediation: for we are justified by the redemption that is  in  Jesus
Christ;  for in him we have redemption through his blood,  even  the
forgiveness  of sin. Christ as a propitiation is the  cause  of  our
justification, and the object of our faith or we attain it by  faith
in  his blood. But this is so under this formal consideration, as he
is  the  ordinance of God for that end,--appointed, given, proposed,
set  forth from and by the grace, wisdom, and love of God.  God  set
him forth to be a propitiation. He makes us accepted in the Beloved.
We  have  redemption in his blood, according to the  riches  of  his
grace,  whereby he makes us accepted in the Beloved. And  herein  he
"abounds  towards  us in all wisdom," Eph.1:8. This,  therefore,  is
that  which the gospel proposes unto us, as the especial  object  of
our faith unto the justification of life.
   But  we may also in the same manner confirm the several parts  of
the assertion distinctly:--
   (1.)  The  Lord Jesus Christ, as proposed in the promise  of  the
gospel,  is  the peculiar object of faith unto justification.  There
are three sorts of testimonies whereby this is confirmed:--
   [1.] Those wherein it is positively asserted, as Acts 10:43,  "To
him  give  all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever
believeth  in him shall receive remission of sins." Christ  believed
in  as  the means and cause of the remission of sins, is that  which
all the prophets give witness unto. Acts 16:31, "Believe on the Lord
Jesus  Christ,  and thou shalt be saved." It is the  answer  of  the
apostle  unto the jailer's inquiry,--"Sirs, what must  I  do  to  be
saved?" His duty in believing, and the object of it, the Lord  Jesus
Christ, is what they return thereunto. Acts 4:12, "Neither is  there
salvation  in  any other: for there is none other name under  heaven
given  among men, whereby we must be saved." That which is  proposed
unto  us,  as  the  only  way  and means of  our  justification  and
salvation, and that in opposition unto all other ways, is the object
of   faith  unto  our  justification;  but  this  is  Christ  alone,
exclusively unto all other things. This is testified unto  by  Moses
and  the prophets; the design of the whole Scripture being to direct
the  faith  of the church unto the Lord Christ alone, for  life  and
salvation, Luke 24:25-27.
   [2.]  All  those wherein justifying faith is affirmed to  be  our
believing  in  him, or believing on his name; which are  multiplied.
John  1:12,  "He gave power to them to become the sons of  God,  who
believed on his name," chap.3:16, "That whosoever believeth  in  him
should  not perish, but have everlasting life;" verse 36,  "He  that
believeth on the Son has everlasting life;" chap.6:29, "This is  the
work of God, that ye believe on him whom he has sent;" verse 47, "He
that  be1ieveth  on  me has everlasting life;" chap.7:38,  "He  that
believeth  on  me,  out  of his belly shall flow  rivers  of  living
water."  So chap.9:35-37; 11:25; Acts 26:18, "That they may  receive
forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified
by  faith that is in me." 1 Pet.2:6,7. In all which places, and many
others,  we  are not only directed to place and affix our  faith  on
him,  but  the  effect  of justification is ascribed  thereunto.  So
expressly, Acts 13:38,39; which is what we design to prove.
   [3.]  Those which give us such a description of the acts of faith
as  make  him  the  direct and proper object of it.  Such  are  they
wherein it is called a "receiving" of him. John 1:12, "To as many as
received  him."  Col.2:6,  "As you have received  Christ  Jesus  the
Lord."  That which we receive by faith is the proper object  of  it;
and it is represented by their looking unto the brazen serpent, when
it  was  lifted up, who were stung by fiery serpents, John  3:14,15;
12:32.  Faith  is  that act of the soul whereby  convinced  sinners,
ready  otherwise to perish, do look unto Christ as  he  was  made  a
propitiation  for their sins; and who so do "shall not  perish,  but
have everlasting life." He  is, therefore, the object of our faith.
   (2.) He is so, as he is the ordinance of God unto this end; which
consideration is not to be separated from our faith in him: and this
also is confirmed by several sorts of testimonies:--
   [1.] All those wherein the love and grace of God are proposed  as
the only cause of giving Jesus Christ to be the way and means of our
recovery  and  salvation; whence they become, or God  in  them,  the
supreme  efficient cause of our justification. John  3:16,  "God  so
loved  the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth  in him should not perish, but have everlasting life".  So
Rom.5:8; 1 John 4:9,10. "Being justified through the redemption that
is  in  Christ  Jesus," Rom.3:24; Eph.1:6-8. This  the  Lord  Christ
directs our faith unto continually, referring all unto him that sent
him, and whose will he came to do, Heb.10:5.
  [2.] All those wherein God is said to set forth and to make him be
for  us and unto us, what he is so, unto the justification of  life.
Rom.3:25,  "Whom God has proposed to be a propitiation." 1 Cor.1:30,
"Who  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and
rectification, and redemption". 2 Cor.5:21, "He has made him  to  be
sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness
of  God  in  him." Acts 13:38,39; etc. Wherefore, in the  acting  of
faith in Christ unto justification, we can no otherwise consider him
but  as  the ordinance of God that end; he brings nothing  unto  us,
does nothing for us, but what God appointed, designed, and made  him
to do. And this must diligently be considered, that by our regard by
faith unto the blood, the sacrifice, the satisfaction of Christ,  we
take off nothing from the free grace, favour, and love of God.
   [3.]  All  those wherein the wisdom of God in the contrivance  of
this  way  of  justification  and salvation  is  proposed  unto  us.
Eph.1:7,8,  "In  whom  we  have redemption through  his  blood,  the
forgiveness  of sins, according to the riches of his grace;  wherein
he  has  abounded  towards us in all wisdom and understanding."  See
chap.3:10,11; 1 Cor.1:24.
  The whole is comprised in that of the apostle: "God was in Christ,
reconciling  the  world unto himself, not imputing their  trespasses
unto  them," 2 Cor.5:19. All that is done in our reconciliation unto
God,  as  unto the pardon of our sins, and acceptance with him  unto
life,  was by the presence of God, in his grace, wisdom, and  power,
in Christ designing and effecting of it.
   Wherefore, the Lord Christ, proposed in the promise of the gospel
as  the  object  of  our faith unto the justification  of  life,  is
considered  as the ordinance of God unto that end. Hence  the  love,
the  grace, and the wisdom of God, in the sending and giving of him,
are  comprised  in that object; and not only the acting  of  God  in
Christ  towards us, but all his acting towards the person of  Christ
himself unto the same end, belong thereunto. So, as unto his  death,
"God  set him forth to be a propitiation," Rom.3:25. "He spared  him
not,  but delivered him up for us all," Rom.8:32; and therein  "laid
all  our  sins  upon  him," Isa.53:6. So  he  was  "raised  for  our
justification," Rom.4:25. And our faith is in God, who  "raised  him
from  the  dead," Rom.10:9. And in his exaltation, Acts 5:31.  Which
things  complete "the record that God has given of his Son," 1  John
5:10-12.
   The  whole is confirmed by the exercise of faith in prayer; which
is  the  soul's application of itself unto God for the participation
of  the  benefits of the mediation of Christ. And it is  called  our
"access  through him unto the Father," Eph.2:18; our coming  through
him  "unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy,  and  find
grace to help in time of need," Heb.4:15,16; and through him as both
"a high priest and sacrifice," Heb.10:19-22. So do we "bow our knees
unto  the  Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," Eph.3:14. This  answers
the  experience of all who know what it is to pray. We come  therein
in the name of Christ, by him, through his mediation, unto God, even
the  Father;  to  be,  through  his grace,  love,  and  mercy,  made
partakers  of what he has designed and promised to communicate  unto
poor sinners by him. And this represents the complete object of  our
faith.
   The  due consideration of these things will reconcile and  reduce
unto   a  perfect  harmony  whatever  is  spoken  in  the  Scripture
concerning  the object of justifying faith, or what we are  said  to
believe  therewith. For whereas this is affirmed  of  sundry  things
distinctly,  they  can none of them be supposed  to  be  the  entire
adequate  object of faith. But consider them all in  their  relation
unto Christ, and they have all of them their proper place therein,--
namely,  the  grace of God, which is the cause; the pardon  of  sin,
which  is the effect; and the promises of the gospel, which are  the
means,  of  communicating the Lord Christ, and the benefits  of  his
mediation unto us.
   The reader may be pleased to take notice, that I do in this place
not only neglect, but despise, the late attempt of some to wrest all
things of this nature, spoken of the person and mediation of Christ,
unto the doctrine of the gospel, exclusively unto them; and that not
only  as  what  is noisome and impious in itself, but as  that  also
which has not yet been endeavoured to be proved, with any appearance
of learning, argument, or sobriety.




II. The nature of justifying faith

The  nature  of justifying faith in particular, or of faith  in  the
exercise of it, whereby we are justified--The heart's approbation of
the  way  of  the justification and salvation of sinners by  Christ,
with its acquiescency therein--The description given, explained  and
confirmed:--1.  From  the nature of the gospel--Exemplified  in  its
contrary, or the nature of unbelief, Prov.1:30; Heb.2:3; 1  Pet.2:7;
1 Cor.1:23,24; 2 Cor.4:3--What it is, and wherein it does consist.--
2.  The design of God in and by the gospel--His own glory his utmost
end  in  all  things--The glory of his righteousness,  grace,  love,
wisdom,  etc.--The end of God in the way of the salvation of sinners
by  Christ, Rom.3:25; John 3:16; 1 John 3:16; Eph.1:5,6; 1 Cor.1:24;
Eph.3:10; Rom.1:16; 4:16; Eph.3:9; 2 Cor.4:6--3. The nature of faith
thence declared--Faith alone ascribes and gives this glory to God.--
4.  Order  of  the  acts  of  faith, or the  method  in  believing--
Convictions  previous  thereunto--Sincere  assent  unto  all  divine
revelations, Acts 26:27--The proposal of the gospel unto  that  end,
Rom.10:11-17; 2 Cor.3:18,etc.--State of persons called to  believe--
Justifying faith does not consist in any one single habit or act  of
the mind or will--The nature of that about which is the first act of
faith--Approbation of the way of salvation by Christ,  comprehensive
of  the  special nature of justifying faith--What is included  there
in:--1.  A  renunciation  of all other ways,  Hos.14:2,3;  Jer.3:23;
Ps.71:16; Rom.10:3.--2. Consent of the will unto this way, John 14:6-
-3. Acquiescency of the heart in God, 1 Pet.1:21.--4. Trust in God.-
-5. Faith described by trust--The reason of it--Nature and object of
this  trust inquired into--A double consideration of special mercy--
Whether obedience be included in the nature of faith, or be  of  the
essence  of it--A sincere purpose of universal obedience inseparable
from  faith--How faith alone justifies--Repentance, how required  in
and  unto  justification--How  a condition  of  the  new  covenant--
Perseverance in obedience is so also--Definitions of faith



That  which  we shall now inquire into, is the nature of  justifying
faith;  or  of faith in that act and exercise of it whereby  we  are
justified, or whereon justification, according unto God's ordination
and  promise,  does ensue. And the reader is desired to  take  along
with  him  a  supposition  of those things  which  we  have  already
ascribed  unto it, as it is sincere faith in general;  as  also,  of
what  is required previously thereunto, as unto its especial nature,
work, and duty in our justification. For we do deny that ordinarily,
and  according unto the method of God's proceeding with us  declared
in  the  Scripture, wherein the rule of our duty is prescribed,  any
one  does,  or can, truly believe with faith unto justification,  in
whom the work of conviction, before described, has not been wrought.
All  descriptions or definitions of faith that have  not  a  respect
thereunto are but vain speculations. And hence some do give us  such
definitions of faith as it is hard to conceive that they ever  asked
of  themselves what they do in their believing on Jesus  Christ  for
life and salvation.
  The nature of justifying faith, with respect unto that exercise of
whereby we are justified, consists in the heart's approbation of the
way  of  justification  and salvation of  sinners  by  Jesus  Christ
proposed  in  the gospel, as proceeding from the grace, wisdom,  and
love  of  God,  with  its  acqiescency  therein  as  unto  its   own
concernment and condition.
  There needs no more for the explanation of this declaration of the
nature  of  faith  than  what we have before proved  concerning  its
object;  and what may seem wanting thereunto will be fully  supplied
in  the  ensuing  confirmation  of it.  The  Lord  Christ,  and  his
mediation,  as  the  ordinance of God for the  recovery,  life,  and
salvation  of sinners, is supposed as the object of this faith.  And
they  are  all  considered  as  an  effect  of  the  wisdom,  grace,
authority, and love of God, with all their acting in and towards the
Lord  Christ himself, in his susception and discharge of his office.
Hereunto he constantly refers all that he did and suffered, with all
the  benefits  redounding  unto the church  thereby.  Hence,  as  we
observed before, sometimes the grace, or love, or especial mercy  of
God, sometimes his acting in or towards the Lord Christ himself,  in
sending  him,  giving him up unto death, and raising  him  from  the
dead,  are  proposed as the object of our faith unto  justification.
But  they  are  so, always with respect unto his obedience  and  the
atonement  that  he  made for sin. Neither are  they  so  altogether
absolutely  considered,  but as proposed  in  the  promises  of  the
gospel.  Hence, a sincere assent unto the divine veracity  in  those
promises is included in this approbation.
   What  belongs unto the confirmation of this description of  faith
shall  be reduced unto these four heads:--1. The declaration of  its
contrary,  or the nature of privative unbelief upon the proposal  of
the gospel. For these things do mutually illustrate one another.  2.
The  declaration of the design and end of God in and by the  gospel.
3. The nature of faith's compliance with that design, or its actings
with  respect thereunto. 4. The order, method, and way of believing,
as declared in the Scripture:--
   1.  The  gospel is the revelation or declaration of that  way  of
justification and salvation for sinners by Jesus Christ, which  God,
in  infinite  wisdom,  love, and grace, has  prepared.  And  upon  a
supposition  of  the  reception  thereof,  it  is  accompanied  with
precepts  of  obedience  and promises of rewards.  "Therein  is  the
righteousness of God," that which he requires, accepts, and approves
unto salvation,--"revealed from faith unto faith," Rom.1:17. This is
the  record of God therein, "That he has given unto us eternal life,
and  this  life  is in his Son," 1 John 5:11. So John 3:14-17.  "The
words  of  this  life," Acts 5:20; "All the counsel  of  God,"  Acts
20:27.  Wherefore, in the dispensation or preaching of  the  gospel,
this  way of salvation is proposed unto sinners, as the great effect
of  divine  wisdom  and grace. Unbelief is the  rejection,  neglect,
non-admission,  or disapprobation of it, on the terms  whereon,  and
for  the  ends  for which, it is so proposed. The  unbelief  of  the
Pharisees,  upon the preparatory preaching of John the  Baptist,  is
called  the  "rejecting of the counsel of God  against  themselves;"
that  is,  unto their own ruin, Luke 7:30. "They would  none  of  my
counsel," is an expression to the same purpose, Prov.1:30; so is the
"neglecting  this  great salvation", Heb.2:3,--not  giving  it  that
admission which the excellency of it does require. A disallowing  of
Christ, the stone "hos apedokimasan hoi oikodomountes", 1 Pet.2:7,--
the  "builders disapproved of," as not meet for that place and  work
whereunto  it  was  designed,  Acts  4:11,--this  is  unbelief;   to
disapprove  of  Christ,  and the way of salvation  by  him,  as  not
answering divine wisdom, nor suited unto the end designed. So is  it
described  by the refusing or not receiving of him; all  ~o  lo  one
purpose.
   What is intended will be more evident if we consider the proposal
of the gospel where it issued in unbelief, in the first preaching of
it, and where it continues still so to do.
   Most  of those who rejected the gospel by their unbelief, did  it
under  this  notion, that the way of salvation and blessed  proposed
therein  was not a way answering divine goodness and power, such  as
they  might  safely  confide in and trust  unto.  This  the  apostle
declares  at large, 1 Cor.1; so he expresses it, verses  23,24,  "We
preach  Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and  unto
the  Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called,  both  Jews
and  Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of  God."  That
which  they  declared unto them in the preaching of the gospel  was,
that  "Christ  died  for  our sins, according  to  the  Scriptures,"
chap.15:3. Herein they proposed him as the ordinance of God, as  the
great  effect of his wisdom and power for the salvation of  sinners.
But as unto those who continued in their unbelief, they rejected  it
as  any  such  way,  esteeming  it  both  weakness  and  folly.  And
therefore, he describes the faith of them that are called, by  their
approbation  of the wisdom and power of God herein. The  want  of  a
comprehension  of  the  glory  of God  in  this  way  of  salvation,
rejecting it thereon, is that unbelief which ruins the souls of men,
2 Cor.4:3,4.
   So is it with all that continue unbelievers under the proposal of
the object of faith in the preaching of the gospel They may give  an
assent unto the truth of it, so far as it is a mere act of the mind,-
-at least they find not themselves concerned to reject it; yea, they
may  assent  unto  it with that temporary faith which  we  described
before,  and  perform many duties of religion thereon: yet  do  they
manifest  that  they are not sincere believers,  that  they  do  not
believe  with the heart unto righteousness, by many things that  are
irreconcilable  unto  and inconsistent with  justifying  faith.  The
inquiry, therefore, is, Wherein the unbelief of each persons, on the
account  whereof they perish, does insist, and what  is  the  formal
nature of it? It is not, as was said, in the want of an assent  unto
the  truths of the doctrine of the gospel: for from such  an  assent
are  they said, in many places of the Scripture, to believe, as  has
been proved; and this assent may be so firm, and by various means so
radicated  in their minds, as that, in testimony unto it,  they  may
give  their  bodies  to  be  burned; as  men  also  may  do  in  the
confirmation  of  a  false persuasion. Nor is  it  the  want  of  an
especial  fiduciary application, of the promises of the gospel  unto
themselves,  and  the  belief of the pardon of  their  own  sins  in
particular:  for  this  is  not proposed  unto  them  in  the  first
preaching  of the gospel, as that which they are first  to  believe,
and  there may be a believing unto righteousness where this  is  not
attained, Isa.1:10. This will evidence faith not to be true; but  it
is  not  formal unbelief. Nor is it the want of obedience  unto  the
precepts of the gospel in duties of holiness and righteousness;  for
these commands, as formally given in and by the gospel, belong  only
unto  them  that  truly  believe, and are justified  thereon.  That,
therefore,  which  is required unto evangelical faith,  wherein  the
nature  of  it does consist, as it is the foundation of  all  future
obedience,  is  the  heart's approbation of  the  way  of  life  and
salvation  by  Jesus Christ, proposed unto it as the effect  of  the
infinite wisdom, love, grace, and goodness of God; and as that which
is  suited  unto all the wants and whole design of guilty  convinced
sinners.  This  such  persons have not;  and  in  the  want  thereof
consists the formal nature of unbelief. For without this no man  is,
or can be, influenced by the gospel unto a relinquishment of sin, or
encouraged unto obedience, whatever they may do on other grounds and
motives  that  are foreign unto the grace of it. And  wherever  this
cordial,  sincere  approbation of the  way  of  salvation  by  Jesus
Christ,  proposed  in the gospel, does prevail, it  will  infallibly
produce both repentance and obedience.
   If the mind and heart of a convinced sinner (for of such alone we
treat) be able spiritually to discern the wisdom, love, and grace of
God,  in  this  way  of salvation, and be under the  power  of  that
persuasion, he has the ground of repentance and obedience  which  is
given  by  the  gospel.  The receiving of Christ  mentioned  in  the
Scripture,  and  whereby  the nature of faith  in  its  exercise  is
expressed,  I  refer unto the latter part of the  description  given
concerning the soul's acquiescence in God, by the way proposed.
   Again: some there were at firsts and such still continue  to  be,
who  rejected not this way absolutely, and in the notion of it,  but
comparatively,  as  reduced to practice; and so  perished  in  their
unbelief.  They  judged  the way of their own  righteousness  to  be
better,  as  that which might be more safely trusted unto,--as  more
according unto the mind of God and unto his glory. So did  the  Jews
generally,   the  frame  of  whose  minds  the  apostle  represents,
Rom.10:3,4.  And  many of them assented unto  the  doctrine  of  the
gospel in general as true, howbeit they liked it not in their hearts
as  the best way of justification and salvation, but sought for them
by the works of the law.
  Wherefore, unbelief, in its formal nature, consists in the want of
a  spiritual  discerning and approbation of the say of salvation  by
Jesus  Christ,  as an effect of the infinite wisdom,  goodness,  and
love  of  God;  for where these are, the soul of a convinced  sinner
cannot  but  embrace  it,  and adhere  unto  it.  Hence,  also,  all
acquiescency in this way, and trust and confidence in committing the
soul  unto it, or unto God in it, and by it (without which  whatever
is  pretended of believing is but a shadow of faith), is  impossible
unto  such persons; for they want the foundation whereon alone  they
can  be  built.  And  the  consideration  hereof  does  sufficiently
manifest wherein the nature of true evangelical faith does consist.
   2.  The  design of God in and by the gospel, with  the  work  and
office  of  faith  with  respect  thereunto,  farther  confirms  the
description given of it. That which God designs herein, in the first
place, is not the justification and salvation of sinners. His utmost
complete  end, in all his counsels, is his own glory.  He  does  all
things for himself; nor can he who is infinite do otherwise. But  in
an  especial  manner  he  expresses  this  concerning  this  way  of
salvation by Jesus Christ.
   Particularly,  he designed herein the glory of his righteousness;
"To  declare  his righteousness," Rom.3:20;--of his  love;  "God  so
loved  the world," John 3:16; "Herein we perceive the love  of  God,
that  he  laid  down his life for us," 1 John 3:16;  of  his  grace;
"Accepted,  to the praise of the glory of his grace," Eph.1:5,6;--of
his  wisdom;  "Christ  crucified, the wisdom of  God,"  1  Cor.1:24;
"Might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God," Eph.3:10;-
-of  his power; "it is the power of God unto salvation," Rom.1:16;--
of his faithfulness, Rom.4:16. For God designed herein, not only the
reparation  of  all that glory whose declaration was  impeached  and
obscured  by the entrance of sin, but also a farther exaltation  and
more   eminent  manifestation  of  it,  unto  the  degrees  of   its
exaltation,  and some especial instances before concealed,  Eph.3:9.
And  all  this  is  called "The glory of God in the  face  of  Jesus
Christ;" whereof faith is the beholding, 2 Cor.4:6.
   3.  This  being  the  principal design  of  God  in  the  way  of
justification and salvation by Christ proposed in the  gospel,  that
which  on  our part is required unto a participation of the benefits
of  it, is the ascription of that glory unto God which he designs so
to exalt. The acknowledgment of all these glorious properties of the
divine  nature,  as manifested in the provision and  proposition  of
this  way of life, righteousness, and salvation, with an approbation
of  the way itself as an effect of them, and that which is safely to
be  trusted unto, is that which is required of us; and this is faith
or  believing:  "Being  strong in faith,  he  gave  glory  to  God,"
Rom.4:20. And this is in the nature of the weakest degree of sincere
faith.  And  no other grace, work, or duty, is suited  hereunto,  or
firstly and directly of that tendency, but only consequentially  and
in  the  way of gratitude. And although I cannot wholly assent  unto
him  who  affirms that faith in the epistles of Paul is nothing  but
"existimation   magnifice  sentiens  de  Dei   potentia,   justitia,
bonitate,  et  si  quid  promiserit in  eo  praestando  constantia",
because it is too general, and not limited unto the way of salvation
by Christ, his "elect in whom he will be glorified;" yet has it much
of  the  nature of faith in it. Wherefore I say, that hence  we  may
both learn the nature of faith, and whence it is that faith alone is
required  unto our justification. The reason of it is, because  this
is  that grace or duty alone whereby we do or can give unto God that
glory which he designs to manifest and exalt in and by Jesus Christ.
This only faith is suited unto, and this it is to believe. Faith, in
the  sense  we  inquire after, is the heart's  approbation  of,  and
consent  unto,  the way of life and salvation of  sinners  by  Jesus
Christ,  as  that  wherein the glory of the  righteousness,  wisdom,
grace,  love,  and  mercy of God is exalted; the praise  whereof  it
ascribes  unto him, and rests in it as unto the ends of it,--namely,
justification,  life, and salvation. It is to give "glory  to  God,"
Rom.4:20; to "behold his glory as in a glass," or the gospel wherein
it  is  represented unto us, 2 Cor.3:18; to have in our hearts  "the
light  of  the  knowledge of the glory of God in the face  of  Jesus
Christ,"  2  Cor.4:6. The contrary whereunto makes God a  liar,  and
thereby despoils him of the glory of all those holy properties which
he this way designed to manifest, l John 5:10.
   And, if I mistake not, this is that which the experience of  them
that  truly  believe, when they are out of the heats of disputation,
will give testimony unto.
  4. To understand the nature of justifying faith aright, or the act
and  exercise of saving faith in order unto our justification, which
are properly inquired after, we must consider the order of it; first
the  things which are necessarily previous thereunto, and then  what
it is to believe with respect unto them. As,--
   (1.)  The state of a convinced sinner, who is the only "subjectum
capax  justificationis." This has been spoken unto already, and  the
necessity  of its precedency unto the orderly proposal and receiving
of  evangelical righteousness unto justification demonstrated. If we
lose  a  respect  hereunto,  we lose  our  best  guide  towards  the
discovery of the nature of faith. Let no man think to understand the
gospel,  who knows nothing of the law. God's constitution,  and  the
nature  of  the things themselves, have given the law the precedency
with respect unto sinners; "for by the law is the knowledge of sin."
And  gospel faith is the soul's acting according to the mind of God,
for deliverance from that state and condition which it is cast under
by  the law. And all those descriptions of faith which abound in the
writings  of learned men, which do not at least include  in  them  a
virtual  respect unto this state and condition, or the work  of  the
law   on   the  consciences  of  sinners,  are  all  of  them   vain
speculations. There is nothing in this whole doctrine  that  I  will
more  firmly  adhere  unto  than the necessity  of  the  convictions
mentioned previous unto true believing; without which not  one  line
of it can be understood aright, and men do but beat the air in their
contentions about it. See Rom.3:21-24.
    (2.)  We  suppose  herein  a  sincere  assent  unto  all  divine
revelations, whereof the promises of grace and mercy by  Christ  are
an  especial part. This Paul supposed in Agrippa when he would  have
won  him  over unto faith in Christ Jesus: "King Agrippa,  believest
thou the prophets? I know that thou believest", Acts 26:27. And this
assent  which  respects  the promises of the  gospel,  not  as  they
contain,  propose, and exhibit the Lord Christ and the  benefits  of
his  mediation  unto  us,  but as divine revelations  of  infallible
truth,  is  true and sincere in its kind, as we described it  before
under  the notion of temporary faith; but as it proceeds no farther,
as  it  include  no act of the will or heart, it is not  that  faith
whereby we are justified. However, it is required thereunto, and  is
included therein.
   (3.) The proposal of the gospel, according unto the mind of  God,
is  hereunto  supposed; that is, that it be preached according  unto
God's  appointment:  for  not  only  the  gospel  itself,  but   the
dispensation  or preaching of it in the ministry of the  church,  is
ordinarily  required unto believing. This the apostle  asserts,  and
proves  the necessity of it at large, Rom.10:11-17. Herein the  Lord
Christ  and his mediation with God, the only way and means  for  the
justification  and  salvation  of lost  convinced  sinners,  as  the
product and effect of divine wisdom, love, grace, and righteousness,
is revealed, declared, proposed, and offered unto such sinners: "For
therein  is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to  faith,"
Rom.1:17.  The  glory  of God is represented  "as  in  a  glass,"  2
Cor.3:18; and "life and immortality are brought to light through the
gospel," 2 Tim.1:10; Heb.2:3. Wherefore,--
   (4.) The persons who are required to believe, and whose immediate
duty  it  is  so to do, are such who really in their own consciences
are  brought  unto,  and  do  make the inquiries  mentioned  in  the
Scripture,--"What shall we do? What shall we do  to  be  saved?  How
shall  we  fly from the wrath to come? Wherewithal shall  we  appear
before  God?  How shall we answer what is laid unto our charge?"--or
such  as,  being  sensible  of the guilt  of  sin,  do  seek  for  a
righteousness  in  the sight of God, Acts 2:37,38;  16:30,31;  Micah
6:6,7; Isa.35:4; Heb.6:18.
   On  these suppositions, the command and direction given unto  men
being,  "Believe, and thou shalt be saved;" the inquiry is, What  is
that  act or work of faith whereby we may obtain a real interest  or
propriety in the promises of the gospel, and the things declared  in
them, unto their justification before God?
   And,--1.  It is evident, from what has been discoursed,  that  it
does  not consist in, that it is not to be fully expressed  by,  any
one single habit or act of the mind or will distinctly whatever; for
there  are  such  descriptions given of it in  the  Scripture,  such
things  are proposed as the object of it, and such is the experience
of  all that sincerely believe, as no one single act, either of  the
mind or will, can answer unto. Nor can an exact method of those acts
of the soul which are concurrent therein be prescribed; only what is
essential unto it is manifest.
   2.  That which, in order of nature, seems to have the precedency,
is  the  assent  of  the mind unto that which the  psalmist  retakes
himself unto in the first place for relief, under a sense of sin and
trouble,  Ps.130:3,4, "If thou, LORD, shouldest mark  iniquities,  O
Lord,  who  shall  stand?" The sentence of the law and  judgment  of
conscience  lie  against  him  as unto  any  acceptation  with  God.
Therefore, he despairs in himself of standing in judgment, or  being
acquitted before him. In this state, that which the soul first fixes
on,  as  unto its relief, is, that "there is forgiveness with  God."
This,  as declared in the gospel, is, that God in his love and grace
will  pardon  and  justify  guilty sinners  through  the  blood  and
mediation  of Christ. So it is proposed, Rom.3:23,24. The assent  of
the  mind hereunto, as proposed in the promise of the gospel, is the
root  of  faith,  the  foundation of  all  that  the  soul  does  in
believing; nor is there any evangelical faith without it.  But  yet,
consider it abstractedly, as a mere act of the mind, the essence and
nature  of justifying faith does not consist solely therein,  though
it cannot be without it. But,--
   3. This is accompanied, in sincere believing, with an approbation
of  the  way of deliverance and salvation proposed, as an effect  of
divine  grace, wisdom, and love; whereon the heart does rest in  it,
and apply itself unto it, according to the mind of God. This is that
faith  whereby  we are justified; which I shall farther  evince,  by
showing what is included in it, and inseparable from it:--
   (1.)  It includes in it a sincere renunciation of all other  ways
and  means  for the attaining of righteousness, life, and salvation.
This  is  essential  unto  faith, Acts 4:12;  Hos.14:2,3;  Jer.3:23;
Ps.71:16, "I will make mention of thy righteousness, of thine only."
When  a person is in the condition before described (and such  alone
are  called  immediately to believe, Matt.9:13; 11:28; 1  Tim.1:15),
many  things  will  present  themselves unto  him  for  his  relief,
particularly his own righteousness, Rom.10:3. A renunciation of them
all,  as  unto any hope or expectation of relief from them,  belongs
unto sincere believing, Isa.50:10,11.
   (2.)  There is in it the will's consent, whereby the soul betakes
itself  cordially  and  sincerely, as unto all  its  expectation  of
pardon  of  sin  and  righteousness before  God,  unto  the  way  of
salvation  proposed  in the gospel. This is  that  which  is  called
"coming   unto  Christ",  and  "receiving  of  him,"  whereby   true
justifying faith is so often expressed in the Scripture; or,  as  it
is  peculiarly  called, "believing in him,"  or  "believing  on  his
name."  The whole is expressed, John 14:6, "Jesus saith unto him,  I
am  the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,
but by me."
   (3.)  An  acquiescency of the heart in God,  as  the  author  and
principal cause of the way of salvation prepared, as acting in a way
of sovereign grace and mercy towards sinners: "Who by him do believe
in  God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory;  that
your  faith  and hope might be in God," 1 Pet.1:21. The heart  of  a
sinner  does  herein  give  unto God the glory  of  all  those  holy
properties  of his nature which he designed to manifest  in  and  by
Jesus  Christ. See Isa.42:1; 49:3. And this acquiescency in  God  is
that  which  is  the  immediate  root  of  that  waiting,  patience,
longsuffering,  and hope, which are the proper acts and  effects  of
justifying faith, Heb.6:12,15,18,19.
   (4.)  Trust in God, or the grace and mercy of God in and  through
the Lord Christ, as set forth to be a propitiation through faith  in
his  blood,  does belong hereunto, or necessarily ensue hereon;  for
the  person called unto believing is,--first, Convinced of sin,  and
exposed  unto  wrath; secondly, Has nothing else to trust  unto  for
help  and  relief; thirdly, Does actually renounce all other  things
that  tender  themselves unto that end: and therefore, without  some
act  of  trust,  the  soul must lie under actual despair;  which  is
utterly  inconsistent with faith, or the choice and  approbation  of
the way of salvation before described.
   (5.) The most frequent declaration of the nature of faith in  the
Scripture,  especially in the Old Testament, is by this  trust;  and
that  because  it  is that act of it which composes  the  soul,  and
brings it unto all the rest it can attain. For all our rest in  this
world  is from trust in God; and the especial object of this  trust,
so  far  as it belongs unto the nature of that faith whereby we  are
justified, is "God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" For
this  is  respected where his goodness, his mercy,  his  grace,  his
name, his faithfulness, his power, are expressed, or any of them, as
that  which it does immediately rely upon; for they are no  way  the
object  of our trust, nor can be, but on the account of the covenant
which is confirmed and ratified in and by the blood of Christ alone.
   Whether this trust or confidence shall be esteemed of the essence
of faith, or as that which, on the first fruit and working of it, we
are  found  in the exercise of, we need not positively determine.  I
place  it,  therefore, as that which belongs unto justifying  faith,
and  is  inseparable  from  it. For if all  we  have  spoken  before
concerning faith may be comprised under the notion of a firm  assent
and  persuasion,  yet  it  cannot  be  so  if  any  such  assent  be
conceivable exclusive of this trust.
   This trust is that whereof many divines do make special mercy  to
be  the  peculiar object; and that especial mercy to be such  as  to
include  in it the pardon of our own sins. This by their adversaries
is  fiercely opposed, and that on such grounds as manifest that they
do not believe that there is any such state attainable in this life;
and  that  if  there were, it would not be of any use unto  us,  but
rather  be  a means of security and negligence in our duty:  wherein
they betray how great is the ignorance of these things in their  own
minds.  But  mercy  may be said to be especial two ways:--First,  In
itself,  and in opposition unto common mercy. Secondly, With respect
unto  him that believes. In the first sense, especial mercy  is  the
object of faith as justifying; for no more is intended by it but the
grace of God setting forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith
in  his blood, Rom.3:23,24. And faith in this especial mercy is that
which the apostle calls our "receiving of the atonement," Rom.5:11;-
-that is, our approbation of it, and adherence unto it, as the great
effect  of  divine wisdom, goodness, faithfulness, love, and  grace;
which will, therefore, never fail to them who put their trust in it.
In  the latter sense, it is looked on as the pardon of our own  sins
in  particular, the especial mercy of God unto our souls. That  this
is  the  object of justifying faith, that a man is bound to  believe
this  in  order  of nature antecedent unto his justification,  I  do
deny;  neither  yet  do I know of any testimony or  safe  experience
whereby  it  may  be confirmed. But yet, for any  to  deny  that  an
undeceiving belief hereof is to be attained in this life, or that it
is  our  duty to believe the pardon of our own sins and the especial
love  of  God  in Christ, in the order and method of  our  duty  and
privileges, limited and determined in the gospel, so as to  come  to
the  full  assurance of them (though I will not deny but that  peace
with  God,  which is inseparable from justification, may be  without
them); [is to] seem not to be much acquainted with the design of God
in  the  gospel, the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, the nature
and  work  of faith, or their own duty, nor the professed experience
of   believers   recorded   in   the   Scripture.   See   Rom.5:1-5;
Heb.10:2,10,19-22; Ps.46:1,2; 138:7,8; etc. Yet it is  granted  that
all  these  things are rather fruits or effects of faith,  as  under
exercise  and improvement, than of the essence of it, as it  is  the
instrument in our justification.
   And  the  trust  before mentioned, which is either  essential  to
justifying  faith, or inseparable from its is excellently  expressed
by  Bernard, Dom. 6 post Pentec., Ser. 3, "Tria considero in  quibus
tota   spes   mea   consistit,  charitatem   adoptionis,   veritatem
promissionis, potestatem redditionis. Murmuret jam quantum  voluerit
insipiens cogitatio mea, dicens: Quis enim es tu, et quanta est illa
gloria,  quibusve meritis hanc obtinere speras? Et ego  fiducialiter
respondebo:  Scio cui credidi, missione, quia potens in exhibitione:
licet  enim  ei facere quod voluerit. Hic est funiculus triplex  qui
difficile  rumpitur,  quem nobis a patria nostra  in  hunc  carcerem
usque  dimissum firmiter, obsecro, teneamus: ut ipse  nos  sublevet,
ipse  nos trahat et pertrahat usque ad conspectum gloriae magni Dei:
qui est benedictus in saecula. Amen".
   Concerning this faith and trust, it is earnestly pleaded by  many
that  obedience  is  included in it; but as to the  way  and  manner
thereof,  they variously express themselves. Socinus, and those  who
follow him absolutely, do make obedience to be the essential form of
faith;  which  is  denied  by Episcopius.  The  Papists  distinguish
between faith in-formed and faith formed by charity: which comes  to
the  same  purpose,  for  both are built on this  supposition,--that
there  may be true evangelical faith (that which is required as  our
duty,  and consequently is accepted of God, that may contain all  in
it  which  is comprised in the name and duty of faith) that  may  be
without  charity or obedience, and so be useless; for the  Socinians
do  not make obedience to be the essence of faith absolutely, but as
it  justifies.  And  so  they plead unto this purpose,  that  "faith
without  works is dead". But to suppose that a dead faith,  or  that
faith  which is dead, it that faith which is required of us  in  the
gospel in the way of duty, is a monstrous imagination. Others  plead
for  obedience,  charity, the love of God, to  be  included  in  the
nature  of faith; but plead not directly that this obedience is  the
form of faith, but that which belongs unto the perfection of it,  as
it is justifying. Neither yet do they say that by this obedience,  a
continued  course  of  works  and obedience,  as  though  that  were
necessary  unto  our first justification, is required;  but  only  a
sincere  active purpose of obedience: and thereon, as the manner  of
our days is, load them with reproaches who are otherwise minded,  if
they  knew  who they were. For how impossible it is, according  unto
their  principles  who believe justification by  faith  alone,  that
justifying  faith should be without a sincere purpose  of  heart  to
obey  God  in all things, I shall briefly declare. For, First,  They
believe  that  faith is "not of ourselves, it is the gift  of  God";
yea,  that  it  is  a  grace wrought in the hearts  of  men  by  the
exceeding greatness of his power. And to suppose such a grace  dead,
inactive, unfruitful, not operative unto the great end of the  glory
of  God,  and the transforming of the souls of them that receive  it
into his image, is a reflection on the wisdom, goodness, and love of
God  himself.  Secondly, That this grace is in them a  principle  of
spiritual life, which in the habit of it, as resident in the  heart,
is  not really distinguished from that of all other grace whereby we
live to God. So, that there should be faith habitually in the heart,-
-I  mean  that  evangelical  faith we  inquire  after,--or  actually
exercised,  where  there  is not a habit of  all  other  graces,  is
utterly impossible. Neither is it possible that there should be  any
exercise  of  this faith unto justification, but where the  mind  is
prepared,  disposed,  and determined unto universal  obedience.  And
therefore,  Thirdly,  It  is  denied  that  any  faith,  trust,   or
confidence, which may be imagined, so as to be absolutely  separable
from, and have its whole nature consistent with, the absence of  all
other  graces, is that faith which is the especial gift of God,  and
which  in the gospel is required of us in a way of duty. And whereas
some have said, that "men may believe, and place their firm trust in
Christ for life and salvation, and yet not be justified;"--it  is  a
position so destructive unto the gospel, and so full of scandal unto
all  pious souls, and contains such an express denial of the  record
that God has given concerning his Son Jesus Christ, as I wonder that
any person of sobriety and learning should be surprised into it. And
whereas  they  plead the experience of multitudes who  profess  this
firm  faith and confidence in Christ, and yet are not justified,--it
is  true, indeed, but nothing unto their purpose; for whatever  they
profess,  not only not one of them does so in the sight and judgment
of  God,  where this matter is to be tried, but it is  no  difficult
matter  to evict them of the folly and falseness of this profession,
by  the light and rule of the gospel, even in their own consciences,
if they would attend unto instruction.
   Wherefore we say, the faith whereby we are justified, is such  as
is  not  found in any but those who are made-partakers of  the  Holy
Ghost,  and by him united unto Christ, whose nature is renewed,  and
in whom there is a principle of all grace, and purpose of obedience.
Only we say, it is not any other grace, as charity and the like, nor
any  obedience, that gives life and form unto this faith; but it  is
this  faith that gives life and efficacy unto all other graces,  and
form  unto  all evangelical obedience. Neither does any thing  hence
accrue  unto our adversaries, who would have all those graces  which
are, in their root and principle, at least, present in all that  are
to  be  justified, to have the same influence unto our justification
as  faith  has: or that we are said to be justified by faith  alone;
and  in  explication  of it, in answer unto the  reproaches  of  the
Romanists, do say we are justified by faith alone, but not  by  that
faith  which is alone; that we intend by faith all other graces  and
obedience  also. For besides that, the nature of no other  grace  is
capable  of  that  office  which  is  assigned  unto  faith  in  our
justification,  nor can be assumed into a society in operation  with
it,--namely, to receive Christ, and the promises of life by him, and
to  give  glory unto God on their account; so when they can give  us
any  testimony  of  Scripture assigning our justification  unto  any
other  grace, or all graces together, or all the fruits of them,  so
as it is assigned unto faith, they shall be attended unto.
   And  this,  in  particular,  is to  be  affirmed  of  repentance;
concerning which it is most vehemently urged, that it is of the same
necessity unto our justification as faith is. For this they  say  is
easily proved, from testimonies of Scripture innumerable, which call
all  men  to  repentance that will be saved;  especially  those  two
eminent  places are insisted on, Acts 2:38,39; 3:19. But that  which
they  have  to  prove, is not that it is of the same necessity  with
faith unto them that are to be justified, but that it is of the same
use  with faith in their justification. Baptism in that place of the
apostle, Acts 2:38,39, is joined with faith no less than repentance;
and  in  other  places it is expressly put into the same  condition.
Hence,  most of the ancients concluded that it was no less necessary
unto salvation than faith or repentance itself. Yet never did any of
them  assign it the same use in justification with faith But  it  is
pleaded,  whatever is a necessary condition of the new covenant,  is
also  a  necessary condition of justification; for otherwise  a  man
might  be justified, and continuing in his justified estate, not  be
saved,  for  want of that necessary condition: for  by  a  necessary
condition of the new covenant, they understand that without which  a
man  cannot  be saved. But of this nature is repentance as  well  as
faith,  and  so  is  equally a condition of our  justification.  The
ambiguity  of  the signification of the word "condition"  does  cast
much disorder on the present inquiry, in the discourses of some men.
But  to  pass  it  by  at present, I say, final  perseverance  is  a
necessary condition of the new covenant; wherefore, by this rule, it
is  also  of  justification. They say, some  things  are  conditions
absolutely;  such  as are faith and repentance,  and  a  purpose  of
obedience:  some  are so on some supposition only,--namely,  that  a
man's life be continued in this world; such is a course in obedience
and  good  works,  and  perseverance unto the end.  Wherefore  I  so
position that a man lives in this world, perseverance unto  the  end
is  a  necessary  condition  of his justification.  And  if  so,  no
justified  whilst he is in this world; for a condition does  suspend
that  whereof  it  is  a  condition  from  existence  until  it   be
accomplished. It is, then, to no purpose to dispute any longer about
justification,  if indeed no man is, nor can be, justified  in  this
life. But how contrary this is to Scripture and experience is known.
   If  it  be  said, that final perseverance, which is so express  a
condition  of  salvation  in the new covenant,  is  not  indeed  the
condition of our first justification, but it is the condition of the
continuation  of our justification; then they yield up  their  grand
position, that whatever is a necessary condition of the new covenant
is a necessary condition of justification: for it is that which they
call  the  first justification alone which we treat about. And  that
the  continuation of our justification depends solely  on  the  same
causes  with our justification itself, shall be afterwards declared.
But  it  is  not  yet  proved, nor ever will be,  that  whatever  is
required  in  them that are to be justified, is a condition  whereon
their justification is immediately suspended. We allow that alone to
be  a condition of justification which has an influence of causality
thereunto, though it be but the causality of an instrument. This  we
ascribe  unto faith alone. And because we do so, it is pleaded  that
we  ascribe more in our justification unto ourselves than they do by
whom  we are opposed. For we ascribe the efficiency of an instrument
herein unto our own faith, when they say one that it is a condition,
or  "causa  sine qua non," of our justification. But  I  judge  that
grave  and wise men ought not to give so much to the defense of  the
cause  they have undertaken, seeing they cannot but know indeed  the
contrary.  For  after  they  have  given  the  specious  name  of  a
condition,  and a "causa sine qua non," unto faith, they immediately
take  all  other graces and works of obedience into the  same  state
with  it, and the same use in justification; and after this  seeming
gold  has been cast for a while into the fire of disputation,  there
comes  out  the calf of a personal, inherent righteousness,  whereby
men are justified before God, "virtute foederis evangelici;" for  as
for  the  righteousness of Christ to be imputed unto us, it is  gone
into heaven, and they know not what is become of it.
   Having  given this brief declaration of the nature of  justifying
faith,  and the acts of it (as I suppose, sufficient unto my present
design),  I  shall not trouble myself to give an accurate definition
of it. What are my thoughts concerning it, will be better understood
by  what has been spoken, than by any precise definition I can give.
And  the  truth  is, definitions of justifying faith  have  been  so
multiplied  by learned men, and in so great variety, and [there  is]
such  a  manifest inconsistency among some of them, that  they  have
been  of  no  advantage  unto  the  truth,  but  occasions  of   new
controversies and divisions, whilst every one has laboured to defend
the accuracy of his own definition, when yet it may be difficult for
a  true believer to find any thing compliant with his own experience
in  them; which kind of definitions in these things I have no esteem
for.  I  know  no man that has laboured in this argument  about  the
nature of faith more than Dr Jackson; yet, when he has done all,  he
gives us a definition of justifying faith which I know few that will
subscribe  unto: yet is it, in the main scope of it, both pious  and
sound. For he tells us, "Here at length, we may define the faith  by
which  the just live, to be a firm and constant adherence  unto  the
mercies  and  the loving-kindness of Lord; or, generally,  unto  the
spiritual  food  exhibited in his sacred word, as much  better  than
this  life  itself,  and  all the contentments  it  is  capable  of;
grounded  on  a taste or relish of their sweetness, wrought  in  the
soul  or heart of a man by the Spirit of Christ". Whereunto he adds,
"The  terms  for  the  most  part  are  the  prophet  David's;   not
metaphorical, as some may fancy, much less equivocal, but proper and
homogeneal  to the subject defined," tom. 1 book 4 chap.9.  For  the
lively  scriptural  expressions of faith, by  receiving  on  Christ,
leaning on him, rolling ourselves or our burden on him, tasting  how
gracious  the  Lord  is,  and the like,  which  of  late  have  been
reproached, yea, blasphemed, by many, I may have occasion  to  speak
of  them  afterwards; as also to manifest that they convey a  better
understanding  of the nature, work, and object of justifying  faith,
unto  the  minds  of  men  spiritually enlightened,  than  the  most
accurate  definitions  that  many pretend  unto;  some  whereof  are
destructive and exclusive of them all.





III.  The use of faith in justification; its especial object farther
cleared

Use of faith in justification; various conceptions about it--By whom
asserted  as the instrument of it; by whom denied--In what sense  it
is  affirmed  so to be--The expressions of the Scripture  concerning
the  use of faith in justification; what they are, and how they  are
best  explained by an instrumental cause--Faith, how the  instrument
of God in justification--How the instrument of them that do believe-
-The  use  of  faith  expressed in the  Scripture  by  apprehending,
receiving;  declared  by an instrument--Faith,  in  what  sense  the
condition  of our justification--Signification of that term,  whence
to be learned


The  description before given of justifying faith does  sufficiently
manifest of what use it is in justification; nor shall I in  general
add  much  unto what may be thence observed unto that  purpose.  But
whereas  this  use of it has been expressed with some  variety,  and
several ways of it asserted inconsistent with one another, they must
be  considered  in our passage. And I shall do it with  all  brevity
possible;  for these things lead not in any part of the  controversy
about  the nature of justification, but are merely subservient  unto
other   conceptions  concerning  it.  When  men  have  fixed   their
apprehensions  about  the  principal matters  in  controversy,  they
express   what  concerns  the  use  of  faith  in  an  accommodation
thereunto. Supposing such to be the nature of justification as  they
assert,  it  must be granted that the use of faith therein  must  be
what  they  plead  for.  And if what is peculiar  unto  any  in  the
substance  of the doctrine be disproved, they cannot deny  but  that
their  notions about the use of faith do fall unto the ground.  Thus
is  it with all who affirm faith to be either the instrument, or the
condition,  or  the  "causa sine qua non," or  the  preparation  and
disposition  of  the  subject, or a meritorious  cause,  by  way  of
condecency or congruity, in and of our justification. For all  these
notions  of  the use of faith are suited and accommodated  unto  the
opinions  of  men  concerning the nature  and  principal  causes  of
justification.  Neither can any trial or determination  be  made  as
unto  their  truth  and  propriety, but  upon  a  previous  judgment
concerning  those  causes,  and the whole  nature  of  justification
itself.  Whereas, therefore, it were vain and endless to  plead  the
principal  matter in controversy upon every thing that  occasionally
belongs unto it,--and so by the title unto the whole inheritance  of
every  cottage that is built on the premises,--I shall briefly speak
unto  these  various  conceptions about the  use  of  faith  in  our
justification, rather to find out and give an understanding of  what
is  intended by them, than to argue about their truth and propriety,
which  depend on that wherein the substance of the controversy  does
consist.
  Protestant divines, until of late, have unanimously affirmed faith
to  be  the  instrumental  cause of  our  justification.  So  it  is
expressed to be in many of the public confessions of their churches.
This  notion  of theirs concerning the nature and use of  faith  was
from  the  first opposed by those of the Roman church. Afterward  it
was  denied  also  by  the Socinians, as either false  or  improper.
Socin.  Miscellan.  Smalcius adv. Frantz.  disput.  4;  Schlichting.
adver.  Meisner.  de  Justificat. And of  late  this  expression  is
disliked  by  some among ourselves; wherein they follow  Episcopius,
Curcellaeus,  and  others  of that way.  Those  who  are  sober  and
moderate  do rather decline this notion and expression as  improper,
than  reject them as untrue. And our safest course, in these  cases,
is  to  consider what is the thing or matter intended.  If  that  be
agreed  upon, he deserves best of truth who parts with strife  about
propriety  of  expressions,  before it be  meddled  with.  Tenacious
pleading about them will surely render our contentions endless;  and
none  will  ever  want  an appearance of probability  to  give  them
countenance in what they pretend. If our design in teaching  be  the
same  with  that of the Scripture,--namely, to inform the  minds  of
believers,  and convey the light of the knowledge of God  in  Christ
unto  them,  we  must be contented sometimes to  make  use  of  such
expressions  as will scarce pass the ordeal of arbitrary  rules  and
distinctions,  through the whole compass of notional and  artificial
sciences.   And   those   who,  without   more   ado,   reject   the
instrumentality  of faith in our justification, as  an  unscriptural
notion, as though it were easy for them with one breath to blow away
the reasons and arguments of so many learned men as have pleaded for
it,  may  not,  I  think, do amiss to review the  grounds  of  their
confidence. For the question being only concerning what is  intended
by  it,  it  is  not  enough that the term or  word  itself,  of  an
instrument, is not found unto this purpose in the Scripture; for  on
the  same  ground we may reject a trinity of persons in  the  divine
essence,  without an acknowledgment whereof, not  one  line  of  the
Scripture can be rightly understood.
   Those  who  assert faith to be as the instrumental cause  in  our
justification,  do it with respect unto two ends. For,  first,  they
design  thereby to declare the meaning of those expressions  in  the
Scripture  wherein we are said to be justified "pistei", absolutely;
which  must  denote,  either "instrumentum, aut  formam,  aut  modum
actionis".   "Logidzometha  oun  pistei  kikaiousthai   anthroopon",
Rom.3:28;--"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith."
So, "Dia pisteoos", verse 22; "Ek pisteoos", Rom.1:17; Gal.3:8; "Dia
tes  pisteoos",  Eph.2:8;  "Ek  pisteoos,  kai  dia  tes  pisteoos",
Rom.3:30;--that is "Fide, ex fide, per fidem"; which we can  express
only,  by faith, or through faith. "Propter fidem", or "dia pistin",
for  our faith, we are nowhere said to be justified. The inquiry is,
What  is the most proper, lightsome, and convenient way of declaring
the meaning of these expressions? This the generality of Protestants
do  judge to be by an instrumental cause: for some kind of causality
they  do  plainly intimate, whereof the lowest and meanest  is  that
which   is  instrumental;  for  they  are  used  of  faith  in   our
justification  before God, and of no other grace of  duty  whatever.
Wherefore,  the proper work or office of faith in our  justification
is  intended  by them. And "dia" is nowhere used in  the  whole  New
Testament  with a genitive case (nor in any other good author),  but
it  denotes an instrumental efficiency at least. In the divine works
of  the holy Trinity, the operation of the second person, who is  in
them  a principal efficient, yet is sometimes expressed thereby;  it
may  be  to  denote  the  order of operation  in  the  holy  Trinity
answering  the order of subsistence, though it be applied  unto  God
absolutely  or the Father: Rom.11:36, "Di autou"--"By  him  are  all
things".  Again,  "ex  ergoon vomou" and  "ex  akoes  pisteoos"  are
directly  opposed, Gal.3:2. But when it is said that a  man  is  not
justified  "ex  ergoon nomou",--"by the works of  the  law,"--it  is
acknowledged by all that the meaning of the expression is to exclude
all efficiency, in every kind of such works, from our justification.
Is  follows, therefore, that where, in opposition hereunto,  we  are
said  to  be  justified "ek pisteoos",--"by faith,"--an instrumental
efficiency  is  intended.  Yet will I not,  therefore,  make  it  my
controversy with any, that faith is properly an instrument,  or  the
instrumental cause in or of our justification; and so divert into an
impertinent  contest about the nature and kinds of  instruments  and
instrumental  causes,  as  they  are metaphysically  hunted  with  a
confused  cry of futilous terms and distinctions. But this I  judge,
that  among  all  those notions of things which may  be  taken  from
common  use  and  understanding, to represent  unto  our  minds  the
meaning  and intention of the scriptural expressions so often  used,
"pistei, ek pisteoos, dia pisteoos", there is none so proper as this
of  an  instrument  or  instrumental cause, seeing  a  causality  is
included in them, and that of any other kind certainly excluded; nor
has it any of its own.
   But  it  may be said, that if faith be the instrumental cause  of
justification, it is either the instrument of God, or the instrument
of  believers themselves. That it is not the instrument  of  God  is
plain,  in that it is a duty which he prescribes unto us: it  is  an
act  of our own; and it is we that believe, not God; nor can any act
of  ours be the instrument of his work. And if it be our instrument,
seeing  an efficiency is ascribed unto it, then are we the efficient
causes  of our own justification in some sense, and may be  said  to
justify  ourselves; which is derogatory to the grace of God and  the
blood of Christ.
  I confess that I lay not much weight on exceptions of this nature.
For,  First,  Notwithstanding what is said herein, the Scripture  is
express,  that  "God justifieth us by faith." "It is one  God  which
shall  justify the circumcision no "ek pisteoos", (by  faith,)  "and
the  uncircumcision  "dia  tes pisteoos",  (through  or  by  faith),
Rom.3:30.  "The  Scripture foreseeing that  God  would  justify  the
heathen through faith," Gal.3:8. As he "purifieth the hearts of  men
by faith," Acts 15:9, wherefore faith, in some sense, may be said to
be  the  instrument of God in our justification, both as it  is  the
means  and way ordained and appointed by him on our part whereby  we
shall  be justified; as also, because he bestows it on us, and works
it  in us unto this end, that we may be justified: for "by grace  we
are  saved through faith, and that not of ourselves; it is the  gift
of  God," Eph.2:8. If any one shall now say, that on these accounts,
or with respect unto divine ordination and operation concurring unto
our  justification, faith is the instrument of God, in its place and
way,  (as the gospel also is, Rom.1:16; and the ministers of  it,  2
Cor.5:18; 1 Tim.4:6; and the sacraments also, Rom.4:11; Tit.3:5,  in
their  several places and kinds), unto our justification, it may  be
he  will  contribute  unto a right conception of  the  work  of  God
herein, as much as those shall by whom it is denied.
   But  that  which  is  principally intended is,  that  it  is  the
instrument of them that do believe. Neither yet are they said hereon
to  justify  themselves. For whereas it does neither really  produce
the  effect of justification by a physical operation, nor can do so,
it  being  a  pure  sovereign act of God; nor  is  morally  any  way
meritorious thereof; nor does dispose the subject wherein it is unto
the introduction of an inherent formal cause of justification, there
being no such thing in "rerum natura"; nor has any other physical or
moral  respect  unto the effect of justifications  but  what  arises
merely  from  the constitution and appointment of God; there  is  no
colour  of  reason, from the instrumentality of faith  asserted,  to
ascribe  the effect of justification unto any but unto the principal
efficient cause, which is God alone, and from whom it proceeds in  a
way  of free and sovereign grace, disposing the order of things  and
the  relation  of  them  one unto another as seems  good  unto  him.
"Dikaioumenoi  doorean  tei  autou  chariti",  Rom.3:24;  "Dia   tes
pisteoos  en  tooi autou haimati", verse 25. It is,  therefore,  the
ordinance  of  God  prescribing our duty, that we may  be  justified
freely by his grace, having its use and operation towards that  end,
after  the  manner  of  an  instrument;  as  we  shall  see  farther
immediately.  Wherefore,  so far as I can discern,  they  contribute
nothing unto the real understanding of this truth, who deny faith to
be  the  instrumental  cause  of our justification;  and,  on  other
grounds,  assert  it to be the condition thereof,  unless  they  can
prove  this  is  a  more  natural exposition of  these  expressions,
"pistei, ek pisteoos, dia tes pisteoos", which is the first thing to
be  inquired  after. For all that we do in this  matter  is  but  to
endeavour  a  right  understanding  of  Scripture  propositions  and
expressions,  unless  we intend to wander "extra  pleas,"  and  lose
ourselves in a maze of uncertain conjectures.
    Secondly.  They  designed  to  declare  the  use  of  faith   in
justification,  expressed  in  the  Scripture  by  apprehending  and
receiving  of  Christ or his righteousness, and  remission  of  sins
thereby. The words whereby this use of faith in our justification is
expressed, are, "lamthanoo, paralamthanoo", and "katalamthanoo". And
the  constant  use of them in the Scripture is, to take  or  receive
what is offered, tendered, given or granted unto us; or to apprehend
and  lay  hold  of  any  thing  thereby  to  make  it  our  own:  as
"epilamthanomai" is also used in the same sense, Heb.2:16. So we are
said   by  faith  to  "receive  Christ",  John  1:12;  Col.2:6;--the
"abundance  of grace, and the gift of righteousness", Rom.5:17;--the
"word  of  promise,"  Acts 2:41;--the "word of God,"  Acts  8:14;  1
Thess.1:6;  2:13;--the  "atonement made by  the  blood  of  Christ,"
Rom.5:11;--the  "forgiveness  of  sins",  Acts  10:43;   26:18;--the
"promise of the Spirit," Gal.3:14;--the "promises", Heb.9:15.  There
is,  therefore, nothing that concurs unto our justification, but  we
receive  it  by faith. And unbelief is expressed by "not receiving,"
John 1:11; 3:11; 12:48; 14:17. Wherefore, the object of faith in our
justification, that whereby we are justified, is tendered,  granted,
and  given  unto us of God; the use of faith being to lay hold  upon
it, to receive it, so as that it may be our own. What we receive  of
outward  things  that are so given unto us, we do it  by  our  hand;
which,  therefore, is the instrument of that reception, that whereby
we  apprehend  or  lay  hold of any thing  to  appropriate  it  unto
ourselves, and that, because this is the peculiar office  which,  by
nature, it is assigned unto among all the members of the body. Other
uses  it has, and other members, on other accounts, may be as useful
unto the body as it; but it alone is the instrument of receiving and
apprehending that which, being given, is to be made our own, and  to
abide  with  us. Whereas, therefore, the righteousness wherewith  we
are  justified is the gift of God, which is tendered unto us in  the
promise of the gospel; the use and office of faith being to receive,
apprehend,  or  lay hold of and appropriate, this  righteousness,  I
know  not how it can be better expressed than by an instrument,  nor
by  what  notion of it more light of understanding may  be  conveyed
unto  our minds. Some may suppose other notions are meet to  express
it  by  on other accounts; and it may be so with respect unto  other
uses  of  it:  but  the sole present inquiry is,  how  it  shall  be
declared, as that which receives Christ, the atonement, the gift  of
righteousness;  which shall prove its only use in our justification.
He  that  can better express this than by an instrument ordained  of
God  unto this end, all whose use depends on that ordination of God,
will deserve well of the truth. It is true, that all those who place
the formal cause or reason of our justification in ourselves, or our
inherent  righteousness,  and  so,  either  directly  or   by   just
consequence, deny all imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto
our  justification,  are not capable of admitting  faith  to  be  an
instrument  in  this work, nor are pressed with this  consideration;
for  they  acknowledge not that we receive a righteousness which  is
not our own, by way of gift, whereby we are justified, and so cannot
allow  of  any  instrument  whereby  it  should  be  received.   The
righteousness itself being, as they phrase it, putative,  imaginary,
a  chimera, a fiction, it can have no real accidents,--nothing  that
can  be  really predicated concerning it. Wherefore, as was said  at
the  entrance  of  this discourse, the truth and propriety  of  this
declaration  of  the  use  of  faith  in  our  justification  by  an
instrumental cause, depends on the substance of the doctrine  itself
concerning  the nature and principal causes of it, with  which  they
must  stand  or fall. If we are justified through the imputation  of
the  righteousness  of  Christ, which  faith  alone  apprehends  and
receives, it will not be denied but that it is rightly enough placed
as  the  instrumental  cause of our justification.  And  if  we  are
justified  by  an inherent, evangelical righteousness  of  our  own,
faith  may be the condition of its imputation, or a disposition  for
its  introduction, or a congruous merit of it, but an instrument  it
cannot be. But yet, for the present, it has this double advantage:--
First, That it best and most appositely answers what is affirmed  of
the  use  of  faith  in our justification in the Scripture,  as  the
instances  given do manifest. Secondly, That no other notion  of  it
can  be so stated, but that it must be apprehended in order of  time
to be previous unto justification; which justifying faith cannot be,
unless  a man may be a true believer with justifying faith, and  yet
not be justified.
   Some  do  plead that faith is the condition of our justification,
and  that otherwise it is not to be conceived of. As I said  before,
so I say again, I shall not contend with any man about words, terms,
or  expressions, so long as what is intended by them is agreed upon.
And  there  is  an  obvious sense wherein faith may  he  called  the
condition of our justification; for no more may be intended thereby,
but  that it is the duty on our part which God requires, that we may
be  justified. And this the whole Scripture bears witness unto.  Yet
this hinders not but that, as unto its use, it may be the instrument
whereby we apprehend or receive Christ and his righteousness. But to
assert  it  the  condition  of our justification,  or  that  we  are
justified by it as the condition of the new covenant, so as, from  a
preconceived signification of that word, to give it another  use  in
justification,  exclusive of that pleaded for, as  the  instrumental
cause thereof, is not easily to be admitted; because it supposes  an
alteration in the substance of the doctrine itself.
   The word is nowhere used in the Scripture in this matter; which I
argue  no  farther, but that we have no certain rule or standard  to
try and measure its signification by. Wherefore, it cannot first  be
introduced in what sense men please, and then that sense turned into
argument for other ends. For thus, on a supposed concession that  it
is  the  condition  of our justification, some heighten  it  into  a
subordinate  righteousness,  imputed  unto  us  antecedently,  as  I
suppose, unto the imputation of the righteousness of Christ  in  any
sense,  whereof it is the condition. And some, who pretend to lessen
its efficiency or dignity in the use of it in our justification, say
it  is  only  "causa sine qua non;" which leaves us at as  great  an
uncertainty  as to the nature and efficacy of this condition  as  we
were before. Nor is the true sense of things at all illustrated, but
rather darkened, by such notions.
   If  we  may  introduce words into religion nowhere  used  in  the
Scripture  (as  we  may and must, if we design to bring  light,  and
communicate  proper apprehensions of the things  contained  [in  it]
unto  the  minds  of men), yet are we not to take  along  with  them
arbitrary,  preconceived senses, forged either among lawyers  or  in
the peripatetic school. The use of them in the most approved authors
of  the  language whereunto they do belong, and their common  vulgar
acceptation among ourselves, must determine their sense and meaning.
It  is known what confusion in the minds of men, the introduction of
words  into  ecclesiastical doctrines, of whose signification  there
has not been a certain determinate rule agreed on, has produced.  So
the word "merit" was introduced by some of the ancients (as is plain
from  the  design  of  their  discourses  where  they  use  it)  for
impetration  or  acquisition "quovis modo;"--by any means  whatever.
But  there  being  no cogent reason to confine the  word  unto  that
precise  signification,  it  has  given  occasion  to  as  great   a
corruption  as has befallen Christian religion. We must,  therefore,
make use of the best means we have to understand the meaning of this
word, and what is intended by it, before we admit of its use in this
case.
   "Conditio,"  in  the  best  Latin  writers,  is  variously  used,
answering "katastasis, tuche, axia, aitia, tuntheche", in the Greek;
that is, "status, fortuna, dignitas, causa, pactum initum." In which
of  these significations it is here to be understood is not easy  to
be  determined.  In  common use among us, it sometimes  denotes  the
state  and  quality of men,--that is, "katastatis" and  "axia";  and
sometimes a valuable consideration for what is to be done,--that is,
"aitia" or "suntheke". But herein it is applied unto things in great
variety; sometimes the principal procuring, purchasing cause  is  so
expressed.  As the condition whereon a man lends another  a  hundred
pounds  is,  that he be paid it again with interest;--the  condition
whereon  a man conveys his land unto another is, that he receive  so
much  money for it: so a condition is a valuable consideration.  And
sometimes  it  signifies such things as are added to  the  principal
cause,  whereon  its operation is suspended;--as a man  bequeaths  a
hundred pounds unto another, on condition that he come or go to such
a  place to demand it. This is no valuable consideration, yet is the
effect  of  the  principal  cause, or  the  will  of  the  testator,
suspended thereon. And as unto degrees of respect unto that  whereof
any  thing  is  a  condition, as to purchase, procurement,  valuable
consideration,  necessary  presence,  the  variety  is  endless.  We
therefore  cannot obtain a determinate sense of this word condition,
but  from  a  particular  declaration of what  is  intended  by  it,
wherever it is used. And although this be not sufficient to  exclude
the  use of it from the declaration of the way and manner how we are
justified  by faith, yet is it so to exclude the imposition  of  any
precise  signification of it, any other than  is  given  it  by  the
matter  treated of. Without this, every thing is left ambiguous  and
uncertain whereunto it is applied.
  For instance, it is commonly said that faith and new obedience are
the condition of the new covenant; but yet, because of the ambiguous
signification  and  various use of that term (condition)  we  cannot
certainly understand what is intended in the assertion. If  no  more
be  intended  but  that  God,  in and  by  the  new  covenant,  does
indispensably   require   these  things   of   us,--that   is,   the
restipulation of a good conscience towards God, by the  resurrection
of  Christ from the dead, in order unto his own glory, and our  full
enjoyment of all the benefits of it, it is unquestionably true;  but
if  it be intended that they are such a condition of the covenant as
to  be  by us performed antecedently unto the participation  of  any
grace,  mercy,  or privilege of it, so as that they  should  be  the
consideration and procuring causes of them,--that they should be all
of  them,  as some speak, the reward of our faith and obedience,--it
is  most  false,  and  not only contrary to express  testimonies  of
Scripture, but destructive of the nature of the covenant itself.  If
it  be  intended that these things, though promised in the covenant,
and  wrought  in us by the grace of God, are yet duties required  of
us, in order unto the participation and enjoyment of the full end of
the covenant in glory, it is the truth which is asserted; but if  it
be  said  that  faith  and  new obedience--that  is,  the  works  of
righteousness which we do--are so the condition of the covenant,  as
that whatever the one is ordained of God as a means of, and in order
to such or such an end, as justification, that the other is likewise
ordained unto the same end, with the same kind of efficacy, or  with
the  same respect unto the effect, it is expressly contrary  to  the
whole  scope and express design of the apostle on that subject.  But
it  will be said that a condition in the sense intended, when  faith
is  said to be a condition of our justification, is no more but that
it  is "causa sine qua non"; which is easy enough to be apprehended.
But  yet  neither  are we so delivered out of uncertainties  into  a
plain  understanding  of what is intended;  for  these  "causa  sine
quibus non" may be taken largely or more strictly and precisely.  So
are  they commonly distinguished by the masters in these arts. Those
so  called, in a larger sense, are all such causes, in any  kind  of
efficiency  or  merit,  as are inferior unto principal  causes,  and
would  operate nothing without them; but in conjunction  with  them,
have  a  real  effective  influence, physical  or  moral,  into  the
production of the effect. And if we take a condition to be a  "causa
sine qua non" in this sense, we are still at a loss what may be  its
use,  efficiency, or merit, with respect unto our justification.  If
it be taken more strictly for that which is necessarily present, but
has no causality in any kind, not that of a receptive instrument,  I
cannot  understand how it should be an ordinance of God.  For  every
thing  that he has appointed unto any end, moral or spiritual,  has,
by  virtue  of  that  appointment, either a  symbolical  instructive
efficacy, or an active efficiency, or a rewardable condecency,  with
respect  unto  that end. Other things may be generally and  remotely
necessary  unto such an end, so far as it partakes of the  order  of
natural  beings,  which  are  not ordinances  of  God  with  respect
thereunto, and so have no kind of causality with respect unto it, as
it  is moral or spiritual. So the air we breathe is needful unto the
preaching  of  the  word, and consequently a "causa  sine  qua  non"
thereof; but an ordinance of God with especial respect thereunto  it
is  not. But every thing that he appoints unto an especial spiritual
end,  has  an  efficacy or operation in one or  other  of  the  ways
mentioned;  for they either concur with the principal cause  in  its
internal  efficiency, or they operate externally in the  removal  of
obstacles  and  hindrances that oppose the principal  cause  in  its
efficiency. And this excludes all causes "sine quibus non," strictly
so  taken,  from  any  place among divine ordinances.  God  appoints
nothing  for  an end that shall do nothing. His sacraments  are  not
"arga  semeia"  but, by virtue of his institution, do  exhibit  that
grace which they do not in themselves contain. The preaching of  the
word has a real efficiency unto all the ends of it. So have all  the
graces  and duties that he works in us, and requires of us: by  them
all  are  "we made meet for the inheritance of the saints in light;"
and  our  whole obedience, through his gracious appointment,  has  a
rewardable condecency with respect unto eternal life. Wherefore,  as
faith may be allowed to be the condition of our justification, if no
more be intended thereby but that it is what God requires of us that
we  may  be justified; so, to confine the declaration of its use  in
our  justification unto its being the condition of it, when so  much
as  a  determinate  signification of it cannot be  agreed  upon,  is
subservient  only  unto  the  interest of  unprofitable  strife  and
contention.
   To  close  these discourses concerning faith and its use  in  our
justification,  some  things  must  yet  be  added  concerning   its
*especial  object*.  For  although  what  has  been  spoken  already
thereon, in the description of its nature and object in general,  be
sufficient, in general, to state its especial object also; yet there
having  been  an inquiry concerning it, and debate about  it,  in  a
peculiar  notion, and under some especial terms, that also  must  be
considered.   And  this  is,  Whether  justifying  faith,   in   our
justification, or its use therein, do respect Christ as a  king  and
prophet, as well as a priest, with the satisfaction that as such  he
made for us, and that in the same manner, and unto the same ends and
purposes? And I shall be brief in this inquiry, because it is but  a
late  controversy,  and, it may be, has more  of  curiosity  in  its
disquisition  than  of  edification in its  determination.  However,
being  not,  that I know of, under these terms stated in any  public
confessions of the reformed churches, it is free for any to  express
their apprehensions concerning it. And to this purpose I say,--
   1.  Faith, whereby we are justified, in the receiving of  Christ,
principally respects his person, for all those ends for which he  is
the  ordinance  of God. It does not, in the first place,  as  it  is
faith  in general, respect his person absolutely, seeing its  formal
object, as such, is the truth of God in the proposition, and not the
thing itself proposed. Wherefore, it so respects and receives Christ
as  proposed  in the promise,--the promise itself being  the  formal
object of its assent.
   2. We cannot so receive Christ in the promise, as in that act  of
receiving  him to exclude the consideration of any of  his  offices;
for  as  he is not at any time to be considered by us but as  vested
with  all  his  offices, so a distinct conception  of  the  mind  to
receive  Christ  as a priest, but not as a king or prophet,  is  not
faith, but unbelief,--not the receiving, but the rejecting of him.
   3.  In  the  receiving of Christ for justification formally,  our
distinct  express design is to be justified thereby,  and  no  more.
Now,  to  be justified is to be freed from the guilt of sin,  or  to
have all our sins pardoned, and to have a righteousness wherewith to
appear before God, so as to be accepted with him, and a right to the
heavenly inheritance. Every believer has other designs also, wherein
he  is  equally concerned with this,--as, namely, the renovation  of
his  nature, the sanctification of his person, and ability  to  live
unto God in all holy obedience; but the things before mentioned  are
all  that he aims at or designs in his applications unto Christ,  or
his receiving of him unto justification. Wherefore,--
   4.  Justifying  faith, in that act or work of it whereby  we  are
justified, respects Christ in his priestly office alone, as  he  was
the  surety  of  the  covenant, with what he did  in  the  discharge
thereof. The consideration of his other office is not excluded,  but
it is not formally comprised in the object of faith as justifying.
   5. When we say that the sacerdotal office of Christ, or the blood
of  Christ, or the satisfaction of Christ, is that alone which faith
respects  in  justification, we do not exclude, yea,  we  do  really
include  and comprise, in that assertion, all that depends  thereon,
or  concurs  to  make  them effectual unto our justification.  As,--
First, The "free grace" and favour of God in giving of Christ for us
and  unto  us,  whereby  we are frequently  said  to  be  justified,
Rom.3:24;  Eph.2:8;  Tit.3:7. His wisdom, love,  righteousness,  and
power,  are  of  the  same  consideration,  as  has  been  declared.
Secondly. Whatever in Christ himself was necessary antecedently unto
his  discharge of that office, or was consequential thereof, or  did
necessarily accompany it. Such was his incarnation, the whole course
of  his  obedience,  his  resurrection, ascension,  exaltation,  and
intercession;  for  the  consideration  of  all  these   things   is
inseparable from the discharge of his priestly office. And therefore
is  justification either expressly or virtually assigned  unto  them
also,  Gen.3:15;  1  John 3:8; Heb. 2:14-16;  Rom.4:25;  Acts  5:31;
Heb.7:27;  Rom.8:34.  But  yet, wherever  our  justification  is  so
assigned  unto  them, they are not absolutely considered,  but  with
respect  unto  their  relation  to his sacrifice  and  satisfaction.
Thirdly.  All  the  means of the application of  the  sacrifice  and
righteousness of the Lord Christ unto us are also included  therein.
Such  is  the principal efficient cause thereof, which is  the  Holy
ghost;  whence we are said to be "justified in the name of the  Lord
Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God,"  1  Cor.6:11;  and  the
instrumental cause thereof on the part of God, which is the "promise
of  the  gospel,"  Rom.1:17; Gal.3:22,23. It  would,  therefore,  be
unduly  pretended, that by this assertion we do narrow  or  straiten
the  object  of  justifying faith as it justifies; for,  indeed,  we
assign  a  respect unto the whole mediatory office  of  Christ,  not
excluding the kingly and prophetical parts thereof, but only such  a
notion  of  them as would not bring in more of Christ, but  much  of
ourselves, into our justification. And the assertion, as laid  down,
may be proved,--
  (1.) From the experience of all that are justified, or do seek for
justification  according unto the gospel: for under this  notion  of
seeking  for  justification, or a righteousness unto  justification,
they  were  all of them to be considered, and do consider themselves
as   "hupodikoi   tooi   Theooi",--"guilty  before   God,"--subject,
obnoxious,  liable unto his wrath in the curse of  the  law;  as  we
declared in the entrance of this discourse, Rom.3:19. They were  all
in  the  same state that Adam was in after the fall, unto  whom  God
proposed  the  relief  of the incarnation and suffering  of  Christ,
Gen.3:15.  And  to  seek after justification, is  to  seek  after  a
discharge  from this woeful state and condition. Such persons  have,
and  ought to have, other designs and desires also. For whereas  the
state  wherein they are antecedent unto their justification  is  not
only  a  state of guilt and wrath, but such also as wherein, through
the  depravation of their nature, the power of sin is  prevalent  in
them, and their whole souls are defiled, they design and desire  not
only  to  be justified, but to be sanctified also; but as  unto  the
guilt of sin, and the want of a righteousness before God, from which
justification is their relief, herein, I say, they have respect unto
Christ  as  "set  forth to be a propitiation through  faith  in  his
blood."  In  their design for sanctification they have respect  unto
the  kingly  and  prophetical offices of Christ, in  their  especial
exercise;  but as to their freedom from the guilt of sin, and  their
acceptance with God, or their justification in his sight,--that they
may  be  freed  from  condemnation, that  they  may  not  come  into
judgment,--it  is Christ crucified, it is Christ lifted  up  as  the
"brazen serpent" in the wilderness, it is the blood of Christ, it is
the  propitiation that he was and the atonement that he made, it  is
his  bearing their sins, his being made sin and the curse for  them,
it  is  his  obedience,  the end which he  put  unto  sin,  and  the
everlasting  righteousness which he brought  in,  that  alone  their
faith  does  fix  upon and acquiesce in. If it be otherwise  in  the
experience of any, I acknowledge I am not acquainted with it.  I  do
not  say that conviction of sin is the only antecedent condition  of
actual  justification; but this it is that makes a sinner "subjectum
capax justificationis". No man, therefore, is to be considered as  a
person  to be justified, but he who is actually under the  power  of
the  conviction  of sin, with all the necessary consequent  thereof.
Suppose, therefore, any sinner in this condition, as it is described
by the apostle, Rom.3, "guilty before God," with his "mouth stopped"
as unto any pleas, defenses, or excuses; suppose him to seek after a
relief and deliverance out of this estate,--that is, to be justified
according  to the gospel,--he neither does nor can wisely  take  any
other  course  than  what  he is there directed  unto  by  the  same
apostle,  verses  20-20, "Therefore by the deeds of  the  law  there
shall  no  flesh be justified in his sight; for by the  law  is  the
knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without  the  law
is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the
righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and
upon all them that believe; for there is no difference: for all have
sinned,  and come short of the glory of God; being justified  freely
by  his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;  whom
God  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." Whence I argue,--
   That which a guilty, condemned sinner, finding no hope nor relief
from the law of God, the sole rule of all his obedience, does retake
himself  unto by faith, that he may be delivered or justified,--that
is the especial object of faith as justifying. But this is the grace
of  God  alone, through the redemption that is in Christ; or  Christ
proposed  as a propitiation through faith in his blood. Either  this
is  so,  or  the  apostle  does  not  aright  guide  the  souls  and
consciences of men in that condition wherein he himself  does  place
them. It is the blood of Christ alone that he directs the faith unto
of  all  them that would be justified before God. Grace, redemption,
propitiation, all through the blood of Christ, faith does peculiarly
respect  and  fix upon. This is that, if I mistake not,  which  they
will  confirm  by  their  experience  who  have  made  any  distinct
observation  of  the  acting of their faith in  their  justification
before God.
   (2.)  The  Scripture  plainly declares that faith  as  justifying
respects  the sacerdotal office and acting of Christ alone.  In  the
great  representation of the justification of the church of old,  in
the  expiatory  sacrifice, when all their sins and  iniquities  were
pardoned, and their persons accepted with God, the acting  of  their
faith was limited unto the imposition of all their sins on the  head
of  the  sacrifice  by the high priest, Lev.16. "By  his  knowledge"
(that is, by faith in him) "shall my righteous servant justify many;
for  he  shall bear their iniquities", Isa.53:11. That  alone  which
faith  respects in Christ, as unto the justification of sinners,  is
his  "bearing their iniquities". Guilty, convinced sinners look unto
him  by faith, as those who were stung with "fiery serpents" did  to
the  "brazen serpent,"--that is, as he was lifted up on  the  cross,
John  3:14,15.  So did he himself express the nature and  acting  of
faith in our justification. Rom.3:24,25, "Being justified freely  by
his  grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God
has  set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood."  As
he  is  a  propitiation, as he shed his blood for  us,  as  we  have
redemption  thereby, he is the peculiar object of  our  faith,  with
respect unto our justification. See to the same purpose, Rom.5:9,10;
Eph.1:7; Col.1:14; Eph.2:13-16; Rom.8:3,4. "He we made sin  for  us,
who  knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God  in
him,"  2 Cor.5:21. That which we seek after in justification,  is  a
participation  of  the  righteousness  of  God;--to  be   made   the
righteousness  of God, and that not in ourselves,  but  in  another;
that is, in Christ Jesus. And that alone which is proposed unto  our
faith as the means and cause of it, is his being made sin for us, or
a  sacrifice for sin; wherein all the guilt of our sins was laid  on
him, and he bare all our iniquities. This therefore, is its peculiar
object  herein. And wherever, in the Scripture, we are  directed  to
seek  for the forgiveness of sins by the blood of Christ, to receive
the  atonement,  to  be  justified  through  the  faith  of  him  as
crucified,  the  object  of faith in justification  is  limited  and
determined.
   But it may be pleaded, in exception unto the testimonies, that no
one  of them does affirm that we are justified by faith in the blood
of  Christ  alone, so as to exclude the consideration of  the  other
offices of Christ and their acting from being the object of faith in
the  same manner and unto the same ends with his sacerdotal  office,
and what belongs thereunto, or is derived from it.
   Answer. This exception derives from that common objection against
the  doctrine  of justification by faith alone,--namely,  that  that
exclusive term alone is not found in the Scripture, or in any of the
testimonies that are produced for justification by faith. But it  is
replied,  with sufficient evidence of truth, that although the  word
be  not  found  syllabically used unto this purpose, yet  there  are
exceptive   expressions  equivalent  unto  it;  as  we   shall   see
afterwards.  It is so in this particular instance also; for,--First,
Where our justification is expressly ascribed unto our faith in  the
blood of Christ as the propitiation for our sins, unto our believing
in  him  as  crucified for us, and it is nowhere ascribed  unto  our
receiving  of  him as King, Lord, or Prophet, it is plain  that  the
former   expressions   are  virtually  exclusive   of   the   latter
consideration. Secondly, I do not say that the consideration of  the
kingly  and  prophetical offices of Christ  is  excluded.  from  our
justification,  as works are excluded in opposition unto  faith  and
grace: for they are so excluded, as there we are to exercise an  act
of our minds in their positive rejection, as saying, "Get you hence,
you have no lot nor portion in this matter;" but as to these offices
of Christ, as to the object of faith as justifying, we say only that
they are not included therein. For, so to believe to be justified by
his  blood,  as to exercise a positive act of the mind, excluding  a
compliance with his other offices, is an impious imagination.
   (3.)  Neither the consideration of these offices themselves,  nor
any  of  the peculiar acts of them, is suited to give the souls  and
consciences of convinced sinners that relief which they  seek  after
in  justification. We are not, in this whole cause, to lose  out  of
our eye the state of the person who is to be justified, and what  it
is  he does seek after, and ought to seek after, therein. Now,  this
is  pardon  of  sin,  and  righteousness  before  God  alone.  That,
therefore, which is no way suited to give or tender this relief unto
him,  is  not,  nor can be, the object of his faith  whereby  he  is
justified,  in  that  exercise of it whereon his justification  does
depend. This relief, it will be said, is to be had in Christ  alone.
It  is  true; but under what consideration? For the whole design  of
the  sinner  is, how he may be accepted with God, be at  peace  with
him, have all his wrath turned away, by a propitiation or atonement.
Now,  this  can no otherwise be done but by the acting of  some  one
towards  God and with God on his behalf; for it is about the turning
away  of  God's anger, and acceptance with him, that the inquiry  is
made. It is by the blood of Christ that we are "made nigh," who were
"far  off," Eph.2:13. By the blood of Christ are we reconciled,  who
were  enemies, verse 16. By the blood of Christ we have  redemption,
Rom.3:24,25; Eph.1:7; etc. This, therefore, is the object of faith.
   All  the actings of the kingly and prophetical offices of  Christ
are  all of them from God; that is, in the name and authority of God
towards us. Not any one of them is towards God on our behalf  so  as
that  by  virtue of them we should expect acceptance with God.  They
are  all  good,  blessed,  holy in themselves,  and  of  an  eminent
tendency  unto the glory of God in our salvation: yea, they  are  no
less  necessary  unto our salvation, to the praise of  God's  grace,
than  are the atonement for sin and satisfaction which he made;  for
from  them  is the way of life revealed unto us, grace communicated,
our  persons  sanctified,  and  the reward  bestowed.  Yea,  in  the
exercise  of his kingly power does the Lord Christ both  pardon  and
justify  sinners. Not that he did as a king constitute  the  law  of
justification;  for  it  was  given and  established  in  the  first
promise, and he came to put it in execution, John 3:16; but  in  the
virtue  of  his atonement and righteousness, imputed unto  them,  he
does  both pardon and justify sinners. But they are the acts of  his
sacerdotal office alone, that respect God on our behalf. Whatever he
did  on earth with God for the church, in obedience, suffering,  and
offering  up of himself; whatever he does in heaven, in intercession
and  appearance  in  the presence of God, for us;  it  all  entirely
belongs unto his priestly office. And in these things alone does the
soul  of  a  convinced  sinner  find  relief  when  he  seeks  after
deliverance  from  the  state of sin, and acceptance  with  God.  In
these, therefore, alone the peculiar object of his faith, that which
will  give  him  rest and peace, must be comprised.  And  this  last
consideration   is,   of  itself,  sufficient  to   determine   this
difference.
   Sundry things are objected against this assertion, which I  shall
not  here at large discuss, because what is material in any of  them
will  occur on other occasions, where its consideration will be more
proper. In general it may be pleaded, that justifying faith  is  the
same with saving faith: nor is it said that we are justified by this
or  that  part of faith, but by faith in general; that is, as  taken
essentially,  for the entire grace of faith. And as  unto  faith  in
this  sense, not only a respect unto Christ in all his offices,  but
obedience  itself  also is included in it; as  is  evident  in  many
places of the Scripture. Wherefore, there is no reason why we should
limit  the object of it unto the person of Christ as acting  in  the
discharge  of  his  sacerdotal office, with the effects  and  fruits
thereof.
   Answer 1. Saving faith and justifying faith, in any believer, are
one  and the same; and the adjuncts of saving and justifying are but
external  denominations, from its distinct operations  and  effects.
But  yet  saving  faith does act in a peculiar  manner,  and  is  of
peculiar use in justification, such as it is not of under any  other
consideration whatever. Wherefore,--2. Although saving faith, as  it
is  described in general, do ever include obedience, not as its form
or  essence, but as the necessary effect is included in  the  cause,
and the fruit in the fruit-bearing juice; and is often mentioned  as
to  its  being  and  exercise where there is no express  mention  of
Christ,  his blood, and his righteousness, but is applied  unto  all
the acts, duties, and ends of the gospel; yet this proves not at all
but  that, as unto its duty, place, and acting in our justification,
it  has  a  peculiar  object.  If it could  be  proved,  that  where
justification  is ascribed unto faith, that there it has  any  other
object  assigned unto it, as that which it rested in for the  pardon
of  sin  and acceptance with God, this objection were of some force;
but this cannot be done. 3. This is not to say that we are justified
by  a part of faith, and not by it as considered essentially; for we
are  justified  by  the  entire grace of faith,  acting  in  such  a
peculiar way and manner, as others have observed. But the truth  is,
we  need not insist on the discussion of this inquiry; for the  true
meaning  of it is, not whether any thing of Christ is to be excluded
from  being  the  object of justifying faith, or  of  faith  in  our
justification;  but, what in and of ourselves,  under  the  name  of
receiving  Christ  as our Lord and King, is to be admitted  unto  an
efficiency  or  conditionality in that work. As it is  granted  that
justifying  faith  is the receiving of Christ, so  whatever  belongs
unto the person of Christ, or any office of his, or any acts in  the
discharge of any office, that may be reduced unto any cause  of  our
justification,  the  meritorious, procuring,  material,  formal,  or
manifesting  cause of it, is, so far as it does so, freely  admitted
to  belong  unto  the  object of justifying faith.  Neither  will  I
contend with any upon this disadvantageous stating of the question,-
-What  of  Christ is to be esteemed the object of justifying  faith,
and  what  is  not so? For the thing intended is only this,--Whether
our  own obedience, distinct from faith, or included in it,  and  in
like  manner as faith, be the condition of our justification  before
God? This being that which is intended, which the other question  is
but  invented  to  lead unto a compliance with, by a  more  specious
pretence than in itself it is capable of, under those terms it shall
be examined, and no otherwise.





IV.  Of  justification; the notion and signification of the Word  in
Scripture

The  proper  sense of these words, justification,  and  to  justify,
considered--Necessity thereof--Latin derivation  of  justification--
Some  of  the  ancients deceived by it --From "jus",  and  "justum";
"justus filius", who--The Hebrew "hitsdik"--Use and signification of
it--Places  where  it  is  used  examined,  2  Sam.15:4;  Deut.25:1;
Prov.17:15;  Isa.5:23;  50:8,9; 1 Kings  8:31,32;  2  Chron.6:22,23;
Ps.82:3;  Exod.23:7;  Job 27:5; Isa.53:11; Gen.44:16;  Dan.12:3--The
constant sense of the word evinced--"Diakaio-oo", use of it in other
authors,  to  punish--What it is in the New  Testament,  Matt.11:19;
12:37; Luke 7:29; 10:29; 16:15; 18:14; Acts 13:38,39; Rom.2:13; 3:4-
-Constantly  used  in  a  forensic  sense--Places  seeming  dubious,
vindicated,  Rom.8:30; 1 Cor.6:11; Tit.3:5-7;  Rev.22:11--How  often
these  words,  "diakaio-oo" and "dikaioumai", are used  in  the  New
Testament--Constant  sense of this--The same evinced  from  what  is
opposed  unto  it, Isa.1:8,9; Prov.17:15; Rom.5:116,18; 8:33,34--And
the  declaration  of it in terms equivalent, Rom.4:6,11;  5:9,10;  2
Cor.5:20,21; Matt.1:21; Acts 13:39; Gal.2:16, etc.--Justification in
the  Scripture, proposed under a juridical scheme, and of a forensic
title--The parts and progress of it--Inferences from the whole


Unto  the  right  understanding of the nature of justification,  the
proper   sense   and   signification  of  these  words   themselves,
justification and to justify, is to be inquired into; for until that
is  agreed upon, it is impossible that our discourses concerning the
thing  itself  should  be  freed from equivocation.  Take  words  in
various senses, and all may be true that is contradictorily affirmed
or  denied concerning what they are supposed to signify; and  so  it
has  actually  fallen out in this case, as we shall see  more  fully
afterwards.  Some taking these words in one sense, some in  another,
have  appeared  to deliver contrary doctrines concerning  the  thing
itself,  or our justification before God, who yet have fully agreed,
in  what the proper determinate sense or signification of the  words
does  import;  and  therefore the true  meaning  of  them  has  been
declared  and  vindicated already by many.  But  whereas  the  right
stating  hereof is of more moment unto the determination of what  is
principally  controverted about the doctrine itself,  or  the  thing
signified, than most do apprehend, and something at least remains to
be  added for the declaration and vindication of the import and only
signification  of  these words in the Scripture,  I  shall  give  an
account of my observations concerning it with what diligence I can.
   The  Latin derivation and composition of the word "justificatio,"
would   seem   to   denote   an  internal   change   from   inherent
unrighteousness unto righteousness likewise inherent, by a  physical
motion  and transmutation, as the schoolmen speak; for such  is  the
signification  of words of the same composition. So  sanctification,
mortification,  vivification, and the like, do  all  denote  a  real
internal  work on the subject spoken of. Hereon, in the whole  Roman
school, justification is taken for justifaction, or the making of  a
man  to  be inherently righteous, by the infusion of a principle  or
habit of grace, who was before inherently and habitually unjust  and
unrighteous. Whilst this is taken to be the proper signification  of
the  word, we neither do nor can speak, ad idem, in our disputations
with them about the cause and nature of that justification which the
Scripture teaches.
  And this appearing sense of the word possibly deceived some of the
ancients, as Austin in particular, to declare the doctrine of  free,
gratuitous  sanctification, without respect unto any  works  of  our
own, under the name of justification; for neither he nor any of them
ever thought of a justification before God, consisting in the pardon
of  our  sins  and the acceptation of our persons as  righteous,  by
virtue  of any inherent habit of grace infused into us, or acted  by
us.   Wherefore  the  subject-matter  must  be  determined  by   the
scriptural use and signification of these words, before we can speak
properly or intelligibly concerning it: for if to justify men in the
Scripture,   signify  to  make  them  subjectively  and   inherently
righteous, we must acknowledge a mistake in what we teach concerning
the  nature and causes of justification; and if it signify  no  such
thing, all their disputations about justification by the infusion of
grace,  and  inherent  righteousness thereon, fall  to  the  ground.
Wherefore,  all  Protestants (and the Socinians all of  them  comply
therein) do affirm, that the use and signification of these words is
forensic,  denoting an act of jurisdiction. Only the Socinians,  and
some  others,  would have it to consist in the pardon of  sin  only;
which,  indeed, the word does not at all signify. But the  sense  of
the  word  is,  to  assoil,  to acquit,  to  declare  and  pronounce
righteous upon a trial; which, in this case, the pardon of sin  does
necessarily accompany.
   "Justificatio" and "justifico" belong not, indeed, unto the Latin
tongue, nor can any good author be produced who ever used them,  for
the making of him inherently righteous, by any means, who was not so
before.  But whereas these words were coined and framed  to  signify
such  things  as  are  intended, we have no  way  to  determine  the
signification of them, but by the consideration of the nature of the
things which they were invented to declare and signify. And whereas,
in  this  language, these words are derived from "jus" and "justum,"
they  must  respect an act of jurisdiction rather  than  a  physical
operation  or infusion. "Justificari" is "justus censeri, pro  justo
haberi;"--to be esteemed, accounted, or adjudged righteous. So a man
was  made  "justus filius," in adoption, unto him  by  whom  he  was
adopted,  which,  what  it is, is well declared  by  Budaeus,  Cajus
lib.2, F. de Adopt. De Arrogatione loquens: "Is qui adoptat rogatur,
id  est, interrogatur, an velit eum quem adopturus sit, justum  sibi
filium  esse.  Justum", says he, "intelligo, non  verum,  ut  aliqui
censent, sed omnibus partibus, ut ita dicam, filiationis, veri filii
vicem  obtinentem,  naturalis  et  legitimi  filii  loco  sedentem".
Wherefore, as by adoption there is no internal inherent change  made
in  the  person  adopted, but by virtue thereof he is  esteemed  and
adjudged as a true God, and has all the rights of a legitimate  son;
so by justification, as to the importance of the word, a man is only
esteemed,  declared,  and  pronounced  righteous,  as  if  he   were
completely  so. And in the present case justification and gratuitous
adoption  are the same grace, for the substance of them, John  1:12;
only,  respect is had, in their different denomination of  the  same
grace, unto different effects or privileges that ensue thereon.
   But  the true and genuine signification of these words is  to  be
determined  from  those in the original languages of  the  Scripture
which are expounded by them. In the Hebrew it is "tsadak". This  the
LXX  render by "Dikaion apofainoo", Job 27:5; "Dikaios anafainomai",
chap.13:18;  "Dikaion krinoo", Prov.17:15;to  show  or  declare  one
righteous; to appear righteous; to judge any one righteous. And  the
sense  may  be taken from any one of them, as Job 13:18,  "Hinneh-na
'arakti mishpat yada'ti ki-'ani 'etsdak"--Behold, now I have ordered
my  cause;  I know that I shall be justified." The ordering  of  his
cause  (his judgment), his cause to be judged on, is his preparation
for a sentence, either of absolution or condemnation: and hereon his
confidence  was,  that he should be justified;  that  is,  absolved,
acquitted,  pronounced righteous. And the sense is no less  pregnant
in  the  other  places.  Commonly, they render  it  by  "dikaio-oo",
whereof I shall speak afterwards.
   Properly,  it denotes an action towards another (as justification
and  to justify do) in Hiphil only; and a reciprocal action of a man
on  himself in Hithpael, "hitstadak". Hereby alone is the true sense
of  these words determined. And I say, that in no place, or  on  any
occasion,  is  it  used in that conjugation wherein  it  denotes  an
action  towards another, in any other sense but to absolve,  acquit,
esteem,  declare,  pronounce righteous, or to impute  righteousness;
which  is the forensic sense of the word we plead for,--that is  its
constant  use  and signification, nor does it ever once  signify  to
make  inherently righteous, much less to pardon or forgive: so  vain
is  the  pretence of some, that justification consist  only  in  the
pardon  of sin, which is not signified by the word in any one  place
of  Scripture.  Almost  in  all  places  this  sense  is  absolutely
unquestionable; nor is there any more than one which will  admit  of
any  debate, and that on so faint a pretence as cannot prejudice its
constant  use  and  signification in  all  other  places.  Whatever,
therefore, an infusion of inherent grace may be, or however  it  may
be  called, justification it is not, it cannot be; the word  nowhere
signifying any such thing. Wherefore those of the church of Rome  do
not so much oppose justification by faith through the imputation  of
the righteousness of Christ, as, indeed, deny that there is any such
thing   as  justification:  for  that  which  they  call  the  first
justification, consisting in the infusion of a principle of inherent
grace,   is  no  such  thing  as  justification:  and  their  second
justification,  which  they place in the  merit  of  works,  wherein
absolution or pardon of sin has neither place nor consideration,  is
inconsistent  with  evangelical  justification;  as  we  shall  show
afterwards.
   This  word, therefore, whether the act of God towards men, or  of
men  towards  God,  or of men among themselves, or  of  one  towards
another,  be expressed thereby, is always used in a forensic  sense,
and   does   not  denote  a  physical  operation,  transfusion,   or
transmutation. 2 Sam.15:4, "If any man has a suit or cause, let  him
come  to me," "wehitsdaktiw", "and I will do him justice;"--"I  will
justify  him, judge in his cause, and pronounce for him." Dent.25:1,
"If  there  be a controversy among men, and they come unto judgment,
that  the  judges  may judge them," "wehitsdiku  et-hatsdik",  "they
shall  justify  the  righteous;" pronounce  sentence  on  his  side:
whereunto  is  opposed,  "wehirshi'u  et-harasha"  "and  they  shall
condemn  the  wicked;" make him wicked, as the word signifies;--that
is, judge, declare, and pronounce him wicked; whereby he becomes  so
judicially,  and  in  the  eye of the law,  as  the  other  is  made
righteous  by  declaration and acquitment. He does  not  say,  "This
shall  pardon the righteous;" which to suppose would overthrow  both
the antithesis and design of the place. And "hirshia" is as much  to
infuse  wickedness into a man, as "hitsdik" is to infuse a principle
of  grace  or  righteousness into him. The same  antithesis  occurs,
Prov.17:15, "matsdik rasha umarshia tsadik"--"He that justifieth the
wicked, and condemneth the righteous." Not he that makes the  wicked
inherently  righteous,  not  he that  changes  him  inherently  from
unrighteous  unto  righteousness; but he that, without  any  ground,
reason, or foundation, acquits him in judgment, or declares  him  to
be  righteous, "is an abomination unto the LORD." And although  this
be  spoken of the judgment of men, yet the judgment of God  also  is
according  unto this truth: for although he justified the ungodly,--
those  who  are so in themselves,--yet he does it on the ground  and
consideration of a perfect righteousness made theirs by  imputation;
and  by another act of his grace, that they may be meet subjects  of
this  righteous  favour,  really and inherently  changes  them  from
unrighteousness unto holiness, by the renovation of  their  natures.
And  these things are singular in the actings of God, which  nothing
amongst  men  has  any resemblance unto or can  represent;  for  the
imputation  of the righteousness of Christ unto a person in  himself
ungodly,  unto  his  justification, or that  he  may  be  acquitted,
absolved, and declared righteous, is built on such foundations,  and
proceeds   on   such  principles  of  righteousness,   wisdom,   and
sovereignty, as have no place among the actions of men, nor can have
so;  as  shall afterwards be declared. And, moreover, when God  does
justify  the  ungodly,  on the account of the righteousness  imputed
unto  him,  he does at the same instant, by the power of his  grace,
make  him  inherently and subjectively righteous or holy; which  men
cannot  do  one  towards  another.  And  therefore,  whereas   man's
justifying  of the wicked is to justify them in their  wicked  ways,
whereby  they are constantly made worse, and more obdurate in  evil;
when   God   justifies  the  ungodly,  their  change  from  personal
unrighteousness and unholiness unto righteousness and holiness  does
necessarily and infallibly accompany it.
  To the same purpose is the word used, Isa.5:23, "Which justify the
wicked for reward;" and chap. 50:8,9, "karov matsdiki"--"He is  near
that justifieth me; who will contend with me? Let us stand together:
who is mine adversary? Let him come near to me. Behold, the Lord GOD
will  help  me;  who  shall  condemn  me?"  Where  we  have  a  full
declaration of the proper sense of the word; which is, to acquit and
pronounce  righteous  on  a  trial. And  the  same  sense  is  fully
expressed  in the former antithesis. 1 Kings 8:31,32,  "If  any  man
trespass  against  his neighbour, and an oath be laid  upon  him  to
cause  him  to swear, and the oath come before thine altar  in  this
house;  then  hear thou in heaven, and do, and judge thy  servants,"
"leharchi'a rasha" "to condemn the wicked," to charge his wickedness
on  him,  to bring his way on his head, "ulhatsdik tsadik", "and  to
justify   the   righteous."  The  same   words   are   repeated,   2
Chron.6:22,23.  Ps.82:3, "ani warash hatsdiku"--"Do justice  to  the
afflicted  and  poor;" that is, justify them in their cause  against
wrong  and  oppression. Exod.23:7, "lo-'atsdik rasha"--"I  will  not
justify  the  wicked;" absolve, acquit, or pronounce him  righteous.
Job 27:5, "chalilah li im-atsdik etchem"--"Be it far from me that  I
should  justify you," or pronounce sentence on your side as  if  you
were  righteous. Isa.53:11, "By his knowledge my righteous servant,"
"yatsdik",  "shall justify many:" the reason whereof is added,  "For
he  shall  bear  their iniquities;" whereon they  are  absolved  and
justified
   Once  it  is  used  in Hithpael, wherein a reciprocal  action  is
denoted, that whereby a man justifies himself. Gen.44:16, "And Judah
said,  What shall we say unto my lord? What shall we speaks?" "Umah-
nitstadak", "and how shall we justify ourselves? God has  found  out
our  iniquity." They could plead nothing why they should be absolved
from guilt.
   Once  the  participle is used to denote the outward  instrumental
cause of the justification of others; in which place alone there  is
any  doubt  of its sense. Dan.12:3, "Umatsdikei harabim"--"And  they
that justify many," namely, in the same sense that the preachers  of
the gospel are said "to save themselves and others," 1 Tim.4:16; for
men  may be no less the instrumental causes of the justification  of
others than of their sanctification.
   Wherefore, although "tsadak" in Kal signifies "justum esse",  and
sometimes   "juste   agere,"   which  may   relate   unto   inherent
righteousness, yet where any action towards another is denoted, this
word  signifies  nothing  but  to esteem,  declare,  pronounce,  and
adjudge  any one absolved, acquitted, cleared, justified: there  is,
therefore, no other kind of justification once mentioned in the  Old
Testament.
   "Dikaio-oo"  is  the word used to the same  purpose  in  the  New
Testament,  and that alone. Neither is this word used  in  any  good
author  whatever  to signify the making of a man  righteous  by  any
applications to produce internal righteousness in him; but either to
absolve  and acquit, to judge, esteem, and pronounce righteous;  or,
on  the contrary, to condemn. So Suidas, "Dikaioun duo deloi, to  te
koladzein, kai to dikaion nomidzein"--"It has two significations; to
punish, and to account righteous." And he confirms this sense of the
word  by  instances  out of Herodotus, Appianus, and  Josephus.  And
again,   "Dikaioosai,  aitiatikei,  katadikasai,  kolasai,   dikaion
nomisai"  with  an accusative case; that is, when  it  respects  and
affects a subject, a person, it is either to condemn and punish,  or
to  esteem and declare righteous: and of this latter sense he  gives
pregnant  instances in the next words. Hesychius mentions  only  the
first   signification.   "Dikaioumenon,  koladzomenon,   dikaioosai,
kolasai". They never thought of any sense of this word but  what  is
forensic.  And, in our language, to be justified was  commonly  used
formerly  for to be judged and sentenced; as it is still  among  the
Scots.  One of the articles of peace between the two nations at  the
surrender of Leith, in the days of Edward VI, was, "That if any  one
committed  a  crime, he should be justified by  the  law,  upon  his
trial."  And, in general, "dikaousthai" is "jus in judicio auferre;"
and "dikaioosai" is "justum censere, declarare pronuntiare;" and how
in  the  Scripture  it is constantly opposed unto  "condemnare,"  we
shall see immediately.
   But  we may more distinctly consider the use of this word in  the
New  Testament, as we have done that of "hitsdik" in  the  Old.  And
that  which we inquire concerning is,--whether this word be used  in
the  New  Testament  in  a  forensic sense,  to  denote  an  act  of
jurisdiction; or in a physical sense, to express an internal  change
or  mutation,--the  infusion of a habit of  righteousness,  and  the
denomination  of the person to be justified thereon; or  whether  it
signifies  not pardon of sin. But this we may lay aside: for  surely
no  man  was  ever  yet so fond as to pretend that  "dikaio-oo"  did
signify  to  pardon sin, yet is it the only word applied to  express
our  justification in the New Testament; for if it be taken only  in
the  former  sense, then that which is pleaded for by those  of  the
Roman  church  under  the  name of justification,  whatever  it  be,
however  good, useful, and necessary, yet justification it  is  not,
nor  can  be  so  called, seeing it is a thing quite of  another  or
nature  than  what  alone  is signified by  that  word.  Matt.11:19,
"Edikaioothe he Sofia",--"Wisdom is justified of her children;"  not
made  just,  but approved and declared. Chap.12:37, "E, toon  logoon
sou dikaioothesei"--"By thy words thou shalt be justified;" not made
just by them, but judged according to them, as is manifested in  the
antithesis,  "kai ek toon logoon sou katadikasthesei"--"and  by  thy
words thou shalt be condemned." Luke 7:29, "Edikaioosan ton Theon"--
"They  justified  God;"  not, surely, by  making  him  righteous  in
himself,  but  by owning, avowing, and declaring his  righteousness.
Chap.10:29,  "Ho  de  theloon  dikaioun  heauton"--"He,  willing  to
justify himself;" to declare and maintain his own righteous ness. To
the  same purpose, chap.16:15, "Hemeis este hoi dikaiountes heautous
enoopion  toon  enthroopoon"--"Ye are they which justify  yourselves
before men;" they did not make themselves internally righteous,  but
approved  of  their own condition, as our Saviour  declares  in  the
place,   chap.18:14,   the  publican  went   down   "dedikaioomenos"
(justified) unto his house; that is, acquitted, absolved,  pardoned,
upon the confession of his sin, and supplication for remission. Acts
13:38,39,  with Rom.2:13, "Hoi poietai tou nomou dikaioothesontai"--
"The  doers  of  the  law shall be justified."  The  place  declares
directly  the nature of our justification before God, and  puts  the
signification of the word out of question; for justification  ensues
as  the  whole effect of inherent righteousness according  unto  the
law: and, therefore, it is not the making of us righteous, which  is
irrefragable. It is spoken of God, Rom.3:4, "Hopoos an  dikaiootheis
en  tois  logois  sou"--"That  thou mightest  be  justified  in  thy
sayings;" where to ascribe any other sense to the word is blasphemy.
In like manner the same word is used, and in the same signification,
1  Cor.4:4; 1 Tim.3:16; Rom.3:20,26,28,30; 4:2,5; 5:1,9; 6:7;  8:30;
Gal.2:16,17; 3:11,24; 5:4; Tit.3:7; James 2:21,24,25; and in no  one
of  these  instances  can  it admit of any other  signification,  or
denote the making of any man righteous by the infusion of a habit or
principle of righteousness, or any internal mutation whatever.
   It  is not, therefore, in many places of Scripture, as Bellarmine
grants,  that  the  words  we  have  insisted  on  do  signify   the
declaration  or juridical pronunciation of any one to be  righteous;
but, in all places where they are used, they are capable of no other
but  a  forensic sense; especially is this evident where mention  is
made  of justification before God. And because, in my judgment, this
one  consideration  does sufficiently defeat all  the  pretences  of
those of the Roman church about the nature of justification, I shall
consider what is excepted against the observation insisted  on,  and
remove it out of our way.
   Lud. de Blanc, in his reconciliatory endeavors on this article of
justification, ("Thes. de Usu et Acceptatione Vocis, Justificandi,")
grants  unto the Papists that the word "dikaio-oo" does,  in  sundry
places  of  the  New Testament, signify to renew,  to  sanctify,  to
infuse  a  habit  of  holiness or righteousness, according  as  they
plead.  And  there  is no reason to think but he has  grounded  that
concession  on  those instances which are most pertinent  unto  that
purpose; neither is it to be expected that a better countenance will
be  given  by any unto this concession than is given it  by  him.  I
shall therefore examine all the instances which he insists upon unto
this purpose, and leave the determination of the difference unto the
judgment of the reader. Only, I shall premise that which I judge not
an  unreasonable demand,--namely, that if the signification  of  the
word,  in  any  or  all  the places which he mentions,  should  seem
doubtful unto any (as it does not unto me), that the uncertainty  of
a   very   few  places  should  not  make  us  question  the  proper
signification of a word whose sense is determined in so many wherein
it  is clear and unquestionable. The first place he mentions is that
of  the  apostle  Paul  himself, Rom.8:30, "moreover,  whom  he  did
predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he  also
justified;  and  whom  he justified, them he  also  glorified".  The
reason  whereby  he  pleads that by "justified" in  this  place,  an
internal work of inherent holiness in them that are predestinated is
designed, is this, and no other: "It is not," says he, "likely  that
the  holy apostle, in this enumeration of gracious privileges, would
omit  the mention of our sanctification, by which we are freed  from
the  service  of  sin, and adorned with true internal  holiness  and
righteousness. But this is utterly omitted, if it be  not  comprised
under  the name and title of being justified; for it is absurd  with
some to refer it unto the head of glorification."
   Ans.  1.  The  grace of sanctification, whereby our  natures  are
spiritually washed, purified, and endowed with a principle of  life,
holiness,  and  obedience  unto God, is a  privilege  unquestionably
great  and  excellent, and without which none can be saved;  of  the
same  nature,  also, is our redemption by the blood of  Christ;  and
both  these  does  this  apostles in other  places  without  number,
declare,  commend,  and  insist upon: but  that  he  ought  to  have
introduced  the  mention of them or either of them  in  this  place,
seeing he has not done so, I dare not judge.
   2.  If  our sanctification be included or intended in any of  the
privileges  here  expressed, there is none of  them,  predestination
only excepted, but it is more probably to be reduced unto, than unto
that of being justified. Indeed, in vocation it seems to be included
expressly.  For whereas it is effectual vocation that  is  intended,
wherein  a  holy  principle of spiritual life, or faith  itself,  is
communicated  unto  us,  our sanctification radically,  and  as  the
effect in it adequate immediate cause, is contained in it. Hence, we
are  said  to "be called to be saints," Rom.1:7; which is  the  same
with  being  "sanctified in Christ Jesus," 1 Cor.1:2.  And  in  many
other places is sanctification included in vocation.
   3. Whereas our sanctification, in the infusion of a principle  of
spiritual  life, and the acting of it unto an increase in duties  of
holiness, righteousness, and obedience, is that whereby we are  made
meet  for  glory, and is of the same nature essentially  with  glory
itself,  whence  its advances in us are said to be  from  "glory  to
glory," 2 Cor.3:18; and glory itself is called the "grace of  life,"
l  Pet.3:7: it is much more properly expressed by our being  gloried
than  by  being  justified, which is a privilege  quite  of  another
nature. However, it is evident that there is no reason why we should
depart  from  the  general use and signification  of  the  word,  no
circumstance in the text compelling us so to do.
   The  next  place  that he gives up unto this signification  is  l
Cor.6:11,  "Such  were some of you: but ye are washed,  but  ye  are
sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus,  and
by  the Spirit of our God." That by justification here, the infusion
of  an  inherent principle of grace, making us inherently righteous,
is  intended, he endeavours to prove by three reasons:--1.  "Because
justification  is  here  ascribed  unto  the  Holy  Ghost:  'Ye  are
justified  by the Spirit of our God' But to renew us is  the  proper
work  of  the Holy Spirit." 2. "It is manifest," he says,  "that  by
justification   the  apostle  does  signify  some  change   in   the
Corinthians,  whereby they ceased to be what they were  before.  For
they  were fornicators and drunkards, such at could not inherit  the
kingdom  of God; but now were changed: which proves a real  inherent
work  of  grace to be intended." 3. "If justification  here  signify
nothing  but  to be absolved from the punishment of  sin,  then  the
reasoning of the apostle will be infirm and frigid: for after he has
said  that which is greater, as heightening of it, he adds the less;
for  it  is  more  to  be washed than merely to be  freed  from  the
punishment of sin."
   Ans.  1.  All these reasons prove not that it is the same  to  be
sanctified and to be justified; which must be, if that be the  sense
of  the  latter which is here pleaded for. But the apostle makes  an
express  distinction  between them, and, as  this  author  observes,
proceeds  from one to another, by an ascent from the lesser  to  the
greater.  And  the  infusion of a habit or principle  of  grace,  or
righteousness  evangelical, whereby we are inherently righteous,  by
which  he  explains  our  being justified  in  this  place,  is  our
sanctification,  and nothing else. Yea, and sanctification  is  here
distinguished  from  washing,--"But  ye  are  washed,  but  ye   are
sanctified;" so as that it peculiarly in this place denotes positive
habits  of grace and holiness: neither can he declare the nature  of
it  any  way  different from what he would have expressed  by  being
justified.
   2.  Justification  is ascribed unto the Spirit  of  God,  as  the
principal efficient cause of the application of the grace of God and
blood  of  Christ,  whereby we are justified,  unto  our  souls  and
consciences;  and  he  is  so also of the operation  of  that  faith
whereby  we  are  justified: whence, although  we  are  said  to  be
justified  by  him,  yet it does not follow that  our  justification
consists in the renovation of our natures.
   3. The change and mutation that was made in these Corinthians, so
far as it was physical, in effects inherent (as such there was), the
apostle expressly ascribes unto their washing and sanctification; so
that  there  is  no need to suppose this change to be  expressed  by
their being justified. And in the real change asserted--that is,  in
the  renovation  of our natures--consists the true entire  work  and
nature  of our sanctification. But whereas, by reason of the vicious
habits   and   practices  mentioned,  they  were  in  a   state   of
condemnation, and such as had no right unto the kingdom  of  heaven,
they were by their justification changed and transferred out of that
state into another, wherein they had peace with God, and right  unto
life eternal.
   4. The third reason proceeds upon a mistake,--namely, that to  be
justified  is only to be "freed from the punishment due  unto  sin;"
for  it  comprises both the non-imputation of sin and the imputation
of righteousness, with the privilege of adoption, and right unto the
heavenly inheritance, which are inseparable from it. And although it
does  not  appear  that  the apostle, in the  enumeration  of  these
privileges,  did intend a process from the lesser unto the  greater;
nor  is  it  safe for us to compare the unutterable effects  of  the
grace   of   God  by  Christ  Jesus,  such  as  sanctification   and
justification are, and to determine which is greatest and  which  is
least;  yet,  following the conduct of the Scripture,  and  the  due
consideration of the things themselves, we may say that in this life
we  can be made partakers of no greater mercy or privilege than what
consists in our justification. And the reader may see from hence how
impossible  it  is  to  produce  any one  place  wherein  the  words
"justification", and "to justify", dos signify a real internal  work
and  physical operation, in that this learned man, a person of  more
than  ordinary  perspicacity, candour, and  judgment,  designing  to
prove  it,  insisted on such instances as give so little countenance
unto  what  he  pretended.  He adds, Tit.3:5-7,  "Not  by  works  of
righteousness  which we have done, but according  to  his  mercy  he
saved  us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the  Holy
Ghost;  which  he  shed on us abundantly through  Jesus  Christ  our
Saviour; that, being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs
according to the hope of eternal life." The argument which he  alone
insists  upon  to prove that by justification here, an  infusion  of
internal  grace  is  intended, is this:--that the apostle  affirming
first,  that "God saved us, according unto his mercy, by the washing
of  regeneration,  and renewing of the Holy Ghost,"  and  afterwards
affirming  that  we  are "justified by his grace,"  he  supposes  it
necessary that we should be regenerate and renewed, that we  may  be
justified; and if so, then our justification contains and  comprises
our sanctification also.
   Ans.  The plain truth is, the apostle speaks not one word of  the
necessity  of our sanctification, or regeneration, or renovation  by
the  Holy  Ghost, antecedently unto our justification; a supposition
whereof contains the whole force of this argument. Indeed he assigns
our  regeneration, renovation, and justification, all the  means  of
our  salvation, all equally unto grace and mercy, in opposition unto
any works of our own; which we shall afterwards make use of. Nor  is
there intimated by him any order of precedency or connection between
the  things  that  he mentions, but only between  justification  and
adoption,  justification having the priority  in  order  of  nature:
"That, being justified by his grace, we should be heirs according to
the   hope  of  eternal  life."  All  the  things  he  mentions  are
inseparable. No man is regenerate or renewed by the Holy Ghost,  but
withal  he  is  justified;--no man is justified, but  withal  he  is
renewed  by  the  Holy Ghost. And they are all of  them  equally  of
sovereign   grace  in  God,  in  opposition  unto   any   works   of
righteousness that we have wrought. And we plead for the freedom  of
God's  grace  in  sanctification no less than in justification.  But
that  it is necessary that we should be sanctified, that we  may  be
justified  before God, who justifies the ungodly, the  apostle  says
not in this place, nor any thing to that purpose; neither yet, if he
did  so,  would  it  at  all prove that the  signification  of  that
expression  "to  be justified," is "to be sanctified,"  or  to  have
inherent  holiness  and  righteousness  wrought  in  us:  and  these
testimonies would not have been produced to prove it, wherein  these
things are so expressly distinguished, but that there are none to be
found of more force or evidence.
   The  last place wherein he grants this signification of the  word
"dikaio-oo",  is  Rev.22:11,  "Ho dikaios  dikaioothetoo  eti"--"Qui
justus  est, justificetur adhuc"; which place is pleaded by all  the
Romanists.  And  our  author  says  they  are  but  few  among   the
Protestants who do not acknowledge that the word cannot be here used
in  a  forensic sense, but that to be justified, is  to  go  on  and
increase in piety and righteousness.
   Ans. But,--(1.) There is a great objection lies in the way of any
argument from these words,--namely, from the various reading of  the
place;  for  many ancient copies read, not "Ho dikaios dikaioothetoo
eti",   which   the  Vulgar  renders  "Justificetur   adhuc;"   but,
"Dikaiosunen  poiesatoo  eti"--"Let  him  that  is  righteous   work
righteousness still," as does the printed copy which now lies before
me.  So  it  was  in  the copy of the Complutensian  edition,  which
Stephens  commends  above all others, and in one more  ancient  copy
that  he  used.  So  it  is in the Syrian and  Arabic  published  by
Hutterus,  and in our own Polyglot. So Cyprian reads the words,  "De
bono patientiae; justus autem adhuc justior faciat, similiter et qui
sanctus  sanctiora". And I doubt not but that it is the true reading
of  the place, "dikaioothetoo" being supplied by some to comply with
"hagiasthetoo" that ensues. And this phrase of "dikaiosunen  poiein"
is  peculiar  unto  this  apostle, being nowhere  used  in  the  New
Testament (nor, it may be, in any other author) but by him.  And  he
uses  it expressly, 1 Epist.2, 29, and chap.3, 7, where these words,
"Ho  poioon dikaiosunen, dikaios esti", do plainly contain  what  is
here expressed. (2.) To be justified, as the word is rendered by the
Vulgar, "Let him be justified more" (as it must be rendered, if  the
word  "dikaioothetoo" be retained), respects an act  of  God,  which
neither in its beginning nor continuation is prescribed unto us as a
duty,  nor  is  capable of increase in degrees;  as  we  shall  show
afterwards.  (3.)  Men  are  said to  be  "dikaioi"  generally  from
inherent   righteousness;   and  if   the   apostle   had   intended
justification  in this place, he would not have said  "ho  dikaios",
but  "ho  dikaiootheis". All which things prefer the  Complutensian,
Syrian, and Arabic, before the Vulgar reading of this place. If  the
Vulgar reading be retained, no more can be intended but that he  who
is righteous should so proceed in working righteousness as to secure
his justified estate unto himself, and to manifest it before God and
the world.
   Now,  whereas  the  words "dikaio-oo" and "dikaioumai"  are  used
thirty-six  times  in the New Testament, these are  all  the  places
whereunto   any   exception  is  put  in  against   their   forensic
signification; and how ineffectual these exceptions are, is  evident
unto any impartial judge.
   Some other considerations may yet be made use of, and pleaded  to
the  same  purpose.  Such is the opposition  that  is  made  between
justification  and  condemnation. So is it, Isa.50:8,9;  Prov.17:15;
Rom.5:16,18; 8:33,34; and in sundry other places, as may be observed
in  the preceding enumeration of them. Wherefore, as condemnation is
not  the  infusing  of  a  habit  of wickedness  into  him  that  is
condemned,  nor  the making of him to be inherently wicked  who  was
before righteous, but the passing a sentence upon a man with respect
unto his wickedness; no more is justification the change of a person
from inherent unrighteousness unto righteousness, by the infusion of
a  principle of grace, but a sentential declarations of  him  to  be
righteous.
   Moreover,  the  thing  intended is  frequently  declared  in  the
Scripture  by other equivalent terms, which are absolutely exclusive
of  any  such sense as the infusion of a habit of righteousness;  so
the apostle expresses it by the "imputation of righteousness without
works," Rom.4:6,11; and calls it the "blessedness" which we have  by
the  "pardon  of sin" and the "covering of iniquity,"  in  the  same
place. So it is called "reconciliation with God," Rom.5:9,10. To  be
"justified  by  the  blood  of  Christ"  is  the  same  with   being
"reconciled  by his death". "Being now justified by  his  blood,  we
shall  be saved from wrath by him. For if, when we were enemies,  we
were  reconciled  to God by the death of his Son; much  more,  being
reconciled,  we  shall  be saved by his life."  See  2  Cor.5:20,21.
Reconciliation  is  not the infusion of a habit of  grace,  but  the
effecting of peace and love, by the removal of all enmity and causes
of  offense.  To  "save," and "salvation,"  are  used  to  the  same
purpose.  "He shall save his people from their sins," Matt.1:21,  is
the  same  with  "By  him all that believe are  justified  from  all
things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses,"
Acts  13:39. That of Gal.2:16, "We have believed, that we  might  be
justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the  law,"
is the same with Acts 15:11, "But we believe that, through the grace
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  we shall  be  saved,  even  as  they."
Eph.2:8,9,  "By  grace  are ye saved through  faith;....and  not  of
works," is so to be justified. So it is expressed by pardon, or  the
"remission  of  sins,"  which is the effect  of  it,  Rom.4:5,6;  by
"receiving the atonement," chap.5:1l; not "coming into judgment"  or
"condemnation,"  John  5:24; "blotting  out  sins  and  iniquities,"
Isa.43:26;  Ps.51:9; Isa.44:22; Jer.18:23; Acts 3:19; "casting  them
into   the  bottom  of  the  sea,"  Micah  7:19;  and  sundry  other
expressions of an alike importance. The apostle declaring it by  its
effects, says, "Dikaioi katastathesontai hoi polloi"--"Many shall be
made  righteous,"  Rom.5:19.  "Dikaios  kathistatai",  [he  is  made
righteous]  who on a juridical trial in open court, is absolved  and
declared righteous.
  And so it may be observed that all things concerning justification
are  proposed in the Scripture under a juridical scheme, or forensic
trial  and  sentence.  As,--(1.)  A  judgment  is  supposed  in  it,
concerning which the psalmist prays that it may not proceed  on  the
terms  of  the  law,  Ps.143:2.  (2.)  The  judge  is  God  himself,
Isa.50:7,8;  Rom.8:33.  (3.)  The  tribunal  whereon  God  sits   in
judgment,  is the "throne of grace," Heb.4:16. "Therefore  will  the
LORD  wait, that he may be gracious unto you; and therefore will  he
be  exalted, that he may have mercy upon you; for the LORD is a  God
of  judgment," Isa.30:18. (4.) A guilty person. This is the  sinner,
who is "hupodikos tooi Theooi",--so guilty of sin as to be obnoxious
to  the  judgment  of God; "tooi dikaioomati tou  Theou",  Rom.3:19;
1:32,--whose mouth is stopped by conviction. (5.) Accusers are ready
to  propose and promote the charge against the guilty person;--these
are  the  law, John 5:45; and conscience, Rom.2:15; and Satan  also,
Zech.3:1; Rev.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, Col.2:14. (7.)  A
plea  is  prepared in the gospel for the guilty person; and this  is
grace,  through the blood of Christ, the ransom paid, the  atonement
made  the  eternal  righteousness brought in by the  surety  of  the
covenant,  Rom.3:23-25; Dan.9:24; Eph.1:7. (8.) Hereunto  alone  the
sinner   retakes   himself,  renouncing  all  other   apologies   or
defensatives  whatever, Ps.130:2,3; 143:2; Job 9:2,3;  42:5-7;  Luke
18:13;   Rom.3:24,25;  5:11,16-19;  8:1-3,32,33;  Isa.53:5,6;   Heb.
9:13-15;  10:1-13; 1 Pet.2:24; 1 John 1:7. Other plea for  a  sinner
before  God  there  is none. He who knows God and himself  will  not
provide or retake himself unto any other. Nor will he, as I suppose,
trust  unto  any other defense, were he sure of all  the  angels  in
heaven  to plead for him. (9.) To make this plea effectual, we  have
an  advocate with the Father, and he pleads his own propitiation for
us,  1  John 2:1,2. (10.) The sentence hereon is absolution, on  the
account  of  the  ransom, blood, or sacrifice and  righteousness  of
Christ;  with acceptation into favour, as persons approved  of  God,
Job   33:24;   Ps.32:1,2;   Rom.3:23-25;  8:1,33,34;   2   Cor.5:21;
Gal.3:13,14.
   Of  what use the declaration of this process in the justification
of a sinner may be, has been in some measure before declared. And if
many did seriously consider that all these things do concur, and are
required,  unto the justification of every one that shall be  saved,
it  may be they would not have such slight thoughts of sin, and  the
way  of deliverance from the guilt of it, as they seem to have. From
this  consideration did the apostle learn that "terror of the Lord,"
which  made him so earnest with men to seek after reconciliation,  2
Cor.5:10,11.
   I  had not so long insisted on the signification of the words  in
the  Scripture, but that a right understanding of it does  not  only
exclude the pretences of the Romanists about the infusion of a habit
of  charity from being the formal cause of our justification  before
God,  but may also give occasion unto some to take advice, into what
place or consideration they can dispose their own personal, inherent
righteousness in their justification before him.




V. The distinction of a first and second justification examined--The
continuation of justification:--whereon it does depend

Distinction of a first and second justification--The whole  doctrine
of  the  Roman  church  concerning justification  grounded  on  this
distinction--The first justification, the nature and causes  of  it,
according unto the Romanists--The second justification, what  it  is
in  their sense--Solution of the seeming difference between Paul and
James,  falsely pretended by this distinction--The same  distinction
received by the Socinians and others--The latter termed by some  the
continuation  of  our  justification--The  distinction   disproved--
Justification  considered,  either  as  unto  its  essence  or   its
manifestation--The manifestation of it twofold, initial and  final--
Initial  is either unto ourselves or others--No second justification
hence ensues--Justification before God, legal and evangelical--Their
distinct natures--The distinction mentioned derogatory to the  merit
of Christ--More in it ascribed unto ourselves than unto the blood of
Christ,  in  our justification--The vanity of disputations  to  this
purpose--All  true justification overthrown by this  distinction--No
countenance  given  unto this justification  in  the  Scripture--The
second  justification  not intended by the  apostle  James--Evil  of
arbitrary distinctions--Our first justification so described in  the
Scripture  as to leave no room for a second--Of the continuation  of
our justification; whether it depend on faith alone, or our personal
righteousness, inquired--Justification at once completed, in all the
causes  and  effects of it, proved at large--Believers,  upon  their
justification, obliged unto perfect obedience--The commanding  power
of  the  law  constitutes the nature of sin  in  them  who  are  not
obnoxious unto its curse--Future sins, in what sense remitted at our
first  justification--The continuation of actual pardon, and thereby
of  a  justified  estate;  on what it does  depend--Continuation  of
justifications the act of God; whereon it depends in that  sense--On
our  part, it depends on faith alone--Nothing required hereunto  but
the  application of righteousness imputed--The continuation  of  our
justification  is before God--That whereon the continuation  of  our
justification depends, pleadable before God--This not  our  personal
obedience,  proved:--1.  By  the  experience  of  all  believers--2.
Testimonies  of  Scripture--3. Examples--The  distinction  mentioned
rejected


Before  we  inquire  immediately  into  the  nature  and  causes  of
justification,   there  are  some  things  yet  previously   to   be
considered,  that  we may prevent all ambiguity and misunderstanding
about  the  subject  to be treated of. I say,  therefore,  that  the
evangelical justification, which alone we plead about, is  but  one,
and  is at once completed. About any other justification before  God
but  one,  we  will  not contend with any. Those who  can  find  out
another  may,  as they please, ascribe what they will  unto  it,  or
ascribe it unto what they will. Let us, therefore, consider what  is
offered of this nature.
   Those  of  the  Roman church do ground their  whole  doctrine  of
justification  upon  a distinction of a double justification;  which
they  call  the first and the second. The first justification,  they
say,  is  the  infusion or the communication unto us of an  inherent
principle  or habit of grace or charity. Hereby, they say,  original
sin  is  extinguished,  and all habits of  sin  are  expelled.  This
justification  they say is by faith; the obedience and  satisfaction
of  Christ  being  the  only meritorious cause thereof.  Only,  they
dispute many things about preparations for it, and dispositions unto
it. Under those terms the Council of Trent included the doctrine  of
the  schoolmen  about  "meritum  de congruo,"  as  both  Hosius  and
Andradius confess, in the defense of that council. And as  they  are
explained,  they  come  much  to one; however,  the  council  warily
avoided  the  name  of  merit with respect  unto  this  their  first
justification. And the use of faith herein (which with  them  is  no
more  but  a general assent unto divine revelation) is to  bear  the
principal  part in these preparations. So that to be  "justified  by
faith,"  according unto them, is to have the mind prepared  by  this
kind of believing to receive "gratiam gratum facientem",--a habit of
grace,  expecting sin and making us acceptable unto  God.  For  upon
this believing, with those other duties of contrition and repentance
which  must  accompany  it,  it is meet and  congruous  unto  divine
wisdom, goodness, and faithfulness, to give us that grace whereby we
are  justified. And this, according unto them, is that justification
whereof   the  apostle  Paul  treats  in  his  epistles,  from   the
procurement whereof he excludes all the works of the law. The second
justification  is  an effect or consequent hereof,  and  the  proper
formal  cause thereof is good works, proceeding from this  principle
of  grace  and  love.  Hence  are they the  righteousness  wherewith
believers are righteous before God, whereby they merit eternal life.
The  righteousness of works they call it; and suppose it  taught  by
the apostle James. This they constantly affirm to make us "justos ex
injustis;" wherein they are followed by others. For this is the  way
that  most of them take to salve the seeming repugnancy between  the
apostles  Paul  and  James.  Paul, they say,  treats  of  the  first
justification  only,  whence he excludes all works;  for  it  is  by
faith,  in  the  manner before described: but James  treats  of  the
second  justification; which is by good works. So  Bellar.,  lib.  2
cap.  16, and lib 4 cap. 18. And it is the express determination  of
those at Trent, sess. 6 cap. 10. This distinction was coined unto no
other  end but to bring in confusion into the whole doctrine of  the
gospel. Justification through the free grace of God, by faith in the
blood of Christ, is evacuated by it. Sanctification is turned into a
justification, and corrupted by making the fruits of it meritorious.
The  whole  nature of evangelical justification, consisting  in  the
gratuitous pardon of sin and the imputation of righteousness, as the
apostle expressly affirms, and the declaration of a believing sinner
to  be  righteous thereon, as the word alone signifies,  is  utterly
defeated by it.
   Howbeit  others have embraced this distinction also,  though  not
absolutely  in  their sense. So do the Socinians. Yea,  it  must  be
allowed,  in some sense, by all that hold our inherent righteousness
to be the cause of, or to have any influence into, our justification
before  God. For they do allow of a justification which in order  of
nature is antecedent unto works truly gracious and evangelical:  but
consequential unto such works there is a justification differing  at
least  in degree, if not in nature and kind, upon the difference  of
its  formal  cause; which is our new obedience from the former.  But
they  mostly  say it is only the continuation of our  justification,
and the increase of it as to degrees, that they intend by it. And if
they  may be allowed to turn sanctification into justification,  and
to  make a progress therein, or an increase thereof, either  in  the
root  or  fruit,  to be a new justification, they  may  make  twenty
justifications as well as two, for aught I know: for therein  the  "
inward  man  is  renewed day by day," 2 Cor.4:16; and  believers  go
"from  strength to strength," are "changed from glory to  glory,"  2
Cor.3:18,  by  the  addition  of one grace  unto  another  in  their
exercise,  2 Pet.1:5-8, and "increasing with the increase  of  God,"
Col.2:19,  do  in  all things "grow up into him who  is  the  head,"
Eph.4:15.  And  if  their  justification consist  herein,  they  are
justified anew every day. I shall therefore do these two things:--1.
Show  that this distinction is both unscriptural and irrational.  2.
Declare  what is the continuation of our justification, and  whereon
it does depend.
  1. Justification by faith in the blood of Christ may be considered
either  as  to  the  nature  and essence  of  it,  or  as  unto  its
manifestation and declaration. The manifestation of it is twofold:--
First,  Initial, in this life. Second, Solemn and complete,  at  the
day   of   judgment;   whereof  we  shall  treat   afterwards.   The
manifestation  of  it  in this life respects either  the  souls  and
consciences  of  them that are justified, or others;  that  is,  the
church   or  the  world.  And  each  of  these  have  the  name   of
justification  assigned  unto them, though  our  real  justification
before  God  be  always one and the same. But a man  may  be  really
justified before God, and yet not have the evidence or assurance  of
it  in his own mind; wherefore that evidence or assurance is not  of
the  nature  or essence of that faith whereby we are justified,  nor
does necessarily accompany our justification. But this manifestation
of  a  man's own justification unto himself, although it  depend  on
many especial causes, which are not necessary unto his justification
absolutely  before  God, is not a second justification  when  it  is
attained; but only the application of the former unto his conscience
by  the Holy Ghost. There is also a manifestation of it with respect
unto  others, which in like manner depends on other causes then does
our  justification before God absolutely; yet is  it  not  a  second
justification: for it depends wholly on the visible effects of  that
faith  whereby we are justified, as the apostle James instructs  us;
yet  is  it only one single justification before God, evidenced  and
declared, unto his glory, the benefit of others, and increase of our
own reward.
   There is also a twofold justification before God mentioned in the
Scripture.  First,  "By  the  works of  the  law,"  Rom.2:13;  10:5;
Matt.19:16-19. Hereunto is required an absolute conformity unto  the
whole  law  of God, in our natures, all the faculties of our  souls,
all  the  principles  of our moral operations, with  perfect  actual
obedience unto all its commands, in all instances of duty, both  for
matter  and manner: for he is cursed who continues not in all things
that  are written in the law, to do them; and he that break any  one
commandment  is  guilty of the breach of the whole  law.  Hence  the
apostle concludes that none can be justified by the law, because all
have  sinned.  Second, There is a justification  by  grace,  through
faith  in the blood of Christ; whereof we treat. And these  ways  of
justification   are   contrary,   proceeding   on   terms   directly
contradictory, and cannot be made consistent with or subservient one
to  the other. But, as we shall manifest afterwards, the confounding
of  them both, by mixing them together, is that which is aimed at in
this  distinction of a first and second justification. But  whatever
respects  it may have, that justification which we have before  God,
in  his sight through Jesus Christ, is but one, and at once full and
complete; and this distinction is a vain and fond invention. For,--
   (1.)  As  it  is  explained  by the Papists,  it  is  exceedingly
derogatory  to  the  merit of Christ; for it  leaves  it  no  effect
towards  us, but only the infusion of a habit of charity. When  that
is done, all that remains, with respect unto our salvation, is to be
wrought  by ourselves. Christ has only merited the first  grace  for
us,  that we therewith and thereby may merit life eternal. The merit
of Christ being confined in its effect unto the first justification,
it  has no immediate influence into any grace, privilege, mercy,  or
glory  that follows thereon; but they are all effects of that second
justification which is purely by works. But this is openly  contrary
unto  the  whole tenor of the Scripture: for although  there  be  an
order  of God's appointment, wherein we are to be made partakers  of
evangelical  privileges in grace and glory, one before another,  yet
are  they  all  of  them  the immediate effects  of  the  death  and
obedience  of  Christ; who has "obtained for us eternal redemption,"
Heb.9:12; and is "the author of eternal salvation unto all  that  do
obey  him," chap.5:9; "having by one offering forever perfected them
that are sanctified." And those who allow of a secondary, if not  of
a   second,   justification,   by   our   own   inherent,   personal
righteousnesses,  are also guilty hereof, though  not  in  the  same
degree  with  them; for whereas they ascribe unto it our  acquitment
from  all  charge  of  sin  after the  first  justification,  and  a
righteousness accepted in judgment, in the judgment of God, as if it
were complete and perfect, whereon depends our final absolution  and
reward,   it  is  evident  that  the  immediate  efficacy   of   the
satisfaction and merit of Christ has its bounds assigned unto it  in
the  first  justification;  which,  whether  it  be  taught  in  the
Scripture or no, we shall afterward inquire.
   (2.)  More,  by  this  distinction, is ascribed  unto  ourselves,
working  by  virtue  of  inherent  grace,  as  unto  the  merit  and
procurement  of spiritual and eternal good, than unto the  blood  of
Christ; for that only procures the first grace and justification for
us. Thereof alone it is the meritorious cause; or, as others express
it, we are made partakers of the effects of it in the pardon of sins
past: but, by virtue of this grace, we do ourselves obtain, procure,
or   merit,  another,  a  second,  a  complete  justification,   the
continuance  of the favour of God, and all the fruits  of  it,  with
life  eternal  and  glory. So do our works, at  least,  perfect  and
complete  the  merit of Christ, without which it is  imperfect.  And
those who assign the continuation of our justification, wherein  all
the  effects of divine favour and grace are contained, unto our  own
personal  righteousness, as also final justification before  God  as
the  pleadable cause of it, do follow their steps, unto the best  of
my  understanding.  But such things as these  may  be  disputed;  in
debates of which kind it is incredible almost what influence on  the
minds  of  men,  traditions, prejudices, subtlety of  invention  and
arguing, do obtain, to divert them from real thoughts of the  things
about which they contend, with respect unto themselves and their own
condition.  If  by  any means such persons can be called  home  unto
themselves,  and  find leisure to think how and by what  means  they
shall  come  to  appear before the high God, to be  freed  from  the
sentence  of the law, and the curse due to sin,--to have a pleadable
righteousness at the judgment-seat of God before which they stand,--
especially  if  a real sense of these things be implanted  on  their
minds  by the convincing power of the Holy Ghost,--all their  subtle
arguments  and pleas for the mighty efficacy of their  own  personal
righteousness will sink in their minds like water at the  return  of
the tide, and leave nothing but mud and defilement behind them.
   (3.) This distinction of two justifications, as used and improved
by those of the Roman church, leaves us, indeed, no justification at
all.  Something  there is, in the branches of it, of sanctification;
but  of justification nothing at all. Their first justification,  in
the infusion of a habit or principle of grace, unto the expulsion of
all habits of sin, is sanctification, and nothing else. And we never
did contend that our justification in such a sense, if any will take
it  in  such  a  sense,  does  consist  in  the  imputation  of  the
righteousness of Christ. And this justification, if any  will  needs
call it so, is capable of degrees, both of increase in itself and of
exercise in its fruits; as was newly declared. But, not only to call
this  our  justification, with a general respect unto the notion  of
the word, as a making of us personally and inherently righteous, but
to  plead that this is the justification through faith in the  blood
of  Christ  declared in the Scripture, is to exclude the only  true,
evangelical  justification from any place in  religion.  The  second
branch of the distinction has much in it like unto justification  by
the  law,  but nothing of that which is declared in the  gospel.  So
that  this  distinction, instead of coining us  two  justifications,
according to the gospel, has left us none at all. For,--
   (4.)  There is no countenance given unto this distinction in  the
Scripture. There is, indeed, mention therein, as we observed before,
of  a double justification,--the one by the law, the other according
unto the gospel; but that either of these should, on any account, be
sub-distinguished  into a first and second of the  same  kind,--that
is,  either according unto the law or the gospel,--there is  nothing
in  the Scripture to intimate. For this second justification  is  no
way  applicable  unto  what  the apostle James  discourses  on  that
subject. He treats of justification; but speaks not one word  of  an
increase  of it, or addition unto it, of a first or second. Besides,
he speaks expressly of him that boasts of faith; which being without
works,  is a dead faith. But he who has the first justification,  by
the  confession of our adversaries, has a true, living faith, formed
and  enlivened by charity. And he uses the same testimony concerning
the  justification of Abraham that Paul does; and therefore does not
intend another, but the same, though in a diverse respect. Nor  does
any  believer  learn  the least of it in his  own  experience;  nor,
without a design to serve a farther turn, would it ever have entered
the  minds of sober men on the reading of the Scripture. And  it  is
the  bane  of spiritual truth, for men, in the pretended declaration
of  it, to coin arbitrary distinctions, without Scripture ground for
them, and obtrude them as belonging unto the doctrine they treat of.
They  serve unto no other end or purpose but only to lead the  minds
of  men item the substance of what they ought to attend unto, and to
engage  all sorts of persons in endless strifes and contentions.  If
the  authors of this distinction would but go over the places in the
Scripture where mention is made of our justification before God, and
make  a  distribution  of them into the respective  parts  of  their
distinction,  they would quickly find themselves at an  unbelievable
loss.
   (5.)  There  is  that in the Scripture ascribed  unto  our  first
justification, if they will needs call it so, as leaves no room  for
their  second  feigned justification; for the  sole  foundation  and
pretence  of this distinction is a denial of those things to  belong
unto  our  justification by the blood of Christ which the  Scripture
expressly  assigns unto it. Let us take out some instances  of  what
belongs unto the first, and we shall quickly see how little  it  is,
yea,   that   there  is  nothing  left  for  the  pretended   second
justification. For,--[1.] Therein do we receive the complete "pardon
and  forgiveness of our sins," Rom.4:6,7; Eph.1:7; 4:32; Acts 26:18.
[2.] Thereby are we "made righteous," Rom.5:19; 10:4; and, [3.]  Are
freed  from  condemnation, judgment, and death, John 3:16,19;  5:25;
Rom.8:1; [4.] Are reconciled unto God, Rom.5:9,10; 2 Cor.5:21;  and,
[5.]  Have  peace  unto him, and access into the favour  wherein  we
stand  by  grace, with the advantages and consolations  that  depend
thereon  in  a  sense  of his love, Rom.5:1-5.  And,  [6.]  We  have
adoption  therewithal, and all its privileges, John  1:12;  and,  in
particular,  [7.]  A right and title unto the whole  inheritance  of
glory,  Acts  26:18; Rom.8:17. And, [8.] Hereon  eternal  life  does
follow,  Rom.8:30;  6:23.  Which things will  be  again  immediately
spoken unto upon another occasion. And if there be anything now left
for  their second justification to do, as such, let them take it  as
their own; these things are all of them ours, or do belong unto that
one  justification which we do assert. Wherefore it is evident, that
either  the first justification overthrows the second, rendering  it
needless;  or  the  second destroys the first, by taking  away  what
essentially belongs unto it: we must therefore part with the one  or
the  other,  for  consistent  they are not.  But  that  which  gives
countenance unto the fiction and artifice of this distinction, and a
great  many more, is a dislike of the doctrine of the grace of  God,
and  justification  from thence, by faith in the  blood  of  Christ;
which  some endeavour hereby to send out of the way upon a pretended
sleeveless  errand, whilst they dress up their own righteousness  in
its robes, and exalt it into the room and dignity thereof.
  2. But there seems to be more of reality and difficulty in what is
pleaded concerning the continuation of our justification; for  those
that are freely justified are continued in that state until they are
glorified.  By  justification they are really  changed  into  a  new
spiritual  state and condition, and have a new relation  given  them
unto God and Christ, unto the law and the gospel. And it is inquired
what  it  is whereon their continuation in this state does on  their
part  depend; or what is required of them that they may be justified
unto  the  end. And this, as some say, is not faith alone, but  also
the  works of sincere obedience. And none can deny but that they are
required of all them that are justified, whilst they continue  in  a
state   of  justification  on  this  side  glory,  which  next   and
immediately ensues thereunto; but whether, upon our justification at
first before God, faith be immediately dismissed from its place  and
office,  and  its  work be given over unto works,  so  as  that  the
continuation of our justification should depend on our own  personal
obedience,  and not on the renewed application of faith unto  Christ
and  his  righteousness, is worth our inquiry. Only,  I  desire  the
reader  to observe, that whereas the necessity of owning a  personal
obedience  in  justified persons is on all hands absolutely  agreed,
the seeming difference that is herein concerns not the substance  of
the  doctrine  of  justification, but the manner of  expressing  our
conceptions concerning the order of the disposition of God's  grace,
and  our  own  duty  unto edification; wherein I shall  use  my  own
liberty, as it is meet others should do theirs. And I shall offer my
thoughts hereunto in the ensuing observations:--
   (1.) Justification is such a work as is at once completed in  all
the  causes and the whole effect of it, though not as unto the  full
possession of all that it gives right and title unto. For,--[1.] All
our  sins, past, present, and to come, were at once imputed unto and
laid  upon Jesus Christ; in what sense we shall afterwards  inquire.
"He  was  wounded  for our transgressions, he was  bruised  for  our
iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his
stripes  are we healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we  have
turned  every one to his own way: and the LORD has made to  meet  on
him  the  iniquities of us all," Isa.53:5,6. "Who his own self  bare
our  sins  in his own body on the tree," 1 Pet.2:24. The  assertions
being  indefinite, without exception or limitation,  are  equivalent
unto universals. All our sins were on him, he bare them all at once;
and  therefore, once died for all. [2.] He did, therefore,  at  once
"finish  transgression, make an end of sin, make reconciliation  for
iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness," Dan.9:24. At once
he  expiated all our sins; for "by himself he purged our sins,"  and
then  "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,"  Heb.1:3.
And  "we  are  sanctified,"  or dedicated  unto  God,  "through  the
offering  of  the  body of Jesus Christ once for  all;  for  by  one
offering  he has perfected" (consummated, completed, as  unto  their
spiritual state) "them that are sanctified," Heb.10:10,14. He  never
will do more than he has actually done already, for the expiation at
all  our  sins  from  first to last; "for there  remaineth  no  more
sacrifice for sin". I do not say that hereupon our justification  is
complete, but only, that the meritorious procuring cause of  it  was
at  once completed, and is never to be renewed or repeated any more;
all the inquiry is concerning the renewed application of it unto our
souls  and  consciences, whether that be by faith alone, or  by  the
works  of  righteousness which we do. [3.] By our  actual  believing
with  justifying  faith, believing on Christ, or  his  name,  we  do
receive  him;  and thereby, on our first justifications  become  the
"sons  of  God," John 1:12; that is, "heirs of God, and joint  heirs
with Christ," Rom.8:17. Hereby we have a right unto, and an interest
in,  all  the  benefits of his mediation; which is  to  be  at  once
completely justified. For "in him we are complete," Col.2:10; for by
the  faith  that is in him we do "receive the forgiveness of  sins,"
and  a lot or "inheritance among all them that are sanctified," Acts
26:18;  being immediately "justified from all things, from which  we
could  not  be justified by the law," Acts 13:39; yea,  God  thereon
"blesseth  us  with  all spiritual blessings in heavenly  things  in
Christ,"  Eph.1:3. All these things are absolutely inseparable  from
our  first believing in him; and therefore our justification  is  at
once  complete. In particular,--[4.] On our believing, all our  sins
are  forgiven.  "He  has  quickened you together  with  him,  having
forgiven  you  all trespasses," Col.2:13-15. For  "in  him  we  have
redemption  through  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of   sins,
according  unto the riches of his grace," Eph.1:7; which  one  place
obviates all the petulant exceptions of some against the consistency
of the free grace of God in the pardon of sins, and the satisfaction
of Christ in the procurement thereof [5.] There is hereon nothing to
be  laid unto the charge of them that are so justified; for "he that
believeth   has   everlasting  life,  and  shall   not   come   into
condemnation,  but is passed from death unto life," John  5:24.  And
"who  shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?  It  is  God
that justifieth; it is Christ that died," Rom.8:33,34. And "there is
no  condemnation unto them that are in Christ Jesus," verse 1;  for,
"being  justified by faith, we have peace with God," chap.5:1.  And,
[6.]  We  have that blessedness hereon whereof in this life  we  are
capable,   chap.4:5,6.  From  all  which   it   appears   that   our
justification is at once complete. And, [7.] It must be  so,  or  no
man can be justified in this world. For no time can be assigned, nor
measure of obedience be limited, whereon it may be supposed that any
one  comes  to be justified before God, who is not so on  his  first
believing;  for the Scripture does nowhere assign any such  time  or
measure. And to say that no man is completely justified in the sight
of  God in this life, is at once to overthrow all that is taught  in
the  Scriptures concerning justification, and wherewithal all  peace
with  God  and  comfort of believers. But a man acquitted  upon  his
legal  trial  is at once discharged of all that the law has  against
him.
  (2.) Upon this complete justifications, believers are obliged unto
universal  obedience  unto  God.  The  law  is  not  abolished,  but
established, by faith. It is neither abrogated nor dispensed  withal
by  such an interpretation as should take off its obligation in  any
thing  that it requires, nor as to the degree and manner wherein  it
requires  it. Nor is it possible it should be so; for it is  nothing
but the rule of that obedience which the nature of God and man makes
necessary from the one to the other. And that is an Antinomianism of
the  worst  sort,  and most derogatory unto the law  of  God,  which
affirms  it  to  be  divested of its power to  oblige  unto  perfect
obedience, so as that what is not so shall (as it were in despite of
the  law)  be accepted as if it were so, unto the end for which  the
law  requires  it. There is no medium, but that either  the  law  is
utterly abolished, and so there is no sin, for where there is no law
there is no transgression, or it must be allowed to require the same
obedience  that it did at its first institution, and unto  the  same
degree.  Neither is it in the power of any man living  to  keep  his
conscience from judging and condemning that, whatever it be, wherein
he  is  convinced that he comes short of the perfection of the  law.
Wherefore,--
   (3.)  The  commanding power of the law in positive  precepts  and
prohibitions,  which justified persons are subject unto,  does  make
and  constitute all their unconformities unto it to be no less truly
and  properly sins in their own nature, than they would be if  their
persons were obnoxious unto the curse of it. This they are not,  nor
can  be;  for to be obnoxious unto the curse of the law, and  to  be
justified,  are contradictory; but to be subject to the commands  of
the law, and to be justified, are not so. But it is a subjection  to
the  commanding power of the law, and not an obnoxiousness unto  the
curse  of  the  law,  that constitutes the  nature  of  sin  in  its
transgression. Wherefore, that complete justification  which  is  at
once,  though  it  dissolve  the  obligations  on  the  sinner  unto
punishment  by the curse of the law, yet does it not annihilate  the
commanding authority of the law unto them that are justified,  that,
what is sin in others should not be so in them. See Rom.8:1,33,34.
  Hence, in the first justification of believing sinners, all future
sins  are  remitted as unto any actual obligation unto the curse  of
the  law,  unless  they should fall into such sins as  should,  ipso
facto,  forfeit their justified estate, and transfer them  from  the
covenant of grace into the covenant of works; which we believe  that
God, in his faithfulness, will preserve them from. And although  sin
cannot be actually pardoned before it be actually committed, yet may
the  obligation  unto the curse of the law be virtually  taken  away
from  such  sins  in  justified persons as  are  consistent  with  a
justified   estate,  or  the  terms  of  the  covenant   of   grace,
antecedently unto their actual commission. God at once in this sense
"forgiveth  all  their iniquities, and health  all  their  diseases,
redeemeth  their  life  from destruction,  and  crowneth  them  with
loving-kindness and tender mercies," Ps.103:3,4. Future sins are not
so  pardoned  as that, when they are committed, they  should  be  no
sins;  which cannot be, unless the commanding power of  the  law  be
abrogated:  but their respect unto the curse of the  law,  or  their
power to oblige the justified person thereunto, is taken away.
   Still  there  abides the true nature of sin in every unconformity
unto  or transgression of the law in justified persons, which stands
in need of daily actual pardon. For there is "no man that liveth and
sinneth  not;" and "if we say that we have no sin, we do but deceive
ourselves."  None are more sensible of the guilt of  sin,  none  are
more troubled for it, none are more earnest in supplications for the
pardon of it, than justified persons. For this is the effect of  the
sacrifice  of  Christ applied unto the souls of  believers,  as  the
apostle declares Heb.10:1-4,10,14, that it does take away conscience
condemning  the sinner for sin, with respect unto the curse  of  the
law;  but  it does not take away conscience condemning  sin  in  the
sinner, which, on all considerations of God and themselves,  of  the
law  and  the gospel, requires repentance on the part of the sinner,
and actual pardon on the part of God.
   Where, therefore, one essential part of justification consists in
the  pardon of our sins, and sins cannot be actually pardoned before
they  are  actually committed, our present inquiry is,  whereon  the
continuation  of our justification does depend, notwithstanding  the
interveniency of sin after we are justified, whereby such  sins  are
actually  pardoned,  and our persons are continued  in  a  state  of
acceptation  with  God, and have their right  unto  life  and  glory
uninterrupted?  Justification is at once complete in the  imputation
of  a perfect righteousness, the grant of a right and title unto the
heavenly  inheritance, the actual pardon of all past sins,  and  the
virtual  pardon  of future sin; but how or by what  means,  on  what
terms  and  conditions, this state is continued unto those  who  are
once  justified,  whereby their righteousness is everlasting,  their
title  to  life  and  glory indefeasible, and  all  their  sins  are
actually pardoned, is to be inquired.
   For  answer  unto  this  inquiry I say,--(1.)  "It  is  God  that
justifieth;"  and, therefore, the continuation of our  justification
is  his act also. And this, on his part, depends on the immutability
of  his  counsel; the unchangeableness of the everlasting  covenant,
which is "ordered in all things, and sure;" the faithfulness of  his
promises;  the  efficacy  of  his  grace;  his  complacency  in  the
propitiation of Christ; with the power of his intercession, and  the
irrevocable grant of the Holy Ghost unto them that do believe: which
things are not of our present inquiry.
  (2.) Some say that, on our part, the continuation of this state of
our  justification depends on the condition of good works; that  is,
that  they  are of the same consideration and use with faith  itself
herein.  In  our  justification itself there is,  they  will  grant,
somewhat  peculiar unto faith; but as unto the continuation  of  our
justification, faith and works have the same influence into it; yea,
some seem to ascribe it distinctly unto works in an especial manner,
with  this only proviso, that they be done in faith. For my  part  I
cannot understand that the continuation of our justification has any
other dependencies than has our justification itself. As faith alone
is required unto the one, so faith alone is required unto the other,
although its operations and effects in the discharge of its duty and
office  in  justification, and the continuation of it, are  diverse;
nor  can it otherwise be. To clear this assertion two things are  to
be observed:--
    [1.]   That  the  continuation  of  our  justification  is   the
continuation  of the imputation of righteousness and the  pardon  of
sins.  I do still suppose the imputation of righteousness to  concur
unto  our  justification, although we have  not  yet  examined  what
righteousness  it  is  that  is  imputed.  But  that  God   in   our
justification  imputes  righteousness  unto  us,  is  so   expressly
affirmed  by the apostle as that it must not be called in  question.
Now  the first act of God in the imputation of righteousness  cannot
be  repeated; and the actual pardon of sin after justification is an
effect  and consequent of that imputation of righteousness.  If  any
man  sin,  there  is a propitiation: "Deliver him, I  have  found  a
ransom."  Wherefore,  unto  this  actual  pardon  there  is  nothing
required  but  the application of that righteousness  which  is  the
cause of it; and this is done by faith only.
   [2.]  The continuation of our justification is before God, or  in
the  sight  of God, no less than our absolute justification  is.  We
speak  not  of the sense and evidence of it unto our own souls  unto
peace  with God, nor of the evidencing and manifestation of it  unto
others by its effects, but of the continuance of it in the sight  of
God.  Whatever, therefore, is the means, condition, or cause hereof,
is  pleadable before God, and ought to be pleaded unto that purpose.
So, then, the inquiry is,--
   What  it  is that, when a justified person is guilty of  sin  (as
guilty  he is more or less every day), and his conscience is pressed
with  a  sense  thereof, as that only thing which  can  endanger  or
intercept his justified estate, his favour with God, and title  unto
glory,  he  retakes  himself  unto, or  ought  so  to  do,  for  the
continuance of his state and pardon of his sins, what he pleads unto
that purpose, and what is available thereunto? That this is not  his
own   obedience,  his  personal  righteousness,  or  fulfilling  the
condition   of  the  new  covenant,  is  evident,  from,--1st.   The
experience   of  believers  themselves;  2dly.  The   testimony   of
Scripture;  and, 3dly. The example of them whose cases are  recorded
therein:--
   1st. Let the experience of them that do believe be inquired into;
for  their consciences are continually exercised herein. What is  it
that  they  retake themselves unto, what is it that they plead  with
God  for  the  continuance of the pardon  of  their  sins,  and  the
acceptance  of  their  persons before  him?  Is  it  any  thing  but
sovereign grace and mercy, through the blood of Christ? Are not  all
the  arguments which they plead unto this end taken from the  topics
of   the  name  of  God,  his  mercy,  grace,  faithfulness,  tender
compassion, covenant, and promises,--all manifested and exercised in
and  through  the Lord Christ and his mediation alone? Do  they  not
herein  place  their only trust and confidence, for this  end,  that
their  sins  may  be pardoned, and their persons, though  every  way
unworthy in themselves, be accepted with God? Does any other thought
enter  into  their  hearts? Do they plead their  own  righteousness,
obedience, and duties to this purpose? Do they leave the  prayer  of
the  publican, and retake themselves unto that of the Pharisee?  And
is  it  not  of faith alone which is that grace whereby  they  apply
themselves  unto the mercy or grace of God through the mediation  of
Christ. It is true that faith herein works and acts itself in and by
godly  sorrow, repentance, humiliation, self judging and abhorrence,
fervency in prayer and supplications, with a humble waiting  for  an
answer  of  peace from God, with engagements unto renewed obedience:
but  it  is  faith alone that makes applications unto grace  in  the
blood  of  Christ  for  the continuation or  our  justified  estate,
expressing  itself in those other ways and effects  mentioned;  from
none of which a believing soul does expect the mercy aimed at.
  3dly. The Scripture expressly does declare this to be the only way
of  the  continuation  of our justification, 1  John  3:1,2,  "These
things  write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any  man  sin,  we
have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he
is  the propitiation for our sins." It is required of those that are
justified that they sin not,--it is their duty not to sin;  but  yet
it  is not so required of them, as that if in any thing they fail of
their  duty,  they  should immediately lose the privilege  of  their
justification. Wherefore, on a supposition of sin, if  any  man  sin
(as there is no man that lives and sins not), what way is prescribed
for  such  persons to take, what are they to apply  themselves  unto
that  their  sin  may  be pardoned, and their  acceptance  with  God
continued; that is, for the continuation of their justification? The
course  in this case directed unto by the apostle is none other  but
the  application of our souls by faith unto the Lord Christ, as  our
advocate with the Father, on the account of the propitiation that he
has made for our sins. Under the consideration of this double act of
his  sacerdotal  office, his oblation and intercession,  he  is  the
object of our faith in our absolute justification; and so he  is  as
unto  the continuation of it. So our whole progress in our justified
estate, in all the degrees of it, is ascribed unto faith alone.
   It  is no part of our inquiry, what God requires of them that are
justified.  There is no grace, no duty, for the substance  of  them,
nor  for the manner of their performance, that are required,  either
by the law or the gospel, but they are obliged unto them. Where they
are omitted, we acknowledge that the guilt of sin is contracted, and
that  attended with such aggravations as some will not own or  allow
to  be  confessed unto God himself. Hence, in particular, the  faith
and  grace  of  believers, [who] do constantly and  deeply  exercise
themselves  in godly sorrow, repentance, humiliation  for  sin,  and
confession of it before God, upon their apprehensions of its  guilt.
And  these duties are so far necessary unto the continuation at  our
justification,  as that a justified estate cannot consist  with  the
sins  and vices that are opposite unto then; so the apostle  affirms
that  "if we live after the flesh, we shall die," Rom.8:13. He  that
does  not  carefully avoid falling into the fire or water, or  other
things  immediately destructive of life natural,  cannot  live.  But
these are not the things whereon life does depend. Nor have the best
of  our  duties  any  other  respect unto the  continuation  of  our
justification,  but  only  as in them we are  preserved  from  those
things  which are contrary unto it, and destructive of it.  But  the
sole  question  is, upon what the continuation of our  justification
does  depend, not concerning what duties are required of us  in  the
way  of  our  obedience. If this be that which is intended  in  this
position, that the continuation of our justification depends on  our
own  obedience  and good works, or that our own obedience  and  good
works  are the condition of the continuation of our justification,--
namely, that God does indispensably require good works and obedience
in   all  that  are  justified,  so  that  a  justified  estate   is
inconsistent with the neglect of them,--it is readily granted, and I
shall  never contend with any about the way whereby they  choose  to
express  the conceptions of their minds. But if it be inquired  what
it  is  whereby  we  immediately concur in a way of  duty  unto  the
continuation  of our justified estate,--that is, the pardon  of  our
sins  and  acceptance with God,--we say it is faith alone; for  "The
just shall live by faith," Rom.1:17. And as the apostle applies this
divine testimony to prove our first or absolute justification to  be
by  faith  alone; so does be also apply it unto the continuation  of
our  justification,  as  that  which is  by  the  same  means  only,
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
that  draw  back  unto perdition; but of them that  believe  to  the
saving of the soul". The drawing back to perdition includes the loss
of  a  justified estate, really so or in profession.  In  opposition
whereunto  the  apostle places "believing unto  the  saving  of  the
soul;" that is, unto the continuation of justification unto the end.
And  herein  it is that the "just live by faith; " and the  loss  of
this life can only be by unbelief: so the "life which we now live in
the  flesh we live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved us, and
gave  himself for us," Gal.2:20. The life which we now lead  in  the
flesh   is  the  continuation  of  our  justification,  a  life   of
righteousness and acceptation with God; in opposition unto a life by
the works of the law, as the next words declare, verse 21, "I do not
frustrate  the grace of God; for if righteousness come by  the  law,
then  is  Christ dead in vain." And this life is by faith in Christ,
as  "he  loved us, and gave himself for us;" that is, as  he  was  a
propitiation for our sins. This, then, is the only way,  means,  and
cause,  on  our  part,  of the preservation of  this  life,  of  the
continuance  of our justification; and herein are we  "kept  by  the
power   of  God  through  faith  unto  salvation."  Again;  if   the
continuation  of  our  justification depends on  our  own  works  of
obedience, then is the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us  only
with   respect  unto  our  justification  at  first,  or  our  first
justification, as some speak. And this, indeed, is the  doctrine  of
the Roman school. They teach that the righteousness of Christ is  so
far  imputed unto us, that on the account thereof God gives unto  us
justifying grace, and thereby the remission of sin, in their  sense;
whence  they  allow  it  [to  be]  the  meritorious  cause  of   our
justification.  But so a supposition thereof, or  the  reception  of
that grace, we are continued to be justified before God by the works
we perform by virtue of that grace received. And though some of them
rise  so high as to affirm that this grace and the works of it  need
no  farther respect unto the righteousness of Christ, to deserve our
second justification and life eternal, as does Vasquez expressly, in
1,  2, q. 114, disp. 222, cap. 3; yet many of them affirm that it is
still from the consideration of the merit of Christ that they are so
meritorious. And the same, for the substance of it, is the  judgment
of  some of them who affirm the continuation of our justification to
depend on our own works, setting aside that ambiguous term of merit;
for  it is on the account of the righteousness of Christ, they  say,
that our own works, or imperfect obedience, is so accepted with God,
that the continuation of our justification depends thereon. But  the
apostle  gives  us  another  account  hereof,  Rom.5:1-3;   for   he
distinguishes three things:--1. Our access into the grace of God. 2.
Our  standing in that grace. 3. Our glorying in that station against
all   opposition.   By   the   first  he  expresses   our   absolute
justification;  by  the  second,  our  continuation  in  the   state
whereinto  we are admitted thereby; and by the third, the  assurance
of  that  continuation, notwithstanding all the oppositions we  meet
withal.  And  all these he ascribes equally unto faith, without  the
intermixture  of  any  other cause or condition;  and  other  places
express to the same purpose might be pleaded.
   3dly.  The examples of them that did believe, and were justified,
which  are recorded in the Scripture, do all bear witness  unto  the
same  truth. The continuation of the justification of Abraham before
God  is  declared  to  have been by faith  only,  Rom.4:3;  for  the
instance  of his justification, given by the apostle from  Gen.15:6,
was  long  after  he  was justified absolutely.  And  if  our  first
justification, and the continuation of it, did not depend absolutely
on the same cause, the instance of the one could not be produced for
a  proof  of the way and means of the other, as here they  are.  And
David, when a justified believer, not only places the blessedness of
man  in the free remission of sins, in opposition unto his own works
in general, Rom.4:6,7, but, in his own particular case, ascribes the
continuation  of his justification and acceptation before  God  unto
grace, mercy, and forgiveness alone; which are no otherwise received
but  by  faith,  Ps.130:3-5; 143:2. All other works  and  duties  of
obedience  do  accompany faith in the continuation of our  justified
estate,  as  necessary effects and fruits of it, but not as  causes,
means,  or  conditions,  whereon that effect  is  suspended.  It  is
patient  waiting by faith that brings in the full accomplishment  of
the   promises,   Heb.6:12,15.   Wherefore,   there   is   but   one
justification, and that of one kind only, wherein we  are  concerned
in  this  disputation,--the Scripture makes mention of no more;  and
that  is the justification of an ungodly person by faith. Nor  shall
we admit of the consideration of any other. For if there be a second
justification,  it must be of the same kind with the  first,  or  of
another;--if it be of the same kind, then the same person  is  often
justified with the same kind of justification, or at least more than
once;  and so on just reason ought to be often baptized;--if  it  be
not  of the same kind, then the same person is justified before  God
with  two  sorts  of justification; of both which the  Scripture  is
utterly  silent.  And  [so] the continuation  of  our  justification
depends solely on the same causes with our justification itself.





VI.  Evangelical personal righteousness, the nature and use of  it--
Final judgment, and its respect unto justification


Evangelical  personal  righteousness; the nature  and  use  of  it--
Whether  there  be  an angelical justification  on  our  evangelical
righteousness,  inquired  into--How this is  by  some  affirmed  and
applauded--Evangelical  personal  righteousness  asserted   as   the
condition of our righteousness, or the pardon of sin--Opinion of the
Socinians--Personal righteousness required in the  gospel--Believers
hence  denominated  righteous--Not with respect  unto  righteousness
habitual,  but  actual only--Inherent righteousness  the  same  with
sanctification,  or holiness--In what sense we may  be  said  to  be
justified by inherent righteousness--No evangelical justification on
our  personal righteousness--The imputation of the righteousness  of
Christ  does  not depend thereon--None have this righteousness,  but
they  are  antecedently  justified--A  charge  before  God,  in  all
justification before God--The instrument of this charge, the law  or
the  gospel--From  neither  of them can  we  be  justified  by  this
personal  righteousness--The justification  pretended  needless  and
useless--It has not the nature of any justification mentioned in the
Scripture, but is contrary to all that is so called--Other arguments
to  the  same  purpose--Sentential justification at the  last  day--
Nature  of  the  last  judgement--Who shall be  then  justified  --A
declaration  of righteousness, and an actual admission  into  glory,
the whole of justification at the last day--The argument that we are
justified in this life in the same manner, and on the same  grounds,
as  we  shall  be  judged  at  the last day,  that  judgement  being
according unto works, answered; and the impertinency of it declared


The  things which we have discoursed concerning the first and second
justification,  and  concerning the continuation  of  justification,
have no other design but only to clear the principal subject whereof
we  treat  from what does not necessarily belong unto it. For  until
all  things  that  are  either  really  heterogeneous  or  otherwise
superfluous are separated from it, we cannot understand  aright  the
true  state  of  the  question about the nature and  causes  of  our
justification  before  God. For we intend one justification  only,--
namely,  that  whereby God at once freely by his grace  justifies  a
convinced sinner through faith in the blood of Christ. Whatever else
any  will be pleased to call justification, we are not concerned  in
it,  nor  are  the  consciences of them that believe.  To  the  same
purpose  we  must, therefore, briefly also consider what is  usually
disputed  about our own personal righteousness, with a justification
thereon; as also what is called sentential justification at the  day
of judgment. And I shall treat no farther of them in this place, but
only  as  it  is  necessary  to  free the  principal  subject  under
consideration from being intermixed with them, as really it  is  not
concerned in them. For what influence our own personal righteousness
has   into   our   justification  before  God  will  be   afterwards
particularly examined. Here we shall only consider such a notion  of
it   as   seems  to  interfere  with  it,  and  disturb  the   right
understanding  of it. But yet I say concerning this  also,  that  it
rather  belongs  unto the difference that will be among  us  in  the
expression of our conceptions about spiritual things whilst we  know
but in part, than unto the substance of the doctrine itself. And  on
such  differences no breach of charity can ensue, whilst there is  a
mutual  grant of that liberty of mind without which it will  not  be
preserved one moment.
  It is, therefore, by some apprehended that there is an evangelical
justification upon our evangelical personal righteousness. This they
distinguish  from that justification which is by faith  through  the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, in the sense wherein they
do   allow  it;  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  our  legal
righteousness,  whereby we have pardon of sin, and  acquitment  from
the  sentence  of  the law, on the account of his  satisfaction  and
merit. But, moreover, they say that as there is a personal, inherent
righteousness  required of us, so there is a  justification  by  the
gospel  thereon.  For  by our faith, and the  plea  of  it,  we  are
justified  from  the charge of unbelief; by our sincerity,  and  the
plea of it, we are justified from the charge of hypocrisy; and so by
all other graces and duties from the charge of the contrary sins  in
commission  or  omission, so far as such sins are inconsistent  with
the terms of the covenant of grace. How this differs from the second
justification  before God, which some say we have by works,  on  the
supposition of the pardon of sin for the satisfaction of Christ, and
the infusion of a habit of grace enabling us to perform those works,
is declared by those who so express themselves.
  Some add, that this inherent, personal, evangelical righteousness,
is  the condition on our part of our legal righteousness, or of  the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto our justification, or
the  pardon of sin. And those by whom the satisfaction and merit  of
Christ  are  denied,  make it the only and whole  condition  of  our
absolute  justification  before God.  So  speak  all  the  Socinians
constantly;   for they deny our obedience unto Christ to  be  either
the  meritorious or efficient cause of our justification; only  they
say it is the condition of it, without which God has decreed that we
shall  not be made partakers of the benefit thereof. So does Socinus
himself, De Justificat. p. 17, "Sunt opera nostra, id est, ut dictum
fuit,  obedientia quam Christo praestamus, licet nec  efficiens  nec
meritoria, tamen causa est (ut vocant) sine qua non, justificationis
coram Deo, tque aeternae nostrae". Again, p. 14, inter Opuscul,  "Ut
cavendum   est  ne  vitae  sanctitatem  atque  innocentiam  effectum
justificationis nostrae coram Deo esse credamus, neque illam nostrae
coram  Deo  justificationis causam efficientem aut  impulsivam  esse
affirmemus; set tantummodo causam sine qua eam justificationem nobis
non  contingere decrevit Deus". And in all their discourses to  this
purpose they assert our personal righteousness and holiness, or  our
obedience  unto the commands of Christ, which they make  to  be  the
form  and  essence of faith, to be the condition whereon  we  obtain
justification,  or  the remission of sins. And  indeed,  considering
what  their  opinion is concerning the person of Christ, with  their
denial  of his satisfaction and merit, it is impossible they  should
frame any other idea of justification in their minds. But what  some
among ourselves intend by a compliance with them herein, who are not
necessitated thereunto by a prepossession with their opinions  about
the person and mediation of Christ, I know not. For as for them, all
their notions about grace, conversion to God, justification, and the
like  articles of our religion, they are nothing but what  they  are
necessarily  cast  upon  by their hypothesis  about  the  person  of
Christ.
   At  present  I shall only inquire into that peculiar  evangelical
justification which is asserted to be the effect of our own personal
righteousness,  or  to be granted us thereon. And  hereunto  we  may
observe,--
   1. That God does require in and by the gospel a sincere obedience
of all that do believe, to be performed in and by their own persons,
though through the aids of grace supplied unto them by Jesus Christ.
He  requires, indeed, obedience, duties, and works of righteousness,
in  and of all persons whatever; but the consideration of them which
are performed before believing is excluded by all from any causality
or  interest in our justification before God: at least, whatever any
may discourse of the necessity of such works in a way of preparation
unto  believing (whereunto we have spoken before), none  bring  them
into  the  verge of works evangelical, or obedience of faith;  which
would  imply a contradiction. But that the works inquired after  are
necessary  unto all believers, is granted by all; on  what  grounds,
and  unto what ends, we shall inquire afterwards. They are declared,
Eph.2:10.
   2. It is likewise granted that believers, from the performance of
this  obedience,  or these works of righteousness,  are  denominated
righteous  in  the  Scripture,  and are  personally  and  internally
righteous, Luke 1:6; John 3:7. But yet this denomination is  nowhere
given  unto  them with respect unto grace habitually  inherent,  but
unto  the  effect  of it in duties of obedience; as  in  the  places
mentioned: "They were both righteous before God, walking in all  the
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless;"the latter  words
give  the  reason  of the former, or their being esteemed  righteous
before  God.  And,  "He that does righteousness is  righteous;"--the
denomination  is from doing. And Bellarmine, endeavouring  to  prove
that  it  is  habitual, not actual righteousness, which  is,  as  he
speaks, the formal cause of our justification before God, could  not
produce  one  testimony of Scripture wherein any one is  denominated
righteous from habitual righteousness, (De Justificat., lib. 2  cap.
15);  but  is  forced to attempt the proof of it  with  this  absurd
argument,--namely, that "we are justified by the  sacraments,  which
do  not work in us actual, but habitual righteousness". And this  is
sufficient  to  discover the insufficiency of all pretence  for  any
interest  of our own righteousness from this denomination  of  being
righteous thereby, seeing it has not respect unto that which is  the
principal part thereof.
   3.  This  inherent  righteousness, taking it for  that  which  is
habitual and actual, is the same with our sanctification; neither is
there  any difference between them, only they are diverse  names  of
the same thing. For our sanctification is the inherent renovation of
our  natures  exerting  and acting itself in  newness  of  life,  or
obedience  unto  God  in  Christ and  works  of  righteousness.  But
sanctification  and  justification are in the Scripture  perpetually
distinguished,  whatever respect of causality the one  of  them  may
have  unto the other. And those who do confound them, as the Papists
do,  do  not  so much dispute about the nature of justification,  as
endeavour  to  prove  that  indeed  there  is  no  such   thing   as
justification at all; for that which would serve most to enforce it,-
-namely,  the  pardon  of  sin,--they place  in  the  exclusion  and
extinction of it, by the infusions of inherent grace, which does not
belong unto justification.
  4. By this inherent, personal righteousness we may be said several
ways to be justified. As,--(1.) In our own consciences, inasmuch  at
it  is  an  evidence in us and unto us of our participation  of  the
grace  of God in Christ Jesus, and of our acceptance with him; which
has  no small influence into our peace. So speaks the apostle,  "Our
rejoicing  is  this,  the  testimony  of  our  conscience,  that  in
simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by  the
grace  of  God,  we  have  had our conversation  in  the  world,"  2
Cor.1:12:  who  yet  disclaims any confidence therein  as  unto  his
justification before God; for says he, "Although I know  nothing  by
myself,  yet am I not hereby justified," 1 Cor.4:4. (2.) Hereby  may
we  be  said to be justified before men; that is, acquitted of evils
laid unto our charge, and approved as righteous and unblamable;  for
the  state  of things is so in the world, as that the professors  of
the  gospel  ever were, and ever will be, evil spoken  of,  as  evil
doers.  The  rule given them to acquit themselves,  so  as  that  at
length  they  may  be acquitted and justified by all  that  are  not
absolutely blinded and hardened in wickedness, is that of a holy and
fruitful walking, in abounding in good works, 1 Pet.2:12; 3:16.  And
so  is  it with respect unto the church, that we be not judged dead,
barren professors, but such as have been made partakers of the  like
precious faith with others: "Show me thy faith by thy works",  James
2.   Wherefore,  (3.)  This  righteousness  is  pleadable  unto  our
justification  against all the charges of Satan, who  is  the  great
accuser of the brethren,--of all that believe. Whether he manage his
charge  privately  in our consciences (which is as  it  were  before
God),  as  he charged Job; or by his instruments, in all  manner  of
reproaches  and  calumnies  (whereof  some  in  this  age  have  had
experience  in an eminent manner), this righteousness  is  pleadable
unto our justification.
    On   a   supposition  of  these  things,  wherein  our  personal
righteousness  is  allowed  its  proper  place  and  use  (as  shall
afterward be more fully declared), I do not understand that there is
an  evangelical justification whereby believers are, by and  on  the
account of this personal, inherent righteousness, justified  in  the
sight of God; nor does the imputation of the righteousness of Christ
unto our absolute justification before him depend thereon. For,--
  1. None have this personal righteousness but they are antecedently
justified in the sight of God. It is wholly the obedience of  faith,
proceeding  from true and saving faith in God by Jesus Christ:  for,
as  it  was  said  before, works before faith, are,  as  by  general
consent,  excluded  from any interest in our justification,  and  we
have  proved  that  they are neither conditions of it,  dispositions
unto it, nor preparations for it, properly so called; but every true
believer is immediately justified on his believing. Nor is there any
moment of time wherein a man is a true believer, according as  faith
is  required  in the gospel, and yet not justified;  for  as  he  is
thereby  united  unto  Christ,  which  is  the  foundation  of   our
justification by him, so the whole Scripture testifies that he  that
believes is justified, or that there is an infallible connection  in
the   ordination  of  God  between  true  faith  and  justification.
Wherefore this personal righteousness cannot be the condition of our
justification before God, seeing it is consequential thereunto. What
may  be  pleaded  in exception hereunto from the  supposition  of  a
second  justification,  or differing causes  of  the  beginning  and
continuation of justification, has been already disproved
   2.  Justification before God is a freedom and absolution  from  a
charge  before  God,  at  least it is  contained  therein;  and  the
instrument of this charge must either be the law or the gospel.  But
neither  the  law nor the gospel do before God, or in the  sight  of
God,  charge true believers with unbelief, hypocrisy, or  the  like;
for  "who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect," who are
once justified before him? Such a charge may be laid against them by
Satan,  by the church sometimes on mistake, by the world, as it  was
in  the  case of Job; against which this righteousness is pleadable.
But what is charged immediately before God is charged by God himself
either  by  the  law  of the gospel; and the  judgement  of  God  is
according  unto truth. If this charge be by the law, by the  law  we
must  be  justified.  But  the plea of sincere  obedience  will  not
justify us by the law. That admits of none in satisfaction unto  its
demands but that which is complete and perfect. And where the gospel
lays any thing unto the charge of any persons before God, there  can
be  no justification before God, unless we shall allow the gospel to
be  the  instrument of a false charge; for what should  justify  him
whom the gospel condemns? And if it be a justification by the gospel
from  the  charge of the law, it renders the death of Christ  of  no
effect; and a justification without a charge is not to be supposed.
   3.  Such a justification as that pretended is altogether needless
and  senseless. This may easily be evinced from what  the  Scripture
asserts unto our justification in the sight of God by faith  in  the
blood  of  Christ;  but this has been spoken to  before  on  another
occasion.  Let that be considered, and it will quickly  appear  that
there  is  no  place  nor  use for this new justification  upon  our
personal  righteousness,  whether  it  be  supposed  antecedent  and
subordinate thereunto, or consequential and perfective thereof.
   4. This pretended evangelical justification has not the nature of
any  justification  that  is mentioned in the  Scripture,--that  is,
neither   that  by  the  law,  nor  that  provided  in  the  gospel.
Justification by the law is this,--The man that does the works of it
shall  live  in  them. This it does not pretend unto.  And  as  unto
evangelical  justification, it is every way contrary  unto  it.  For
therein  the  charge against the person to be justified  is  true,--
namely,  that he has sinned, and is come short of the glory of  God;
[but]  in  this  it  is  false,--namely,  that  a  believer  is   an
unbeliever;  a  sincere person, a hypocrite; one  fruitful  in  good
works,  altogether barren: and this false charge is supposed  to  be
exhibited  in  the name of God, and before him. Our  acquitment,  in
true, evangelical justification, is by absolution or pardon of  sin;
here, by a vindication of our own righteousness. There, the plea  of
the  person  to  be justified is, Guilty; all the  world  is  become
guilty before God: but here, the plea of the person on his trial is,
Not  guilty,  whereon  the  proofs and evidences  of  innocence  and
righteousness do ensue; but this is a plea which the  law  will  not
admit, and which the gospel disclaims.
    5.   If  we  are  justified  before  God  on  our  own  personal
righteousness,  and  pronounced righteous  by  him  on  the  account
thereof,  then  God enters into judgement with us  on  something  in
ourselves, and acquits us thereon; for justification is a  juridical
act,  in and of that Judgment of God which is according unto  truth.
But that God should enter into judgment with us, and justify us with
respect  unto what he judges on, or our personal righteousness,  the
psalmist  does not believe, Ps.130:2,3; 143:2; nor did the publican,
Luke 18.
   6.  This personal righteousness of ours cannot be said  to  be  a
subordinate righteousness, and subservient unto our justification by
faith in the blood of Christ: for therein God justifies the ungodly,
and imputes righteousness unto him that works not; and, besides,  it
is  expressly  excluded from any consideration in our justification,
Eph.2:7,8.
  7. This personal, inherent righteousness, wherewith we are said to
be  justified  with  this  evangelical  justification,  is  our  own
righteousness.  Personal righteousness, and our  own  righteousness,
are  expressions equivalent; but our own righteousness  is  not  the
material  cause  of any justification before God. For,--(1.)  It  is
unmeet  so  to be, Isa.64:6. (2.) It is directly opposed  unto  that
righteousness whereby we are justified, as inconsistent with it unto
that end, Phil.3:9; Rom.10:3,4.
  It will be said that our own righteousness is the righteousness of
the  law, but this personal righteousness is evangelical. But,--(1.)
It  will  be  hard to prove that our personal righteousness  is  any
other  but  our  own  righteousness; and our  own  righteousness  is
expressly  rejected  from any interest in our justification  in  the
places  quoted.  (2.)  That righteousness which  is  evangelical  in
respect of its efficient cause, its motives and some especial  ends,
is  legal  in respect of the formal reason of it and our  obligation
unto it; for there is no instance of duty belonging unto it, but, in
general, we are obliged unto its performance by virtue of the  first
commandment,  to "take the LORD for our God." Acknowledging  therein
his  essential  verity and sovereign authority, we  are  obliged  to
believe  all that he shall reveal, and to obey in all that he  shall
command.  (3.)  The  good works rejected from any  interest  in  our
justification, are those whereunto we are "created in Christ Jesus",
Eph.2:8~10;  the  "works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,"
Tit.3:5,  wherein the Gentiles are concerned, who never  sought  for
righteousness by the works of the law, Rom.9:30. But it will yet  be
said,  that these things are evident in themselves. God does require
an  evangelical righteousness in all that do believe; this Christ is
not, nor is it the righteousness of Christ. He may be said to be our
legal  righteousness, but our evangelical righteousness he  is  not;
and,  so far as we are righteous with any righteousness, so  far  we
are   justified   by   it.  For  according  unto  this   evangelical
righteousness we must be tried; if we have it we shall be acquitted,
and if we have it not we shall be condemned. There is, therefore,  a
justification according unto it.
   I  answer,--1. According to some authors or maintainers  of  this
opinion,  I  see  not  but  that the Lord  Christ  is  as  much  our
evangelical  righteousness  as  he  is  our  legal.  For  our  legal
righteousness he is not, in their judgement, by a proper  imputation
of his righteousness unto us, but by the communication of the fruits
of  what  he  did and suffered for us. And so he is our  evangelical
righteousness also; for our sanctification is an effect or fruit  of
what he did and suffered for us, Eph.5:26,27; Tit.2:14.
   2. None have this evangelical righteousness but those who are, in
order  of  nature at least, justified before they actually have  it;
for  it  is that which is required of all that do believe,  and  are
justified  thereon.  And  we need not much  inquire  how  a  man  is
justified after he is justified.
  3. God has not appointed this personal righteousness in order unto
our  justification before him in this life, though he have appointed
it  to  evidence our justification before others, and  even  in  his
sight; as shall be declared. He accepts of it, approves of it,  upon
the  account of the free justification of the person in and by  whom
it  is wrought: so he had "respect unto Abel and his offering".  But
we are not acquitted by it from any real charge in the sight of God,
nor do receive remission of sins on the account of it. And those who
place  the  whole of justification in the remission of sins,  making
this  personal  righteousness the condition of it, as the  Socinians
do,  leave  not  any place for the righteousness of  Christ  in  our
justification.
  4. If we are in any sense justified hereby in the sight of God, we
have whereof to boast before him. We may not have so absolutely, and
with  respect  unto  merit;  yet we have so  comparatively,  and  in
respect  of  others  who  cannot  make  the  same  plea  for   their
justification.  But  all  boasting is  excluded;  and  it  will  not
relieve,  to  say that this personal righteousness is  of  the  free
grace  and gift of God unto some, and not unto others; for  we  must
plead it as our duty, and not as God's grace.
   5. Suppose a person freely justified by the grace of God, through
faith  in  the  blood  of Christ, without respect  unto  any  works,
obedience,  or  righteousness of his own, we do freely  grant,--(1.)
That God does indispensably require personal obedience of him; which
may  be  called  his evangelical righteousness. (2.) That  God  does
approve  of  and accept, in Christ, this righteousness so performed.
(3.)  That  hereby that faith whereby we are justified is evidenced,
proved,  manifested,  in the sight of God and men.  (4.)  That  this
righteousness  is  pleadable unto an acquitment against  any  charge
from Satan, the world, or our own consciences. (5.) That upon it  we
shall  be  declared righteous at the last day, and without  it  none
shall so be. And if any shall think meet from hence to conclude unto
an  evangelical  justification, or  call  God's  acceptance  of  our
righteousness by that name, I shall by no means contend  with  then.
And  wherever  this  inquiry is made,--not how a sinner,  guilty  of
death,  and  obnoxious unto the curse, shall be pardoned, acquitted,
and justified, which is by the righteousness of Christ alone imputed
unto  him--but how a man that professes evangelical faith, or  faith
in Christ, shall be tried, judged, and whereon, as such, he shall be
justified,  we  grant that it is and must be, by his  own  personal,
sincere obedience.
   And  these  things are spoken, not with a design to contend  with
any,  or to oppose the opinions of any; but only to remove from  the
principal question in hand those things which do not belong unto it.
   A  very few words will also free our inquiry from any concernment
in  that  which is called sentential justification, at  the  day  of
judgement;  for  of what nature soever it be, the person  concerning
whom  that sentence is pronounced was,--(1.) Actually and completely
justified  before God in this world; (2.) Made partaker of  all  the
benefits of that justification, even unto a blessed resurrection  in
glory:  "It is raised in glory", 1 Cor.15:43. (3.) The souls of  the
most  will  long  before  have enjoyed  a  blessed  rest  with  God,
absolutely discharged and acquitted from all their labours  and  all
their  sins;  there remains nothing but an actual admission  of  the
whole person into eternal glory. Wherefore this judgement can be  no
more  but  declaratory, unto the glory of God, and  the  everlasting
refreshment of them that have believed. And without reducing  of  it
unto a new justification, as it is nowhere
called in the Scripture, the ends of that solemn judgement,--in  the
manifestation of the wisdom and righteousness of God, in  appointing
the way of salvation by Christ, as well as in giving of the law; the
public conviction of them by whom the law has been transgressed  and
the  gospel  despised; the vindication of the righteousness,  power,
and  wisdom  of  God  in the rule of the world  by  his  providence,
wherein, for the most part, his paths unto all in this life  are  in
the  deep, and his footsteps are not known; the glory and honour  of
Jesus  Christ, triumphing over all his enemies, then fully made  his
footstool;  and  the glorious exaltation of grace  in  all  that  do
believe,  with  sundry other things of an alike  tendency  unto  the
ultimate  manifestation of divine glory in the creation and guidance
of all things,--are sufficiently manifest.
   And  hence it appears how little force there  is in that argument
which some pretend to be of so great weight in this cause. "As every
one", they say, "shall be judged of God at the last day, in the same
way  and  manner or on the same grounds, is he justified of  God  in
this life; but by works, and not by faith alone, every one shall  be
judged  at the last day: wherefore by works, and not by faith alone,
every one is justified before God in this life". For,--
   1. It is nowhere said that we shall be judged at the last day "ex
operibus"; but only that God will render unto men "secundum  opera".
But  God  does not justify any in this life "secundum opera";  being
justified  freely by his grace, and not according to  the  works  of
righteousness which we have done. And we are everywhere said  to  be
justified in this life "ex fide", "per fidem", but nowhere  "propter
fidem";  or, that God justifies us "secundum fidem", by  faith,  but
not  for our faith, nor according unto our faith. And we are not  to
depart  from  the  expressions  of  the  Scripture,  where  such   a
difference is constantly observed.
   2. It is somewhat strange that a man should be judged at the last
day,  and justified in this life, just in the same way and manner,--
that is, with respect unto faith and works,--when the Scripture does
constantly  ascribe our justification before God unto faith  without
works; and the judgment at the last day is said to be according unto
works, without any mention of faith.
  3. If justification and eternal judgment proceed absolutely on the
same  grounds,  reasons, and causes, then if men had not  done  what
they  shall be condemned for doing at the last day, they should have
been  justified in this life; but many shall be condemned  only  for
sins  against  the  light of nature, Rom.2:12, as never  having  the
written  law  or  gospel made known unto them: wherefore  unto  such
persons,  to abstain from sins against the light of nature would  be
sufficient unto their justification, without any knowledge of Christ
or the gospel.
   4. This proposition,--that God pardons men their sins, gives then
the   adoption   of  children,  with  a  right  unto  the   heavenly
inheritance, according to their works,--is not only foreign  to  the
gospel,  but  contradictory  unto it,  and  destructive  of  it,  as
contrary unto all express testimonies of the Scripture, both in  the
Old  Testament  and the New, where these things are spoken  of;  but
that  God  judges  all men, and renders unto all men,  at  the  last
judgment, according unto their works, is true, and affirmed  in  the
Scripture.
   5.  In  our  justification  in this  life  by  faith,  Christ  is
considered  as  our propitiation and advocate, as he  who  has  made
atonement for sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness; but  at
the last day, and in the last judgment, he is considered only as the
judge.
   6. The end of God in our justification is the glory of his grace,
Eph.1:6; but the end of God in the last judgment is the glory of his
remunerative righteousness, 2 Tim.4:8.
   7.  The representation that is made of the final judgment, Matt.7
and  25,  is  only of the visible church. And therein  the  plea  of
faith,  as  to  the  profession of it, is common unto  all,  and  is
equally  made  by all. Upon that plea of faith, it is put  unto  the
trial  whether it were sincere, true faith or no, or only that which
was dead and barren. And this trial is made solely by the fruits and
effects  of it; and otherwise, in the public declaration  of  things
unto  all,  it cannot be made. Otherwise, the faith whereby  we  are
justified comes not
into judgment at the last day. See John 5:24, with Mark 16:16.




VII.  Imputation, and the nature of it; with the imputation  of  the
righteousness of Christ in particular


Imputation,  and  the  nature of it--The  first  express  record  of
justification  determines it to be by imputation,  Gen.15:6--Reasons
of  it--The doctrine of imputation cleared by Paul; the occasion  of
it--Maligned and opposed by many--Weight of the doctrine  concerning
imputation of righteousness, on all hands acknowledged--Judgment  of
the Reformed churches herein, particularly of the church of England-
-By  whom opposed, and on what grounds--Signification of the  word--
Difference  between  "reputare"  and "imputare"--Imputation  of  two
kinds:--1.  Of  what  was ours antecedently  unto  that  imputation,
whether  good  or  evil--Instances in  both  kinds--Nature  of  this
imputation--The  thing imputed by it, imputed for what  it  is,  and
nothing  else.  --2.  Of  what is not ours  antecedently  unto  that
imputation, but is made so by it--General nature of this imputation-
-Not judging of others to have done what they have not done--Several
distinct  grounds and reasons of this imputation:--1. "Ex justitia";
--(1.)  "Propter  relationem foederalem;"--(2.) "Propter  relationem
naturalem;"--2.  "Ex  voluntaria  sponsione"--Instances,  Philem.18;
Gen.43:9--Voluntary sponsion, the ground of the imputation of sin to
Christ. --3. "Ex injuria", 1 Kings 1:21. --4. "Ex mera gratia," Rom.
4--Difference between the imputation of any works of  ours,  and  of
the  righteousness of God--Imputation of inherent  righteousness  is
"ex  justitia"--Inconsistency of it with  that  which  is  "ex  mera
gratia,"  Rom.4--Agreement  of both kinds  of  imputation--The  true
nature   of  the  imputation  of  righteousness  unto  justification
explained--Imputation  of  the righteousness  of  Christ--The  thing
itself imputed, not the effect of it; proved against the Socinians


The  first express record of the justification of any sinner  is  of
Abraham.  Others were justified before him from the  beginning,  and
there is that affirmed of them which sufficiently evidences them  so
to  have  been; but this prerogative was reserved for the father  of
the faithful, that his justification, and the express way and manner
of  it,  should  be first entered on the sacred record.  So  it  is,
Gen.15:6, "He believed in the LORD, and it was counted unto him  for
righteousness." "wayachsheveha",--it was "accounted"  unto  him,  or
"imputed"   unto   him,  for  righteousness.  "Elogisthe",--it   was
"counted, reckoned, imputed." And "it was not written for  his  sake
alone  that it was imputed unto him, but for us also, unto  whom  it
shall  be imputed if we believe," Rom.4:23,24. Wherefore, the  first
express  declaration of the nature of justification in the Scripture
affirms  it  to  be by imputation,--the imputation of somewhat  unto
righteousness;  and this [is] done in that place and instance  which
is  recorded on purpose, as the precedent and example of  all  those
that  shall  be  justified. As he was justified so are  we,  and  no
otherwise.
   Under the New Testament there was a necessity of a more full  and
clear  declaration of the doctrine of it; for it is among the  first
and most principal parts of that heavenly mystery of truth which was
to  be brought to light by the gospel. And, besides, there was  from
the  first a strong and dangerous opposition made unto it; for  this
matter  of  justification, the doctrine of it, and what  necessarily
belongs thereunto, was that whereon the Jewish church broke off from
God,  refused Christ and the gospel, perishing in their sins; as  is
expressly declared, Rom.9:31; 10:3,4. And, in like manner, a dislike
of  it,  an  opposition  unto it, ever was,  and  ever  will  be,  a
principle  and cause of the apostasy of any professing  church  from
Christ and the gospel that falls under the power and deceit of them;
as  it fell out afterwards in the churches of the Galatians. But  in
this state the doctrine of justification was fully declared, stated,
and  vindicated, by the apostle Paul, in a peculiar manner.  And  he
does  it  especially  by  affirming and proving  that  we  have  the
righteousness whereby and wherewith we are justified by  imputation,
or,  that our justification consists in the non-imputation  of  sin,
and the imputation of righteousness.
   But yet, although the first-recorded instance of justification,--
and which was so recorded that it might be an example, and represent
the  justification of all that should be justified unto the  end  of
the  world,--is  expressed by imputation and righteousness  imputed,
and  the  doctrine  of  it, in that great case wherein  the  eternal
welfare of the church of the Jews, or their ruin, was concerned,  is
so  expressed by the apostle; yet is it so fallen out in  our  days,
that  nothing  in  religion is more maligned, more reproached,  more
despised,  than  the  imputation of righteousness  unto  us,  or  an
imputed  righteousness. "A putative righteousness, the shadow  of  a
dream,  a fancy, a mummery, an imagination," say some among  us.  An
opinion,  "foeda, execranda, pernitiosa, detestanta", says  Socinus.
And  opposition  arises  unto it every day  from  great  variety  of
principles; for those by whom it is opposed and rejected can  by  no
means agree what to set up in the place of it.
   However,  the weight and importance of this doctrine  is  on  all
hands acknowledged, whether it be true or false. It is not a dispute
about  notions, terms, and speculations, wherein Christian  practice
is  little  or  not  at  all concerned (of  which  nature  many  are
needlessly contended about); but such as has an immediate  influence
into our whole present duty, with our eternal welfare or ruin. Those
by whom this imputation of righteousness is rejected, do affirm that
the  faith  and doctrine of it do overthrow the necessity of  gospel
obedience,  of  personal righteousness and good works,  bringing  in
antinomianism and libertinism in life. Hereon it must, of necessity,
be  destructive  of salvation in those who believe it,  and  conform
their  practice thereunto. And those, on the other hand, by whom  it
is  believed, seeing they judge it impossible that any man should be
justified  before  God any other way but by the  imputation  of  the
righteousness of Christ, do, accordingly, judge that without it none
can  be  saved. Hence a learned man of ]ate concludes his  discourse
concerning it, "Hactenus de imputatione justitiae Christi; sine  qua
nemo  unquam aut salvtus est, aut slvari queat", Justificat. Paulin.
cap. 8;--"Thus far of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ;
without which no man was ever saved, nor can any so be." They do not
think  nor  judge  that all those are excluded  from  salvation  who
cannot apprehend, or do deny, the doctrine of the imputation of  the
righteousness  of Christ, as by them declared; but they  judge  that
they are so unto whom that righteousness is not really imputed:  nor
can  they  do otherwise, whilst they make it the foundation  of  all
their  own acceptation with God and eternal salvation. These  things
greatly differ. To believe the doctrine of it, or not to believe it,
as  thus or thus explained, is one thing; and to enjoy the thing, or
not  enjoy  it,  is  another. I no way doubt but that  many  men  do
receive  more grace from God than they understand or will  own,  and
have  a  greater efficacy of it in them than they will believe.  Men
may  be  really saved by that grace which doctrinally they do  deny;
and  they  may  be justified by the imputation of that righteousness
which, in opinion, they deny to be imputed: for the faith of  it  is
included  in that general assent which they give unto the  truth  of
the gospel, and such an adherence unto Christ may ensue thereon,  as
that  their mistake of the way whereby they are saved by  him  shall
not defraud them of a real interest therein. And for my part, I must
say  that notwithstanding all the disputes that I see and read about
justification (some whereof are full of offense and scandal),  I  do
not  believe but that the authors of them (if they be not  Socinians
throughout, denying the whole merit and satisfaction of  Christ)  do
really  trust unto the mediation of Christ for the pardon  of  their
sins  and  acceptance  with God, and not unto  their  own  works  or
obedience;  nor  will I believe the contrary, until  they  expressly
declare  it.  Of  the objection, on the other hand,  concerning  the
danger  of  the  doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness  of
Christ,  in  reference unto the necessity of holiness and  works  of
righteousness, we must treat afterwards.
   The  judgment of the Reformed churches herein is known unto  all,
and  must  be confessed, unless we intend by vain cavils to increase
and  perpetuate contentions. Especially the church of England is  in
her doctrine express as unto the imputation of the righteousness  of
Christ,  both  active  and passive, as it is usually  distinguished.
This  has  been  of  late so fully manifested out of  her  authentic
writings,--that is, the articles of religion, and books of homilies,
and  other  writings  publicly authorized,--that  it  is  altogether
needless to give any farther demonstration of it. Those who  pretend
themselves  to  be otherwise minded are such as I will  not  contend
withal; for to what purpose is it to dispute with men who will  deny
the  sun  to  shine, when they cannot bear the heat  of  its  beams?
Wherefore, in what I have to offer on this subject, I shall  not  in
the least depart from the ancient doctrine of the church of England;
yea,  I have no design but to declare and vindicate it, as God shall
enable.
   There  are,  indeed,  sundry differences among  persons  learned,
sober,  and  orthodox (if that term displease not), in the  way  and
manner  of the explication of the doctrine of justification  by  the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, who yet all of them agree
in  the  substance of it,--in all those things wherein the grace  of
God,  the  honour of Christ, and the peace of the souls of men,  are
principally  concerned. As far as it is possible  for  me,  I  shall
avoid the concerning of myself at present in these differences;  for
unto  what purpose is it to contend about them, whilst the substance
of the doctrine itself is openly opposed and rejected? Why should we
debate  about  the order and beautifying of the rooms  in  a  house,
whilst  fire  is set unto the whole? When that is well quenched,  we
may  return to the consideration of the best means for the  disposal
and use of the several parts of it.
   There are two grand parties by whom the doctrine of justification
by  the  imputation  of  the righteousness of Christ  is  opposed,--
namely, the Papists and the Socinians; but they proceed on different
principles,  and unto different ends. The design of the  one  is  to
exalt  their  own  merits; of the other, to  destroy  the  merit  of
Christ.  But  besides  these, who trade in  company,  we  have  many
interlopers,  who, coming in on their hand, do make bold  to  borrow
from both as they see occasion. We shall have to do with them all in
our progress; not with the persons of any, nor the way and manner of
their expressing themselves, but the opinions of all of them, so far
as  they are opposite unto the truth: for it is that which wise  men
despise,  and  good  men  bewail,--to see  persons  pretending  unto
religion and piety, to cavil at expressions, to contend about words,
to  endeavour the fastening of opinions on men which they  own  not,
and  thereon mutually to revile one another, publishing all  to  the
world  as some great achievement or victory. This is not the way  to
teach  the  truths of the gospel, nor to promote the edification  of
the  church.  But, in general, the importance of  the  cause  to  be
pleaded,  the  greatness of the opposition that  is  made  unto  the
truth,  and  the  high concernment of the souls of believers  to  be
rightly  instructed  in  it, do call for a renewed  declaration  and
vindication of it. And what I shall attempt unto this purpose  I  do
it  under  this  persuasion,--that the life and continuance  of  any
church  on  the one hand, and its apostasy or ruin on the other,  do
depend in an eminent manner on the preservation or rejection of  the
truth in this article of religion; and, I shall add, as it has  been
professed, received, and believed in the church of England in former
days.
   The first thing we are to consider is the meaning of these words,
to  impute,  and  imputation; for, from  a  mere  plain  declaration
hereof,  it  will appear that sundry things charged on a supposition
of  the  imputation  we plead for are vain and  groundless,  or  the
charge itself is so.
   "Chashav",  the  word  first used to this purpose,  signifies  to
think, to esteem, to judge, or to refer a thing or matter unto  any;
to  impute, or to be imputed, for good or evil. See Lev.7:18;  17:4,
and  Ps.106:31.  "Watechashev lo litsdakah"--"And  it  was  counted,
reckoned,  imputed unto him for righteousness;" to judge  or  esteem
this  or  that good or evil to belong unto him, to be his.  The  LXX
express it by "logidzoo" and "logidzomai", as do the writers of  the
New  Testament also; and these are rendered by "reputare,  imputare,
acceptum  ferre, tribuere, assignare, ascribere."  But  there  is  a
different  signification among these words:  in  particular,  to  be
imputed  righteous,  and to have righteousness imputed,  differ,  as
cause  and effect; for that any may be reputed righteous,--that  is,
be judged or esteemed so to be,-- there must be a real foundation of
that reputation, or it is a mistake, and not a right judgment; as  a
man  may be reputed to be wise who is a fool, or reputed to be  rich
who is a beggar. Wherefore, he that is reputed righteous must either
have  a  righteousness  of his own, or another antecedently  imputed
unto him, as the foundation of that reputation. Wherefore, to impute
righteousness  unto one that has none of his own, is not  to  repute
him  to  be  righteous  who  is indeed unrighteous;  but  it  is  to
communicate a righteousness unto him, that he may rightly and justly
be esteemed, judged, or reputed righteous.
   "Imputare"  is  a word that the Latin tongue owns  in  the  sense
wherein it is used by divines. "Optime de pessimis meruisti, ad quos
pervenerit  incorrupta  rerum fides, magno  authori  suo  imputate",
Senec.  ad Mart. And Plin., lib. 18 cap. 1, in his apology  for  the
earth, our common parent, "Nostris eam criminibus urgemus, culpamque
nostram illi imputamus".
   In  their sense, to impute any thing unto another is,  if  it  be
evil, to charge it on him, to burden him with it: so says Pliny, "We
impute our own faults to the earth, or charge them upon it."  If  it
be good, it is to ascribe it unto him as his own, whether originally
it  were  so or no: "Magno authori imputate". Vasquez, in Thom.  22,
tom. 2: disp. 132, attempts the sense of the word, but confounds  it
with  "reputare:" "Imputare aut reputare quidquam alicui,  est  idem
atque inter ea quae sunt ipsius, et ad eum pertinent, connumerare et
recensere". This is "reputare" properly; "imputare" includes an  act
antecedent unto this accounting or esteeming a thing to belong  unto
any person.
   But  whereas that may be imputed unto us which is really our  own
antecedently unto that imputation, the word must needs have a double
sense,  as  it has in the instances given out of Latin  authors  now
mentioned. And,--
   1. To impute unto us that which was really ours antecedently unto
that  imputation, includes two things in it:--(1.) An acknowledgment
or  judgment that the thing so imputed is really and truly ours,  or
in  us. He that imputes wisdom or learning unto any man does, in the
first  place, acknowledge him to be wise or learned. (2.) A  dealing
with  them according unto it, whether it be good or evil.  So  when,
upon  a  trial,  a  man is acquitted because he is found  righteous;
first, he is judged and esteemed righteous, and then dealt with as a
righteous person,--his righteousness is imputed unto him.  See  this
exemplified, Gen.30:33.
   2.  To impute unto us that which is not our own antecedently unto
that  imputation, includes also in it two things:--(1.) A  grant  or
donation  of  the  thing itself unto us, to be ours,  on  some  just
ground  and foundation; for a thing must be made ours before we  can
justly  be  dealt  withal according unto what  is  required  on  the
account  of it. (2.) A will of dealing with us, or an actual dealing
with  us,  according unto that which is so made ours;  for  in  this
matter  whereof we treat, the most holy and righteous God  does  not
justify  any,--that  is,  absolve  them  from  sin,  pronounce  them
righteous, and thereon grant unto them right and title unto  eternal
life,--but   upon   the  interveniency  of  a  true   and   complete
righteousness, truly and completely made the righteousness  of  them
that  are to be justified in order of nature antecedently unto their
justification.  But  these things will be yet  made  more  clear  by
instances; and it is necessary they should be so.
   (1.)  There is an imputation unto us of that which is really  our
own,  inherent  in  us,  performed by  us,  antecedently  unto  that
imputation, and this whether it be evil or good. The rule and nature
hereof is given and expressed, Ezek.18:20, "The righteousness of the
righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked  shall
be  upon  him."  Instances  we have of both  sorts.  First,  in  the
imputation  of  sin when the person guilty of it is  so  judged  and
reckoned a sinner as to be dealt withal accordingly. This imputation
Shimei  deprecated, 2 Sam.19:19. He said unto the king, "Let not  my
lord impute iniquity unto me,"--"'al-yachashav-li 'adoni 'awon", the
word  used  in  the  expression of the imputation of  righteousness,
Gen.15:6,--"neither  do thou remember that  which  thy  servant  did
perversely:  for thy servant does know that I have sinned."  He  was
guilty, and acknowledged his guilt; but deprecates the imputation of
it in such a sentence concerning him as his sin deserved. So Stephen
deprecated the imputation of sin unto them that stoned him,  whereof
they  were  really  guilty, Acts 7:60, "Lay not this  sin  to  their
charge;"--impute it not unto them: as, on the other side,  Zechariah
the son of Jehoiada, who died in the same cause and the same kind of
death  with  Stephen, prayed that the sin of those  which  slew  him
might be charged on them, 2 Chron.24:22. Wherefore to impute sin  is
to  lay  it  unto the charge of any, and to deal with them according
unto its desert.
  To impute that which is good unto any, is to judge and acknowledge
it  so  to  be theirs, and thereon to deal with them in whom  it  is
according  unto  its respect unto the law of God. The "righteousness
of  the  righteous  shall be upon him." So Jacob provided  that  his
"righteousness  should answer for him," Gen.30:33. And  we  have  an
instance of it in God's dealing with men, Ps.106:30,31, "Then  stood
up Phinehas and executed judgment; and that was counted unto him for
righteousness." Notwithstanding it seemed that he had not sufficient
warrant  for  what he did, yet God, that knew his  heart,  and  what
guidance  of  his  own  Spirit he was under,  approved  his  act  as
righteous, and gave him a reward testifying that approbation.
   Concerning this imputation it must be observed, that whatever  is
our  own antecedently thereunto, which is an act of God thereon, can
never be imputed unto us for any thing more or less than what it  is
really in itself. For this imputation consists of two parts, or  two
things concur thereunto:--First, A judgment of the thing to be ours,
to  be in us, or to belong unto us. Secondly, A will of dealing with
us,  or an actual dealing with us, according unto it. Wherefore,  in
the  imputation of any thing unto us which is ours, God  esteems  it
not  to be other than it is. He does not esteem that to be a perfect
righteousness  which is imperfect; so to do, might  argue  either  a
mistake  of  the  thing judged on, or perverseness in  the  judgment
itself  upon  it.  Wherefore, if, as some say,  our  own  faith  and
obedience  are  imputed unto us for righteousness, seeing  they  are
imperfect,   they  must  be  imputed  unto  us  for   an   imperfect
righteousness, and not for that which is perfect; for that  judgment
of  God which is according unto truth is in this imputation. And the
imputation of an imperfect righteousness unto us, esteeming it  only
as  such,  will  stand us in little stead in this  matter.  And  the
acceptilation which some plead (traducing a fiction in human laws to
interpret  the  mystery of the gospel) does not only  overthrow  all
imputation,  but the satisfaction and merit of Christ also.  And  it
must  be  observed, that this imputation is a mere act  of  justice,
without any mixture of grace; as the apostle declares, Rom.11:6. For
it consists of these two parts:--First, An acknowledging and judging
that to be in us which is truly so; Secondly, A will of dealing with
us according unto it: both which are acts of justice.
   (2.)  The  imputation  unto  us of that  which  is  not  our  own
antecedently unto that imputation, at least not in the  same  manner
as it is afterwards, is various also, as unto the grounds and causes
that  it proceeds upon. Only it must be observed, that no imputation
of  this  kind is to account them unto whom anything is  imputed  to
have  done  the things themselves which are imputed unto them.  That
were not to impute, but to err in judgment, and, indeed, utterly  to
overthrow the whole nature of gracious imputation. But it is to make
that  to  be ours by imputation which was not ours before, unto  all
ends and purposes whereunto it would have served if it had been  our
own without any such imputation.
   It  is therefore a manifest mistake of their own which some  make
the  ground of a charge on the doctrine of imputation. For they say,
"If  our sins were imputed unto Christ, then must he be esteemed  to
have  done  what  we have done amiss, and so be the greatest  sinner
that  ever  was;"  and on the other side, "If his  righteousness  be
imputed unto us, then are we esteemed to have done what he did,  and
so  to  stand in no need of the pardon of sin." But this is contrary
unto  the  nature of imputation, which proceeds on no such judgment;
but, on the contrary, that we ourselves have done nothing of what is
imputed unto us, nor Christ any thing of what was imputed unto him.
   To declare more distinctly the nature of this imputation, I shall
consider  the  several kinds of it, or rather  the  several  grounds
whence  it proceeds. For this imputation unto us of what is not  our
own   antecedent  unto  that  imputation,  may  be  either,--1.  "Ex
justitia;" or, 2. "Ex voluntaria sponsione;" or, 3. "Ex injuria; or,
4. "Ex gratia;"--all which shall be exemplified. I do not place them
thus  distinctly, as if they might not some of them  concur  in  the
same  imputation, which I shall manifest that they do; but  I  shall
refer  the several kinds of imputation unto that which is  the  next
cause of every one.
  1. Things that are not our own originally, personally, inherently,
may  yet  be  imputed  unto  us  "ex  justitia,"  by  the  rule   of
righteousness.  And  this may be done upon a  double  relation  unto
those whose they are:--(1.) Federal. (2.) Natural.
   (1.)  Things  done  by one may he imputed unto  others,  "propter
relationem  foederalem",--because of  a  covenant  relation  between
them.  So the sin of Adam was and is imputed unto all his posterity;
as  we shall afterward more fully declare. And the ground hereof  is
that  we  stood all in the same covenant with him, who was our  head
and representative therein. The corruption and depravation of nature
which we derive from Adam is imputed unto us with the first kind, of
imputation,--namely,  of that which is ours antecedently  unto  that
imputation:  but  his actual sin is imputed unto us  as  that  which
becomes  ours  by that imputation; which before it was  not.  Hence,
says  Bellarmine  himself,  "Peccatum  Adami  ita  posteris  omnibus
imputatur, ac si omnes idem peccatum patravissent", De Amiss. Grat.,
lib.4  cap.10;--"The  sin  of  Adam  is  so  imputed  unto  all  his
posterity, as if they had all committed the same sin." And he  gives
us  herein the true nature of imputation, which he fiercely disputes
against  in his books on justification. For the imputation  of  that
sin  unto  us,  as  if we had committed it, which  he  acknowledges,
includes  both  a transcription of that sin unto us, and  a  dealing
with  us  as  if we had committed it; which is the doctrine  of  the
apostle, Rom.5.
   (2)  There  is  an  imputation of sin unto others,  "ex  justitia
propter relationem naturalem",--on the account of a natural relation
between them and those who had actually contracted the guilt of  it.
But  this  is  so  only  with respect unto some  outward,  temporary
effects  of  it.  So  God  speaks concerning  the  children  of  the
rebellious Israelites in the wilderness, "Your children shall wander
in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms," Numb.14:33;-
-"Your  sin  shall be so far imputed unto your children, because  of
their  relation unto you, and your interest in them,  as  that  they
shall suffer for them in an afflictive condition in the wilderness."
And  this was just because of the relation between them; as the same
procedure  of divine justice is frequently declared in other  places
of  the  Scripture.  So,  where there is a  due  foundation  of  it,
imputation is an act of justice.
   2.  Imputation  may justly ensue "ex voluntaria sponsione,"--when
one  freely  and  willingly undertakes to  answer  for  another.  An
illustrious  instance hereof we have in that passage of the  apostle
unto  Philemon  in  the behalf of Onesimus, verse  18,  "If  he  has
wronged thee, or ows thee ought" ("touto emoi ellogei"), "impute  it
unto  me,--put  it on my account." He supposes that  Philemon  might
have a double action against Onesimus. (1.) "Injuriarum," of wrongs:
"Ei  de  ti edikese se"--If he has dealt unjustly with thee,  or  by
thee, if he has so wronged thee as to render himself obnoxious  unto
punishment." (2.) "Damni", or of loss: "E ofeilei"--"If he ows  thee
ought,  be a debtor unto thee;" which made him liable to payment  or
restitution.  In  this  state the apostle interposes  himself  by  a
voluntary sponsion, to undertake for Onesimus: "I Paul have  written
it  with my own hand," "Egoo apotisoo"--"I Paul will answer for  the
whole."  And this he did by the transcription of both the  debts  of
Onesimus unto himself; for the crime was of that nature as might  be
taken away by compurgation, being not capital. And the imputation of
them  unto him was made just by his voluntary undertaking  of  them.
"Account me," says he, "the person that has done these things; and I
will make satisfaction, so that nothing be charged on Onesimus."  So
Judas  voluntarily undertook unto Jacob for the safety of  Benjamin,
and  obliged  himself  unto  perpetual guilt  in  case  of  failure,
Gen.43:9,  "I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou  require
him:  if  I  bring  him  not unto thee, and set  him  before  thee,"
"wechata'ti  lecha  kol-hayamim",--"I will sin,"  or  "be  a  sinner
before thee always,"--be guilty, and, as we say, bear the blame.  So
he expresses himself again unto Joseph, chap.44:32. It seems this is
the  nature and office of a surety; what he undertakes for is justly
to  be  required  at  his  hand, as if he had  been  originally  and
personally  concerned  in it. And this voluntary  sponsion  was  one
ground of the imputation of our sin unto Christ. He took on him  the
person of the whole church that had sinned, to answer for what  they
had  done  against  God  and  the law.  Hence  that  imputation  was
"fundamentaliter ex compacto, ex voluntaria sponsione";--it had  its
foundation in his voluntary undertaking. But, on supposition hereof,
it  was  actually "ex justitia;" it being righteous that  he  should
answer for it, and make good what he had so undertaken, the glory of
God's righteousness and holiness being greatly concerned herein.
  3. There is an imputation "ex injuria," when that is laid unto the
charge  of  any  whereof he is not guilty: so  Bathsheba  says  unto
David, "It shall come to pass that when my lord the king shall sleep
with  his  fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall be  'chatta'im'"
(sinners),  1  Kings 1:21;--"shall be dealt with  as  offenders,  as
guilty  persons; have sin imputed unto us, on one pretence or other,
unto  our destruction. We shall be sinners,--be esteemed so, and  be
dealt withal accordingly." And we may see that, in the phrase of the
Scripture,  the  denomination of sinners follows the  imputation  as
well  as the inhesion of sin; which will give light unto that  place
of  the apostle, "He was made sin for us," 2 Cor.5:21. This kind  of
imputation has no place in the judgment of God. It is far  from  him
that the righteous should be as the wicked.
   4.  There  is an imputation "ex mera gratia," of mere  grace  and
favor.  And  this  is,  when  that  which  antecedently  unto   this
imputation was no way ours, not inherent in us, not performed by us,
which we had no right nor title unto, is granted unto us, made ours,
so  as that we are judged of and dealt with according unto it.  This
is  that  imputation, in both branches of it,--negative in the  non-
imputation of sin, and positive in the imputation of righteousness,-
-which  the  apostle  so vehemently pleads for,  and  so  frequently
asserts,  Rom. 4; for he both affirms the thing itself, and declares
that  it  is  of mere grace, without respect unto any  thing  within
ourselves.  And  if  this  kind  of  imputation  cannot   be   fully
exemplified in any other instance but this alone whereof  we  treat,
it  is because the foundation of it, in the mediation of Christ,  is
singular,  and that which there is nothing to parallel in any  other
case among men.
  From what has been discoursed concerning the nature and grounds of
imputation,  sundry things are made evident, which  contribute  much
light  unto  the truth which we plead for, at least unto  the  right
understanding and stating of the matter under debate. As,--
   1. The difference is plain between the imputation of any works of
our  own  unto us, and the imputation of the righteousness of  faith
without  works. For the imputation of works unto us,  be  they  what
they  will, be it faith itself as a work of obedience in us, is  the
imputation  of that which was ours before such imputation;  but  the
imputation  of  the righteousness of faith, or the righteousness  of
God  which is by faith, is the imputation of that which is made ours
by  virtue  of that imputation. And these two imputations differ  in
their  whole  kind. The one is a judging of that to be in  us  which
indeed  is so, and is ours before that judgment be passed concerning
it;  the  other is a communication of that unto us which before  was
not  ours.  And no man can make sense of the apostle's  discourse,--
that  is,  he  cannot understand any thing of it,--if he acknowledge
not  that the righteousness he treats of is made ours by imputation,
and was not ours antecedently thereunto.
   2. The imputation of works, of what sort soever they be, of faith
itself  as a work, and all the obedience of faith, is "ex justitia,"
and  not  "ex  gratia,"  of right, and not  of  grace.  However  the
bestowing of faith on us, and the working of obedience in us, may be
of grace, yet the imputation of them unto us, as in us, and as ours,
is an act of justice; for this imputation, as was showed, is nothing
but  a  judgment that such and such things are in us, or  are  ours,
which truly and really are so, with a treating of us according  unto
them.  This  is an act of justice, as it appears in the  description
given  of  that  imputation;  but the imputation  of  righteousness,
mentioned  by the apostle, is as unto us "ex mera gratia",  of  mere
grace,  as  he  fully declares,--"doorean tei chariti  outou".  And,
moreover,  he  declares  that  these two  sorts  of  imputation  are
inconsistent and not capable of any composition, so that  any  thing
should  be partly of the one, and partly of the other, Rom.9:6,  "If
by  grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is  no  more
grace:  but  if it be of works, then it is no more grace;  otherwise
work  is  no more work." For instance, if faith itself as a work  of
ours  be  imputed  unto  us, it being ours  antecedently  unto  that
imputation, it is but an acknowledgment of it to be in us and  ours,
with  an ascription of it unto us for what it is; for the ascription
of  any  thing  unto us for what it is not, is not  imputation,  but
mistake. But this is an imputation "ex justitia," of works;  and  so
that  which  is  of mere grace can have no place, by  the  apostle's
rule.  So  the  imputation unto us of what is in us is exclusive  of
grace,  in  the  apostle's sense. And on  the  other  hand,  if  the
righteousness  of  Christ be imputed unto us, it must  be  "ex  mera
gratia,"  of mere grace; for that is imputed unto us which  was  not
ours  antecedently unto that imputation, and so is communicated unto
us  thereby. And here is no place for works, nor for any pretence of
them.  In the one way, the foundation of imputation is in ourselves;
in the other, it is in another; which are irreconcilable.
   3.  Herein  both these kinds of imputation do agree,--namely,  in
that whatever is imputed unto us, it is imputed for what it is,  and
not  for  what it is not. If it be a perfect righteousness  that  is
imputed unto us, so it is esteemed and judged to be; and accordingly
are  we  to  be  dealt  withal, even as those  who  have  a  perfect
righteousness; and if that which is imputed as righteousness unto us
be imperfect, or imperfectly so, then as such must it be judged when
it  is imputed; and we must be dealt withal as those which have such
an imperfect righteousness, and no otherwise. And therefore, whereas
our  inherent righteousness is imperfect (they are to be  pitied  or
despised, not to be contended withal, that are otherwise minded), if
that  be  imputed  unto  us, we cannot be accepted  on  the  account
thereof as perfectly righteous, without an error in judgment.
   4.  Hence  the true nature of that imputation which we plead  for
(which so many cannot or will not understand) is manifest, and  that
both negatively and positively; for,--(1.) Negatively. First, It  is
not  a  judging or esteeming of them to be righteous who  truly  and
really are not so. Such a judgment is not reducible unto any of  the
grounds  of imputation before mentioned. It has the nature  of  that
which is "ex injuria," or a false charge, only it differs materially
from  it;  for  that  respects evil, this that which  is  good.  And
therefore the glamours of the Papists and others are mere effects of
ignorance or malice, wherein they cry out "ad ravim," [till they are
hoarse,] that we affirm God to esteem them to be righteous  who  are
wicked,  sinful, and polluted. But this falls heavily  on  them  who
maintain  that  we  are justified before God  by  our  own  inherent
righteousness: for then a man is judged righteous who indeed is  not
so; for he who is not perfectly righteous cannot be righteous in the
sight  of  God  unto  justification. Secondly, It  is  not  a  naked
pronunciation or declaration of any one to be righteous,  without  a
just  and  sufficient foundation for the judgement of  God  declared
therein. God declares no man to be righteous but him who is so;  the
whole  question being how he comes so to be. Thirdly, It is not  the
transmission  or  transfusion of the righteousness of  another  into
them that are to be justified, that they should become perfectly and
inherently  righteous  thereby;  for  it  is  impossible  that   the
righteousness  of one should be transfused into another,  to  become
his  subjectively and inherently: but it is a great mistake, on  the
other  hand, to say that therefore the righteousness of one  can  no
way  be  made  the righteousness of another; which is  to  deny  all
imputation.
   Wherefore,--(~.) Positively. This imputation is an act of God "ex
mera  gratia,"  of  his  mere  love  and  grace;  whereby,  on   the
consideration  of  the mediation of Christ, he  makes  an  effectual
grant and donation of a true, real, perfect righteousness, even that
of  Christ  himself unto all that do believe; and accounting  it  as
theirs,  on  his own gracious act, both absolves them from  sin  and
grants them right and title unto eternal life. Hence,--
   5. In this imputation, the thing itself is first imputed unto us,
and  not any of the effects of it, but they are made ours by  virtue
of  that  imputation. To say that the righteousness of Christ,--that
is,  his obedience and sufferings,--are imputed unto us only as unto
their  effects, is to say that we have the benefit of them,  and  no
more;  but  imputation itself is denied. So say the  Socinians;  but
they  know  well enough, and ingenuously grant, that they  overthrow
all  true,  real  imputation  thereby.  "Nec  enim  ut  per  Christi
justitiam  justificemur, opus est ut illius  justitia,  nostra  fiat
justitia;  sed  sufficit  ut  Christi  justitia  sit  causa  nostrae
justificationis;  et  hactenus  possumus  tibi  concedere,   Christi
justitiam  esse  nostram   justitiam,  quatenus  nostrum  in   bonum
justitiamque  redundat;  verum tu proprie  nostram,  id  est,  nobis
attributam ascriptamque intelligis", says Schlichtingius, Disp.  pro
Socin. ad Meisner. p. 250. And it is not pleasing to see some  among
ourselves  with so great confidence take up the sense and  words  of
these  men in their disputations against the Protestant doctrine  in
this cause; that is, the doctrine of the church of England,.
   That  the righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us as unto  its
effects, has this sound sense in it,--namely, that the effects of it
are  made  ours by reason of that imputation. It is so  imputed,  so
reckoned  unto  us  of God, as that he really communicates  all  the
effects of it unto us. But to say the righteousness of Christ is not
imputed unto us, only its effects are so, is really to overthrow all
imputation;  for (as we shall see) the effects of the  righteousness
of  Christ cannot be said properly to be imputed unto us; and if his
righteousness itself be not so, imputation has no place herein,  nor
can it be understood why the apostle should so frequently assert  it
as he does, Rom.4. And therefore the Socinians, who expressly oppose
the  imputation  of the righteousness of Christ,  and  plead  for  a
participation  of its effects or benefits only, do wisely  deny  any
such  kind of righteousness of Christ,--namely, of satisfaction  and
merit  (or that the righteousness of Christ, as wrought by him,  was
either  satisfactory or meritorious),--as alone may be imputed  unto
us.  For it will readily be granted, that what alone they allow  the
righteousness  of  Christ to consist in cannot be imputed  unto  us,
whatever  benefit  we may have by it. But I do  not  understand  how
those  who  grant the righteousness of Christ to consist principally
in  his  satisfaction for us, or in our stead, can  conceive  of  an
imputation of the effects thereof unto us, without an imputation  of
the  thing  itself;  seeing it is for that, as made  ours,  that  we
partake  of  the  benefits  of  it. But,  from  the  description  of
imputation and the instances of it, it appears that there can be  no
imputation of any thing unless the thing itself be imputed; nor  any
participation  of the effects of any thing but what iS  grounded  on
the  imputation  of the thing itself. Wherefore, in  our  particular
case,  no  imputation  of the righteousness of  Christ  is  allowed,
unless  we  grant  itself  to  be  imputed;  nor  can  we  have  any
participation  of  the  effects of it but  on  the  supposition  and
foundation of that imputation. The impertinent cavils that  some  of
late  have collected from the Papists and Socinians,--that if it  be
so,  then  are  we  as  righteous as Christ himself,  that  we  have
redeemed  the world and satisfied for the sins of others,  that  the
pardon  of  sin is impossible and personal righteousness needless,--
shall afterward be spoken unto, so far as they deserve.
   All  that  we  aim  to  demonstrate is,  only,  that  either  the
righteousness of Christ itself is imputed unto us, or  there  is  no
imputation in the matter of our justification; which, whether  there
be  or no, is another question, afterward to be spoken unto. For, as
was  said, the effects of the righteousness of Christ cannot be said
properly  to be imputed unto us. For instance, pardon of  sin  is  a
great  effect of the righteousness of Christ. Our sins are  pardoned
on  the account thereof. God for Christ's sake, forgives us all  our
sins.  But the pardon of sin cannot be said to be imputed  unto  us,
nor  is  so. Adoption, justification, peace with God, all grace  and
glory,  are  effects of the righteousness of Christ; but that  these
things are not imputed unto us, nor can be so, is evident from their
nature.  But we are made partakers of them all upon the  account  of
the  imputation  of  the righteousness of Christ  unto  us,  and  no
otherwise.
   Thus much may suffice to be spoken of the nature of imputation of
the  righteousness  of  Christ;  the grounds,  reasons,  and  causes
whereof,  we shall in the next place inquire into. And I  doubt  not
but  we  shall find, in our inquiry, that it is no such  figment  as
some, ignorant of these things, do imagine; but, on the contrary, an
important truth immixed with the most fundamental principles of  the
mystery  of  the gospel, and inseparable from the grace  of  God  in
Christ Jesus.






VIII.  Imputation of the sins of the church unto Christ--Grounds  of
it--The nature of his suretiship--Causes of the new covenant--Christ
and the church one mystical person--Consequents thereof


Imputation of sin unto Christ--Testimonies of the ancients unto that
purpose--Christ  and the church one mystical person--Mistakes  about
that  state and relation--Grounds and reasons of the union  that  is
the  foundation  of this imputation--Christ the surety  of  the  new
covenant;  in what sense, unto what ends--Heb.7:22, opened--Mistakes
about  the causes and ends of the death of Christ--The new covenant,
in what sense alone procured and purchased thereby --Inquiry whether
the  guilt of our sins was imputed unto Christ--The meaning  of  the
words,  "guilt,"  and "guilty"--The distinction of "reatus  culpae",
and  "reatus poenae", examined--Act of God in the imputation of  the
guilt  of  our sins unto Christ--Objections against it answered--The
truth confirmed


Those who believe the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto
believers,  for  the  justification of  life,  do  also  unanimously
profess that the sins of all believers were imputed unto Christ. And
this   they  do  on  many  testimonies  of  the  Scripture  directly
witnessing  thereunto; some whereof shall be pleaded and  vindicated
afterwards.  At  present  we are only on the  consideration  of  the
general notion of these things, and the declaration of the nature of
what  shall be proved afterwards. And, in the first place, we  shall
inquire  into  the foundation of this dispensation of God,  and  the
equity  of  it, or the grounds whereinto it is resolved; without  an
understanding whereof the thing itself cannot be well apprehended.
   The  principal foundation hereof is,--that Christ and the church,
in  this  design,  were one mystical person;  which  state  they  do
actually  coalesce into, through the uniting efficacy  of  the  Holy
Spirit.  He is the head, and believers are the members of  that  one
person,  as the apostle declares, 1 Cor.12:12,13. Hence, as what  he
did  is imputed unto them, as if done by them; so what they deserved
on the account of sin was charged upon him. So is it expressed by  a
learned prelate, "Nostram causam sustinebat, qui nostram sibi carnem
aduniverat,   et   ita  nobis  arctissimo  vinculo  conjunctus,   et
'henootheis', quae erant nostra fecit sua". And again,  "Quit  mirum
si  in  nostra  persona constitutus, nostram carnem indutus",  etc.,
Montacut.  Origin.  Ecclesiast.  The  ancients  speak  to  the  same
purpose.  Leo. Serm. 17: "Ideo se humanae imfirmitati virtus  divina
conseruit,  ut  dum  Deus sua facit esse quae  nostra  sunt,  nostra
faceret  esse  quae  sua  sunt"; and also Serm.  16  "Caput  nostrum
Dominus Jesus Christus omnia in se corporis sui membra transformans,
quod  olim  in  psalmo  eructaverit,  id  in  supplicio  crucis  sub
redemptorum  suorum voce clamavit". And so speaks Augustine  to  the
same  purpose, Epist. 120, ad Honoratum, "Audimus vocem corporis  ex
ore  capitis.  Ecclesia  in  illo patiebatur,  quando  pro  ecclesia
patiebatur", etc.;--"We hear the voice of the body from the mouth of
the  head.  The  church suffered in him when  he  suffered  for  the
church; as he suffers in the church when the church suffers for him.
For  as  we  have heard the voice of the church in Christ suffering,
'My  God,  my God, why hast thou forsaken me? look upon me;'  so  we
have heard the voice of Christ in the church suffering, 'Saul, Saul,
why persecutes thou me?'" But we may yet look a little backwards and
farther  into  the  sense of the ancient church herein.  "Christus,"
says   Irenaeus,  "omnes  gentes  exinde  ab  Adam   dispersas,   et
generationem hominum in semet ipso recapitulatus est; unde  a  Paulo
typus  futuri  dictus  est  ipse Adam",  lib.3  cap.33.  And  again,
"Recapitulans universum hominum enus in se ab initio usque ad finem,
recapitulatus est et mortem ejus". In this of repapitulation,  there
is no doubt but he had respect unto the "anakefalaioosis", mentioned
Eph.1:10;  and  it  may  be  this was  that  which  Origin  intended
enigmatically, by saying, "The soul of the first Adam was  the  soul
of  Christ,  s  it is charged on him". And Cyprian,  Epist.  62,  on
bearing  about the administration of the sacrament of the eucharist,
"Nos  omnes portabat Christus; qui et peccata nostra portabet";--"He
bare us", or suffered in our person, "when he bare our sins." Whence
Athanasius affirms of the voice he used on the cross, "Ouk autos  ho
Kurios,  alle hemeis en ekeinooi paschontes hemen"--"We suffered  in
him."  Eusebius  speaks  many things to this  purpose,  Demonstrate.
Evangeli.  lib.10  cap.1. Expounding those words  of  the  psalmist,
"Heal  my soul, for" (or, as he would read them, if) "I have  sinned
against thee," and applying them unto our Saviour in his sufferings,
he   says  thus,  "Epeidan  tas  hemeteras  koinopoiei  eis  heauton
hamartias"--"Because  he took of our sins to himself;"  communicated
our  sins to himself, making them his own: for so he adds, "Hoti tas
hemeteras hamartias exoikeioumenos"--"Making our sins his own."  And
because  in his following words he fully expresses what I design  to
prove,  I  shall  transcribe them at large: "Poos de  tas  hemeteras
hemartias exoikeioutai; kai poos ferein legetai tas anomias  hemoon,
e  kath' ho sooma autou einai legometha; kata ton apostolon tesanta,
humeis  este  sooma  Christou, kai mele  ek  merous.  kai  kath'  ho
paschontos  henos  melous  sumpaschei panta  ta  mele,  houtoo  toon
pollooon meloon paschontoon kai hamartanontoon, kai autos kata  tous
tes  sumpatieias logous, epeideper eudokese Theou Logos oon,  morgen
doulou  lathein,  kai tooi koinooi pantoon hemoon hemoon  skenoomati
sunafthenai.  tous  toon  paschontoon  meloon  ponous  eis   heauton
analamthanei,  kai  tas hemeteras nosous idiopoieitai,  kai  pantoon
hemoon huperalgei kai huperponei kata tous ts filanthroopias nomous.
ou  monon  de tauta praxas ho Amnos tou Theo, alle kak huper  hemoon
kolastheis  kai  timoorian huposchoon, hen autos men  ouk  oofeilen,
all'  hemeis tou plethous eneken peplemmelemenoon, hemin aitios  tes
toon   hamartematoon  afese  hos  kateste,  ate  ton  huper   hemoon
anadexamenos  thanaton, mastigas te kai hutreis  kai  atimias  hemin
epofeilomenas  eis  auton metatheis, kai ten  hemin  prostetimemenen
kataran eph' heauton helkusas, genomenos huper hemoon katara. kai ti
gar allo e antipsuchos; dio fesin ex hemeterou prosoopou to logion--
hooste  eikotoos  henoon  heauton hemin,  hemas  te  hautoo  kai  ta
hemetera pasthe idiopoioumenos fesin, egoo eipa, Kurie ele-eson  me,
iasai ten psuchen mou, hoti hemarton soi.
   I have transcribed this passage at large because, as I said, what
I  intend  to  prove  in  the present discourse  is  declared  fully
therein.  Thus, therefore, he speaks: "How, then, did  he  make  our
sins  to be his own, and how did he bear our iniquities? Is  it  not
from thence, that we are said to be his body? as the apostle speaks,
'You  are the body of Christ, and members, for your part, or of  one
another.' And as when one member suffers, all the members do suffer;
so  the  many members sinning and suffering, he, according unto  the
laws  of  sympathy in the same body (seeing that, being the Word  of
God,  he  would take the form of a servant, and be joined  unto  the
common habitation of us all in the same nature), took the sorrows or
labours  of  the  suffering  members on  him,  and  made  all  their
infirmities his own; and, according to the laws of humanity (in  the
same  body), bare our sorrow and labour for us. And the Lamb of  God
did  not only these things for us but he underwent torments and  was
punished for us; that which he was no ways exposed unto for himself,
but  we  were so by the multitude of our sins: and thereby he became
the  cause  of the pardon of our sins,--namely, because he underwent
death,  stripes,  reproaches, translating the  thing  which  we  had
deserved  unto  himself,--and was made a curse for us,  taking  unto
himself  the  curse  that was due to us; for  what  was  he  but  (a
substitute  for  us) a price of redemption for  our  souls?  In  our
person, therefore, the oracle speaks,--whilst freely uniting himself
unto  us, and us unto himself, and making our (sins or passions  his
own),  'I have said, Lord, be merciful unto me; heal my soul, for  I
have sinned against thee.'"
   That  our  sins were transferred unto Christ and made  his,  that
thereon  he underwent the punishment that was due unto us for  them,
and that the ground hereof, whereinto its equity is resolved, is the
union  between  him and us, is fully declared in this discourse.  So
says the learned and pathetical author of the Homilies on Matt.5, in
the  works  of  Chrysostom, Hom.54, which is the last of  them,  "In
carne sua omnem carnem suscepit, crucifixus, omnem carnem crucifixit
in  se."  He  speaks of the church. So they speak often,  others  of
them,  that  "he bare us," that "he took us with him on the  cross,"
that "we were all crucified in him;" as Prosper, "He is not saved by
the  cross of Christ who is not crucified in Christ," Resp. ad cap.,
Gal. cap. 9.
  This, then, I say, is the foundation of the imputation of the sins
of  the  church unto Christ,--namely, that he and it are one person;
the grounds whereof we must inquire into.
   But hereon sundry discourses do ensue, and various inquiries  are
made,--What a person is? In what sense, and in how many senses, that
word  may be used? What is the true notion of it? What is a  natural
person? What a legal, civil, or political person? In the explication
whereof some have fallen mistakes. And if we should enter into  this
field, we need not fear matter enough of debate and altercation. But
I  must  needs  say, that these things belong not unto  our  present
occasion; nor is the union of Christ and the church illustrated, but
obscured  by them. For Christ and believers are neither one  natural
person, nor a legal or political person, nor any such person as  the
laws,  customs, or usages of men do know or allow of. They  are  one
mystical  person;  whereof  although there  may  be  some  imperfect
resemblances  found in natural or political unions,  yet  the  union
from whence that denomination is taken between him and us is of that
nature,  and  arises from such reasons and causes,  as  no  personal
union  among  men (or the union of many persons) has any concernment
in.  And  therefore, as to the representation of it  unto  our  weak
understandings,   unable  to  comprehend  the  depth   of   heavenly
mysteries,  it is compared unto unions of divers kinds and  natures.
So  is  it  represented by that of man and wife; not as  unto  those
mutual  affections which give them only a moral union, but from  the
extraction of the first woman from the flesh and bone of  the  first
man,  and the institution of God for the individual society of  life
thereon. This the apostle at large declares, Eph.5:25-32: whence  he
concludes, that from the union thus represented, "We are members  of
his body, of his flesh, and of his bones," verse 30; or have such  a
relation unto him as Eve had to Adam, when she was made of his flesh
and  bone,  and so was one flesh with him. So, also, it is  compared
unto  the union of the head and members of the same natural body,  1
Cor.12:12;  and  unto a political union also, between  a  ruling  or
political head and its political members; but never exclusively unto
the  union of a natural head and its members comprised in  the  same
expression,  Eph.4:15; Col.2:19. And so also unto sundry  things  in
nature,  as a vine and its branches, John 15:1,2. And it is declared
by  the  relation that was between Adam and his posterity, by  God's
institution  and the law of creation, Rom.5:12, etc.  And  the  Holy
Ghost,  by  representing  the  union  that  is  between  Christ  and
believers by such a variety of resemblances, in things agreeing only
in  the common or general notion of union, on various grounds,  does
sufficiently  manifest that it is not of, nor can be  reduced  unto,
any  one kind of them. And this will yet be made more evident by the
consideration of the causes of it, and the grounds whereinto  it  is
resolved.  But whereas it would require much time and  diligence  to
handle  them  at  large,  which  the mention  of  them  here,  being
occasional,  will  not admit, I shall only briefly  refer  unto  the
heads of them:--
   1.  The first spring or cause of this union, and of all the other
causes  of  it,  lies in that eternal compact that was  between  the
Father  and the Son concerning the recovery and salvation of  fallen
mankind.  Herein,  among other things, as the effects  thereof,  the
assumption  of  our  nature  (the  foundation  of  this  union)  was
designed.  The  nature  and  terms of  this  compact,  counsel,  and
agreement,  I have declared elsewhere; and therefore must  not  here
again  insist  upon  it.  But the relation between  Christ  and  the
church,  proceeding from hence, and so being an effect  of  infinite
wisdom,  in the counsel of the Father and Son, to be made  effectual
by  the Holy Spirit, must be distinguished from all other unions  or
relations whatever.
  2. The Lord Christ, as unto the nature which he was to assume, was
hereon predestinated unto grace and glory. He was "proegnoosmenos",-
-"foreordained,"  predestinated,  "before  the  foundation  of   the
world," 1 Pet.1:20; that is, he was so, as unto his office, so  unto
all  the grace and glory required thereunto, and consequent thereon.
All  the grace and glory of the human nature of Christ was an effect
of free divine preordination. God chose it from all eternity unto  a
participation  of  all which it received in time.  Neither  can  any
other cause of the glorious exaltation of that portion of our nature
be assigned.
  3. This grace and glory whereunto he was preordained was twofold:-
-(1.)  That which was peculiar unto himself; (2.) That which was  to
be  communicated, by and through him, unto the church. (1.)  Of  the
first  sort  was  the "charis henooseoos",--the  grace  of  personal
union;  that  single effect of divine wisdom (whereof  there  is  no
shadow  nor  resemblance  in  any other  works  of  God,  either  of
creation, providence, or grace), which his nature was filled withal:
"Full  of  grace  and  truth." And all his  personal  glory,  power,
authority, and majesty as mediator, in his exaltation at  the  right
hand  of  God, which is expressive of them all, do belong  hereunto.
These things were peculiar unto him, and all of them effects of  his
eternal  predestination. But,--(2.) He was  not  thus  predestinated
absolutely, but also with respect unto that grace and glory which in
him and by him was to be communicated unto the church And he was so,-
-
  [1.] As the pattern and exemplary cause of our predestination; for
we  are "predestinated to be conformed unto the image of the Son  of
God, that he might be the first born among many brethren," Rom.8:29.
Hence  he shall even "change our vile body, that it may be fashioned
like unto his glorious body," Phil.3:21; that when he appears we may
be every way like him, 1 John 3:2.
   [2.]  As the means and cause of communicating all grace and glory
unto  us;  for  we are "chosen in him before the foundation  of  the
world,  that we should be holy, and predestinated unto the  adoption
of  children  by  him,"  Eph.1:3-5. He  was  designed  as  the  only
procuring  cause of all spiritual blessings in heavenly things  unto
those who are chosen in him. Wherefore,--
   [3.] He was thus foreordained as the head of the church; it being
the design of God to gather all things into a head in him, Eph.1:10.
  [4.] All the elect of God were, in his eternal purpose and design,
and  in  the  everlasting covenant between the Father and  the  Son,
committed  unto him, to be delivered from sin, the law,  and  death,
and  to be brought into the enjoyment of God: "Thine they were,  and
thou  gavest  them me," John 17:6. Hence was that love of  his  unto
them   wherewith  he  loved  them,  and  gave  himself   for   them,
antecedently  unto any good or love in them, Eph.5:25,26;  Gal.2:20;
Rev.1:5,6.
   [5.]  In  the  prosecution of this design  of  God,  and  in  the
accomplishment of the everlasting covenant, in the fulness  of  time
he  took  upon him our nature, or took it into personal  subsistence
with  himself. The especial relation that ensued hereon between  him
and  the  elect children the apostle declares at large, Heb.2:10-17;
and I refer the reader unto our exposition of that place.
  [6.] On these foundations he undertook to be the surety of the new
covenant, Heb.7:22, "Jesus was made a surety of a better testament."
This  alone, of all the fundamental considerations of the imputation
of  our sins unto Christ, I shall insist upon, on purpose to obviate
or  remove some mistakes about the nature of his suretiship, and the
respect  of  it unto the covenant whereof he was the surety.  And  I
shall  borrow what I shall offer hereon from our exposition of  this
passage  of the apostle in the seventh chapter of this epistle,  not
yet   published,  with  very  little  variation  from  what  I  have
discoursed  on  that occasion, without the least  respect  unto,  or
prospect of, any treating on our present subject.
   The  word "enguos" is nowhere found in the Scripture but in  this
place  only;  but the advantage which some would make  from  thence,
namely,  that  it  being but one place wherein the Lord,  Christ  is
called a surety, it is not of much force, or much to be insisted on,-
-is  both unreasonable and absurd; for,--1st. This one place  is  of
divine  revelation;  and  therefore is of the  same  authority  with
twenty testimonies unto the same purpose. One divine testimony makes
our  faith no less necessary, nor does one less secure it from being
deceived than a hundred.
   2dly. The signification of the word is known from the use of  it,
and what it signifies among men; so that no question can be made  of
its  sense and importance, though it be but once used: and  this  on
any   occasion  removes  the  difficulty  and  danger,  "toon  hapax
legomenoon". 3dly. The thing itself intended is so fully declared by
the apostle in this place, and so plentifully taught in other places
of the Scripture, as that the single use of this word may add light,
but can be no prejudice unto it.
   Something  may  be  spoken  unto the signification  of  the  word
"enguos",  which  will  give light into the thing  intended  by  it.
"Gualon"  is  "vola  manus",--the "palm  of  the  hand;"  thence  is
"enguos",   or  "eis  to  gualon",--to  "deliver  into  the   hand."
"Enguetes"  is of the same signification. Hence being  a  surety  is
interpreted  by  striking the hand, Prov.6:1, "My son,  if  thou  be
surety  for  thy  friend,  if thou hast stricken  thy  hand  with  a
stranger."  So  it answers the Hebrew "arav", which the  LXX  render
"enguaoo",  Prov.6:1;  17:18; 20:16; and  by  "dienguaoo",  Neh.5:3.
"Arav" originally signifies to mingle, or a mixture of any things or
persons;  and thence, from the conjunction and mixture is between  a
surety  and him for whom he is a surety, whereby they coalesce  into
one  person, as unto the ends of that suretiship, it is used  for  a
surety,  or to give surety. And he that was or did "arav", a surety,
or  become  a  surety, was to answer for him for  whom  he  was  so,
whatsoever befell him. So is it described, Gen.43:9, in the words of
Judas   unto   his  father  Jacob,  concerning  Benjamin,   "'anochi
'e'erbennu",--"I  will  be surety for him; of  my  hand  shalt  thou
require  him."  In  undertaking to be surety for him,  as  unto  his
safety  and preservation, he engages himself to answer for all  that
should  befall him; for so he adds, "If I bring him not  unto  thee,
and  set  him  before thee, let me be guilty forever." And  on  this
ground  he entreats Joseph that he might be a servant and a  bondman
in  his  stead,  that he might go free and return unto  his  father,
Gen.44:32,33. This is required unto such a surety, that  he  undergo
and  answer  all  that he for whom he is a surety  is  liable  unto,
whether  in things criminal or civil, so far as the suretiship  does
extend.  A  surety  is  an undertaker for another,  or  others,  who
thereon is justly and legally to answer what is due to them, or from
them; nor is the word otherwise used. See Job 17:3; Prov.6:1; 11:15;
17:18;  20:16;  27:13.  So Paul became a surety  unto  Philemon  for
Onesimus, verse 18. "Engue" is "sponsio, expromissio, fidejussio,"--
an  undertaking  or  giving security for any thing  or  person  unto
another, whereon an agreement did ensue. This, in some cases, was by
pledges,  or  an  earnest,  Isa.36:8, "hit'arev  na"--"Give  surety,
pledges, hostages," for the true performance of conditions. Hence is
"'eravon",   "arrathoon",  "a  pledge,"  or   "earnest,"   Eph.1:14.
Wherefore  "enguos"  is  "sponsor,  fidejussor,  praes,"--one   that
voluntarily  takes on himself the cause or condition of another,  to
answer,  or  undergo, or pay what he is liable unto, or  to  see  it
done;   whereon  he  becomes  justly  and  legally  obnoxious   unto
performance. In this sense is the word here used by the apostle; for
it has no other.
   In  our  present  inquiry into the nature of this  suretiship  of
Christ,  the whole will be resolved into this one question,--namely,
whether  the Lord Christ was made a surety only on the part  of  God
unto  us, to assure us that the promise of the covenant on his  part
should be accomplished; or also and principally an undertaker on our
part,  for  the performance of what is required; if not of  us,  yet
with  respect  unto  us, that the promise may be  accomplished?  The
first  of  these  is vehemently asserted by the Socinians,  who  are
followed by Grotius and Hammond in their annotations on this place.
   The  words  of  Schlichtingius are: "Sponsor foederis  appellatur
Jesus,  quod  nomine Dei nobis, spoponderit, id est  fidem  fecerit,
Deum  foederis  promissiones servaturum. Non vero  quasi  pro  nobis
spoponderit  Deo, nostrurumve debitorum solutionem in se  receperit.
Nec enim nos misimus Christum sed Deus, cujus nomine Christus ad nos
venit,  foedus  nobiscum  panxit, ejusque  promissiones  ratas  fore
spopondit  et  in  se recepti; ideoque nec sponsor simpliciter,  sed
foederis  sponsor nominatur; spopondit autem Christus  pro  foederis
divini  veritate, non tantum quatenus id firmum ratumque fore verbis
perpetuo testatus est; sed etiam quatenus muneris sui fidem, maximis
rerum  ipsarum comprobavit documentis, cum perfecta vitae innocentia
et  sanctitte, cum divinis plane quae patravit, operibus; cum mortis
adeo   truculentae,  quam  pro  doctrinae  suae   veritate   subiit,
perpessione".  After  which he subjoins a long discourse  about  the
evidences  which we have of the veracity of Christ.  And  herein  we
have a brief account of their whole opinion concerning the mediation
of  Christ. The words of Grotius are, "Spopondit Christus;  id  est,
nos  certos  promissi  fecit  non solis verbis  sed  perpetua  vitae
sanctitate  morte ob id tolerate et miraculis plurimis";--which  are
an  abridgment  of  the  discourse of Schlichtingius.  To  the  same
purpose Dr Hammond expounds it, that he was a sponsor or surety  for
God unto the confirmation of the promises of the covenant.
   On  the  other  hand, the generality of expositors,  ancient  and
modern,  of the Roman and Protestant churches, on the place,  affirm
that the Lord Christ, as the surety of the covenant, was properly  a
surety  or  undertaker  unto  God for  us,  and  not  a  surety  and
undertaker  unto us for God. And because this is a matter  of  great
importance,  wherein  the faith and consolation  of  the  church  is
highly concerned, I shall insist a little upon it.
  And, first, We may consider the argument that is produced to prove
that  Christ was only a surety for God unto us. Now, this  is  taken
neither  from the name nor nature of the office or work  of  surety,
nor from the nature of the covenant whereof he was a surety, nor  of
the  office wherein he was so. But the sole argument insisted on is,
that we do not give Christ as a surety of the covenant unto God, but
he  gives him unto us; and therefore he is a surety for God and  the
accomplishment of his promises, and not for us, to pay our debts, or
to answer what is required of us.
   But  there is no force in this argument; for it belongs not  unto
the  nature  of a surety by whom he is or may be designed  unto  his
office  and work therein. His own voluntary susception of the office
and  work  is  all that is required, however he may be  designed  or
induced to undertake it. He who, of his own accord, does voluntarily
undertake  for  another, on what grounds, reasons, or considerations
soever  he does so, is his surety. And this the Lord Christ  did  in
the  behalf  of  the church: for when it was said,  "Sacrifice,  and
burnt-offering,  and whole burnt-offerings for sin,  God  would  not
have,"  or  accept  as  sufficient to make  the  atonement  that  he
required,  so  as  that the covenant might be established  and  made
effectual unto us; then said he, "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God,"
Heb.10:5,7.  He willingly and voluntarily, out of his  own  abundant
goodness  and love, took upon him to make atonement for us;  wherein
he  was  our  surety. And accordingly, this undertaking is  ascribed
unto  that  love which he exercised herein, Gal.2:20; 1  John  3:16;
Rev.1:5.  And there was this in it, moreover, that he took upon  him
our  nature  or the seed of Abraham; wherein he was our  surety.  So
that although we neither did nor could appoint him so to be, yet  he
took from us that wherein and whereby he was so; Which is as much as
if  we had designed him unto his work, as to the true reason of  his
being   our  surety.  Wherefore,  notwithstanding  those  antecedent
transactions that were between the Father and him in this matter, it
was  the  voluntary engagement of himself to be our surety, and  his
taking our nature upon him for that end, which was the formal reason
of his being instated in that office.
   It  is indeed weak, and contrary unto all common experience, that
none  can be a surety for others unless those others design him  and
appoint him so to be. The principal instances of suretiship  in  the
world have been by the voluntary undertaking of such as were no  way
procured  so  to  do by them for whom they undertook.  And  in  such
undertakings,  he  unto whom it is made is no less  considered  than
they  for whom it is made: as when Judas, on his own account, became
a  surety for Benjamin, he had as much respect unto the satisfaction
of  his father as the safety of his brother. And so the Lord Christ,
in his undertaking to be a surety for us, had respect unto the glory
of God before our safety.
   Secondly, We may consider the arguments whence it is evident that
he neither was nor could be a surety unto us for God, but was so for
us unto God. For,--
   1. "Enguos" or "enguetes", "a surety," is one that undertakes for
another  wherein he is defective, really or in reputation.  Whatever
that undertaking be, whether in words of promise or in depositing of
real  security  in  the  hands of an arbitrator,  or  by  any  other
personal engagement of life and body, it respects the defeat of  the
person  for  whom any one becomes a surety. Such a one is "sponsor,"
or  "fidejussor," in all good authors and common use of speech.  And
if  any one be of absolute credit himself, and of a reputation every
way unquestionable, there is no need of a surety, unless in case  of
mortality.  The  words of a surety in the behalf  of  another  whose
ability  or reputation is dubious, are, "Ad me recipio, faciet,  aut
faciam".  And  when "anguos" is taken adjectively, as sometimes,  it
signifies "satisfationibus obnoxius",--liable to payments for others
that are non-solvent.
   2. God can, therefore, have no surety properly, because there can
be no imagination of any defect on his part. There may be, indeed  a
question whether any word or promise be a word or promise of God. To
assure  us hereof, it is not the work of a surety, but only any  one
or  any means that may give evidence that so it is,--that is,  of  a
witness. But upon a supposition that what is proposed is his word or
promise,  there can be no imagination or fear of any defect  on  his
part,  so  as  that  there should be any need of a  surety  for  the
performance  of  it.  He does therefore make  use  of  witnesses  to
confirm  his  word,--that is, to testify that such promises  he  has
made,  and  so  he  will  do: so the Lord Christ  was  his  witness.
Isa.43:10, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom
I  have  chosen;" but they were not all his sureties. So he  affirms
that  "he came into the world to bear witness unto the truth,"  John
18:37,--that is, the truth of the promises of God; for  he  was  the
minister  of the circumcision for the truth of the promises  of  God
unto  the  fathers,  Rom.15:8: but a surety  for  God,  properly  so
called,  he  was not, nor could be. The distance and  difference  is
wide enough between a witness and a surety; for a surety must be  of
more  ability, or more credit and reputation, than he or  those  for
whom  he is a surety, or there is no need of his suretiship; or,  at
least,  he  must  add  unto their credit, and make  it  better  than
without  him.  This  none can be for God, no, not  the  Lord  Christ
himself, who, in his whole work, was the servant of the Father.  And
the apostle does not use this word in a general, improper sense, for
any one that by any means gives assurance of any other thing, for so
he  had  ascribed nothing peculiar unto Christ; for in such a  sense
all  the  prophets and apostles were sureties for God, and  many  of
them  confirmed the truth of his word and promises with  the  laying
down  of their lives; but such a surety he intends as undertakes  to
do  that for others which they cannot do for themselves, or at least
are not reputed to be able to do what is required of them.
  3. The apostle had before at large declared who and what was God's
surety  in  this matter of the covenant, and how impossible  it  was
that  he  should  have  any  other.  And  this  was  himself  alone,
interposing  himself  by his oath; for in this  cause,  "because  he
could  swear  by  no  greater, he sware  by  himself,"  Heb.6:13,14.
Wherefore,  if God would give any other surety besides  himself,  it
must  be  one  greater than he. This being every way impossible,  he
swears  by  himself  only. Many ways he may and  does  use  for  the
declaring and testifying of his truth unto us, that we may know  and
believe  it  to be his word; and so the Lord Christ in his  ministry
was the principal witness of the truth of God. But other surety than
himself he can have none. And therefore,--
   4.  When  he would have us in this matter not only come unto  the
full  assurance of faith concerning his promises, but also  to  have
strong   consolation  therein,  he  resolves  it  wholly  into   the
immutability  of  his counsel, s declared by his promise  and  oath,
chap.6:18,19: so that neither is God capable of having  any  surety,
properly  so called; neither do we stand in need of any on his  part
for the confirmation of our faith in the highest degree.
   5.  We, on all accounts, stand in need of a surety for us, or  on
our  behalf.  Neither, without the interposition of such  a  surety,
could  any  covenant between God and us be firm and  stable,  or  an
everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure. In the  first
covenant  made with Adam there was no surety, but God and  men  were
the  immediate covenantors; and although we were then in a state and
condition  able to perform and answer all the terms of the covenant,
yet  was  it  broken and disannulled. If this came to  pass  by  the
failure  of the promise of God, it was necessary that on the  making
of a new covenant he should have a surety to undertake for him, that
the  covenant might be stable and everlasting; but this is false and
blasphemous to imagine. It was man alone who failed and  broke  that
covenant:  wherefore it was necessary, that upon the making  of  the
new  covenant,  and that with a design and purpose  that  it  should
never be disannulled, as the former was, we should have a surety and
undertaker  for  us; for if that first covenant  was  not  firm  and
stable,   because  there  was  no  surety  to  undertake   for   us,
notwithstanding all that ability which we had to answer the terms of
it,  how  much less can any other be so, now [that] our natures  are
become  depraved and sinful! Wherefore we alone were  capable  of  a
surety,  properly so called, for us; we alone stood in need of  him;
and  without him the covenant could not be firm and inviolate on our
part. The surety, therefore of this covenant, is so with God for us.
   6.  It is the priesthood of Christ that the apostle treats of  in
this  place, and that alone: wherefore he is a surety  as  he  is  a
priest,  and  in the discharge of that office; and therefore  is  so
with  God on our behalf. This Schlichtingius observes, and is  aware
what  will  ensue  against his pretensions; which he  endeavours  to
obviate. "Mirum", says he, "porro alicui videri posset, cur  divinus
author  de  Christi  sacerdotio, in superioribus et  in  sequentibus
agens,  derepente eum sponsorem foederis non vero sacerdotem  vocet?
Cur  non  dixerit 'tanto praestantioris foederis factus est sacerdos
Jesus?'  Hoc enim plane requirere videtur totus orationis contextus.
Credibile   est  in  voce  sponsionis  sacerdotium  quoque   Christi
intelligi. Sponsoris enim non est alieno nomine quippiam promittere,
et  fidem  suam pro alio interponere; sed etiam, si ita  res  ferat,
alterius  nomine  id  quod  spopondit  praestare.  In  rebus  quidem
humanis, si id non praestet is pro quo sponsor fidejussit; hic  vero
propter  contrariam causam (nam prior hic locum habere non  potest),
nempe  quatenus  ille pro quo spopondit Christus per ipsum  Christum
promissa  sua nobis exhibet; qua in re praecipue Christi sacerdotium
continetur".
   Answer  1. It may indeed, seem strange, unto any one who imagines
Christ  to  be such a surety as he does, why the apostle  should  so
call  him,  and so introduce him in the description of his  priestly
office,  as  that  which belongs thereunto; but grant  what  is  the
proper  work  and  duty of a surety, and who the Lord  Jesus  was  a
surety  for, and it is evident that nothing more proper or pertinent
could  be mentioned by him, when he was in the declaration  of  that
office.
   Ans. 2. He confesses that by his exposition of this suretiship of
Christ,  as  making him a surety for God, he contradicts the  nature
and  only  notion  of  a  surety among  men.  For  such  a  one,  he
acknowledges, does nothing but in the defect and inability  of  them
for  whom he is engaged and does undertake; he is to pay that  which
they  owe,  and to do what is to be done by them, which they  cannot
perform.  And if this be not the notion of a surety in  this  place,
the  apostle  makes  use of a word nowhere else used  in  the  whole
Scripture,  to teach us that which it does never signify among  men:
which is improbable and absurd; for the sole reason why he did  make
use of it was, that from the nature and notion of it amongst men  in
other  cases,  we may understand the signification of  it,  what  he
intends  by it, and what under that name he ascribes unto  the  Lord
Jesus.
   Ans.  3.  He has no way to solve the apostle's mention of  Christ
being  a surety, in the description of his priestly office,  but  by
overthrowing  the nature of that office also; for  to  confirm  this
absurd  notion,  that Christ as a priest was a surety  for  God,  he
would have us believe that the priesthood of Christ consists in  his
making  effectual  unto  us the promises of God,  or  his  effectual
communicating of the good things promised unto us; the falsehood  of
which notion, really destructive of the priesthood of Christ, I have
elsewhere at large detected and confuted. Wherefore, seeing the Lord
Christ  is  a  surety  of  the covenant as a  priest,  and  all  the
sacerdotal acting of Christ have God for their immediate object, and
are performed with him on our behalf, he was a surety for us also.
   A  surety, " sponsor, vas, praes, fidejussor," for us,  the  Lord
Christ was, by his voluntary undertaking, out of his rich grace  and
love,  to do, answer, and perform all that is required on our  part,
that  we may enjoy the benefits of the covenant, the grace and glory
prepared,  proposed,  and promised in it,  in  the  way  and  manner
determined  on  by divine wisdom. And this may be reduced  unto  two
heads:--  First,  His answering for our transgressions  against  the
first  covenant; Secondly, His purchase and procurement of the grace
of  the  new:  "he was made a curse for us,....that the blessing  of
Abraham might come on us," Gal.3:13-15.
   (1.)  He undertook, as the surety of the covenant, to answer  for
all  the sins of those who are to be, and are, made partakers of the
benefits  of it;--that is, to undergo the punishment due unto  their
sins;  to make atonement for them by offering himself a propitiatory
sacrifice  for the expiation of their sins, redeeming them,  by  the
price of his blood, from their state of misery and bondage under the
law,  and  the curse of it, Isa.53:4-6,10; Matt.20:28; 1 Tim.2:6;  1
Cor.6:20;   Rom.3:25,26;  Heb.10:5-8;  Rom.8:2,3;   2   Cor.5:19-21;
Gal.3:13:  and  this was absolutely necessary, that  the  grace  and
glory  prepared  in  the  covenant might be  communicated  unto  us.
Without  this  undertaking  of  his,  and  performance  of  it,  the
righteousness and faithfulness of God would not permit that sinners,-
-such  as  had  apostatized  from him, despised  his  authority  and
rebelled  against him, falling thereby under the sentence and  curse
of  the  law,--should again be received into his  favour,  and  made
partakers of grace and glory; this, therefore, the Lord Christ  took
upon himself, as the surety of the covenant.
   (2.)  That  those who were to be taken into this covenant  should
receive  grace enabling them to comply with the terms of it, fulfill
its  conditions, and yield the obedience which God required therein;
for, by the ordination of God, he was to procure, and did merit  and
procure  for  them,  the Holy Spirit, and all  needful  supplies  of
grace,  to  make  them  new  creatures, and  enable  them  to  yield
obedience unto God from a new principle of spiritual life, and  that
faithfully  unto  the  end:  so was he the  surety  of  this  better
testament.  But  all things belonging hereunto will  be  handled  at
large  in  the  place from whence, as I said, these  are  taken,  as
suitable unto our present occasion.
   But  some have other notions of these things; for they  say  that
"Christ, by his death, and his obedience therein, whereby he offered
himself a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour unto God, procured  for
us  the  new covenant:" or, as one speaks, "All that we have by  the
death of Christ is, that whereunto we owe the covenant of grace; for
herein  he  did and suffered what God required and freely  appointed
him  to do and suffer. Not that the justice of God required any such
thing,  with respect unto their sins for whom he died, and in  whose
stead,  or  to  bestead  whom, he suffered,  but  what,  by  a  free
constitution  of divine wisdom and sovereignty, was  appointed  unto
him.  Hereon God was pleased to remit the terms of the old covenant,
and  to  enter  into a new covenant with mankind, upon terms  suited
unto  our  reason,  possible  unto  our  abilities,  and  every  way
advantageous  unto  us;  for  these terms  are,  faith  and  sincere
obedience,  or  such an assent unto the truth of  divine  revelation
effectual in obedience unto the will of God contained in them,  upon
the  encouragement given whereunto in the promises of eternal  life,
or  a  future  reward,  made therein. On the  performance  of  these
conditions our justification, adoption, and future glory, do depend;
for  they  are that righteousness before God whereon he pardons  our
sins,  and  accepts our persons as if we were perfectly  righteous".
Wherefore,  by  this procuring the new covenant for us,  which  they
ascribe unto the death of Christ, they intend the abrogation of  the
old covenant, or of the law,--or at least such a derogation from it,
that  it  shall no more oblige us either unto sinless  obedience  or
punishment,   nor   require  a  perfect   righteousness   unto   our
justification  before God,--and the constitution of  a  new  law  of
obedience,  accommodated unto our present state  and  condition;  on
whose observance all the promises of the gospel do depend.
Others  say, that in the death of Christ there was real satisfaction
made unto God; not to the law, or unto God according to what the law
required, but unto God absolutely; that is, he did what God was well
pleased  and satisfied withal, without any respect unto his  justice
or  the  curse  of  the  law. And they add, that  hereon  the  whole
righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us, so far as  that  we  are
made partakers of the benefits thereof; and, moreover, that the  way
of  the communication of them unto us is by the new covenant,  which
by  his  death the Lord Christ procured: for the conditions of  this
covenant  are established in the covenant itself, whereon  God  will
bestow  all the benefits and effects of it upon us; which are  faith
and  obedience. Wherefore, what the Lord Christ has done for  us  is
thus  far accepted as our real righteousness, as that God, upon  our
faith  and obedience with respect thereunto, does release and pardon
all  our sins of omission and commission. Upon this pardon there  is
no need of any positive perfect righteousness unto our justification
or  salvation;  but our own personal righteousness is accepted  with
God  in  the room of it, by virtue of the new covenant which  Christ
has  procured. So is the doctrine hereof stated by Curcellaeus,  and
those that join with him or follow him.
   Sundry  things  there  are  in these  opinions  that  deserve  an
examination; and they will most, if not all of them, occur  unto  us
in  our progress. That which alone we have occasion to inquire into,
with respect unto what we have discoursed concerning the Lord Christ
as  surety of the covenant, and which is the foundation of all  that
is  asserted in them, is, that Christ by his death procured the  new
covenant  for  us; which, as one says, is all that we have  thereby:
which,  if it should prove otherwise, we are not beholding  unto  it
for any thing at all. But these things must be examined. And,--
   (1.) The terms of procuring the new covenant are ambiguous. It is
not  as yet, that I know of, be any declared how the Lord Christ did
procure it,--whether he did so by his satisfaction and obedience, as
the  meritorious  cause of it, or by what other kind  of  causality.
Unless this be stated, we are altogether uncertain what relation  of
the  new covenant unto the death of Christ is intended; and  to  say
that thereunto we owe the new covenant does not mend the matter, but
rather  render  the  terms more ambiguous. Neither  is  it  declared
whether  the  constitution of the covenant, or the communication  of
the benefits of it, is intended. It is yet no less general, that Cod
was so well pleased with what Christ did, as that hereon he made and
entered  into a new covenant with mankind. This they may  grant  who
yet  deny  the whole satisfaction and merit of Christ. If they  mean
that   the  Lord  Christ,  by  his  obedience  and  suffering,   did
meritoriously  procure  the  making  and  establishing  of  the  new
covenant,  which was all that he so procured, and the entire  effect
of  his death, what they say may be understood; but the whole nature
of the mediation of Christ is overthrown thereby.
   (2.)  This  opinion  is liable unto a great prejudice,  in  that,
whereas  it  is  in such a fundamental article of our religion,  and
about  that wherein the eternal welfare of the church is  so  nearly
conceded, there is no mention made of it in the Scripture; for is it
not strange, if this be, as some speak, the sole effect of the death
of  Christ,  whereas  sundry  other things  are  frequently  in  the
Scripture  ascribed unto it as the effects and fruits thereof,  that
this  which  is  only  so  should be nowhere mentioned,--neither  in
express  words, nor such as will allow of this sense by any just  or
lawful  consequence? Our redemption, pardon of sins, the  renovation
of  our natures, our sanctification, justification, peace with  God,
eternal  life, are all jointly and severally assigned thereunto,  in
places  almost  without  number; but  it  is  nowhere  said  in  the
Scripture that Christ by his death merited, procured, obtained,  the
new  covenant,  or  that God should enter into a new  covenant  with
mankind; yea, as we shall see, that which is contrary unto  it,  and
inconsistent with it, is frequently asserted.
   (3.)  To  clear  the truth herein, we must consider  the  several
notions  and  causes of the new covenant, with  the  true  and  real
respect  of  the  death of Christ thereunto.  And  it  is  variously
represented unto us:--
   [1.] In the designation and preparation of its terms and benefits
in  the counsel of God. And this, although it have the nature of  an
eternal  decree, yet is it not the same with the decree of election,
as  some suppose: for that properly respects the subjects or persons
for whom grace and glory are prepared; this, the preparation of that
grace  and  glory  as to the way and manner of their  communication.
Some  learned men do judge that this counsel and purpose of the will
of  God  to  give  grace and glory in and by Jesus Christ  unto  the
elect, in the way and by the means by him prepared, is formally  the
covenant of grace, or at least that the substance of the covenant is
comprised  therein;  but  it is certain that  more  is  required  to
complete  the  whole nature of a covenant. Nor is  this  purpose  or
counsel  of  God called the covenant in the Scripture, but  is  only
proposed as the spring and fountain of it, Eph.1:3-12. Unto the full
exemplification  of  the covenant of grace  there  is  required  the
declaration  of  this  counsel of God's will, accompanied  with  the
means and powers of its accomplishment, and the prescription of  the
way whereby we are so to be interested in it, and made partakers  of
the benefits of it: but in the inquiry after the procuring cause  of
the  new  covenant, it is the first thing that ought to  come  under
consideration;  for  nothing  can be  the  procuring  cause  of  the
covenant which is not so of this spring and fountain of it, of  this
idea  of it in the mind of God, of the preparation of its terms  and
benefits.  But this is nowhere in the Scripture affirmed to  be  the
effect  of  the  death or mediation of Christ;  and  to  ascribe  it
thereunto  is  to overthrow the whole freedom of eternal  grace  and
love.  Neither can any thing that is absolutely eternal, as is  this
decree  and  counsel of God, be the effect of, or procured  by,  any
thing that is external and temporal.
    [2.]  It  may  be  considered  with  respect  unto  the  federal
transactions  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  concerning   the
accomplishment of this counsel of his will. What these were, wherein
they  did  consist,  I have declared at large, Exercitat.,  vol.  2.
Neither do I call this the covenant of grace absolutely; nor  is  it
so  called  in  the  Scripture. But yet some  will  not  distinguish
between  the  covenant of the mediator and the  covenant  of  grace,
because the promises of the covenant absolutely are said to be  made
to  Christ,  Gal.3:16; and he is the "prooton  dektikon",  or  first
subject of all the grace of it. But in the covenant of the mediator,
Christ  stands alone for himself, and undertakes for himself  alone,
and  not as the representative of the church; but this he is in  the
covenant  of  grace. But this is that wherein it  had  its  designed
establishment,  as  unto  all  the ways,  means,  and  ends  of  its
accomplishment; and all things are so disposed as that it  might  be
effectual,   unto   the  eternal  glory  of   the   wisdom,   grace,
righteousness,  and power of God. Wherefore the  covenant  of  grace
could  not be procured by any means or cause but that which was  the
cause  of  this covenant of the mediator, or of God the Father  with
the  Son,  as  undertaking the work of mediation.  And  as  this  is
nowhere  ascribed unto the death of Christ in the Scripture,  so  to
assert  it  is contrary unto all spiritual reason and understanding.
Who  can  conceive  that  Christ by his  death  should  procure  the
agreement between God and him that he should die?
   [3.]  With  respect  unto  the  declaration  of  it  by  especial
revelation. This we may call God's making or establishing of it,  if
we  please;  though making of the covenant in Scripture  is  applied
principally,  if not only, unto its execution or actual  application
unto  persons, 2 Sam.23:5; Jer.32:40. This declaration of the  grace
of  God,  and the provision in the covenant of the mediator for  the
making  of  it effectual unto his glory, is most usually called  the
covenant of grace. And this is twofold:--
   1st.  In  the way of a singular and absolute promise: so  was  it
first  declared unto and established with Adam, and afterwards  with
Abraham. The promise is the declaration of the purpose of God before
declared, or the free determination and counsel of his will,  as  to
his  dealing with sinners on the supposition of the fall, and  their
forfeiture of their first covenant state. Hereof the grace and  will
of  God were the only cause, Heb.8:8. And the death of Christ  could
not be the means of its procurement; for he himself, and all that he
was  to  do  for  us,  was the substance of that promise.  And  this
promise,--as it is declarative of the purpose or counsel of the will
of God for the communication of grace and glory unto sinners, in and
by  the mediation of Christ, according to the ways and on the  terms
prepared  and  disposed  in his sovereign wisdom  and  pleasure,--is
formally  the new covenant; though something yet is to be  added  to
complete  its application unto us. Now, the substance of  the  first
promise,   wherein  the  whole  covenant  of  grace  was   virtually
comprised,  directly respected and expressed the giving of  him  for
the  recovery of mankind from sin and misery by his death, Gen.3:15.
Wherefore,  if he and all the benefits of his mediation, his  death,
and  all  the  effects of it, be contained in  the  promise  of  the
covenant,-- that is, in the covenant itself,--then was not his death
the procuring cause of that covenant, nor do we owe it thereunto.
   2dly. In the additional prescription of the way and means whereby
it is the will of God that we shall enter into a covenant state with
him,  or  be interested in the benefits of it. This being  virtually
comprised  in the absolute promise (for every promise  of  God  does
tacitly  require faith and obedience in us), is expressed  in  other
places by way of the condition required on our part. This is not the
covenant, but the constitution of the terms on our part, whereon  we
are made partakers of it. Nor is the constitution of these terms  an
effect  of  the death of Christ, or procured thereby; it is  a  mere
effect  of  the  sovereign  grace and  wisdom  of  God.  The  things
themselves, as bestowed on us, communicated unto us, wrought  in  us
by  grace, are all of them effects of the death of Christ;  but  the
constitution of then to be the terms and conditions of the covenant,
is  an  act  of mere sovereign wisdom and grace. "God so  loved  the
world, as to send his only begotten Son to die," not that faith  and
repentance might be the means of salvation, but that all  his  elect
might believe, and that all that believe "might not perish, but have
everlasting  life." But yet it is granted that the  constitution  of
these  terms  of  the covenant does respect the federal  transaction
between  the  Father and the Son, wherein they were ordered  to  the
praise  of  the  glory  of  God's  grace;  and  so,  although  their
constitution  was  not  the procurement of his  death,  yet  without
respect unto it, it had not been. Wherefore, the sole cause of God's
making  the  new  covenant was the same with that of  giving  Christ
himself to be our mediator,--namely, the purpose, counsel, goodness,
grace,  and  love  of  God,  as it is everywhere  expressed  in  the
Scripture.
  [4.] The covenant may be considered as unto the actual application
of  the  grace,  benefits, and privileges of it  unto  any  personal
whereby  they  are made real partakers of them, or  are  taken  into
covenant with God; and this alone, in the Scripture, is intended  by
God's making a covenant with any. It is not a general revelation, or
declaration of the terms and nature of the covenant (which some call
a  universal conditional covenant, on what grounds they  know  best,
seeing the very formal nature of making a covenant with any includes
the  actual acceptation of it, and participation of the benefits  of
it  by  them),  but a communication of the grace of it,  accompanied
with  a prescription of obedience, that is God's making his covenant
with any; as all instances of it in the Scripture do declare.
  It may be, therefore, inquired, What respect the covenant of grace
has unto the death of Christ, or what influence it has thereunto?
   I answer, Supposing what is spoken of his being a surety thereof,
it has a threefold respect thereunto:--
   1st.  In  that the covenant, as the grace and glory  of  it  were
prepared in the counsel of God, as the terms of it were fixed in the
covenant of the mediator, and as it was declared in the promise, was
confirmed, ratified, and made irrevocable thereby. This our  apostle
insists  upon at large, Heb.9:15-20; and he compares his  blood,  in
his  death  and sacrifice of himself, unto the sacrifices and  their
blood  whereby the old covenant was confirmed, purified,  dedicated,
or  established, verses 18,19. Now, these sacrifices did not procure
that  covenant,  or  prevail with God to enter  into  it,  but  only
ratified and confirmed it; and this was done in the new covenant  by
the blood of Christ.
   2dly.  He thereby underwent and performed all that which, in  the
righteousness  and  wisdom of God, was required; that  the  effects,
fruits, benefits, and grace, intended, designed, and prepared in the
new  covenant,  might be effectually accomplished  and  communicated
unto sinners. Hence, although he procured not the covenant for us by
his  death,  yet he was, in his person, mediation, life, and  death,
the only cause and means whereby the whole grace of the covenant  is
made effectual unto us. For,--
   3dly. All the benefits of it were procured by him;--that is,  all
the  grace,  mercy, privileges, and glory, that God has prepared  in
the  counsel  of his will, that were fixed as unto the way  of  this
communication in the covenant of the mediator, and proposed  in  the
promises  of it, are purchased, merited, and procured by his  death;
and effectually communicated or applied unto all the covenanters  by
virtue thereof, with others of his mediatory acts. And this is  much
more an eminent procuring of the new covenant than what is pretended
about  the procurement of its terms and conditions; for if he should
have  procured  no  more but this,--if we owe  this  only  unto  his
mediation, that God would thereon, or did, grant and establish  this
rule,  law,  and promise, that whoever believed should be saved,--it
were possible that no one should be saved thereby; yea, if he did no
more,  considering our state and condition, it was  impossible  that
any one should so be.
   To give the sum of these things, it is inquired with respect unto
which  of  these considerations of the new covenant it  is  affirmed
that  it was procured by the death of Christ. If it be said that  it
is  with respect unto the actual communication of all the grace  and
glory prepared in the covenant, and proposed unto us in the promises
of  it,  it  is most true. All the grace and glory promised  in  the
covenant  were  purchased for the church by Jesus  Christ.  In  this
sense,  by  his death he procured the new covenant. This  the  whole
Scripture,  from the beginning of it in the first promise  unto  the
end  of it, does bear witness unto; for it is in him alone that "God
blesseth  us  with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things."  Let
all  the good things that are mentioned or promised in the covenant,
expressly  or by just consequence, be summed up, and it will  be  no
hard  matter  to  demonstrate concerning them  all,  and  that  both
jointly  and severally, that they were all procured for  us  by  the
obedience and death of Christ.
   But  this is not that which is intended; for most of this opinion
do  deny that the grace of the covenant, in conversion unto God, the
remission of sins, sanctification, justification, adoption, and  the
like,  are  the effects or procurements of the death of Christ.  And
they  do, on the other hand, declare that it is God's making of  the
covenant which they do intend, that is, the contrivance of the terms
and  conditions  of it, with their proposal unto mankind  for  their
recovery. But herein there is "ouden hugies". For--
  (1.) The Lord Christ himself, and the whole work of his mediation,
as  the  ordinance  of God for the recovery and  salvation  of  lost
sinners, is the first and principal promise of the covenant; so  his
exhibition  in  the flesh, his work of mediation therein,  with  our
deliverance  thereby, was the subject of that first  promise,  which
virtually contained this whole covenant: so he was of the renovation
of  it  unto Abraham, when it was solemnly confirmed by the oath  of
God,  Gal.3:16,17.  And  Christ did not by  his  death  procure  the
promise  of  his death, nor of his exhibition in the flesh,  or  his
coming into the world that he might die.
   (2.)  The  making of this covenant is everywhere in the Scripture
ascribed (as is also the sending of Christ himself to die) unto  the
love,  grace,  and wisdom of God alone; nowhere unto  the  death  of
Christ, as the actual communication of all grace and glory are.  Let
all  the  places  be  considered, where either  the  giving  of  the
promise,  the sending of Christ, or the making of the covenant,  are
mentioned,  either expressly or virtually, and in none of  them  are
they  assigned unto any other cause but the grace, love, and  wisdom
of  God alone; all to be made effectual unto us by the mediation  of
Christ.
  (3.) The assignation of the sole end, of the death of Christ to be
the  procurement  of the new covenant, in the sense  contended  for,
does  indeed evacuate all the virtue of the death of Christ  and  of
the covenant itself; for,--First, The covenant which they intend  is
nothing  but  the  constitution  and  proposal  of  new  terms   and
conditions  for  life and salvation unto all men. Now,  whereas  the
acceptance  and accomplishment of these conditions depend  upon  the
wills  of  men no way determined by effectual grace, it was possible
that, notwithstanding all Christ did by his death, yet no one sinner
might  be  saved thereby, but that the whole end and design  of  God
therein  might  be  frustrated. Secondly,  Whereas  the  substantial
advantage  of these conditions lies herein, that God will  now,  for
the  sake  of  Christ,  accept of an obedience  inferior  unto  that
required  in  the law, and so as that the grace of Christ  does  not
raise  up  all  things  unto a conformity and  compliance  with  the
holiness  and  will  of God declared therein,  but  accommodate  all
things  unto  our  present condition, nothing can be  invented  more
dishonourable to Christ and the gospel; for what does  it  else  but
make  Christ the minister of sin, in disannulling the holiness  that
the  law requires, or the obligation of the law unto it, without any
provision of what might answer or come into the room of it, but that
which  is incomparably less worthy? Nor is it consistent with divine
wisdom, goodness, and immutability, to appoint unto mankind a law of
obedience,  and  cast them all under the severest penalty  upon  the
transgression of it, when he could in justice and honour have  given
them  such  a law of obedience, whose observance might consist  with
many  failings and sins; for if he have done that now, he could have
done so before: which how far it reflects on the glory of the divine
properties  might  be  easily manifested.  Neither  does  this  fond
imagination  comply  with those testimonies of Scripture,  that  the
Lord  Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, that  he
is the end of the law; and that by faith the law is not disannulled,
but established. Lastly, The Lord Christ was the mediator and surety
of  the new covenant, in and by whom it was ratified, confirmed, and
established:  and therefore by him the constitution of  it  was  not
procured; for all the acts of his office belong unto that mediation,
and  it cannot be well apprehended how any act of mediation for  the
establishment  of  the covenant, and rendering it effectual,  should
procure it.
   7.  But  to  return from this digression. That  wherein  all  the
precedent  causes of the union between Christ and believers,  whence
they  become  one mystical person, do centre, and whereby  they  are
rendered a complete foundation of the imputation of their sins  unto
him, and of his righteousness unto them, is the communication of his
Spirit, the same Spirit that dwells in him, unto them, to abide  in,
to  animate and guide, the whole mystical body and all its  members.
But this has of late been so much spoken unto, as that I shall do no
more but mention it.
  On the considerations insisted on,--whereby the Lord Christ became
one  mystical  person with the church, or bare  the  person  of  the
church in what he did as mediator, in the holy, wise disposal of God
as  the  author  of the law, the supreme rector or governor  of  all
mankind, as unto their temporal and eternal concernments, and by his
own  consent,--the sins of all the elect were imputed unto him. Thus
having  been the faith and language of the church in all  ages,  and
that  derived from and founded on express testimonies of  Scripture,
with  all  the  promises and resignations of his exhibition  in  the
flesh from the beginning, cannot now, with any modesty, be expressly
denied.  Wherefore the Socinians themselves grant that our sins  may
be  said to be imputed unto Christ, and he to undergo the punishment
of  them,  so  far  as  that all things which befell  him  evil  and
afflictive  in  this life, with the death which he  underwent,  were
occasioned  by our sins; for had not we sinned, there  had  been  no
need  of  nor  occasion for his suffering. But notwithstanding  this
concession,  they expressly deny his satisfaction, or that  properly
he  underwent  the punishment due unto our sins; wherein  they  deny
also  all imputation of them unto him. Others say that our sins were
imputed unto him "quoad reatum culpae". But I must acknowledge  that
unto  me  this  distinction gives "inanem  sine  mente  sonum".  The
substance  of it is much insisted on by Feuardentius,  Dialog  5  p.
467;  and he is followed by others. That which he would prove by  it
is,  that the Lord Christ did not present himself before the  throne
of  God  with the burden of our sins upon him, so as to answer  unto
the  justice  of  God  for  them. Whereas, therefore,  "reatus,"  or
"guilt," may signify either "dignitatem poenae," or "obligationem ad
poenam," as Bellarmine distinguishes. De Amiss. Grat., lib.7  cap.7,
with respect unto Christ the latter only is to be admitted. And  the
main  argument he and others insist upon is this,--that if our  sins
be  imputed  unto Christ, as unto the guilt of the  fault,  as  they
speak, then he must be polluted with them, and thence be denominated
a sinner in every kind. And this would be true, if our sins could be
communicated unto Christ by transfusion, so as to be his  inherently
and  subjectively;  but their being so only by imputation  gives  no
countenance  unto any such pretence. However, there is a  notion  of
legal  uncleanness,  where there is no inherent defilement;  so  the
priest  who  offered the red heifer to make atonement, and  he  that
burned  her,  were said to be unclean, Numb.19:7,8. But hereon  they
say,  that Christ died and suffered upon the special command of God,
not  that his death and suffering were any way due upon the  account
of  our  sins, or required in justice; which is utterly to overthrow
the satisfaction of Christ.
   Wherefore,  the  design  of  this distinction  is,  to  deny  the
imputation  of the guilt of our sins unto Christ; and then  in  what
tolerable  sense can they be said to be imputed unto him,  I  cannot
understand. But we are not tied up unto arbitrary distinctions,  and
the  sense  that any are pleased to impose on the terms of  them.  I
shall,  therefore, first inquire into the meaning  of  these  words,
guilt  and guilty, whereby we may be able to judge what it is  which
in this distinction is intended.
   The  Hebrews  have no other word to signify guilt or  guilty  but
"'asham";  and  this they use both for sin, the  guilt  of  it,  the
punishment  due  unto it, and a sacrifice for it.  Speaking  of  the
guilt  of  blood, they use not any word to signify guilt,  but  only
say,  "dam lo"--"It is blood, to him." So David prays, "Deliver  me"
"midamim",   "from   blood";  which  we  render  "blood-guiltiness,"
Ps.51:14. And this was because, by the constitution of God, he  that
was guilty of blood was to die by the hand of the magistrate, or  of
God himself. But "'asham" (ascham) is nowhere used for guilt, but it
signifies  the  relation of the sin intended  unto  punishment.  And
other  significations of it will be in vain sought for  in  the  Old
Testament.
   In the New Testament he that is guilty is said to be "hupodikos",
Rom.3:19; that is, obnoxious to judgment or vengeance for  sin,  one
that  "he  dike dzein ouk eiasen", as they speak, Acts  28:4,  "whom
vengeance  will  not  suffer  to go unpunished;"--and  "enochos",  1
Cor.11:27,  a  word of the same signification;--once  by  "ofeiloo",
Matt.23:18,  to  owe, to be indebted to justice.  To  be  obnoxious,
liable unto justice, vengeance, punishment for sin, is to be guilty.
  "Reus", "guilty," in the Latin is of a large signification. He who
is  "crimini  obnoxious,"  or  "poenae  propter  crimen",  or  "voti
debitor",  or  "promissi",  or "officii  ex  sponsione",  is  called
"reus".  Especially every sponsor or surety is "reus"  in  the  law.
"Cum  servus pecuniam pro libertate pactus est, et ob eam rem,  reum
dederit", (that is, "sponsorem, expromissorem",) "quamvis servus  ab
alio  manusmissur est, reus tamen obligabitur". He  is  "reus,"  who
engages  himself for any other, as to the matter of his  engagement;
and  the  same  is  the use of the word in the best  Latin  authors.
"Opportuna  loca  dividenda praefectis esse ac  suae  quique  partis
tutandae  reus  sit",  Liv. De Bello Punic.  lib.5  30;--that  every
captain should so take care of the station committed to him, as that
if  any thing happened amiss it should be imputed unto him. And  the
same author again, "An, quicunque aut propinquitate, aut affinitate,
regiam  aut  aliquibus ministeriis contigissent, alienae culpae  rei
trucidarentur", B.P., lib.4 22;--should be guilty of  the  fault  of
another  (by  imputation), and suffer for it. So that in  the  Latin
tongue  he  is  "reus," who, for himself or any other, is  obnoxious
unto punishment or payment.
   "Reatus"  is a word of late admission into the Latin tongue,  and
was formed of "reus." So Quintilian informs us, in his discourse  of
the  use of obsolete and new words, lib.8, cap.3, "Quae vetera  nunc
sunt,  fuerunt  olim nova, et quaedam in usu perquam  recentia;  ut,
Messala  primus  reatum, munerarium Augustus  primus,  dixerat";--to
which  he adds "piratica, musica," and some others, then newly  come
into  use:  but  "reatus"  at its first invention  was  of  no  such
signification as it is now applied unto. I mention it only  to  show
that  we  have no reason to be obliged unto men's arbitrary  use  of
words.  Some lawyers first used it "pro crimine,"--a fault  exposing
unto punishment; but the original invention of it, confirmed by long
use,  was to express the outward state and condition of him who  was
"reus,"  after he was first charged in a cause criminal,  before  he
was  acquitted  or condemned. Those among the Romans who  were  made
"rei"  by  any public accusation did betake themselves unto  a  poor
squalid  habit,  a sorrowful countenance, suffering their  hair  and
beards to go undressed. Hereby, on custom and usage, the people  who
were  to judge on their cause were inclined to compassion: and  Milo
furthered his sentence of banishment because he would not submit  to
this  custom,  which  had such an appearance  of  pusillanimity  and
baseness  of spirit. This state of sorrow and trouble, so expressed,
they called "reatus," and nothing else. It came afterwards to denote
their  state  who  were committed unto custody in order  unto  their
trial,  when the government ceased to be popular; wherein alone  the
other  artifice was of use: and if this word be of any  use  in  our
present argument, it is to express the state of men after conviction
of  sin,  before  their justification. That is their  "reatus,"  the
condition wherein the proudest of them cannot avoid to express their
inward sorrow and anxiety of mind by some outward evidences of them.
Beyond  this  we are not obliged by the use of this word,  but  must
consider the thing itself which now we intend to express thereby.
   Guilt,  in the Scripture, is the respect of sin unto the sanction
of  the  law,  whereby the sinner becomes obnoxious unto punishment;
and  to  be  guilty  is to be "hupodikos tooi Theoooi"--liable  unto
punishment  for sin from God, as the supreme lawgiver and  judge  of
all. And so guilt, or "reatus," is well defined to be "obligatio  ad
poenam, propter culpam, aut admissam in se, aut imputatum, juste aut
injuste";  for so Bathsheba says unto David, that she  and  her  son
Solomon should be "chatta'im"--sinners; that is, be esteemed guilty,
or  liable  unto punishment for some evil laid unto their charge,  1
Kings 1:21. And the distinction of "dignitas poenae", and "obligatio
ad  poenam" is but the same thing in diverse words; for both do  but
express the relation of sin unto the sanction of the law: or if they
may  be conceived to differ, yet are they inseparable; for there can
be no "obligatio ad poenam" where there is not "dignitas poenae".
   Much  less  is  there any thing of weight in the  distinction  of
"reatus  culpae"  and "reatus poenae"; for this "reatus  culpae"  is
nothing  but  "dignitas  poenae  propter  culpam."  Sin  has   other
considerations,--namely, its formal nature, as it is a transgression
of the law, and the stain of filth that it brings upon the soul; but
the  guilt of it is nothing but its respect unto punishment from the
sanction  of  the  law. And so, indeed, "reatus culpae"  is  "reatus
poenae",  the  guilt of sin is its desert of punishment.  And  where
there  is  not  this "reatus culpae" there can be  no  "poenae",  no
punishment  properly so called; for "poenae" is "vindicta  noxae",--
the  revenge  due to sin. So, therefore, there can be no punishment,
nor  "reatus  poenae", the guilt of it, but where there  is  "reatus
culpae,"  or  sin considered wth its guilt; and the "reatus  poenae"
that  may be supposed without the guilt of sin, is nothing but  that
obnoxiousness unto afflictive evil on the occasion of sin which  the
Socinians admit with respect unto the suffering of Christ,  and  yet
execrate his satisfaction.
   And  if this distinction should be apprehended to be of "reatus,"
from  its formal respect unto sin and punishment, it must,  in  both
parts  of  the distinction, be of the same signification,  otherwise
there  is an equivocation in the subject of it. But "reatus poenae",
is  a liableness, an obnoxiousness unto punishment according to  the
sentence  of the law, that whereby a sinner becomes "hupodikos  tooi
Theooi" and then "reatus culpae" must be an obnoxiousness unto  sin;
which  is  uncouth. There is, therefore, no imputation of sin  where
there  is  no  imputation of its guilt; for the guilt of punishment,
which is not its respect unto the desert of sin, is a plain fiction,-
-there is no ouch thing "in rerum nature." There is no guilt of sin,
but in its relation unto punishment.
   That, therefore, which we affirm herein is, that our sins were so
transferred   on  Christ,  as  that  thereby  he  became   "'ashem",
"hupodikos   tooi  Theooi",  "reus",--responsible  unto   God,   and
obnoxious  unto punishment in the justice of God for  them.  He  was
"alienae culpae reus,"-- perfectly innocent in himself; but took our
guilt  on him, or our obnoxiousness unto punishment for sin. And  so
he  may be, and may be said to be, the greatest debtor in the world,
who  never borrowed nor owed one earthing on his own account, if  he
become  surety  for the greatest debt of others: so  Paul  became  a
debtor  unto Philemon, upon his undertaking for Onesimus, who before
owed him nothing.
   And two things concurred unto this imputation of sin unto Christ,
first,  The  act  of God imputing it. Second, The voluntary  act  of
Christ himself in the undertaking of it, or admitting of the charge.
   (1.) The act of God, in this imputation of the guilt of our  sins
unto  Christ,  is  expressed by his "laying all our iniquities  upon
him,"  "making him to be sin for us, who knew no sin," and the like.
For,--[1.] As the supreme governor, lawgiver, and judge of all, unto
whom it belonged to take care that his holy law was observed, or the
offenders punished, he admitted, upon the transgression of  it,  the
sponsion  and  suretiship of Christ to answer for the sins  of  men,
Heb.10:5-7. [2.] In order unto this end, he made him under the  law,
or  gave the law power over him, to demand of him and inflict on him
the  penalty  which  was  due unto the sins  of  them  for  whom  he
undertook,  Gal.3:13;  4:4,6.  [3.]  For  the  declaration  of   the
righteousness  of  God  in this setting forth  of  Christ  to  be  a
propitiation, and to bear our iniquities, the guilt of our sins  was
transferred  unto  him in an act of the righteous  judgment  of  God
accepting and esteeming of him as the guilty person; as it  is  with
public sureties in every case.
   (2.)  The  Lord Christ's voluntary susception of  the  state  and
condition  of  a  surety, or undertaker for the  church,  to  appear
before  the throne of God' justice for them, to answer whatever  was
laid  unto  their  charge, was required hereunto; and  this  he  did
absolutely. There was a concurrence of his own will in and unto  all
those  divine  acts whereby he and the church were  constituted  one
mystical person; and of his own love and grace did he as our  surety
stand in our stead before God, when he made inquisition for sin;--he
took  it on himself, as unto the punishment which it deserved. Hence
it  became just and righteous that he should suffer, "the  just  for
the unjust, that he might bring us unto God."
   For  if  this be not so, I desire to know what is become  of  the
guilt  of  the  sins  of believers; if it were  not  transferred  on
Christ, it remains still upon themselves, or it is nothing. It  will
be  said that guilt is taken away by the free pardon of sin. But  if
so,  there  was  no  need of punishment for it  at  all,--which  is,
indeed,  what the Socinians plead, but by others is not  admitted,--
for if punishment be not for guilt, it is not punishment.
  But it is fiercely objected against what we have asserted, that if
the  guilt  of  our  sins  was imputed  unto  Christ,  then  was  he
constituted a sinner thereby; for it is the guilt of sin that  makes
any one to be truly a sinner. This is urged by Bellarmine, lib.2, De
Justificat., not for its own sake, but to disprove the imputation of
his  righteousness unto us; as it is continued by  others  with  the
same design. For says he, "If we be made righteous, and the children
of  God, through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, then
was  he  made  a  sinner,  'et quod horret animus  cogitare,  filius
diaboli';  by  the  imputation of the  guilt  of  our  sins  or  our
unrighteousness  unto  him." And the same objection  is  pressed  by
others,  with instances of consequences which, for many  reasons,  I
heartily wish had been forborne. But I answer,--
   [1.] Nothing is more absolutely true, nothing is more sacredly or
assuredly  believed  by us, than that nothing which  Christ  did  or
suffered,  nothing  that  he undertook or underwent,  did  or  could
constitute  him subjectively, inherently, and thereon personally,  a
sinner, or guilty of any sin of his own. To bear the guilt or  blame
of other men's faults,--to be "alienae culpae reus,"--makes no man a
sinner, unless he did unwisely or irregularly undertake it. But that
Christ  should  admit  of any thing of sin  in  himself,  as  it  is
absolutely  inconsistent with the hypostatical union,  so  it  would
render  him  unmet for all other duties of his office,  Heb.7:25,26.
And I confess it has always seemed scandalous unto me, that Socinus,
Crellius, and Grotius, do grant that, in some sense, Christ  offered
for his own sins, and would prove it from that very place wherein it
is positively denied, chap.7:27. This ought to be sacredly fixed and
not  a word used, nor thought entertained, of any possibility of the
contrary, upon any supposition whatever.
  [2.] None ever dreamed of a transfusion or propagation of sin from
us unto Christ, each as there was from Adam unto us. For Adam was  a
common  person unto us,--we are not so to Christ: yea, he is  so  to
us;  and  the imputation of our sins unto him is a singular  act  of
divine dispensation, which no evil consequence can ensue upon.
  [3.] To imagine such an imputation of our sins unto Christ as that
thereon they should cease to be our sins, and become his absolutely,
is  to  overthrow that which is affirmed; for, on that  supposition,
Christ  could not suffer for our sins, for they ceased  to  be  ours
antecedently  unto  his suffering. But the  guilt  of  then  was  so
transferred unto him, that through his suffering for it, it might be
pardoned unto us.
  These things being premised, I say,--
   First,  There is in sin a transgression of the receptive part  of
the  Law; and there is an obnoxiousness unto the punishment from the
sanction  of  it. It is the first that gives sin its formal  nature;
and  where  that  is not subjectively, no person can be  constituted
formally  a sinner. However any one may be so denominated,  as  unto
some  certain end or purpose, yet, without this, formally  a  sinner
none  can be, whatever be imputed unto them. And where that  is,  no
non-imputation of sin, as unto punishment, can free  the  person  in
whom  it is from being formally a sinner. When Bathsheba told  David
that  she  and  her son Solomon should be "chata'im"  (sinners),  by
having crimes laid unto their charge; and when Judas told Jacob that
he  would  be a sinner before him always on the account of any  evil
that befell Benjamin (it should be imputed unto him); yet neither of
them  could  thereby be constituted a sinner formally. And,  on  the
other  hand, when Shimei desired David not to impute sin  unto  him,
whereby   he   escaped  present  punishment,  yet   did   not   that
non-imputation free him formally from being a sinner. Wherefore sin,
under  this consideration, as a transgression of the receptive  part
of  the law, cannot be communicated from one unto another, unless it
be  by  the  propagation of a vitiated principle or habit.  But  yet
neither  so will the personal sin of one, as inherent in  him,  ever
come  to  be the personal sin of another. Adam has upon his personal
sin  communicated a vicious, depraved, and corrupted nature unto all
his  posterity; and, besides, the guilt of his actual sin is imputed
unto them, as if it had been committed by every one of them: but yet
his particular personal sin neither ever did, nor ever could, become
the  personal  sin  of  any one of them any otherwise  than  by  the
imputation  of its guilt unto them. Wherefore our sins neither  are,
nor  can  be,  so  imputed unto Christ, as that they  should  become
subjectively his, as they are a transgression of the receptive  part
of the law. A physical translation or transfusion of sin is, in this
case,   naturally  and  spiritually  impossible;  and  yet,   on   a
supposition  thereof  alone  do  the horrid  consequences  mentioned
depend.  But  the guilt of sin is an external respect  of  it,  with
regard  unto  the sanction of the law only. This is  separable  from
sin;  and  if it were not so, no one sinner could either be pardoned
or  saved.  It may, therefore, be made another's by imputation,  and
yet that other not rendered formally a sinner thereby. This was that
which  was  imputed  unto Christ, whereby he was rendered  obnoxious
unto the curse of the law; for it was impossible that the law should
pronounce any accursed but the guilty, nor would do so, Dent.27:26.
   Secondly,  There is a great difference between the imputation  of
the  righteousness of Christ unto us and the imputation of our  sins
into  Christ; so as that he cannot in the same manner be said to  be
made a sinner by the one as we are made righteous by the other.  For
our  sin  was  imputed unto Christ only as he was our surety  for  a
time,--to  this  end, that he might take it away,  destroy  it,  and
abolish  it.  It  was never imputed unto him,  so  as  to  make  any
alteration absolutely in his personal state and condition.  But  his
righteousness  is  imputed unto us to abide  with  us,  to  be  ours
always,  and  to make a total change in our state and condition,  as
unto our relation unto God. Our sin was imputed unto him only for  a
season,  not  also  lately, but as he was a  surety,  and  unto  the
special  end  of destroying it; and taken on him on this  condition,
that his righteousness should be made ours for ever. All things  are
otherwise  in  the imputation of his righteousness  unto  us,  which
respects  us absolutely, and not under a temporary capacity,  abides
with us for ever, changes our state and relation unto God, and is an
effect of superabounding grace.
   But  it  will be said that if our sins, as to the guilt of  them,
were  imputed unto Christ, then God must hate Christ; for  he  hates
the  guilty.  I  know not well how I come to mention  these  things,
which indeed I look upon as cavils, such as men may multiply if they
please  against any part of the mysteries of the gospel. But  seeing
it is mentioned, it may be spoken unto; and,--
   First,  It  is certain that the Lord Christ's taking on  him  the
guilt  of our sins was a high act of obedience unto God, Heb.10:5,6;
and  for  which  the "Father loved him," John 10:17,18.  There  was,
therefore,  no reason why God should hate Christ for his  taking  on
him  our  debt,  and  the payment of it, in an act  of  the  highest
obedience  unto his will. Secondly, God in this matter is considered
as  a  rector,  ruler,  and judge. Now, it is not  required  of  the
severest judge, that, as a judge, he should hate the guilty  person,
no,  although  he  be  guilty originally by  inhesion,  and  not  by
imputation.  As such, he has no more to do but consider  the  guilt,
and  pronounce the sentence of punishment. But, Thirdly,  Suppose  a
person,  out  of  an  heroic generosity of mind,  should  become  an
"Antipsuchos" for another, for his friend, for a good man, so as  to
answer  for him with his life, as Judas undertook to be for Benjamin
as  to his liberty,--which, when a man has lost, he is civilly dead,
and  "capite diminutus,"--would the most cruel tyrant under  heaven,
that should take away his life, in that case hate him? Would he  not
rather admire his worth and virtue? As such a one it was that Christ
suffered,  and  no  otherwise.  Fourthly,  All  the  force  of  this
exception  depends on the ambiguity of the word  hate;  for  it  may
signify either an aversation or detestation of mind, or only a  will
of  punishing, as in God mostly it does. In the first  sense,  there
was no ground why God should hate Christ on this imputation of guilt
unto him, whereby he became "non propriae sed alienae culpae, reus."
Sin  inherent  renders the soul polluted, abominable, and  the  only
object of divine aversation; but for him who was perfectly innocent,
holy,  harmless, undefiled in himself, who did no sin,  neither  was
there  guile found in his mouth, to take upon him the guilt of other
sins,  thereby to comply with and accomplish the design of  God  for
the manifestation of his glory and infinite wisdom, grace, goodness,
mercy, and righteousness, unto the certain expiation and destruction
of  sin,--nothing could render him more glorious and lovely  in  the
sight  of God or man. But for a will of punishing in God, where  sin
is  imputed,  none  can  deny it, but they must  therewithal  openly
disavow the satisfaction of Christ.
   The  heads of some few of those arguments wherewith the truth  we
have asserted is confirmed shall close this discourse:--
   1.  Unless the guilt of sin was imputed unto Christ, sin was  not
imputed unto him in any sense, for the punishment of sin is not sin;
nor  can  those who are otherwise minded declare what it is  of  sin
that  is imputed. But the Scripture is plain, that "God laid on  him
the  iniquity  of us all," and "made him to be sin  for  us;"  which
could not otherwise be but by imputation.
   2. There can be no punishment but with respect unto the guilt  of
sin  personally contracted or imputed. It is guilt alone that  gives
what  is  materially  evil  and  afflictive  the  formal  nature  of
punishment,  and  nothing else. And therefore those  who  understand
full  well  the  harmony of things and opinions,  and  are  free  to
express  their minds, do constantly declare that if one of these  be
denied, the other must be so also; and if one be admitted, they must
both  be so. If guilt was not imputed unto Christ, he could not,  as
they plead well enough, undergo the punishment of sin; much he might
do and suffer on the occasion of sin, but undergo the punishment due
unto sin he could not. And if it should be granted that the guilt of
sin  was  imputed unto him, they will not deny but that he underwent
the punishment of it; and if he underwent the punishment of it, they
will  not  deny but that the guilt of it was imputed unto  him;  for
these things are inseparably related.
   3.  Christ was made a curse for us, the curse of the law,  as  is
expressly  declared, Gal.3:13,14. But the curse of the law  respects
the  guilt of sin only; so as that where that is not, it cannot take
place  in  any sense, and where that is, it does inseparably  attend
it, Dent.27:26.
   4.  The  express testimonies of the Scripture unto  this  purpose
cannot be evaded, without an open wresting of their words and sense.
So God is said to "make all our iniquities to meet upon him," and he
bare them on him as his burden; for so the word signifies, Isa.53:6,
"God  has laid on him" "et 'awon kulanu", "the iniquity", (that  is,
the  guilt)  "of  us all;" verse 11, "we'awonotam hu  yisbol",  "and
their  sin  or  guilt shall he bear." For that is the intendment  of
"'awon", where joined with any other word that denotes sin: as it is
in  those  places, Ps.32:5, "Thou forgavest" "'awon chata'ti",  "the
iniquity  of my sin," that is, the guilt of it, which is that  alone
that  is  taken away by pardon; that "his soul was made an  offering
for  the  guilt  of  sin;" that "he was made  sin,"  that  "sin  was
condemned in his flesh," etc.
   5.  This was represented in all the sacrifices of old, especially
the  great  anniversary  [one], on the day of  expiation,  with  the
ordinance of the scapegoat; as has been before declared.
   6.  Without a supposition hereof it cannot be understood how  the
Lord Christ should be our "Antipsuchos", or suffer "anti hemoon", in
our  stead,  unless we will admit the exposition of Mr  Ho,  a  late
writer, who, reckoning up how many things the Lord Christ did in our
stead,  adds, as the sense thereof, that it is to bestead  us;  than
which, if he can invent any thing more fond and senseless, he has  a
singular faculty in such an employment.




IX.  The formal cause of justification, or the righteousness on  the
account  whereof  believers  are  justified  before  God--Objections
answered


Principal  controversies  about  justification:--1.  Concerning  the
nature of justification, stated--2. Of the formal cause of it--3. Of
the  way  whereby  we  are made partakers of  the  benefits  of  the
mediation   of  Christ--What  intended  by  the  formal   cause   of
justification,  declared--The righteousness on the  account  whereof
believers are justified before God alone, inquired after under these
terms--This  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  imputed  unto   them--
Occasions  of  exceptions  and objections  against  this  doctrine--
General  objections  examined--Imputation of  the  righteousness  of
Christ  consistent  with  the  free pardon  of  sin,  and  with  the
necessity  of evangelical repentance--Method of God's grace  in  our
justification   --Necessity   of  faith   unto   justification,   on
supposition  of  the  imputation of the  righteousness  of  Christ--
Grounds  of  that necessity--Other objections, arising  mostly  from
mistakes of the truth, asserted, discussed, and answered


To  principal  differences about the doctrine of  justification  are
reducible  unto three heads:--1. The nature of it,--namely,  whether
it  consist  in an internal change of the person justified,  by  the
imputation of a habit of inherent grace or righteousness; or whether
it  be  a  forensic act, in the judging, esteeming,  declaring,  and
pronouncing  such  a person to be righteous, thereon  absolving  him
from all his sins, giving unto him right and title unto life. Herein
we  have  to  do only with those of the church of Rome, all  others,
both  Protestants and Socinians, being agreed on the forensic  sense
of the word, and the nature of the thing signified thereby. And this
I  have  already  spoken  unto, so far as our  present  design  does
require;  and  that, I hope, with such evidence of truth  as  cannot
well  be  gainsaid. Nor may it be supposed that  we  have  too  long
insisted  thereon, as an opinion which is obsolete, and  long  since
sufficiently  confuted. I think much otherwise, and that  those  who
avoid  the  Romanists in these controversies, will  give  a  greater
appearance of fear than of contempt; for when all is done,  if  free
justification through the blood of Christ, and the imputation of his
righteousness, be not able to preserve its station in the  minds  of
men,  the Popish doctrine of justification must and will return upon
the  world, with all the concomitants and consequences of it. Whilst
any  knowledge  of the law or gospel is continued  amongst  us,  the
consciences  of men will at one time or other, living or  dying,  be
really  affected with a sense of sin, as unto its guilt and  danger.
hence  that trouble and those disquietments of mind will  ensue,  as
will  force  men,  be they never so unwilling, to  seek  after  some
relief  and  satisfaction. And what will not  men  attempt  who  are
reduced  to the condition expressed, Mic.6:6,7? Wherefore,  in  this
case,  if  the  true  and only relief of distressed  consciences  of
sinners  who  are  weary and heavyladen be hid from their  eyes,--if
they  have  no apprehension of, nor trust in, that which alone  they
may oppose unto the sentence of the law, and interpose between God's
justice  and  their souls, wherein they may take  shelter  from  the
storms  of  that wrath which abides on them that believe  not,--they
will betake themselves unto any thing which confidently tenders them
present  ease and relief. Hence many persons, living all their  days
in an ignorance of the righteousness of God, are oftentimes on their
sickbeds, and in their dying hours, proselyted unto a confidence  in
the ways of rest and peace which the Romanists impose upon them; for
such seasons of advantage do they wait for, unto the reputation,  as
they  suppose,  of  their own zeal,--in truth unto  the  scandal  of
Christian religion. But finding at any time the consciences  of  men
under  disquietments,  and ignorant of or  believing  that  heavenly
relief  which is provided in the gospel, they are ready  with  their
applications and medicines, having on them pretended approbations of
the  experience of many ages, and an innumerable company  of  devout
souls  in  them. Such is their doctrine of justification,  with  the
addition  of  those  other  ingredients of  confession,  absolution,
penances,  or commutations, aids from saints and angels,  especially
the  blessed  Virgin;  all  warmed by the  fire  of  purgatory,  and
confidently  administered unto persons sick of ignorance,  darkness,
and  sin.  And let none please themselves in the contempt  of  these
things.  If the truth concerning evangelical justification  be  once
disbelieved  among us, or obliterated by any artifices  out  of  the
minds of men, unto these things, at one time or other, they must and
will  betake  themselves. As for the new schemes and projections  of
justification,  which some at present would supply us  withal,  they
are  no  way  suited  nor able to give relief or  satisfaction  unto
conscience really troubled for sin, and seriously inquiring  how  it
may  have  rest  and  peace  with God. I shall  take  the  boldness,
therefore,  to say, whoever be offended at it, that if we  lose  the
ancient  doctrine of justification through faith  in  the  blood  of
Christ,  and  the  imputation of his righteousness unto  us,  public
confession  of religion will quickly issue in Popery or Atheism,  or
at  least  in  what  is the next door unto it,--"kai  taute  men  de
tauta".
   2. The second principal controversy is about the formal cause  of
justification, as it is expressed and stated by those of  the  Roman
church; and under these terms some Protestant divines have consented
to  debate  the matter in difference. I shall not interpose  into  a
strife  of words;--so the Romanists will call that which we  inquire
after.  Some of ours say the righteousness of Christ imputed,  some,
the  imputation of the righteousness of Christ, is the formal  cause
of  our  justification;  some, that there  is  no  formal  cause  of
justification, but this is that which supplies the place and use  of
a  formal  cause, which is the righteousness of Christ. In  none  of
these  things  will  I  concern myself,  though  I  judge  what  was
mentioned in the last place to be most proper and significant.
   The substance of the inquiry wherein alone we are concerned,  is,
What  is that righteousness whereby and wherewith a believing sinner
is justified before God; or whereon he is accepted with God, has his
sins  pardoned, is received into grace and favour, and has  a  title
given  him  unto  the  heavenly inheritance? I  shall  no  otherwise
propose  this inquiry, as knowing that it contains the substance  of
what convinced sinners do look after in and by the gospel.
   And herein it is agreed by all, the Socinians only excepted, that
the  procatarctical or procuring cause of the pardon of our sins and
acceptance  with  God,  is the satisfaction  and  merit  of  Christ.
Howbeit,  it cannot be denied but that some, retaining the names  of
them,  do seem to renounce or disbelieve the things themselves;  but
we  need  not to take any notice thereof, until they are  free  more
plainly  to express their minds. But as concerning the righteousness
itself inquired after, there seems to be a difference among them who
yet  all deny it to be the righteousness of Christ imputed unto  us.
For those of the Roman church plainly say, that upon the infusion of
a  habit of grace, with the expulsion of sin, and the renovation  of
our natures thereby, which they call the first justification, we are
actually  justified  before God by our own  works  of  righteousness
Hereon  they dispute about the merit and satisfactoriness  of  those
works,  with their condignity of the reward of eternal life. Others,
as the Socinians, openly disclaim all merit in our works; only some,
out  of reverence, as I suppose, unto the antiquity of the word, and
under  the  shelter  of  the ambiguity of  its  signification,  have
faintly attempted an accommodation with it. But in the substance  of
what they assert unto this purpose, to the best of my understanding,
they  are  all agreed: for what the Papists call "justitia  operum,"
the   righteousness  of  works,--they  call  a  personal,  inherent,
evangelical  righteousness;  whereof  we  have  spoken  before.  And
whereas  the  Papists say that this righteousness of  works  is  not
absolutely perfect, nor in itself able to justify us in the sight of
God,  but owes all its worth and dignity unto this purpose unto  the
merit of Christ, they affirm that this evangelical righteousness  is
the condition whereon we enjoy the benefits of the righteousness  of
Christ, in the pardon of our sins, and the acceptance of our persons
before  God.  But  as  unto  those who  will  acknowledge  no  other
righteousness wherewith we are justified before God, the meaning  is
the same, whether we say that on the condition of this righteousness
we  are  made  partakers  of the benefits of  the  righteousness  of
Christ,  or that it is the righteousness of Christ which makes  this
righteousness  of  ours  accepted with God. But  these  things  must
afterwards more particularly be inquired into.
   3.  The  third inquiry wherein there is not an agreement in  this
matter is,--upon a supposition of a necessity that he who is  to  be
justified   should,  one  way  or  other,  be  interested   in   the
righteousness  of  Christ, what it is that on our part  is  required
thereunto. This some say to be faith alone; others, faith and  works
also,  and  that in the same kind of necessity and use.  That  whose
consideration we at present undertake is the second thing  proposed;
and,  indeed,  herein  lies the substance of the  whole  controversy
about  our  justification  before God, upon  the  determination  and
stating  whereof  the determination of all other incident  questions
does depend.
  This, therefore, is that which herein I affirm:--The righteousness
of  Christ  (in  his obedience and suffering for  us)  imputed  unto
believers,  as  they  are united unto him by  his  Spirit,  is  that
righteousness whereon they are justified before God, on the  account
whereof  their sins are pardoned, and a right is granted  them  unto
the heavenly inheritance.
   This  position is such as wherein the substance of that doctrine,
in  this important article of evangelical truth which we plead  for,
is plainly and fully expressed. And I have chosen the rather thus to
express  it, because it is that thesis wherein the learned  Davenant
laid  down  that  common  doctrine of the  Reformed  churches  whose
defense he undertook. This is the shield of truth in the whole cause
of  justification; which, whilst it is preserved safe, we  need  not
trouble  ourselves about the differences that are among learned  men
about  the  most  proper  stating and  declaration  of  some  lesser
concernments  of  it.  This  is  the refuge,  the  only  refuge,  of
distressed consciences, wherein they may find rest and peace.
   For  the  confirmation of this assertion, I shall do these  three
things:--I. Reflect on what is needful unto the explanation  of  it.
II.  Answer the most important general objections against  it.  III.
Prove  the  truth  of it by arguments and testimonies  of  the  holy
Scripture.
   I.  As  to  the  first of these, or what is  necessary  unto  the
explanation of this assertion, it has been sufficiently spoken  unto
in  our foregoing discourses. The heads of some things only shall at
present be called over.
   1.  The  foundation of the imputation asserted is  union.  Hereof
there  are many grounds and causes, as has been declared;  but  that
which  we  have  immediate respect unto, as the foundation  of  this
imputation,  is  that  whereby  the Lord  Christ  and  believers  do
actually  coalesce into one mystical person. This  is  by  the  Holy
Spirit  inhabiting in him as the head of the church in all  fulness,
and in all believers according to their measure, whereby they become
members  of  his mystical body. That there is such a  union  between
Christ  and believers is the faith of the catholic church,  and  has
been  so  in  all ages. Those who seem in our days to  deny  it,  or
question  it,  either know not what they say,  or  their  minds  are
influenced by their doctrine who deny the divine persons of the  Son
and of the Spirit. Upon supposition of this union, reason will grant
the imputation pleaded for to be reasonable; at least, that there is
such  a  peculiar ground for it as is not to be exemplified  in  any
things natural or political among men.
  2. The nature of imputation has been fully spoken unto before, and
whereunto  I  refer  the  reader for the understanding  of  what  is
intended thereby.
   3.  That  which is imputed is the righteousness of  Christ;  and,
briefly,  I understand hereby his whole obedience unto God,  in  all
that  he  did and suffered for the church. This, I say,  is  imputed
unto believers, so as to become their only righteousness before  God
unto the justification of life.
   If beyond these things any expressions have been made use of,  in
the  explanation of this truth, which have given occasion  unto  any
differences  or  contests, although they may be true and  defensible
against  objections,  yet shall not I concern myself  in  them.  The
substance  of the truth as laid down, is that whose defense  I  have
undertaken; and where that is granted or consented unto, I will  not
contend with any about their way and methods of its declaration, nor
defend  the terms and expressions that have by any been made use  of
therein.  For  instance, some have said that "what  Christ  did  and
suffered  is so imputed unto us, as that we are judged and  esteemed
in the sight of God to have done or suffered ourselves in him." This
I  shall  not  concern myself in; for although it may have  a  sound
sense  given  unto  it,  and is used by some of  the  ancients,  yet
because  offense is taken at it, and the substance of the  truth  we
plead  for  is  better  otherwise expressed,  it  ought  not  to  be
contended  about. For we do not say that God judges or esteems  that
we did and suffered in our own persons what Christ did and suffered;
but  only  that he did it and suffered it in our stead.  Hereon  God
makes  a  grant  and  donation  of  it  unto  believers  upon  their
believing, unto their justification before him. And the like may  be
said of many other expressions of the like nature.
   II. These things being premised, I proceed unto the consideration
of  the general objections that are urged against the imputation  we
plead for: and I shall insist only on some of the principal of them,
and whereinto all others may be resolved; for it were endless to  go
over all that any man's invention can suggest unto him of this kind.
And  some general considerations we must take along with us  herein;
as,--
   1. The doctrine of justification is a part, yea, an eminent part,
of  the mystery of the gospel. It is no marvel, therefore, if it  be
not  so exposed unto the common notions of reason as some would have
it   to   be.  There  is  more  required  unto  the  true  spiritual
understanding of such mysteries; yea, unless we intend  to  renounce
the  gospel, it must be asserted that reason as it is corrupted, and
the mind of man as destitute of divine, supernatural revelation,  do
dislike every such truth, and rise up in enmity against it.  So  the
Scripture directly affirms, Rom.8:7; 1 Cor.2:14.
   2.  Hence are the minds and inventions of men wonderfully fertile
in  coining objections against evangelical truths and raising cavils
against them. Seldom to this purpose do they want all endless number
of  sophistical objections, which, because they know no better, they
themselves  judge  insoluble; for carnal reason being  once  set  at
liberty,  under the false notion of truth, to act itself freely  and
boldly  against spiritual mysteries, is subtile in its arguing,  and
pregnant  in  its invention of them. How endless, for instance,  are
the  sophisms of the Socinians against the doctrine of the  Trinity!
and  how  do they triumph in them as unanswerable! Under the shelter
of  them  they despise the force of the most evident testimonies  of
the  Scripture and those multiplied on all occasions. In like manner
they  deal with the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ,  as  the
Pelagians of old did with that of his grace. Wherefore, he that will
be  startled  at  the appearance of subtile or plausible  objections
against  any  gospel  mysteries  that  are  plainly  revealed,   and
sufficiently attested in the Scripture, is not likely to  come  unto
much stability in his profession of them.
   3.  The most of the objections which are levied against the truth
in  this cause do arise from the want of a due comprehension of  the
order  of the work of God's grace, and of our compliance wherewithal
in  a  way  of  duty, as was before observed; for  they  consist  in
opposing  those  things  one to another as inconsistent,  which,  in
their  proper place and order, are not only consistent, but mutually
subservient unto one another, and are found so in the experience  of
them  that  truly believe. Instances hereof have been given  before,
and others will immediately occur. Taking the consideration of these
things  with  us,  we  may see as the rise, so  of  what  force  the
objections are.
   4. Let it be considered that the objections which are made use of
against  the  truth  we assert, are all of them taken  from  certain
consequences  which, as it is supposed, will ensue on the  admission
of it. And as this is the only expedient to perpetuate controversies
and  make them endless, so, to my best observation, I never yet  met
with  any  one  but that, to give an appearance of  force  unto  the
absurdity  of the consequences from whence he argues, he framed  his
suppositions, or the state of the question, unto the disadvantage of
them whom he opposed; a course of proceeding which I wonder good men
are not either weary or ashamed of.
   1.  It is objected, "That the imputation of the righteousness  of
Christ  does  overthrow all remission of sins on the part  of  God".
This is pleaded for by Socinus, De Servatore, lib.4 cap. 2-4; and by
others it is also made use of. A confident charge this seems to them
who steadfastly believe that without this imputation there could  be
no  remission of sin. But they say, "That he who has a righteousness
imputed  unto him that is absolutely perfect, so as to be  made  his
own, needs no pardon, has no sin that should be forgiven, nor can he
ever  need forgiveness." But because this objection will occur  unto
us again in the vindication of one of our ensuing arguments, I shall
here speak briefly unto it:--
   (1.) Grotius shall answer this objection. Says he, "Cum duo nobis
peperisse   Christum  dixerimus,  impunitatem  et  praemium,   illud
satisfactioni, hoc merito Christi distincte tribuit vetus  ecclesia.
Satisfactio  consistit  in  peccaturum  translatione,   meritum   in
perfectissimae   obedientiae  pro  nobis  praestitae   imputatione",
Praefat. ad lib. de Satisfact.;--" Whereas we have said that  Christ
has  procured  or  brought forth two things  for  us,--freedom  from
punishment, and a reward,--the ancient church attributes the one  of
them  distinctly  unto his satisfaction, the other unto  his  merit.
Satisfaction consists in the translation of sins (from us unto him);
merit,  in  the imputation of his most perfect obedience,  performed
for  us,  unto us." In his judgment, the remission of sins  and  the
imputation  of righteousness were as consistent as the  satisfaction
and merit of Christ; as indeed they are.
   (2.)  Had we not been sinners, we should have had no need of  the
imputation  of  the righteousness of Christ to render  us  righteous
before  God. Being so, the first end for which it is imputed is  the
pardon  of  sin;  without which we could not  be  righteous  by  the
imputation   of  the  most  perfect  righteousness.  These   things,
therefore, are consistent,--namely, that the satisfaction of  Christ
should  be  imputed unto us for the pardon of sin, and the obedience
of  Christ be imputed unto us to render us righteous before God; and
they  are  not  only  consistent, but neither of  them  singly  were
sufficient unto our justification.
   2.  It  is  pleaded  by the same author, and  others,  "That  the
imputation  of the righteousness of Christ overthrows all  necessity
of  repentance  for  sin,  in order unto  the  remission  or  pardon
thereof, yea, renders it altogether needless; for what need  has  he
of  repentance  for sin, who, by the imputation of the righteousness
of Christ, is esteemed completely just and righteous in the sight of
God? If Christ satisfied for all sins in the person of the elect, if
as  our  surety  he paid all our debts, and if his righteousness  be
made  ours  before we repent, then is all repentance needless."  And
these  things are much enlarged on by the same author in  the  place
before mentioned.
  Ans. (1.) It must be remembered that we require evangelical faith,
in  order  of  nature,  antecedently unto our justification  by  the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us; which also is the
condition  of  its  continuation. Wherefore, whatever  is  necessary
thereunto  is in like manner required of us in order unto believing.
Amongst  these, there is a sorrow for sin, and a repentance  of  it;
for  whosoever  is convinced of sin in a due manner,  so  as  in  be
sensible  of  its evil and guilt,--both as in its own nature  it  is
contrary  unto  the  receptive part of the  holy  law,  and  in  the
necessary consequences of it, in the wrath and curse of God,--cannot
but  be  perplexed in his mind that he has involved himself therein;
and  that  posture  of mind will be accompanied  with  shame,  fear,
sorrow,  and  other  afflictive passions. Hereon a  resolution  does
ensue  utterly  to  abstain  from it for the  future,  with  sincere
endeavours  unto that purpose; issuing, if there be time  and  space
for  it,  in reformation of life. And in a sense of sin, sorrow  for
it, fear concerning it, abstinence from it, and reformation of life,
a  repentance  true  in its kind does consist.  This  repentance  is
usually called legal, because its motives are principally taken from
the law; but yet there is, moreover, required unto it that temporary
faith  of the gospel which we have before described; and as it  does
usually produce great effects, in the confession of sin, humiliation
for  it,  and  change  of life (as in Ahab and  the  Ninevites),  so
ordinarily it precedes true saving faith, and justification thereby.
Wherefore,  the necessity hereof is no way weakened by the  doctrine
of  the  imputation  of  the righteousness of  Christ,  yea,  it  is
strengthened  and  made effectual thereby; for without  it,  in  the
order of the gospel, an interest therein is not to be attained.  And
this  is  that which, in the Old Testament, is so often proposed  as
the   means  and  condition  of  turning  away  the  judgments   and
punishments threatened unto sin; for it is true and sincere  in  its
kind.  Neither  do the Socinians require any other  repentance  unto
justification; for as they deny true evangelical repentance  in  all
the  especial causes of it, so that which may and does precede faith
in  order  of  nature  is  all that they  require.  This  objection,
therefore, as managed by them, is a causeless, vain pretence.
   (2.) Justifying faith includes in its nature the entire principle
of  evangelical repentance, so as that it is utterly impossible that
a  man  should be a true believer, and not, at the same  instant  of
time,  be  truly  penitent; and therefore  are  they  so  frequently
conjoined in the Scripture as one simultaneous duty. Yea,  the  call
of  the  gospel unto repentance is a call to faith acting itself  by
repentance:  So  the sole reason of that call unto repentance  which
the  forgiveness of sins is annexed unto, Acts 2:38, is the proposal
of  the  promise which is the object of faith, verse 39.  And  those
conceptions and affections which a man has about sin, with a  sorrow
for  it  and  repentance  of  it, upon  a  legal  conviction,  being
enlivened and made evangelical by the introduction of faith as a new
principle  of  them,  and giving new motives unto  them,  do  become
evangelical;  so  impossible  is it that  faith  should  be  without
repentance. Wherefore, although the first act of faith, and its only
proper exercise unto justification, does respect the grace of God in
Christ,  and the way of salvation by him, as proposed in the promise
of the gospel, yet is not this conceived in order of time to precede
its   acting  in  self-displicency,  godly  sorrow,  and   universal
conversion from sin unto God; nor can it be so, seeing it  virtually
and  radically  contains all of them in itself. However,  therefore,
evangelical repentance is not the condition of our justification, so
as  to have any direct influence thereinto; nor are we said anywhere
to  be  justified by repentance; nor is conversant about the  proper
object  which alone the soul respects therein; nor is a  direct  and
immediate giving glory unto God on the account of the way  and  work
of  his  wisdom and grace in Christ Jesus, but a consequent thereof;
nor is that reception of Christ which is expressly required unto our
justification, and which alone is required thereunto;--yet is it, in
the  root,  principle, and promptitude of mind for its exercise,  in
every  one that is justified, then when he is justified. And  it  is
peculiarly  proposed with respect unto the forgiveness of  sins,  as
that without which it is impossible we should have any true sense or
comfort  of  it in our souls; but it is not so as any part  of  that
righteousness  on the consideration whereof our sins  are  pardoned,
nor  as  that whereby we have an interest therein. These things  are
plain  in  the divine method of our justification, and the order  of
our duty prescribed in the gospel; as also in the experience of them
that  do  believe.  Wherefore, considering the  necessity  of  legal
repentance unto believing; with the sanctification of the affections
exercised  therein by faith, whereby they are made evangelical;  and
the  nature  of faith, as including in it a principle  of  universal
conversion unto God; and in especial, of that repentance  which  has
for  its principal motive the love of God and of Jesus Christ,  with
the  grace from thence communicated,--all which are supposed in  the
doctrine  pleaded for; the necessity of true repentance is immovably
fixed on its proper foundation.
   (3.)  As  unto what was said in the objection concerning Christ's
suffering  in the person of the elect, I know not whether  any  have
used  it  or no, nor will I contend about it. He suffered  in  their
stead; which all sorts of writers, ancient and modern, so express,--
in  his  suffering he bare the person of the church. The meaning  is
what  was  before  declared. Christ and believers are  one  mystical
person,  one  spiritually animated body, head and members.  This,  I
suppose,  will not be denied; to do so, is to overthrow  the  church
and the faith of it. Hence, what he did and suffered is imputed unto
them. And it is granted that, as the surety of the covenant, he paid
all  our  debts,  or  answered for all  our  faults;  and  that  his
righteousness is really communicated unto us. "Why, then," say some,
"there  is  no need of repentance; all is done for us already."  But
why  so?  Why  must  we assent to one part of the  gospel  unto  the
exclusion of another? Was it not free unto God to appoint what  way,
method,  and  order  he  would,  whereby  these  things  should   be
communicated unto us? Nay, upon the supposition of the design of his
wisdom and grace, these two things were necessary:--
  [1.] That this righteousness of Christ should be communicated unto
us,  and  be made ours, in such a way and manner as that he  himself
might  be  glorified therein, seeing he has disposed all things,  in
this  whole  economy, unto "the praise of the glory of  his  grace,"
Eph.1:6.  This was to be done by faith, on our part. It  is  so;  it
could  be  no otherwise: for that faith whereby we are justified  is
our  giving unto God the glory of his wisdom, grace, and  love;  and
whatever does so is faith, and nothing else is so.
   [2.]  That  whereas our nature was so corrupted and  depraved  as
that,   continuing  in  that  state,  it  was  not  capable   of   a
participation of the righteousness of Christ, or any benefit of  it,
unto  the  glory  of  God and our own good, it was  in  like  manner
necessary that it should be renewed and changed. And unless it  were
so,  the  design of God in the mediation of Christ,--which  was  the
entire  recovery  of us unto himself,--could not  be  attained.  And
therefore,  as  faith,  under the formal consideration  of  it,  was
necessary  unto  the first end,--namely, that of giving  glory  unto
God,--so  unto  this  latter end it was necessary  that  this  faith
should be accompanied with, yea, and contain in itself, the seeds of
all  those  other  graces wherein the divine  nature  does  consist,
whereof  we are to be made partners. Not only, therefore, the  thing
itself, or the communication of the righteousness of Christ unto us,
but  the  way,  and  manner, and means of it,  do  depend  on  God's
sovereign  order and disposal. Wherefore, although Christ  did  make
satisfaction to the justice of God for all the sins of  the  church,
and  that  as a common person (for no man in his wits can  deny  but
that  he who is a mediator and a surety is, in some sense, a  common
person);  and  although  he did pay all  our  debts;  yet  does  the
particular interest of this or that man in what he did and  suffered
depend  on the way, means, and order designed of God unto that  end.
This,  and  this alone, gives the true necessity of all  the  duties
which are required of us, with their order and their ends.
   3.  It is objected, "That the imputation of the righteousness  of
Christ,  which we defend, overthrows the necessity of faith itself."
This is home indeed. "Aliquid adhaerebit" is the design of all these
objections;  but they have reason to plead for themselves  who  make
it.  "For  on  this  supposition," they say, "the  righteousness  of
Christ  is ours before we do believe; for Christ satisfied  for  all
our  sins, as if we had satisfied in our own persons. And he who  is
esteemed  to  have satisfied for all his sins in his own  person  is
acquitted  from them all and accounted just, whether he  believe  or
no;  nor is there any ground or reason why he should be required  to
believe. If, therefore, the righteousness of Christ be really  ours,
because, in the judgment of God, we are esteemed to have wrought  it
in  him,  then it is ours before we do believe. If it be  otherwise,
then  it  is plain that that righteousness itself can never be  made
ours  by  believing;  only  the fruits and  effects  of  it  may  be
suspended  on  our  believing, whereby we may be made  partakers  of
them.  Yea,  if  Christ  made any such satisfaction  for  us  as  is
pretended,  it is really ours, without any farther imputation;  for,
being performed for us and in our stead, it is the highest injustice
not  to  have  us  accounted  pardoned and  acquitted,  without  any
farther,  either  imputation on the part of God or faith  on  ours."
These  things I have transcribed out of Socinus, De Servatore, lib.4
cap.2-5; which I would not have done but that I find others to  have
gone  before me herein, though to another purpose. And he  concludes
with  a confidence which others also seem, in some measure, to  have
learned of him; for he says unto his adversary, "Haec tua, tuorumque
sententia, adeo foeda et execrabilis est, ut pestilentiorem  errorem
post  homines  natos in populo. Dei extitisse non credam",--speaking
of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ, and the  imputation  of  it  unto
believers.  And,  indeed, his serpentine  wit  was  fertile  in  the
invention of cavils against all the mysteries of the gospel. Nor was
he  obliged by any one of them, so as to contradict himself in  what
he  opposed concerning any other of them; for, denying the deity  of
Christ,  his  satisfaction,  sacrifice,  merit,  righteousness,  and
overthrowing the whole nature of his mediation, nothing stood in his
way  which he had a mind to oppose. But I somewhat wonder how others
can make use of his inventions in this kind; who, if they considered
aright  their proper tendency, they will find them to be  absolutely
destructive  of  what they seem to own. So it  is  in  this  present
objection against the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  If
it  has  any force in it, as indeed it has not, it is to prove  that
the  satisfaction of Christ was impossible; and so he  intended  it.
But it will be easily removed.
   I  answer,  first,  in general, that the whole  fallacy  of  this
objection lies in the opposing once part of the design and method of
God's  grace  in this mystery of our justification unto another;  or
the  taking  of  one part of it to be the whole, which,  as  to  its
efficacy and perfection, depends on somewhat else. Hereof we  warned
the  reader  in our previous discourses. For the whole of  it  is  a
supposition  that the satisfaction of Christ, if there be  any  such
thing,  must  have its whole effect without believing on  our  part;
which  is contrary unto the whole declaration of the will of God  in
the gospel. But I shall principally respect them who are pleased  to
make use of this objection, and yet do not deny the satisfaction  of
Christ. And I say,--
   (1.) When the Lord Christ died for us, and offered himself  as  a
propitiatory  sacrifice, "God laid all our sins on  him,"  Isa.53:6;
and he then "bare them all in his own body on the tree," 1 Pet.2:24.
Then  he  suffered in our stead, and made full satisfaction for  all
our  sins;  for  he  "appeared to put away sin by the  sacrifice  of
himself,"  Heb.9:26; and "by one offering he has  perfected  forever
them  that  are  sanctified," chap.10:14. He  whose  sins  were  not
actually  and  absolutely  satisfied for in  that  one  offering  of
Christ,   shall   never  have  them  expiated  unto  eternity;   for
"henceforth he dies no more," there is "no more sacrifice for  sin."
The  repetition of a sacrifice for sin, which must be the crucifying
of Christ afresh, overthrows the foundation of Christian religion.
  (2.) Notwithstanding this full, plenary satisfaction once made for
the  sins  of  the world that shall be saved, yet all  men  continue
equal  to  be  born by nature "children of wrath;" and  whilst  they
believe not, "the wrath of God abides on them," John 3:36;--that is,
they  are  obnoxious unto and under the curse of the law. Wherefore,
on the only making of that satisfaction, no one for whom it was made
in  the design of God can be said to have suffered in Christ, nor to
have  an  interest in his satisfaction, nor by any way or  means  be
made  partaker  of it antecedently unto another act of  God  in  its
imputation  unto  him. For this is but one part of  the  purpose  of
God's  grace  as  unto our justification by the blood  of  Christ,--
namely, that he by his death should make satisfaction for our  sins;
nor is it to be separated from what also belongs unto it in the same
purpose  of  God.  Wherefore, from the  position  or  grant  of  the
satisfaction  of Christ, no argument can be taken unto the  negation
of a consequential act of its imputation unto us; nor, therefore, of
the  necessity  of our faith in the believing and receiving  of  it,
which  is  no  less the appointment of God than it was  that  Christ
should make that satisfaction. Wherefore,--
  (3.) That which the Lord Christ paid for us is as truly paid as if
we  had  paid  it  ourselves.  So he speaks,  Ps.69:5,  "'asher  lo-
gazolatti  'az 'ashiv". He made no spoil of the glory of  God;  what
was done of that nature by us, he returned it unto him. And what  he
underwent and suffered, he underwent and suffered in our stead.  But
yet  the act of God in laying our sins on Christ conveyed no  actual
right  and title to us unto what he did and suffered. They  are  not
immediately thereon, nor by virtue thereof, ours, or esteemed  ours;
because  God  has  appointed  somewhat  else,  not  only  antecedent
thereunto, but as the means of it, unto his own glory. These things,
both as unto their being and order, depend on the free ordination of
God.
But yet,--
   (4.) It cannot be said that this satisfaction was made for us  on
such  a condition as should absolutely suspend the event, and render
it  uncertain  whether  it should ever be  for  us  or  no.  Such  a
institution may be righteous in pecuniary solutions. A man  may  lay
down  a  great sum of money for the discharge of another, on such  a
condition as may never be fulfilled; for, on the absolute failure of
the  condition,  his  money may and ought to be restored  unto  him,
whereon  he has received no injury or damage. But in penal suffering
for  crimes  and  sins, there can be no righteous constitution  that
shall  make  the event and efficacy of it to depend on  a  condition
absolutely  uncertain,  and  which  may  not  come  to  pass  or  be
fulfilled; for if the condition fail, no recompense can be made unto
him  that has suffered. Wherefore, the way of the application of the
satisfaction of Christ unto them for whom it was made, is  sure  and
steadfast in the purpose of God.
  (5.) God has appointed that there shall be an immediate foundation
of  the  imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness of  Christ
unto  us;  whereon we may be said to have done and suffered  in  him
what he did and suffered in our stead, by that grant, donation,  and
imputation of it unto us; or that we may be interested in  it,  that
it  may  be made ours: which is all we contend for. And this is  our
actual  coalescence  into one mystical person  with  him  by  faith.
Hereon  does  the necessity of faith originally depend.  And  if  we
shall  add hereunto the necessity of it likewise unto that  especial
glory  of  God  which  he designs to exalt in our  justification  by
Christ, as also unto all the ends of our obedience unto God, and the
renovation   of  our  natures  into  his  image,  its   station   is
sufficiently secured against all objections. Our actual interest  in
the  satisfaction of Christ depends on our actual insertion into his
mystical body by faith, according to the appointment of God.
   4.  It  is yet objected, "That if the righteousness of Christ  be
made ours, we may be said to be saviours of the world, as he was, or
to  save  others,  as  he did; for he was  so  and  did  so  by  his
righteousness, and no otherwise." This objection also is of the same
nature with those foregoing,--a mere sophistical cavil. For,--
   (1.) The righteousness of Christ is not transfused into us, so as
to  be made inherently and subjectively ours, as it was in him,  and
which  is  necessarily required unto that effect  of  saving  others
thereby.  Whatever  we may do, or be said to do, with  respect  unto
others, by virtue of any power or quality inherent in ourselves,  we
can  be  said to do nothing unto others, or for them, by  virtue  of
that  which  is imputed unto us only for our own benefit.  That  any
righteousness  of  ours  should benefit another,  it  is  absolutely
necessary that it should be wrought by ourselves.
   (2.) If the righteousness of Christ could be transfused into  us,
and be made inherently ours, yet could we not be, nor be said to be,
the  saviours  of others thereby; for our nature in  our  individual
persons is not "subjectum capax", or capable to receive and retain a
righteousness useful and effectual unto that end. This capacity  was
given unto it in Christ by virtue of the hypostatical union, and  no
otherwise. The righteousness of Christ himself, as performed in  the
human  nature,  would not have been sufficient for the justification
and  salvation  of the church, had it not been the righteousness  of
his  person  who is, both God and man; for "God redeemed his  church
with his own blood."
   (3.)  This imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us,  as
unto its ends and use, has its measure from the will of God, and his
purpose  in  that  imputation; and this is, that it  should  be  the
righteousness of them unto whom it is imputed, and nothing else.
   (4.)  We  do  not say that the righteousness of Christ,  as  made
absolutely for the whole church, is imputed unto every believer; but
his satisfaction for every one of them in particular, according unto
the  will  of God, is imputed unto them,--not with respect unto  its
general  ends,  but according unto every one's particular  interest.
Every believer has his own homer of this bread of life; and all  are
justified by the same righteousness.
   (5.) The apostle declares, as we shall prove afterwards, that  as
Adam's   actual sin is imputed unto us unto condemnation, so is  the
obedience  of Christ imputed unto us to the justification  of  life.
But  Adam's sin is not so imputed unto any person as that he  should
then and thereby be the cause of sin and condemnation unto all other
persons in the world, but only that he himself should become  guilty
before  God thereon. And so is it on the other side. And as  we  are
made  guilty by Adam's actual sin, which is not inherent in  us  but
only  imputed unto us; so are we made righteous by the righteousness
of  Christ, which is not inherent in us, but only imputed  unto  us.
And  imputed unto us it is, because himself was righteous  with  it,
not for himself, but for us.
   5. It is yet said, "That if we insist on personal imputation unto
every  believer of what Christ did, or if any believer be personal1y
righteous  in  the  very individual acts of Christ's  righteousness,
many absurdities will follow." But it was observed before, that when
any  design  to  oppose an opinion from the absurdities  which  they
suppose would follow upon it, they are much inclined so to state  it
as,  that  at least they may seem so to do. And this oft  times  the
most  worthy  and candid persons are not free from, in the  heat  of
disputation.  So I fear it is here fallen out; for as unto  personal
imputation, I do not well understand it. All imputation  is  unto  a
person, and is the act of a person, be it of what, and what sort  it
will;  but  from  neither  of  them can be  denominated  a  personal
imputation.  And if an imputation be allowed that is  not  unto  the
persons  of  men,--namely,  in this case  unto  all  believers,--the
nature of it has not yet been declared, as I know of.
  That any have so expressed the imputation pleaded for, "that every
believer should be personally righteous in the very individual  acts
of  Christ's  righteousness," I know not; I have  neither  read  nor
heard  any of them who have so expressed their mind. It may be  some
have  done  so: but I shall not undertake the defense of  what  they
have  done; for it seems not only to suppose that Christ  did  every
individual  act which in any instance is required of  us,  but  also
that  those acts are made our own inherently,--both which are  false
and  impossible. That which indeed is pleaded for in this imputation
is  only  this,  that what the Lord Christ did and suffered  as  the
mediator  and  surety of the covenant, in answer unto the  law,  for
them, and in their stead, is imputed unto every one of them unto the
justification of life. And sufficient this is unto that end, without
any  such supposals. (1.) From the dignity of the person who yielded
this obedience, which rendered it both satisfactory and meritorious,
and  imputable  unto  many. (2.) From the nature  of  the  obedience
itself,  which was a perfect compliance with, a fulfilling  of,  and
satisfaction  unto the whole law in all its demands.  This,  on  the
supposition  of  that  act of God's sovereign authority,  whereby  a
representative of the whole church was introduced to answer the law,
is  the  ground  of his righteousness being made theirs,  and  being
every  way  sufficient  unto  their  justification.  (3.)  From  the
constitution of God, that what was done and suffered by Christ as  a
public  person, and our surety, should be reckoned unto  us,  as  if
done  by  ourselves.  So the sin of Adam, whilst  he  was  a  public
person, and represented his whole posterity, is imputed unto us all,
as  if  we  had  committed that actual sin. This Bellarmine  himself
frequently  acknowledges: "Peccavimus in promo  homine  quando  ille
peccavit,  et  illa  ejus praevaricatio nostra  etiam  praevaricatio
fuit.   Non   enim   vere  per  Adami  inobedientiam  constitueremur
peccatores,  nisi  inobedientia  illius  nostra  etiam  inobedientia
esset",  De  Amiss.  Grat.  et  Stat.  Peccat.,  lib.5  cap.18.  And
elsewhere, that the actual sin of Adam is imputed unto us, as if  we
all had committed that actual sin; that is, broken the whole law  of
God. And this is that whereby the apostle illustrates the imputation
of the righteousness of Christ unto believers; and it may on as good
grounds  be  charged  with absurdities as  the  other.  It  is  not,
therefore, said that God judges that we have in our own persons done
those very acts, and endured that penalty of the law, which the Lord
Christ  did  and endured; for this would overthrow all imputation;--
but  what  Christ did and suffered, that God imputes unto  believers
unto  the  justification  of  life,  as  if  it  had  been  done  by
themselves; and his righteousness as a public person is made  theirs
by  imputation, even as the sin of Adam, whilst a public person,  is
made the sin of all his posterity by imputation.
   Hereon none of the absurdities pretended, which are really  such,
do  at  all  follow. It does not so, that Christ in his  own  person
performed  every  individual act that we in  our  circumstances  are
obliged  unto in a way of duty; nor was there any need  that  so  he
should  do.  This  imputation, as I have  showed,  stands  on  other
foundations.   Nor  does  it  follow,  that  every  saved   person's
righteousness  before  God is the same identically  and  numerically
with Christ's in his public capacity as mediator; for this objection
destroys  itself,  by  affirming that as it  was  his,  it  was  the
righteousness  of God-man, and so it has an especial  nature  as  it
respects  or relates unto his person. It is the same that Christ  in
his  public  capacity  did  work or effect.  But  there  is  a  wide
difference in the consideration of it as his absolutely, and as made
ours.  It was formally inherent in him,--is only materially  imputed
unto  us; was actively his,--is passively ours; was wrought  in  the
person of God-man for the whole church,--is imputed unto each single
believer,  as unto his own concernment only. Adam's sin, as  imputed
unto  us,  is not the sin of a representative, though it be  of  him
that  was so, but is the particular sin of every one of us; but this
objection  must be farther spoken unto, where it occurs  afterwards.
Nor  will it follow, that on this supposition we should be accounted
to  have  done that which was done long before we were in a capacity
of doing any thing; for what is done for us and in our stead, before
we  are in any such capacity, may be imputed unto us, as is the  sin
of  Adam. And yet there is a manifold sense wherein men may be  said
to  have done what was done for them and in their name, before their
actual  existence; so that therein is no absurdity. As unto what  is
added by the way, that Christ did not do nor suffer the "idem"  that
we  were  obliged  unto; whereas he did what the law  required,  and
suffered what the law threatened unto the disobedient, which is  the
whole  of what we are obliged unto, it will not be so easily proved,
nor  the arguments very suddenly answered, whereby the contrary  has
been  confirmed. That Christ did sustain the place of a  surety,  or
was  the surety of the new covenant, the Scripture does so expressly
affirm  that it cannot be denied. And that there may be sureties  in
cases  criminal  as  well as civil and pecuniary,  has  been  proved
before.   What  else  occurs  about  the  singularity  of   Christ's
obedience,  as  he was mediator, proves only that his righteousness,
as  formally and inherently his, was peculiar unto himself; and that
the  adjuncts of it, which arise from its relation unto his  person,
as it was inherent in him, are not communicable unto them to whom it
is imputed.
   6. It is, moreover, urged, "That upon the supposed imputation  of
the  righteousness of Christ, it will follow that every believer  is
justified by the works of the law; for the obedience of Christ was a
legal  righteousness, and if that be imputed unto us,  then  are  we
justified by the law; which is contrary unto express testimonies  of
Scripture in many places." Answer. (1.) I know nothing more frequent
in  the writings of some learned men than that the righteousness  of
Christ  is our legal righteousness; who yet, I presume, are able  to
free  themselves of this objection. (2.) If this do  follow  in  the
true  sense of being justified by the law, or the works  of  it,  so
denied in the Scripture, their weakness is much to be pitied who can
see  no other way whereby we may be freed from an obligation  to  be
justified by the law, but by this imputation of the righteousness of
Christ. (3.) The Scripture which affirms that "by the deeds  of  the
law  no man can be justified," affirms in like manner that by "faith
we  do  not  make  void  the  law,  but  establish  it;"  that  "the
righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us"; that Christ "came  not
to  destroy the law, but to fulfill it," and is the "end of the  law
for  righteousness unto them that do believe." And that the law must
be  fulfilled, or we cannot be justified, we shall prove afterwards.
(4.) We are not hereon justified by the law, or the works of it,  in
the only sense of that proposition in the Scripture; and to coin new
senses or significations of it is not safe. The meaning of it in the
Scripture  is, that only "the doers of the law shall be  justified,"
Rom.2:13;  and  that "he that does the things of it  shall  live  by
them," chap.10:5,--namely, in his own person, by the way of personal
duty,  which  alone  the  law requires. But  if  we,  who  have  not
fulfilled  the  law in the way of inherent, personal obedience,  are
justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto  us,
then are we justified by Christ, and not by the law.
  But it is said that this will not relieve; for if his obedience be
so  imputed unto us, as that we are accounted by God in judgment  to
have done what Christ did, it is all one upon the matter, and we are
as  much justified by the law as if we had in our own proper persons
performed  an unsinning obedience unto it. This I confess  I  cannot
understand.  The  nature of this imputation is here represented,  as
formerly, in such a way as we cannot acknowledge; from thence  alone
this  inference is made, which yet, in my judgment, does not  follow
thereon.  For  grant an imputation of the righteousness  of  another
unto us, be it of what nature it will, all justification by the  law
and  works  of it, in the sense of the Scripture, is gone for  ever.
The  admission  of imputation takes off all power from  the  law  to
justify;  for it can justify none but upon a righteousness  that  is
originally  and  inherently his own: "The man that does  them  shall
live  in  them." If the righteousness that is imputed be the  ground
and   foundation  of  our  justification,  and  made  ours  by  that
imputation, state it how you will, that justification is  of  grace,
and  not  of  the law. However, I know not of any that  say  we  are
accounted  of  God in judgment personally to have done  what  Christ
did; and it may have a sense that is false,--namely, that God should
judge  us in our own persons to have done those acts which we  never
did.  But  what Christ did for us, and in our stead, is imputed  and
communicated unto us, as we coalesce into one mystical  person  with
him  by  faith;  and thereon are we justified. And  this  absolutely
overthrows  all justification by the law or the works of it;  though
the law be established, fulfilled, and accomplished, that we may  be
justified.
   Neither  can  any,  on the supposition of the imputation  of  the
righteousness  of Christ truly stated, be said to  merit  their  own
salvation.  Satisfaction and merit are adjuncts of the righteousness
of  Christ, as formally inherent in his own person; and as  such  it
cannot be transfused into another. Wherefore, as it is imputed  unto
individual  believers, it has not those properties  accompanying  of
it, which belong only unto its existence in the person of the Son of
God.  But  this  was spoken unto before, as also much  of  what  was
necessary to be here repeated.
   These objections I have in this place taken notice of because the
answers  given unto them do tend to the farther explanation of  that
truth,   whose   confirmation,  by  arguments  and  testimonies   of
Scripture, I shall now proceed unto.




X.   Arguments   for   justification  by  the  imputation   of   the
righteousness of Christ. The first argument from the nature and  use
of our own personal righteousness


Arguments  for  justification by the imputation of the righteousness
of  Christ--Our own personal righteousness not that on  the  account
whereof  we  are  justified in the sight of God--Disclaimed  in  the
Scriptures, as to any such end--The truth and reality of it granted-
-Manifold imperfection accompanying it, rendering it unmeet to be  a
righteousness unto the justification of life


III.  There  is  a  justification  of  convinced  sinners  on  their
believing.  Hereon are their sins pardoned, their  persons  accepted
with  God,  and  a  right  is  given unto  them  unto  the  heavenly
inheritance. This state they are immediately taken into  upon  their
faith,  or  believing in Jesus Christ. And a state it is  of  actual
peace  with God These things at present take for granted;  and  they
are  the  foundation  of  all  that I shall  plead  in  the  present
argument.  And I do take notice of them, because some seem,  to  the
best  of my understanding, to deny any real actual justification  of
sinners on their believing in this life. For they make justification
to  be  only a general conditional sentence declared in the  gospel;
which,  as  unto its execution, is delayed unto the day of judgment.
For  whilst men are in this world, the whole condition of  it  being
not  fulfilled, they cannot be partakers of it, or be  actually  and
absolutely  justified. Hereon it follows, that indeed  there  is  no
real  state of assured rest and peace with God by Jesus Christ,  for
any persons in this life. This at present I shall not dispute about,
because it seems to me to overthrow the whole gospel,-- the grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and all the comfort of believers; about which
I hope we are not as yet called to contend.
   Our  inquiry  is,  how convinced sinners do, on their  believing,
obtain the remission of sins, acceptance with God, and a right  unto
eternal  life?  And  if this can no other way be  done  but  by  the
imputation  of the righteousness of Christ unto them,  then  thereby
alone  are  they  justified in the sight of God. And this  assertion
proceeds  on  a  supposition that there is a righteousness  required
unto  the justification of any person whatever: for whereas God,  in
the  justification of any person, does declare him to  be  acquitted
from all crimes laid unto his charges, and to stand as righteous  in
his  sight,  it  must  be on the consideration  of  a  righteousness
whereon  any  man is so acquitted and declared; for the judgment  of
God  is  according  unto truth. This we have sufficiently  evidenced
before, in that juridical procedure wherein the Scripture represents
unto us the justification of a believing sinner. And if there be not
other  righteousness whereby we may be thus justified but only  that
of Christ imputed unto us, then thereby must we be justified, or not
at all; and if there be any such other righteousness, it must be our
own,  inherent  in us, and wrought out by us; for these  two  kinds,
inherent and imputed righteousness, our own and Christ's, divide the
whole  nature  of righteousness, as to the end inquired  after.  And
that  there is no such inherent righteousness, no such righteousness
of our own, whereby we may be justified before God, I shall prove in
the  first place. And I shall do it, first, from express testimonies
of  Scripture, and then from the consideration of the thing  itself;
and two things I shall premise hereunto:--
   1.  That  I  shall  not consider this righteousness  of  our  own
absolutely in itself, but as it may be conceived to be improved  and
advanced by its relation unto the satisfaction and merit of  Christ:
for many will grant that our inherent righteousness is not of itself
sufficient to justify us in the sight of God; but take it as it  has
value  and worth communicated unto it from the merit of Christ,  and
so  it is accepted unto that end, and judged worthy of eternal life.
We  could  not merit life and salvation had not Christ merited  that
grace  for us whereby we may do so, and merited also that our  works
should  be  of  such a dignity with respect unto reward.  We  shall,
therefore,  allow  what  worth  can  be  reasonably  thought  to  be
communicated unto this righteousness from its respect unto the merit
of Christ.
   2.  Whereas persons of all sorts and parties do take various ways
in  the assignation of an interest in our justification unto our own
righteousness, so as that no parties are agreed about it,  nor  many
of the same mind among themselves,--as might easily be manifested in
the  Papists,  Socinians, and others, I  shall,  so  far  as  it  is
possible  in the ensuing arguments, have respect unto them all;  for
my  design  is  to  prove  that  it has  no  such  interest  in  our
justification before God, as that the righteousness of Christ should
not be esteemed the only righteousness whereon we are justified.
   And, First, we shall produce some of those many testimonies which
may  be  pleaded  unto  this purpose, Ps.130:3,4,  "If  thou,  LORD,
shouldest  mark iniquities, 0 Lord, who shall stand?  But  there  is
forgiveness  with  thee, that thou mayest be feared."  There  is  an
inquiry  included in these words, how a man, how  any  man,  may  be
justified before God; how he may stand, that is, in the presence  of
God,  and be accepted with him,--how he shall stand in judgment,  as
it  is  explained,  Ps.1:5,  "The wicked  shall  not  stand  in  the
judgment,"  shall not be acquitted on their trial. That which  first
offers  itself unto this end is his own obedience; for this the  law
requires  of  him  in the first place, and this his  own  conscience
calls  upon him for. But the psalmist plainly declares that  no  man
can thence manage a plea for his justification with any success; and
the reason is, because, notwithstanding the best of the obedience of
the  best  of men, there are iniquities found with them against  the
Lord  their God; and if men come to their trial before God,  whether
they  shall be justified or condemned, these also must be heard  and
taken  into the account. But then no man can "stand," no man can  be
"justified," as it is elsewhere expressed. Wherefore, the wisest and
safest  course is, as unto our justification before God, utterly  to
forego  this plea and not to insist on our own obedience,  lest  our
sins should appear also, and be heard. No reason can any man give on
his  own  account why they should not be so; and if they be so,  the
best of men will be cast in their trial as the psalmist declares.
  Two things are required in this trial, that a sinner may stand:--
   1. That his iniquities be not observed, for if they be so, he  is
lost  for ever. 2. That a righteousness be produced and pleaded that
will  endure  the  trial; for justification  is  upon  a  justifying
righteousness. For the first of these, the psalmist tells us it must
be  through  pardon or forgiveness. "But there is  forgiveness  with
thee,"  wherein  lies  our  only  relief  against  the  condemnatory
sentence  of  the  law  with respect unto our iniquities,--that  is,
through  the blood of Christ, for in him "we have redemption through
his  blood, even the forgiveness of sins," Eph.1:7. The other cannot
be  our own obedience, because of our iniquities. Wherefore this the
same  psalmist directs us unto, Ps.71:16, "I will go in the strength
of  the Lord God: I will make mention of thy righteousness, of thine
only." The righteousness of God, and not his own, yea, in opposition
unto  his  own, is the only plea that in this case he  would  insist
upon.
   If no man can stand a trial before God upon his own obedience, so
as  to  be  justified  before  him,  because  of  his  own  personal
iniquities;  and if our only plea in that case be the  righteousness
of  God,  the  righteousness of God only, and not our own;  then  is
there  no personal, inherent righteousness in any believers  whereon
they may be justified;--which is that which is to be proved.
   The  same  is  again asserted by the same person, and  that  more
plainly  and directly, Ps.143:2, "Enter not into judgment  with  thy
servant;  for  in thy sight shall no man living be justified."  This
testimony  is  the more to he considered, because as it  is  derived
from  the law, Exod.34:7, so it is transferred into the gospel,  and
twice  urged  by  the  apostle  unto  the  same  purpose,  Rom.3:20;
Gal.2:16.
   The person who insists on this plea with God professes himself to
be his servant: "Enter not into judgment with thy servant;" that is,
one  that  loved him, feared him, yielded all sincere obedience.  He
was  not a hypocrite, not an unbeliever, not an unregenerate person,
who  had performed no works but such as were legal, such as the  law
required,  and  such as were done in the strength of the  law  only;
such  works  as  all  will  acknowledge  to  be  excluded  from  our
justification, and which, as many judge, are only those which are so
excluded. David it was, who was not only converted, a true believer,
had  the  Spirit  of  God,  and the aids of  special  grace  in  his
obedience, but had this testimony unto his sincerity, that he was "a
man  after  God's own heart." And this witness had  he  in  his  own
conscience    of   his   integrity,   uprightness,   and    personal
righteousness, so as that he frequently avows them, appeals unto God
concerning  the  truth  of them, and pleads  them  as  a  ground  of
judgment between him and his adversaries. We have, therefore, a case
stated  in  the  instance  of a sincere and  eminent  believer,  who
excelled most in inherent, personal righteousness.
   This person, under these circumstances, thus testified unto  both
by  God  and in his own conscience, as unto the sincerity,  yea,  as
unto  the  eminency, of his obedience, considers how he  may  "stand
before  God," and "be justified in his sight." Why does he  not  now
plead  his own merits; and that, if not "ex condigno," yet at  least
"ex congruo," he deserved to be acquitted and justified? But he left
this  plea  for that generation of men that were to come after,  who
would  justify themselves and despise others. But suppose he had  no
such  confidence in the merit of his works as some have now attained
unto,  yet why does he not freely enter into judgment with God,  put
it  unto the trial whether he should be justified or no, by pleading
that  he  had  fulfilled  the condition of the  new  covenant,  that
everlasting covenant which God made with him, ordered in all things,
and sure? For upon a supposition of the procurement of that covenant
and  the  terms  of it by Christ (for I suppose the virtue  of  that
purchase he made of it is allowed to extend unto the Old Testament),
this  was all that was required of him. Is it not to be feared  that
he  was one of them who see no necessity, or leave none, of personal
holiness and righteousness, seeing he makes no mention of it, now it
should stand him in the greatest stead? At least he might plead  his
faith,  as  his  own  duty  and work, to be  imputed  unto  him  for
righteousness. But whatever the reason be, he waives them  all,  and
absolutely  deprecates a trial upon them. "Come not,"  says  he,  "O
LORD, into judgment with thy servant;" as it is promised that he who
believes should "not come into judgment," John 5:24.
   And  if this holy person renounce the whole consideration of  all
his  personal, inherent righteousness, in every kind, and  will  not
insist upon it under any pretence, in any place, as unto any use  in
his  justification before God, we may safely conclude  there  is  no
such righteousness in any, whereby they may be justified. And if men
would  but  leave  those shades and coverts under  which  they  hide
themselves  in  their  disputations,--if  they  would  forego  those
pretences  and  distinctions wherewith they  delude  themselves  and
others, and tell us plainly what plea they dare make in the presence
of  God from their own righteousness and obedience, that they may be
justified before him,--we should better understand their minds  than
now  we do. There is one, I confess, who speaks with some confidence
unto  this purpose, and that is Vasquez the Jesuit, in 1,  2,  disp.
204, cap. 4, "Inhaerens justitia ita reddit animam justam et sanctam
ac  proinde  iliam  Dei, ut hoc ipso reddat eam heredem,  et  dignam
aeterna  gloria;  imo  ipse Deus efficere non  potest  ut  hujusmodi
justis  dignus  non sit aeterna beatitudine". Is it  not  sad,  that
David should discover so much ignorance of the worth of his inherent
righteousness, and discover so much pusillanimity with respect  unto
his  trial before God, whereas God himself could not otherwise order
it, but that he was, and must be, "worthy of eternal blessedness?"
   The  reason  the psalmist gives why he will not put it  unto  the
trial,  whether  he should be acquitted or justified  upon  his  own
obedience,  is  this general axiom: "For in thy  sight,"  or  before
thee,  "shall  no  man  living be justified." This  must  be  spoken
absolutely,  or  with  respect  unto  some  one  way  or  cause   of
justification.  If it be spoken absolutely, then  this  work  ceases
forever,  and there is indeed no such thing as justification  before
God.  But this is contrary unto the whole Scripture, and destructive
of  the  gospel. Wherefore it is spoken with respect  unto  our  own
obedience and works. He does not pray absolutely that he "would  not
enter  into  judgement  with  him," for  this  were  to  forego  his
government of the world; but that he would not do so on the  account
of  his  own  duties and obedience. But if so be  these  duties  and
obedience did answer, in any sense or way, what is required of us as
a  righteousness  unto justification, there was  no  reason  why  he
should deprecate a trial by them or upon them. But whereas the  Holy
Ghost  does  so  positively affirm that  "no  man  living  shall  be
justified  in  the  sight  of God," by or  upon  his  own  works  or
obedience, it is, I confess, marvelous unto me that some  should  so
interpret the apostle James as if he affirmed the express contrary,-
-namely, that we are justified in the sight of God by our own works,-
-whereas  indeed  he  says no such thing.  This,  therefore,  is  an
eternal  rule of truth,--By or upon his own obedience no man  living
can  be justified in the sight of God. It will be said, "That if God
enter into judgment with any on their own obedience by and according
to  the law, then, indeed, none can be justified before him; but God
judging  according to the gospel and the terms of the new  covenant,
men  may  be justified upon their own duties, works, and obedience."
Ans. (1.) The negative assertion is general and unlimited,--that "no
man  living shall" (on his own works or obedience) "be justified  in
the sight of God." And to limit it unto this or that way of judging,
is  not  to distinguish, but to contradict the Holy Ghost. (2.)  The
judgment  intended  is only with respect unto justification,  as  is
plain  in  the  words;  but there is no judgment  on  our  works  or
obedience, with respect unto righteousness and justification, but by
the  proper rule and measure of them, which is the law. If they will
not  endure the trial by the law, they will endure no trial, as unto
righteousness and justification in the sight of God. (3.) The prayer
and  plea of the psalmist, on this supposition, are to this purpose:
"O  LORD,  enter not into judgment with thy servant by or  according
unto  the  law; but enter into judgment with me on my own works  and
obedience according to the rule of the gospel;" for which  he  gives
this  reason,  "because  in  thy  sight  shall  no  man  living   be
justified:"  which how remote it is from his intention need  not  be
declared.  (4.) The judgment of God unto justification according  to
the  gospel does not proceed on our works of obedience, but upon the
righteousness of Christ, and our interest therein by  faith;  as  is
too  evident to be modestly denied. Notwithstanding this  exception,
therefore, hence we argue,--
   If the most holy of the servants of God, in and after a course of
sincere,  fruitful  obedience, testified unto by  God  himself,  and
witnessed in their own consciences,--that is, whilst they  have  the
greatest evidences of their own sincerity, and that indeed they  are
the   servants  of  God,--do  renounce  all  thoughts  of   such   a
righteousness  thereby,  as  whereon, in  any  sense,  they  may  be
justified  before God; then there is no such righteousness  in  any,
but  it  is  the  righteousness of Christ alone,  imputed  unto  us,
whereon we are so justified. But that so they do, and ought  all  of
them  so to do, because of the general rule here laid down, that  in
the  sight  of  God  no  man living shall be justified,  is  plainly
affirmed in this testimony.
   I  no  way doubt but that many learned men, after all their pleas
for   an  interest  of  personal  righteousness  and  works  in  our
justification  before  God, do, as unto their own  practice,  retake
themselves unto this method of the psalmist, and cry, as the prophet
Daniel  does,  in  the name of the church, "We do  not  present  our
supplications  before thee for our own righteousness,  but  for  thy
great  mercies," chap.9:18. And therefore Job (as we  have  formerly
observed),  after  a  long and earnest defense  of  his  own  faith,
integrity, and personal righteousness, wherein he justified  himself
against the charge of Satan and men, being called to plead his cause
in  the sight of God, and declare on what grounds he expected to  be
justified  before him, renounces all his former pleas,  and  betakes
himself unto the same with the psalmist, chap.40:4; 43:6.
   It is true, in particular cases, and as unto some special ends in
the  providence  of  God,  a man may plead  his  own  integrity  and
obedience  before God himself. So did Hezekiah, when he  prayed  for
the  sparing of his life, Isa.38:3, "Remember now, O LORD, I beseech
thee,  how  I have walked before thee in truth, and with  a  perfect
heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight." This, I  say,
may  be  done with respect unto temporal deliverance, or  any  other
particular  end  wherein the glory of God is concerned:  so  was  it
greatly in sparing the life of Hezekiah at that time. For whereas he
had  with great zeal and industry reformed religion and restored the
true  worship of God, the "cutting him off in the midst of his days"
would have occasioned the idolatrous multitude to have reflected  on
him  as one dying under a token of divine displeasure. But none ever
made  this plea before God for the absolute justification  of  their
persons.  So Nehemiah, in that great contest which he had about  the
worship  of God and the service of his house, pleads the remembrance
of  it before God, in his justification against his adversaries; but
resolves his own personal acceptance with God into pardoning  mercy:
"And  spare  me  according  unto  the  multitude  of  thy  mercies,"
chap.13:22.
   Another  testimony we have unto the same purpose in  the  prophet
Isaiah,  speaking in the name of the church, chap.64:6, "We are  all
as  an  unclean  thing, and all our righteousnesses  are  as  filthy
rags."  It  is  true  the prophet does in this  place  make  a  deep
confession  of  the  sins of the people; but  yet  withal  he  joins
himself  with  them,  and  asserts the especial  interest  of  those
concerning whom he speaks, by adoption,--that God was their  Father,
and they his people, chap.63:16, 44:8,9. And the righteousnesses  of
all  that are the children of God are of the same kind, however they
may  differ in degrees, and some of them may be more righteous  than
others; but it is all of it described to be such, as that we cannot,
I  think,  justly expect justification in the sight of God upon  the
account  of it. But whereas the consideration of the nature  of  our
inherent   righteousness  belongs  unto  the  second  way   of   the
confirmation  of  our  present argument, I shall  not  farther  here
insist on this testimony.
   Many  others also, unto the same purpose, I shall wholly  omit,--
namely,  all  those wherein the saints of God, or the church,  in  a
humble  acknowledgment and confession of their own sins,  do  retake
themselves  unto  the  mercy and grace of God  alone,  as  dispensed
through the mediation and blood of Christ; and all those wherein God
promises to pardon and blot out our iniquities for his own sake, for
his  name's sake--to bless the people, not for any good that was  in
them  nor  for  their  righteousness,  nor  for  their  works,   the
consideration whereof he excludes from having any influence into any
acting  of  his  grace  towards them;  and  all  those  wherein  God
expresses his delight in them alone, and his approbation of them who
hope  in his mercy, trust in his name, retaking themselves unto  him
as  their  only refuge, pronouncing them accursed who trust  in  any
thing  else,  or  glory  in themselves,--such  as  contain  singular
promises  unto them that retake themselves unto God, as  fatherless,
hopeless, and lost in themselves.
   There  is none of the testimonies which are multiplied unto  this
purpose,  but they sufficiently prove that the best of God's  saints
have  not  a  righteousness of their own whereon they  can,  in  any
sense,  be  justified before God. For they do all of  them,  in  the
places referred unto, renounce any such righteousness of their  own,
all  that is in them, all that they have done or can do, and  retake
themselves  unto  grace and mercy alone. And  whereas,  as  we  have
before proved, God, in the justification of any, does exercise grace
towards  them with respect unto a righteousness whereon he  declares
them  righteous and accepted before him, they do all of them respect
a righteousness which is not inherent in us, but imputed to us.
   Herein  lies the substance of all that we inquire into,  in  this
matter  of  justification. All other disputes about  qualifications,
conditions,  causes, "aneu hoon ouk", any kind of interest  for  our
own works and obedience in our justification before God, are but the
speculations  of men at ease. The conscience of a convinced  sinner,
who  presents himself in the presence of God, finds all  practically
reduced unto this one point,--namely, whether he will trust unto his
own  personal inherent righteousness, or, in a full renunciation  of
it,  retake  himself unto the grace of God and the righteousness  of
Christ  alone.  In  other things he is not concerned.  And  let  men
phrase  his  own  righteousness unto him as they  please,  let  them
pretend  it  meritorious, or only evangelical, not  legal,--only  an
accomplishment of the condition of the new covenant, a cause without
which he cannot be justified,--it will not be easy to frame his mind
unto  any confidence in it, as unto justification before God, so  as
not to deceive him in the issue.
   The  second part of the present argument is taken from the nature
of the thing itself, or the consideration of this personal, inherent
righteousness  of our own, what it is, and wherein it does  consist,
and  of  what  use  it may be in our justification.  And  unto  this
purpose it may be observed,--
  That we grant an inherent righteousness in all that do believe, as
has  been  before declared: "For the fruit of the Spirit is  in  all
goodness,  and righteousness, and truth", Eph.5:9. "Being made  free
from  sin,  we become the servants of righteousness", Rom.6:18.  And
our  duty  it  is to "follow after righteousness, godliness,  faith,
love, patience, meekness," 1 Tim.6:11. And although righteousness be
mostly  taken  for  an especial grace or duty, distinct  from  other
graces  and duties, yet we acknowledge that it may be taken for  the
whole  of our obedience before God; and the word is so used  in  the
Scripture,  where  our  own  righteousness  is  opposed   unto   the
righteousness of God. And it is either habitual or actual. There  is
a habitual righteousness inherent in believers, as they have "put on
the  new  man, which after God is created in righteousness and  true
holiness," Eph.4:24; as they are the "workmanship of God, created in
Christ  Jesus  unto good works," chap.2:10. And there is  an  actual
righteousness, consisting in those good works whereunto  we  are  so
created, or the fruits of righteousness, which are to the praise  of
God  by  Jesus Christ. And concerning this righteousness it  may  be
observed,  first, That men are said in the Scripture to be  just  or
righteous  by  it; but no one is said to be justified by  it  before
God.  Secondly, That it is not ascribed unto, or found in,  any  but
those  that  are  actually justified in order of  nature  antecedent
thereunto.
   This being the constant doctrine of all the Reformed churches and
divines, it is an open calumny whereby the contrary is ascribed unto
them,   or  any  of  those  who  believe  the  imputation   of   the
righteousness  of  Christ  unto  our justification  before  God.  So
Bellarmine  affirms  that  no  Protestant  writers  acknowledge   an
inherent righteousness but only Bucer and Chemnitius; when there  is
no  one of them by whom either the thing itself or the necessity  of
it  is  denied. But some excuse may be made for him, from the manner
whereby  they  expressed themselves, wherein they  always  carefully
distinguished  between  inherent  holiness  and  that  righteousness
whereby  we  are justified. But we are now told by one, that  if  we
should  affirm it a hundred times, he could scarce believe us.  This
is  somewhat  severe; for although he speaks but  to  one,  yet  the
charge  falls equally upon all who maintain that imputation  of  the
righteousness  of  Christ which he denies, who being  at  least  the
generality of all Protestant divines, they are represented either as
so  foolish as not to know what they say, or so dishonest as to  say
one  thing  and  believe another. But he endeavours to  justify  his
censure  by  sundry  reasons; and, first, he  says,  "That  inherent
righteousness can on no other account be said to be ours, than  that
by  it  we are made righteous; that is, that it is the condition  of
our  justification required in the new covenant. This being  denied,
all  inherent righteousness is denied." But how is this proved? What
if  one should say that every believer is inherently righteous,  but
yet  that this inherent righteousness was not the condition  of  his
justification,  but  rather the consequent of it,  and  that  it  is
nowhere  required  in  the  new covenant as  the  condition  of  our
justification?  How  shall  the contrary  be  made  to  appear?  The
Scripture   plainly  affirms  that  there  is   such   an   inherent
righteousness in all that believe; and yet as plainly  that  we  are
justified before God by faith without works. Wherefore, that  it  is
the  condition of our justification, and so antecedent unto  it,  is
expressly contrary unto that of the apostle, "Unto him that  worketh
not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith  is
counted  unto  him  for  righteousness,"  Rom.4:5.  Nor  is  it  the
condition of the covenant itself, as that whereon the whole grace of
the  covenant  is  suspended; for as it  is  habitual,  wherein  the
denomination of righteous is principally taken, it is a grace of the
covenant  itself,  and so not a condition of it,  Jer.31:33;  32:39;
Ezek.36:25-27. If no more be intended but that it is,  as  unto  its
actual  exercise, what is indispensably required  of  all  that  are
taken  into covenant, in order unto the complete ends of it, we  are
agreed; but hence it will not follow that it is the condition of our
justification. It is added, "That all righteousness respects  a  law
and  a rule, by which it is to be tried; and he is righteous who has
done these things which that law requires by whose rule he is to  be
judged."  But,  First,  This is not the way  whereby  the  Scripture
expresses  our  justification  before  God,  which  alone  is  under
consideration,--namely,   that  we  bring   unto   it   a   personal
righteousness of our own, answering the law whereby  we  are  to  be
judged;  yea, an assertion to this purpose is foreign to the gospel,
and destructive of the grace of God by Jesus Christ. Secondly, It is
granted that all righteousness respects a law as the rule of it; and
so  does  this whereof we speak, namely, the moral law; which  being
the  sole, eternal, unchangeable rule of righteousness, if it do not
in  the substance of it answer thereunto, a righteousness it is not.
But  this  it  does, inasmuch as that, so far as it is habitual,  it
consists in the renovation of the image of God, wherein that law  is
written  in our hearts; and all the actual duties of it are,  as  to
the substance of them, what is required by that law. But as unto the
manner  of its communication unto us, and of its performance by  us,
from  faith in God by Jesus Christ, and love unto him, as the author
and fountain of all the grace and mercy procured and administered by
him,  it  has respect unto the gospel. What will follow from  hence?
Why,  that he is just that does those things which that law requires
whereby he is to be judged. He is so certainly; for "not the hearers
of  the  law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall  be
justified," Rom.2:13. "So Moses describeth the righteousness of  the
law,  that  the  man which does those things shall  live  in  them,"
Rom.10:5.  But  although the righteousness whereof we  discourse  be
required by the law,--as certainly it is, for it is nothing but  the
law  in  our  hearts, from whence we walk in the ways and  keep  the
statutes or commandments of God,--yet does it not so answer the  law
as  that  any man can be justified by it. But then it will  be  said
that  if it does not answer that law and rule whereby we are  to  be
judged,  then  it  is  no righteousness; for all righteousness  must
answer the law whereby it is required. And I say it is most true, it
is  no perfect righteousness; it does not so answer the rule and law
as  that we can be justified by it, or safely judged on it. But,  so
far  as  it  does  answer the law, it is a righteousness,--that  is,
imperfectly  so, and therefore is an imperfect righteousness;  which
yet gives the denomination of righteous unto them that have it, both
absolutely and comparatively. It is said, therefore, that it is "the
law  of grace or the gospel from whence we are denominated righteous
with  this righteousness;" but that we are by the gospel denominated
righteous, from any righteousness that is not required by the  moral
law,  will  not be proved. Nor does the law of grace or  the  gospel
anywhere  require of us or prescribe unto us this righteousness,  as
that whereon we are to be justified before God. It requires faith in
Christ  Jesus,  or  the receiving of him as he is  proposed  in  the
promises  of  it, in all that are to be justified. It  requires,  in
like  manner, "repentance from dead works" in all that  believe;  as
also  the  fruits of faith, conversion unto God, and repentance,  in
the  works of righteousness, which are to the praise of God by Jesus
Christ, with perseverance therein unto the end; and all this may, if
you  please, be called our evangelical righteousness, as  being  our
obedience  unto God according to the gospel. But yet the graces  and
duties  wherein  it  does consist do no more  perfectly  answer  the
commands of the gospel than they do those of the moral law; for that
the gospel abates from the holiness of the law, and makes that to be
no  sin  which  is  sin by the law, or approves absolutely  of  less
intention or lower degrees in the love of God than the law does,  is
an impious imagination.
   And  that  the  gospel  requires all these  things  entirely  and
equally,  as the condition of our justification before God,  and  so
antecedently thereunto, is not yet proved, nor ever will be.  It  is
hence concluded that "this is our righteousness, according unto  the
evangelical  law which requires it; by this we are made righteous,--
that  is, not guilty of the nonperformance of the condition required
in  that  law." And these things are said to be very plain!  So,  no
doubt,  they seemed unto the author; unto us they are intricate  and
perplexed.  However,  I wholly deny that our faith,  obedience,  and
righteousness, considered as ours, as wrought by us,  although  they
are  all  accepted with God through Jesus Christ, according  to  the
grace  declared in the gospel, do perfectly answer the  commands  of
the  gospel requiring them of us, as to matter, manner, and  degree;
and  [assert]  that  therefore it is utterly  impossible  that  they
should  be  the cause or condition of our justification before  God.
Yet  in  the  explanation of these things, it is added by  the  same
author,  that  "our maimed and imperfect righteousness  is  accepted
unto  salvation, as if it were every way absolute and  perfect;  for
that  so  it  should  be, Christ has merited  by  his  most  perfect
righteousness."  But  it is justification, and not  salvation,  that
alone  we  discourse  about;  and that the  works  of  obedience  or
righteousness  have another respect unto salvation  than  they  have
unto  justification, is too plainly and too often expressed  in  the
Scripture  to  be  modestly denied. And if this weak  and  imperfect
righteousness of ours be esteemed and accepted as every way  perfect
before  God, then either it is because God judges it to be  perfect,
and  so  declares us to be most just, and justified thereon  in  his
sight;  or he judges it not to be complete and perfect, yet declares
us to be perfectly righteous in his sight thereby. Neither of these,
I  suppose,  can well be granted. It will therefore be said,  it  is
neither of them; but "Christ has obtained, by his complete and  most
perfect  righteousness and obedience, that this lame  and  imperfect
righteousness of ours should be accepted as every way perfect."  And
if  it  be so, it may be some will think it best not to go about  by
this  weak,  halt, and imperfect righteousness, but, as  unto  their
justification, retake themselves immediately unto the  most  perfect
righteousness  of  Christ; which I am sure the Scripture  encourages
them  unto.  And they will be ready to think that the  righteousness
which  cannot  justify itself, but must be obliged  unto  grace  and
pardon  through the merits of Christ, will never be able to  justify
them.  But what will ensue on this explanation of the acceptance  of
our  imperfect righteousness unto justification, upon the  merit  of
Christ?  This only, so far as I can discern, that Christ has merited
and  procured, either that God should judge that to be perfect which
is imperfect, and declare us perfectly righteous when we are not so;
or  that he should judge the righteousness still to be imperfect, as
it  is,  but declare us to be perfectly righteous with and  by  this
imperfect righteousness. These are the plain paths that men walk  in
who  cannot deny but that there is a righteousness required unto our
justification, or that we may be declared righteous before  God,  in
the  sight of God, according unto the judgment of God; yet,  denying
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us, will allow us
no  other righteousness unto this end but that which is so weak  and
imperfect as that no man can justify it in his own conscience,  nor,
without  a  frenzy of pride, can think or imagine himself  perfectly
righteous thereby.
   And whereas it is added, that "he is blind who sees not that this
righteousness  of  ours  is subordinate unto  the  righteousness  of
Christ," I must acknowledge myself otherwise minded, notwithstanding
the  severity of this censure. It seems to me that the righteousness
of Christ is subordinate unto this righteousness of our own, as here
it  is  stated,  and not the contrary: for the end  of  all  is  our
acceptance with God as righteous; but according unto these thoughts,
it  is  our own righteousnesses whereon we are immediately  accepted
with God as righteous. Only Christ has deserved by his righteousness
that our righteousness may be so accepted; and is therefore, as unto
the end of our justification before God, subordinate thereunto.
   But  to  return  from this digression, and to  proceed  unto  our
argument. This personal, inherent righteousness which, according  to
the  Scripture,  we  allow in believers,  is  not  that  whereby  or
wherewith  we  are justified before God; for it is not perfect,  nor
perfectly answers any rule of obedience that is given unto  us:  and
so  cannot  be  our righteousness before God unto our justification.
Wherefore,  we  must  be  justified by the righteousness  of  Christ
imputed   unto  us,  or  be  justified  without  respect  unto   any
righteousness,  or  not  be  justified  at  all.  And  a   threefold
imperfection does accompany it:--
   1. As to the principle of it, as it is habitually resident in us;
for,--(1.) There is a contrary principle of sin abiding with  it  in
the  same  subject,  whilst  we  are in  this  world.  For  contrary
qualities may be in the same subject, whilst neither of them  is  in
the  highest degree. So it is in this case, Gal.5:17, "For the flesh
lusts  against  the Spirit, and the Spirit against  the  flesh;  and
these are contrary one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things
that  ye  would."  (2.)  None  of the faculties  of  our  souls  are
perfectly  renewed whilst we are in this world. "The inward  man  is
renewed  day  by day", 2 Cor.4:16; and we are always to  be  purging
ourselves  from  all pollution of flesh and spirit, 2  Cor.7:1.  And
hereunto  belongs  whatever  is spoken in  the  Scripture,  whatever
believers  find  in themselves by experience, of the  remainders  of
indwelling sin, in the darkness of our minds; whence at best we know
but  in  part, and through ignorance are ready to wander out of  the
way,  Heb.5:2,  in the deceitfulness of the heart  and  disorder  of
affections.  I understand not how any one can think of pleading  his
own  righteousness in the sight of God, or suppose that  he  can  be
justified  by  it, upon this single account, of the imperfection  of
its  inherent  habit  or  principle. Such  notions  arise  from  the
ignorance  of  God and ourselves, or the want of a due consideration
of  the  one  and the other. Neither can I apprehend how a  thousand
distinctions can safely introduce it into any consideration  in  our
justification  before God. He that can search in any measure,  by  a
spiritual  light,  into his own heart and soul, will  find  "God  be
merciful to me a sinner," a better plea than any he can be furnished
withal  from any worth of his own. "What is man, that he  should  be
clean? And he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?"
Job  15:14-16; 4:18,19. Hence says Gregory, in Job.9, lib.9, cap.14,
"Ut  saepe diximus omnis justitia humana injustitia esse convincitur
si  distincte  judicetur". Bernard speaks to the same  purpose,  and
almost  in  the same words, Serm.1. fest. omn. sanct., "Quid  potest
esse  omnis  justitia nostra coram Deo? Nonne juxta prophetam  velut
'pannus   menstruatae'  reputabitur;  et  si  districte   judicetur,
injustitia invenietur omnis justitia nostra, et minus habens". A man
cannot  be justified in any sense by that righteousness which,  upon
trial, will appear rather to be an unrighteousness.
   2.  It  is imperfect with respect unto every act and duty of  it,
whether  internal or external. There is iniquity cleaving  unto  our
holy  things,  and  all our "righteousnesses are  as  filthy  rags,"
Isa.64:6.  It has been often and well observed, that if a  man,  the
best of men, were left to choose the best of his works that ever  he
performed,  and  thereon to enter into judgment with  God,  if  only
under  this notion, that he has answered and fulfilled the condition
required  of him as unto his acceptation with God, it would  be  his
wisest  course  (at  least  it  would  be  so  in  the  judgment  of
Bellarmine) to renounce it, and retake himself unto grace and  mercy
alone.
   3.  It  is  imperfect by reason of the incursion of actual  sins.
Hence  our  Saviour  has  taught us  continually  to  pray  for  the
"forgiveness of our sins;" and "if we say that we have no  sins,  we
deceive  ourselves," for "in many things we offend  all."  And  what
confidence  can  be placed in this righteousness,  which  those  who
plead  for  it  in  this cause acknowledge to be weak,  maimed,  and
imperfect?
   I have but touched on these things, which might have been handled
at  large,  and  are indeed of great consideration  in  our  present
argument. But enough has been spoken to manifest, that although this
righteousness of believers be on other accounts like  the  fruit  of
the  vine,  that  glads the heart of God and man, yet  as  unto  our
justification before God, it is like the wood of the vine,--a pin is
not to be taken from it to hang any weight of this cause upon.
   Two  things are pleaded in the behalf of this righteousness,  and
its  influence  into our justification:--1. That  it  is  absolutely
complete  and  perfect. Hence some say that  they  are  perfect  and
sinless in this life; they have no more concern in the mortification
of sin, nor of growth in grace. And indeed this is the only rational
pretence  of  ascribing our justification before God thereunto;  for
were  it  so  with any, what should hinder him from being  justified
thereon  before  God,  but only that he has  been  a  sinner?--which
spoils  the  whole market. But this vain imagination is so  contrary
unto  the Scripture, and the experience of all that know the  terror
of  the  Lord, and what it is to walk humbly before him, as  that  I
shall not insist on the refutation of it.
   2.  It  is pleaded, "That although this righteousness be  not  an
exact  fulfilling of the moral law, yet is it the accomplishment  of
the  condition of the new covenant, or entirely answers the  law  of
grace, and all that is required of us therein."
   Ans.  (1.) This wholly takes away sin, and the pardon of  it,  no
less  than  does  the  conceit of sinless perfection  which  we  now
rejected; for if our obedience do answer the only law and rule of it
whereby  it is to be tried, measured, and judged, then is  there  no
sin  in  us, nor need of pardon. No more is required of any man,  to
keep  him  absolutely free from sin, but that he fully  answer,  and
exactly  comply with, the rule and law of his obedience  whereby  he
must be judged. On this supposition, therefore, there is neither sin
nor  any  need of the pardon of it. To say that there is still  both
sin  and need of pardon, with respect unto the moral law of God,  is
to  confess  that  law to be the rule of our obedience,  which  this
righteousness does no way answer; and therefore none by  it  can  be
justified in the sight of God.
   (2.) Although this righteousness be accepted in justified persons
by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet consider the principle of
it,  with all the acts and duties wherein it does consist,  as  they
are  required  and prescribed in the gospel unto  us,  and  they  do
neither jointly nor severally fulfill and answer the commands of the
gospel,  no  more  than they do the commands of the law.  Wherefore,
they cannot all of them constitute a righteousness consisting in  an
exact conformity unto the rules of the gospel, or the law of it; for
it  is impious to imagine that the gospel requiring any duty of  us,
suppose  the  love  of  God, does make any abatement,  as  unto  the
matter,  manner,  or  degrees of perfection in  it,  from  what  was
required by the law. Does the gospel require a lower degree of  love
to  God, a less perfect love, than the law did? God forbid. The same
may  be  said  concerning the inward frame of our natures,  and  all
other  duties  whatever. Wherefore, although this  righteousness  is
accepted  in  justified persons (as God had respect unto  Abel,  and
then unto his offering), in the way and unto the ends that shall  be
afterwards  declared; yet, as it relates unto the  commands  of  the
gospel, both it and all the duties of it are no less imperfect  than
it  would  be  if it should be left unto its trial  by  the  law  of
creation only.
   (3.) I know not what some men intend. On the one hand they affirm
that our Lord Jesus Christ has enlarged and heightened the spiritual
sense  of  the  moral law, and not only so, but added  unto  it  new
precepts  of more exact obedience than it did require;--but  on  the
other,  they  would have him to have brought down or taken  off  the
obligation of the law, so as that a man, according as he has adapted
it  unto  the  use of the gospel, shall be judged  of  God  to  have
fulfilled the whole obedience which it requires, who never  answered
any  one  precept  of  it  according unto  its  original  sense  and
obligation; for so it must be if this imperfect righteousness be  on
any  account esteemed a fulfilling of the rule of our obedience,  as
that thereon we should be justified in the sight of God.
   (4.)  This opinion puts an irreconcilable difference between  the
law  and  the  gospel, not to be composed by any distinctions;  for,
according  unto it, God declares by the gospel a man to be perfectly
righteous,  justified,  and blessed, upon  the  consideration  of  a
righteousness that is imperfect; and in the law he pronounces  every
one accursed who continues not in all things required by it, and  as
they are therein required. But it is said that this righteousness is
no  otherwise  to  be  considered but as the condition  of  the  new
covenant, whereon we obtain remission of sins on the sole account of
the satisfaction of Christ, wherein our justification does consist.
   Ans. (1.) Some, indeed, do say so, but not all, not the most, not
the  most learned, with whom in this controversy we have to do.  And
in  our  pleas for what we believe to be the truth, we cannot always
have  respect unto every private opinion whereby it is opposed. (2.)
That justification consists only in the pardon of sin is so contrary
to  the  signification of the word, the constant use of  it  in  the
Scripture, the common notion of it amongst mankind, the sense of men
in  their  own  consciences who find themselves under an  obligation
unto  duty,  and  express testimonies of the Scripture,  as  that  I
somewhat wonder how it can be pretended. But it shall be spoken unto
elsewhere.  (3.)  If  this righteousness be the  fulfilling  of  the
condition of the new covenant whereon we are justified, it  must  be
in itself such as exactly answers some rule or law of righteousness,
and  so be perfect: which it does not; and therefore cannot bear the
place  of  a  righteousness  in our justification.  (4.)  That  this
righteousness is the condition of our justification before  God,  or
of  that  interest  in the righteousness of Christ  whereby  we  are
justified, is not proved, nor ever will be.
   I  shall briefly add two or three considerations, excluding  this
personal   righteousness  from  its  pretended   interest   in   our
justification, and close this argument:--
  1. That righteousness which neither answers the law of God nor the
end  of  God in our justification by the gospel, is not that whereon
we  are  justified.  But  such  is this  inherent  righteousness  of
believers,  even of the best of them. (1.) That it answers  not  the
law of God has been proved from its imperfection. Nor will any sober
person pretend that it exactly and perfectly fulfill the law of  our
creation. And this law cannot be disannulled whilst the relation  of
creator  nd  rewarder on the one hand, and of creatures  capable  of
obedience  and  rewards  on  the other,  between  God  and  us  does
continue. Wherefore, that which answers not its law will not justify
us; for God will not abrogate that law, that the transgressors of it
may  be  justified. "Do we", says the apostle, by  the  doctrine  of
justification  by  faith  without works, "make  void  the  law?  God
forbid:  yea,  we establish it," Rom.3:31. (2.) That  we  should  be
justified  with respect unto it answers not the end of  God  in  our
justification by the gospel; for this is to take away  all  glorying
in  ourselves  and all occasion of it, every thing that  might  give
countenance unto it, so as that the whole might be to the praise  of
his  own  grace by Christ, Rom.3:27; 1 Cor.1:29-31. How it is  faith
alone  that  gives  glory to God herein has  been  declared  in  the
description of its nature. But it is evident that no man has, or can
possibly  have,  any  other, any greater  occasion  of  boasting  in
himself,  with  respect  unto his justification,  than  that  he  is
justified on his performance of that condition of it, which consists
in his own personal righteousness.
   2.  No  man was ever justified by it in his own conscience,  much
less  can  he  be justified by it in the sight of God; "for  God  is
greater than our hearts and knoweth all things." There is no man  so
righteous,  so holy, in the whole world, nor ever was, but  his  own
conscience would charge him in many things with his coming short  of
the  obedience required of him, in matter or manner, in the kind  or
degrees of perfection; for there is no man that lives and sins  not.
Absolutely, "Nemo absolvitur se judice". Let any man be put  unto  a
trial  in  himself whether he can be justified in his own conscience
by  his  own righteousness, and he will be cast in the trial at  his
own  judgment-seat; and he that does not thereon conclude that there
must  be  another  righteousness whereby he must be justified,  that
originally  and inherently is not his own, will be  at  a  loss  for
peace, with God. But it will be said, that "men may be justified  in
their consciences that they have performed the condition of the  new
covenant,  which  is  all  that is pleaded with  respect  unto  this
righteousness"  And  I  no  way  doubt  but  that  men  may  have  a
comfortable  persuasion  of their own sincerity  in  obedience,  and
satisfaction in the acceptance of it with God. But it is  when  they
try it as an effect of faith, whereby they are justified, and not as
the condition of their justification. Let it be thus stated in their
minds,--that  God requires a personal righteousness  in  order  unto
their  justification, whereon their determination must be, "This  is
my  righteousness which I present unto God that I may be justified",
and  they  will find difficulty in arriving at it, if I be not  much
mistaken.
   3.  None  of the holy men of old, whose faith and experience  are
recorded  in  the  Scripture,  did ever  plead  their  own  personal
righteousness,  under any notion of it, either as to  the  merit  of
their  works  or  as  unto their complete performance  of  what  was
required  of  them as the condition of the covenant, in  order  unto
their justification before God. This has been spoken unto before.





XI. The nature of the obedience that God requires of us--The eternal
obligation of the law thereunto


Nature of the obedience or righteousness required unto justification-
-Original and causes of the law of creation--The substance  and  end
of  that law--The immutability or unchangeableness of it, considered
absolutely, and as it was the instrument of the covenant between God
and man--Arguments to prove it unchangeable; and its obligation unto
the righteousness first required perpetually in force--Therefore not
abrogated,   not   dispensed  withal,  not   derogated   from,   but
accomplished--This  alone  by Christ,  and  the  imputation  of  his
righteousness unto us


Our second argument shall be taken from the nature of that obedience
or righteousness which God requires of us that we may be accepted of
him, and approved by him. This being a large subject, if fully to be
handled,  I  shall reduce what is of our present concernment  in  it
unto some special heads or observations;--
   1. God being a most perfect, and therefore a most free agent, all
his  acting  towards mankind, all his dealings with  them,  all  his
constitutions and laws concerning them, are to be resolved into  his
own sovereign will and pleasure. No other reason can be given of the
original  of the whole system of them. This the Scripture  testifies
unto,  Ps.115:3; 135:6; Prov.16:4; Eph.1:9,11; Rev.4:11. The  being,
existence,  and  natural  circumstances of all  creatures  being  an
effect  of  the free counsel and pleasure of God, all  that  belongs
unto them must be ultimately resolved thereinto.
   2.  Upon a supposition of some free acts of the will of God,  and
the  execution  of theme constituting an order in  the  things  that
outwardly  are  of him, and their mutual respect unto  one  another,
some things may become necessary in this relative state, whose being
was  not  absolutely necessary in its own nature. The order  of  all
things,  and their mutual respect unto one another, depend on  God's
free  constitution no less than their being absolutely. But  upon  a
supposition  of  that  constitution, things have  in  that  order  a
necessary  relation  one  to another, and  all  of  them  unto  God.
Wherefore,--
   3. It was a free, sovereign act of God's will, to create, effect,
or  produce  such  a  creature as man  is;  that  is,  of  a  nature
intelligent, rational, capable of moral obedience, with rewards  and
punishments.  But  on a supposition  hereof, man,  so  freely  made,
could  not  be governed any other ways but by a moral instrument  of
law  or  rule, influencing the rational faculties of his  soul  unto
obedience,   and  guiding  him  therein.  He  could  not   in   that
constitution  be contained under the rule of God by a mere  physical
influence, as are all irrational or brute creatures. To suppose  it,
is  to deny or destroy the essential faculty and powers wherewith he
was  created  Wherefore, on the supposition of  his  being,  it  was
necessary that a law or rule of obedience should be prescribed  unto
him and be the instrument of God's government towards him.
   4.  This  necessary  law, so far forth as it was  necessary,  did
immediately  and  unavoidably ensue upon  the  constitution  of  our
nature  in  relation  unto God. Supposing  the  nature,  being,  and
properties of God, with the works of creation, on the one hand;  and
suppose  the  being,  existence, and the nature  of  man,  with  his
necessary  relation unto God, on the other; and the law  whereof  we
speak is nothing but the rule of that relation, which can neither be
nor   be   preserved  without  it.  Hence  is  this   law   eternal,
indispensable,  admitting  of  no  other  variation  than  does  the
relation  between God and man, which is a necessary  exurgence  from
their distinct natures and properties.
   5.  The  substance of this law was, that man, adhering  unto  God
absolutely,  universally, unchangeably, uninterruptedly,  in  trust,
love, and fear, as the chiefest good, the first author of his being,
of  all  the  present and future advantages whereof it was  capable,
should  yield,  obedience unto him, with respect unto  his  infinite
wisdom,  righteousness, and almighty power to protect,  reward,  and
punish,  in all things known to be his will and pleasure, either  by
the  light of his own mind or especial revelation made unto him. And
it  is  evident  that no more is required unto the constitution  and
establishment of this law but that God be God, and man be man,  with
the  necessary  relation  that  must  thereon  ensue  between  them.
Wherefore,--
   6.  This law does eternally and unchangeably oblige all men  unto
obedience to God,--even that obedience which it requires, and in the
manner  wherein it requires it; for both the substance  of  what  it
requires, and the manner of the performance of it, as unto  measures
and  degrees,  are  equally  necessary  and  unalterable,  upon  the
suppositions  laid  down. For God cannot deny himself,  nor  is  the
nature  of  man  changed as unto the essence of it, whereunto  alone
respect  is  had in this law, by any thing that can  fall  out.  And
although  God might superadd unto the original obligations  of  this
law  what arbitrary commands he pleased, such as did not necessarily
proceed  or arise from the relation between him and us, which  might
be,  and be continued without them; yet would they be resolved  into
that principle of this law, that God in all things was absolutely to
be trusted and obeyed.
   7.  "Known unto God are all his works from the foundation of  the
world."  In  the  constitution of this order of things  he  made  it
possible,  and  foresaw it would be future,  that  man  would  rebel
against  the receptive power of the law, and disturb that  order  of
things  wherein  he  was  placed under his  moral  rule.  This  gave
occasion  unto  that  effect of infinite  divine  righteousness,  in
constituting  the punishment that man should fall  under,  upon  his
transgression of this law. Neither was this an effect  of  arbitrary
will  and  pleasure,  any more than the law  itself  was.  Upon  the
supposition of the creation of man, the law mentioned was necessary,
from  all  the divine properties of the nature of God;  and  upon  a
supposition  that  man  would transgress  the  law,  God  being  now
considered  as  his  ruler  and governor, the  constitution  of  the
punishment due unto his sin and transgression of it was a  necessary
effect of divine righteousness. This it would not have been had  the
law  itself  been arbitrary; but that being necessary,  so  was  the
penalty  of its transgression. Wherefore, the constitution  of  this
penalty is liable to no more change, alteration, or abrogation  than
the  law  itself,  without an alteration in the state  and  relation
between God and man.
   8.  This  is  that law which our Lord Jesus Christ came  "not  to
destroy,  but  to  fulfill," that he might be "the  end  of  it  for
righteousness unto them that do believe." This law he abrogated not,
nor  could  do  so  without a destruction of the  relation  that  is
between God and man, arising from, or ensuing necessarily on,  their
distinct beings and properties; but as this cannot be destroyed,  so
the  Lord  Christ came unto a contrary end,--namely, to  repair  and
restore it where it was weakened. Wherefore,--
   9.  This  law,  the law of sinless, perfect obedience,  with  its
sentence  of the punishment of death on all transgressors, does  and
must  abide  in force forever in this world; for there  is  no  more
required  hereunto but that God be God, and man be  man.  Yet  shall
this be farther proved:--
   (1.)  There is nothing, not one word, in the Scripture intimating
any  alteration in or abrogation of this law; so as that  any  thing
should  not be duty which it makes to be duty, or any thing  not  be
sin  which it makes to be sin, either as unto matter or degrees,  or
that the thing which it makes to be sin, or which is sin by the rule
of  it,  should  not  merit  and deserve that  punishment  which  is
declared  in the sanction of it, or threatened by it: "The wages  of
sin  is  death". If any testimony of Scripture can be produced  unto
either of these purposes,--namely, that either any thing is not sin,
in the way of omission or commission, in the matter or manner of its
performance,  which is made to be so by this law, or that  any  such
sin,  or  any  thing that would have been sin by  this  is  law,  is
exempted  from  the punishment threatened by it, as  unto  merit  or
desert,--it  shall be attended unto. It is, therefore, in  universal
force  towards  all mankind. There is no relief in  this  case,  but
"Behold the Lamb of God.".
   In exception hereunto it is pleaded, that when it was first given
unto Adam, it was the rule and instrument of a covenant between  God
and  man,--a covenant of works and perfect obedience; but  upon  the
entrance  of  sin, it ceased to have the nature of a  covenant  unto
any. And it is so ceased, that on an impossible supposition that any
man  should fulfill the perfect righteousness of it, yet  should  he
not be justified, or obtain the benefit of the covenant thereby.  It
is  not, therefore, only become ineffectual unto us as a covenant by
reason  of  our  weakness and disability to perform it,  but  it  is
ceased in its own nature so to be; but these things, as they are not
unto our present purpose, so are they wholly unproved. For,--
   [1.]  Our discourse is not about the federal adjunct of the  law,
but  about  its moral nature only. It is enough that, as a  law,  it
continues  to oblige all mankind unto perfect obedience,  under  its
original penalty. For hence it will unavoidably follow, that  unless
the  commands  of it be complied withal and fulfilled,  the  penalty
will  fall on all that transgress it. And those who grant that  this
law  is still in force as unto its being a rule of obedience, or  as
unto its requiring duties of us, do grant all that we desire. For it
requires no obedience but what it did in its original constitution,-
-that  is,  sinless  and  perfect; and  it  requires  no  duty,  nor
prohibits any sin, but under the penalty of death upon disobedience.
   [2.]  It  is  true, that he who is once a sinner,  if  he  should
afterwards  yield all that perfect obedience unto God that  the  law
requires, could not thereby obtain the benefit of the promise of the
covenant. But the sole reason of it is, because he is antecedently a
sinner,  and so obnoxious unto the curse of the law; and no man  can
be obnoxious unto its curse and have a right unto its promise at the
same time. But so to lay the supposition, that the same person is by
any  means free from the curse due unto sin, and then to deny  that,
upon  the  performance of that perfect, sinless obedience which  the
law requires, he should have right unto the promise of life thereby,
is  to  deny the truth of God, and to reflect the highest  dishonour
upon  his  justice. Jesus Christ himself was justified by this  law;
and  it  is immutably true, that he who does the things of it  shall
live therein.
   [3.]  It is granted that man continued not in the observation  of
this  law, as it was the ruble of the covenant between God and  him.
The  covenant it was not, but the rule of it; which, that it  should
be,  was  superadded  unto  its being as a  law.  For  the  covenant
comprised  things  that  were not any part  of  a  result  from  the
necessary relation of God and man. Wherefore man, by his sin as unto
demerit, may be said to break this covenant, and as unto any benefit
unto  himself, to disannul it. It is also true, that God  did  never
formally and absolutely renew or give again this law as a covenant a
second time. Nor was there any need that so he should do, unless  it
were  declaratively only, for so it was renewed at  Sinai;  for  the
whole  of  it  being  an emanation of eternal right  and  truth,  it
abides, and must abide, in full force forever. Wherefore, it is only
thus  far  broken  as  a  covenant, that all mankind  having  sinned
against  the  commands of it, and so, by guilt, with  the  impotency
unto  obedience  which ensued thereon, defeated  themselves  of  any
interest  in  its  promise, and possibility of  attaining  any  such
interest, they cannot have any benefit by it. But as unto its  power
to  oblige all mankind unto obedience, and the unchangeable truth of
its promises and threatenings, it abides the same as it was from the
beginning.
   (2.)  Take  away  this  law, and there is  left  no  standard  of
righteousness unto mankind, no certain boundaries of good and  evil,
but  those pillars whereon God has fixed the earth are left to  move
and  float up and down like the isle of Delos in the sea. Some  say,
the  rule  of good and evil unto men is not this law in its original
constitution, but the light of nature and the dictates of reason. If
they  mean that light which was primigenial and concreated with  our
natures,  and  those  dictates  of  right  and  wrong  which  reason
originally  suggested and improved, they only say, in  other  words,
that  this law is still the unalterable rule of obedience  unto  all
mankind.  But  if  they intend the remaining light  of  nature  that
continues  in  every individual in this depraved state thereof,  and
that  under  such  additional deprivations as  traditions,  customs,
prejudices,  and  lusts of all sorts, have affixed  unto  the  most,
there  is  nothing more irrational; and it is that which is  charged
with no less inconvenience than that it leaves no certain boundaries
of good and evil. That which is good unto one, will, on this ground,
be  in its own nature evil unto another, and so on the contrary; and
all the idolaters that ever were in the world might on this pretence
be excused.
   (3.) Conscience bears witness hereunto. There is no good nor evil
required or forbidden by this law, that, upon the discovery  of  it,
any  man  in the world can persuade or bribe his conscience  not  to
comply with it in judgment, as unto his concernment therein. It will
accuse  and excuse, condemn and free him, according to the  sentence
of this law, let him do what he can to the contrary.
   In  brief, it is acknowledged that God, by virtue of his  supreme
dominion  over  all, may, in some instances, change the  nature  and
order of things, so as that the precepts of the divine law shall not
in them operate in their ordinary efficacy. So was it in the case of
his command unto Abraham to slay his son, and unto the Israelites to
rob  the Egyptians. But on a supposition of the continuance of  that
order  of things which this law is the preservation of, such is  the
intrinsic  nature  of  the  good and evil  commanded  and  forbidden
therein, that it is not the subject of divine dispensation; as  even
the schoolmen generally grant.
  10. From what we have discoursed, two things do unavoidably ensue:-
-
  (1.) That whereas all mankind have by sin fallen under the penalty
threatened unto the transgression of this law,--and [the]  suffering
of  this  penalty,  which is eternal death, being inconsistent  with
acceptance  before  God,  or the enjoyment  of  blessedness,--it  is
utterly  impossible that any one individual person of the  posterity
of  Adam should be justified in the sight of God, accepted with  him
or  blessed by him, unless this penalty be answered, undergone,  and
suffered,  by them or for them. The "dikaiooma tou Theou" herein  is
not to be abolished, but established.
    (2.)   That  unto  the  same  end,  of  acceptation  with   God,
justification   before   him,   and  blessedness   from   him,   the
righteousness of this eternal law must be fulfilled in us in such  a
way  as that, in the judgment of God, which is according unto truth,
we  may  be  esteemed  to  have fulfilled  it,  and  be  dealt  with
accordingly.  For  upon  a  supposition of  a  failure  herein,  the
sanction of the law is not arbitrary, so as that the penalty may  or
may  not be inflicted, but necessary, from the righteousness of  God
as the supreme governor of all.
   11.  About  the  first  of  these, our controversy  is  with  the
Socinians  only,  who  deny  the satisfaction  of  Christ,  and  any
necessity  thereof.  Concerning this I  have  treated  elsewhere  at
large, and expect not to see an answer unto what I have disputed  on
that subject. As unto the latter of them, we must inquire how we may
be supposed to comply with the rule, and answer the righteousness of
this  unalterable  law, whose authority we can no  way  be  exempted
from.   And  that  which  we  plead  is,  that  the  obedience   and
righteousness  of  Christ  imputed unto us,--his  obedience  as  the
surety  of  the  new covenant, granted unto us,  made  ours  by  the
gracious constitution, sovereign appointment, and donation of God,--
is  that  whereon  we are judged and esteemed to have  answered  the
righteousness  of the law. "By the obedience of one  many  are  made
righteous,"  Rom.5:19. "That the righteousness of the law  might  be
fulfilled in us," Rom.8:4. And hence we argue,--
   If there be no other way whereby the righteousness of the law may
be  fulfilled in us, without which we cannot be justified, but  must
fall  inevitably under the penalty threatened unto the transgression
of it, but only the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, then is
that the sole righteousness whereby we are justified in the sight of
God. But the former is true, and so, therefore is the latter.
   12.  On  the supposition of this law, and its original obligation
unto obedience, with its sanction and threatenings, there can be but
one  of  three ways whereby we may come to be justified before  God,
who  have  sinned, and are no way able in ourselves to  perform  the
obedience for the future which it does require. And each of them has
a  respect unto a sovereign act of God with reference unto this law.
The first is the abrogation of it, that it should no more oblige  us
either unto obedience or punishment. This we have proved impossible;
and  they will woefully deceive their own souls who shall trust unto
it. The second is by transferring of its obligation, unto the end of
justification, on a surety or common undertaker. This is that  which
we  plead  for,  as  the  substance of the mystery  of  the  gospel,
considering  the person and grace of this undertaker or surety.  And
herein all things do tend unto the exaltation of the glory of God in
all  the  holy  properties of his nature, with  the  fulfilling  and
establishing  of the law itself, Matt.5:17; Rom.3:31;  8:4;  10:3,4.
The  third  way  is  by an act of God towards the law,  and  another
towards  us, whereby the nature of the righteousness which  the  law
requires  is  changed; which we shall examine as  the  only  reserve
against our present argument.
   13. It is said, therefore, that by our own personal obedience  we
do  answer the righteousness of the law, so far as it is required of
us. But whereas no sober person can imagine that we can, or that any
one  in our lapsed condition ever did, yield in our own persons that
perfect, sinless obedience unto God which is required of us  in  the
law  of creation, two things are supposed, that our obedience,  such
as  it  is,  may  be  accepted with God as if it  were  sinless  and
perfect. For although some will not allow that the righteousness  of
Christ is imputed unto us for what it is, yet they contend that  our
own  righteousness is imputed unto us for what it is not.  Of  these
things the one respects the law, the other our obedience.
   14. That which respects the law is not the abrogation of it.  For
although   this   would  seem  the  most  expedite   way   for   the
reconciliation of this difficulty,--namely, that the law of creation
is utterly abrogated by the gospel, both as unto its obligation unto
obedience and punishment, and no law is to be continued in force but
that which requires only sincere obedience of us, whereof there  is,
as  unto  duties  [and]  the manner of their  performance,  not  any
absolute  rule or measure,--yet this is not by many pretended.  They
say not that this law is so abrogated as that it should not have the
power and efficacy of a law towards us. Nor is it possible it should
be  so;  nor can any pretence be given how it should so  be.  It  is
true,  it was broken by man, is so by us all, and that with  respect
unto  its  principal end of our subjection unto God  and  dependence
upon  him, according to the rule of it; but it is foolish  to  think
that  the fault of those unto whom a righteous law is rightly  given
should  abrogate or disannul the law itself. A law that is good  and
just may cease and expire as unto any power of obligation, upon  the
ceasing or expiration of the relation which it did respect;  so  the
apostle tells us that "when the husband of a woman is dead,  she  is
free from the law of her husband", Rom.7:2. But the relation between
God  and us, which was constituted in our first creation, can  never
cease.  But  a law cannot be abrogated without a new law given,  and
made  by  the same or an equal power that made it, either  expressly
revoking   it,  or  enjoining  things  inconsistent  with   it   and
contradictory  unto its observation. In the latter way  the  law  of
Mosaical institutions was abrogated and disannulled. There  was  not
any   positive  law  made  for  the  taking  of  it  away;  but  the
constitution and introduction of a new way of worship by the gospel,
inconsistent with it and contrary unto it, deprived it  of  all  its
obligatory  power and efficacy. But neither of these  ways  has  God
taken  away the obligation of the original law of obedience,  either
as unto duties or recompenses of reward. Neither is there any direct
law  made for its abrogation; nor has he given any new law of  moral
obedience, either inconsistent with or contrary unto it: yea, in the
gospel it is declared to be established and fulfilled.
   It  is  true, as was observed before, that this law was made  the
instrument  of  a  covenant between God and man;  and  so  there  is
another  reason  of  it,  for  God has actually  introduced  another
covenant inconsistent with it, and contrary unto it. But yet neither
does this instantly, and "ipso facto", free all men unto the law, in
the  way of a covenant. For, unto the obligation of a law, there  is
no  more  required but that the matter of it be just and  righteous;
that it be given or made by him who has just authority so to give or
make  it;  and  be sufficiently declared unto them  who  are  to  be
obliged  by it. Hence the making and promulgation of a new law  does
"ipso  facto" abrogate any former law that is contrary unto it,  and
frees all men from obedience unto it who were before obliged by  it.
But  in a covenant it is not so. For a covenant does not operate  by
mere  sovereign  authority; it becomes not a  covenant  without  the
consent  of them with whom it is made. Wherefore, no benefit accrues
unto  any, or freedom from the old covenant, by the constitution  of
the new, unless he has actually complied with it, has chosen it, and
is  interested in it thereby. The first covenant made with Adam,  we
did in him consent unto and accept of. And therein, not withstanding
our sin, do we and must we abide,--that is, under the obligation  of
it  unto  duty and punishment,--until by faith we are made partakers
of  the  new. It cannot therefore be said, that we are not concerned
in  the fulfilling of the righteousness of this law, because  it  is
abrogated.
   15.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that the  law  has  received  a  new
interpretation, whereby it is declared that it does not oblige,  nor
shall be constructed for the future to oblige, any unto sinless  and
perfect obedience, but may be complied with on far easier terms. For
the law being given unto us when we were sinless, and on purpose  to
continue and preserve us in that condition, it is absurd to say that
it   did   not  oblige  us  unto  sinless  obedience;  and  not   an
interpretation, but
a  plain depravation of its sense and meaning. Nor is any such thing
once  intimated  in the gospel. Yea, the discourses of  our  Saviour
upon the law are absolutely destructive of any such imagination. For
whereas  the  scribes and Pharisees had attempted,  by  their  false
glosses  and  interpretations,  to  accommodate  the  law  unto  the
inclinations  and  lusts  of  men  (a  course  since  pursued   both
nationally  and  practically,  as  all  who  design  to  burden  the
consciences  of men with their own commands do endeavour  constantly
to  recompense them by an indulgence with respect unto the  commands
of  God),  he, on the contrary, rejects all such pretended epieikias
[accommodations]  and interpretations, restoring the  law  unto  its
pristine  crown, as the Jews' tradition is, that the  Messiah  shall
do.
   16. Nor can a relaxation of the law be pretended, if there be any
such thing in rule; for if there be, it respects the whole being  of
the  law,  and  consists  either in  the  suspension  of  its  whole
obligation,  at least for a season, or the substitution  of  another
person   to  answer  its  demands,  who  was  not  in  the  original
obligation, in the room of them that were. For so some say that  the
Lord Christ was made under the law for us by an act of relaxation of
the  original obligation of the law; how properly, "ipso  viderint."
But here, in no sense, it can have place.
   17.  The act of God towards the law in this case intended,  is  a
derogation from its obliging power as unto obedience. For whereas it
did originally oblige unto perfect, sinless obedience in all duties,
both as unto their substance and the manner of their performance, it
shall  be  allowed to oblige us still unto obedience, but  not  unto
that  which  is  absolutely the same, especially  not  as  unto  the
completeness  and perfection of it; for if it do so,  either  it  is
fulfilled  in the righteousness of Christ for us, or no  man  living
can  ever be justified in the sight of God. Wherefore, by an act  of
derogation  from its original power, it is provided  that  it  shall
oblige  us  still unto obedience, but not that which  is  absolutely
sinless  and  perfect;  but  although  it  be  performed  with  less
intension  of  love unto God, or in a lower degree than  it  did  at
first  require, so it be sincere and universal as unto all parts  of
it,  it is all that the law now requires of us. This is all that  it
now requires, as it is adapted unto the service of the new covenant,
and  made  the  rule of obedience according to the  law  of  Christ.
Hereby  is  its  receptive part, so far as we are concerned  in  it,
answered and complied withal. Whether these things are so or no,  we
shall see immediately in a few words.
   18.  Hence it follows, that the act of God with respect unto  our
obedience is not an act of judgment according unto any rule  or  law
of  his  own;  but  an  acceptilation, or an esteeming,  accounting,
accepting that as perfect, or in the room of that which is  perfect,
which really and in truth is not so.
   19.  It  is  added,  that  both these  depend  on,  and  are  the
procurements of, the obedience, suffering, and merits of Christ. For
on  their  account  it is that our weak and imperfect  obedience  is
accepted as if it were perfect; and the power of the law, to require
obedience  absolutely perfect, is taken away. And  these  being  the
effects  of the righteousness of Christ, that righteousness  may  on
their account, and so far, be said to be imputed unto us.
   20.  But notwithstanding the great endeavours that have been used
to  give a colour of truth unto these things, they are both of  them
but  fictions  and imaginations of men, that have no ground  in  the
Scripture,  nor do comply with the experience of them that  believe.
For to touch a little on the latter, in the first place, there is no
true  believer  but  has  these two things fixed  in  his  mind  and
conscience,--
   (1.)  That there is nothing in principles, habits, qualities,  or
actions,  wherein  he comes short of a perfect compliance  with  the
holy law of God, even as it requires perfect obedience, but that  it
has  in it the nature of sin, and that in itself deserving the curse
annexed  originally  unto  the breach of  that  law.  They  do  not,
therefore, apprehend that its obligation is taken off, weakened,  or
derogated from in any thing. (2.) That there is no relief  for  him,
with  respect unto what the law requires or unto what it  threatens,
but  by  the  mediation of Jesus Christ alone, who of  God  is  made
righteousness unto him. Wherefore, they do not rest  in  or  on  the
acceptation  of their own obedience, such as it is,  to  answer  the
law, but trust unto Christ alone for their acceptation with God.
   21.  They  are both of them doctrinally untrue; for as  unto  the
former,--(1.)  It  is  unwritten. There  is  no  intimation  in  the
Scripture  of any such dispensation of God with reference  unto  the
original  law  of obedience. Much is spoken of our deliverance  from
the  curse  of  the  law  by Christ, but of  the  abatement  of  its
receptive  power  nothing  at  all.  (2.)  It  is  contrary  to  the
Scripture;  for it is plainly affirmed that the law  is  not  to  be
abolished,  but  fulfilled;  not  to  be  made  void,  but   to   be
established; that the righteousness of it must be fulfilled  in  us.
(3.)  It  is a supposition both unreasonable and impossible.  For,--
[1.]  The law was a representation unto us of the holiness  of  God,
and  his righteousness in the government of his creatures. There can
be  no  alteration made herein, seeing with God himself there is  no
variableness nor shadow of changing. [2.] It would leave no standard
of  righteousness, but only a Lesbian rule, which turns and  applies
itself  unto the light and abilities of men, and leaves at least  as
many various measures of righteousness as there are believers in the
world.  [3.] It includes a variation in the centre of all  religion,
which  is  the natural and moral relation of men unto  God;  for  so
there must be, if all that was once necessary thereunto do not still
continue  so  to be. [4.] It is dishonourable unto the mediation  of
Christ; for it makes the principal end of it to be, that God  should
accept  of  a  righteousness  unto our  justification  inexpressibly
beneath that which he required in the law of our creation. And  this
in a sense makes him the minister of sin, or that he has procured an
indulgence  unto  it;  not  by the way of satisfaction  and  pardon,
whereby he takes away the guilt of it from the church, but by taking
from  it  its nature and demerit, so as that what was so  originally
should  not  continue  so  to be, or at least  not  to  deserve  the
punishment it was first threatened withal. [5.] It reflects  on  the
goodness  of  God  himself;  for on this supposition,  that  he  has
reduced his law into that state and order as to be satisfied  by  an
observation  of it so weak, so imperfect, accompanied with  so  many
failures  and sins, as it is with the obedience of the best  men  in
this  world (whatever thoughts unto the contrary the frenzy of pride
may  suggest  unto  the  minds of any), what reason  can  be  given,
consistent with his goodness, why he should give a law at  first  of
perfect  obedience, which one sin laid all mankind under the penalty
of unto their ruin?
   22.  All  these things, and sundry others of the  same  kind,  do
follow  also  on the second supposition, of an acceptilation  or  an
imaginary  estimation  of that as perfect  which  is  imperfect,  as
sinless which is attended with sins innumerable. But the judgment of
God is according unto truth; neither will he reckon that unto us for
a  perfect righteousness in his sight which is so imperfect as to be
like  tattered  rags, especially having promised unto  us  robes  of
righteousness and garments of salvation.
   That which necessarily follows on these discourses is, That there
is  no  other way whereby the original, immutable law of God may  be
established  and  fulfilled  with  respect  unto  us,  but  by   the
imputation of the perfect obedience and righteousness of Christ, who
is the end of the law for righteousness unto all that do believe.



XII. The imputation of the obedience of Christ unto the law declared
and indicated


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.
   2.  As  our  Lord  Jesus Christ owed not in his own  person  this
obedience for himself, by virtue of any authority or power that  the
law  had  over him, so he designed and intended it not for  himself,
but  for  us. This, added unto the former consideration, gives  full
evidence unto the truth pleaded for; for if he was not obliged  unto
it for himself,--his person that yielded it not being under the law,-
-and  if he intended it not for himself; then it must be for us,  or
be  useless. It was in our human nature that he performed  all  this
obedience. Now, the susception of our nature was a voluntary act  of
his  own,  with reference unto some end and purpose; and that  which
was the end of the assumption of our nature was, in like manner, the
end  of  all  that he did therein. Now, it was for us, and  not  for
himself,  that he assumed our nature; nor was any thing  added  unto
him  thereby. Wherefore, in the issue of his work, he proposes  this
only  unto himself, that he may be "glorified with that glory  which
he had with the Father before the world was," by the removal of that
vail  which was put upon it in his exinanition. But that it was  for
us  that  he  assumed  our  nature, is the foundation  of  Christian
religion, as it is asserted by the apostle, Heb.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.
   3.  Setting  aside  the consideration of the grace  and  love  of
Christ,  and the compact between the Father and the Son as unto  his
undertaking for us, which undeniably proves all that he did  in  the
pursuit  of  them  to be done for us, and not for  himself;  I  say,
setting  aside  the  consideration of these things,  and  the  human
nature of Christ, by virtue of its union with the person of the  Son
of  God,  had a right unto, and might have immediately been admitted
into,  the  highest  glory  whereof  it  was  capable,  without  any
antecedent obedience unto the law. And this is apparent from  hence,
in  that, from the first instant of that union, the whole person  of
Christ,  with  our nature existing therein, was the  object  of  all
divine  worship  from angels and men; wherein consists  the  highest
exaltation of that nature.
   It is true, there was a peculiar glory that he was actually to be
made  partaker  of, with respect unto his antecedent  obedience  and
suffering, Phil.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
   4.  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.
   5.  The  Lord Christ, in his obedience, was not a private  but  a
public  person. He obeyed as he was the surety of the  covenant,--as
the  mediator  between  God and man. This, I suppose,  will  not  be
denied. He can by no imagination be considered out of that capacity.
But  what  a public person does as a public person,--that is,  as  a
representative of others, and an undertaker for them,--whatever  may
be  his own concernment therein, he does it not for himself, but for
others. And if others were not concerned therein, if it were not for
them,  what  he  does would be of no use or signification;  yea,  it
implies a contradiction that any one should do any thing as a public
person, and do it for himself only. He who is a public person may do
that  wherein he alone is concerned, but he cannot do so as he is  a
public  person.  Wherefore, as Socinus, and those that  follow  him,
would have Christ to have offered for himself, which is to make  him
a mediator for himself, his offering being a mediatory act, which is
both foolish and impious; so to affirm his mediatory obedience,  his
obedience as a public person, to have been for himself, and not  for
others, has but little less of impiety in it.
   6.  It  is  granted, that the Lord Christ having a human  nature,
which  was  a  creature, it was impossible but  that  it  should  be
subject unto the law of creation; for there is a relation that  does
necessarily arise from, and depend upon, the beings of a creator and
a  creature. Every rational creature is eternally obliged, from  the
nature  of  God, and its relation thereunto, to love him, obey  him,
depend  upon  him,  submit  unto him,  and  to  make  him  its  end,
blessedness,  and reward. But the law of creation, thus  considered,
does  not respect the world and this life only, but the future state
of heaven and eternity also; and this law the human nature of Christ
is  subject unto in heaven and glory, and cannot but be so whilst it
is  a  creature, and not God,--that is, whilst it has its own being.
Nor  do  any men fancy such a transfusion of divine properties  into
the  human  nature  of Christ, as that it should be self-subsisting,
and  in itself absolutely immense; for this would openly destroy it.
Yet none will say that he is now "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.
   Ans.  This cause is of more importance, and more evidently stated
in  the Scriptures, than to be turned into such niceties, which have
more  of  philosophical subtilty than theological solidity in  them.
This exception, therefore, might be dismissed without farther answer
than  what  is  given  us  in the known  rule,  that  a  truth  well
established  and  confirmed  is not  to  be  questioned,  much  less
relinquished,  on every entangling sophism, though it should  appear
insoluble;  but,  as  we shall see, there is no such  difficulty  in
these  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.




XIII. The nature of justification proved from the difference of  the
covenants


The  difference  between  the  two covenants  stated--Argument  from
thence


That  which  we  plead in the third place unto our purpose  is,  the
difference between the two covenants. And herein it may be observed,-
-
   1.  That  by  the  two covenants I understand  those  which  were
absolutely  given unto the whole church, and were all  to  bring  it
"eis  teleioteta",--unto a complete and perfect state; that is,  the
covenant  of works, or the law of our creation as it was given  unto
us,  with  promises  and  threatening, or rewards  and  punishments,
annexed unto it; and the covenant of grace, revealed and proposed in
the  first  promise.  As unto the covenant of  Sinai,  and  the  new
testament as actually confirmed in the death of Christ, with all the
spiritual  privileges thence emerging, and the  differences  between
them, they belong not unto our present argument.
   2. The whole entire nature of the covenant of works consisted  in
this,--that upon our personal obedience, according unto the law  and
rule  of it, we should be accepted with God, and rewarded with  him.
Herein the essence of it did consist; and whatever covenant proceeds
on  these terms, or has the nature of them in it, however it may  be
varied  with  additions or alterations, is the same covenant  still,
and  not  another. As in the renovation of the promise  wherein  the
essence  of  the covenant of grace was contained, God  did  ofttimes
make other additions unto it (as unto Abraham and David), yet was it
still the same covenant for the substance of it, and not another; so
whatever  variations  may  be  made  in,  or  additions  unto,   the
dispensation  of  the  first covenant,  so  long  as  this  rule  is
retained, "Do this, and live," it is still the same covenant for the
substance and essence of it.
   3. Hence two things belonged unto this covenant:--First, That all
things were transacted immediately between God and man. There was no
mediator in it, no one to undertake any thing, either on the part of
God  or  man,  between them; for the whole depending on every  one's
personal  obedience,  there was no place for a  mediator.  Secondly,
That  nothing but perfect, sinless obedience would be accepted  with
God,  or preserve the covenant in its primitive state and condition.
There  was nothing in it as to pardon of sin, no provision  for  any
defect in personal obedience.
  4. Wherefore, this covenant being once established between God and
man,  there could be no new covenant made, unless the essential form
of  it  were  of  another  nature,--namely, that  our  own  personal
obedience  be  not  the  rule  and  cause  of  our  acceptation  and
justification  before  God; for whilst this is  so,  as  was  before
observed,  the covenant is still the same, however the  dispensation
of  it may be reformed or reduced to suit unto our present state and
condition. What grace soever might be introduced into it, that could
not  be  so  which excluded all works from being the  cause  of  our
justification.  But if a new covenant be made, such  grace  must  be
provided  as is absolutely inconsistent with any works of  ours,  as
unto  the  first  ends  of the covenant; as  the  apostle  declares,
Rom.11:6.
   5.  Wherefore, the covenant of grace, supposing it a  new,  real,
absolute covenant, and not a reformation of the dispensation of  the
old, or a reduction of it unto the use of our present condition  (as
some imagine it to be), must differ, in the essence, substance,  and
nature  of it, from that first covenant of works. And this it cannot
do  if  we are to be justified before God on our personal obedience;
wherein  the essence of the first covenant consisted. If, then,  the
righteousness wherewith we are justified before God be our own,  our
own personal righteousness, we are yet under the first covenant, and
no other.
  6. But things in the new covenant are indeed quite otherwise; for,-
-First, It is of grace, which wholly excludes works; that is, so  of
grace,  as  that  our own works are not the means  of  justification
before  God;  as in the places before alleged. Secondly,  It  has  a
mediator and surety; which is built alone on this supposition,  that
what we cannot do in ourselves which was originally required of  us,
and  what the law of the first covenant cannot enable us to perform,
that  should be performed for us by our mediator and surety. And  if
this  be  not  included in the very first notion of a  mediator  and
surety,  yet  it  is  in  that of a mediator  or  surety  that  does
voluntarily  interpose  himself, upon an  open  acknowledgment  that
those  for  whom he undertakes were utterly insufficient to  perform
what  was  required of them;--on which supposition all the truth  of
the  Scripture does depend. It is one of the very first  notions  of
Christian  religion, that the Lord Christ was given to us,  born  to
us;  that he came as a mediator, to do for us what we could  not  do
for  ourselves, and not merely to suffer what we had  deserved.  And
here,  instead  of our own righteousness, we have the "righteousness
of  God;" instead of being righteous in ourselves before God, he  is
"The  LORD  our  Righteousness." And nothing but a righteousness  of
another  kind  and  nature,  unto justification  before  God,  could
constitute another covenant. Wherefore, the righteousness whereby we
are justified is the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, or  we
are still under the law, under the covenant of works.
  It will be said that our personal obedience is by none asserted to
be  the righteousness wherewith we are justified before God, in  the
same  manner as it was under the covenant of works; but the argument
speaks  not as unto the manner or way whereby it is so, but  to  the
thing  itself.  If  it  be  so  in any way  or  manner,  under  what
qualifications soever, we are under that covenant still. If it be of
works any way, it is not of grace at all. But it is added, that  the
differences  are  such  as  are sufficient to  constitute  covenants
effectually  distinct: as,--1. "The perfect, sinless  obedience  was
required  in  the  first covenant; but in the  new,  that  which  is
imperfect,   and  accompanied  with  many  sins  and  failings,   is
accepted."  Ans. This is "gratis dictum," and begs the question.  No
righteousness  unto justification before God is or can  be  accepted
but what is perfect. 2. "Grace is the original fountain and cause of
all our acceptation before God in the new covenant." Ans. It was  so
also  in the old. The creation of man in original righteousness  was
an  effect of divine grace, benignity, and goodness; and the  reward
of eternal life in the enjoyment of God was of mere sovereign grace:
yet  what  was  then of works was not of grace;--no more  is  it  at
present. 3. "There would then have been merit of works, which is now
excluded."  Ans.  Such  a  merit as  arises  from  an  equality  and
proportion  between  works and reward, by the  rule  of  commutative
justice, would not have been in the works of the first covenant; and
in  no  other  sense  is  it now rejected by them  that  oppose  the
imputation  of the righteousness of Christ. 4. "All is now  resolved
into  the  merit of Christ, upon the account whereof alone  our  own
personal   righteousness   is   accepted   before   God   unto   our
justification." Ans. The question is not, on what account,  nor  for
what  reason,  it is so accepted? But, whether it be or  no?--seeing
its so being is effectually constitutive of a covenant of works.




XIV.  The  exclusion  of  all sorts of works  from  an  interest  in
justification--What is intended by "the law," and the "works" of it,
in the epistles of Paul


All  works whatever are expressly excluded from any interest in  our
justification before God--What intended by the works of the law--Not
those  of  the  ceremonial  law only--Not  perfect  works  only,  as
required  by the law of our creation--Not the outward works  of  the
law, performed without a principle of faith--Not works of the Jewish
law--Not  works  with  a conceit of merit--Not  works  only  wrought
before  believing, in the strength of our own wills--Works  excluded
abso1utely   from  our  justification,  without   respect   unto   a
distinction of a first and second justification--The true  sense  of
the  law in the apostolical assertion that none are justified by the
works thereof--What the Jews understood by the law--Distribution  of
the law under the Old Testament--The whole law a perfect rule of all
inherent  moral or spiritual obedience --What are the works  of  the
law, declared from the Scripture, and the argument thereby confirmed
--The nature of justifying faith farther declared


We  shall take our fourth argument from the express exclusion of all
works,  of what sort soever, from our justification before God.  For
this alone is that which we plead,--namely, that no acts or works of
our  own are the causes or conditions of our justification; but that
the  whole  of  it is resolved into the free grace of  God,  through
Jesus  Christ, as the mediator and surety of the covenant.  To  this
purpose  the  Scripture  speaks expressly. Rom.3:28,  "Therefore  we
conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of  the
law."  Rom.4:5, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth  on  him
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness"
Rom.11:6,  "If  it  be  of grace, then is  it  no  more  of  works."
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." Eph.2:8,9, "For by grace are ye saved  through
faith ... not of works, lest any man should boast." Tit.3:5, "Not by
works  of  righteousness which we have done, but  according  to  his
mercy he saved us."
   These and the like testimonies are express, and in positive terms
assert  all  that  we  contend  for. And  I  am  persuaded  that  no
unprejudiced person, whose mind is not prepossessed with notions and
distinctions whereof not the least little is offered unto them  from
the  texts mentioned, nor elsewhere, can but judge that the law,  in
every  sense  of it, and all sorts of works whatever,  that  at  any
time, or by any means, sinners or believers do or can perform,  are,
not in this or that sense, but every way and in all senses, excluded
from  our  justification before God. And if it  be  so,  it  is  the
righteousness of Christ alone that we must retake ourselves unto, or
this  matter  must  cease for ever. And this inference  the  apostle
himself makes from one of the testimonies before mentioned,--namely,
that of Gal.2:19-21; for he adds upon it, "I through the law am dead
to  the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ:
nevertheless  I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in  me:  and  the
life  which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the  Son
of  God,  who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not  frustrate
the  grace of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ
is dead in vain."
   Our adversaries are extremely divided amongst themselves. and can
come unto no consistency, as to the sense and meaning of the apostle
in  these  assertions;  for  what is proper  and  obvious  unto  the
understanding  of  all men, especially from the opposition  that  is
made  between  the law and works on the one hand, and faith,  grace,
and  Christ on the other (which are opposed as inconsistent in  this
matter  of  our justification), they will not allow; nor can  do  so
without  the  ruin of the opinions they plead for. Wherefore,  their
various  conjectures  shall  be examined,  as  well  to  show  their
inconsistency among themselves by whom the truth is opposed,  as  to
confirm our present argument:--
   1.  Some say it is the ceremonial law alone, and the works of it,
that  are  intended; or the law as given unto Moses on mount  Sinai,
containing that entire covenant that was afterwards to be abolished.
This  was of old the common opinion of the schoolmen, though  it  be
now  generally exploded. And the opinion lately contended for,  that
the  apostle Paul excludes justification from the works of the  law,
or  excludes  works absolutely perfect, and sinless  obedience,  not
because  no  man  can  yield that perfect obedience  which  the  law
requires,  but  because the law itself which he  intends  could  not
justify  any by the observation of it, is nothing but the renovation
of  this  obsolete notion, that it is the ceremonial law  only,  or,
which  upon  the  matter is all one, the law given on  mount  Sinai,
abstracted  from the grace of the promise, which could  not  justify
any  in the observation of its rites and commands. But of all  other
conjectures, this is the most impertinent and contradictory unto the
design  of  the  apostle;  and is therefore rejected  by  Bellarmine
himself.  For  the apostle treats of that law whose doers  shall  be
justified, Rom.2:13; and the authors of this opinion would  have  it
to  be  a law that can justify none of them that do it. That law  he
intends  whereby is the knowledge of sin; for he gives  this  reason
why  we cannot be justified by the works of it,--namely, because "by
it  is  the  knowledge of sin," chap.2:20: and by what  law  is  the
knowledge  of  sin he expressly declares, where he affirms  that  he
"had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet,"
chap.7:7;  which is the moral law alone. That law he  designs  which
stops  the  mouth of all sinners, and makes all the world  obnoxious
unto  the judgment of God, chap.3:19; which none can do but the  law
written  in  the heart of men at their creation, chap.2:14,15;--that
law,  which  "if a man do the works of it, he shall live  in  them,"
Gal.3:12,  Rom.10:5; and which brings all men under  the  curse  for
sin,  Gal.3:10,--the law that is established by faith, and not  made
void, Rom.3:31; which the ceremonial law is not, nor the covenant of
Sinai;--the  law  whose righteousness is "to be  fulfilled  in  us,"
Rom.8:4.  And  the instance which the apostle gives of justification
without  the  works of that law which he intends,--namely,  that  of
Abraham,--was  some  hundreds of years  before  the  giving  of  the
ceremonial law. Neither yet do I say that the ceremonial law and the
works of it are excluded from the intention of the apostle: for when
that  law  was given, the observation of it was an especial instance
of that obedience we owed unto the first table of the decalogue; and
the  exclusion of the works thereof from our justification, inasmuch
as the performance of them was part of that moral obedience which we
owed unto God, is exclusive of all other works also. But that it  is
alone  here intended, or that law which could never justify  any  by
its  observation, although it was observed in due manner, is a  fond
imagination,  and  contradictory to the  express  assertion  of  the
apostle. And, whatever is pretended to the contrary, this opinion is
expressly  rejected by Augustine, Lib. de Spiritu et Litera,  cap.8:
"Ne   quisquam  putaret  hic  apostolum  ea  lege  dixisse   neminem
justificari,  quae in sacramentis veteribus multa continet  figurata
praecepta,   unde  etiam  est  ista  circumcisio  carnis,   continuo
subjunxit, quam dixerit legem et ait; 'per legem cognitio peccati'".
And to the same purpose he speaks again, Epist. 200, "Non solum illa
opera  legis  quae sunt in veteribus sacramentis, et  nunc  revelato
testamento novo non observantur a Christianis, sicut est circumcisio
praeputii,  et  sabbati  non observantur a  Christianis,  sicut  est
circumcisio  praeputii, et sabbati carnalis vacatio; et a  quibusdam
escis  abstinentia, et pecorum in sacrificiis immolatio, et neomenia
et  ezymum,  et caetera hujusmodi, verum etiam illud  quod  in  lege
dictum  est,  'Non  concupisces', quod utique et Christianis  nullus
ambigit  esse dicendum, non justificat hominem, nisi per fidem  Jesu
Christi, et gratiam Dei per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum".
   2.  Some say the apostle only excludes the perfect works required
by  the  law  of innocence; which is a sense diametrically  opposite
unto  that  foregoing. But this best pleases the Socinians.  "Paulus
agit  de operibus et perfectis in hoc dicto, ideo enim adjecit, sine
operibus  legis,  ut  indicaretur  loqui  eum  de  operibus  a  lege
requisitis,   et   sic   de  perpetua  et  perfectissima   divinorum
praeceptorum  obedientia  sicut  lex  requirit.  Cum   autem   talem
obedientiam qualem lex requirit nemo praestare possit, ideo subjecit
apostolus  nos  justificari fide, id est, fiducia et  obedientia  ea
quantum quisque praestare potest, et quotidie quam maximum praestare
studet,  et  connititur. Sine operibus legis, id est,  etsi  interim
perfecte  totam legem sicut debebat complere nequit";  says  Socinus
himself.  But,--(1.) We have herein the whole  granted  of  what  we
plead  for,--namely, that it is the moral, indispensable law of  God
that is intended by the apostle; and that by the works of it no  man
can  be  justified, yea, that all the works of it are excluded  from
our justification: for it is, says the apostle, "without works." The
works  of  this law being performed according unto it, will  justify
them  that perform them, as he affirms, chap.2:13; and the Scripture
elsewhere witnesses that "he that does them shall live in them." But
because  this  can  never  be  done by  any  sinner,  therefore  all
consideration of them is excluded from our justification. (2.) It is
a  wild  imagination  that the dispute of the  apostle  is  to  this
purpose,--that the perfect works of the law will not justify us, but
imperfect works, which answer not the law, will do so. (3.) Granting
the  law  intended  to  be the moral law of  God,  the  law  of  our
creation, there is no such distinction intimated in the least by the
apostle, that we are not justified by the perfect works of it  which
we  cannot perform, but by some imperfect works that we can perform,
and  labour  so to do. Nothing is more foreign unto the  design  and
express  words of his whole discourse. (4.) The evasion  which  they
retake  themselves unto, that the apostle opposes  justification  by
faith  unto that of works, which he excludes, is altogether vain  in
this  sense; for they would have this faith to be our obedience unto
the  divine  commands, in that imperfect manner which we can  attain
unto.  For  when the apostle has excluded all such justification  by
the  law  and  the works thereof, he does not advance in  opposition
unto them, and in their room, our own faith and obedience; but adds,
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that  is
in Jesus Christ; whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through
faith in his blood."
   3. Some of late among ourselves,--and they want not them who have
gone  before them,--affirm that the works which the apostle excludes
from  justification are only the outward works of the law, performed
without  an  inward principle of faith, fear, or the  love  of  God.
Servile works, attended unto from a respect unto the threatening  of
the  law,  are those which will not justify us. But this opinion  is
not  only  false, but impious. For,--(1.) The apostle  excludes  the
works of Abraham, which were not such outward, servile works as  are
imagined.  (2.) The works excluded are those which the law requires;
and  the  law is holy, just, and good. But a law that requires  only
outward works, without internal love to God, is neither holy,  just,
nor good. (3.) The law condemns all such works as are separated from
the  internal  principle of faith, fear, and love; for  it  requires
that  in all our obedience we should love the Lord our God with  all
our  hearts. And the apostle says, that we are not justified by  the
works  which  the  law  condemns, but not  by  them  which  the  law
commands. (4.) It is highly reflexive on the honour of God, that  he
unto  whose divine prerogative it belongs to know the hearts of  men
alone,  and therefore regards them alone in all the duties of  their
obedience, should give a law requiring outward, servile works  only;
for  if  the law intended require more, then are not those the  only
works excluded.
   4.  Some  say, in general, it is the Jewish law that is intended;
and  think thereby to cast off the whole difficulty. But if, by  the
Jewish  law,  they  intend  only the  ceremonial  law,  or  the  law
absolutely as given by Moses, we have already showed the  vanity  of
that  pretence; but if they mean thereby the whole law  or  rule  of
obedience  given unto the church of Israel under the Old  Testament,
they express much of the truth,--it may be more than they designed.
   5.  Some say that it is works with a conceit of merit, that makes
the reward to be of debt, and not of grace, that are excluded by the
apostle.  But  no such distinction appears in the text  or  context;
for,--(1,) The apostle excludes all works of the law,--that is, that
the  law requires of us in a way of obedience,--be they of what sort
they  will. (2.) The law requires no works with a conceit of  merit.
(3.)  Works  of the law originally included no merit, as that  which
"ariseth  from  the  proportion of one thing  unto  another  in  the
balance  of justice; and in that sense only is it rejected by  those
who  plead for an interest of works in justification. (4.) The merit
which  the apostle excludes is that which is inseparable from works,
so that it cannot be excluded unless the works themselves be so. And
unto  their merit two things concur:--First, A comparative boasting;
that  is,  not  absolutely in the sight of God,  which  follows  the
"meritum ex condigno" which some poor sinful mortals have fancied in
their works, but that which gives one man a preference above another
in  the  obtaining  of justification; which grace  will  not  allow,
chap.4:2. Secondly, That the reward be not absolutely of grace,  but
that respect he had therein unto works; which makes it so far to  be
of  debt,  not out of an internal condignity, which would  not  have
been  under  the  law  of creation, but out of some  congruity  with
respect unto the promise of God, verse 4. In these two regards merit
is  inseparable from works; and the Holy Ghost, utterly  to  exclude
it,  excludes all works from which it is inseparable, as it is  from
all.  Wherefore,  (5.) The apostle speaks not  one  word  about  the
exclusion  of  the  merit of works only; but he excludes  all  works
whatever,  and  that by this argument, that the  admission  of  them
would  necessarily introduce merit in the sense described; which  is
inconsistent  with  grace. And although some  think  that  they  are
injuriously dealt withal, when they are charged with maintaining  of
merit  in  their  asserting the influence  of  our  works  into  our
justification; yet those of them who best understand themselves  and
the  controversy itself, are not so averse from some kind of  merit,
as knowing that it is inseparable from works.
   6.  Some  contend  that the apostle excludes only  works  wrought
before  believing,  in  the strength of our own  wills  and  natural
abilities,  without the aid of grace. Works, they suppose,  required
by  the  law are such as we perform by the direction and command  of
the  law  alone. But the law of faith requires works in the strength
of the supplies of grace; which are not excluded. This is that which
the  most  learned  and  judicious of the  church  of  Rome  do  now
generally  retake themselves unto. Those who amongst  us  plead  for
works in our justification, as they use many distinctions to explain
their minds, and free their opinion from a coincidence with that  of
the  Papists; so, as yet, they deny the name of merit, and the thing
itself  in  the  sense of the church of Rome,  as  it  is  renounced
likewise  by  all  the Socinians: wherefore, they make  use  of  the
preceding evasion, that merit is excluded by the apostle, and  works
only  as they are meritorious; although the apostle's plain argument
be,  that  they are excluded because such a merit as is inconsistent
with grace is inseparable from their admission.
   But  the Roman church cannot so part with merit. Wherefore,  they
are  to find out a sort of works to be excluded only, which they are
content  to  part withal as not meritorious. Such are  those  before
described,  wrought, as they say, before believing, and without  the
aids of grace; and such, they say, are all the works of the law. And
this  they do with some more modesty and sobriety than those amongst
us  who  would  have  only  external works  and  observances  to  be
intended.  For they grant that sundry internal works,  as  those  of
attrition, sorrow for sin, and the like, are of this nature. But the
works  of the law it is, they say, that are excluded. But this whole
plea,  and all the sophisms wherewith it is countenanced, have  been
so discussed and defeated by Protestant writers of all sorts against
Bellarmine  and  others, as that it is needless to repeat  the  same
things,  or  to add any thing unto them. And it will be sufficiently
evinced  of  falsehood in what we shall immediately prove concerning
the law and works intended by the apostle. However, the heads of the
demonstration of the truth to the contrary may be touched on. And, -
-(1.)  The  apostle  excludes  all  works,  without  distinction  or
exception.  And  we are not to distinguish where the  law  does  not
distinguish  before us. (2.) All the works of the law are  excluded:
therefore all works wrought after believing by the aids of grace are
excluded;  for  they  are all required by the  law.  See  Ps.119:35;
Rom.7:22.  Works not required by the law are no less an  abomination
to  God than sins against the law. (3.) The works of believers after
conversion,  performed by the aids of grace, are expressly  excluded
by  the  apostle.  So  are those of Abraham, after  he  had  been  a
believer many years, and abounded in them unto the praise of God. So
he  excludeth  his  own  works  after his  conversion,  Gal.2:16;  1
Cor.4:4;  Phil.3:9;  and  so he excludes  the  works  of  all  other
believers,  Eph.2:9,10. (4.) All works are excluded that might  give
countenance  unto boasting, Rom.4:2,; 3:27; Eph.2:9; 1  Cor.1:29-31.
But  this is done more by the good works of regenerate persons  than
by any works of unbelievers. (5.) The law required faith and love in
all  our  works;  and  therefore if all the  works  of  the  law  be
excluded,  the  best works of believers are so. (6.) All  works  are
excluded  which  are  opposed  unto  grace  working  freely  in  our
justification;  but this all works whatever are, Rom.11:6.  (7.)  In
the  Epistle unto the Galatians, the apostle does exclude  from  our
justification  all those works which the false teachers  pressed  as
necessary  thereunto: but they urged the necessity of the  works  of
believers, and those which were by grace already converted unto God;
for  those  upon whom they pressed them unto this end  were  already
actually so. (8.) They are good works that the apostle excludes from
our justification; for there can be no pretence of justification  by
those  works  that  are  not  good, or which  have  not  all  things
essentially requisite to make them so: but such are all the works of
unbelievers performed without the aids of grace,--they are not good,
nor  as  such  accepted  with  God, but  want  what  is  essentially
requisite  unto the constitution of good works; and it is ridiculous
to think that the apostle disputes about the exclusion of such works
from our justification as no man in his wits would think to have any
place  therein. (9.) The reason why no man can be justified  by  the
law, is because no man can yield perfect obedience thereunto; for by
perfect  obedience the law will justify, Rom.2:13; 10:5.  Wherefore,
all works are excluded that are not absolutely perfect; but this the
best works of believers are not, as we have proved before. (10.)  If
there be a reserve for the works of believers, performed by the  aid
of  grace,  in  our justification, it is, that either  they  may  be
concauses thereof, or be indispensably subservient unto those things
that  are  so. That they are concauses of our justification  is  not
absolutely  affirmed;  neither  can  it  be  said  that   they   are
necessarily subservient unto them that are so. They are not so  unto
the  efficient cause thereof, which is the grace and favour  of  God
alone, Rom.3:24,25; 4:16; Eph.2:8,9; Rev.1:5;--nor are they so  unto
the  meritorious  cause of it, which is Christ  alone,  Acts  13:38;
26:18;  1  Cor.1:30; 2 Cor.5:18-21;--nor unto the material cause  of
it, which is the righteousness of Christ alone, Rom.10:3,4,--nor are
they  so unto faith, in what place soever it be stated; for not only
is  faith  only mentioned, wherever we are taught the  way  how  the
righteousness of Christ is derived and communicated unto us, without
any  intimation of the conjunction of works with it,  but  also,  as
unto   our   justification,  they  are  placed  in  opposition   and
contradiction  one to the other, Rom.3:28. And sundry  other  things
are pleadable unto the same purpose.
   7. Some affirm that the apostle excludes all works from our first
justification,  but  not from the second; at;  as  some  speak,  the
continuation of our justification. But we have before examined these
distinctions, and found them groundless.
   Evident  it  is,  therefore,  that men  put  themselves  into  an
uncertain, slippery station, where they know not what to  fix  upon,
nor  wherein  to find any such appearance of truth as to  give  them
countenance  in denying the plain and frequently-repeated  assertion
of the apostle.
   Wherefore, in the confirmation of the present argument,  I  shall
more  particularly inquire into what it is that the apostle  intends
by   the  law  and  works  whereof  he  treats.  For  as  unto   our
justification,   whatever  they  are,  they   are   absolutely   and
universally opposed unto grace, faith, the righteousness of God, and
the blood of Christ, as those which are altogether inconsistent with
them. Neither can this be denied or questioned by any, seeing it  is
the plain design of the apostle to evince that inconsistency.
   1.  Wherefore, in general, it is evident that the apostle, by the
law  and the works thereof, intended what the Jews with whom he  had
to  do  did  understand by the law, and their  own  whole  obedience
thereunto. I suppose this cannot be denied; for without a concession
of  it  there  is nothing proved against them, nor are they  in  any
thing  instructed by him. Suppose those terms equivocal, and  to  be
taken  in one sense by him, and by them in another, and nothing  can
be  rightly  concluded from what is spoken of them.  Wherefore,  the
meaning  of  these terms, "the law," and "works," the apostle  takes
for  granted  as very well known, and agreed on between himself  and
those with whom he had to do.
   2.  The Jews by "the law" intended what the Scriptures of the Old
Testament meant by that expression; for they are nowhere blamed  for
any false notion concerning the law, or that they esteemed any thing
to  be  so  but  what was so indeed, and what was so called  in  the
Scripture.  Their present oral law was not yet hatched,  though  the
Pharisees were brooding of it.
   3.  "The law" under the Old Testament does immediately refer unto
the  law given at mount Sinai, nor is there any distinct mention  of
it  before. This is commonly called "the law" absolutely;  but  most
frequently  "the law of God," "the law of the Lord;"  and  sometimes
"the  law of Moses," because of his especial ministry in the  giving
of  it:  "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded
unto him," Mal.4:4. And this the Jews intended by "the law."
   4.  Of  the law so given at Horeb, there was a distribution  into
three  parts.  (1.) There was "'aseret hadevarim",--Deut.4:13,  "The
ten  words;"  so  also  chap.10:4;--that is,  the  ten  commandments
written  upon  two tables of stone. This part of the law  was  first
given,  was the foundation of the whole, and contained that  perfect
obedience which was required of mankind by law of creation; and  was
now  received into the church with the highest attestations  of  its
indispensable   obligation  unto  obedience  or   punishment.   (2.)
"chukim",  which the LXX render by "dikaioomata",--that is,  "jura,"
"rites,"    or    "statutes;"   but   the   Latin    from    thence,
"justificationes,"  ("justifications,")  which   has   given   great
occasion  of  mistake in many, both ancient and modern  divines.  We
call it "the ceremonial law." The apostle terms this part of the law
distinctly,  "Nomos  entoloon en dogmasi",  Eph.2:15,  "The  law  of
commandments  contained in ordinances;" that  is,  consisting  in  a
multitude of arbitrary commands. (3.) "mishpatim", which we commonly
call  "the judicial law." This distribution of the law shuts up  the
Old  Testament, as it is used in places innumerable before; only the
"'aseret hadevriem",--"the ten words,"--is expressed by the  general
word "torah",--"the law," Mal.4:4.
   5.  These  being the parts of the law given unto  the  church  in
Sinai,  the whole of it is constantly called "torah",--"the  law,"--
that  is, the instruction (as the word signifies) that God gave unto
the  church, in the rule of obedience which he prescribed  unto  it.
This  is the constant signification of that word in Scripture, where
it  is taken absolutely; and thereon does not signify precisely  the
law  as  given at Horeb, but comprehends with it all the revelations
that  God  made  under  the Old Testament, in  the  explanation  and
confirmation  of  that  law,  in  rules,  motives,  directions,  and
enforcements of obedience.
  6. Wherefore; "torah",--"the law,"--is the whole rule of obedience
which  God gave to the church under the Old Testament, with all  the
efficacy  wherewith  it was accompanied by the  ordinances  of  God,
including  in  it  all the promises and threatening  that  might  be
motives unto the obedience that God did require;--this is that which
God  and  the  church called "the law" under the Old Testament,  and
which the Jews so called with whom our apostle had to do. That which
we  call "the moral law" was the foundation of the whole; and  those
parts  of  it which we call "the judicial and ceremonial law,"  were
peculiar instances of the obedience which the church under  the  Old
Testament  was  obliged  unto, in the  especial  polity  and  divine
worship which at that season were necessary unto it. And two  things
does the Scripture testify unto concerning this law:--
   (1.)  That  it was a perfect, complete rule of all that  internal
spiritual and moral obedience which God required of the church: "The
law  of  the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony  of
the LORD is sure, making wise the simple," Ps.19:7. And it so was of
all  the  external duties of obedience, for matter and manner,  time
and  season;  that in both the church might walk "acceptably  before
God",  Isa.8:20. And although the original duties of the moral  part
of  the  law are often preferred before the particular instances  of
obedience in duties of outward worship, yet the whole law was always
the whole rule of all the obedience, internal and external, that God
required  of  the  church, and which he accepted in  them  that  did
believe.
   (2.) That this law, this rule of obedience, as it was ordained of
God to be the instrument of his rule of the church, and by virtue of
the  covenant  made with Abraham, unto whose administration  it  was
adapted,  and which its introduction on Sinai did not disannul,  was
accompanied  with a power and efficacy enabling unto obedience.  The
law  itself,  as  merely receptive and commanding,  administered  no
power  or ability unto those that were under its authority to  yield
obedience  unto  it;  no more do the mere commands  of  the  gospel.
Moreover, under the Old Testament it enforced obedience on the minds
and  consciences of men by the manner of its first delivery, and the
severity  of its sanction, so as to fill them with fear and bondage;
and  was, besides, accompanied with such burdensome rules of outward
worship,  as  made it a heavy yoke unto the people. But  as  it  was
God's  doctrine,  teaching, instruction in all acceptable  obedience
unto  himself, and was adapted unto the covenant of Abraham, it  was
accompanied with an administration of effectual grace, procuring and
promoting  obedience in the church. And the law is not to be  looked
on   as   separated  from  those  aids  unto  obedience  which   God
administered  under the Old Testament; whose effects  are  therefore
ascribed unto the law itself See Ps.1, 19, 119.
   This being "the law" in the sense of the apostle, and those  with
whom  he  had  to do, our next inquiry is, What was their  sense  of
"works,"  or  "works of the law?" And I say it is  plain  that  they
intended  hereby the universal sincere obedience of the church  unto
God,  according  unto  this law. And other  works  the  law  of  God
acknowledges not; yea, it expressly condemns all works that have any
such  defect in them as to render them unacceptable unto God. Hence,
notwithstanding all the commands that God had positively  given  for
the  strict observance of sacrifices, offerings, and the like;  yet,
when  the people performed them without faith and love, he expressly
affirms  that he "commanded them not,"--that is, to be  observed  in
such  a  manner. In these works, therefore, consisted their personal
righteousness,   as  they  walked  "in  all  the  commandments   and
ordinances  of  the  Lord blameless," Luke  1:6;  wherein  they  did
"instantly  serve  God  day and night," Acts  26:7.  And  this  they
esteemed   to   be  their  own  righteousness,  their  righteousness
according  unto the law; as really it was, Phil.3:6,9. For  although
the Pharisees had greatly corrupted the doctrine of the law, and put
false  glosses  on sundry precepts of it; yet, that  the  church  in
those  days  did,  by  "the  works of the  law,"  understand  either
ceremonial duties only, or external works, or works with  a  conceit
of  merit, or works wrought without an internal principle  of  faith
and  love  to  God,  or  any thing but their  own  personal  sincere
obedience  unto  the whole doctrine and rule of the  law,  there  is
nothing that should give the least colour of imagination. For,--
   1.  All this is perfectly stated in the suffrage which the scribe
gave  unto the declaration of the sense and design of the law,  with
the  nature of the obedience which it does require, and was made  at
his  request by our blessed Saviour. Mark 12:28-33, "And one of  the
scribes  came,  and  having  heard  them  reasoning  together,   and
perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which  is  the
first  commandment of all?" (or as it is, Matt.22:36, "Which is  the
great  commandment in the law?") "And Jesus answered him, The  first
of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our Gods is one
Lord;  and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,  and
with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength;
this  is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this,
Thou  shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. And the scribe said  unto
him,  Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one  God;
and  there  is none but he: and to love him with all the heart,  and
with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all  the
strength,  and  to love his neighbour as himself, is more  than  all
whole  burnt-offerings and sacrifices." And this [is]  so  expressly
given  by  Moses as the sum of the law,--namely, faith and love,  as
the  principle  of  all  our obedience, Dent.6:4,5,  ,  that  it  is
marvelous what should induce any learned, sober person to  fix  upon
any  other sense of it; as that it respected ceremonial or  external
works only, or such as may be wrought without faith or love. This is
the  law  concerning  which  the  apostle  disputes,  and  this  the
obedience wherein the works of it do consist; and more than this, in
the  way of obedience, God never did nor will require of any in this
world.  Wherefore, the law and the works thereof which  the  apostle
excludes  from  justification, is that whereby  we  are  obliged  to
believe  in God as one God, the only God, and love him with all  our
hearts  and  souls, and our neighbours as ourselves; and what  works
there  are, or can be, in any persons, regenerate or not regenerate,
to  be  performed in the strength of grace or without it,  that  are
acceptable  unto God, that may not be reduced unto  these  heads,  I
know not.
   2.  The apostle himself declares that it is the law and the works
of  it,  in the sense we have expressed, that he excludes  from  our
justification.   For  the  law  he  speaks  of  is   "the   law   of
righteousness,"  Rom.9:31,--the law whose  righteousness  is  to  be
"fulfilled in us," that we may be accepted with God, and freed  from
condemnation,  chap.8:4;--that  in  obedience  whereunto   our   own
personal righteousness does consist, whether that we judge so before
conversion,  Rom.10:3;  or what is so after it,  Phil.3:9;--the  law
which  if  a  man observe, "he shall live," and be justified  before
God,  Rom.2:13; Gal.3:12; Rom.10:5;--that law which is "holy,  just,
and   good,"   which  discovers  and  condemns  all  sin   whatever,
chap.7:7,9.
  From what has been discoursed, these two things are evident in the
confirmation of our present argument:--first, That the law  intended
by  the apostle, when he denies that by the works of the law any can
be  justified,  is the entire rule and guide of our  obedience  unto
God, even as unto the whole frame and spiritual constitution of  our
souls, with all the acts of obedience or duties that he requires  of
us;  and,  secondly,  That  the works  of  this  law,  which  he  so
frequently and plainly excludes from our justification, and  therein
opposes  to  the grace of God and the blood of Christ, are  all  the
duties  of  obedience,--internal, supernatural; external,  ritual,--
however  we are or may be enabled to perform them, that God requires
of  us. And these things excluded, it is the righteousness of Christ
alone,  imputed  unto us, on, the account whereof we  are  justified
before God.
  The truth is, so far as I can discern, the real difference that is
at  this  day  amongst us, about the doctrine of  our  justification
before  God, is the same that was between the apostle and the  Jews,
and  no other. But controversies in religion make a great appearance
of  being new, when they are only varied and made different  by  the
new  terms and expressions that are introduced into the handling  of
them.  So  has  it  fallen out in the controversy about  nature  and
grace;  for as unto the true nature of it, it is the same  in  these
days  as  it was between the apostle Paul and the Pharisees; between
Austin  and  Pelagius afterwards. But it has now passed  through  so
many  forms and dresses of words, as that it can scarce be known  to
be  what it was. Many at this day will condemn both Pelagius and the
doctrine that he taught, in the words wherein he taught it, and  yet
embrace and approve of the things themselves which he intended.  The
introduction  of  every change in philosophical  learning  gives  an
appearance  of  a  change  in the controversies  which  are  managed
thereby;  but  take  off the covering of philosophical  expressions,
distinctions, metaphysical notions, and futilous terms of art, which
some  of  the ancient schoolmen and later disputants have cast  upon
it,  and the difference about grace and nature is amongst us all the
same that it was of old, and as it is allowed by the Socinians.
   Thus the apostle, treating of our justification before God,  does
it in those terms which are both expressive of the thing itself, and
were  well  understood by them with whom he had to do; such  as  the
Holy  Spirit, in their revelation, had consecrated unto their proper
use.  Thus, on the one hand, he expressly excludes the law, our  own
works,  our  own righteousness, from any interest therein;  ally  in
opposition  unto, and as inconsistent with them, in  the  matter  of
justification, he ascribes it wholly unto the righteousness of  God,
righteousness imputed unto us, the obedience of Christ, Christ  made
righteousness unto us, the blood of Christ as a propitiation, faith,
receiving   Christ,  and  the  atonement.  There  is   no   awakened
conscience, guided by the least beam of spiritual illumination,  but
in  itself plainly understands these things, and what is intended in
them.   But   through  the  admission  of  exotic   learning,   with
philosophical terms and notions, into the way of teaching  spiritual
things  in  religion, a new face and appearance is put on the  whole
matter;  and  a  composition made between  those  things  which  the
apostle directly opposes as contrary and inconsistent. Hence are all
our  discourses about preparations, dispositions, conditions, merits
"de congruo et condigno," with such a train of distinctions, as that
if  some bounds be not fixed unto the inventing and coining of  them
(which,  being a facile work, grows on us every day), we  shall  not
see  long be able to look through them, so as to discover the things
intended, or rightly to understand one another; for as one  said  of
lies,  so  it  may be said of arbitrary distinctions, they  must  be
continually new thatched over, or it will rain through. But the best
way  is  to cast off all these coverings, and we shall then  quickly
see  that  the real difference about the justification of  a  sinner
before  God is the same, and no other, as it was in the days of  the
apostle  Paul  between him and the Jews. And all those things  which
men  are pleased now to plead for, with respect unto a causality  in
our  justification  before  God, under the  names  of  preparations,
conditions, dispositions, merit, with respect unto a first or second
justification, are as effectually excluded by the apostle as  if  he
had  expressly  named them every one; for in them  all  there  is  a
management,  according unto our conceptions and  the  terms  of  the
learning  passant  in  the present age, of  the  plea  for  our  own
personal  righteousness,  which  the  Jews  maintained  against  the
apostle.  And the true understanding of what he intends by the  law,
the  works  and  righteousness  thereof,  would  be  sufficient   to
determine  this controversy, but that men are grown very skilful  in
the art of endless wrangling.




XV. Faith alone


Of faith alone


The  truth  which we plead has two parts:--1. That the righteousness
of  God  imputed  to  us, unto the justification  of  life,  is  the
righteousness  of Christ, by whose obedience we are made  righteous.
2.  That it is faith alone which on our part is required to interest
us  in that righteousness, or whereby we comply with God's grant and
communication  of  it, or receive it unto our use and  benefit;  for
although  this  faith  is  in itself the radical  principle  of  all
obedience,-- and whatever is not so, which cannot, which  does  not,
on  all  occasions,  evidence, prove, show, or  manifest  itself  by
works, is not of the same kind with it,--yet, as we are justified by
it,  its  act and duty is such, or of that nature, as that no  other
grace,  duty,  or  work, can be associated with it,  or  be  of  any
consideration.  And  both  these are  evidently  confirmed  in  that
description  which is given us in the Scripture  of  the  nature  of
faith and believing unto the justification of life.
  I know that many expressions used in the declaration of the nature
and  work  of faith herein are metaphorical, at least are  generally
esteemed  so  to be;--but they are such as the Holy  Ghost,  in  his
infinite wisdom, thought meet to make use of for the instruction and
edification  of  the church. And I cannot but say,  that  those  who
understand   not   how  effectually  the  light  of   knowledge   is
communicated  unto the minds of them that believe  by  them,  and  a
sense  of the things intended unto their spiritual experience,  seem
not  to  have  taken a due consideration of them. Neither,  whatever
skill  we  pretend  unto,  do  we know always  what  expressions  of
spiritual things are metaphorical. Those oftentimes may seem  so  to
be, which are most proper. However, it is most safe for us to adhere
unto  the  expressions of the Holy Spirit, and not to  embrace  such
senses  of  things as are inconsistent with them, and opposite  unto
them. Wherefore,--
   1.  That faith whereby we are justified is most frequently in the
New  Testament expressed by receiving. This notion of faith has been
before spoken unto, in our general inquiry into the use of it in our
justification. It shall not, therefore, be here much again  insisted
on.  Two things we may observe concerning it:--First, That it is  so
expressed with respect unto the whole object of faith, or  unto  all
that does any way concur unto our justification; for we are said  to
receive  Christ himself: "As many as received him, to them  gave  he
power  to  become the sons of God," John 1:12; "As ye have  received
Christ Jesus the Lord," Col.2:6. In opposition hereunto unbelief  is
expressed  by  not receiving of him, John 1:11; 3:11; 12:48;  14:17.
And   it  is  a  receiving  of  Christ  as  he  is  "The  LORD   our
Righteousness," as of God he is made righteousness unto us.  And  as
no grace, no duty, can have any cooperation with faith herein,--this
reception  of Christ not belonging unto their nature, nor  comprised
in  their exercise,--so it excludes any other righteousness from our
justification  but  that of Christ alone; for we are  "justified  by
faith."  Faith  alone receives Christ; and what it receives  is  the
cause of our justification, whereon we become the sons of God. So we
"receive  the atonement" made by the blood of Christ, Rom.5:11;  for
"God  has  set him forth to be a propitiation through faith  in  his
blood."  And  this  receiving of the atonement includes  the  soul's
approbation of the way of salvation by the blood of Christ, and  the
appropriation of the atonement made thereby unto our own souls.  For
thereby  also  we receive the forgiveness of sins:  "That  they  may
receive forgiveness of sins by faith that is in me," Acts 26:18.  In
receiving  Christ we receive the atonement; and in the atonement  we
receive  the forgiveness of sins. But, moreover, the grace  of  God,
and righteousness itself, as the efficient and material cause of our
justification, are received also; even the "abundance of  grace  and
the  gift  of righteousness," Rom.5:17. So that faith, with  respect
unto  all  the causes of justification, is expressed by "receiving;"
for it also receives the promise, the instrumental cause on the part
of  God  thereof, Acts 2:41; Heb.9:15. Secondly, That the nature  of
faith,  and  its  acting  with  respect  unto  all  the  causes   of
justification, consisting in receiving, that which is the object  of
it  must  be offered, tendered, and given unto us, as that which  is
not  our own, but is made our own by that giving and receiving. This
is  evident in the general nature of receiving. And herein,  as  was
observed,  as  no  other grace or duty can concur with  it,  so  the
righteousness  whereby  we are justified can  be  none  of  our  own
antecedent  unto  this reception, nor at any time  inherent  in  us.
Hence  we  argue, that if the work of faith in our justification  be
the  receiving  of what is freely granted, given, communicated,  and
imputed unto us,--that is, of Christ, of the atonement, of the  gift
of  righteousness, of the forgiveness of sins,--then have our  other
graces,  our  obedience,  duties,  works,  no  influence  into   our
justification,  nor are any causes or conditions thereof;  for  they
are  neither  that  which does receive nor that which  is  received,
which alone concur thereunto.
  2. Faith is expressed by looking: "Look unto me, and be ye saved,"
Isa.45:22;  "A man shall look to his Maker, and his eyes shall  have
respect  unto the Holy One of Israel," chap.17:7; "They  shall  look
upon  me  whom  they  have pierced," Zech.12:10. See  Ps.123:2.  The
nature  hereof is expressed, John 3:14,15, "As Moses lifted  up  the
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
that  whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal
life." For so was he to be lifted up on the cross in his death, John
8:28, chap.12:32. The story is recorded Numb.21:8,9. I suppose  none
doubt but that the stinging of the people by fiery serpents, and the
death  that ensued thereon, were types of the guilt of sin, and  the
sentence  of  the fiery law thereon; for these things happened  unto
them  in types, 1 Cor.10:11. When any was so stung or bitten, if  he
retook  himself unto any other remedies, he died and perished.  Only
they  that  looked unto the brazen serpent that was lifted  up  were
healed, and lived; for this was the ordinance of God,--this  way  of
healing alone had he appointed. And their healing was a type of  the
pardon  of  sin, with everlasting life. So by their looking  is  the
nature  of  faith expressed, as our Saviour plainly expounds  it  in
this  place:  "So must the Son of man be lifted up,  that  whosoever
believeth  in  him,"--that  is, as the Israelites  looked  unto  the
serpent in the wilderness,--["should not perish."] And although this
expression of the great mystery of the gospel by Christ himself  has
been by some derided, or, as they call it, exposed, yet is it really
as  instructive of the nature of faith, justification, and salvation
by  Christ, as any passage in the Scripture. Now, if faith,  whereby
we are justified, and in that exercise of it wherein we are so, be a
looking unto Christ, under a sense of the guilt of sin and our  lost
condition  thereby,  for  all, for our only  help  and  relief,  for
deliverance,  righteousness, and life, then is it therein  exclusive
of  all  other  graces and duties whatever; for by them  we  neither
look,  nor  are they the things which we look after. But so  is  the
nature  and exercise of faith expressed by the Holy Ghost; and  they
who do believe understand his mind. For whatever may be pretended of
metaphor  in  the expression, faith is that act of the soul  whereby
they  who are hopeless, helpless, and lost in themselves, do,  in  a
way  of expectancy and trust, seek for all help and relief in Christ
alone,  or  there  is  not truth in it. And this  also  sufficiently
evinces the nature of our justification by Christ.
   3.  It  is,  in like manner, frequently expressed by coming  unto
Christ:  "Come  unto me, all ye that labour," Matt.11:28.  See  John
6:35,37,45,65; 7:37. To come unto Christ for life and salvation,  is
to believe on him unto the justification of life; but no other grace
or duty is a coming unto Christ: and therefore have they no place in
justification.  He  who has been convinced  of  sin,  who  has  been
wearied  with the burden of it, who has really designed to fly  from
the  wrath to come, and has heard the voice of Christ in the  gospel
inviting  him  to come unto him for help and relief, will  tell  you
that  this  coming  unto Christ consists in a  man's  going  out  of
himself,  in  a  complete renunciation of all  his  own  duties  and
righteousness,  and  retaking  himself  with  all  his   trust   and
confidence unto Christ alone, and his righteousness, for  pardon  of
sin,   acceptation  with  God,  and  a  right  unto   the   heavenly
inheritance.  It  may be some will say this is  not  believing,  but
canting; be it so: we refer the judgment of it to the church of God.
  4. It is expressed by fleeing for refuge: Heb.6:18, "Who have fled
for  refuge, to lay hold on the hope set before us." See Prov.18:10.
Hence  some have defined faith to be "perfugium animae," the  flight
of  the  soul  unto Christ for deliverance from sin and misery.  And
much  light  is  given unto the understanding of the thing  intended
thereby.  For  herein  it  is  supposed  that  he  who  believes  is
antecedently thereunto convinced of his lost condition, and that  if
he  abide  therein he must perish eternally; that he has nothing  of
himself  whereby he may be delivered from it; that  he  must  retake
himself  unto  somewhat  else for relief;  that  unto  this  end  he
considers  Christ as set before him, and proposed unto  him  in  the
promise of the gospel; that he judges this to be a holy, a safe way,
for  his deliverance and acceptance with God, as that which has  the
characters of all divine excellencies upon it: hereon he flees  unto
it for refuge, that is, with diligence and speed, that he perish not
in  his present condition; he retakes himself unto it by placing his
whole  trust  and  affiance thereon. And the  whole  nature  of  our
justification  by  Christ  is  better  declared  hereby,  unto   the
supernatural  sense and experience of believers, than by  a  hundred
philosophical disputations about it.
   5.  The terms and notions by which it is expressed under the  Old
Testament  are,  leaning  on God, Mic.3:11; or  Christ,  Cant.8:5;--
rolling  or  casting ourselves and our burden on the Lord,  Ps.22:8,
[margin,]  37:5--(the wisdom of the Holy Ghost in which  expressions
has  by some been profanely derided);--resting on God, or in him,  2
Chron.14:11; Ps.37:7;--cleaving unto the Lord, Dent.4:4; Acts 11:23;
as also by trusting, hoping, and waiting, in places innumerable. And
it  may  be  observed,  that those who acted faith  as  it  is  thus
expressed,  do  everywhere declare themselves to be lost,  hopeless,
helpless, desolate, poor, orphans; whereon they place all their hope
and expectation on God alone.
   All  that  I  would infer from these things is,  that  the  faith
whereby  we  believe unto the justification of  life,  or  which  is
required of us in a way of duty that we may be justified, is such an
act of the whole soul whereby convinced sinners do wholly go out  of
themselves  to  rest  upon God in Christ for  mercy,  pardon,  life,
righteousness, and salvation, with an acquiescence of heart therein;
which is the whole of the truth pleaded for.




XVI.   The  truth  pleaded  farther  confirmed  by  testimonies   of
Scripture.--Jer.23:6


Testimonies of Scripture confirming the doctrine of justification by
the  imputation of the righteousness of Christ--Jer.23:6,  exp1sined
and indicated


That  which  we  now  proceed unto, is the  consideration  of  those
express  testimonies  of Scripture which are given  unto  the  truth
pleaded  for, and especially of those places where the  doctrine  of
the  justification  of sinners is expressly and designedly  handled.
From them it is that we must learn the truth, and into them must our
faith  be  resolved;  unto  whose  authority  all  the  arguing  and
objections  of  men must give place. By them is more light  conveyed
into  the  understandings  of believers than  by  the  most  subtile
disputations. And it is a thing not without scandal,  to  see  among
Protestants whole books written about justification, wherein  scarce
one  testimony of Scripture is produced, unless it be  to  find  out
evasions  from  the force of them. And, in particular,  whereas  the
apostle  Paul  has most fully and expressly (as he had the  greatest
occasion  so  to  do)  declared  and  vindicated  the  doctrine   of
evangelical justification, not a few, in what they write  about  it,
are so far from declaring their thoughts and faith concerning it out
of his writings, as that they begin to reflect upon them as obscure,
and  such  as give occasion unto dangerous mistakes; and unless,  as
was  said, to answer and except against them upon their own  corrupt
principles, seldom or never make mention of them; as though we  were
grown wiser than he, or that Spirit whereby he was inspired, guided,
acted in all that he wrote. But there can be nothing more alien from
the  genius  of  Christian religion, than for us  not  to  endeavour
humbly  to  learn  the mystery of the grace of God  herein,  in  the
declaration  of  it made by him. But the foundation  of  God  stands
sure,  what  course soever men shall be pleased to take  into  their
profession of religion.
   For  the  testimonies which I shall produce and  insist  upon,  I
desire the reader to observe,--1. That they are but some of the many
that  might  be pleaded unto the same purpose. 2. That  those  which
have been, or yet shall be alleged, on particular occasions, I shall
wholly  omit;  and such are most of them that are  given  unto  this
truth  in  the Old Testament. 3. That in the exposition  of  them  I
shall,  with what diligence I can, attend,--First, Unto the  analogy
of  faith;  that is, the manifest scope and design of the revelation
of  the mind and will of God in the Scripture. And that this  is  to
exalt  the  freedom  and  riches of his own  grace,  the  glory  and
excellency  of  Christ  and his mediation; to discover  the  woeful,
lost,  forlorn condition of man by sin; to debase and depress  every
thing  that  is  in  and  of ourselves, as to  the  attaining  life,
righteousness, and salvation; cannot be denied by any who have their
sense exercised in the Scriptures. Secondly, Unto the experience  of
them  that  do  believe, with the condition of them who  seek  after
justification by Jesus Christ. In other things I hope the best helps
and  rules  of  the  interpretation of the Scripture  shall  not  be
neglected.
   There  is weight in this case deservedly laid on the name of  the
Lord  Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as promised and given unto us,--
namely, "The LORD our Righteousness," Jer.23:6. As the name Jehovah,
being  given  and  ascribed unto him, is a full  indication  of  his
divine  person;  so  the  addition of his being  our  righteousness,
sufficiently   declares  that  in  and  by   him   alone   we   have
righteousness,  or  are  made  righteous.  So  was   he   typed   by
Melchizedek, as first the "King of righteousness," then the "king of
peace,"  Heb.7:2; for by his righteousness alone have we peace  with
God. Some of the Socinians would evade this testimony, by observing,
that  righteousness  in  the Old Testament is  urged  sometimes  for
benignity, kindness, and mercy; and so they suppose it may be  here.
But  the  most  of  them, avoiding the palpable  absurdity  of  this
imagination,  refer to the righteousness of God in  the  deliverance
and vindication of his people. So Brenius briefly, "Ita vocatur quia
Dominus  per  manum ejus judicium et justitiam faciet Israeli".  But
these  are  evasions  of bold men, who care not,  so  they  may  say
somewhat, whether what they say be agreeable to the analogy of faith
or  the plain words of the Scripture. Bellarmine, who was more  wary
to give some appearance of truth unto his answers, first gives other
reasons  why  he is called "The LORD our Righteousness;"  and  then,
whether  unawares  or overpowered by the evidence of  truth,  grants
that  sense  of the words which contains the whole of the  cause  we
plead  for.  "Christ,"  he  says,  "may  be  called  'The  LORD  our
Righteousness,'   because  he  is  the  efficient   cause   of   our
righteousness;"--as God is said to be our "strength and  salvation."
Again, "Christ is said to be our righteousness, as he is our wisdom,
our redemption, and our peace; because he has redeemed us, and makes
us  wise  and  righteous, and reconciles us  unto  God."  And  other
reasons of the same nature are added by others. But not trusting  to
these  expositions of the words, he adds, "Deinde  dicitur  Christus
justitia  nostra,  quoniam  satisfecit  patri  pro  nobis,  et   eam
satisfactionem ita nobis donat et communicat, cum nos justificat, ut
nostra  satisfactio  et justitia dici possit". And  afterward,  "Hoc
modo  non  esset  absurdum, si quis diceret nobis  imputari  Christi
justitiam  et merita, cum nobis donantur et applicantur, ad  si  nos
ipsi Deo stisfecissimus", De Justificat., lib.2 cap.10;--"Christ  is
said to be our righteousness because he has made satisfaction for us
to  the  Father; and does so give and communicate that  satisfaction
unto  us  when  he  justifies us, that it may  be  said  to  be  our
satisfaction  and righteousness. And in this sense it would  not  be
absurd  if  any one should say that the righteousness of Christ  and
his  merits  are imputed unto us, as if we ourselves  had  satisfied
God."   In  this  sense  we  say  that  Christ  is  "The  LORD   our
Righteousness;" nor is there any thing of importance  in  the  whole
doctrine of justification that we own, which is not here granted  by
the  cardinal, and that in terms which some among ourselves  scruple
at  and  oppose. I shall therefore look a little farther  into  this
testimony,  which has wrested so eminent a confession of  the  truth
from  so great an adversary. "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD,
that I will raise up unto David a righteous Branch; ... and this  is
his  name  whereby he shall be called, The LORD our  Righteousness,"
Jer.23:5,6.  It  is  confessed among  Christians  that  this  is  an
illustrious   renovation  of  the  first  promise   concerning   the
incarnation  of  the  Son  of God, and our salvation  by  him.  This
promise was first given when we had lost our original righteousness,
and  were considered only as those who had sinned and come short  of
the  glory  of  God. In this estate a righteousness  was  absolutely
necessary, that we might be again accepted with God; for  without  a
righteousness,  yea, that which is perfect and  complete,  we  never
were  so, nor ever can be so. In this estate it is promised that  he
shall be our "righteousness;" or, as the apostle expresses it,  "the
end  of the law for righteousness to them that do believe." That  he
is so, there can be no question; the whole inquiry is, how he is so?
This  [is, say the most sober and modest of our adversaries, because
he  is  the  efficient cause of our righteousness; that is,  of  our
personal,  inherent  righteousness. But this  righteousness  may  be
considered either in itself, as it is an effect of God's grace,  and
so  it is good and holy, although it be not perfect and complete; or
it may be considered as it is ours, inherent in us, accompanied with
the  remaining defilements of our nature. In that respect,  as  this
righteousness  is ours, the prophet affirms that, in  the  sight  of
God,  "we  are  all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses
are  as filthy rags" Isa.64:6. "Kol tsidkoteinu" comprises our whole
personal,  inherent righteousness; and the Lord Christ  cannot  from
hence    be    deminated   "Yehovah   Tsidkenu",--"The   LORD    our
Righteousness," seeing it is all as filthy rags. It  must  therefore
be  a  righteousness  of another sort whence  this  denomination  is
taken,  and on the account whereof this name is given him: wherefore
he  is our righteousness, as all our righteousnesses are in him.  So
the  church, which confesses all her own righteousnesses  to  be  as
filthy  rags, says, "In the LORD have I righteousness,"  chap.45:24,
(which  is  expounded  of Christ by the apostle,  Rom.14:11;)  "'ach
bayhovah  li  tsdakot",--"Only in the LORD are my  righteousnesses:"
which two places the apostle expresses, Phil.3:8,9, "That I may  win
Christ,  and  be  found in him, not having mine  own  righteousness,
which  is of the law" (in this case as filthy rags, "but that  which
is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by
faith." Hence it is added, "In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel
be  justified," Isa.45:25,--namely, because he is, in what he is, in
what he was, and did, as given unto and for us, "our righteousness,"
and  our righteousness is all in him; which totally excludes our own
personal,   inherent  righteousness  from  any   interest   in   our
justification,  and  ascribes it wholly unto  the  righteousness  of
Christ.  And thus is that emphatical expression of the psalmist,  "I
will  go in the strength of the Lord GOD" (for as unto holiness  and
obedience,  all  our spiritual strength is from him alone);  "and  I
will  make  mention"  "tsidkotcha  levadecha",  Ps.71:16,  "of   thy
righteousness, of thine only." The redoubling of the affix  excludes
all  confidence  and trusting in any thing but the righteousness  of
God  alone. For this the apostle affirms to be the design of God  in
making  Christ to be righteousness unto us,--namely, "that no  flesh
should  glory  in  his presence; but that he that  glorieth,  should
glory  in the Lord," 1 Cor.1:29,31. For it is by faith alone  making
mention, as unto our justification, of the righteousness of God,  of
his  righteousness only, that excludes all boasting, Rom.3:27.  And,
besides  what  shall be farther pleaded from particular testimonies,
the  Scripture  does  eminently declare how  he  is  "The  LORD  our
Righteousness,"--namely,  in  that he  "makes  an  end  of  sin  and
reconciliation    for   iniquity,   and   brings   in    everlasting
righteousness,"  Dan.9:24. For by these things is our  justification
completed,--namely, in satisfaction made for sin, the pardon  of  it
in  our  reconciliation  unto  God, and  the  providing  for  us  an
everlasting   righteousness.  Therefore  is   he   "The   LORD   our
Righteousness," and so rightly called. Wherefore, seeing we had lost
original righteousness, and had none of our own remaining, and stood
in  need  of  a  perfect,  complete  righteousness  to  procure  our
acceptance with God, and such a one as might exclude all occasion of
boasting of any thing in ourselves, the Lord Christ being given  and
made  unto us "The LORD our Righteousness," in whom we have all  our
righteousness (our own, as it is ours, being as filthy rags  in  the
sight  of God); and this by making an end of sin, and reconciliation
for  iniquity, and bringing in everlasting righteousness: it  is  by
his  righteousness, by his only, that we are justified in the  sight
of  God, and do glory. This is the substance of what in this case we
plead  for; and thus it is delivered in Scripture, in a way bringing
more  light  and  spiritual sense into the minds of  believers  than
those   philosophical  expressions  and  distinctions  which   vaunt
themselves with a pretence of propriety and accuracy.



XVII. Testimonies out of the evangelists considered


Testimonies  out  of  the  evangelists  considered--Design  of   our
Saviour's  sermon on the mount--The purity and penalty  of  the  law
vindicated by him--Arguments from thence--Luke 18:9-14, the  parable
of  the  Pharisee and publican explained and applied to the  present
argument--Testimonies out of the gospel by John, chap.  1:12;  3:14-
18, etc.


The  reasons why the doctrine of justification by the imputation  of
the  righteousness of Christ is more fully and clearly delivered  in
the  following writings of the New Testament than it is in those  of
the  evangelists,  who wrote the history of the life  and  death  of
Christ,  have  been  before declared; but yet in  them  also  it  is
sufficiently  attested, as unto the state of the church  before  the
death and resurrection of Christ, which is represented in them. Some
few  of  the  many  testimonies which may be pleaded  out  of  their
writings unto that purpose I shall consider, first,--
   The  principal design of our blessed Saviour's sermon, especially
that  part of it which is recorded, Matt.5, is to declare  the  true
nature of righteousness before God. The scribes and Pharisees,  from
a  bondage  unto  whose  doctrines  he  designed  to  vindicate  the
consciences  of  those that heard him, placed all our  righteousness
before  God  in  the  works  of  the law,  or  men's  own  obedience
thereunto.  This they taught the people, and hereon  they  justified
themselves,  as  he  charges them, Luke 16:15, "Ye  are  they  which
justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts, for that
which  is  highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight  of
God,"--as in this sermon he makes it evident; and all those who were
under  their conduct did seek to "establish their own righteousness,
as  it  were by the works of the law," Rom.9:32; 10:3. But yet  were
they  convinced in their own consciences that they could not  attain
unto  the law of righteousness, or unto that perfection of obedience
which  the  law did require. Yet would they not forego their  proud,
fond  imagination of justification by their own righteousness;  but,
as  the  manner  of  all men is in the same case, sought  out  other
inventions to relieve them against their convictions; for unto  this
end  they  corrupted  the  whole law  by  their  false  glosses  and
interpretations, to bring down and debase the sense of it, unto what
they  boasted  in  themselves to perform. So does  he  in  whom  our
Saviour gives an instance of the principle and practice of the whole
society,  by way of a parable, Luke 18:11,12; and so the  young  man
affirmed that he had kept the whole law from his youth,--namely,  in
their sense, Matt.19:20.
   To  root this pernicious error out of the church, our Lord  Jesus
Christ  in  many  instances  gives the  true,  spiritual  sense  and
intention  of the law, manifesting what the righteousness  is  which
the  law requires, and on what terms a man may be justified thereby.
And among sundry others to the same purpose, two things he evidently
declares:--1.  That the law, in its precepts and  prohibitions,  had
regard  unto the regulation of the heart, with all its first motions
and  acting; for he asserts that the inmost thoughts of  the  heart,
and the first motions of concupiscence therein, though not consented
unto,  much less actually accomplished in the outward deeds of  sin,
and  all the occasions leading unto them, are directly forbidden  in
the  law.  This  he  does  in  his holy exposition  of  the  seventh
commandment, chap.5:27-30. 2. He declares the penalty of the law  on
the least sin to be hellfire, in his assertion of causeless anger to
be  forbidden  in  the  sixth commandment.  If  men  would  but  try
themselves by these rules, and others there given by our Saviour, it
would,  it  may  be,  take  them off  from  boasting  in  their  own
righteousness and justification thereby. But as it was then,  so  is
it  now also; the most of them who would maintain a justification by
works,  do  attempt to corrupt the sense of the law, and accommodate
it   unto  their  own  practice.  The  reader  may  see  an  eminent
demonstration hereof in a late excellent treatise, whose  title  is,
"The  Practical Divinity of the Papists Discovered to be Destructive
of  Christianity and men's Souls." The spirituality of the law, with
the  severity of its sanction, extending itself unto the  least  and
most imperceptible motions of sin in the heart, are not believed, or
not  aright considered, by them who plead for justification by works
in  any sense. Wherefore, the principal design of the sermon of  our
Saviour is, as to declare what is the nature of that obedience which
God requires by the law, so to prepare the minds of his disciples to
seek  after another righteousness, which, in the cause and means  of
it, was not yet plainly to be declared, although many of them, being
prepared by the ministry of John, did hunger and thirst after it.
   But he sufficiently intimates wherein it did consist, in that  he
affirms of himself that he "came to fulfill the law," verse 17. What
he  came for, that he was sent for; for as he was sent, and not  for
himself, "he was born to us, given unto us". This was to fulfill the
law,  that so the righteousness of it might be fulfilled in us.  And
if  we ourselves cannot fulfill the law, in the proper sense of  its
commands (which yet is not to be abolished but established,  as  our
Saviour  declares); if we cannot avoid the curse and penalty  of  it
upon  its  transgression; and if he came to fulfill it for  us  (all
which  are  declared  by himself);--then is his righteousness,  even
that]   which  he  wrought  for  us  in  fulfilling  the  law,   the
righteousness  wherewith we are justified before  God.  And  whereas
here  is  a  twofold  righteousness proposed  unto  us--one  in  the
fulfilling  of  the  law by Christ; the other  in  our  own  perfect
obedience  unto the law, as the sense of it is by him declared;  and
other  middle righteousness between them there is none,--it is  left
unto the consciences of convinced sinners whether of these they will
adhere  and trust unto; and their direction herein is the  principal
design we ought to have in the declaration of this doctrine.

   I  shall pass by all those places wherein the foundations of this
doctrine  are surely laid, because it is not expressly mentioned  in
them;  but  such  they  are as, in their proper  interpretation,  do
necessarily  infer it. Of this kind are they all  wherein  the  Lord
Christ is said to die for us or in our stead, to lay down his life a
ransom  for us or in our stead, and the like; but I shall pass  them
by, because I will not digress at all from the present argument.
   But the representation made by our Saviour himself of the way and
means  whereon and whereby men come to be justified before  God,  in
the  parable of the Pharisee and the publican, is a guide  unto  all
men  who have the same design with them. Luke 18:9-14: "And he spake
this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were
righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the  temple  to
pray;  the  one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.  The  Pharisee
stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not
as  other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this
publican.  I  fast twice in the week, I give tithes of  all  that  I
possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift  up  so
much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God
be  merciful unto me, a sinner. I tell you, that this man went  down
unto  his house justified rather than the other: for every one  that
exalteth  himself  shall  be abased; and  every  one  that  humbleth
himself shall be exalted."
   That the design of our Saviour herein was to represent the way of
our  justification before God is evident,--1. From  the  description
given  of the persons whom he reflected on, verse 9. They were  such
as  "trusted in themselves that they were righteous;" or  that  they
had  a  personal righteousness of their own before God. 2. From  the
general  rule  wherewith  he  confirms the  judgment  he  had  given
concerning  the persons described: "Every one that exalteth  himself
shall  be  abased; and he that humbleth himself shall  be  exalted,"
verse 14. As this is applied unto the Pharisee, and the prayer  that
is ascribed unto him, it declares plainly that every plea of our own
works,   as   unto   our  justification  before   God,   under   any
consideration,  is  a self-exaltation which God  despises;  and,  as
applied  unto  the  publican,  that a  sense  of  sin  is  the  only
preparation  on  our  part for acceptance  with  him  on  believing.
Wherefore,  both  the  persons  are represented  as  seeking  to  be
justified;  for so our Saviour expresses the issue of their  address
unto God for that purpose: the one was justified, the other was not.
   The plea of the Pharisee unto this end consists of two parts:--1.
That  he  had fulfilled the condition whereon he might be justified.
He makes no mention of any merit, either of congruity or condignity.
Only,  whereas there were two parts of God's covenant then with  the
church,  the one with respect unto the moral, the other with respect
unto  the ceremonial law, he pleads the observation of the condition
of it in both parts, which he shows in instances of both kinds: only
he  adds  the  way  that he took to farther him in  this  obedience,
somewhat beyond what was enjoined,--namely, that he fasted twice  in
the  week;  for  when  men  begin  to  seek  for  righteousness  and
justification by works, they quickly think their best  reserve  lies
in  doing  something extraordinary, more than other men,  and  more,
indeed,  than  is  required  of them. This  brought  forth  all  the
pharisaical austerities in the Papacy. Nor can it be said  that  all
this  signified nothing, because he was a hypocrite and  a  boaster;
for  it will be replied that it should seem all are so who seek  for
justification  by  works; for our Saviour only represents  one  that
does   so.  Neither  are  these  things  laid  in  by  against   his
justification, but only that he "exalted himself" in "trusting  unto
his  own righteousness." 2. In an ascription of all that he did unto
God: "God, I thank thee." Although he did all this, yet he owned the
aid  and  assistance  of God by his grace in  it  all.  He  esteemed
himself  much  to differ from other men; but ascribed  it  not  unto
himself that so he did. All the righteousness and holiness which  he
laid claim unto, he ascribed unto the benignity and goodness of God.
Wherefore, he neither pleaded any merit in his works, nor any  works
performed in his own strength, without the aid of grace. All that he
pretends is, that by the grace of God he had fulfilled the condition
of  the covenant; and thereon expected to be justified. And whatever
words  men  shall be pleased to make use of in their vocal  prayers,
God  interprets their minds according to what they trust in, as unto
their  justification before him. And if some men will be  true  unto
their  own principles, this is the prayer which, "mutates mutandis,"
they ought to make.
   If  it  be  said,  that it is charged on this  Pharisee  that  he
"trusted  in  himself,"  and "despised others,"  for  which  he  was
rejected;  I answer, --1. This charge respects not the mind  of  the
person,  but the genius and tendency of the opinion. The  persuasion
of  justification by works includes in it a contempt of  other  men;
for  "if  Abraham  had been justified by works, he should  have  had
whereof  to  glory." 2. Those whom he despised were such  as  placed
their whole trust in grace and mercy,--as this publican. It were  to
be wished that all others of the same mind did not so also.
  The issue is, with this person, that he was not justified; neither
shall  any  one  ever  be  so on the account  of  his  own  personal
righteousness. For our Saviour has told us, that when we  have  done
all (that is, when we have the testimony of our consciences unto the
integrity  of  our  obedience), instead  of  pleading  it  unto  our
justification,  we  should say (that is, really judge  and  profess)
that  we  are  "douloi  achreioi",--" unprofitable  servants,"  Luke
17:10:  as the apostle speaks, "I know nothing by myself; yet  am  I
not  hereby justified," 1 Cor.4:4. And he that is "doulos achreios",
and  has nothing to trust unto but his service, will be cast out  of
the  presence  of  God, Matt.25:30. Wherefore, on the  best  of  our
obedience,  to  confess ourselves "douloi achreioi", is  to  confess
that,  after  all, in ourselves, we deserve to be cast  out  of  the
presence of God.
   In  opposition  hereunto, the state and prayer of  the  publican,
under  the  same  design of seeking justification  before  God,  are
expressed.  And  the outward acts of his person  are  mentioned,  as
representing  and expressive of the inward frame of  his  mind:  "He
stood  afar  off,"  and "did not so much as lift up  his  eyes;"  he
"smote  upon his breast." All of them represent a person desponding,
yea,  despairing in himself. This is the nature, this is the effect,
of   that  conviction  of  sin  which  we  before  asserted  to   be
antecedently  necessary  unto  justification.  Displicency,  sorrow,
sense  of danger, fear of wrath,--all are present with him. In brief
he declares himself guilty before God, and his mouth stopped as unto
any  apology  or excuse. And his prayer is a sincere application  of
his  soul unto sovereign grace and mercy, for a deliverance  out  of
the  condition wherein he was by reason of the guilt of sin. And  in
the  use  of  the word; "hilaskomai", there is respect  had  unto  a
propitiation.  In  the whole of his address there is  contained,--1.
Self-condemnation and abhorrence. 2. Displicency and sorrow for sin.
3.  A  universal  renunciation of all  works  of  his  own,  as  any
condition  of his justification. 4. An acknowledgment  of  his  sin,
guilt,  and  misery. And this is all that, on our part, is  required
unto justification before God, excepting that faith whereby we apply
ourselves unto him for deliverance.
   Some  make  a weak attempt from hence to prove that justification
consists  wholly in the remission of sin, because, on the prayer  of
the publican for mercy and pardon, he is said to be "justified:" but
there  is  no force in this argument; for,--1. The whole  nature  of
justification is not here declared, but only what is required on our
part  whereunto. The respect of it unto the mediation of Christ  was
not  yet expressly to be brought to light; as was showed before.  2.
Although the publican makes his address unto God under a deep  sense
of  the  guilt of sin, yet he prays not for the bare pardon of  sin,
but  for  all  that  sovereign mercy or grace God has  provided  for
sinners. 3. The term of justification must have the same sense  when
applied unto the Pharisee as when applied unto the publican; and  if
the  meaning  of it with respect unto the publican be, that  he  was
pardoned, then has it the same sense with respect unto the Pharisee,-
-he  was not pardoned. But he came on no such errand. He came to  be
justified, not pardoned; nor does he make the least mention  of  his
sin,  or any sense of it. Wherefore, although the pardon of  sin  be
included  in  justification,  yet to justify,  in  this  place,  has
respect  unto  a  righteousness whereon a man is declared  just  and
righteous; wrapped up, on the part of the publican, in the sovereign
producing cause,--the mercy of God.

   Some few testimonies may be added out of the other evangelist, in
whom they abound: "As many as received him, to them gave he power to
become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name," John
1:12.  Faith is expressed by the receiving of Christ; for to receive
him,  and to believe on his name, are the same. It receives  him  as
set  forth  of  God  to  be a propitiation for  sin,  as  the  great
ordinance  of  God for the recovery and salvation of  lost  sinners.
Wherefore, this notion of faith includes in it,--l. A supposition of
the proposal and tender of Christ unto us, for some end and purpose.
2.  That this proposal is made unto us in the promise of the gospel.
Hence,  as we are said to recede Christ, we are said to receive  the
promise  also. 3. The end for which the Lord Christ is  so  proposed
unto us in the promise of the gospel; and this is the same with that
for  which  he  was  so proposed in the first promise,--namely,  the
recovery and salvation of lost sinners. 4. That in the tender of his
person,  there is a tender made of all the fruits of his  mediation,
as  containing  the way and means of our deliverance  from  sin  and
acceptance with God. 5. There is nothing required on our  part  unto
an  interest in the end proposed, but receiving of him, or believing
on   his   name.  6.  Hereby  are  we  entitled  unto  the  heavenly
inheritance;  we have power to become the sons of God,  wherein  our
adoption   is  asserted,  and  justification  included.  What   this
receiving  of  Christ  is, and wherein it  does  consist,  has  been
declared before, in the consideration of that faith whereby  we  are
justified.  That  which hence we argue is, that  there  is  no  more
required  unto the obtaining of a right and title unto the  heavenly
inheritance, but faith alone in the name of Christ, the receiving of
Christ as the ordinance of God for justification and salvation. This
gives  us,  I  say, our original right thereunto,  and  therein  our
acceptance  with  God, which is our justification;  though  more  be
required  unto the actual acquisition and possession of  it.  It  is
said,  indeed, that other graces and works are not excluded,  though
faith  alone be expressed. But every thing which is not a  receiving
of  Christ is excluded. It is, I say, virtually excluded, because it
is  not  of the nature of that which is required. When we  speak  of
that whereby we see, we exclude no other member from being a part of
the body; but we exclude all but the eye from the act of seeing. And
if  faith  be required, as it is a receiving of Christ, every  grace
and  duty  which  is  not  so  is  excluded,  as  unto  the  end  of
justification.
   Chap.3:14-18,  "And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the
wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.  For  God
so  loved  the  world,  that he gave his  only  begotten  Son,  that
whosoever  believeth in him should not perish, but have  everlasting
life.  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world;
but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth  on
him  is  not  condemned;  but  he that believeth  not  is  condemned
already,  because  he  has not believed in  the  name  of  the  only
begotten Son of God."
   I  shall  observe only a few things from these  words,  which  in
themselves  convey a better light of understanding in  this  mystery
unto  the  minds  of  believers than many long  discourses  of  some
learned men:--1. It is of the justification of men, and their  right
to  eternal life thereon, that our Saviour discourses. This is plain
in verse 18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that
believeth not is condemned already." 2. The means of attaining  this
condition  or state on our part is believing only, as  it  is  three
times  positively asserted, without any addition. 3. The  nature  of
this  faith  is  declared,--(1.) By  its  object,--that  is,  Christ
himself,  the  Son of God, "Whosoever believeth in  him;"  which  is
frequently repeated. (2.) The especial consideration wherein  he  is
the  object of faith unto the justification of life; and that is  as
he is the ordinance of God, given, sent, and proposed, from the love
and  grace  of the Father: "God so loved the world, that  he  gave;"
"God  sent his Son." (3.) The especial act yet included in the type,
whereby  the design of God in him is illustrated; for this  was  the
looking unto the brazen serpent lifted up in the wilderness by  them
who  were  stung with fiery serpents. Hereunto our faith  in  Christ
unto  justification does answer, and includes a trust in  him  alone
for  deliverance  and relief. This is the way, these  are  the  only
causes and means, of the justification of condemned sinners, and are
the substance of all that we plead for.
   It  will be said, that all this proves not the imputation of  the
righteousness  of  Christ unto us, which is  the  thing  principally
inquired  after;  but  if  nothing be  required  on  our  part  unto
justification but faith acted on Christ, as the ordinance of God for
our recovery and salvation, it is the whole of what we plead for.  A
justification   by   the  remission  of  sins   alone,   without   a
righteousness  giving  acceptance with God  and  a  right  unto  the
heavenly  inheritance, is alien unto the Scripture  and  the  common
notion  of  justification amongst men. And what  this  righteousness
must  be, upon a supposition that faith only on our part is required
unto  a  participation of it, is sufficiently declared in the  words
wherein  Christ himself is so often asserted as the  object  of  our
faith unto that purpose.
   Not to add more particular testimonies, which are multiplied unto
the  same  purpose  in  this evangelist, the  sum  of  the  doctrine
declared by him is, "That the Lord Jesus Christ was 'the Lamb of God
which  taketh away the sin of the world;' that is, by the  sacrifice
of  himself,  wherein  he  answered and fulfilled  all  the  typical
sacrifices  of  the  law: that unto this end he sanctified  himself,
that those who believe might be sanctified, or perfected forever, by
his  own  offering of himself: that in the gospel he is proposed  as
lifted up and crucified for us, as bearing all our sins in his  body
on  the  tree: that by faith in him we have adoption, justification,
freedom from judgment and condemnation, with a right and title  unto
eternal  life:  that  those who believe not are  condemned  already,
because  they  believe not on the Son of God; and, as  he  elsewhere
expresseth  it,  'make  God a liar,' in that they  believe  not  his
testimony, namely, that 'he has given unto us eternal life, and that
this life is in his Son."' Nor does he anywhere make mention of  any
other  means, cause, or condition of justification on our  part  but
faith  only, though he abounds in precepts unto believers for  love,
and  keeping the commands of Christ. And this faith is the receiving
of  Christ in the sense newly declared; and this is the substance of
the Christian faith in this matter; which ofttimes we rather obscure
than  illustrate, by debating the consideration of any thing in  our
justification  but  the  grace  and love  of  God,  the  person  and
mediation of Christ, with faith in them.




XVIII.  The  nature of justification as declared in the epistles  of
St.  Paul,  in that unto the Romans especially.--Chap. 3 [4,5,10;  1
Cor.1:30; 2 Cor.5:21; Gal.2:16; Eph.2:8-10; Phil.3:8,9.]


Testimonies out of the Epistles of Paul the apostle--His  design  in
the fifth chapter to the Romans--That design explained at large, and
applied  to  the present argument--Chap.3:24-26 explained,  and  the
true  sense  of  the words vindicated--The causes  of  justification
enumerated--Apostolical inference from the consideration  of  them--
Chap.4, design of the disputation of the apostle therein Analysis of
his  discourse--Verses 4, 5, particularly insisted  on;  their  true
sense  vindicated--What  works excluded from  the  justification  of
Abraham--Who  it  is that works not--In what sense the  ungodly  are
justified--All  men ungodly antecedently unto their  justification--
Faith  alone  the means of justification on our part--Faith  itself,
absolutely considered, not the righteousness that is imputed unto us-
-Proved by sundry arguments


Rom.5:l2-21--Boasting excluded in ourselves,  asserted  in  God--The
design  and  sum  of  the apostle's argument--Objection  of  Socinus
removed--Comparison  between the two Adams, and  those  that  derive
from  them--Sin  entered into the world--What  sin  intended--Death,
what  it  comprises, what intended by it--The sense of these  words,
"inasmuch,"  or, "in whom all have sinned," cleared and vindicated--
The  various  oppositions  used by the apostle  in  this  discourse:
principally between sin or the fall, and the free gift; between  the
disobedience of the one, and the obedience of another;  judgment  on
the  one  hand, and justification unto life on the other--The  whole
context  at  large explained, and the argument for justification  by
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, fully confirmed


Rom.10:3,4, explained and insisted on to the same purpose

1 Cor.1:30--Christ, how of God made righteousness unto us--Answer of
Bellarmine  unto this testimony removed--That of Socinus disproved--
True sense of the words evinced

2  Cor.5:21--In  what  sense Christ knew no  sin--Emphasis  in  that
expression--How  he was made sin for us--By the  imputation  of  sin
unto  him--Mistakes  of  some about this  expression--Sense  of  the
ancients--Exception of Bellarmine unto this testimony answered, with
other  reasonings  of  his  to the same purpose--The  exceptions  of
others also removed

Gal.2:16

Eph.2:8-10--Evidence of this testimony--Design of the  apostle  from
the   beginning  of  the  chapter--Method  of  the  apostle  in  the
declaration  of  the  grace  of  God--Grace  alone  the   cause   of
deliverance  from  a  state of sin--Things to  be  observed  in  the
assignation  of  the  causes of spiritual  deliverances--Grace,  how
magnified  by him--Force of the argument and evidence from  thence--
State   of   the   case   here  proposed  by  the   apostle--General
determination  of  it, "By grace are ye saved"--What  is  it  to  be
saved,  inquired  into--The  same  as  to  be  justified,  but   not
exclusively--The causes of our justification declared positively and
negatively--The whole secured unto the grace of God by  Christ,  and
our  interest  therein  through  faith  alone--Works  excluded--What
works?--Not  works  of the law of Moses--Not works  antecedent  unto
believing--Works  of true believers--Not only in opposition  to  the
grace  of God, but to faith in us--Argument from those words--Reason
whereon  this exclusion of works is founded--To exclude boasting  on
our   part--Boasting,  wherein  it  consists--Inseparable  from  the
interest  of  works in justification--Danger of it--Confirmation  of
this reason, obviating an objection--The objection stated--If we  be
not justified by works, of what use are they? answered

Phil.3:8,9--Heads  of  argument from this testimony--Design  of  the
context--Righteousness  the foundation  of  acceptance  with  God--A
twofold  righteousness considered by the apostle--Opposite unto  one
another, as unto the especial and inquired after--Which of these  he
adhered  unto, his own righteousness, or the righteousness  of  God;
declared  by  the apostle with vehemency of speech--Reasons  of  his
earnestness  herein--The turning point whereon he left  Judaism--The
opposition  made unto this doctrine by the Jews--The weight  of  the
doctrine, and unwillingness of men to receive it--His own  sense  of
sin  and  grace--Peculiar expressions used in this  place,  for  the
reasons mentioned, concerning Christ; concerning all things that are
our  own--The choice to be made on the case stated, whether we  will
adhere  unto our own righteousness, or that of Christ's,  which  are
inconsistent  as  to  the end of justification--Argument  from  this
place--Exceptions  unto this testimony, and  argument  from  thence,
removed--Our personal righteousness inherent, the same with  respect
unto  the  law and gospel --External righteousness only required  by
the  law,  an impious imagination--Works wrought before  faith  only
rejected--The  exception removed--Righteousness  before  conversion,
not intended by the apostle


That  the  way and manner of our justification before God, with  all
the  causes and means of it, are designedly declared by the  apostle
in  the  Epistle to the Romans, chap.3,4,5, as also vindicated  from
objections, so as to render his discourse thereon the proper seat of
this  doctrine,  and whence it is principally to be learned,  cannot
modestly  be denied. The late exceptions of some, that this doctrine
of  justification  by  faith without works  is  found  only  in  the
writings  of  St.  Paul,  and  that his  writings  are  obscure  and
intricate,  are both false and scandalous to Christian religion,  so
as  that,  in  this  place,  we shall  not  afford  them  the  least
consideration.  He  wrote "hupo Pneumatos hagiou feromenos",--as  he
was  "moved  by the Holy Ghost." And as all the matter delivered  by
him  was  sacred  truth, which immediately requires  our  faith  and
obedience, so the way and manner wherein he declared it was such  as
the  Holy  Ghost  judged most expedient for the edification  of  the
church.  And as he said himself with confidence, that if the  gospel
which  he  preached, and as it was preached by him, though accounted
by  them  foolishness, was hid, so as that they could not understand
nor  comprehend the mystery of it, it was "hid unto  them  that  are
lost;"  so  we  may  say,  that if what he  delivers  in  particular
concerning our justification before God seems obscure, difficult, or
perplexed unto us, it is from our prejudices, corrupt affections, or
weakness of understanding at best, not able to comprehend the  glory
of  this  mystery of the grace of God in Christ, and  not  from  any
defect  in  his  way and manner of the revelation of it.  Rejecting,
therefore, all such perverse insinuations, in a due sense of our own
weakness,  and acknowledgment that at best we know but in  part,  we
shall  humbly  inquire  into the blessed revelation  of  this  great
mystery  of  the  justification of a sinner before God,  as  by  him
declared  in  those chapters of his glorious Epistle to the  Romans;
and  I  shall do it with all briefness possible, so as not, on  this
occasion,  to repeat what has been already spoken, or to  anticipate
what may be spoken in place more convenient.
   The first thing he does is to prove all men to be under sin,  and
to  be  guilty  before God. This he gives as the conclusion  of  his
preceding  discourse,  from chap.1:18,  or  what  he  had  evidently
evinced thereby, chap.3:19,23. Hereon an inquiry does arise, how any
of  them  come to be justified before God? And whereas justification
is  a  sentence upon the consideration of a righteousness, his grand
inquiry is, what that righteousness is, on the consideration whereof
a man may be so justified? And concerning this, he affirms expressly
that it is not the righteousness of the law, nor of the works of it;
whereby  what  he does intend has been in part before declared,  and
will  be  farther  manifested  in  the  process  of  our  discourse.
Wherefore, in general, he declares that the righteousness whereby we
are  justified is the righteousness of God, in opposition  unto  any
righteousness of our own, chap.1:17; 3:21,22. And he describes  this
righteousness  of God by three properties:--1. That  it  is  "choris
nomou",--"without the law," verse 21; separated in all its  concerns
from  the law; not attainable by it, nor any works of it, which they
have  no  influence into. It is neither our obedience unto the  law,
nor  attainable  thereby. Nor can any expression more  separate  and
exclude the works of obedience unto the law from any concernment  in
it  than this does. Wherefore, whatever is, or can be, performed  by
ourselves  in obedience unto the law, is rejected from any  interest
in  this  righteousness of God, or the procurement of it to be  made
ours. 2. That yet it "is witnessed unto by the law," verse 21:  "The
law and the prophets."
  The apostle, by this distinction of the books of the Old Testament
into  "the  law and the prophets," manifests that by  the  "law"  he
understands the books of Moses. And in them testimony is given  unto
this righteousness of God four ways:--
   (1.)  By a declaration of the causes of the necessity of it  unto
our justification. This is done in the account given of our apostasy
from God, of the loss of his image, and the state of sin that ensued
thereon; for hereby an end was put unto all possibility and hope  of
acceptance  with  God  by  our own personal  righteousness.  By  the
entrance of sin our own righteousness went out of the world; so that
there  must be another righteousness prepared and approved  of  God,
and  called "the righteousness of God," in opposition unto our  own,
or  all  relation of love and favour between God and man must  cease
forever.
  (2.) In the way of recovery from this state, generally declared in
the first promise of the blessed seed, by whom this righteousness of
God  was to be wrought and introduced; for he alone was "to make  an
end  of  sin,  and  to bring in everlasting righteousness,"  "tsedek
'olamim",  Dan.9:24; that righteousness of God that  should  be  the
means of the justification of the church in all ages, and under  all
dispensations.
   (3.) By stopping up the way unto any other righteousness, through
the threatening of the law, and that curse which every transgression
of  it was attended withal. Hereby it was plainly and fully declared
that   there  must  be  such  a  righteousness  provided   for   our
justification before men as would answer and remove that curse.
   (4.) In the prefiguration and representation of that only way and
means  whereby this righteousness of God was to be wrought. This  it
did  in  all  its  sacrifices, especially in the  great  anniversary
sacrifice  on  the day of expiation, wherein all  the  sins  of  the
church were laid on the head of the sacrifice, and so carried away.
  3. He describes it by the only way of our participation of it, the
only  means on our part of the communication of it unto us. And this
is  by  faith alone: "The righteousness of God which is by the faith
of  Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for  there
is  no  difference," Rom.3:22. Faith in Christ Jesus is so the  only
way and means whereby this righteousness of God comes upon us, or is
communicated unto us, that it is so unto all that have  this  faith,
and only unto them; and that without difference on the consideration
of any thing else besides. And although faith, taken absolutely, may
be  used in various senses, yet, as thus specified and limited,  the
faith  of  Christ Jesus, or, as he calls it, "the faith that  is  in
me," Acts 26:18, it can intend nothing but the reception of him, and
trust  in  him,  as  the  ordinance of  God  for  righteousness  and
salvation.
   This  description  of the righteousness of God  revealed  in  the
gospel, which the apostle asserts as the only means and cause of our
justification before God, with the only way of its participation and
communication unto us, by the faith of Christ Jesus, fully  confirms
the  truth we plead for. For if the righteousness wherewith we  must
be  justified  before God be not our own, but the  righteousness  of
God,  as  these things are directly opposed, Phil.3:9; and the  only
way whereby it comes upon us, or we are made partakers of it, is  by
the   faith  of  Jesus  Christ;  then  our  own  personal,  inherent
righteousness  or  obedience has no interest  in  our  justification
before God: which argument is insoluble, nor is the force of  it  to
be waived by any distinctions whatever, if we keep our hearts unto a
due reverence of the authority of God in his word.
   Having fully proved that no men living have any righteousness  of
their  own whereby they may be justified, but are all shut up  under
the  guilt of sin; and having declared that there is a righteousness
of God now fully revealed in the gospel, whereby alone we may be so,
leaving  all men in themselves unto their own lot, inasmuch as  "all
have  sinned  and come short of the glory of God;"--he  proceeds  to
declare the nature of our justification before God in all the causes
of  it, Rom.3:2~26, "Being justified freely by his grace through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God has set forth to  be  a
propitiation   through   faith  in  his  blood,   to   declare   his
righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,  through  the
forbearance   of  God,  to  declare,  I  say,  at  this   time   his
righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of them that
believe in Jesus".
   Here  it  is  that we may and ought, if anywhere, to  expect  the
interest  of  our  personal obedience, under some  qualification  or
other,  in  our justification to be declared. For if  it  should  be
supposed (which yet it cannot, with any pretence of reason) that, in
the foregoing discourse, the apostle had excluded only the works  of
the  law  as  absolutely perfect, or as wrought in our own  strength
without  the  aid of grace, or as meritorious; yet having  generally
excluded  all  works  from  our  justification,  verse  20,  without
distinction or limitation, it might well be expected, and  ought  to
have  been so, that, upon the full declaration which he gives us  of
the nature and way of our justification, in all the causes of it, he
should  have  assigned  the place and consideration  which  our  own
personal  righteousness  had in our justification  before  God,--the
first,  or second, or continuation of it, somewhat or other,--or  at
least  made some mention of it, under the qualification of gracious,
sincere,  or  evangelical, that it might not seem to  be  absolutely
excluded. It is plain the apostle thought of no such thing, nor  was
at  all  solicitous about any reflection that might be made  on  his
doctrine, as though it overthrew the necessity of our own obedience.
Take  in  the  consideration  of  the  apostle's  design,  with  the
circumstances  of  the  context, and the  argument  from  his  utter
silence  about  our own personal righteousness, in our justification
before God, is unanswerable. But this is not all; we shall find,  in
our progress, that it is expressly and directly excluded by him.
   All unprejudiced persons must needs think, that no words could be
used  more  express  and  emphatical to  secure  the  whole  of  our
justification  unto  the free grace of God,  through  the  blood  or
mediation  of  Christ, wherein it is faith alone that  gives  us  an
interest, than these used here by the apostle. And, for my  part,  I
shall only say, that I know not how to express myself in this matter
in  words and terms more express or significant of the conception of
my  mind. And if we could all but subscribe the answer here given by
the apostle, how, by what means, on what grounds, or by what causes,
we  are justified before God,--namely, that "we are justified freely
by  his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,  whom
God  has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,"
etc.,-- there might be an end of this controversy.
   But  the  principal passages of this testimony must be distinctly
considered. First, the principal efficient cause is first  expressed
with  a peculiar emphasis, or the "causa proegoumene". "Dikaioumenoi
doorean  tei autou chariti",--"Being justified freely by his grace."
God  is the principal efficient cause of our justification, and  his
grace  is  the only moving cause thereof. I shall not stay upon  the
exception  of  those  of  the Roman church,--namely,  that  by  "tei
chariti autou" (which their translation renders "per gratiam  Dei"),
the  internal,  inherent grace of God, which they  make  the  formal
cause  of justification, is intended; for they have nothing to prove
it  but  that  which overthrows it, namely, that it  is  added  unto
"doorean",  "freely;" which were needless, if it  signify  the  free
grace  or  favour  of God: for both these expressions,  "gratis  per
gratiam,"  "freely by grace," are put together to give  the  greater
emphasis unto this assertion, wherein the whole of our justification
is  vindicated  unto  the free grace of God.  So  far  as  they  are
distinguishable,  the  one  denotes the principle  from  whence  our
justification proceeds,--namely, grace; and the other, the manner of
its  operation,--it works freely. Besides, the grace of God in  this
subject  does everywhere constantly signify his goodness, love,  and
favour;  as  has  been  undeniably proved  by  many.  See  Rom.5:15;
Eph.2:4,8,9; 2 Tim.1:9; Tit.3:4,5.
   "Being justified "doorean" (so the LXX render the Hebrew particle
"chinam"),--"without  price,"  without  merit,  without  cause;--and
sometimes  it is used for "without end;" that is, what  is  done  in
vain,  as "doorean" is used by the apostle, Gal.2:21;--without price
or  reward,  Gen.29:15; Exod.21:2; 2 Sam.24:24;--without  cause,  or
merit,  or  any means of procurement, 1 Sam.19:5; Ps.69:4;  in  this
sense  it  is rendered by "doorean", John 15:25. The design  of  the
word  is to exclude all consideration of any thing in us that should
be  the cause or condition of our justification. "Charis", "favour,"
absolutely considered, may have respect unto somewhat in him towards
whom  it is showed. So it is said that Joseph found grace or favour,
"charin",  in  the eyes of Potiphar, Gen.39:4: but he found  it  not
"doorean", without any consideration or cause; for he "saw that  the
LORD was with him, and made all that he did to prosper in his hand,"
verse  3.  But  no words can be found out to free our  justification
before  God from all respect unto any thing in ourselves,  but  only
what  is  added expressly as the means of its participation  on  our
part,  through faith in his blood, more emphatical than  these  here
used  by the apostle: "Doorean tei autou chariti",--"Freely  by  his
grace."  And  with  whom this is not admitted, as exclusive  of  all
works or obedience of our own, of all conditions, preparations,  and
merit,  I  shall despair of ever expressing my conceptions about  it
intelligibly unto them.
   Having asserted this righteousness of God as the cause and  means
of   our   justification  before  him,  in   opposition   unto   all
righteousness   of  our  own,  and  declared  the   cause   of   the
communication  of  it unto us on the part of God to  be  mere  free,
sovereign grace, the means on our part whereby, according  unto  the
ordination  of God, we do receive, or are really made partakers  of,
that  righteousness of God whereon we are justified,  is  by  faith:
"Dia  tes  pisteoos en outou haimati",--that is, "By  faith  alone,"
Nothing else is proposed, nothing else required unto this end. It is
replied,  that there is no intimation that it is by faith alone,  or
that  faith  is  asserted  to  be the  means  of  our  justification
exclusively  unto  other  graces or works.  But  there  is  such  an
exclusion  directly included in the description given of that  faith
whereby  we are justified, with respect unto its especial  object,--
"By faith in his blood;" for faith respecting the blood of Christ as
that  whereby propitiation was made for sin,--in which respect alone
the apostle affirms that we are justified through faith,--admits  of
no  association with any other graces or duties. Neither is  it  any
part of their nature to fix on the blood of Christ for justification
before God; wherefore they are all here directly excluded. And those
who  think  otherwise may try how they can introduce them into  this
contempt without an evident corrupting of it, and perverting of  its
sense.  Neither  will  the other evasion yield our  adversaries  the
least  relief,--namely, that by faith, not the single grace of faith
is  intended, but the whole obedience required in the new  covenant,
faith  and works together. For as all works whatever, as our  works,
are  excluded  in the declaration of the causes of our justification
on  the  part of God ("doorean tei outou chariti",--"Freely  by  his
grace"), by virtue of that great rule, Rom.11:6, "If by grace,  then
no  more  of  works;  otherwise grace is  no  more  grace;"  so  the
determination of the object of faith in its act or duty, whereon  we
are   justified,--namely,  the  blood  of   Christ,--is   absolutely
exclusive  of all works from an interest in that duty; for  whatever
looks  unto  the  blood of Christ for justification  is  faith,  and
nothing  else. And as for the calling of it a single act or duty,  I
refer  the  reader unto our preceding discourse about the nature  of
justifying faith.
   Three things the apostle infers from the declaration he had  made
of  the  nature and causes of our justification before God,  all  of
them farther illustrating the meaning and sense of his words:--
   1. That boasting is excluded: "Pou oun he kauchesi? exekleisthe",
chap.3:27.  Apparent  it is from hence, and  from  what  he  affirms
concerning  Abraham, chap.4:2, that a great part, at least,  of  the
controversy he had about justification, was, whether it did admit of
any  "kauchesis" or "kauchema" in those that were justified. And  it
is  known  that  the  Jews placed all their hopes  in  those  things
whereof they thought they could boast,--namely, their privileges and
their righteousness. But from the declaration made of the nature and
causes  of  justification,  the apostle  infers  that  all  boasting
whatever is utterly shut out of doors,--"exekleisthe". Boasting,  in
our  language  is the name of a vice; and is never used  in  a  good
sense.  But  "kauchesis"  and "kauchema",  the  words  used  by  the
apostle,  are  "ek  toon mesoon",--of an indifferent  signification;
and, as they are applied, may denote a virtue as well as a vice:  so
they do, Heb.3:6.
   But  always,  and in all places, they respect something  that  is
peculiar  in or unto them unto whom they are ascribed. Wherever  any
thing is ascribed unto one, and not unto another, with respect  unto
any good end, there is fundamentum "kaucheseoos",--a "foundation for
boasting."  All  this,  says  the apostle,  in  the  matter  of  our
justification, is utterly excluded. But wherever respect is had unto
any  condition or qualification in one more than another, especially
if  it  be  of works, it gives a ground of boasting, as he  affirms,
Rom.4:2.  And it appears, from comparing that verse with this,  that
wherever  there  is  any  influence  of  our  own  works  into   our
justification,  there is a ground of boasting;  but  in  evangelical
justification  no  such  boasting  in  any  kind  can  be  admitted.
Wherefore,  there is no place for works in our justification  before
God;  for if there were, it is impossible but that a "kauchema",  in
one kind or other, before God or man, must be admitted.
   2.  He  infers a general conclusion, "That a man is justified  by
faith,  without the works of the law," chap.3:28. What is  meant  by
"the law," and what by "the works of the law," in this discourse  of
the  apostle about our justification, has been before declared.  And
if  we  are  justified freely through faith in the blood of  Christ,
that  faith  which has the propitiation of Christ for  its  especial
object,  or  as  it has so, can take no other grace  nor  duty  into
partnership with itself therein; and being so justified as that  all
such   boasting  is  excluded  as  necessarily  results   from   any
differencing graces or works in ourselves, wherein all the works  of
the  law  are excluded, it is certain that it is by faith  alone  in
Christ  that we are justified. All works are not only excluded,  but
the  way  unto  their  return is so shut up by  the  method  of  the
apostle's  discourse, that all the reinforcements which the  wit  of
man   can  give  unto  them  will  never  introduce  them  into  our
justification before God.
   3.  He  asserts  from hence, that we "do not make  void  the  law
through  grace," but establish it, verse 31; which, how it is  done,
and how alone it can be done, has been before declared.
   This  is  the substance of the resolution the apostle gives  unto
that  great  inquiry, how a guilty convinced sinner may come  to  be
justified  in the sight of God?--"The sovereign grace  of  God,  the
mediation of Christ, and faith in the blood of Christ, are all  that
he  requires  thereunto." And whatever notions men  may  have  about
justification in other respects, it will not be safe to  venture  on
any other resolution of this case and inquiry; nor are we wiser than
the Holy Ghost.
   Rom.  chap.4. In the beginning of the fourth chapter he  confirms
what  he had before doctrinally declared, by a signal instance;  and
this  was  of the justification of Abraham, who being the father  of
the  faithful, his justification is proposed as the pattern of ours,
as he expressly declares, verses 22-24. And some fear things I shall
observe on this instance in our passage unto the fifth verse,  where
I shall fix our discourse.
   1. He denies that Abraham was justified by works, verse 2. And,--
(1.)  These works were not those of the Jewish law, which alone some
pretend  to  be excluded from our justification in this  place;  for
they  were the works he performed some hundreds of years before  the
giving  of  the law at Sinai: wherefore they are the  works  of  his
moral obedience unto God that are intended. (2.) Those works must be
understood  which Abraham had then, when he is said to be  justified
in  the  testimony produced unto that purpose; but  the  works  that
Abraham then had were works of righteousness, performed in faith and
love  to  God, works of new obedience under the conduct and aids  of
the  Spirit  of God, works required in the covenant of grace.  These
are  the works excluded from the justification of Abraham. And these
things  are  plain, express, and evident, not to be  eluded  by  any
distinctions  or  evasions.  All  Abraham's  evangelical  works  are
expressly excluded from his justification before God.
   2.  He proves by the testimony of Scripture, declaring the nature
and  grounds of the justification of Abraham, that he was  justified
now  other  way  but that which he had before declared,--namely,  by
grace,  through  faith in Christ Jesus, verse 3.  "Abraham  believed
God"  (in  the  promise of Christ and his mediation),  "and  it  was
counted  unto  him for righteousness," verse 3. He was justified  by
faith  in the way before described (for other justification by faith
there  is  none), in opposition unto all his own works and  personal
righteousness thereby.
   3. From the same testimony he declares how he came to be partaker
of that righteousness whereon he was justified before God; which was
by imputation: it was counted or imputed unto him for righteousness.
The nature of imputation has been before declared.
   4. The especial nature of this imputation,--namely, that it is of
grace, without respect unto works,--he asserts and proves, verse  4,
from  what  is contrary thereunto: "Now to him that worketh  is  the
reward  not reckoned of grace, but of debt." Where works are of  any
consideration, there is no room for that kind of imputation  whereby
Abraham was justified: for it was a gracious imputation, and that is
not  of what is our own antecedently thereunto, but what is made our
own  by that imputation; for what is our own cannot be imputed  unto
us  in a way of grace, but only reckoned ours in a way of debt. That
which  is our own, with all the effects of it, is due unto us;  and,
therefore, they who plead that faith itself is imputed unto  us,  to
give  some  countenance unto an imputation of grace, do  say  it  is
imputed  not for what it is, for then it would be reckoned of  debt,
but  for what it is not. So Socinus, "Cum fides imputatur nobis  pro
justitia ideo imputatur, quia nec ipsa fides justitia est, nec  vere
in  se  eam  continet",  De Servat., part 4. cap.2.  Which  kind  of
imputation,  being indeed only a false imagination, we  have  before
disproved.  But  all  works are inconsistent  with  that  imputation
whereby Abraham was justified. It is otherwise with him that  works,
so  as thereon to be justified, than it was with him. Yea, say some,
"All  works that are meritorious, that are performed with an opinion
of  merit,  that  make the reward to be of debt, are  excluded;  but
other  works  are  not." This distinction is not  learned  from  the
apostle;  for, according unto him, if this be merit and meritorious,
that the reward be reckoned of debt, then all works in justification
are  so.  For,  without distinction or limitation, he  affirms  that
"unto him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but  of
debt."  He  does not exclude some sort of works, or  works  in  some
sense, because they would make the reward of debt, but affirms  that
all  would do so, unto the exclusion of gracious imputation; for  if
the foundation of imputation be in ourselves, imputation by grace is
excluded.  In  the  fifth verse, the sum of the apostle's  doctrine,
which  he  had contended for, and what he had proved, is  expressed:
"But  to  him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth
the  ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." It is granted
on all hands, that the close of the verse, "His faith is counted for
righteousness,"  does  express  the  justification  of  the   person
intended.  He  is  justified; and the way of it  is,  his  faith  is
counted  or  imputed.  Wherefore, the foregoing  words  declare  the
subject  of  justification and its qualification, or the description
of the person to be justified, with all that is required on his part
thereunto.
   And,  first, it is said of him that he is "ho me ergadzomenos",--
"who worketh not." It is not required unto his justification that he
should  not work, that he should not perform any duties of obedience
unto  God  in  any kind, which is working; for every person  in  the
world  is always obliged unto all duties of obedience, according  to
the  light  and knowledge of the will of God, the means  whereof  is
afforded  unto  him:  but the expression is to  be  limited  by  the
subject-matter treated of;--he "who worketh not," with respect  unto
justification; though not the design of the person, but  the  nature
of  the  thing is intended. To say, he who worketh not is  justified
through believing, is to say that his works, whatever they be,  have
no  influence  into his justification, nor has God in justifying  of
him  any respect unto them: wherefore, he alone who worketh  not  is
the  subject of justification, the person to be justified; that  is,
God  considers no man's works, no man's duties of obedience, in  his
justification, seeing we are justified "doorean tei outou chariti",-
-"freely  by  his  grace." And when God affirms  expressly  that  he
justifies him who works not, and that freely by his grace, I  cannot
understand what place our works or duties of obedience can  have  in
our justification; for why should we trouble ourselves to invent  of
what consideration they may be in our justification before God, when
he  himself  affirms that they are of none at all? Neither  are  the
words capable of any evading interpretation. He that worketh not  is
he  that  worketh not, let men say what they please, and distinguish
as  long as they will: and it is a boldness not to be justified, for
any  to  rise up in opposition unto such express divine testimonies,
however  they  may  be  harnessed  with  philosophical  notions  and
arguing; which are but as thorns and briers, which the word  of  God
will pass through and consume.
  But the apostle farther adds, in the description of the subject of
justification,  that  God "justifieth the  ungodly."  This  is  that
expression which has stirred up so much wrath amongst many,  and  on
the account whereof some seem to be much displeased with the apostle
himself.  If  any other person dare but say that God  justifies  the
ungodly,  he is personally reflected on as one that by his  doctrine
would overthrow the necessity of godliness, holiness, obedience,  or
good  works;  "for what need can there be of any  of  them,  if  God
justifies  the ungodly?" Howbeit this is a periphrasis of God,  that
he  is  "ho dikaioon ton asethe",--"he that justifieth the ungodly."
This is his prerogative and property; as such will he be believed in
and  worshipped, which adds weight and emphasis unto the expression;
and we must not forego this testimony of the Holy Ghost, let men  be
as angry as they please.
   "But the difference is about the meaning of the words." If so, it
may  be  allowed  without mutual offense, though we  should  mistake
their  proper  sense. Only, it must be granted that God  "justifieth
the ungodly." "That is," say some, "those who formerly were ungodly,
not those who continue ungodly when they are justified." And this is
most  true. All that are justified were before ungodly; and all that
are  justified are at the same instant made godly. But the  question
is, whether they are godly or ungodly antecedently in any moment  of
time unto their justification? If they are considered as godly,  and
are  so  indeed,  then the apostle's words are not  true,  that  God
justifieth the ungodly; for the contradictory proposition  is  true,
God  justifieth  none  but  the godly. For these  propositions,  God
justifieth  the ungodly, and God justifieth none but the godly,  are
contradictory;  for  here  are expressly "katafasis"  and  "apofasis
antikeimenai", which is "antifasis".
   Wherefore, although in and with the justification of a sinner, he
is made godly,--for he is endowed with that faith which purifies the
heart  and is a vital principle of all obedience, and the conscience
is  purged from dead works by the blood of Christ,--yet antecedently
unto this justification he is ungodly and considered as ungodly,  as
one  that  works  not, as one whose duties and obedience  contribute
nothing  unto  his  justification. As he works not,  all  works  are
excluded from being the "causa per quam;" and as he is ungodly, from
being the "causa sine qua non" of his justification.
   The qualification of the subject, or the means on the part of the
person to be justified, and whereby he becomes actually so to be, is
faith,  or  believing:  "But believeth on  him  who  justifieth  the
ungodly;" that is, it is faith alone. For it is the faith of him who
worketh  not;  and  not  only so, but its especial  object,  God  as
justifying  the  ungodly, is exclusive of the  concomitance  of  any
works whatever.
   This  is faith alone, or it is impossible to express faith alone,
without the literal use of that word alone. But faith being asserted
in  opposition unto all works of ours, "unto him that worketh  not;"
and  its  especial nature declared in its especial  object,  God  as
"justifying  the ungodly,"that is, freely by his grace, through  the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus;--no place is left for any  works
to  make  the  least approach towards our justification before  God,
under  the  covert of any distinction whatever. And  the  nature  of
justifying  faith is here also determined. It is not a  mere  assent
unto  divine revelations; it is not such a firm assent unto them  as
should  cause  us  to yield obedience unto all the precepts  of  the
Scripture,--though these things are included in  it;  but  it  is  a
believing  on  and  trusting unto him that  justified  the  ungodly,
through the mediation of Christ.
   Concerning  this person, the apostle affirms that "his  faith  is
counted for righteousness;" that is, he is justified in the way  and
manner before declared. But there is a difference about the sense of
these words. Some say the meaning of them is, that faith, as an act,
a  grace, a duty, or work of ours, is so imputed. Others say that it
is  faith  as it apprehends Christ and his righteousness,  which  is
properly  imputed  unto us, that is intended. So  faith,  they  say,
justifieth,   or  is  counted  for  righteousness  relatively,   not
properly, with respect unto its object; and so acknowledge  a  trope
in  the  words. And this is fiercely opposed, as though they  denied
the  express words of the Scripture, when yet they do but  interpret
this  expression, once only used, by many others, wherein  the  same
thing  is  declared. But those who are for the first sense,  do  all
affirm  that  faith  here is to be taken as including  obedience  or
works,  either  as the form and essence of it, or as such  necessary
concomitants  as  have  the  same  influence  with   it   into   our
justification, or are in the same manner the condition of it. But as
herein  they  admit  also of a trope in the  words,  which  they  so
fiercely  blame  in others, so they give this sense  of  the  whole:
"Unto him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the
ungodly,  his faith and works are counted to him for righteousness;"
which  is  not only to deny what the apostle affirms, but to  assign
unto him a plain contradiction.
   And  I  do  a  little marvel that any unprejudiced person  should
expound this solitary expression in such a sense as is contradictory
unto  the  design of the apostle, the words of the same period,  and
the  whole ensuing context. For that which the apostle proposes unto
confirmation,  which  contains his whole design,  is,  that  we  are
justified by the righteousness which is of God by faith in the blood
of  Christ.  That this cannot be faith itself shall  immediately  be
made  evident. And in the words of the text all works are  excluded,
if any words be sufficient to exclude them; but faith absolutely, as
a  single  grace, act, and duty of ours, much more  as  it  includes
obedience  in  it, is a work,--and in the latter sense,  it  is  all
works.  And  in the ensuing context he proves that Abraham  was  not
justified  by  works. But not to be justified by works,  and  to  be
justified  by  some works,--as faith itself is a work,  and  if,  as
such,  it be imputed unto us for righteousness, we are justified  by
it  as such,--are contradictory. Wherefore, I shall oppose some  few
arguments unto this feigned sense of the apostle's words:--
   1. To believe absolutely,--as faith is an act and duty of ours,--
and works are not opposed, for faith is a work, an especial kind  of
working;  but  faith, as we are justified by it, and  works,  or  to
work,  are  opposed:  "To him that worketh not, but  believeth."  So
Gal.2:16; Eph.2:8,9.
   2. It is the righteousness of God that is imputed unto us; for we
are  "made  the  righteousness of God in Christ," 2  Cor.5:21;  "The
righteousness  of  God  upon  them that believe,"  Rom.3:21,22;  but
faith, absolutely considered, is not the righteousness of God.  "God
imputeth  unto us righteousness without works," chap.4:6; but  there
is   no  intimation  of  a  double  imputation,  of  two  sorts   of
righteousnesses,--of the righteousness of God, and that which is not
so.  Now  faith, absolutely considered, is not the righteousness  of
God; for,--
   (1.) That whereunto the righteousness of God is revealed, whereby
we  believe and receive it, is not itself the righteousness of  God;
for   nothing  can  be  the  cause  or  means  of  itself;--but  the
righteousness of God is "revealed unto faith," chap.1:17; and by  it
is it "received," chap.3:22; 5:11.
   (2.) Faith is not the righteousness of God which is by faith; but
the   righteousness  of  God  which  is  imputed  unto  us  is  "the
righteousness of God which is by faith," chap.3:22; Phil.3:9.
   (3.)  That  whereby the righteousness of God  is  to  be  sought,
obtained, and submitted unto, is not that righteousness itself;  but
such is faith, Rom.9:30,31; 10:3,4.
   (4.)  The righteousness which is imputed unto us is not  our  own
antecedently unto that imputation: "That I may be found in him,  not
having mine own righteousness," Phil.3:9; but faith is a man's  own:
"Show me thy faith, and I will show thee my faith," James 2:18.
   (5.)  "God  imputeth righteousness" unto us,  Rom.4:6;  and  that
righteousness which God imputes unto us is the righteousness whereby
we  are  justified,  for  it is imputed  unto  us  that  we  may  be
justified;--but  we  are  justified by the obedience  and  blood  of
Christ:  "By the obedience of one we are made righteous," chap.5:19;
"Much  more now being justified by his blood," verse 9; "He has  put
away sin by the sacrifice of himself," Heb.9:26; Isa.53:11, "By  his
knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear
their  iniquities." But faith is neither the obedience nor the blood
of Christ.
   (6.) Faith, as we said before, is our own; and that which is  our
own  may  be  imputed unto us. But the discourse of the  apostle  is
about that which is not our own antecedently unto imputation, but is
made  ours thereby, as we have proved; for it is of grace.  And  the
imputation unto us of what is really our own antecedently unto  that
imputation, is not of grace, in the sense of the apostle;  for  what
is  so imputed is imputed for what it is, and nothing else. For that
imputation is but the judgment of God concerning the thing  imputed,
with  respect  unto  them whose it is. So the  act  of  Pinehas  was
imputed  unto him for righteousness. God judged it, and declared  it
to  be  a  righteous, rewardable act. Wherefore, if  our  faith  and
obedience  be imputed unto us, that imputation is only the  judgment
of  God  that we are believers, and obedient. "The righteousness  of
the  righteous,"  saith the prophet, "shall be  upon  him,  and  the
wickedness  of  the  wicked shall be upon him," Ezek.18:20.  As  the
wickedness of the wicked is upon him, or is imputed unto him; so the
righteousness of the righteous is upon him, or is imputed unto  him.
And  the  wickedness of the wicked is on him, when  God  judges  him
wicked as his works are; so is the righteousness of a man upon  him,
or imputed unto him, when God judgeth of his righteousness as it is.
Wherefore, if faith, absolutely considered, be imputed unto us as it
contains  in  itself,  or  as  it  is  accompanied  with,  works  of
obedience;  then  it  is  imputed unto  us,  either  for  a  perfect
righteousness,  which it is not, or for an imperfect  righteousness,
which it is; or the imputation of it is the accounting of that to be
a  perfect righteousness which is but imperfect. But none  of  these
can be affirmed:--
   [1.]  It is not imputed unto us for a perfect righteousness,  the
righteousness  required by the law; for so  it  is  not.  Episcopius
confesses  in  his  disputation,  dispute.45,  sect.7,8,  that   the
righteousness  which  is imputed unto us must be  "absolutissima  et
perfectissima,"-- "most absolute and most perfect."  And  thence  he
thus  defines the imputation of righteousness unto us,--namely, that
it  is, "gratiosa divinae mentis aestimatio, qua credentem in Filium
suum,  eo  loco  reputat ac si perfecte justus  esset,  ac  legi  et
voluntati ejus per omnia semper paruisset". And no man will  pretend
that  faith  is such a most absolute and most perfect righteousness,
as  that  by it the righteousness of the law should be fulfilled  in
us, as it is by that righteousness which is imputed unto us.
   [2.]  It  is  not  imputed unto us for what it is,--an  imperfect
righteousness;  for, First, This would be of no advantage  unto  us;
for we cannot be justified before God by an imperfect righteousness,
as  is  evident in the prayer of the psalmist, Ps.143:2, "Enter  not
into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight no man living"  (no
servant  of  thine  who has the most perfect or highest  measure  of
imperfect   righteousness)  "shall  be  justified."  Secondly,   The
imputation of any thing unto us that was ours antecedently unto that
imputation,  for  what  it is, and no more,  is  contrary  unto  the
imputation described by the apostle; as has been proved.
  [3.] This imputation pleaded for cannot be a judging of that to be
a  perfect righteousness which is imperfect; for the judgment of God
is  according to truth. But without judging it to be such, it cannot
be  accepted as such. To accept of any thing, but only for  what  we
judge it to be, is to be deceived.
   Lastly, If faith, as a work, be imputed unto us, then it must  be
as  a work wrought in faith; for no other work is accepted with God.
Then must that faith also wherein it is wrought be imputed unto  us;
for  that also is faith and a good work. That, therefore, must  have
another faith from whence it must proceed; and so "in infinitum."
   Many  other  things there are in the ensuing explication  of  the
justification  of  Abraham,  the  nature  of  his  faith   and   his
righteousness before God, with the application of them unto all that
do  believe, which may be justly pleaded unto the same purpose  with
those  passages  of the context which we have insisted  on;  but  if
every  testimony  should be pleaded which the Holy Ghost  has  given
unto this truth, there would be no end of writing. One thing more  I
shall observe, and put an end unto our discourse on this chapter.
   Rom.4:6-8. The apostle pursues his argument to prove the  freedom
of  our  justification by faith, without respect unto works, through
the  imputation of righteousness, in the instance of pardon of  sin,
which  essentially  belongs thereunto.  And  this  he  does  by  the
testimony of the psalmist, who places the blessedness of  a  man  in
the remission of sins. His design is not thereby to declare the full
nature of justification, which he had done before, but only to prove
the  freedom  of it from any respect unto works in the  instance  of
that  essential  part  of  it. "Even as David  also  describeth  the
blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness  without
works,"  (which  was the only thing he designed  to  prove  by  this
testimony),   "saying,  Blessed  are  they  whose   iniquities   are
forgiven."  He  describes their blessedness by it;--not  that  their
whole  blessedness does consist therein, but this concurs  unto  it,
wherein no respect can possibly be had unto any works whatever.  And
he  may justly from hence describe the blessedness of a man, in that
the  imputation of righteousness and the non-imputation of sin (both
which   the   apostle  mentions  distinctly),  wherein   his   whole
blessedness as unto justification does consist, are inseparable. And
because remission of sin is the first part of justification, and the
principal part of it, and has the imputation of righteousness always
accompanying  it,  the blessedness of a man may  be  well  described
thereby; yea, whereas all spiritual blessings go together in Christ,
Eph.1:3,  a man's blessedness may be described by any of  them.  But
yet the imputation of righteousness and the remission of sin are not
the  same,  no more than righteousness imputed and sin remitted  are
the  same.  Nor  does  the apostle propose them  as  the  same,  but
mentions  them  distinctly, both being equally  necessary  unto  our
complete justification, as has been proved.
  Rom.5:12-21. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,
and  death  by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for  that  all
have sinned: (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not
imputed  when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from  Adam
to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of
Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But
not  as  the  offense, so also is the free gift. For if through  the
offense  of  one many be dead; much more the grace of God,  and  the
gift  by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded unto
many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for  the
judgment  was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is  of  many
offenses  unto  justification. For 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:) 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. Moreover, the law entered,  that
the  offense  might abound: but where sin abounded, grace  did  much
more abound: that as sin has reigned unto death, even so might grace
reign  through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus  Christ  our
Lord."
    The   apostle,  chap.3:27,  affirms  that  in  this  matter   of
justification all "kauchesis", or "boasting," is excluded; but here,
in  the  verse foregoing, he grants a boasting or a "kauchema".  "Ou
monon de, alle kai kauchoomenoi en tooi Theooi";--"And not only  so,
but  we  also  glory  in  God." He excludes boasting  in  ourselves,
because  there  is  nothing  in us to procure  or  promote  our  own
justification. He allows it us in God, because of the  eminency  and
excellency  of the way and means of our justification which  in  his
grace  he  has provided. And the "kauchema", or "boasting"  in  God,
here allowed us, has a peculiar respect unto what the apostle had in
prospect farther to discourse of. "Ou monon de",--"And not only so,"
includes  what  he had principally treated of before concerning  our
justification,  so  far as it consists in the  pardon  of  sin;  for
although  he  does  suppose,  yea, and mention,  the  imputation  of
righteousness  also  unto  us,  yet  principally  he  declares   our
justification   by   the  pardon  of  sin  and  our   freedom   from
condemnation,  whereby all boasting in ourselves  is  excluded.  But
here  he  designs  a  farther progress, as  unto  that  whereon  our
glorying  in God, on a right and title freely given us unto  eternal
life,  does  depend. And this is the imputation of the righteousness
and obedience of Christ unto the justification of life, or the reign
of grace through righteousness unto eternal life.
   Great  complaints have been made by some concerning the obscurity
of  the  discourse of the apostle in this place, by reason of sundry
ellipses, antapodota, hyperbata, and other figures of speech,  which
either  are  or  are feigned to be therein. Howbeit,  I  cannot  but
think,  that  if  men  acquainted  with  the  common  principles  of
Christian  religion, and sensible in themselves of  the  nature  and
guilt  of  our  original apostasy from God, would without  prejudice
read  "tauten  ten  periochen  tes  Grafes",--"this  place  of   the
Scripture,"  they will grant that the design of the  apostle  is  to
prove,  that  as  the  sin of Adam was imputed  unto  all  men  unto
condemnation, so the righteousness or obedience of Christ is imputed
unto all that believe unto the justification of life. The sum of  it
is  given by Theodore, Dial. 3 "Vide, quomodo quae Christi sunt  cum
iis  quae  sunt Adami conferantur, cum morbo medicina,  cum  vulnere
emplastrum,  cum  peccato justitia, cum execratione benedictio,  cum
condemnatione  remissio, cum transgressione  obedientie,  cum  morte
vita, cum inferis regnum, Christus cum Adam, homo cum homine".
   The  differences that are among interpreters about the exposition
of  these words relate unto the use of some particles, prepositions,
and the dependence of one passage upon another; on none of which the
confirmation  of the truth pleaded for does depend.  But  the  plain
design of the apostle, and his express propositions, are such as, if
men  could  but  acquiesce  in them, might  put  an  end  unto  this
controversy.
  Socinus acknowledges that this place of Scripture does give, as he
speaks,  the greatest occasion unto our opinion in this matter;  for
he cannot deny but at least a great appearance of what we believe is
represented in the words of the apostle. He does, therefore, use his
utmost  endeavour to wrest and deprave them; and yet, although  most
of  his  artifices are since traduced into the annotations of others
upon  the  place, he himself produces nothing material but  what  is
taken  out  of Origen, and the comment of Pelagius on this  epistle,
which is extant in the works of Jerome, and was urged before him  by
Erasmus.  The  substance or what he pleads for is, that  the  actual
transgression  of  Adam is not imputed unto  his  posterity,  nor  a
depraved nature from thence communicated unto them; only, whereas he
had incurred the penalty of death, all that derive their nature from
him  in that condition are rendered subject unto death also. And  as
for  that  corruption of nature which is in us, or a proneness  unto
sin,  it is not derived from Adam, but is a habit contracted by many
continued  acts  of our own. So also, on the other  hand,  that  the
obedience  or righteousness of Christ is not imputed unto  us;  only
when  we make ourselves to become his children by our obedience unto
him,--he  having obtained eternal life for himself by his  obedience
unto  God,--we are made partakers of the benefits thereof.  This  is
the substance of his long disputation on this subject, De Servatore,
lib.4  cap.6.  But this is not to expound the words of the  apostle,
but  expressly  to contradict them, as we shall see in  the  ensuing
consideration of them.
   I intend not an exposition of the whole discourse of the apostle,
but only of those passages in it which evident]y declare the way and
manner of our justification before God.
   A comparison is here proposed and pursued between the first Adam,
by whom sin was brought into the world, and the second Adam, by whom
it  is  taken  away.  And a comparison it is "ek tou  enantiou",--of
things contrary; wherein there is a similitude in some things, and a
dissimilitude in others, both sorts illustrating the truth  declared
in  it. The general proposition of it is contained in verse 12:  "As
by  one  man  sin entered into the world, and death by sin;  and  so
death passed on all men, for that all have sinned." The entrance  of
sin  and punishment into the world was by one man; and that  by  one
sin, as he afterwards declares: yet were they not confined unto  the
person  of  that one man, but belonged equally unto  all.  This  the
apostle  expresses, inverting the order of the effect and cause.  In
the  entrance of it he first mentions the cause or sin, and then the
effect  or  punishment: "By one man sin entered into the world,  and
death  by  sin;"  but  in the application of it  unto  all  men,  he
expresses first the effect and then the cause: "Death passed on  all
men, for that all have sinned." Death, on the first entrance of sin,
passed  on  all,--that is, all men became liable and obnoxious  unto
it,  as  the punishment due to sin. All men that ever were, are,  or
shall be, were not then existent in their own persons; but yet  were
they  all of them then, upon the first entrance of sin, made subject
to  death,  or  liable unto punishment. They were so  by  virtue  of
divine  constitution, upon their federal existence in  the  one  man
that sinned. And actually they became obnoxious in their own persons
unto  the  sentence of it upon their first natural existence,  being
born children of wrath.
   It  is  hence manifest what sin it is that the apostle intends,--
namely,  the  actual sin of Adam,--the one sin of  that  one  common
person,   whilst  he  was  so.  For  although  the  corruption   and
depravation of our nature does necessarily ensue thereon,  in  every
one  that  is  brought  forth  actually  to  the  world  by  natural
generation;  yet  is it the guilt of Adam's actual  sin  alone  that
rendered  them all obnoxious unto death upon the first  entrance  of
sin  into  the  world. So death entered by sin,--the  guilt  of  it,
obnoxiousness  unto  it;  and  that  with  respect  unto   all   men
universally.
  Death here comprises the whole punishment due unto sin, be it what
it will, concerning which we need not here to dispute: "The wages of
sin is death," Rom.6:23, and nothing else. Whatever sin deserves  in
the justice of God, whatever punishment God at any time appointed or
threatened  unto  it, it is comprised in death:  "In  the  day  thou
eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt die the death." This,  therefore,  the
apostle  lays down as the foundation of his discourse,  and  of  the
comparison which he intends,--namely, that in and by the actual  sin
of  Adam,  all  men are made liable unto death, or  unto  the  whole
punishment  due unto sin; that is, the guilt of that sin is  imputed
unto  them.  For nothing is intended by the imputation of  sin  unto
any, but the rendering them justly obnoxious unto the punishment due
unto that sin; as the not imputing of sin is the freeing of men from
being  subject  or  liable unto punishment.  And  this  sufficiently
evidences  the vanity of the Pelagian gloss, that death passed  upon
all  merely  by  virtue  of natural propagation  from  him  who  had
deserved  it, without any imputation of the guilt of sin unto  them;
which is a contradiction unto the plain words of the apostle. For it
is the guilt of sin, and not natural propagation, that he affirms to
be the cause of death.
   Having mentioned sin and death, the one as the only cause of  the
other,  the guilt of sin of the punishment of death,--sin  deserving
nothing  but  death, and death being due unto nothing  but  sin,--he
declares how all men universally became liable unto this punishment,
or  guilty  of  death:  "Eph'hooi pantes  hemarton",--"In  quo  ones
peccaverunt,"--"In whom all have sinned." For it  relates  unto  the
one  man that sinned, in whom all sinned: which is evident from  the
effect  thereof, inasmuch as "in him all died," 1 Cor.15:22; or,  as
it  is  here, on his sin "death passed on all men." And this is  the
evident  sense of the words, "epi" being put for "en" which  is  not
unusual  in  the Scripture. See Matt.15:5; Rom.4:18; 5:2;  Phil.1:3;
Heb.9:17.  And it is often so used by the best writers in the  Greek
tongue.  So Hesiod, "Metron d'epi pasin ariston",--"Modus in omnibus
rebus  optimus."  So,  "Eph' humin estin",--"In  vobis  situm  est";
"Touto  eph' emoi keitai",--"Hoc in me situm est." And this  reading
of  the  words  is  contended for by Austin against  the  Pelagians,
rejecting  their "eo quad" or "propterea." But I shall  not  contend
about  the  reading  of  the  words.  It  is  the  artifice  of  our
adversaries to persuade men, that the force of our argument to prove
from  hence  the  imputation of the sin of Adam unto his  posterity,
does  depend  solely upon this interpretation of these words,  "eph'
hooi",  by "in whom." We shall, therefore, grant them their  desire,
that  they  are  better  rendered  by  "eo  quod,"  "propterea,"  or
"quatenus," --"inasmuch," "because." Only, we must say that here  is
a  reason given why "death passed on all men," inasmuch as "all have
sinned," that is, in that sin whereby death entered into the world.
   It  is true, death, by virtue of the original constitution of the
law,  is  due  unto  every sin, whenever it is  committed.  But  the
present  inquiry is, how death passed at once on all men?  How  they
came [to be] liable and obnoxious unto it upon its first entrance by
the  actual  sin of Adam,--which cannot be by their own actual  sin;
yea,  the apostle, in the next verses, affirms that death passed  on
them  also who never sinned actually, or as Adam did, whose sin  was
actual.  And if the actual sins of men, in imitation of Adam's  sin,
were  intended, then should men be made liable to death before  they
had  sinned;  for  death, upon its first entrance  into  the  world,
passed  on all men, before any one man had actually sinned but  Adam
only. But that men should be liable unto death, which is nothing but
the  punishment  of  sin,  when they have not  sinned,  is  an  open
contradiction.  For  although God, by  his  sovereign  power,  might
indict  death on an innocent creature, yet that an innocent creature
should  be guilty of death is impossible: for to be guilty of death,
is  to have sinned. Wherefore this expression, "Inasmuch as all have
sinned," expressing the desert and guilt of death then when sin  and
death first entered into the world, no sin can be intended in it but
the  sin of Adam, and our interest therein: "Eramus enim omnes  ille
unus  homo";  and this can be no otherwise but by the imputation  of
the  guilt  of that sin unto us, For the act of Adam not being  ours
inherently  and subjectively, we cannot be concerned in  its  effect
but  by  the imputation of its guilt; for the communication of  that
unto  us  which is not inherent in us, is that which  we  intend  by
imputation.
   This  is the "protasis" of the intended collation; which  I  have
insisted  the  longer  on,  because  the  apostle  lays  in  it  the
foundation of all that he afterwards infers and asserts in the whole
comparison. And here, some say, there is an "anantapodaton"  in  his
discourse;  that is, he lays down the proposition  on  the  part  of
Adam,  but  does  not  show what answers to it on  the  contrary  in
Christ.  And  Origin gives the reason of the silence of the  apostle
herein,--namely, lest what is to be said therein should be abused by
any  unto sloth and negligence. For whereas he says "hoosper",  "as"
(which  is  a note of similitude) "by one man sin entered  into  the
world,  and  death by sin;" so the "apodosis", or reddition,  should
be,  "so  by one righteousness entered into the world, and  life  by
righteousness."
   This  he  acknowledges  to  be the  genuine  filling  up  of  the
comparison,  but was not expressed by the apostle, lest  men  should
abuse  it  unto negligence or security, supposing that  to  be  done
already  which  should  be  done afterwards.  But  as  this  plainly
contradicts  and  everts  most of what he  farther  asserts  in  the
exposition of the place, so the apostle concealed not any truth upon
such  considerations. And as he plainly expresses that which is here
intimated,  verse 19, so he shows how foolish and  wicked  any  such
imaginations  are, as suppose that any countenance is  given  hereby
unto any to indulge themselves in their sins.
    Some  grant,  therefore,  that  the  apostle  does  conceal  the
expression of what is ascribed unto Christ, in opposition unto  what
he  had  affirmed of Adam and his sin, unto verse 19; but the  truth
is,  it is sufficiently included in the close of verse 19, where  he
affirms of Adam that, in those things whereof he treats, he was "the
figure  of him that was to come." For the way and manner whereby  he
introduced righteousness and life, and communicated them  unto  men,
answered  the way and manner whereby Adam introduced sin and  death,
which passed on all the world. Adam being the figure of Christ, look
how  it  was  with him, with respect unto his natural posterity,  as
unto  sin and death; so it is with the Lord Christ, the second Adam,
and  his  spiritual  posterity, with respect unto righteousness  and
life. Hence we argue,--
  If the actual sin of Adam was so imputed unto all his posterity as
to  be accounted their own sin unto condemnation, then is the actual
obedience of Christ, the second Adam, imputed unto all his spiritual
seed  (that is, unto all believers) unto justification. I shall  not
here  farther  press this argument, because the ground  of  it  will
occur unto us afterwards.
   The  two  next  verses,  containing an objection  and  an  answer
returned unto it, wherein we have no immediate concernment, I  shall
pass by.
   Verses  15,16. The apostle proceeds to explain his comparison  in
those   things  wherein  there  is  a  dissimilitude   between   the
comparates:--
   "But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through
the offense of one many be dead; much more the grace of God, and the
gift by grace, by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded unto many."
   The  opposition  is between "paraptooma" on  the  one  hand,  and
"charisma" on the other,--between which a dissimilitude is asserted,
not  as  unto their opposite effects of death and life, but only  as
unto the degrees of their efficacy, with respect unto those effects.
"Paraptooma",  the offense, the fall, the sin, the  transgression,--
that is, "tou henos parako-e", "the disobedience of one," verse  19.
Hence  the  first  sin of Adam is generally called "the  fall,"--"to
paraptooma".  That  which  is opposed hereunto  is  "to  charisma"--
"Donum,  donum  gratuitum; beneficium, id quod  Deus  gratificatur";
that  is,  "Charis tou Theou, kai doorea en chariti  tei  tou  henos
anthroopou  Iesou  Christou", as it is immediately  explained,  "The
grace  of  God,  and the free gift by grace, through Jesus  Christ."
Wherefore,  although  this word, in the next verse,  does  precisely
signify the righteousness of Christ, yet here it comprehends all the
causes  of our justification, in opposition unto the fall  of  Adam,
and the entrance of sin thereby.
   The consequent and effect "tou paraptoomatos",--"of the offense,"
the  fall,--is,  that "many be dead." No more is  here  intended  by
"many,"  but  only  that the effects of that one  offense  were  not
confined unto one; and if we inquire who or how many those many are,
the apostle tells us that they are all men universally; that is, all
the posterity of Adam. By this one offense, because they all sinned,
therein  they are all dead; that is, rendered obnoxious  and  liable
unto  death, as the punishment due unto that one offense. And  hence
also  it  appears how vain it is to wrest those words of  verse  12,
"Inasmuch as all have sinned," unto any other sin but the first  sin
in  Adam, seeing it is given as the reason why death passed on them;
it  being here plainly affirmed "that they are dead," or that  death
passed on them by that one offense.
   The  efficacy  "tou  charismatos",--"of the free  gift,"  opposed
hereunto,  is  expressed, as that which abounded much more.  Besides
the  thing itself asserted, which is plain and evident, the  apostle
seems  to  me  to  argue the equity of our justification  by  grace,
through   the  obedience  of  Christ,  by  comparing  it  with   the
condemnation that befell us by the sin and disobedience of Adam. For
if  it  were  just,  meet, and equal, that all men  should  be  made
subject  unto condemnation for the sin of Adam; it is much more  so,
that  those  who  believe should be justified by  the  obedience  of
Christ, through the grace and free donation of God. But wherein,  in
particular, the gift by grace abounded unto many, above the efficacy
of  the fall to condemn, he declares afterwards. And that whereby we
are  freed  from  condemnation, more  eminently  than  we  are  made
obnoxious unto it by the fall and sin of Adam, by that alone we  are
justified before God. But this is by the grace of God, and the  gift
by  grace, through Jesus Christ alone; which we plead for, verse 16.
Another  difference between the comparates is expressed,  or  rather
the instance is given in particular of the dissimilitude asserted in
general before:--
   "And  not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift:  for  the
judgment  was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is  of  many
offenses unto justification."
   "Di' henos hamartesantos", "By one that sinned," is the same with
"di' henos paraptoomatos", "by one sin," one offense, the one sin of
that man. "Krima", we render "judgment." Most interpreters do it  by
"reatus,"  "guilt,"  or  "crimen," which  is  derived  from  it.  So
"mishpat",  "judicium," is used in the Hebrew for  guilt:  "mishpat-
mawet  la'ish hazeh", Jer.26:11, "The judgment of death is  to  this
man,  this  man  is guilty of death, has deserved  to  die."  First,
therefore,  there  was "paraptooma", the sin, the fall,  "tou  henos
hamartesantos", of one man that sinned; it was his actual sin alone.
Thence  followed  "krima", "reatus," "guilt;" this was  common  unto
all.  In  and  by  that one sin, guilt came upon all.  And  the  end
hereof, that which it rendered men obnoxious unto, is "katakrima",--
"condemnation,"  guilt  unto  condemnation.  And  this  guilt   unto
condemnation which came upon all, was "ex henos",--of one person, or
sin.  This  is  the  order  of things on  the  part  of  Adam:--(1.)
"Paraptooma",  the  one sin; (2.) "Krima", the  guilt  that  thereon
ensued  unto  all;  (3.) "Katachrima", the condemnation  which  that
guilt  deserved. And their "antitheta," or opposites, in the  second
Adam   are:--(1.)  "Charisma",  the  free  donation  of  God;   (2.)
"Doorema", the gift of grace itself, or the righteousness of Christ;
(3.)  "Dikaiooma", or "dikaioosis dzooes", "justification of  life."
But  yet  though the apostle does thus distinguish these things,  to
illustrate  his comparison and opposition, that which he intends  by
them  all  is  the  righteousness and obedience  of  Christ,  as  he
declares, verses 18,19. This, in the matter of our justification, he
calls,--(1.)  "Charisma",  with respect unto  the  free,  gratuitous
grant  of  it by the grace of God, "Doorea tes charitos",  and  (2.)
"Doorema", with respect unto us who receive it,--a free gift  it  is
unto  us;  and  (3.) "Dikaiooma", with respect unto  its  effect  of
making us righteous.
   Whereas,  therefore, by the sin of Adam imputed unto them,  guilt
came  on all men unto condemnation, we must inquire wherein the free
gift  was otherwise: "Not as by one that sinned, so was the  gift  "
And it was so in two things: for,--1. Condemnation came upon all  by
one  offence;  but  being under the guilt of that  one  offense,  we
contract the guilt of many more innumerable. Wherefore, if the  free
gift had respect only unto that one offense, and intended itself  no
farther, we could not be delivered; wherefore it is said to  be  "of
many offenses," that is, of all our sins and trespasses whatever. 2.
Adam,  and  all his posterity in him, were in a state of acceptation
with  God,  and  placed  in  a  way of obtaining  eternal  life  and
blessedness,  wherein God himself would have been their  reward.  In
this  estate, by the entrance of sin, they lost the favour  of  God,
and  incurred the guilt of death or condemnation, for they  are  the
same.  But they lost not an immediate right and title unto life  and
blessedness; for this they had not, nor could have before the course
of obedience prescribed unto them was accomplished. That, therefore,
which came upon all by the one offense, was the loss of God's favour
in the approbation of their present state, and the judgment or guilt
of death and condemnation. But an immediate right unto eternal life,
by  that one sin was not lost. The free gift is not so: for as by it
we  are freed, not only from one sin, but from all our sins, so also
by  it  we  have a right and title unto eternal life;  for  therein,
"grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life," verse 21.
   The same truth is farther explained and confirmed, verse 17, "For
if  by  one man's 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." The design  of  the  apostle
having  been  sufficiently manifested in  our  observations  on  the
former  verses,  I shall from this only observe those  things  which
more immediately concern our present subject. And,--
   1.  It is worth observation with what variety of expressions  the
apostle  sets  forth  the  grace of  God  in  the  justification  of
believers:   "Dikaiooma,   doorema,  charis,   charisma,   perisseia
charitos, doorea tes dikaiosunes". Nothing is omitted that  may  any
way  express  the freedom, sufficiency, and efficacy of  grace  unto
that  end.  And  although  these terms  seem  some  of  them  to  be
coincident   in  their  signification,  and  to  be  used   by   him
promiscuously,  yet  do  they every one include  something  that  is
peculiar,  and  all  of  them set forth the  whole  work  of  grace.
"Dikaiooma"   seems  to  me  to  be  used  in  this   argument   for
"dikaiologema",  which is the foundation of a cause  in  trial,  the
matter  pleaded,  whereon the person tried is to  be  acquitted  and
justified;  and  this  is the righteousness  of  Christ,  "of  one."
"Doorema",  or  a  free donation, is exclusive  of  all  desert  and
conditions on our part who do receive it; and it is that whereby  we
are freed from condemnation, and have a right unto the justification
of  life. "Charis" is the free grace and favour of God, which is the
original  or efficient cause of our justification, as was  declared,
chap.3:24.   "Charisma"  has  been  explained   before.   "Perisseia
charitos",--"The abundance of grace,"--is added to secure  believers
of  the  certainty  of the effect. It is that whereunto  nothing  is
wanting  unto our justification. "Doorea tes dikaiosunes"  expresses
the  free grant of that righteousness which is imputed unto us  unto
the  justification  of  life, afterward  called  "the  obedience  of
Christ."  Be men as wise and learned as they please, it  becomes  us
all  to learn to think and speak of these divine mysteries from this
blessed  apostle,  who knew them better than we all,  and,  besides,
wrote by divine inspiration.
   And  it  is marvelous unto me how men can break through the  face
that he has made about the grace of God and obedience of Christ,  in
the  work  of our justification before God, to introduce  their  own
works  of obedience, and to find a place for them therein.  But  the
design  of  Paul  and  some  men, in declaring  this  point  of  our
justification  before God, seems to be very opposite  and  contrary.
His  whole  discourse is concerning the grace  of  God,  the  death,
blood,  and  obedience of Christ, as if he could never  sufficiently
satisfy  himself in the setting out and declaration of them, without
the  least  mention of any works or duties of our own, or the  least
intimation  of any use that they are of herein. But all their  pleas
are  for their own works and duties; and they have invented as  many
terms  to  set  them  out  by as the Holy Ghost  has  used  for  the
expression and declaration of the grace of God. Instead of the words
of  wisdom  before  mentioned, which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  taught,
wherewith  he  fills  up  his  discourse,  theirs  are  filled  with
conditions, preparatory dispositions, merits, causes, and I know not
what  trappings for our own works. For my part I shall choose rather
to  learn of him, and accommodate my conceptions and expressions  of
gospel   mysteries,   and  of  this  in  especial   concerning   our
justification,  unto his who cannot deceive me, than  trust  to  any
other conduct, how specious soever its pretences may be.
   2.  It is plain in this verse that no more is required of any one
unto justification, but that he receive the "abundance of grace  and
the  gift  of righteousness;" for this is the description  that  the
apostle gives of those that are justified, as unto any thing that on
their  part  is  required.  And  as  this  excludes  all  works   of
righteousness  which we do,--for by none of them do we  receive  the
abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness,--so it does  also
the  imputation of faith itself unto our justification, as it is  an
act  and  duty of our own: for faith is that whereby we receive  the
gift of righteousness by which we are justified. For it will not  be
denied  but  that we are justified by the gift of righteousness,  or
the  righteousness which is given unto us; for by it have  we  right
and  title unto life. But our faith is not this gift; for that which
receives, and that which is received, are not the same.
    3.   Where   there   is   "perisseia   charitos",   and   "haris
huperpepisseuousa",--"abounding  grace,"   "superabounding   grace,"
exerted in our justification, no more is required thereunto; for how
can  it  be  said to abound, yea, to superabound, not  only  to  the
freeing  of us from condemnation, but the giving of us a title  unto
life, if in any thing it is to be supplied and eked out by works and
duties of our own? The things intended do fill up these expressions,
although to some they are but an empty noise.
    4.   There  is  a  gift  of  righteousness  required  unto   our
justification,  which all must receive who are to be justified,  and
all  are justified who do receive it; for they that receive it shall
"reign  in  life by Jesus Christ." And hence it follows,--(1.)  That
the righteousness whereby we are justified before God can be nothing
of  our own, nothing inherent in us, nothing performed by us. For it
is  that  which  is  freely  given  us,  and  this  donation  is  by
imputation:   "Blessed   is  the  man   unto   whom   God   imputeth
righteousness," chap.4:6. And by faith we receive what is  so  given
and   imputed;  and  otherwise  we  contribute  nothing   unto   our
participation of it. This it is to be justified in the sense of  the
apostle.  (2.) It is such a righteousness as gives right  and  title
unto  eternal life; for they that receive it shall "reign in  life."
Wherefore,  it cannot consist in the pardon of sin alone; for,--[1.]
The  pardon of sin can in no tolerable sense be called "the gift  of
righteousness."  Pardon  of  sin is  one  thing,  and  righteousness
another.  [2.]  Pardon  of sin does not give right  and  title  unto
eternal  life. It is true, he whose sins are pardoned shall  inherit
eternal  life; but not merely by virtue of that pardon, but  through
the imputation of righteousness which does inseparably accompany it,
and is the ground of it.
  The description which is here given of our justification by grace,
in opposition unto the condemnation that we were made liable unto by
the  sin of Adam, and in exaltation above it, as to the efficacy  of
grace  above that of the first sin, in that thereby not one but  all
sins are forgiven, and not only so, but a right unto life eternal is
communicated  unto us, is this: "That we receive the grace  of  God,
and the gift of righteousness;" which gives us a right unto life  by
Jesus  Christ. But this is to be justified by the imputation of  the
righteousness of Christ, received by faith alone.
   The conclusion of what has been evinced, in the management of the
comparison  insisted on, is fully expressed and  farther  confirmed,
chap. 5:18,19.
   Verse 18. "Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon
all  men unto condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one  the
free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." So we. read
the words. "By the offense of one:" the Greek copies vary here. Some
read,   "Tooi  heni  paraptoomati",  whom  Beza  follows,  and   our
translation  in  the margin,--"By one offense;" most  by  "Di  henos
paraptoomatos",--"By the offense of one;" and so afterwards as  unto
righteousness:  but  both are unto the same  purpose.  For  the  one
offense  intended is the offense of one,--that is, of Adam; and  the
one righteousness is the righteousness of one,--Jesus Christ.
   The  introduction of this assertion by "apa ouv", the note  of  a
syllogistical inference, declares what is here asserted  to  be  the
substance of the truth pleaded for. And the comparison is continued,
"hoos",--these things have themselves after the same manner.
    That   which  is  affirmed  on  the  one  side  is,  "Di'  henos
paraptoomatos eis pantas enthroopous eis katakrima",--"By the sin or
fall  of  one, on all men unto condemnation,"that is, judgment,  say
we,  repeating  "krima"  from the foregoing verse.  But  "krima  eis
katakrima"  is  guilt, and that only. By the sin  of  one,  all  men
became guilty, and were made obnoxious unto condemnation. The  guilt
of  it  is  imputed unto all men; for no otherwise can it come  upon
them  unto condemnation, no otherwise can they be rendered obnoxious
unto death and judgment on the account thereof. For we have evinced,
that  by death and condemnation, in this disputation of the apostle,
the  whole punishment due unto sin is intended. This, therefore,  is
plain and evident on that hand.
  In answer hereunto, the "dikaiooma" of one, as to the causality of
justification,  is opposed unto the "paraptooma" of  the  other,  as
unto   its   causality   unto   or  of  condemnation:   "Di'   henos
dikaioomatos",--"By  the  righteousness  of  one:"  that   is,   the
righteousness    that   is   pleadable   "eis   dikaioosin",    unto
justification; for that is "dikaiooma", a righteousness pleaded  for
justification.  By this, say our translators, "the  free  gift  came
upon  all," repeating "charisma" from the foregoing verse,  as  they
had  done  "krima" before on the other hand. The Syrian  translation
renders the words without the aid of any supplement: "Therefore,  as
by  the  sin  of  one,  condemnation was unto all  men,  so  by  the
righteousness  of  one, justification unto life shall  be  unto  all
men"; and the sense of the words is so made plain without the supply
of  any  other  word into the text. But whereas in the original  the
words  are  not "katakrima eis pantas anthroopous", but "eis  pantas
anthroopous  eis  katakrima", and so in the latter clause,  somewhat
from  his  own  foregoing  words, is to be supplied  to  answer  the
intention   of  the  apostle.  And  this  is  "Charisma",  "gratiosa
donatio," "the free grant" of righteousness; or "doorema", "the free
gift" of righteousness unto justification. The righteousness of one,
Christ  Jesus,  is  freely  granted  unto  all  believers,  to   the
justification  of  life;  for  the  "all  men"  here  mentioned  are
described by, and limited unto, them that "receive the abundance  of
grace, and the gift of righteousness by Christ," verse 17.
   Some  vainly  pretend from hence a general grant of righteousness
and  life  unto  all men, whereof the greatest part are  never  made
partakers; than which nothing can be more opposite nor contradictory
unto  the  apostle's design. Men are not made guilty of condemnation
from  the  sin of Adam, by such a divine constitution, as that  they
may,  or  on some conditions may not, be obnoxious thereunto.  Every
one,  so  soon  as he actually exists, and by virtue  thereof  is  a
descendant from the first Adam, is actually in his own person liable
thereunto,  and  the wrath of God abides on him.  And  no  more  are
intended  on  the other side, but those only who, by their  relation
through  faith unto the Lord Christ, the second Adam,  are  actually
interested  in the justification of life. Neither is the controversy
about  the universality of redemption by the death of Christ  herein
concerned. For those by whom it is asserted do not affirm that it is
thence  necessary that the free gift unto the justification of  life
should  come  on all; for that they know it does not do.  And  of  a
provision of righteousness and life for men in case they do believe,
although  it be true, yet nothing is spoken in this place. Only  the
certain  justification of them that believe, and the way of it,  are
declared.  Nor will the analogy of the comparison here  insisted  on
admit  of  any such interpretation; for the "all", on the one  hand,
are  all  and only those who derive their being from Adam by natural
propagation. If any man might be supposed not to do so, he would not
be  concerned in his sin or fall. And so really it was with the  man
Christ Jesus. And those on the other hand, are only those who derive
a  spiritual life from Christ. Suppose a man not to do so, and he is
no  way  interested  in  the righteousness of  the  "one"  unto  the
justification of life. Our argument from the words is this:--As  the
sin  of  one that came on all unto condemnation, was the sin of  the
first  Adam imputed unto them; so the righteousness of the one  unto
the  justification  of  life that comes on  all  believers,  is  the
righteousness  of  Christ imputed unto them. And what  can  be  more
clearly  affirmed or more evidently confirmed than this  is  by  the
apostle, I know not.
   Yet  is it more plainly expressed, verse 19: "For as by one man's
disobedience  many  were made sinners, so by the  obedience  of  one
shall many be made righteous."
   This  is well explained by Cyrillus Alexandrinus in Joan.  lib.11
cap.25:  "Quemadmodum praevaricatione primi hominis ut in  primitiis
generis  nostri, morti addicti fuimus; eodem modo per  obedientiamet
justitiam  Christi, in quantum seipsum legi subjecit, quamvis  legis
author  esset, benedictio et vivificatio quae per Spiritum  est,  ad
totam  nostram  penetravit  naturam".  And  by  Leo,  Epist.  12  ad
Juvenalem: "Ut autem reparet omnium vitam, recepit omnium causam; at
sicut per unius reatum omnes facti fuerunt peccatores, its per unius
innocentiam  omnes  fierent  innocentes;  inde  in  homines  manaret
justitia, ubi est humana suscepta natura."
   That  which he before called "paraptooma" and "dikaiooma" he  now
expresses   by   "parako-e"   and  "hupako-e",--"disobedience"   and
"obedience."  The "parako-e" of Adam, or his disobedience,  was  his
actual  transgression of the law of God. Hereby, says  the  apostle,
"many were made sinners," sinners in such a sense as to be obnoxious
unto death and condemnation; for liable unto death they could not be
made,  unless they were first made sinners or guilty. And this  they
could  not  be,  but that they are esteemed to have sinned  in  him,
whereon the guilt of his sin was imputed unto them. This, therefore,
he  affirms,-- namely, that the actual sin of Adam was so the sin of
all  men,  as  that they were made sinners thereby,  obnoxious  unto
death and condemnation.
   That  which he opposes hereunto is "he hupako-e",--"the obedience
of one;" that is, of Jesus Christ. And this was the actual obedience
that  he  yielded unto the whole law of God. For as the disobedience
of  Adam  was  his  actual transgression of the whole  law,  so  the
obedience  of Christ was his actual accomplishment or fulfilling  of
the whole law. This the antithesis does require.
   Hereby  many are made righteous. How? By the imputation  of  that
obedience unto them. For so, and no otherwise, are men made  sinners
by  the  imputation of the disobedience of Adam. And  this  is  that
which  gives us a right and title unto eternal life, as the  apostle
declares, verse 21, "That as sin reigned unto death, even  so  might
grace   reign   through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life."   This
righteousness is no other but the "obedience of one",--that  is,  of
Christ,--as  it is called, verse 10. And it is said to  "come"  upon
us,--that  is, to be imputed unto us; for "Blessed is the  man  unto
whom  God  imputeth  righteousness." And hereby  we  have  not  only
deliverance  from  that  death and condemnation  whereunto  we  were
liable  by  the  sin of Adam, but the pardon of many offenses,--that
is, of all our personal sins,--and a right unto life eternal through
the grace of God; for we are "justified freely by his grace, through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
   And  these  things are thus plainly and fully  delivered  by  the
apostle; unto whose sense and expressions also (so far as may be) it
is  our  duty  to  accommodate ours. What is offered  in  opposition
hereunto  is  so  made  up  of exceptions, evasions,  and  perplexed
disputes,  and  leads  us so far off from the  plain  words  of  the
Scripture, that the conscience of a convinced sinner knows not  what
to fix upon to give it rest and satisfaction, nor what it is that is
to be believed unto justification.
   Piscatory, in his scholia on this chapter and elsewhere,  insists
much  on a specious argument against the imputation of the obedience
of  Christ unto our justification; but it proceeds evidently  on  an
open  mistake  and false supposition, as well as it is contradictory
unto the plain words of the text. It is true, which he observes  and
proves,  that  our redemption, reconciliation, pardon  of  sin,  and
justification, are often ascribed unto the death and blood of Christ
in  a  signal  manner. The reasons of it have partly been  intimated
before;  and  a farther account of them shall be given  immediately.
But  it  does  not  thence follow that the obedience  of  his  life,
wherein he fulfilled the whole law, being made under it for  us,  is
excluded from any causality therein, or is not imputed unto us.  But
in opposition hereunto he thus argues:--
   "Si obedientia vitae Christi nobis ad justitiam imputaretur,  non
fuit  opus Christum pro nobis mori; mori enim necesse fuit pro nobis
injustus", 1 Pet.3:18. "Quod si ergo justi effecti sumus  per  vitam
illius,  causa  nulla  relicta fuit cur pro  nobis  moreretur;  quia
justitia  Dei  non  patitur  ut puniat justos.  At  punivit  nos  in
Christo,  seu  quod idem valet punivit Christum pro nobis,  et  loco
nostri,  posteaquam ille sancte vixisset, ut certum est e Scriptura.
Ergo  non  sumus  justi  effecti per sanctam vitam  Christi.  .Item,
Christus  mortuus  est ut justitiam illam Dei nobis  acquireret",  2
Cor.5:21. "Non igitur illam acquisiverat ante mortem".
   But this whole argument, I say, proceeds upon an evident mistake;
for  it  supposes such an order of things as that the  obedience  of
Christ, or his righteousness in fulfilling the law, is first imputed
unto  us,  and then the righteousness of his death is afterwards  to
take place, or to be imputed unto us; which, on that supposition, he
says,  would  be of no use. But no such order or divine constitution
is  pleaded or pretended in our justification. It is true, the  life
of Christ and his obedience unto the law did precede his sufferings,
and  undergoing the curse thereof,--neither could it  otherwise  be,
for this order of these things between themselves was made necessary
from  the law of nature,--but it does not thence follow that it must
be  observed in the imputation or application of them unto  us.  For
this is an effect of sovereign wisdom and grace, not respecting  the
natural  order  of Christ's obedience and suffering, but  the  moral
order  of  the things whereunto they are appointed. And although  we
need not assert, nor do I so do, different acts of the imputation of
the  obedience of Christ unto the justification of life, or a  right
and title unto life eternal, and of the suffering of Christ unto the
pardon  of our sins and freedom from condemnation,--but by  both  we
have  both, according unto the ordinance of God, that Christ may  be
all  in  all,--yet as unto the effects themselves, in the method  of
God's   bringing  sinners  unto  the  justification  of  life,   the
application of the death of Christ unto them, unto the pardon of sin
and  freedom from condemnation, is, in order of nature, and  in  the
exercise  of faith, antecedent unto the application of his obedience
unto us for a right and title unto life eternal.
   The  state  of the person to be justified is a state of  sin  and
wrath,  wherein  he is liable unto death and condemnation.  This  is
that  which a convinced sinner is sensible of, and which  alone,  in
the first place, he seeks for deliverance from: "What shall we do to
be  saved?" This, in the first place, is represented unto him in the
doctrine and promise of the gospel; which is the rule and instrument
of  its  application. And this is [by] the death of Christ.  Without
this no actual righteousness imputed unto him, not the obedience  of
Christ himself, will give him relief; for he is sensible that he has
sinned,  and thereby come short of the glory of God, and  under  the
sentence  condemnatory of the law. Until he receives  a  deliverance
from  hence,  it  is to no purpose to propose that  unto  him  which
should  give  him  right unto life eternal. But upon  a  supposition
hereof,  he is no less concerned in what shall yet farther give  him
title  whereunto,  that he may reign in life through  righteousness.
Herein, I say, in its order, conscience is no less concerned than in
deliverance  from condemnation. And this order is expressed  in  the
declaration  of  the fruit and effects of the mediation  of  Christ,
Dan.9:24,  "To  make reconciliation for iniquity, and  to  bring  in
everlasting  righteousness." Neither  is  there  any  force  in  the
objection  against  it, that actually the obedience  of  Christ  did
precede  his suffering: for the method of their application  is  not
prescribed  thereby; and the state of sinners to be justified,  with
the  nature of their justification, requires it should be otherwise,
as  God  also has ordained. But because the obedience and sufferings
of  Christ  were  concomitant  from  first  to  last,  both  equally
belonging  unto his state of exinanition, and cannot in any  act  or
instance be separated, but only in notion or imagination, seeing  he
suffered  in  all  his obedience and obeyed in all  his  sufferings,
Heb.5:8;  and  neither part of our justification,  in  freedom  from
condemnation and right unto life eternal, can be supposed to  be  or
exist   without   the  other,  according  unto  the  ordinance   and
constitution of God; the whole effect is jointly to be ascribed unto
the whole mediation of Christ, so far as he acted towards God in our
behalf,  wherein he fulfilled the whole law, both as to the  penalty
exacted of sinners and the righteousness it requires unto life as an
eternal reward. And there are many reasons why our justification is,
in  the  Scripture, by way of eminency, ascribed unto the death  and
blood-shedding of Christ.
  For,--1. The grace and love of God, the principal, efficient cause
of our justification, are therein made most eminent and conspicuous;
for this is most frequently in the Scripture proposed unto us as the
highest  instance and undeniable demonstration of  divine  love  and
grace. And this is that which principally we are to consider in  our
justification,  the glory of them being the end of God  therein.  He
"made us accepted in the Beloved, to the praise of the glory of  his
grace,"  Eph.1:6.  Wherefore, this being the fountain,  spring,  and
sole  cause,  both of the obedience of Christ and of the  imputation
thereof  unto us, with the pardon of sin and righteousness  thereby,
it  is  everywhere in the Scripture proposed as the prime object  of
our  faith in our justification, and opposed directly unto  all  our
own works whatever. The whole of God's design herein is, that "grace
may   reign  through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life."  Whereas,
therefore, this is made most evident and conspicuous in the death of
Christ,   our  justification  is  in  a  peculiar  manner   assigned
thereunto.
  2. The love of Christ himself and his grace are peculiarly exalted
in  our justification: "That all men may honour the Son even as they
honour the Father." Frequently are they expressed unto this purpose,
2  Cor.8:9; Gal.2:20; Phil.2:6,7; Rev.1:5,6. And those also are most
eminently  exalted  in his death, so as that  all  the  effects  and
fruits  of  them  are  ascribed thereunto in a peculiar  manner;  as
nothing is more ordinary than, among many things that concur to  the
same  effect,  to ascribe it unto that which is most  eminent  among
them,  especially  if it cannot be conceived as separated  from  the
rest.
   3.  This is the clearest testimony that what the Lord Christ  did
and  suffered  was  for  us, and not for himself;  for  without  the
consideration  hereof, all the obedience which he yielded  unto  the
law  might be looked on as due only on his own account, and  himself
to  have been such a Saviour as the Socinians imagine, who should do
all with us from God, and nothing with God for us. But the suffering
of the curse of the law by him who was not only an innocent man, but
also  the Son of God, openly testifies that what he did and suffered
was  for us, and not for himself. It is no wonder, therefore, if our
faith  as unto justification be in the first place, and principally,
directed unto his death and blood-shedding.
   4.  All  the  obedience  of Christ had  still  respect  unto  the
sacrifice  of  himself which was to ensue, wherein it  received  its
accomplishment, and whereon its efficacy unto our justification  did
depend:  for  as  no  imputation of actual obedience  would  justify
sinners from the condemnation that was passed on them for the sin of
Adam;  so,  although  the  obedience  of  Christ  was  not  a   mere
preparation  or  qualification of his person for his suffering,  yet
its efficacy unto our justification did depend on his suffering that
was to ensue, when his soul was made an offering for sin.
   5.  As was before observed, reconciliation and the pardon of  sin
through the blood of Christ do directly, in the first place, respect
our  relief from the state and condition whereinto we were  cast  by
the  sin  of Adam,--in the loss of the favour of God, and liableness
unto  death. This, therefore, is that which principally, and in  the
first  place,  a  lost convinced sinner, such as Christ  calls  unto
himself,  does look after. And therefore justification is  eminently
and  frequently  proposed as the effect of  the  blood-shedding  and
death  of  Christ, which are the direct cause of our  reconciliation
and pardon of sin. But yet from none of these considerations does it
follow  that  the  obedience of the one man, Christ  Jesus,  is  not
imputed  unto  us,  whereby grace might reign through  righteousness
unto eternal life.
   The  same  truth is fully asserted and confirmed, Rom.8:1-4.  But
this  place  has  been  of late so explained and  so  vindicated  by
another,  in his learned and judicious exposition of it (namely,  Dr
Jacomb), as that nothing remains of weight to be added unto what has
been  pleaded and argued by him, part 1 verse 4, p.587, and onwards.
And  indeed the answers which he subjoins (to the arguments  whereby
he  confirms  the truth) to the most usual and important  objections
against   the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,   are
sufficient to give just satisfaction unto the minds of unprejudiced,
unengaged  persons. I shall therefore pass over this  testimony,  as
that  which has been so lately pleaded and vindicated, and not press
the  same  things,  it  may  be  (as  is  not  unusual)  unto  their
disadvantage.
   Rom.10:3,4. "For they" (the Jews, who had a zeal for God, but not
according to knowledge), "being ignorant of God's righteousness, and
going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted
themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the  end  of
the law for righteousness unto every one that believeth."
   What  is here determined, the apostle enters upon the proposition
and  declaration of, chap.9:30. And because what he had  to  propose
was somewhat strange, and unsuited unto the common apprehensions  of
men,  he  introduces it with that prefatory interrogation,  "Ti  oun
eroumen;" (which he uses on the like occasions, chap.3:5; 6:1;  7:7;
9:14)--"What shall we say then?" that is, "Is there in  this  matter
'unrighteousness  with God?'" as verse 14; or, "What  shall  we  say
unto  these things?" or, "This is that which is to be said  herein."
That  which hereon he asserts is, "That the Gentiles, which followed
not  after righteousness, have attained to righteousness,  even  the
righteousness  which is of faith; but Israel, which  followed  after
the   law  of  righteousness,  has  not  attained  to  the  law   of
righteousness;" that is, unto righteousness itself before God.
   Nothing seems to be more contrary unto reason than what  is  here
made  manifest  by  the event. The Gentiles, who lived  in  sin  and
pleasures,  not  once endeavouring to attain unto any  righteousness
before  God, yet attained unto it upon the preaching of the  gospel.
Israel,  on  the  other  hand,  which followed  after  righteousness
diligently in all the works of the law, and duties of obedience unto
God   thereby,  came  short  of  it,  attained  not  unto  it.   All
preparations, all dispositions, all merit, as unto righteousness and
justification, are excluded from the Gentiles; for in  all  of  them
there  is  more  or less a following after righteousness,  which  is
denied of them all. Only by faith in him who justifieth the ungodly,
they  attain  righteousness, or they attained the  righteousness  of
faith.  For  to  attain righteousness by faith, and  to  attain  the
righteousness which is of faith, are the same. Wherefore, all things
that are comprised any way in following after righteousness, such as
are  all our duties and works, are excluded from any influence  into
our  justification. And this is expressed to declare the sovereignty
and  freedom  of  the  grace  of God herein,--name]y,  that  we  are
justified freely by his grace,--and that on our part all boasting is
excluded.  Let  men pretend what they will, and dispute.  what  they
please, those who attain unto righteousness and justification before
God,  when  they follow not after righteousness, they do it  by  the
gratuitous imputation of the righteousness of another unto them.
   It  may  be  it  will be said: "It is true in the time  of  their
heathenism they did not at all follow after righteousness, but  when
the  truth of the gospel was revealed unto them, then they  followed
after  righteousness, and did attain it." But,--1. This is  directly
to  contradict the apostle, in that it says that they  attained  not
righteousness but only as they followed after righteousness; whereas
he  affirms  the  direct contrary. 2. It takes away the  distinction
which  he  puts  between  them  and Israel,--namely,  that  the  one
followed  after righteousness, and the other did not. 3.  To  follow
after   righteousness,  in  this  place,  is  to  follow   after   a
righteousness  of  our own: "To establish their own  righteousness,"
chap.10:3.  But  this  is so far from being  a  means  of  attaining
righteousness, as that it is the most effectual obstruction thereof.
   If, therefore, those who have no righteousness of their own,  who
are  so far from it that they never endeavoured to attain it, do yet
by  faith  receive that righteousness wherewith they  are  justified
before  God,  they  do so by the imputation of the righteousness  of
Christ unto them; or let some other way be assigned.
   In  the other side of the instance, concerning Israel, some  must
hear, whether they will or not, that wherewith they are not pleased.
   Three  things are expressed of them:--1. Their attempt.  2  Their
success. 3. The reason of it.
   1.  Their  attempt or endeavour was in this, that they  "followed
after  the law of righteousness." "Diookoo", the word whereby  their
endeavour  is expressed, signifies that which is earnest,  diligent,
and  sincere.  By  it does the apostle declare what his  [endeavour]
was, and what ours ought to be, in the duties and exercise of gospel
obedience, Phil.3:12. They were not in diligent in this matter,  but
"instantly  served  God day and night." Nor were they  hypocritical;
for  the apostle bears them record in this matter, that "they had  a
zeal  of God," Rom.10:2. And that which they thus endeavoured  after
was "nomos dikaiosunes",--"the law of righteousness," that law which
prescribed a perfect personal righteousness before God; "the  things
which  if  a  man  do  them,  he shall  live  in  them,"  chap.10:5.
Wherefore, the apostle has no other respect unto the ceremonial  law
in  this place but only as it was branched out from the moral law by
the  will  of God, and as the obedience unto it belonged  thereunto.
When  he  speaks  of  it  separately,  he  calls  it  "the  law   of
commandments contained in ordinances;" but it is nowhere called "the
law  of righteousness," the law whose righteousness is fulfilled  in
us,   chap.8:9a.  Wherefore,  the  following  after  this   law   of
righteousness was their diligence in the performance of  all  duties
of  obedience,  according unto the directions and  precepts  of  the
moral law.
   2. The issue of this attempt is, that they "attained not unto the
law  of  righteousness," "eis nomon dikaiosunes ouk  efthase",--that
is, they attained not unto a righteousness before God hereby. Though
this  was  the end of the law, namely, a righteousness  before  God,
wherein a man might live, yet could they never attain it.
  3. An account is given of the reason of their failing in attaining
that  which they so earnestly endeavoured after. And this was  in  a
double  mistake  that  they  were under;--first,  In  the  means  of
attaining it; secondly, In the righteousness itself that was  to  be
sought  after.  The first is declared, chap.9:32,  "Because  not  by
faith, but as it were by the works of the law." Faith and works  are
the  two  only ways whereby righteousness may be attained, and  they
are  opposite and inconsistent; so that none does or can seek  after
righteousness  by  them both. They will not be mixed  and  made  one
entire  means of attaining righteousness. They are opposed as  grace
and  works; what is of the one is not of the other, chap.11:6. Every
composition of them in this matter is, "Male sarta gratia nequicquam
coit  et  rescinditur". And the reason is, because the righteousness
which  faith seeks after, or which is attainable by faith,  is  that
which  is  given  to  us,  imputed unto us, which  faith  does  only
receive.  It  receives  "the abundance of grace,  and  the  gift  of
righteousness." But that which is attainable by works  is  our  own,
inherent in us, wrought out by us, and not imputed unto us;  for  it
is  nothing but those works themselves, with respect unto the law of
God.
   And if righteousness before God be to be obtained alone by faith,
and  that in contradiction unto all works,--which if a man do  them,
according unto the law, "he shall even live in them," then is it  by
faith  alone that we are justified before God, or, nothing  else  on
our   part   is   required  thereunto.  And  of  what  nature   this
righteousness must be is evident.
    Again:   if  faith  and  works  are  opposed  as  contrary   and
inconsistent,   when   considered  as   the   means   of   attaining
righteousness or justification before God, as plainly they are, then
is  it  impossible we should be justified before God by them in  the
same  sense,  way,  and manner. Wherefore, when  the  apostle  James
affirms that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only,  he
cannot  intend our justification before God, where it is  impossible
they should both concur; for not only are they declared inconsistent
by  the apostle in this place, but it would introduce several  sorts
of  righteousness  into  justification, that  are  inconsistent  and
destructive of each other. This was the first mistake of  the  Jews,
whence this miscarriage ensued,--they sought not after righteousness
by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.
   Their second mistake was as unto the righteousness itself whereon
a  man might be justified before God; for this they judged was to be
their    own   righteousness,   chap.10:3.   Their   own    personal
righteousness,  consisting in their own duties  of  obedience,  they
looked  on as the only righteousness whereon they might be justified
before  God. This, therefore, they went about to establish,  as  the
Pharisee  did,  Luke 18:11,12: and this mistake, with  their  design
thereon,  "to establish their own righteousness," was the  principal
cause that made them reject the righteousness of God; as it is  with
many at this day.
  Whatever is done in us, or performed by us, as obedience unto God,
is  our  own righteousness. Though it be done in faith, and  by  the
aids of God's grace, yet is it subjectively ours, and, so far as  it
is  a  righteousness, it is our own. But all righteousness whatever,
which  is our own, is so far diverse from the righteousness by which
we  are  to  be  justified  before God, as  that  the  most  earnest
endeavour to establish it,--that is, to render it such as  by  which
we may be justified,--is an effectual means to cause us to refuse  a
submission unto, and an acceptance of, that whereby alone we may  be
so.
   This  ruined  the Jews, and will be the ruin of  all  that  shall
follow  their example in seeking after justification; yet is it  not
easy for men to take any other way, or to be taken off from this. So
the  apostle  intimates  in  that expression,  "They  submitted  not
themselves unto the righteousness of God." This righteousness of God
is of that nature that the proud mind of man is altogether unwilling
to  bow and submit itself unto; yet can it no otherwise be attained,
but  by such a submission or subjection of mind as contains in it  a
total  renunciation of any righteousness of our own. And  those  who
reproach  others for affirming that men endeavouring after morality,
or  moral righteousness, and resting therein, are in no good way for
the  participation of the grace of God by Jesus Christ, do expressly
deride  the  doctrine of the apostle; that is,  of  the  Holy  Ghost
himself
  Wherefore, the plain design of the apostle is, to declare that not
only  faith and the righteousness of it, and a righteousness of  our
own  by  works, are inconsistent, that is, as unto our justification
before  God;  but also, that the intermixture of our own  works,  in
seeking  after  righteousness, as the  means  thereof,  does  wholly
divert   us   from  the  acceptance  of  or  submission   unto   the
righteousness of God. For the righteousness which is of faith is not
our own; it is the righteousness of God,--that which he imputes unto
us.  But  the  righteousness of works is  our  own,--that  which  is
wrought  in us and by us. And as works have no aptitude nor meekness
in themselves to attain or receive a righteousness which, because it
is  not  our own, is imputed unto us, but are repugnant unto it,  as
that which will cast them down from their legal dignity of being our
righteousness; so faith has no aptitude nor meekness in itself to be
an  inherent righteousness, or so to be esteemed, or as such  to  be
imputed  unto us, seeing its principal faculty and efficacy  consist
in  fixing  all the trust, confidence, and expectation of the  soul,
for righteousness and acceptation with God, upon another.
   Here was the ruin of those Jews: they judged it a better, a  more
probable, yea, a more righteous and holy way for them, constantly to
endeavour after a righteousness of their own, by duties of obedience
unto  the  law  of  God, than to imagine that  they  could  come  to
acceptance with God by faith in another. For tell them, and such  as
they,  what  you please, if they have not a righteousness  of  their
own,  that they can set upon its legs, and make to stand before God,
the law will not have its accomplishment, and so will condemn them.
   To  demolish this last sort of unbelief, the apostle grants  that
the law must have its end, and he completely fulfilled, or there  is
no  appearing for us as righteous before God; and withal shows  them
how  this  is  done, and where alone it is to be sought  after:  for
"Christ," says he, "is the end of the law for righteousness to every
one  that  believeth,"  Rom.10:4. We need not trouble  ourselves  to
inquire  in  what  various senses Christ may be said  to  be  "telos
nomou",--"the  end," the complement, the perfection, "of  the  law."
The  apostle sufficiently determines his intention, in affirming not
absolutely  that  he  is  the end of the law,  but  he  is  so  "eis
dikaiosunen", "for righteousness," unto every one that believes. The
matter in question is a righteousness unto justification before God.
And  this  is  acknowledged to be the righteousness  which  the  law
requires.  God  looks  for no righteousness  from  us  but  what  is
prescribed  in  the  law.  The  law  is  nothing  but  the  rule  of
righteousness,--God's prescription of a righteousness, and  all  the
duties  of it, unto us. That we should be righteous herewith  before
God  was  the  first, original end of the law.  Its  other  ends  at
present, of the conviction of sin, and judging or condemning for it,
were  accidental unto its primitive constitution. This righteousness
which  the  law  requires, which is all and only that  righteousness
which God requires of us, the accomplishment of this end of the law,
the Jews sought after by their own personal performance of the works
and  duties  of  it. But hereby, in the utmost of their  endeavours,
they  could never fulfil this righteousness, nor attain this end  of
the law; which yet if men do not they must perish for ever.
   Wherefore,  the apostle declares, that all this is  done  another
way; that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled, and its end, as
unto  a  righteousness before God, attained; and that is in  and  by
Christ.  For what the law required, that he accomplished;  which  is
accounted unto every one that believes.
    Herein  the  apostle  issues  the  whole  disquisition  about  a
righteousness  wherewith we may be justified  before  God,  and,  in
particular, how satisfaction is given unto the demands of  the  law.
That which we could not do,--that which the law could not effect  in
us,  in that it was weak through the flesh,--that which we could not
attain by the works and duties of it,--that Christ has done for  us;
and  so is "the end of the law for righteousness unto every one that
believeth."
   The law demands a righteousness of us; the accomplishment of this
righteousness  is the end which it aims at, and which  is  necessary
unto our justification before God. This is not to be attained by any
works  of  our  own, by any righteousness of our own. But  the  Lord
Christ  is this for us, and unto us; which, how he is or can be  but
by  the  imputation  of  his  obedience  and  righteousness  in  the
accomplishment  of  the  law, I cannot understand;  I  am  sure  the
apostle does not declare.
   The  way  whereby we attain unto this end of the  law,  which  we
cannot   do   by  our  utmost  endeavours  to  establish   our   own
righteousness, is by faith alone, for "Christ is the end of the  law
for  righteousness unto every one that believeth." To mix any  thing
with  faith herein, as it is repugnant unto the nature of faith  and
works,  with  respect  unto  their aptitude  and  meekness  for  the
attaining  of  a  righteousness, so it is as directly  contradictory
unto  the express design and words of the apostle as any thing  that
can be invented.
   Let  men  please  themselves  with their  distinctions,  which  I
understand not (and yet, perhaps, should be ashamed to say  so,  but
that I am persuaded they understand them not themselves by whom they
are used), or with cavils, objections, feigned consequences, which I
value not; here I shall forever desire to fix my soul, and herein to
acquiesce,--namely,  that  "Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law   for
righteousness  to every one that does believe." And  I  do  suppose,
that  all they who understand aright what it is that the law of  God
does  require of them, how needful it is that it be complied withal,
and that the end of it be accomplished, with the utter insufficiency
of  their  own endeavours unto those ends, will, at least  when  the
time  of  disputing is over, retake themselves unto the same  refuge
and rest.

The next place I shall consider in the epistles of this apostle is,-
-
  1 Cor.1:30. "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made
unto   us   wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,   and
redemption."
   The  design  of  the apostle in these words is to manifest,  that
whatever  is wanting unto us on any account that we may please  God,
live  unto  him, and come to the enjoyment of him, that we  have  in
and, by Jesus Christ; and this on the part of God from mere free and
sovereign  grace, as verses 26-29 do declare. And we have all  these
things by virtue of our insition or implantation in him: "ex autou",-
-  "from,"  "of,"  or "by him." He by his grace  is  the  principal,
efficient  cause hereof. And the effect is, that we are  "in  Christ
Jesus," that is, ingrafted in him, or united unto him, as members of
his mystical body; which is the constant sense of that expression in
the  Scripture.  And  the  benefits  which  we  receive  hereby  are
enumerated  in the following words. But, first, the way  whereby  we
are  made  partakers of them, or they are communicated unto  us,  is
declared:  "Who of God is made unto us." It is so ordained  of  God,
that  he  himself  shall be made or become all this  unto  us:  "Hos
egenethe hemin apo Theou", where "apo" denotes the efficient  cause,
as  "ex" did before. But how is Christ thus made unto us of God,  or
what  act of God is it that is intended thereby? Socinus says it  is
"a  general act of the providence of God, whence it is come to pass,
or is so fallen out, that one way or other the Lord Christ should be
said  to  be all this unto us." But it is an especial ordinance  and
institution of God's sovereign grace and wisdom, designing Christ to
be  all this unto us and for us, with actual imputation thereon, and
nothing  else,  that is intended. Whatever interest,  therefore,  we
have  in Christ, and whatever benefit we have by him, it all depends
on the sovereign grace and constitution of God, and not on any thing
in ourselves. Whereas, then, we have no righteousness of our own, he
is  appointed of God to be our "righteousness," and is made so  unto
us:  which can be no otherwise, but that his righteousness  is  made
ours;  for he is made it unto us (as he is likewise the other things
mentioned) so as that all boasting, that is in ourselves, should  be
utterly  excluded,and that "he that glorieth  should  glory  in  the
Lord,"  verses 29-31. Now, there is such a righteousness, or such  a
way  of  being  righteous, whereon we may have  somewhat  to  glory,
Rom.4:2,  and which does not exclude boasting, chap.3:27.  And  this
cannot possibly be but when our righteousness is inherent in us; for
that, however it may be procured, or purchased, or wrought in us, is
yet  our  own,  so  far as any thing can be our own  whilst  we  are
creatures. This kind of righteousness, therefore, is here  excluded.
And  the Lord Christ being so made righteousness unto us of  God  as
that all boasting and glorying on our part, or in ourselves, may  be
excluded,--yea, being made so for this very end, that so  it  should
be,--it  can  be  no  otherwise  but  by  the  imputation   of   his
righteousness unto us; for thereby is the grace of God,  the  honour
of his person and mediation exalted, and all occasion of glorying in
ourselves utterly prescinded. We desire no more from this testimony,
but  that whereas we are in ourselves destitute of all righteousness
in  the  sight  of  God,  Christ is, by a  gracious  act  of  divine
imputation, made of God righteousness unto us, in such a way as that
all  our  glorying  ought  to  be in  the  grace  of  God,  and  the
righteousness  of Christ himself. Bellarmine attempts three  answers
unto  this testimony, the two first whereof are coincident; and,  in
the  third, being on the rack of light and truth, he confesses,  and
grants all that we plead for. 1. He says, "That Christ is said to be
our  righteousness, because he is the efficient cause of it, as  God
is  said to be our strength; and so there is in the words a metonymy
of  the  effect for the cause." And I say it is true, that the  Lord
Christ  by  his  Spirit  is the efficient  cause  of  our  personal,
inherent  righteousness. By his grace it is effected and wrought  in
us; he renews our natures into the image of God, and without him  we
can  do  nothing:  so that our habitual and actual righteousness  is
from him. But this personal righteousness is our sanctification, and
nothing  else.  And  although the same internal  habit  of  inherent
grace,  with operations suitable thereunto, be sometimes called  our
sanctification, and sometimes our righteousness, with  respect  unto
those   operations,   yet  is  it  never  distinguished   into   our
sanctification   and   our  righteousness.  But   his   being   made
righteousness unto us in this place is absolutely distinct from  his
being   made   sanctification  unto  us;  which  is  that   inherent
righteousness  which  is wrought in us by the Spirit  and  grace  of
Christ. And his working personal righteousness in us, which  is  our
sanctification,  and  the imputation of his righteousness  unto  us,
whereby  we  are made righteous before God, are not only consistent,
but the one of them cannot be without the other.
   2.  He pleads, "That Christ is said to be made righteousness unto
us, as he is made redemption. Now, he is our redemption, because  he
has  redeemed  us. So is he said to be made righteousness  unto  us,
because by him we become righteous;" or, as another speaks, "because
by  him  alone  we are justified." This is the same  plea  with  the
former,--namely,  that there is a metonymy of  the  effect  for  the
cause in all these expressions; yet what cause they intend it to  be
who  expound the words, "By him alone we are justified,"  I  do  not
understand. But Bellarmine is approaching yet nearer the truth:  for
as  Christ is said to be made of God redemption unto us, because  by
his  blood we are redeemed, or freed from sin, death, and  hell,  by
the  ransom  he paid for us, or have redemption through  his  blood,
even the forgiveness of sins; so he is said to be made righteousness
unto  us, because through his righteousness granted unto us  of  God
(as  God's making him to be righteousness unto us, and our  becoming
the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,  and  the  imputation  of  his
righteousness unto us, that we may be righteous before God, are  the
same), we are justified.
  His third answer, as was before observed, grants the whole of what
we  plead;  for  it is the same which he gives unto Jer.23:6:  which
place  he  conjoins with this, as of the same sense and  importance,
giving  up  his whole cause in satisfaction unto them, in the  words
before described, lib. 2 cap.10.
  Socinus prefaces his answer unto this testimony with an admiration
that any should make use of it, or plead it in this cause, it is  so
impertinent  unto the purpose. And, indeed, a pretended contempt  of
the  arguments of his adversaries is the principal artifice he makes
use  of  in all his replies and evasions; wherein I am sorry to  see
that  he  is  followed by most of them who, together  with  him,  do
oppose the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. And so of late
the  use  of this testimony, which reduced Bellarmine to so great  a
strait, is admired at on the only ground and reason wherewith it  is
opposed  by Socinus. Yet are his exceptions unto it such as  that  I
cannot also but a little, on the other hand, wonder that any learned
man  should be troubled with them, or seduced by them; for  he  only
pleads,  "That  if Christ be said to be made righteousness  unto  us
because his righteousness is imputed unto us, then is he said to  be
made wisdom unto us because his wisdom is so imputed, and so of  his
sanctification; which none will allow: yea, he must be redeemed  for
us, and his redemption be imputed unto us." But there is nothing  of
force  nor  truth  in this pretence: for it is built  only  on  this
supposition,  that  Christ must be made unto us  of  God  all  these
things  in  the  same  way  and manner; whereas  they  are  of  such
different natures that it is utterly impossible he should so be. For
instance,  he is made sanctification unto us, in that by his  Spirit
and grace we are freely sanctified; but he cannot be said to be made
redemption  unto us, in that by his Spirit and grace we  are  freely
redeemed.  And  if  he  is  said to be made righteousness  unto  us,
because  by his Spirit and grace he works inherent righteousness  in
us,  then  is it plainly the same with his being made sanctification
unto  us.  Neither does he himself believe that Christ is  made  all
these things unto us in the same way and manner; and therefore  does
he  not  assign any special way whereby he is so made them all,  but
clouds  it  in  an ambiguous expression, that he becomes  all  these
things  unto us in the providence of God. But ask him in particular,
how Christ is made sanctification unto us, and he will tell you that
it  was  by  his doctrine and example alone, with some such  general
assistance of the Spirit of God as he will allow. But now,  this  is
no  way  at  all whereby Christ was made redemption unto  us;  which
being  a  thing external, and not wrought in us, Christ  can  be  no
otherwise made redemption unto us than by the imputation unto us  of
what  he  did  that  we might be redeemed, or reckoning  it  on  our
account;--not that he was redeemed for us, as he childishly  cavils,
but  that he did that whereby we are redeemed. Wherefore, Christ  is
made  of God righteousness unto us in such a way and manner  as  the
nature of the thing does require. Say some, "It is because by him we
are  justified."  Howbeit the text says  not  that  by  him  we  are
justified, but that he is of God made righteousness unto  us;  which
is  not our justification, but the ground, cause, and reason whereon
we  are justified. Righteousness is one thing, and justification  is
another.  Wherefore  we  must inquire  how  we  come  to  have  that
righteousness  whereby we are justified; and this the  same  apostle
tells us plainly is by imputation: "Blessed is the man unto whom the
Lord imputeth righteousness," Rom.4:6. It follows, then, that Christ
being made unto us of God righteousness, can have no other sense but
that  his righteousness is imputed unto us, which is what this  text
does undeniably confirm.

2   Cor.5:21.  The  truth  pleaded  for  is  yet  more  emphatically
expressed: "For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew  no  sin;
that  we  might  be  made the righteousness  of  God  in  him."  The
paraphrase  of Austin on these words gives the sense of them:  "Ipse
peccatum  ut nos justitia, non nostra sed Dei, non in nobis  sed  in
ipso;  sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum, non in se,  sed  in
nobis  constitutum", Enchirid. ad Laurent., cap.4. And the words  of
Chrysostom  upon this p]ace, unto the same purpose, have been  cited
before at large.
  To set out the greatness of the grace of God in our reconciliation
by  Christ,  he  describes him by that paraphrases, "ton  me  gnonta
hamartian",--"who knew no sin," or "who knew not sin." He  knew  sin
in  the  notion  or  understanding of its nature,  and  he  knew  it
experimentally in the effects which he underwent and  suffered;  but
he  knew  it  not,--that is, was most remote  from  it,--as  to  its
commission or guilt. So that "he knew no sin," is absolutely no more
but "he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth," as it  is
expressed,  1  Pet.2:22; or that he was "holy, harmless,  undefiled,
separate  from sinners," Heb.7:26. Howbeit, there is an emphasis  in
the  expression, which is not to be neglected: for as it is observed
by  Chrysostom, as containing an auxesis ("ouchi ton me hamartanonta
monon  legei alle ton mede gnonta hamartian"), and by sundry learned
persons  after  him; so those who desire to learn the excellency  of
the grace of God herein, will have an impression of a sense of it on
their  minds from this emphatical expression, which the  Holy  Ghost
chose to make use of unto that end; and the observation of it is not
to be despised.
   "He  has made him to be sin;" "That is," say many expositors,  "a
sacrifice  for  sin."  "Quemadmodum oblatus est  pro  peccatis,  non
immerito  peccatum factus dicitur, quia et bestia in lege  quae  pro
peccatis  offerabatur, peccatum nuncupatur", Ambrose. in  locum.  So
the  sin and trespass-offering are often expressed by "chattat"  and
"'asham",--"the  sin" and "trespass," or "guilt." And  I  shall  not
contend  about  this  exposition, because that signified  in  it  is
according  unto  the  truth.  But  there  is  another  more   proper
signification of the word: "hamartia" being put for "hamartoolos",--
"sin,"  for  a "sinner," (that is, passively, not actively;  not  by
inhesion,  but imputation); for this the phrase of speech and  force
of the antithesis seem to require. Speaking of another sense, Estius
himself  on  the  place  adds,  as  that  which  he  approves:  "Hic
intellectus  explicandus est per commentarium Graecorum  Chrysostomi
et  caeterorum; quia peccatum emphatic 'hoos' interpretantur  magnum
peccatorem;  ac  si  dicat  apostolus, nostri  causa  tractavit  eum
tanquam  ipsum  peccatum,  ipsum scelus,  id  est,  tanquam  hominem
insigniter  sceleratum,  ut  in  quo  posuerit  iniquitates   omnium
nostrum". And if this be the interpretation of the Greek scholiasts,
as  indeed it is, Luther was not the first who affirmed that  Christ
was  made the greatest sinner,--namely, by imputation. But we  shall
allow  the  former exposition, provided that the true  notion  of  a
sin-offering, or expiatory sacrifice, be admitted: for although this
neither was nor could consist in the transfusion of the inherent sin
of  the  person into the sacrifice, yet did it so in the translation
of  the  guilt  of  the  sinner  unto  it;  as  is  fully  declared,
Lev.16:20,21.  Only I must say, that I grant this  signification  of
the  word  to avoid contention; for whereas some say that "hamartia"
signifies  sin,  and  a  sacrifice for sin, it  cannot  be  allowed.
"Chata'", in Kal, signifies "to err, to sin, to transgress  the  law
of  God."  In  Piel  it  has a contrary signification,--namely,  "to
cleanse from sin," or "to make expiation of sin." Hence "chattat" is
most frequently used with respect unto its derivation from the first
conjugation, and signifies "sin," "transgression," and "guilt;"  but
sometimes  with  respect unto the second, and then it  signifies  "a
sacrifice  for sin, to make expiation of it." And so it is  rendered
by   the   LXX,  sometimes  by  "hilasmos",  Ezek.44:27,   sometimes
"exilasmos",    Exod.30:10,   Ezek.43:22,   a   "propitiation,"    a
"propitiatory  sacrifice;" sometimes by "hagnisma",  Num.19:19,  and
"hagnismos",   "purification,"  or  "cleansing."   But   "hamartia",
absolutely, does nowhere, in any good author, nor in the  Scripture,
signify  a sacrifice for sin, unless it may be allowed to do  so  in
this  one  place  alone.  For whereas the LXX  do  render  "chattat"
constantly  by "hamartia", where it signifies sin; where it  denotes
an  offering for sin, and they retain that word, they do it by "peri
hamartias", an elliptical expression, which they invented  for  that
which  they knew "hamartia" of itself neither did nor could signify,
Lev.4:3,14,32,35;  5:6-11;  6:30;  8:2.  And  they  never  omit  the
preposition  unless  they  name  the  sacrifice;  as  "moschos   tes
hamartias".  This  is  observed also  by  the  apostle  in  the  New
Testament; for twice, expressing the sin-offering by this  word,  he
uses  that  phrase "peri hamartias", Rom.8:3, Heb.10:6; but  nowhere
uses  "hamartia"  to  that purpose. If it  be,  therefore,  of  that
signification in this place, it is so here alone. And  whereas  some
think that it answers "piaculum" in the Latin, it is also a mistake;
for  the  first signification of "hamartia" is confessed to be  sin,
and  they would have it supposed that thence it is abused to signify
a  sacrifice for sin. But "piaculum" is properly a sacrifice, or any
thing  whereby sin is expiated, or satisfaction is made for it.  And
very  rarely it is abused to denote such a sin or crime as  deserves
pubic expiation, and is not otherwise to be pardoned; so Virgil,--
  "Distulit in seram commissa piacula mortem".--AEn.6,569.
But we shall not contend about words, whilst we can agree about what
is intended.
   The only inquiry is, how God did make him to be sin? "He has made
him  to  be  sin;" so that an act of God is intended.  And  this  is
elsewhere expressed by his "laying all our iniquities upon him,"  or
causing  them  to  meet  on  him, Isa.53:6.  And  this  was  by  the
imputation of our sins unto him, as the sins of the people were  put
on  the  head  of the goat, that they should be no more theirs,  but
his,  so  as that he was to carry them away from them. Take  sin  in
either sense before mentioned, either of a sacrifice for sin,  or  a
sinner, and the imputation of the guilt of sin antecedently unto the
punishment of it, and in order whereunto, must be understood. For in
every  sacrifice for sin there was an imposition of sin on the beast
to  be  offered, antecedent unto the sacrificing of it, and  therein
its  suffering by death. Therefore, in every offering  for  sin,  he
that  brought  it was to "put his hand on the head of it,"  Lev.1:4.
And  that the transferring of the guilt of sin unto the offering was
thereby  signified, is expressly declared, Lev.16:21. Wherefore,  if
God  made  the  Lord Christ a sin-offering for us,  it  was  by  the
imputation  of  the  guilt  of sin unto him  antecedently  unto  his
suffering. Nor could any offering be made for sin, without a typical
translation  of  the guilt of sin unto it. And, therefore,  when  an
offering  was  made for the expiation of the guilt of  an  uncertain
murder, those who were to make it by the law, namely, the elders  of
the city that was next unto the place where the man was slain,--were
not  to  offer a sacrifice, because there was none to confess  guilt
over  it, or to lay guilt upon it; but whereas the neck of a  heifer
was  to  be stricken off, to declare the punishment due unto  blood,
they  were  to  wash  their  hands over  it  to  testify  their  own
innocence,  Deut.21:1-8.  But  a  sacrifice  for  sin  without   the
imputation of guilt there could not be. And if the word be taken  in
the second sense,--namely, for a sinner, that is, by imputation, and
in  God's  esteem,--it must be by the imputation of guilt; for  none
can,  in  any  sense, be denominated a sinner from  mere  suffering.
None,  indeed, do say that Christ was made sin by the imputation  of
punishment unto him, which has no proper sense; but they say sin was
imputed unto him as unto punishment: which is indeed to say that the
guilt  of  sin  was imputed unto him; for the guilt of  sin  is  its
respect  unto  punishment, or the obligation unto  punishment  which
attends it. And that any one should be punished for sin without  the
imputation of the guilt of it unto him, is impossible; and, were  it
possible,  would  be  unjust: for it is not possible  that  any  one
should  be  punished for sin properly, and yet that sin be  none  of
his.  And  if it be not his by inhesion, it can be his no other  way
but  by  imputation. One may suffer on the occasion of  the  sin  of
another  that is no way made his, but he cannot be punished for  it;
for punishment is the recompense of sin on the account of its guilt.
And  were  it possible, where is the righteousness of punishing  any
one  for that which no way belongs unto him? Besides, imputation  of
sin,  and punishing, are distinct acts, the one preceding the other;
and therefore the former is only of the guilt of sin: wherefore, the
Lord  Christ was made sin for us, by the imputation of the guilt  of
our sins unto him.
   But  it  is  said,  that if "the guilt of sin were  imputed  unto
Christ,  he  is  excluded  from all possibility  of  merit,  for  he
suffered  but  what was his due; and so the whole work  of  Christ's
satisfaction  is subverted. This must be so, if God in judgment  did
reckon him guilty and a sinner." But there is an ambiguity in  these
expressions.  If  it be meant that God in judgment  did  reckon  him
guilty  and a sinner inherently in his own person, no such thing  is
intended.  But God laid all our sins on him, and in judgment  spared
him not, as unto what was due unto them. And so he suffered not what
was  his  due upon his own account, but what was due unto  our  sin:
which it is impiety to deny; for if it were not so, he died in vain,
and  we  are  still  in  our sins. And as his satisfaction  consists
herein,  nor  could  be without it, so does  it  not  in  the  least
derogate from his merit. For supposing the infinite dignity  of  his
person,  and his voluntary susception of our sin to answer  for  it,
which altered not his state and condition, his obedience therein was
highly meritorious.
   In  answer  hereunto,  and by virtue hereof,  we  are  made  "the
righteousness of God in him." This was the end of his being made sin
for us. And by whom are we so made? It is by God himself: for "it is
God   that   justifieth,"  Rom.8:33;  it  is   God   who   "imputeth
righteousness,"  chap.4:6. Wherefore it is the act  of  God  in  our
justification that is intended; and to be made the righteousness  of
God  is  to  be  made  righteous  before  God,  though  emphatically
expressed by the abstract for the concrete, to answer what was  said
before of Christ being made sin for us. To be made the righteousness
of  God is to be justified; and to be made so in him, as he was made
sin   for  us,  is  to  be  justified  by  the  imputation  of   his
righteousness unto us, as our sin was imputed unto him.
   No  man  can  assign  any  other way whereby  he  was  made  sin,
especially  his  being made so by God, but by God's laying  all  our
iniquities upon him,--that is, imputing our sin unto him. How, then,
are  we made the righteousness of God in him? "By the infusion of  a
habit  of  grace," say the Papists generally. Then, by the  rule  of
antithesis, he must be made sin for us by the infusion of a habit of
sin;  which  would be a blasphemous imagination. "By  his  meriting,
procuring,  and  purchasing righteousness for us," say  others.  So,
possibly,  we  might be made righteous by him; but so we  cannot  be
made  righteous in him. This can only be by his righteousness as  we
are  in  him, or united unto him. To be righteous in him  is  to  be
righteous with his righteousness, as we are one mystical person with
him. Wherefore,--
   To be made the righteousness of God in Christ, as he was made sin
for  us,  and  because he was so, can be no other  but  to  be  made
righteous by the imputation of his righteousness unto us, as we  are
in  him or united unto him. All other expositions of these words are
both  jejune  and  forced, leading the mind from the  first,  plain,
obvious sense of them.
   Bellarmine excepts unto this interpretation, and it is his  first
argument  against  the  imputation of the righteousness  of  Christ,
lib.2  cap.7, De Justificatione, "Quinto refellitur quoniam si  vere
nobis  imputetur  justitia  Christi ut per  eam  justi  habeamur  ac
censeremur,  ac  si  proprie  nostra  esset  intrinseca  formalisque
justitia, profecto non minus justi haberi et censeri deberemus  quam
ipse  Christus: proinde deberemus dici atque haberi redemptores,  et
salvatores  mundi, quod est absurdissimum". So full  an  answer  has
been  returned  hereunto,  and  that so  frequently,  by  Protestant
divines,  as  that I would not have mentioned it,  but  that  divers
among  ourselves are pleased to borrow it from him and make  use  of
it. "For," say they, "if the righteousness of Christ be imputed unto
us so as thereby to be made ours, then are we as righteous as Christ
himself, because we are righteous with his righteousness."  Ans.  1.
These  things are plainly affirmed in the Scripture, that,  as  unto
ourselves and in ourselves, "we are all as an unclean thing, and all
our  righteousnesses are as filthy rags," Isa.64:6, on the one hand;
and  that  "in the LORD we have righteousness and strength;  in  the
LORD  we  are justified and do glory," Isa.45:24,25, on the other;--
that  "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves:" and  yet  we
are "the righteousness of God in Christ." Wherefore these things are
consistent,  whatever cavils the wit of men can raise against  them;
and  so  they must be esteemed, unless we will comply with Socinus's
rule   of  interpretation,--namely,  that  where  any  thing   seems
repugnant unto our reason, though it be never so expressly  affirmed
in  the  Scripture,  we are not to admit of it, but  find  out  some
interpretation, though never so forced, to bring the  sense  of  the
words unto our reason. Wherefore,--2. Notwithstanding the imputation
of the righteousness of Christ unto us, and our being made righteous
therewith,  we are sinners in ourselves (the Lord knows greatly  so,
the best of us); and so cannot be said to be as righteous as Christ,
but  only  to be made righteous in him who are sinners in ourselves.
3.  To  say  that  we  are as righteous as  Christ,  is  to  make  a
comparison  between the personal righteousness  of  Christ  and  our
personal righteousness,--if the comparison be of things of the  same
kind. But this is foolish and impious: for, notwithstanding all  our
personal  righteousness, we are sinful; he knew no sin. And  if  the
comparison be between Christ's personal, inherent righteousness, and
righteousness imputed unto us, inhesion and imputation being  things
of  diverse  kinds,  it  is fond and of no consequence.  Christ  was
actively  righteous; we are passively so. When our sin  was  imputed
unto him, he did not thereby become a sinner as we are, actively and
inherently a sinner; but passively only, and in God's estimation. As
he  was made sin, yet knew no sin; so we are made righteous, yet are
sinful  in ourselves. 4. The righteousness of Christ, as it was  his
personally,  was  the  righteousness of the Son  of  God,  in  which
respect it had in itself an infinite perfection and value; but it is
imputed unto us only with respect unto our personal want,--not as it
was  satisfactory for all, but as our souls stand in need of it, and
are  made  partakers of it. There is, therefore, no ground  for  any
such comparison. 5. As unto what is added by Bellarmine, that we may
hereon  be  said  to  be redeemers and saviours of  the  world,  the
absurdity  of the assertion falls upon himself; we are not concerned
in it. For he affirms directly, lib.1, De Purgator., cap.14, that "a
man  may  be rightly called his own redeemer and saviour;" which  he
endeavours  to prove from Dan.4. And some of his church affirm  that
the saints may be called the redeemers of others, though improperly.
But we are not concerned in these things; seeing from the imputation
of the righteousness of Christ, it follows only that those unto whom
it  is  imputed  are redeemed and saved, not at all  that  they  are
redeemers and saviours. It belongs also unto the vindication of this
testimony  to show the vanity of his seventh argument  in  the  same
case, because that also is made use of by some among ourselves;  and
it  is this: "If by the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us,  we
may  be  truly said to be righteous, and the sons of God;  then  may
Christ,  by the imputation of our unrighteousness, be said to  be  a
sinner,  and a child of the devil." Ans. 1. That which the Scripture
affirms  concerning the imputation of our sins unto Christ is,  that
"he  was  made  sin for us." This the Greek expositors,  Chrysostom,
Theophylact, and Oecumenius, with many others, take for "a  sinner."
But  all affirm that denomination to be taken from imputation  only:
he  had sin imputed unto him, and underwent the punishment due  unto
it;  as we have righteousness imputed unto us, and enjoy the benefit
of it. 2. The imputation of sin unto Christ did not carry along with
it  any  thing  of the pollution or filth of sin, to be communicated
unto   him   by  transfusion,--a  thing  impossible;  so   that   no
denomination can thence arise which should include in it any respect
unto  them. A thought hereof is impious, and dishonourable unto  the
Son  of  God. But his being made sin through the imputation  of  the
guilt of sin, is his honour and glory. 3. The imputation of the  sin
of fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, etc., such as the Corinthians
were  before  their conversion unto Christ, does not on  any  ground
bring him under a denomination from those sins. For they were so  in
themselves  actively, inherently, subjectively; and thence  were  so
called.  But that he who knew no sin, voluntarily taking on  him  to
answer  for  the guilt of those sins,--which in him was  an  act  of
righteousness, and the highest obedience unto God,--should  be  said
to  be an idolater, etc., is a fond imagination. The denomination of
a  sinner from sin inherent, actually committed, defiling the  soul,
is  a  reproach,  and significative of the utmost unworthiness;  but
even  the denomination of a sinner by the imputation of sin, without
the  least personal guilt or defilement being undergone by him  unto
whom  it is imputed, in an act of the highest obedience, and tending
unto  the  greatest glory of God, is highly honorable  and  glorious
But,--4.  The imputation of sin unto Christ was antecedent unto  any
real union between him and sinners, whereon he took their sin on him
as  he would, and for what ends he would; but the imputation of  his
righteousness  unto believers is consequential in  order  of  nature
unto  their union with him, whereby it becomes theirs in a  peculiar
manner: so as that there is not a parity of reason that he should be
esteemed a sinner, as that they should be accounted righteous. And,-
-5. We acquiesce in this, that on the imputation of sin unto Christ,
it  is said that "God made him to be sin for us," which he could not
be,  but thereby,--and he was so by an act transient in its effects,
for  a time only, that time wherein he underwent the punishment  due
unto it; but on the imputation of his righteousness unto us, we  are
"made  the righteousness of God," with an everlasting righteousness,
that abides ours always. 6. To be a child of the devil by sin, is to
do the works of the devil, John 8:44; but the Lord Christ, in taking
our sins upon him, when imputed unto him, did the work of God in the
highest act of holy obedience, evidencing himself to be the  God  of
God  thereby, and destroying the work of the devil. So  foolish  and
impious  is  it  to conceive that any absolute change  of  state  or
relation in him did ensue thereon.
   That  by "the righteousness of God," in this place, our own faith
and  obedience according to the gospel, as some would have  it,  are
intended, is so alien from the scope of the place and sense  of  the
words,   as   that  I  shall  not  particularly  examine   it.   The
righteousness  of God is revealed to faith, and received  by  faith;
and  is  not therefore faith itself. And the force of the antithesis
is  quite  perverted by this conceit; for where is it in this,--that
he  was  made sin by the imputation of our sin unto him, and we  are
made  righteousness by the imputation of our own faith and obedience
unto  ourselves? But as Christ had no concern in sin but as God made
him sin,--it was never in him inherently; so have we no interest  in
this righteousness,--it is not in us inherently, but only is imputed
unto  us.  Besides,  the act of God in making us  righteous  is  his
justifying  of us. But this is not by the infusion of the  habit  of
faith  and  obedience, as we have proved. And what  act  of  God  is
intended  by them who affirm that the righteousness of God which  we
are  made is our own righteousness, I know not. The constitution  of
the  gospel  law it cannot be; for that makes no man righteous.  And
the persons of believers are the object of this act of God, and that
as they are considered in Christ.

Gal.2:16.  The  epistle of the same apostle unto  the  Galatians  is
wholly   designed   unto  the  vindication  of   the   doctrine   of
justification by Christ, without the works of the law, with the  use
and  means of its improvement. The sum of his whole design  is  laid
down  in the repetition of his words unto the apostle Peter, on  the
occasion of his failure, there related, chap.2:16, "Knowing  that  a
man  is  not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith  of
Jesus  Christy even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we  might
be  justified  by the faith of Christ, and not by the works  of  the
law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
   That  which  he  does  here assert, was  such  a  known,  such  a
fundamental  principle  of  truth among all  believers,  that  their
conviction and knowledge of it was the ground and occasion of  their
transition and passing over from Judaism unto the gospel, and  faith
in Jesus Christ thereby.
   And in the words, the apostle determines that great inquiry,  how
or  by  what  means  a man is or may be justified  before  God?  The
subject  spoken of is expressed indefinitely: "A man," that is,  any
man,  a Jew, or a Gentile; a believer, or an unbeliever; the apostle
that  spoke, and they to whom he spoke,--the Galatians  to  whom  he
wrote,  who  also for some time had believed and made profession  of
the gospel.
   The answer given unto the question is both negative and positive,
both asserted with the highest assurance, and as the common faith of
all Christians, but only those who had been carried aside from it by
seducers. He asserts that this is not, this cannot be, "by the works
of the law." What is intended by "the law," in these disputations of
the  apostle, has been before declared and evinced. The law of Moses
is  sometimes signally intended,--not absolutely, but as it was  the
present  instance  of men's cleaving unto the law of  righteousness,
and not submitting themselves thereon unto the righteousness of God.
But  that the consideration of the moral law, and the duties of  it,
is in this argument anywhere excepted by him, is a weak imagination,
yea,  it would except the ceremonial law itself; for the observation
of it, whilst it was in force, was a duty of the moral law.
   And  the  works of the law are the works and duties of  obedience
which  this  law  of God requires, performed in the manner  that  it
prescribes,--namely, in faith, and out of love unto God  above  all;
as  has  been proved. To say that the apostle excludeth  only  works
absolutely perfect, which none ever did or could perform  since  the
entrance  of  sin,  is  to  suppose  him  to  dispute,  with   great
earnestness and many arguments, against that which no man  asserted,
and which he does not once mention in all his discourse. Nor can  he
be  said  to  exclude only works that are looked on as  meritorious,
seeing  he excludes all works, that there may be no place for  merit
in  our  justification;  as  has also been  proved.  Nor  did  these
Galatians,  whom he writes unto, and convinces them of their  error,
look  for  justification from any works but such as  they  performed
then,  when  they  were believers. So that all sorts  of  works  are
excluded from any interest in our justification. And so much  weight
does   the  apostle  lay  on  this  exclusion  of  works  from   our
justification,  as  that  he  affirms  that  the  admittance  of  it
overthrows  the  whole  gospel,  verse  21:  "For,"  says  he,   "if
righteousness be by the law, then Christ is dead in vain;" and it is
dangerous venturing on so sharp a fence.
   Not  this or that sort of works; not this or that manner  of  the
performance  of  them;  not this or that kind  of  interest  in  our
justification;  but  all  works, of what sort  soever,  and  however
performed,  are  excluded  from any kind  of  consideration  in  our
justification,  as  our  works or duties  of  obedience.  For  these
Galatians, whom the apostle reproves, desired no more but  that,  in
the  justification  of a believer, works of the law,  or  duties  of
obedience,  might  be admitted into a conjunction  or  copartnership
with  faith  in Christ Jesus; for that they would exclude  faith  in
him,  and  assign justification unto works without  it,  nothing  is
intimated,  and it is a foolish imagination. In opposition  hereunto
he positively ascribes our justification unto faith in Christ alone.
"Not  by works, but by faith," is by faith alone. That the particles
"ean  me"  are  not  exceptive but adversative, has  not  only  been
undeniably  proved  by Protestant divines, but  is  acknowledged  by
those  of  the  Roman church who pretend unto any  modesty  in  this
controversy.  The  words  of Estius on  this  place  deserve  to  be
transcribed:  "Nisi  per  fidem  Jesu  Christi;  sententiam   reddit
obscuram  particula  nisi" (so the Vulgar Latin  renders  "ean  me",
instead  of  "sed"  or  "sed tantum") "quae si  proprie  ut  Latinis
auribus sonat accipiatur, exceptionem facit ab eo quod praecedit, ut
sensus sit hominem non justificari ex operibus Legis nisi fidees  in
Christum ad ea opera accedat, quae si accesserit justificari eum per
legis opera. Sed cum hic sensus justificationem dividat, partim  eam
tribuens  operibus  legis,  partim fidei Christi,  quod  est  contra
definitam  et absolutam apostoli sententiam, manifestum  est,  inter
pretationem  illam  tanquam apostolico sensui  et  scopo  contrariam
omnino repudiandam esse. Verum constat voculam 'nisi' frequenter  in
Scripturis adversative sumi, utidem valeat quod 'sed tantum'". So he
according to his usual candour and ingenuity.
  It is not probable that we shall have an end of contending in this
world,  when men will not acquiesce in such plain determinations  of
controversies given by the Holy Ghost himself.
   The  interpretation of this place, given as the  meaning  of  the
apostle,  that  men cannot be justified by those  works  which  they
cannot  perform, that is, works absolutely perfect; but may  be  so,
and  are so, by those which they can and do perform, if not in their
own  strength,  yet by the aid of grace; and that  faith  in  Christ
Jesus, which the apostle opposes absolutely unto all works whatever,
does  include in it all those works which he excludes, and that with
respect  unto  that  end or effect with respect whereunto  they  are
excluded;  cannot well be supposed to be suitable unto the  mind  of
the Holy Ghost.

Eph.2:8-10. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and  that  not
of  yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works,  lest  any  man
should  boast. For we are his workmanship, created in  Christ  Jesus
unto  good works, which God has before ordained that we should  walk
in them."
   Unless  it had seemed good unto the Holy Ghost to have  expressed
beforehand all the evasions and subterfuges which the wit of man  in
after   ages   could  invent,  to  pervert  the  doctrine   of   our
justification  before  God,  and  to  have  rejected  them,  it   is
impossible they could have been more plainly prevented than they are
in  this context. If we may take a little unprejudiced consideration
of it, I suppose what is affirmed will be evident.
   It  cannot be denied but that the design of the apostle, from the
beginning  of this chapter unto the end of verse 11, is  to  declare
the way whereby lost and condemned sinners come to be delivered, and
translated  out of that condition into an estate of acceptance  with
God,  and  eternal salvation thereon. And therefore,  in  the  first
place,  he  fully  describes their natural state, with  their  being
obnoxious unto the wrath of God thereby; for such was the method  of
this apostle,--unto the declaration of the grace of God in any kind,
he  did  usually, yea, constantly, premise the consideration of  our
sin,  misery, and ruin. Others, now, like not this method  so  well.
Howbeit  this hinders not but that it was his. Unto this purpose  he
declares  unto the Ephesians that they "were dead in trespasses  and
sins,"  expressing  the power that sin had on their  souls  as  unto
spiritual  life,  and all the actions of it; but withal,  that  they
lived  and walked in sin, and on all accounts were the "children  of
wrath," or subject and liable unto eternal condemnation, verses 1-3.
What  such  persons can do towards their own deliverance, there  are
many  terms  found  out  to express, all passing  my  understanding,
seeing the entire design of the apostle is to prove that they can do
nothing  at all. But another cause, or other causes of it, he  finds
out, and that in direct, express opposition unto any thing that  may
be done by ourselves unto that end: "Ho de Theos plousios oon en ele-
ei",  verse 4. It is not a work for us to undertake; it is not  what
we  can  contribute any thing unto: "But God, who is rich in mercy."
The adversative includes an opposition unto every thing on our part,
and  encloses the whole work to God. Would men have rested  on  this
divine  revelation, the church of God had been  free  from  many  of
those  perverse opinions and wrangling disputes which  it  has  been
pestered  withal. But they will not so easily part with thoughts  of
some  kind  of interest in being the authors of their own happiness.
Wherefore, two things we may observe in the apostle's assignation of
the  causes  of our deliverance from a state of sin,  and  [of  our]
acceptance with God:--
   1.  That he assigns the whole of this work absolutely unto grace,
love, and mercy, and that with an exclusion of the consideration  of
any thing on our part; as we shall see immediately, verses 5,8.
   2. He magnifies this grace in a marvelous manner. For,--First, He
expresses  it  by all names and titles whereby it is  signified;  as
"eleos", "agape", "charis", "chrestotes",--"mercy," "love," "grace,"
and "kindness:" for he would have us to look only unto grace herein.
Secondly,  He ascribes such adjuncts, and gives such epithets,  unto
that  divine  mercy  and  grace, which is  the  sole  cause  of  our
deliverance,  in and by Jesus Christ, as rendered it  singular,  and
herein  solely  to be adored: "plousios en ele-ei,  die  ten  pollen
agapen; hupertalloon ploutos tes charitos";--"rich in mercy;" "great
love  wherewith he loved us;" "the exceeding riches of his grace  in
his  kindness," verses 4-7. It cannot reasonably be denied but  that
the  apostle  does  design deeply to affect the mind  and  heart  of
believers  with a sense of the grace and love of God in  Christ,  as
the  only cause of their justification before God. I think no  words
can  express those conceptions of the mind which this representation
of  grace does suggest. Whether they think it any part of their duty
to  be like minded, and comply with the apostle in this design,  who
scarce  ever  mention the grace of God, unless it be  in  a  way  of
diminution from its efficacy, and unto whom such ascriptions unto it
as  are  here made by him are a matter of contempt, is not  hard  to
judge.
   But it will be said, "These are good words, indeed, but they  are
only  general; there is nothing of argument in all this  adoring  of
the  grace  of God in the work of our salvation." It may be  so,  it
seems,  to  many; but yet, to speak plainly, there  is  to  me  more
argument in this one consideration,--namely, of the ascription  made
in  this  cause  unto  the grace of God in this  place,--than  in  a
hundred  sophisms,  suited  neither  unto  the  expressions  of  the
Scripture  nor the experience of them that do believe.  He  that  is
possessed  with  a due apprehension of the grace  of  God,  as  here
represented, and under a sense that it was therein the design of the
Holy  Ghost to render it glorious and alone to be trusted unto, will
not  easily  be  induced  to  concern himself  in  those  additional
supplies  unto it from our own works and obedience which some  would
suggest unto him. But we may yet look farther into the words.
   The  case which the apostle states, the inquiry which he  has  in
hand, whereon he determines as to the truth wherein he instructs the
Ephesians,  and  in them the whole church of God, is,  how  a  lost,
condemned  sinner  may  come to be accepted with  God,  and  thereon
saved?  And  this is the sole inquiry wherein we are, or  intend  in
this  controversy  to be, concerned. Farther we  will  not  proceed,
either  upon the invitation or provocation of any. Concerning  this,
his position and determination is, "That we are saved by grace."
   This  first he occasionally interposes in his enumeration of  the
benefits  we receive by Christ, verse 5. But not content  therewith,
he  again  directly asserts it, verse 8, in the same words;  for  he
seems to have considered how slow men would be in the admittance  of
this  truth,  which  at  once deprives  them  of  all  boastings  in
themselves.
   What  it  is that he intends by our being saved must be  inquired
into. It would not be prejudicial unto, but rather advance the truth
we  plead  for,  if,  by  our being saved,  eternal  salvation  were
intended.  But  that  cannot  be the sense  of  it  in  this  place,
otherwise  than as that salvation is included in the causes  of  it,
which  are  effectual  in this life. Nor do I  think  that  in  that
expression,  "By  grace  are ye saved," our  justification  only  is
intended,  although it be so principally. (conversion unto  God  and
sanctification are also included therein, as is evident from  verses
5,6;  and  they  are  no  less  of  sovereign  grace  than  is   our
justification itself. But the apostle speaks of what the  Ephesians,
being  now  believers, and by virtue of their being  so,  were  made
partakers  of  in this life. This is manifest in the whole  context;
for  having,  in  the  beginning  of the  chapter,  described  their
condition, what it was, in common with all the posterity of Adam, by
nature,  verses  1-3,  he  moreover  declares  their  condition   in
particular,  in  opposition  to that  of  the  Jews,  as  they  were
Gentiles, idolaters, atheists, verses 11,12. Their present  delivery
by Jesus Christ from this whole miserable state and condition,--that
which they were under in common with all mankind, and that which was
a  peculiar aggravation of its misery in themselves,--is that  which
he  intends  by  their  being "saved." That  which  was  principally
designed  in  the  description of this state is,  that  therein  and
thereby  they were liable unto the wrath of God, guilty before  him,
and   obnoxious  unto  his  judgment.  This  he  expresses  in   the
declaration of it, verse 3,--answerable unto that method  and  those
grounds  he  everywhere proceeds on, in declaring  the  doctrine  of
justification.  Rom. 3:19-24; Tit.3:3-5. From this  state  they  had
deliverance  by faith in Christ Jesus; for unto as many  as  receive
him,  power  is  given to be the sons of God, John  1:12.  "He  that
believeth  on  him is not condemned;" that is, he is saved,  in  the
sense of the apostle in this place, John 3:18. "He that believeth on
the Son has everlasting life" (is saved); "and he that believeth not
the  Son,  the wrath of God abideth on him," verse 36. And  in  this
sense,  "saved,"  and  "salvation,"  are  frequently  used  in   the
Scripture.  Besides,  he  gives us so  full  a  description  of  the
salvation  which  he  intends, from Eph.2:13 unto  the  end  of  the
chapter,  that  there can be no doubt of it. It is our  being  "made
nigh by the blood of Christ," verse 13; our "peace" with God by  his
death,  verses  14, 15; our "reconciliation" by  the  blood  of  the
"cross,"  verse  16;  our  "access  unto  God;"  and  all  spiritual
privileges thereon depending, verses 18-20, etc.
   Wherefore,  the  inquiry of the apostle,  and  his  determination
thereon,  is concerning the causes of our justification before  God.
This   he  declares,  and  fixes  both  positively  and  negatively.
Positively,--1. In the supreme moving cause on the part of God; this
is  that free, sovereign grace and love of his, which he illustrates
by   its  adjuncts  and  properties  before  mentioned.  2.  In  the
meritorious procuring cause of it; which is Jesus Christ in the work
of  his  mediation, as the ordinance of God for the  rendering  this
grace effectual unto his glory, verses 7,13,16. 3. In the only means
or  instrumental cause on our part; which is faith: "By grace are ye
saved  through faith," verse 8. And lest he should seem to  derogate
any  thing from the grace of God, in asserting the necessity and use
of  faith,  he adds that epanorthosis, " And that not of yourselves;
it  is the gift of God." The communication of this faith unto us  is
no  less of grace than is the justification which we obtain thereby.
So  has  he  secured the whole work unto the grace  of  God  through
Christ; wherein we are interested by faith alone.
   But  not content herewith, he describes this work negatively,  or
adds  an  exclusion of what might be pretended to have a concernment
therein. And therein three things are stated distinctly:--1. What it
is  he  so  excludes.  2. The reason whereon  he  does  so.  3.  The
confirmation  of that reason, wherein he obviates an objection  that
might arise thereon:--
   1.  That which he excludes is works: "Not of works," verse 9. And
what  works  he  intends,  at least principally,  himself  declares.
"Works,"  say  some,  "of  the law, the  law  of  Moses."  But  what
concernment  had  these Ephesians therein, that the  apostle  should
inform  them that they were not justified by those works? They  were
never under that law, never sought for righteousness by it, nor  had
any  respect unto it, but only that they were delivered from it. But
it  may be he intends only works wrought in the strength of our  own
natural  abilities, without the aids of grace, and before believing.
But   what  were  the  works  of  these  Ephesians  antecedent  unto
believing,  he before and afterwards declares. For, "being  dead  in
trespasses and sins," they "walked according to the course  of  this
world in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh
and  of the mind," verses 1-3. It is certain enough that these works
have  no influence into our justification; and no less certain  that
the  apostle  had no reason to exclude them from it, as  though  any
could pretend to be advantaged by them, in that which consists in  a
deliverance  from them. Wherefore, the works here  excluded  by  the
apostle are those works which the Ephesians now performed, when they
were believers, quickened with Christ; even the "works which God has
before  ordained  that  we should walk in  them,"  as  he  expressly
declared,  verse  10.  And  these works he  excludes,  not  only  in
opposition  unto grace, but in opposition unto faith also:  "Through
faith; not of works." Wherefore he does not only reject their merit,
as  inconsistent with grace, but their co-interest on our part with,
or  subsequent  interest unto faith, in the  work  of  justification
before God.
   If  we  are  saved by grace, through faith in Christ, exclusively
unto all works of obedience whatever, then cannot such works be  the
whole  or  any  part of our righteousness unto the justification  of
life:  wherefore, another righteousness we must have, or perish  for
ever.  Many  things  I know are here offered, and many  distinctions
coined, to retain some interest of works in our justification before
God;  but whether it be the safest way to trust unto them,  or  unto
this  plain, express, divine testimony, will not be hard for any  to
determine, when they make the case their own.
   2. The apostle adds a reason of this exclusion of works: "Not  of
works,  lest any man should boast." God has ordained the  order  and
method of our justification by Christ in the way expressed, that  no
man  might have ground, reason, or occasion to glory or boast in  or
of  himself.  So  it  is expressed, 1 Cor.1:21,30,31;  Rom.3:27.  To
exclude  all glorying or boasting on our part is the design of  God.
And  this consists in an ascription of something unto ourselves that
is not in others, in order unto justification. And it is works alone
that  can administer any occasion of this boasting: "For if  Abraham
were justified by works, he has whereof to glory," chap.4:2. And  it
is  excluded alone by the "law of faith," chap.3:27; for the  nature
and  use  of  faith  is to find righteousness in another.  And  this
boasting all works are apt to beget in the minds of men, if  applied
unto  justification; and where there is any boasting of this nature,
the design of God towards us in this work of his grace is frustrated
what lies in us.
   That which I principally insist on from hence is, that there  are
no  boundaries  fixed  in Scripture unto the interest  of  works  in
justification,  so as no boasting should be included  in  them.  The
Papists  make  them  meritorious of  it,--at  least  of  our  second
justification, as they call it. "This," say some, "ought not  to  be
admitted,   for  it  includes  boasting.  Merit  and  boasting   are
inseparable." Wherefore, say others, they are only "causa  sine  qua
non,"  they  are  the condition of it; or they are  our  evangelical
righteousness before God, whereon we are evangelically justified; or
they  are  a subordinate righteousness whereon we obtain an interest
in the righteousness of Christ; or are comprised in the condition of
the new covenant whereby we are justified; or are included in faith,
being the form of it, or of the essence of it, one way or other: for
herein  men express themselves in great variety. But so long as  our
works are hereby asserted in order unto our justification, how shall
a  man be certain that they do not include boasting, or that they do
express  the true sense of these words, "Not of works, lest any  man
should  boast?" There is some kind of ascription unto  ourselves  in
this matter; which is boasting. If any shall say that they know well
enough  what they do, and know that they do not boast in  what  they
ascribe  unto works, I must say that in general I cannot  admit  it;
for  the Papists affirm of themselves that they are most remote from
boasting,  yet I am very well satisfied that boasting and merit  are
inseparable. The question is, not what men think they do? but,  what
judgment  the Scripture passes on what they do? And if it  be  said,
that  what is in us is also of the grace and gift of God, and is  so
acknowledged, which excludes all boasting in ourselves; I say it was
so  by  the  Pharisee, and yet was he a horrible boaster. Let  them,
therefore,  be supposed to be wrought in us in what way men  please,
if they be also wrought by us, and so be the "works of righteousness
which   we   have  done,"  I  fear  their  introduction   into   our
justification does include boasting in it, because of this assertion
of  the  apostle,  "Not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast."
Wherefore, because this is a dangerous point, unless men can give us
the  direct, plain, indisputable bounds of the introduction  of  our
works  into our justification, which cannot include boasting in  it,
it  is  the safest course utterly to exclude them, wherein I see  no
danger  of  any  mistake in these words of the Holy Ghost,  "Not  of
works,  lest  any man should boast;" for if we should be unadvisedly
seduced into this boasting, we should lose all the benefits which we
might otherwise expect by the grace of God.
  3. The apostle gives another reason why it cannot be of works, and
withal  obviates  an objection which might arise from  what  he  had
declared,  Fph.2:10, "For we are his workmanship, created in  Christ
Jesus  unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should
walk  in  them."  And  the  force of his reason,  which  the  causal
conjunction  intimates the introduction of, consists in  this:--that
all  good  works,--those  concerning which  he  treats,  evangelical
works,--are  the  effects of the grace of God in them  that  are  in
Christ  Jesus, and so are truly justified antecedently in  order  of
nature  unto them. But that which he principally designed  in  these
words  was that which he is still mindful of, wherever he treats  of
this  doctrine,-- namely, to obviate an objection  that  he  foresaw
some would make against it; and that is this, "If good works be thus
excluded  from our justification before God, then of  what  use  are
they?  We  may  live as we list, utterly neglect them,  and  yet  be
justified." And this very objection do some men continue  to  manage
with great vehemency against the same doctrine. We meet with nothing
in  this  cause  more  frequently, than that "if  our  justification
before  God  be  not of works, some way or other,  if  they  be  not
antecedaneously  required whereunto, if  they  are  not  a  previous
condition of it, then there is no need of them,--men may safely live
in  an  utter neglect of all obedience unto God." And on this  theme
men  are very apt to enlarge themselves, who otherwise give no great
evidences  of their own evangelical obedience. To me it is marvelous
that  they  heed not unto what party they make an accession  in  the
management  of this objection,--namely, unto that of them  who  were
the  adversaries of the doctrine of grace taught by the apostle.  It
must  be elsewhere considered. For the present, I shall say no  more
but   that,  if  the  answer  here  given  by  the  apostle  be  not
satisfactory unto them,--if the grounds and reasons of the necessity
and use of good works here declared be not judged by them sufficient
to  establish  them  in their proper place and order,--I  shall  not
esteem myself obliged to attempt their farther satisfaction.

Phil.3:8,9. "Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the
excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have
suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that  I
may   win  Christ,  and  be  found  in  him,  not  having  mine  own
righteousness,  which is of the law, but that which is  through  the
faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith".
  This is the last testimony which I shall insist upon, and although
it  be  of  great  importance, I shall be  the  more  brief  in  the
consideration  of  it,  because  it  has  been  lately  pleaded  and
vindicated  by  another,  whereunto I do not  expect  any  tolerable
reply. For what has since been attempted by one, it is of no weight;
he  is  in  this matter "oute tritos oute tetartos". And the  things
that  I  would  observe from and concerning this  testimony  may  be
reduced into the ensuing heads:--
   1.  That  which the apostle designs, from the beginning  of  this
chapter, and in these verses, is, in an especial manner, to  declare
what it is on the account whereof we are accepted with God, and have
thereon  cause to rejoice. This he fixes in general in  an  interest
in,  and  participation of, Christ by faith, in opposition unto  all
legal privileges and advantages, wherein the Jews, whom he reflected
upon,  did boast and rejoice: "Rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have  no
confidence in the flesh," verse 3.
  2. He supposes that unto that acceptance before God wherein we are
to rejoice, there is a righteousness necessary; and, whatever it be,
[it]  is  the  sole ground of that acceptance. And to give  evidence
hereunto,--
   3. He declares that there is a twofold righteousness that may  be
pleaded   and   trusted  unto  to  this  purpose:--(].)   "Our   own
righteousness, which is of the law." (2.) "That which is through the
faith  of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." These
he  asserts to be opposite and inconsistent, as unto the end of  our
justification  and  acceptance  with  God:  "Not  having  mine   own
righteousness,  but  that  which  is,"  etc.  And  an   intermediate
righteousness between these he acknowledges not.
   4.  Placing the instance in himself, he declares emphatically (so
as  there is scarce a greater orator, or vehemency of speech, in all
his writings) which of these it was that he adhered unto, and placed
his  confidence in. And in the handling of this subject, there  were
some  things  which  engaged his holy mind into  an  earnestness  of
expression  in  the  exaltation of one  of  these,--namely,  of  the
righteousness  which is of God by faith; and the depression  of  the
other, or his own righteousness. As,--
  (1.) This was the turning point whereon he and others had forsaken
their  Judaism,  and  betaken  themselves  unto  the  gospel.  This,
therefore,  was  to  be  secured as the main instance,  wherein  the
greatest controversy that ever was in the world was debated.  So  he
expresses  it,  Gal.2:15,16, "We who are Jews  by  nature,  and  not
sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by  the
works  of  the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even  we  have
believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of
Christ,  and  not  by the works of the law." (2.) Hereon  there  was
great  opposition made unto this doctrine by the Jews in all places,
and in many of them the minds of multitudes were turned off from the
truth  which  the most are generally prone unto in this  case),  and
perverted  from the simplicity of the gospel. This greatly  affected
his  holy  soul, and he takes notice of it in most of  his  epistles
(3.)  The  weight  of  the doctrine itself, with that  unwillingness
which  is in the minds of men by nature to embrace it, as that which
lays  the  axe to the root of all spiritual pride, elation of  mind,
and  self-pleasing  whatever,--whence innumerable  subterfuges  have
been,  and are, sought out to avoid the efficacy of it, and to  keep
the  souls of men from that universal resignation of themselves unto
sovereign  grace  in  Christ,  which they  have  naturally  such  an
aversation  unto,--did also affect him. (4.) He had himself  been  a
great  sinner in the days of his ignorance, by a peculiar opposition
unto  Christ  and  the gospel. This he was deeply sensible  of,  and
wherewithal  of  the  excellency  of  the  grace  of  God  and   the
righteousness of Christ, whereby he was delivered. And men must have
some  experience of what he felt in himself as unto sin  and  grace,
before they can well understand his expressions about them.
  5. Hence it was that, in many other places of his writings, but in
this   especially,  he  treats  of  these  things  with  a   greater
earnestness  and vehemency of spirit than ordinary.  Thus,--(1.)  On
the  part  of Christ, whom he would exalt, he mentions not only  the
knowledge   of   him,   but  "to  huperechon  tes  gnooseoos",--"the
excellency  of  the  knowledge of Christ Jesus  my  Lord,"  with  an
emphasis in every word. And those other redoubled expressions,  "all
loss  for him;" "that I may win him;" "that I may be found in  him;"
"that  I  may  know him,"--all argue the working of his  affections,
under the conduct of faith and truth, unto an acquiescence in Christ
alone,  as  all,  and  in all. Somewhat of this  frame  of  mind  is
necessary unto them that would believe his doctrine. Those  who  are
utter  strangers unto the one will never receive the other. (2.)  In
his  expression of all other things that are our own, that  are  not
Christ,   whether  privileges  or  duties,  however  good,   useful,
excellent  they may be in themselves, yet, in comparison  of  Christ
and his righteousness, and with respect unto the end of our standing
before  God,  and  acceptance with him, with the same  vehemency  of
spirit  he  casts  contempt upon [them], calling  them  "skutala",--
"dog's  meat,"  to be left for them whom he calls "dogs;"  that  is,
evil  workers  of  the  concision, or the wicked  Jews  who  adhered
pertinaciously  unto  the righteousness of the law,  Phil.3:2.  This
account of the earnestness of the apostle in this argument, and  the
warmth  of  his expressions, I thought meet to give, as  that  which
gives light into the whole of his design.
   6.  The  question  being thus stated, the inquiry  is,  what  any
person,  who desires acceptance with God, or a righteousness whereon
he  may be justified before him, ought to retake himself unto one of
the  ways proposed he must close withal. Either he must comply  with
the  apostle  in his resolution to reject all his own righteousness,
and  to  retake himself unto the righteousness of God, which  is  by
faith in Christ Jesus alone, or find out for himself, or get some to
find out for him, some exceptions unto the apostle's conclusion,  or
some distinctions that may prepare a reserve for his own works,  one
way  or other, in his justification before God. Here every one  must
choose  for  himself. In the meantime, we thus  argue:--If  our  own
righteousness, and the righteousness which is of God  by  faith,  or
that  which  is  through  the  faith of Christ  Jesus  (namely,  the
righteousness  which God imputes unto us, Rom.4:6, or the  abundance
of  grace  and the gift of righteousness thereby which  we  receive,
chap.5:17),   are  opposite  and  inconsistent  in   the   work   of
justification  before  God, then are we justified  by  faith  alone,
through  the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us.  The
consequent  is  plain, from the removal of all other  ways,  causes,
means,  and  conditions  of it, as inconsistent  with  it.  But  the
antecedent  is  expressly the apostle's: "Not my own,  but  that  of
God." Again,--
   That  whereby  and  wherewith we are "found in  Christ"  is  that
whereby alone we are justified before God; for to be found in Christ
expresseth  the  state of the person that is to be justified  before
God;  whereunto is opposed to be found in ourselves.  And  according
unto these different states does the judgment of God pass concerning
us.  And as for those who are found in themselves, we know what will
be their portion. But in Christ we are found by faith alone.
  All manner of evasions are made use of by some to escape the force
of  this testimony. It is said, in general, that no sober-minded man
can  imagine  the  apostle did not desire  to  be  found  in  gospel
righteousness, or that by his own righteousness he meant  that;  for
it  is  that  alone  can  entitle us unto the benefits  of  Christ's
righteousness. "Nollem dictum." (1.) The censure is too severe to be
cast   on  all  Protestant  writers,  without  exception,  who  have
expounded this place of the apostle; and all others, except some few
of  late, influenced by the heat of the controversy wherein they are
engaged.  (2.)  If  the gospel righteousness  intended  be  his  own
personal  righteousness  and  obedience,  there  is  some  want   of
consideration  in affirming that he did desire to be  found  in  it.
That  wherein we are found, thereon are we to be judged. To be found
in  our  own evangelical righteousness before God, is to enter  into
judgment  with  God  thereon; which those who understand  any  thing
aright of God and themselves will not be free unto. And to make this
to  be the meaning of his words: "I desire not to be found in my own
righteousness which is after the law, but I desire to  be  found  in
mine  own  righteousness which is according to the gospel," whereas,
as they are his own inherent righteousness, they are both the same,-
-doth not seem a proper interpretation of his words; and it shall be
immediately  disproved. (3.) That our personal gospel  righteousness
does  entitle  us unto the benefits of Christ's righteousness,--that
is,  as unto our justification before God,--is "gratis dictum;"  not
one  testimony  of Scripture can be produced that  gives  the  least
countenance  unto such an assertion. That it is contrary  unto  many
express testimonies, and inconsistent with the freedom of the  grace
of  God in our justification, as proposed in the Scripture, has been
proved  before. Nor do any of the places which assert the  necessity
of  obedience  and  good  works  in believers,--that  is,  justified
persons,--unto  salvation, any way belong unto  the  proof  of  this
assertion, or in the least express or intimate any such thing;  and,
in  particular, the assertion of it is expressly contradictory  unto
that  of the apostle, Tit.3:4,5. But I forbear, and proceed  to  the
consideration  of  the  special answers that  are  given  unto  this
testimony, especially those of Bellarmine, whereunto I have  as  yet
seen nothing added with any pretence of reason in it:--
   1.  Some  say  that by his own righteousness, which  the  apostle
rejects,  he intends only his righteousness "ek nomou", or  "by  the
works   of  the  law."  But  this  was  only  an  outward,  external
righteousness,   consisting  in  the  observation   of   rites   and
ceremonies,  without respect unto the inward frame or  obedience  of
the  heart.  But  this is an impious imagination. The  righteousness
which is by the law is the righteousness which the law requires, and
those works of it which if a man do he shall live in them; for  "the
doers of the law shall be justified," Rom.2:13. Neither did God ever
give  any  law of obedience unto man, but what obliged him to  "love
the LORD his God with all his heart, and all his soul." And it is so
far  from  being  true,  that God by the law  required  an  external
righteousness only, that he frequently condemns it as an abomination
to him, where it is alone.
   2. Others say that it is the righteousness, whatever it be, which
he  had during his Pharisaism. And although he should be allowed, in
that state, to have "lived in all good conscience, instantly to have
served God day and night," and to have had respect as well unto  the
internal  as  the  external works of the law; yet all  these  works,
being before faith, before conversion to God, may be, and are to be,
rejected  as unto any concurrence unto our justification. But  works
wrought  in faith, by the aid of grace,--evangelical works,--are  of
another  consideration, and, together with faith, are the  condition
of justification.
   Ans.  1.  That, in the matter of our justification,  the  apostle
opposes evangelical works, not only unto the grace of God, but  also
unto the faith of believers, was proved in the consideration of  the
foregoing testimony.
   2.  He makes no such distinction as that pretended,--namely, that
works  are  of  two  sorts, whereof one is to be excluded  from  any
interest  in our justification, but not the other; neither  does  he
anywhere  else,  treating  of the same subject,  intimate  any  such
distinction, but, on the contrary, declares that use of all works of
obedience in them that believe which is exclusive of the supposition
of  any  such  distinction:  but  he  directly  expresses,  in  this
rejection,  his own righteousness,--that is, his personal,  inherent
righteousness,-- whatever it be, and however it be wrought.
   3.  He  makes  a  plain distinction of his own twofold  estate,--
namely,  that of his Judaism which he was in before his  conversion,
and  that which he had by faith in Christ Jesus. In the first state,
he  considers  the privileges of it, and declares what  judgment  he
made  concerning them upon the revelation of Jesus Christ unto  him:
"hegemai",  says he, referring unto the time past,--namely,  at  his
first  conversion "I considered them, with all the advantages, gain,
and  reputation  which  I had by them; but  rejected  them  all  for
Christ:  because  the  esteem of them and  continuance  in  them  as
privileges, was inconsistent with faith in Christ Jesus."  Secondly,
he  proceeds to give an account of himself and his thoughts, as unto
his present condition. For it might be supposed that although he had
parted  with  all his legal privileges for Christ,  yet  now,  being
united  unto  him by faith, he had something of his own  wherein  he
might rejoice, and on the account whereof he might be accepted  with
God  (the thing inquired after), or else he had parted with all  for
nothing.  Wherefore, he, who had no design to make any  reserves  of
what  he  might  glory  in, plainly declares what  his  judgment  is
concerning all his present righteousness, and the ways of  obedience
which  he  was  now engaged in, with respect unto the ends  inquired
after, Phil.3:8: "Alla menounge kai hegoumai". The bringing over  of
what  was  affirmed before concerning his Judaical  privileges  into
this verse, is an effect of a very superficiary consideration of the
context. For,--(1.) There is a plain "auxesis" in these words, "Alla
menounge kai". He could not more plainly express the heightening  of
what  he  had  affirmed  by  a proceed unto  other  things,  or  the
consideration  of  himself in another state: "But, moreover,  beyond
what I have already asserted." (2.) The change of the time expressed
by  "hegemai",  [which]  respects what was  past,  into  "hegoumai",
wherein he has respect only unto what was present, not what  he  had
before  rejected and forsaken, makes evident his progress  unto  the
consideration  of  things  of another nature.  Wherefore,  unto  the
rejection  of  all  his  former Judaical  privileges,  he  adds  his
judgment  concerning  his  own present personal  righteousness.  But
whereas  it  might be objected, that, rejecting all both before  and
after conversion, he had nothing left to rejoice in, to glory in, to
give  him  acceptance  with God; he assures us  of  the  contrary,--
namely,  that  he  found  all  these  things  in  Christ,  and   the
righteousness  of  God which is by faith. He is therefore  in  these
words, "Not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law,"  so
far  from  intending only the righteousness which he had before  his
conversion, as that he intends it not at all.
   The words of Davenant on this passage of the apostle, being in my
judgment not only sober, but weighty also, I shall transcribe  them:
"Hic  docet  apostolus quaenam illa justitia sit qua nitendum  coram
Deo,  nimirum  quae per fidem apprehenditur, at haec  imputate  est:
Causam  etiam ostendit curjure nostra fiat, nimirum quia nos Christi
sumus  et in Christo comperimur; quia igitur insiti sumus in  corpus
ejus  et  coalescimus cumillo in unam personam, ideo  ejus  justitia
nostra  reputtur", De Justif. Habit. cap.38. For whereas some  begin
to  interpret our being "in Christ," and being "found in him," so as
to intend no more but our profession of the faith of the gospel, the
faith  of  the  catholic church in all ages concerning the  mystical
union  of Christ and believers, is not to be blown away with  a  few
empty words and unproved assertions.
   The  answer,  therefore,  is  full and  clear  unto  the  general
exception, namely, that the apostle rejects our legal, but  not  our
evangelical   righteousness;   for,--(1.)   The   apostle   rejects,
disclaims,  disowns,  nothing at all, not  the  one  nor  the  other
absolutely, but in comparison of Christ, and with respect  unto  the
especial end of justification before God, or a righteousness in  his
sight. (2.) In that sense he rejects all our own righteousness;  but
our evangelical righteousness, in the sense pleaded for, is our own,
inherent  in us, performed by us. (3.) Our legal righteousness,  and
our  evangelical, so far as an inherent righteousness  is  intended,
are   the  same;  and  the  different  ends  and  use  of  the  same
righteousness are alone intended in that distinction, so far  as  it
has  sense in it. That which in respect of motives unto it, the ends
of  it,  with  the especial causes of its acceptance  with  God,  is
evangelical;  in  respect  of its original prescription,  rule,  and
measure, is legal. When any can instance in any act or duty, in  any
habit  or  effect  of it, which is not required by  that  law  which
enjoins  us to love the Lord our God with all our heart,  soul,  and
mind,  and our neighbour as ourselves, they shall be attended  unto.
(4.)   The   apostle  in  this  case  rejects  all  the  "works   of
righteousness  which  we have done," Tit.3:5;  but  our  evangelical
righteousness consists in the works of righteousness  which  we  do.
(5.)  He  disclaims  all  that is our own. And  if  the  evangelical
righteousness intended be our own, he sets up another in  opposition
unto  it; and which, therefore, is not our own, but as it is imputed
unto  us.  And I shall yet add some other reasons which render  this
pretence useless, or show the falseness of it:--
   (1.)  Where  the apostle does not distinguish or  limit  what  he
speaks  of,  what  ground  have  we  to  distinguish  or  limit  his
assertions? "Not by works," says he sometimes, absolutely; sometimes
"the  works of righteousness which we have done." "That is,  not  by
some  sort of works," say those who plead the contrary. But by  what
warrant?  (2.)  The  works which they pretend  to  be  excluded,  as
wherein  our  own righteousness that is rejected does  consist,  are
works wrought without faith, without the aid of grace: but these are
not  good works, nor can any be denominated righteous from them, nor
is  it  any righteousness that consists in them alone; for  "without
faith  it  is impossible to please God." And to what purpose  should
the   apostle   exclude  evil  works  and  hypocritical   from   our
justification?  Whoever imagined that any could  be  justified  with
respect  unto  them? There might have been some  pretence  for  this
gloss,  had  the apostle said his own works; but whereas he  rejects
his  own  righteousness, to restrain it unto such works as  are  not
righteous,   as   will  denominate  none  righteous,   as   are   no
righteousness at all, is most absurd. (3.) Works wrought  in  faith,
if applied unto our justification, do give occasion unto, or include
boasting,   more  than  any  others,  as  being  better   and   more
praiseworthy  than  they. (4.) The apostle elsewhere  excludes  from
justification the works that Abraham had done, when he  had  been  a
believer  many years; and the works of David, when he described  the
blessedness of a man by the forgiveness of sins. (5.) The  state  of
the question which he handles in his Epistle unto the Galatians, was
expressly about the works of them that did believe; for he does  not
dispute against the Jews, who would not be pressed in the least with
his  arguments,--namely, that if the inheritance were  by  the  law,
then  the promise was of none effect; and if righteousness  were  by
the  law,  then did Christ die in vain; for these things they  would
readily  grant.  But he speaks unto them that were  believers,  with
respect  unto those works which they would have joined  with  Christ
and  the gospel, in order unto justification. (6.) If this were  the
mind  of  the apostle, that he would exclude one sort of works,  and
assert  the necessity of another unto the same end, why did  he  not
once say so--especially considering how necessary it was that so  he
should do, to answer those objections against his doctrine which  he
himself  takes  notice of and returns answer unto on other  grounds,
without the least intimation of any such distinction?
  Bellarmine considers this testimony in three places, lib.1 cap.18,
lib.1  cap.19,  lib.5  cap.5, De Justificat. And  he  returns  three
answers  unto it; which contain the substance of all that is pleaded
by   others  unto  the  same  purpose:  He  says,--(1.)  "That   the
righteousness  which is by the law, and which is  opposed  unto  the
righteousness which is by faith, is not the righteousness written in
the  law,  or  which  the law requires, but a righteousness  wrought
without  the aid of grace, by the knowledge of the law alone."  (2.)
"That  the  righteousness which is by the faith of Christ is  'opera
nostra  justa  facta ex fide',--our own righteous works  wrought  in
faith;  which others call our evangelical works." (3.) "That  it  is
blasphemous  to  call the duties of inherent righteousness  "dzemian
kai skutala",--'loss and dung.'" But he labours in the fire with all
big  sophistry. For as to the first,--(1.) That by the righteousness
which is by the law, the righteousness which the law requires is not
intended, is a bold assertion, and expressly contradictory unto  the
apostle,   Rom.9:31;   10:5.  In  both  places   he   declares   the
righteousness  of  the  law  to be the righteousness  that  the  law
requires. (2.) The works which he excludes, he calls "the  works  of
righteousness that we have done," Tit.3:5, which are the works  that
the  law  requires. Unto the second, I say,--(1.) That the substance
of  it is, that the apostle should profess, "I desire to be found in
Christ,  not  having  my  own  righteousness,  but  having  my   own
righteousness;" for evangelical inherent righteousness was  properly
his own. And I am sorry that some should apprehend that the apostle,
in  these words, did desire to be found in his own righteousness  in
the  presence of God, in order unto his justification;  for  nothing
can  be  more contrary, not only unto the perpetual tenor and design
of  all  his discourses on this subject, but also unto the testimony
of  all other holy men in the Scripture to the same purpose;  as  we
have  proved before. And I suppose there are very few true believers
at  present whom they will find to comply and join with them in this
desire   of   being   found  in  their  own   personal   evangelical
righteousness, or the works of righteousness which they  have  done,
in their trial before God, as unto their justification. We should do
well to read our own hearts, as well as the books of others, in this
matter.  (2.) "The righteousness which is of God by faith,"  is  not
our  own obedience or righteousness, but that which is opposed  unto
it;  that which God imputes unto us, Rom.4:6; that which we  receive
by  way of gift, chap.5:17. (3.) That by "the righteousness which is
through the faith of Christ;" our own inherent righteousness is  not
intended, is evident from hence, that the apostle excludes  all  his
own  righteousness,  as and when he was found in  Christ;  that  is,
whatever  he  had  done  as a believer.  And  if  there  be  not  an
opposition in these words, between a righteousness that is  our  own
and  that which is not our own, I know not in what words it  can  be
expressed. Unto the third, I say,--(1.) The apostle does not, nor do
we  say  that  he does, call our inherent righteousness "dung;"  but
only  that  he  "counts"  it so. (2.) He  does  not  account  it  so
absolutely,  which  he is most remote from; but only  in  comparison
with  Christ. (3.) He does not esteem it so in itself; but  only  as
unto  his  trust in it with respect unto one especial  end,--namely,
our  justification before God. (4.) The prophet Isaiah, in the  same
respect,  terms all our righteousness "filthy rags," chap.64:6;  and
"beged 'idim" is an expression of as much contempt as "skutala".
   3. Some say all works are excluded as meritorious of grace, life,
and  salvation, but not as the condition of our justification before
God.   But,--(1.)  Whatever  the  apostle  excludes,  he   does   it
absolutely, and with all respects; because he sets up something else
in  opposition unto it. (2.) There is no ground left  for  any  such
distinction  in this place: for all that the apostle  requires  unto
our  justification  is,--[1.] That we be found  in  Christ,  not  in
ourselves. [2.] That we have the righteousness of God, not our  own.
[3.] That we be made partakers of this righteousness by faith; which
is the substance of what we plead for.





XIX.  Objections  against  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  the
imputation  of  the righteousness of Christ--Personal  holiness  and
obedience not obstructed, but furthered by it


Objections  against the doctrine of justification by the  imputation
of   the  righteousness  of  Christ--Nature  of  these  objections--
Difficulty  in  discerning aright the sense  of  some  men  in  this
argument--Justification by works, the end of all declension from the
righteousness  of  Christ--Objections against this doctrine  derived
from a supposition thereof alone--First principal objection: Imputed
righteousness   overthrows  the  necessity  of  a  holy   life--This
objection, as managed by them of the church of Rome, an open calumny-
-How  insisted  on by some among ourselves--Socinus'  fierceness  in
this  charge--His  foul dishonesty therein--False charges  on  men's
opinions  making  way for the rash condemnation of  their  persons--
Iniquity   of   such   censures--The  objection   rightly   stated--
Sufficiently answered in the previous discourses about the nature of
faith,  and  force  of the moral law--The nature  and  necessity  of
evangelical holiness elsewhere pleaded--Particular answers unto this
objection--All  who  profess this doctrine do not  exemplify  it  in
their  lives--The  most holy truths have been abused--None  by  whom
this  doctrine is now denied exceeds them in holiness by whom it  is
formerly  professed,  and  the power of  it  attested--The  contrary
doctrine  not successful in the reformation of the lives of men--The
best  way  to  determine this difference--The one objection  managed
against  the  doctrine  of the apostle in his own  days--Efficacious
prejudices  against  this doctrine in the minds  of  men--The  whole
doctrine  of the apostle liable to be abused--Answer of the  apostle
unto  this  objection--He  never  once  attempts  to  answer  it  by
declaring  the necessity of personal righteousness, or  good  works,
unto   justification  before  God--He  confines   the   cogency   of
evangelical  motives unto obedience only unto believers--Grounds  of
evangelical  holiness  asserted  by  him,  in  compliance  with  his
doctrine  of  justification:--1 Divine  ordination--Exceptions  unto
this  ground  removed--2.  Answer  of  the  apostle  vindicated--The
obligation  of the law unto obedience--Nature of it, and consistency
with  grace--This answer of the apostle vindicated--Heads  of  other
principles that might be pleaded to the same purpose


That  which  remains  to  put an issue  to  this  discourse  is  the
consideration of some things that in general are laid  in  objection
against  the truth pleaded for. Many things of that nature  we  have
occasionally met withal, and already removed; yea, the principal  of
those  which  at  present are most insisted on. The  testimonies  of
Scripture  urged  by those of the Roman church for justification  by
works,  have  all of them so fully and frequently been  answered  by
Protestant  divines, that it is altogether needless to insist  again
upon  them, unless they had received some new enforcement; which  of
late they have not done. That which, for the most part, we have  now
to  do  withal  are rather sophistical cavils, from supposed  absurd
consequences, than real theological arguments. And some of those who
would  walk  with  most  wariness  between  the  imputation  of  the
righteousness  of Christ and justification by our own works,  either
are  in such a slippery place that they seem sometimes to be on  the
one side, sometimes on the other; or else to express themselves with
so much caution, as it is very difficult to apprehend their minds. I
shall  not, therefore, for the future dare to say that this or  that
is  any  man's opinion, though it appear unto me so to be, as  clear
and  evident as words can express it; but that this or that opinion,
let  it be maintained by whom it will, I approve or disapprove, this
I shall dare to say. And I will say, also, that the declination that
has been from the common doctrine of justification before God on the
imputation  of  the  righteousness of  Christ,  does  daily  proceed
towards  a direct assertion of justification by works; nor,  indeed,
has  it  where to rest until it comes unto that bottom. And this  is
more  clearly  seen in the objections which they  make  against  the
truth than in what they plead in defense of their own opinions:  for
herein they speak as yet warily, and with a pretence of accuracy  in
avoiding extremes; but in the other, or their objections, they  make
use  of  none  but  what are easily resolved into a  supposition  of
justification by works in the grossest sense of it. To insist on all
particulars  were endless; and, as was said, most of  those  of  any
importance  have already occasionally been spoken unto.  There  are,
therefore, only two things which are generally pleaded by all  sorts
of persons, Papists, Socinians, and others with whom here we have to
do, that I shall take notice of the first and fountain of all others
is,  that  the  doctrine of justification by the imputation  of  the
righteousness  of  Christ  does render  our  personal  righteousness
needless, and overthrows all necessity of a holy life. The other is,
that  the  apostle James, in his epistle, does plainly  ascribe  our
justification unto works; and what he affirms there is  inconsistent
with  that sense of those many other testimonies of Scripture  which
we plead for.
   For  the  first of these, although those who oppose the truth  we
contend  for do proceed on various different and contradictory  prin
ciples  among  themselves, as to what they exalt in opposition  unto
it,  yet do they all agree in a vehement urging of it. For those  of
the  church  of  Rome who renewed this charge, invented  of  old  by
others,  it must be acknowledged by all sober men, that, as  managed
by  them, is an open calumny: for the wisest of them, and those whom
it  is  hard  to  conceive  but  that they  knew  the  contrary,  as
Bellarmine, Vasquez, Suarez, do openly aver that Protestant  writers
deny  all  inherent  righteousness  (Bellarmine  excepts  Buyer  and
Chemnitius); that they maintain that men may be saved, although they
live  in  all manner of sin; that there is no more required of  them
but  that they believe that their sins are forgiven; and that whilst
they  do so, at though they give themselves up unto the most sensual
vices and abominations, they may be assured of their salvation.

  "Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum!"
   So will men, out of a perverse zeal to promote their own interest
in  the religion they profess, wilfully give up themselves unto  the
worst of evils, such as false accusation and open calumny; and of no
other  nature  are these assertions, which none of the  writings  or
preachings of those who are so charged did ever give the least  coun
tenance  unto. Whether the forging and promulgation of such impudent
falsehoods be an expedient to obtain justification by works  in  the
sight  of God, they who continue in them had best consider.  For  my
part, I say again, as I suppose I have said already, that it is  one
to me what religion men are of who can justify themselves in courses
and  proceedings. And for those among ourselves who are  pleased  to
make  use  of this objection, they either know what the doctrine  is
which  they would oppose, or they do not. If they do not,  the  wise
man tells them that "he who answereth a matter before he hear it, it
is  folly  and  shame  unto him." If they do understand  it,  it  is
evident  that  they  use  not  sincerity  but  artifices  and  false
pretences, for advantage, in their handling of sacred things;  which
is  scandalous  to  religion. Socinus fiercely manages  this  charge
against  the  doctrine of the Reformed churches, De  Servat.  par.4,
cap.l; and he made it the foundation whereon, and the reason why, he
opposed  the  doctrine  of the imputation  of  the  satisfaction  of
Christ,  if  any such satisfaction should be allowed; which  yet  he
peremptorily  denies. And he has written a treatise  unto  the  same
purpose, defended by Schlichtingius against Meisnerus. And he  takes
the  same  honest course herein that others did before him;  for  he
charges  it  on  the divines of the Protestant churches,  that  they
taught that God justifies the ungodly,--not only those that are  so,
and  whilst  they are so, but although they continue so;  that  they
required no inherent righteousness or holiness in any, nor could  do
so  on  their principles, seeing the imputed righteousness of Christ
is  sufficient for them, although they live in sin, are  not  washed
nor  cleansed, nor do give up themselves unto the ways of  duty  and
obedience  unto  God, whereby he may be pleased,  and  so  bring  in
libertinism  and antinomianism into the church. And he thinks  it  a
sufficient confutation of this doctrine, to allege against  it  that
"neither  fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers," etc.,  "shall
inherit the kingdom of God." And these are some of those ways  which
have rendered the management of controversies in religion scandalous
and  abominable,  such as no wise or good man  will  meddle  withal,
unless compelled for the necessary service of the church; for  these
things are openly false, and made use of with a shameful dishonesty,
to promote a corrupt design and end. When I find men at this kind of
work, I have very little concernment in what they say afterwards, be
it  true  or false. Their rule and measure is what serves their  own
end,  or  what may promote the design and interest wherein they  are
engaged, be it right or wrong. And as for this man, there is not any
article  in religion (the principal whereof are rejected by him)  on
whose  account he does with more confidence adjudge us unto  eternal
ruin,  than he does on this of the satisfaction of Christ,  and  the
imputation  of  it  unto them that do believe. So much  darkness  is
there remaining on the minds of the most of men,--so many inveterate
prejudices on various occasions are they pestered withal, especially
if not under the conduct of the same enlightening Spirit,--that some
will confidently condemn others unto eternal flames for those thing
whereon  they place, on infallible grounds, their hopes  of  eternal
blessedness, and know that they love God and live unto him on  their
account. But this wretched advantage of condemning all them to  hell
who  dissent  from them is greedily laid hold of  by  all  sorts  of
persons,  for they thereby secretly secure their own whole party  in
the  persuasion  of eternal salvation, be they otherwise  what  they
will;  for  if  the  want  of that faith  which  they  profess  will
certainly damn men whatever else they be, and how good soever  their
lives  be, many will easily suffer themselves to be deceived with  a
foolish  sophism,  that  then that faith  which  they  profess  will
assuredly  save  them, be their lives what they please,  considering
how  it falls in with their inclinations. And hereby they may happen
also  to  frighten poor, simple people into a compliance with  them,
whilst they peremptorily denounce damnation against them unless they
do  so.  And  none,  for  the most part,  are  more  fierce  in  the
denunciation  of the condemnatory sentence against  others  for  not
believing  as they do, than those who so live as that, if  there  be
any  truth in the Scripture, it is not possible they should be saved
themselves. For my part, I believe that, as to Christians in outward
profession,  all unregenerate unbelievers who obey  not  the  gospel
shall  be damned, be they of what religion they will, and none else;
for  all  that are born again, do truly believe and obey the gospel,
shall  be  saved,  be they of what religion they will  as  unto  the
differences that are at this day among Christians. That way  wherein
these  things are most effectually promoted is, in the first  place,
to be embraced by every one that takes care of his own salvation. If
they are in any way or church obstructed, that church or way is,  so
far  as  it does obstruct them, to be forsaken; and if there be  any
way of profession, or any visible church state, wherein any thing or
things  absolutely destructive of or inconsistent with these  things
are  made necessary unto the professors of it, in that way,  and  by
virtue of it, no salvation is to be obtained. In other things, every
man  is  to  walk  according unto the light of  his  own  mind;  for
whatever  is not of faith is sin. But I return from this digression,
occasioned by the fierceness of him with whom we have to do.
   For  the objection itself that has fallen under so perverse a  ma
nagement, so far as it has any pretence of sobriety in it,  is  this
and  no  other:  "If God justify the ungodly merely  by  his  grace,
through faith in Christ Jesus, so as that works of obedience are not
antecedently necessary unto justification before God,  nor  are  any
part  of  that righteousness whereon any are so justified, then  are
they  no  way necessary, but men may be justified and saved  without
them." For it is said that there is no connection between faith unto
justification,  as  by us asserted, and the necessity  of  holiness,
righteousness, or obedience, but that we are by grace set at liberty
to live as we list; yea, in all manner of sin, and yet be secured of
salvation:  for  if we are made righteous with the righteousness  of
another,  we  have no need of any righteousness of our own.  And  it
were  well  if  many  of  those who make  use  of  this  plea  would
endeavour, by some other way, also to evidence their esteem of these
things;  for to dispute for the necessity of holiness, and  live  in
the neglect of it, is uncomely.
   I  shall be brief in the answer that here shall be returned  unto
this objection; for, indeed, it is sufficiently answered or obviated
in  what  has been before discoursed concerning the nature  of  that
faith  whereby we are justified, and the continuation of  the  moral
law  in  its  force, as a rule of obedience unto all  believers.  An
unprejudiced consideration of what has been proposed on these  heads
will evidently manifest the iniquity of this charge, and how not the
least  countenance  is  given unto it by the doctrine  pleaded  for.
Besides, I must acquaint the reader that, some while since,  I  have
published an entire discourse concerning the nature and necessity of
gospel holiness, with the grounds and reasons thereof, in compliance
with  the doctrine of justification that has now been declared.  Nor
do I see it necessary to add any thing thereunto, nor do I doubt but
that  the  perusal of it will abundantly detect the vanity  of  this
charge. Dispensation of the Holy Spirit, chap.5. Some few things may
be spoken on the present occasion:--
   1.  It  is not pleaded that all who do profess, or have in former
ages  professed, this doctrine, have exemplified it in  a  holy  and
fruitful  conversation. Many, it is to be feared,  have  been  found
amongst  them who have lived and died in sin. Neither do I know  but
that  some  have abused this doctrine to countenance  themselves  in
their  sins and neglect of duty. The best of holy things  or  truths
cannot  be secured from abuse, so long as the sophistry of  the  old
serpent has an influence on the lusts and depraved minds of men.  So
was  it  with  them  of  old  who  turned  the  grace  of  God  into
lasciviousness; or, from the doctrine of it, countenanced themselves
in  their ungodly deeds. Even from the beginning, the whole doctrine
of  the  gospel,  with  the grace of God declared  therein,  was  so
abused.  Neither  were all that made profession  of  it  immediately
rendered  holy and righteous thereby. Many from the first so  walked
as  to make it evident that their belly was their god, and their end
destruction. It is one thing to have only the conviction of truth in
our minds; another to have the power of it in our hearts. The former
will only produce an outward profession; the latter effect an inward
renovation of our souls. However, I must add three things unto  this
concession:--
   (1.)  I am not satisfied that any of those who at present  oppose
this  doctrine do, in holiness or righteousness, in the exercise  of
faith,  love,  zeal,  self-denial, and all other  Christian  graces,
surpass those who, in the last ages, both in this and other nations,
firmly  adhered  unto  it, and who constantly  testified  unto  that
effectual influence which it had into their walking before God.  Nor
do  I know that any can be named amongst us, in the former ages, who
were  eminent in holiness (and many such there were),  who  did  not
cordially assent unto that imputation of the righteousness of Christ
which  we  plead  for. I doubt not in the least but  that  many  who
greatly differ from others in the explication of this doctrine,  may
be  and are eminently holy, at least sincerely so; which is as  much
as  the  best  can pretend unto. But it is not comely to  find  some
others  who  give very little evidence of their "diligent  following
after  that holiness without which no man shall see God," vehemently
declaiming  against that doctrine as destructive of holiness,  which
was so fruitful in it in former days.
   (2.) It does not appear as yet, in general, that an attempt to in
troduce a doctrine contrary unto it has had any great success in the
reformation  of the lives of men. Nor has personal righteousness  or
holiness as yet much thrived under the conduct of it, as to what may
be  observed. It will be time enough to seek countenance unto it, by
declaiming against that which has formerly had better effects,  when
it has a little more commended itself by its fruits.
   (3.)  It  were  not amiss if this part of the controversy  might,
amongst  us  all,  be  issued in the advice of  the  apostle  James,
chap.2:18,  "Show me thy faith without thy works, and  I  will  show
thee  my faith by my works." Let us all labour that fruits may  thus
far  determine of doctrines, as unto their use unto the interest  of
righteousness and holiness; for that faith which does  not  evidence
itself  by  works,  that has not this "endeixin", this  index  which
James calls for, whereby it may be found out and examined, is of  no
use nor consideration herein.
   2.  The  same objection was from the beginning laid  against  the
doctrine  of  the apostle Paul, the same charge was managed  against
it; which sufficiently argues that it is the same doctrine which  is
now  assaulted with it. This himself more than once takes notice of,
Rom.3:31,  "Do  we  make  void the law  through  faith?"  It  is  an
objection  that  he  anticipates against his doctrine  of  the  free
justification of sinners, through faith in the blood of Christ.  And
the  substance  of the charge included in these words  is,  that  he
destroyed  the  law,  took off all obligation  unto  obedience,  and
brought  in  Antinomianism. So again, chap.6:1, "What shall  we  say
then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" Some thought
this  the  natural and genuine consequence of what  he  had  largely
discoursed concerning justification, which he had now fully  closed;
and some think so still: "If what he taught concerning the grace  of
God in our justification be true, it will not only follow that there
will be no need of any relinquishment of sin on our part, but also a
continuance in it must needs tend unto the exaltation of that  grace
which  he  had  so extolled." The same objection he  repeats  again,
verse  15,  "What then? Shall we sin, because we are not  under  the
law,  but  under grace?" And in sundry other places does he  obviate
the  same  objection,  where  he does  not  absolutely  suppose  it,
especially Eph.2:9,10. We have, therefore, no reason to be surprised
with, nor much to be moved at, this objection and charge; for it  is
no  other but what was insinuated or managed against the doctrine of
the  apostle  himself, whatever enforcements are  now  given  it  by
subtlety of arguing or rhetorical exaggerations. However, evident it
is,  that  there  are  naturally in the  minds  of  men  efficacious
prejudices  against this part of the mystery of  the  gospel,  which
began betides to manifest themselves, and ceased not until they  had
corrupted  the whole doctrine of the church herein: and it  were  no
hard matter to discover the principal of them, were that our present
business; however, it has in part been done before.
   3. It is granted that this doctrine, both singly by itself, or in
conjunction with whatever else concerns the grace of God  by  Christ
Jesus, is liable unto abuse by them in whom darkness and the love of
sin  are  predominant;  for hence, from the very  beginning  of  our
religion, some fancied unto themselves that a bare assent  unto  the
gospel  was that faith whereby they should be saved, and  that  they
might  be so however they continued to live in sin and a neglect  of
all  duties of obedience. This is evident from the epistles of John,
James, and Jude, in an especial manner. Against this pernicious evil
we  can  give  no  relief, whilst men will love darkness  more  than
light,  because their deeds are evil. And it would be a fond imagina
tion  in any, to think that their modellings of this doctrine  after
this  manner  will  prevent future abuse. If they  will,  it  is  by
rendering  it no part of the gospel; for that which is so  was  ever
liable to be abused by such persons as we speak of.
  These general observations being premised, which are sufficient of
themselves to discard this objection from any place in the minds  of
sober  men,  I shall only add the consideration of what answers  the
apostle Paul returns unto it, with a brief application of them  unto
our purpose.
   The  objection made unto the apostle was, that he made  void  the
law,  that he rendered good works needless; and that, on the supposi
tion of his doctrine, men might live in sin unto the advancement  of
grace. And as unto his sense hereof we may observe,--
   1.  That he never returns that answer unto it, no not once, which
some  think  is the only answer whereby it may be satisfied  and  re
moved,--namely, the necessity of our own personal righteousness  and
obedience or works, in order unto our justification before God.  For
that by "faith without works," he understands faith and works, is an
unreasonable  supposition. If any do yet pretend that he  has  given
any such answer, let them produce it; as yet it has not been made to
appear.  And  is  it  not  strange, that if  this  indeed  were  his
doctrine,  and  the  contrary a mistake  of  it,--namely,  that  our
personal  righteousness, holiness, and works, had an influence  into
our justification, and were in any sort our righteousness before God
therein,--that he who, in an eminent manner, everywhere presses  the
necessity of them, shows their true nature and use, both in  general
and  in particular duties of all sorts, above any of the writers  of
the  New Testament, should not make use of this truth in answer unto
an  objection wherein he was charged to render them all needless and
useless?  His doctrine was urged with this objection, as himself  ac
knowledged;  and on the account of it rejected by many,  Rom.10:3,4;
Gal.2:18.  He  did see and know that the corrupt lusts and  depraved
affections  of  the  minds  of many would supply  them  with  subtle
arguing  against  it; yea, he did foresee, by the  Holy  Spirit,  as
appears  in many places of his writings, that it would be  perverted
and  abused.  And surely it was highly incumbent on him  to  obviate
what  in  him lay these evils, and so state his doctrine  upon  this
objection as that no countenance might ever be given unto it. And is
it  not  strange that he should not on this occasion, once at least,
somewhere or other, give an intimation that although he rejected the
works  of  the  law, yet he maintained the necessity of  evangelical
works,  in order unto our justification before God, as the condition
of  it,  or that whereby we are justified according unto the gospel?
If  this  were indeed his doctrine, and that which would  so  easily
solve this difficulty and answer this objection, as both of them are
by  some pretended, certainly neither his wisdom nor his care of the
church  under  the  conduct  of the infallible  Spirit,  would  have
suffered  him to omit this reply, were it consistent with the  truth
which  he  had delivered. But he is so far from any such plea,  that
when the most unavoidable occasion was administered unto it, he  not
only  waives any mention of it, but in its stead affirms that  which
plainly evidences that he allowed not of it. See Eph.2:9,10.  Having
positively  excluded works from our justification,--"Not  of  works,
lest  any  man should boast,"--it being natural thereon to  inquire,
"To  what  end do works serve? Or is there any necessity  of  them?"
Instead  of  a distinction of works legal and evangelical  in  order
unto  our  justification, he asserts the necessity of the latter  on
other  grounds,  reasons, and motives, manifesting  that  they  were
those  in  particular  which he excluded; as we  have  seen  in  the
consideration of the place. Wherefore,--that we may not forsake  his
pattern  and  example in the same cause, seeing  he  was  wiser  and
holier, knew more of the mind of God, and had more zeal for personal
righteousness  and holiness in the church, than we all,--if  we  are
pressed a thousand times with this objection, we shall never seek to
deliver  ourselves from it, by answering that we allow these  things
to be the condition or causes of our justification, or the matter of
our righteousness before God, seeing he would not so do.
  2. We may observe, that in his answer unto this objection, whether
expressly  mentioned  or tacitly obviated, he insists  not  anywhere
upon the common principle of moral duties, but on those motives  and
reasons of holiness, obedience, good works alone, which are peculiar
unto  believers. For the question was not, whether all mankind  were
obliged  unto  obedience unto God, and the duties  thereof,  by  the
moral  law?  But, whether there were an obligation from  the  gospel
upon believers unto righteousness, holiness, and good works, such as
was  suited to affect and constrain their minds unto them? Nor  will
we  admit of any other state of the question but this only: whether,
upon  the  supposition of our gratuitous justification  through  the
imputation  of the righteousness of Christ, there are in the  gospel
grounds,  reasons, and motives, making necessary, and  efficaciously
influencing  the minds of believers unto obedience and  good  works?
For those who are not believers, we have nothing to do with them  in
this  matter, nor do plead that evangelical grounds and motives  are
suited  or effectual to work them unto obedience: yea, we  know  the
contrary, and that they are apt both to despise them and abuse them.
See  1  Cor.1:23,24; 2 Cor.4:4. Such persons are under the law,  and
there we leave them unto the authority of God in the moral law.  But
that the apostle does confine his inquiry unto believers, is evident
in every place wherein he makes mention of it: Rom.6:2,3, "How shall
we,  that  are dead unto sin, live any longer therein? Know  ye  not
that  so  many  of  us  as were baptized into Jesus  Christ,"  etc.;
Eph.2:10,  "For  we  are the workmanship of God, created  in  Christ
Jesus unto good works." Wherefore, we shall not at all contend  what
cogency  unto  duties  of holiness there is in  gospel  motives  and
reasons unto the minds of unbelievers, whatever may be the truth  in
that  case;  but  what is their power, force, and efficacy,  towards
them that truly believe.
   3. The answers which the apostle returns positively unto this  ob
jection, wherein he declares the necessity, nature, ends, and use of
evangelical  righteousness and good works, are large and  many,  com
prehensive  of a great part of the doctrine of the gospel.  I  shall
only  mention the heads of some of them, which are the same that  we
plead in the vindication of the same truth:--
   (1.)  He  pleads the ordination of God: "God has before  ordained
that  we  should walk in them," Eph.2:10. God has designed,  in  the
disposal  of  the order of the causes of salvation, that  those  who
believe in Christ should live in, walk in, abound in good works, and
all  duties  of obedience unto God. To this end are precepts,  direc
tions,  motives,  and encouragements, everywhere multiplied  in  the
Scripture.  Wherefore,  we say that good works,--and  that  as  they
include  the  gradual  progressive renovation of  our  natures,  our
growth  and  increase in grace, with fruitfulness in our lives,--are
necessary from the ordination of God, from his will and command. And
what  need  there  any farther dispute about the necessity  of  good
works  among  them that know what it is to believe, or what  respect
there is in the souls and consciences of believers unto the commands
of God?
   "But what force," say some, "is in this command or ordination  of
God,  when notwithstanding it, and if we do not apply ourselves unto
obedience, we shall be justified by the imputation of the  righteous
ness of Christ, and so may be saved without them?" I say,--First, as
was before observed, That it is believers alone concerning whom this
inquiry  is  made; and there is none of them but will judge  this  a
most unreasonable and senseless objection, as that which arises from
an  utter ignorance of their state and relation unto God. To suppose
that the minds of believers are not as much and as effectually influ
enced  with  the  authority and commands of God unto  duty  and  obe
dience, as if they were all given in order unto their justification,
is  to  consider  neither what faith is, nor what  it  is  to  be  a
believer,  nor  what is the relation that we stand in  unto  God  by
faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  nor what are  the  arguments  or  motives
wherewith  the  minds of such persons are principally  affected  and
constrained.  This is the answer which the apostle  gives  at  large
unto  this exception, Rom.6:2,3. Secondly, The whole fallacy of this
exception  is,--First, In separating the things that  God  has  made
inseparable; these are, our justification and our sanctification. To
suppose  that  the  one of these may be without  the  other,  is  to
overthrow  the whole gospel. Secondly, In compounding  those  things
that   are  distinct,--namely,  justification  and  eternal   actual
salvation;  the respect of works and obedience being  not  the  same
unto  them  both, as has been declared. Wherefore, this imagination,
that  the  commands of God unto duty, however given, and  unto  what
ends  soever,  are  not equally obligatory unto the  consciences  of
believers,   as  if  they  were  all  given  in  order  unto   their
justification  before God, is an absurd figment, and  which  all  of
them who are truly so defy. Yea, they have a greater power upon them
than they could have if the duties required in them were in order to
their  justification, and so were antecedent thereunto; for  thereby
they  must be supposed to have their efficacy upon them before  they
truly  believe.  For to say that a man may be a  true  believer,  or
truly believe, in answer unto the commands of the gospel, and not be
thereon in the same instant of time absolutely justified, is not  to
dispute  about any point of religion, but plainly to deny the  whole
truth  of  the  gospel. But it is faith alone that gives  power  and
efficacy unto gospel commands effectually to influence the soul unto
obedience.  Wherefore,  this  obligation  is  more  powerfully   con
straining as they are given unto those that are justified,  than  if
they were given them in order unto their justification.
  (2.) The apostle answers, as we do also, "Do we then make void the
law  through  faith?  God forbid; yea, we establish  the  law."  For
though  the  law is principally established in and by the  obedience
and  sufferings of Christ, Rom.8:3,4; 10:3,4, yet is it not, by  the
doctrine of faith and the imputation of the righteousness of  Christ
unto the justification of life, made void as unto believers. Neither
of  these does exempt them from that obligation unto universal obedi
ence  which  is  prescribed in the law. They are  still  obliged  by
virtue  thereof to "love the LORD their God with all  their  hearts,
and  their  neighbours as themselves". They are, indeed, freed  from
the  law,  and all its commands unto duty as it abides in its  first
considerations  "Do  this,  and live"; the  opposite  whereunto  is,
"Cursed  is  every one that continueth not in all things written  in
the law to do them." For he that is under the obligation of the law,
in  order  unto justification and life, falls inevitably  under  the
curse  of it upon the supposition of any one transgression.  But  we
are  made free to give obedience unto it on gospel motives, and  for
gospel  ends;  as  the apostle declares at large,  chap.6.  And  the
obligation  of  it  is such unto all believers  as  that  the  least
transgression of it has the nature of sin. But are they hereon bound
over by the law unto everlasting punishment? Or, as some phrase  it,
"will God damn them that transgress the law?" without which all this
is  nothing.  I  ask,  again, what they think  hereof;  and  upon  a
supposition that he will do so, what they farther think will  become
of  themselves?  For my part, I say, No; even as the  apostle  says,
"There  is  no  condemnation unto them that are  in  Christ  Jesus."
"Where,  then,"  they will say, "is the necessity of obedience  from
the obligation of the law, if God will not damn them that transgress
it?"  And  I say, It were well if some men did understand what  they
say  in these things, or would learn, for a while at least, to  hold
their peace. The law equally requires obedience in all instances  of
duty, if it require any at all. As unto its obligatory power, it  is
capable neither of dispensation nor relaxation, so long as the essen
tial  differences of good and evil do remain. If, then, none can  be
obliged  unto duty by virtue of its commands, but that they must  on
every  transgression fall under its curse, either it obliges no  one
at  all, or no one can be saved. But although we are freed from  the
curse and condemning power of the law by Him who has made an end  of
sin,  and brought in everlasting righteousness; yet, whilst  we  are
"viatores," in order unto the accomplishment of God's design for the
restoration  of  his image in us, we are obliged to endeavour  after
all that holiness and righteousness which the law requires of us.
   (3.)  The apostle answers this objection, by discovering  the  ne
cessary relation that faith has unto the death of Christ, the  grace
of  God,  with  the nature of sanctification, excellency,  use,  and
advantage  of  gospel  holiness,  and  the  end  of  it   in   God's
appointment. This he does at large in the whole sixth chapter of the
Epistle to the Romans, and that with this immediate design, to  show
the  consistency of justification by faith alone with the  necessity
of  personal righteousness and holiness. The due pleading  of  these
things  would  require a just and full exposition of  that  chapter,
wherein  the apostle has comprised the chief springs and reasons  of
evangelical  obedience. I shall only say, that those unto  whom  the
reasons  of  it, and motives unto it, therein expressed,--which  are
all  of  them  compliant with the doctrine of justification  by  the
imputation  of the righteousness of Christ,--are not effectual  unto
their   own   personal   obedience,  and  do  not   demonstrate   an
indispensable necessity of it, are so unacquainted with the  gospel,
the  nature of faith, the genius and inclination of the new creature
(for,  let  men scoff on whilst they please, "he that is  in  Christ
Jesus is a new creature"), the constraining efficacy of the grace of
God, and love of Christ, of the economy of God in the disposition of
the  causes  and  means of our salvation, as I shall  never  trouble
myself to contend with them about these things.
   Sundry other considerations I thought to have added unto the same
purpose,  and  to  have showed,--1. That to prove the  necessity  of
inherent  righteousness and holiness, we make use of  the  arguments
which are suggested unto us in the Scripture. 2. That we make use of
all  of them in the sense wherein, and unto the ends for which, they
are  urged  therein,  in  perfect  compliance  with  what  we  teach
concerning  justification. 3. That all the  pretended  arguments  or
motives  for  and unto evangelical holiness, which are  inconsistent
with  the  imputation  of the righteousness  of  Christ,  do  indeed
obstruct  it and evert it; 4. That the holiness which we make  neces
sary unto the salvation of them that believe is of a more excellent,
sublime,  and  heavenly nature, in its causes, essence,  operations,
and  effects, than what is allowed or believed by the most of  those
by  whom  the  doctrine  of justification is opposed.  5.  That  the
holiness and righteousness which is pleaded for by the Socinians and
those that follow them, does in nothing exceed the righteousness  of
the scribes and Pharisees; nor upon their principles can any man  go
beyond them. But whereas this discourse has already much exceeded my
first intention, and that, as I said before, I have already at large
treated  on  the doctrine of the nature and necessity of evangelical
holiness,  I  shall  at present omit the farther handling  of  these
things, and acquiesce in the answers given by the apostle unto  this
objection.




XX.  The  doctrine of the apostle James concerning faith and works--
Its agreement with that of St Paul


Seeming difference, no real contradiction, between the apostles Paul
and James, concerning justification--This granted by all--Reasons of
the  seeming  difference--The best rule  of  the  interpretation  of
places  of  Scripture wherein there is an appearing  repugnancy--The
doctrine of justification according unto that rule principally to be
learned  from the writings of Paul--The reasons of his  fulness  and
accuracy  in  the teaching of that doctrine--The importance  of  the
truth;  the opposition made unto it, and abuse of it--The design  of
the  apostle James--Exceptions of some against the writings  of  St.
Paul,  scandalous  and  unreasonable--Not, in  this  matter,  to  be
interpreted by the passage in James insisted on, chap.2.--That there
is   no   repugnancy  between  the  doctrine  of  the  two  apostles
demonstrated--Heads  and grounds of the demonstration--Their  scope,
design,  and  end, not the same--That of Paul; the only case  stated
and  determined  by him--The design of the apostle James;  the  case
proposed  by him quite of another nature--The occasion of  the  case
proposed and stated by him--No appearance of difference between  the
apostles, because of the several cases they speak unto--Not the same
faith  intended by them--Description of the faith spoken of  by  the
one,  and the other--Bellarmine's arguments to prove true justifying
faith  to be intended by James, answered--Justification not  treated
of  by  the apostles in the same manner, nor used in the same sense,
nor  to  the same end--The one treats of justification, as unto  its
nature and causes; the other, as unto its signs and evidence--Proved
by  the instances insisted on--How the Scripture was fulfilled, that
Abraham   believed  in  God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him   for
righteousness, when he offered his son on the altar--Works the same,
and  of  the  same kind, in both the apostles--Observations  on  the
discourse  of  James--No conjunction made by him between  faith  nor
works in our justification, but an opposition--No distinction  of  a
first and second justification in him--Justification ascribed by him
wholly  unto works--In what sense--Does not determine how  a  sinner
may  be  justified  before  God; but how a  professor  may  evidence
himself  so to be--The context opened from verse 14, to the  end  of
the chapter


The  seeming difference that is between the apostles Paul and  James
in  what  they  teach  concerning faith, works,  and  justification,
requires  our consideration of it; for many do take advantage,  from
some  words and expressions used by the latter, directly  to  oppose
the  doctrine fully and plainly declared by the former. But whatever
is  of  that  nature  pretended, has been so satisfactorily  already
answered  and removed by others, as that there is no great  need  to
treat of it again. And although I suppose that there will not be  an
end  of contending and writing in these causes, whilst we "know  but
in  part,  and  prophesy but in part"; yet I must say  that,  in  my
judgment, the usual solution of this appearing difficulty,--securing
the  doctrine  of justification by faith, through the imputation  of
the  righteousness of Christ, from any concernment or  contradiction
in  the discourse of St James, chap.2:14, to the end,--has not  been
in  the least impeached, nor has had any new difficulty put upon it,
in  some  late  discourses  to that purpose.  I  should,  therefore,
utterly  forbear to speak any thing thereof, but that I  suppose  it
will  be expected in a discourse of this nature, and do hope that  I
also may contribute some light unto the clearing and vindication  of
the truth. To this purpose it may be observed, that,--1. It is taken
for  granted,  on  all hands, that there is no  real  repugnancy  or
contradiction  between what is delivered by these two apostles;  for
if that were so, the writings of one of them must be pseudepistolae,
or   falsely  ascribed  unto  them  whose  names  they   bear,   and
uncanonical,--as the authority of the Epistle of James has  been  by
some,  both  of  old  and  of late, highly  but  rashly  questioned.
Wherefore,  their  words  are certainly  capable  of  a  just  recon
ciliation. That we cannot any of us attain thereunto, or that we  do
not  agree  therein,  is from the darkness of  our  own  minds,  the
weakness  of our understandings, and, with too many, from the  power
of prejudices
  2. It is taken also for granted, on all other occasions, that when
there  is an appearance of repugnancy or contradiction in any places
of   Scripture,  if  some,  or  any  of  them,  do  treat  directly,
designedly, and largely about the matter concerning which there is a
seeming repugnancy or contradiction; and others, or any other, speak
of  the  same  things only "obiter," occasionally,  transiently,  in
order unto other ends; the truth is to be learned, stated, and fixed
from  the former places: or the interpretation of those places where
any  truth is mentioned only occasionally with reference unto  other
things  or  ends,  is,  as unto that truth, to  be  taken  from  and
accommodated  unto those other places wherein it is the  design  and
purpose  of the holy penman to declare it for its own sake,  and  to
guide  the  faith of the church therein. And there  is  not  a  more
rational  and natural rule of the interpretation of Scripture  among
all them which are by common consent agreed upon.
   3.  According  unto  this  rule, it is  unquestionable  that  the
doctrine  of  justification before God is to  be  learned  from  the
writings  of  the apostle Paul, and from them is light to  be  taken
into  all  other  places  of  Scripture  where  it  is  occasionally
mentioned.  Especially  it  is  so,  considering  how  exactly  this
doctrine  represents  the  whole scope  of  the  Scripture,  and  is
witnessed unto by particular testimonies occasionally given unto the
same  truth,  without  number: for it must be acknowledged  that  he
wrote of this subject of our justification before God, on purpose to
declare it for its own sake, and its use in the church; and that  he
does  it  fully, largely, and frequently, in a constant  harmony  of
expressions. And he owns those reasons that pressed him unto fulness
and  accuracy  herein,--(1.) The importance of the doctrine  itself.
This  he  declares  to be such as that thereon  our  salvation  does
immediately  depend;  and that it was the hinge  whereon  the  whole
doctrine  of  the gospel did turn,--"Articulus stantis aut  cadentis
ecclesiae,"  Gal.2:16-21; 5:4,5. (2.) The  plausible  and  dangerous
opposition that was then made unto it. This was so managed, and that
with  such  specious pretences, as that very many were prevailed  on
and  turned from the truth by it (as it was with the Galatians), and
many detained from the faith of the gospel out of a dislike unto it,
Rom.10:3,4. What care and diligence this requires in the declaration
of  any  truth,  is sufficiently known unto them who are  acquainted
with these things; what zeal, care, and circumspection it stirred up
the  apostle unto, is manifest in all his writings. (3.)  The  abuse
which the corrupt nature of man is apt to put upon this doctrine  of
grace,  and  which  some did actually pervert  it  unto.  This  also
himself  takes notice of, and thoroughly vindicates it  from  giving
the  least  countenance  unto such wrestings  and  impositions.  Cer
tainly, never was there a greater necessity incumbent on any  person
fully and plainly to teach and declare a doctrine of truth, than was
on  him at that time in his circumstances, considering the place and
duty  that he was called unto. And no reason can be imagined why  we
should  not  principally, and in the first place,  learn  the  truth
herein from his declaration and vindication of it, if withal  we  do
indeed believe that he was divinely inspired, and divinely guided to
reveal the truth for the information of the church.
   As  unto  what is delivered by the apostle James, so far  as  our
justification  is included therein, things are quite  otherwise.  He
does  not  undertake  to declare the doctrine of  our  justification
before  God;  but  having another design in hand, as  we  shall  see
immediately, he vindicates it from the abuse that some in those days
had  put it unto, as other doctrines of the grace of God, which they
turned  into  licentiousness. Wherefore, it is from the writings  of
the  apostle Paul that we are principally to learn the truth in this
matter;   and  unto  what  is  by  him  plainly  declared   is   the
interpretation of other places to be accommodated.
   4. Some of late are not of this mind; they contend earnestly that
Paul  is  to  be interpreted by James, and not on the contrary.  And
unto  this  end they tell us that the writings of Paul are  obscure,
that  sundry  of  the ancients take notice thereof, that  many  take
occasion of errors from them, with sundry things of an alike nature,
indeed  scandalous  to Christian religion; and that  James,  writing
after  him, is presumed to give an interpretation unto his  sayings;
which  are  therefore to be expounded and understood according  unto
that  interpretation.  Ans.  First, As to  the  vindication  of  the
writings  of St Paul, which begin now to be frequently reflected  on
with much severity (which is one effect of the secret prevalence  of
the  Atheism  of these days), as there is no need of it,  so  it  is
designed  for  a more proper place. Only I know not how  any  person
that can pretend the least acquaintance with antiquity, can plead  a
passage  out of Irenaeus, wherein he was evidently himself mistaken,
or  a  rash  word  of  Origin, or the like, in derogation  from  the
perspicuity  of the writings of this apostle, when they  cannot  but
know  how  easy it were to overwhelm them with testimonies unto  the
contrary from all the famous writers of the church in several  ages.
And  as  (for instance in one) Chrysostom in forty places  gives  an
account  why  some  men  understood  not  his  writings,  which   in
themselves were so gloriously evident and perspicuous; so for  their
satisfaction,  I  shall refer them only unto the  preface  unto  his
exposition of his epistles: of which kind they will be directed unto
more  in due season. But he needs not the testimony of men,  nor  of
the  whole church together, whose safety and security it  is  to  be
built  on  that doctrine which he taught. In the meantime, it  would
not  be  unpleasant  to consider (but that the perverseness  of  the
minds of men is rather a real occasion of sorrow) how those who have
the  same  design do agree in their conceptions about his  writings:
for some will have it, that if not all, yet the most of his epistles
were  written against the Gnostics, and in the confutation of  their
error;  others, that the Gnostics took the occasion of their  errors
from  his  writings.  So bold will men make with  things  divine  to
satisfy a present interest.
   Secondly,  This  was not the judgment of the ancient  church  for
three  or four hundred years; for whereas the epistles of Paul  were
always  esteemed  the principal treasure of the  church,  the  great
guide  and  rule  of the Christian faith, this of James  was  scarce
received as canonical by many, and doubted of by the most,  as  both
Eusebius and Jerome do testify.
   Thirdly, The design of the apostle James is not at all to explain
the  meaning of Paul in his epistles, as is pretended; but  only  to
vindicate the doctrine of the gospel from the abuse of such as  used
their  liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, and, turning the  grace
of  God into lasciviousness, continued in sin, under a pretence that
grace had abounded unto that end.
   Fourthly,  The  apostle Paul does himself, as we  have  declared,
vindicate  his own doctrine from such exceptions and abuses  as  men
either made at it, or turned it into. Nor have we any other doctrine
in  his  epistles  than what he preached all  the  world  over,  and
whereby  he  laid  the foundation of Christian religion,  especially
among the Gentiles.
   These things being premised, I shall briefly evidence that  there
is  not  the  least  repugnancy  or contradiction  between  what  is
declared  by these two apostles as unto our justification, with  the
causes   of   it.  And  this  I  shall  do,--1.  By   some   general
considerations of the nature and tendency of both their  discourses.
2.  By  a particular explication of the context in that of St James.
And  under the first head I shall manifest,--(1.) That they have not
the  same scope, design, or end, in their discourses; that  they  do
not  consider  the  same  question, nor state  the  same  case,  nor
determine  on  the  same inquiry; and therefore,  not  speaking  "ad
idem," unto the same thing, do not contradict one another. (2.) That
as  faith  is a word of various signification in the Scripture,  and
does,  as  we  have proved before, denote that which is  of  diverse
kinds, they speak not of the same faith, or faith of the same  kind;
and therefore there can be no contradiction in what the one ascribes
unto  it and the other derogates from it, seeing they speak  not  of
the  same faith. (3.) That they do not speak of justification in the
same  sense, nor with respect unto the same ends. (4.) That as  unto
works,  they  both intend the same, namely, the works  of  obedience
unto the moral law.
   (1.) As to the scope and design of the apostle Paul, the question
which  he  answers, the case which he proposes and determines  upon,
are  manifest in all his writings, especially his Epistles unto  the
Romans and Galatians. The whole of his purpose is, to declare how  a
guilty,  convinced  sinner comes, through  faith  in  the  blood  of
Christ, to have all his sins pardoned, to be accepted with God,  and
obtain  a right unto the heavenly inheritance; that is, be acquitted
and  justified  in  the  sight of God. And as  the  doctrine  hereof
belonged eminently unto the gospel, whose revelation and declaration
unto  the Gentiles was in a peculiar manner committed unto him;  so,
as  we have newly observed, he had an especial reason to insist much
upon  it  from the opposition that was made unto it by the Jews  and
judaizing Christians, who ascribed this privilege unto the law,  and
our  own works of obedience in compliance therewithal. This  is  the
case  he  states,  this  the  question he  determines,  in  all  his
discourses  about  justification; and  in  the  explication  thereof
declares the nature and causes of it, as also vindicates it from all
exceptions. For whereas men of corrupt minds, and willing to indulge
unto  their lusts (as all men naturally desire nothing but what  God
has  made eternally inconsistent,--namely, that they may live in sin
here, and come to blessedness hereafter), might conclude that if  it
were  so  as he declared, that we are justified freely, through  the
grace  of  God, by the imputation of a righteousness that originally
and  inherently is not our own, then was there no more  required  of
us,  no  relinquishment of sin, no attendance  unto  the  duties  of
righteousness  and  holiness; he obviates such impious  suggestions,
and  shows the inconsequence of them on the doctrine that he taught.
But  this he does not do in any place by intimating or granting that
our  own works of obedience or righteousness are necessary unto,  or
have  any  causal influence into, our justification before God.  Had
there  been  a  truth herein, were not a supposition thereof  really
inconsistent with the whole of his doctrine, and destructive of  it,
he would not have omitted the plea of it, nor ought so to have done,
as we have showed. And to suppose that there was need that any other
should  explain and vindicate his doctrine from the same  exceptions
which  he  takes notice of, by such a plea as he himself  would  not
make use of, but rejects, is foolish and impious.
  The apostle James, on the other hand, had no such scope or design,
or  any such occasion for what he wrote in this matter. He does  not
inquire,  or give intimation of any such inquiry; he does not  state
the  case how a guilty, convinced sinner, whose mouth is stopped  as
unto any plea or excuse for himself, may come to be justified in the
sight  of God; that is, receive the pardon of sins and the  gift  of
righteousness  unto  life. To resolve this  question  into  our  own
works,  is  to  overthrow the whole gospel. But he  had  in  hand  a
business  quite of another nature; for, as we have said, there  were
many in those days who professed the Christian religion, or faith in
the  gospel,  whereon  they  presumed  that  as  they  were  already
justified,  so  there was nothing more needful unto them  that  they
might  be  saved. A desirable estate they thought they had attained,
suited  unto all the interest of the flesh, whereby they might  live
in  sin  and neglect of all duty of obedience, and yet be  eternally
saved. Some suppose that this pernicious conceit was imbibed by them
from  the  poisonous opinions that some had then divulged, according
as  the  apostle  Paul  foretold that  it  would  come  to  pass,  2
Tim.4:1-4:  for it is generally conceived that Simon Magus  and  his
followers  had  by this time infected the minds of many  with  their
abominations;  and  amongst them this was one,  and  not  the  least
pernicious,  that by faith was intended a liberty from the  law  and
unto  sin,  or  unto  them  that had it,  the  taking  away  of  all
difference  between good and evil; which was afterward  improved  by
Basilides, Valentinus, and the rest of the Gnostics. Or, it may  be,
it  was  only the corruption of men's hearts and lives that prompted
them  to  seek after such a countenance unto sin. And this latter  I
judge  it was. There were then among professed Christians,  such  as
the  world now swarms withal, who suppose that their faith,  or  the
religion  which they profess, be it what it will, shall  save  them,
although they live in flagitious wickedness, and are utterly  barren
as  unto  any  good works or duties of obedience. Nor is  there  any
other  occasion of what he writes intimated in the epistle;  for  he
makes no mention of seducers, as John does expressly and frequently,
some  while  after.  Against this sort  of  persons,  or  for  their
conviction, he designs two things,--First, In general, to prove  the
necessity  of  works unto all that profess the gospel  or  faith  in
Christ  thereby. Second, To evidence the vanity and folly  of  their
pretence unto justification, or that they were justified and  should
be saved by that faith that was indeed so far from being fruitful in
good  works,  as  that it was pretended by them only to  countenance
themselves  in  sin. Unto these ends are all his arguings  designed,
and  no  other. He proves effectually that the faith which is wholly
barren and fruitless as unto obedience, and [by] which men pretended
to  countenance themselves in their sins, is not that faith  whereby
we  are  justified, and whereby we may be saved, but a dead carcass,
of no use nor benefit; as he declares by the conclusion of his whole
dispute,  in the last verse of the chapter. He does not  direct  any
how  they may be justified before God, but convinces some that  they
are  not  justified by trusting unto such a dead faith; and declares
the  oddly way whereby any man may really evidence and manifest that
he is so justified indeed. This design of his is so plain as nothing
can  be  more evident; and they miss the whole scope of the  apostle
who  observe it not in their expositions of the context.  Wherefore,
the  principal design of the apostles being so distant, there is  no
repugnancy  in  their  assertions,  though  their  words   make   an
appearance thereof; for they do not speak "ad idem," nor  of  things
"eodem  respectu."  James  does  not  once  inquire  how  a  guilty,
convinced  sinner, cast and condemned by the law,  may  come  to  be
justified  before  God; and Paul speaks to nothing else.  Wherefore,
apply  the expressions of each of them unto their proper design  and
scope,--as  we  must  do,  or we depart  from  all  sober  rules  of
interpretation,  and  render it impossible to understand  either  of
them  aright,--and  there is no disagreement, or appearance  of  it,
between them.
   (2.) They speak not of the same faith. Wherefore, there can be no
discrepancy  in  what one ascribes unto faith and the  other  denies
concerning  it,  seeing they understand not the same thing  thereby;
for  they  speak not of the same faith. As if one affirms that  fire
will  burn, and another denies it, there is no contradiction between
them, whilst one intends real fire, and the other only that which is
painted, and both declare themselves accordingly. For we have proved
before  that there are two sorts of faith wherewith men are said  to
believe  the gospel, and make profession thereof; as also that  that
which  belongs unto the one does not belong unto the other. None,  I
suppose,  will  deny  but that by "faith,"  in  the  matter  of  our
justification, St Paul intends that which is "kurios",  or  properly
so  called.  The  "faith  of God's elect," "precious  faith,"  "more
precious  than  gold,"  "the faith that  purifieth  the  heart,  and
worketh by love," "the faith whereby Christ dwelleth in us,  and  we
abide  in  him, whereby we live to God," "a living faith,"  is  that
alone  which  he intends. For all these things, and other  spiritual
effects  without number, does he ascribe unto that  faith  which  he
insists  on,  to be on our part the only means of our  justification
before God. But as unto the faith intended by the apostle James,  he
assigns  nothing of all this unto it; yea, the only argument whereby
he proves that men cannot be saved by that faith which he treats of,
is  that  nothing of all this is found in it. That which he  intends
is,  what  he calls it, a dead faith, a carcass without breath,  the
faith  of  devils, a wordy faith, that is no more truly what  it  is
called,  than  it  is  true charity to send away  naked  and  hungry
persons  without relief, but not without derision. Well may he  deny
justification in any sense unto this faith, however boasted of, when
yet it may be justly ascribed unto that faith which Paul speaks of.
   Bellarmine  uses several arguments to prove that the  faith  here
intended by James is justifying faith considered in itself; but they
are  all weak to contempt, as being built on this supposition,  that
true justifying faith is nothing but a real assent unto the catholic
doctrine  or  divine revelation: De Justificat.  lib.1  cap.15.  His
first  is, "That James calleth it 'faith' absolutely, whereby always
in  the Scripture true faith is intended." Ans. 1. James calls it  a
dead  faith,  the faith of devils, and casts all manner of  reproach
upon  it;  which he would not have done on any duty or  grace  truly
evangelical.  2.  Every faith that is true as unto  the  reality  of
assent  which  is  given by it unto the truth,  is  neither  living,
justifying, nor saving; as has been proved. 3. They are said to have
faith absolutely, or absolutely to believe, who never had that faith
which  is true and saving, John 2:23; Acts 8:13. Secondly, He urges,
"That  in  the  same place and chapter he treats  of  the  faith  of
Abraham,  and  affirms that it wrought with his works, chap.2:22,23;
but  this a vain shadow of faith does not do: it was therefore  true
faith,  and that which is most properly called so, that the  apostle
intends."  Ans. This pretence is indeed ridiculous; for the  apostle
does  not  give  the faith of Abraham as an instance of  that  faith
which  he  had treated with so much severity, but of that  which  is
directly contrary unto it, and whereby he designed to prove that the
other  faith  which he had reflected on was of no use nor  advantage
unto  them  that  had  it; for this faith of Abraham  produced  good
works,  which the other was wholly without. Thirdly, He urges  verse
24,  "'Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not  by
faith  only;'  for  the faith that James speaks  of  justifies  with
works, but a false faith, the shadow of a faith, does not so: it  is
therefore true, saving faith whereof the apostle speaks." Ans. He is
utterly  mistaken:  for  the apostle does not ascribe  justification
partly to works, and partly to faith; but he ascribes justification,
in the sense by him intended, wholly to works, in opposition to that
faith concerning which he treats. For there is a plain antithesis in
the  words  between  works and faith as unto justification,  in  the
sense  by  him  intended. A dead faith, a faith without  works,  the
faith  of  devils,  is  excluded  from  having  any  influence  into
justification.  Fourthly, He adds, "That the apostle  compares  this
faith  without  works unto a rich man that gives  nothing  unto  the
poor, verse 16; and a body without a spirit, verse 26: wherefore, as
that  knowledge whereby a rich man knows the wants of  the  poor  is
true  and real, and a dead body is a body; so is faith without works
true  faith also, and as such is considered by St James." Ans. These
things  do evidently destroy what they are produced in the  confirma
tion  of,  only the cardinal helps them out with a little sophistry;
for  whereas the apostle compares this faith unto the charity  of  a
man  that gives nothing to the poor, he suggests in the room thereof
his  knowledge of their poverty. And his knowledge may be true,  and
the  more true and certain it is, the more false and feigned is  the
charity  which  he  pretends in these words, "Go,  and  be  fed  and
clothed."  Such is the faith the apostle speaks of. And  although  a
dead  body is a true body,--that is, as unto the matter or substance
of  it, a carcass,--yet is it not an essential part of a living man.
A  carcass  is not of the same nature or kind as is the  body  of  a
living  man.  And  we assert no other difference between  the  faith
spoken of by the apostle and that which is justifying, than what  is
between  a  dead,  breathless carcass, and a living  animated  body,
prepared  and  fitted for all vital acts. Wherefore, it  is  evident
beyond  all  contradiction, if we have not a mind to be contentious,
that  what the apostle James here derogates from faith as  unto  our
justification, it respects only a dead, barren, lifeless faith, such
as  is usually pretended by ungodly men to countenance themselves in
their  sins.  And herein the faith asserted by Paul has no  concern.
The  consideration  of the present condition of  the  profession  of
faith in the world, will direct us unto the best exposition of  this
place.
   (3.)  They speak not of justification in the same sense nor  unto
the  same  end; it is of our absolute justification before God,--the
justification of our persons, our acceptance with him, and the grant
of  a  right  unto the heavenly inheritance,--that the apostle  Paul
does treat, and thereof alone. This he declares in all the causes of
it;  all that on the part of God, or on our part, concurs thereunto.
The evidence, the knowledge, the sense, the fruit, the manifestation
of  it  in  our  own  consciences, in the church, unto  others  that
profess  the faith, he treats not of; but speaks of them  separately
as  they occur on other occasions. The justification he treats of is
but  one, and at once accomplished before God, changing the relative
state  of  the  person justified; and is capable of being  evidenced
various ways, unto the glory of God and the consolation of them that
truly  believe. Hereof the apostle James does not treat at all;  for
his  whole inquiry is after the nature of that faith whereby we  are
justified, and the only way whereby it may be evidenced to be of the
right  kind,  such  as  a man may safely trust unto.  Wherefore,  he
treats of justification only as to the evidence and manifestation of
it;  nor  had he any occasion to do otherwise. And this is  apparent
from  both the instances whereby he confirms his purpose. The  first
is  that  of  Abraham, verse 21-23: for he says, that  by  Abraham's
being  justified by works, in the way and manner wherein he  asserts
him  so  to  have  been, "the Scripture was fulfilled  which  saith,
Abraham   believed   God,  and  it  was   imputed   unto   him   for
righteousness".  And  if his intention were to  prove  that  we  are
justified before God by works, and not by faith, because Abraham was
so, the testimony produced is contrary, yea, directly contradictory,
unto what should be proved by it; and accordingly is alleged by Paul
to  prove that Abraham was justified by faith without works, as  the
words  do  plainly import. Nor can any man declare how the truth  of
this  proposition,  "Abraham  was justified  by  works,"  (intending
absolute  justification before God,) was that wherein that Scripture
was  fulfilled, "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed  unto  him
for  righteousness"; especially considering the opposition  that  is
made both here and elsewhere between faith and works in this matter.
Besides, he asserts that Abraham was justified by works then when he
had  offered his son on the altar; the same we believe also but only
inquire  in what sense he was so justified: for it was thirty  years
or  thereabout  after  it  was testified  concerning  him  that  "he
believed  God,  and it was imputed unto him for righteousness";  and
when  righteousness was imputed unto him he was justified; and twice
justified in the same sense, in the same way, with the same kind  of
justification, he was not. How, then, was he justified by works when
he  offered his son on the altar? He that can conceive it to be  any
otherwise but that he was by his work, in the offering of  his  son,
evidenced  and declared in the sight of God and man to be justified,
apprehends  what  I cannot attain unto, seeing that  he  was  really
justified long before; as is unquestionable and confessed by all. He
was,  I say, then justified in the sight of God in the way declared,
Gen.22:12;  and  gave a signal testimony unto the sincerity  of  his
faith and trust in God, manifesting the truth of that Scripture, "He
believed  God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness".  And,
in  the quotation of this testimony, the apostle openly acknowledges
that  he  was really accounted righteous, had righteousness  imputed
unto  him,  and  was  justified before God (the reasons  and  causes
whereof  he therefore considers not), long before that justification
which  he ascribes unto his works; which, therefore, can be  nothing
but the evidencing, proving, and manifestation of it: whence also it
appears  of what nature that faith is whereby we are justified,  the
declaration  whereof  is the principal design  of  the  apostle.  In
brief,  the  Scripture alleged, that "Abraham believed, and  it  was
imputed unto him for righteousness," was fulfilled when he was justi
fied by works on the offering of his son on the altar, either by the
imputation  of  righteousness unto him, or by a real  efficiency  or
working  righteousness in him, or by the manifestation and  evidence
of  his  former justification, or some other way must be found  out.
First, That it was not by imputation, or that righteousness unto the
justification of life was not then first imputed unto him, is  plain
in the text; for it was so imputed unto him long before, and that in
such  a  way  as  the apostle proves thereby that  righteousness  is
imputed without works. Secondly, That he was not justified by a real
efficiency  of  a habit of righteousness in him, or by  any  way  of
making him inherently righteous who was before unrighteous, is plain
also;  because he was righteous in that sense long before,  and  had
abounded  in the works of righteousness unto the praise of  God.  It
remains,  therefore, that then, and by the work  mentioned,  he  was
justified as unto the evidencing and manifestation of his faith  and
justification  thereon. His other instance is  of  Ahab;  concerning
whom  he  asserts  that she was "justified by works,  when  she  had
received  the messengers, and sent them away." But she received  the
spies  "by  faith,"  as  the  holy Ghost witnesses,  Heb.11:31;  and
therefore  had true faith before their coming; and if so was  really
justified: for that any one should be a true believer and yet not be
justified, is destructive unto the foundation of the gospel. In this
condition  she received the messengers, and made unto  them  a  full
declaration  of  her  faith, Josh.2:9-11. After  her  believing  and
justification thereon, and after the confession she had made of  her
faith, she exposed her life by concealing and sending of them  away.
Hereby  did  she justify the sincerity of her faith and  confession;
and  in that sense alone is said to be "justified by works." And  in
no  other sense does the apostle James, in this place, make  mention
of justification; which he does also only occasionally.
   (4.)  As unto "works," mentioned by both apostles, the same works
are  intended, and there is no disagreement in the least about them;
for  as the apostle James intends by works duties of obedience  unto
God,  according to the law,--as is evident from the whole first part
of the chapter, which gives occasion unto the discourse of faith and
works,--so  the same are intended by the apostle Paul  also,  as  we
have  proved  before.  And  as unto the necessity  of  them  in  all
believers,  as unto other ends, so as evidences of their  faith  and
justification, it is no less pressed by the one than the  other;  as
has been declared.
  These things being in general premised, we may observe some things
in  particular from the discourse of the apostle James, sufficiently
evidencing  that  there is no contradiction  therein  unto  what  is
delivered by the apostle Paul concerning our justification by faith,
and  the  imputation of righteousness without works, nor to the  doc
trine  which from him we have learned and declared; as,--1. He makes
no  composition or conjunction between faith and works in our  justi
fication, but opposes them the one to the other; asserting  the  one
and  rejecting  the  other, in order unto our justification.  2.  He
makes  no  distinction of a first and second justification,  of  the
beginning  and  continuation of justification,  but  speaks  of  one
justification only; which is our first personal justification before
God.  Neither  are we concerned in any other justification  in  this
cause  whatever. 3. That he ascribes this justification wholly  unto
works,  in  contradistinction unto faith,  as  unto  that  sense  of
justification which he intended, and the faith whereof  he  treated.
Wherefore,--4. He does not at all inquire or determine how a  sinner
is  justified before God, but how professors of the gospel can prove
or  demonstrate  that  they are so, and that  they  do  not  deceive
themselves by trusting unto a lifeless and barren faith.  All  these
things  will  be farther evidenced in a brief consideration  of  the
context itself; wherewith I shall close this discourse.
   In  the beginning of the chapter unto verse 14, he reproves those
unto whom he wrote for many sins committed against the law, the rule
of  their  sins and obedience, or at least warns them of  them;  and
having showed the danger they were in hereby, he discovers the  root
and  principal occasion of it, verse 14; which was no  other  but  a
vain  surmise and deceiving presumption that the faith  required  in
the  gospel was nothing but a bare assent unto the doctrine  of  it,
whereon they were delivered from all obligation unto moral obedience
or  good  works,  and might, without any danger unto  their  eternal
state,  live  in  whatever  sins their  lusts  inclined  them  unto,
chap.4:1-4;  5:1-6.  The state of such persons, which  contains  the
whole  cause which he speaks unto, and which gives rule and  measure
unto  the  interpretation of all his future arguing, is  laid  down,
verse 14, "What does it profit, my brethren, though a man say he has
faith,  and have not works? Can faith save him?" Suppose a man,  any
one  of  those  who are guilty of the sins charged on  them  in  the
foregoing  verses,  do  yet say, or boast of himself,  that  he  has
faith;  that  he makes profession of the gospel; that  he  has  left
either Judaism or Paganism, and betaken himself to the faith of  the
gospel;  and therefore, although he be destitute of good  works  and
live  in  sin,  he is accepted with God, and shall be  saved;--will,
indeed,  this  faith  save  him? This, therefore,  is  the  question
proposed,--Whereas the gospel says plainly, that "he  who  believeth
shall be saved," whether that faith which may and does consist  with
an  indulgence  unto sin, and a neglect of duties of  obedience,  is
that  faith whereunto the promise of life and salvation is  annexed?
And  thereon  the inquiry proceeds, How any man,--in particular,  he
who  says he has faith,--may prove and evidence himself to have that
faith  which will secure his salvation? And the apostle denies  that
this  is such a faith as can consist without works, or that any  man
can  evidence himself to have true faith any otherwise but by  works
of  obedience  only; and in the proof hereof does his whole  ensuing
discourse  consist. Not once does he propose unto consideration  the
means  and causes of the justification of a convinced sinner  before
God,  nor had he any occasion so to do; so that his words are openly
wrested when they are applied unto any such intention.
   That  the  faith  which  he intends and describes  is  altogether
useless  unto  the  end pretended to be attainable  by  it,--namely,
salvation,-- he proves in an instance of, and by comparing it  with,
the  love or charity of an alike nature, verses 15,16, "If a brother
or  sister be naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you  say
unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding
ye  give  them not those things which are needful to the body;  what
does it profit?" This love or charity is not that gospel grace which
is  required of us under that name; for he who behaves himself  thus
towards the poor, the love of God dwelleth not in him, 1 John  3:17.
Whatever name it may have, whatever it may pretend unto, whatever it
may be professed or accepted for, love it is not, nor has any of the
effects  of  love;  it is neither useful nor profitable.  Hence  the
apostle  infers, verse 17, "Even so faith, if it has not  works,  is
dead, being alone." For this was that which he undertook to prove;--
not  that we are not justified by faith alone, without works, before
God;  but  that  the faith which is alone, without works,  is  dead,
useless, and unprofitable.
   Having  given this first evidence unto the conclusion which,  "in
thesi,"  he designed to prove, he reassumes the question and  states
it "in hypothesi," so as to give it a more full demonstration, verse
18, "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show  me
thy  faith without thy works," (that is, which is without works,  or
by  thy works,) "and I will show thee my faith by my works."  It  is
plain,  beyond denial, that the apostle does here again propose  his
main  question  only on a supposition that there is a dead,  useless
faith; which he had proved before. For now all the inquiry remaining
is,  how true faith, or that which is of the right gospel kind,  may
be  showed, evidenced, or demonstrated, so as that their  folly  may
appear  who  trust unto any other faith whatever?  "Deixon  moi  ten
pistin  sou",--"Evidence or demonstrate thy faith to be true by  the
only  means thereof, which is works." And therefore although he say,
"Thou  hast faith," that is, "Thou professes and boastest that  thou
hast  that faith whereby thou mayest be saved,"--"and I have works,"
he  does  not say, "Show me thy faith by thy works, and I will  show
thee my works by my faith," which the antithesis would require; but,
"I  will show thee my faith by my works," because the whole question
was concerning the evidencing of faith and not of works.
   That this faith, which cannot be evidenced by works, which is not
fruitful in them, but consists only in a bare assent unto the  truth
of  divine  revelation, is not the faith that does justify  or  will
save  us,  he  farther proves, in that it is no other but  what  the
devils themselves have; and no man can think or hope to be saved  by
that which is common unto them with devils, and wherein they do much
exceed  them, verse 19, "Thou believest there is one God; thou  does
well:  the devils also believe, and tremble." The belief of one  God
is  not the whole of what the devils believe, but is singled out  as
the  principal, fundamental truth, and on the concession whereof  an
assent  unto all divine revelation does necessarily ensue. And  this
is  the second argument whereby he proves an empty, barren faith  to
be dead and useless.
   The second confirmation being given unto his principal assertion,
he  restates  it  in  that way, and under those  terms,  wherein  he
designed it unto its last confirmation: "But wilt thou know, 0  vain
man,  that  faith  without works is dead?"  verse  20.  And  we  may
consider in the words,--First, The person with whom he deals,  whose
conviction he endeavoured: him he calls a vain man;--not in general,
as  every  man  living is altogether vanity, but as one  who  in  an
especial  manner  is vainly puffed up in his own fleshly  mind,--one
that  has  entertained vain imaginations of being saved by an  empty
profession of the gospel, without any fruit of obedience.  Secondly,
That  which  he  designs with respect unto  this  vain  man  is  his
conviction,--a conviction of that foolish and pernicious error  that
he  had  imbibed: "Wilt thou know, O vain man?" Thirdly, That  which
alone  he designed to convince him of is, that "faith without  works
is  dead";--that  is,  the faith which is without  works,  which  is
barren and unfruitful, is dead and useless. This is that alone,  and
this  is all, that he undertakes to prove by his following instances
and  arguing; neither do they prove any more. To wrest his words  to
any other purpose, when they are all proper and suited unto what  he
expresses as his only design, is to offer violence unto them.
   This,  therefore, he proves by the consideration of the faith  of
Abraham,  verse 21, "Was not Abraham our father justified by  works,
when  he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" Some things must
be  observed to clear the mind of the apostle herein; as,--1. It  is
certain  that  Abraham  was justified many  years  before  the  work
instanced in was performed; for long before was that testimony given
concerning him, "He believed in the LORD, and he counted it unto him
for   righteousness":  and  the  imputation  of  righteousness  upon
believing is all the justification we inquire after or will  contend
about.  2.  It  is certain that, in the relation of the  story  here
repeated  by  the  apostle, there is not  any  one  word  spoken  of
Abraham's being then justified before God, by that or any other work
whatever. But, 3. It is plain and evident that, in the place related
unto,  Abraham  was declared to be justified by an open  attestation
unto  his  faith  and  fear of God as sincere,  and  that  they  had
evidenced themselves so to be in the sight of God himself; which God
condescends  to  express  by  an  assumption  of  human  affections,
Gen.22:12, "Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou  hast  not
withheld  thy  son,  thine only son, from  me."  That  this  is  the
justification which the apostle intends, cannot be denied but out of
love  to  strife; and this was the manifestation and declaration  of
the truth and sincerity of his faith whereby he was justified before
God.  And hereby the apostle directly and undeniably proves what  he
produces  this instance for,--namely, that "faith without  works  is
dead." 4. It is no less evident that the apostle had not spoken  any
thing  before  as unto our justification before God, and  the  means
thereof; and is therefore absurdly imagined here to introduce it  in
the proof of what he had before asserted, which it does not prove at
all.  5.  The  only  safe rule of interpreting the  meaning  of  the
apostle,  next  unto the scope and design of his present  discourse,
which he makes manifest in the reiterated proposition of it, is  the
scope   of   the  places,  [and  the]  matter  of  fact,  with   its
circumstances,  which he refers unto and takes his proof  from.  And
they  were  plainly these, and no other:--Abraham had  been  long  a
justified  believer;  for there were thirty  years,  or  thereabout,
between  the  testimony given thereunto, Gen.15, and  the  story  of
sacrificing  his son, related Gen.22. All this while he walked  with
God, and was upright in a course of holy, fruitful obedience; yet it
pleased  God to put his faith, after many others, unto  a  new,  his
greatest, his last trial. And it is the way of God, in the  covenant
of  grace,  to try the faith of them that believe, by such  ways  as
seem  meet  unto him. Hereby he manifests how precious  it  is  (the
trial  of faith making it appear to be "more precious than gold,"  1
Pet.1:7),  and raises up glory unto himself; which is in the  nature
of  faith to give unto him, Rom.4:20. And this is the state  of  the
case  as  proposed  by the apostle,--namely, how  it  may  be  tried
whether  the  faith  which men profess be genuine,  precious,  "more
precious  than  gold," of the right nature with that  whereunto  the
gospel  promise  of salvation is annexed. Secondly, This  trial  was
made  by  works, or by one signal duty of obedience prescribed  unto
him for that very end and purpose; for Abraham was to be proposed as
a  pattern unto all that should afterwards believe. And God provided
a  signal  way  for the trial of his faith,--namely, by  an  act  of
obedience.  which was so far from being enjoined by the  moral  law,
that it seemed contrary unto it. And if he be proposed unto us as  a
pattern of justification by works in the sight of God, it must be by
such  works  as God has not required in the moral law, but  such  as
seem  to  be  contrary  thereunto.  Nor  can  any  man  receive  any
encouragement to expect justification by works, by telling him  that
Abraham was justified by works, when he offered up his only  son  to
God;  for  it will be easy for him to say, that as no such work  was
ever  performed by him, so none such was ever required of him.  But,
Thirdly,  Upon Abraham's compliance with the command of  God,  given
him  in the way of trial, God himself "anthropopathoos" declares the
sincerity  of  his  faith  and  his justification  thereon,  or  his
gracious  acceptance of him. This is the whole design of  the  place
which  the  apostle traduces into his purpose; and it  contains  the
whole of what he was to prove, and no more. Plainly it is granted in
it  that  we  are not justified by our works before God,  seeing  he
instances  only  in  a work performed by a justified  believer  many
years  after  he was absolutely justified before God.  But  this  is
evidently  proved  hereby,--namely, that  "faith  without  works  is
dead";  seeing  justifying  faith, as is  evident  in  the  case  of
Abraham,  is  that,  and  that alone, which brings  forth  works  of
obedience:  for on such a faith alone is a man evidenced,  declared,
and pronounced to be justified or accepted with God. Abraham was not
then first justified; he was not then said to be justified;--he  was
declared  to  be  justified, and that by and upon his  works:  which
contains the whole of what the apostle intends to prove.
   There is, therefore, no appearance of the least contradiction  be
tween  this  apostle and Paul, who professedly asserts that  Abraham
was  not justified before God by works; for James only declares that
by  the  works which he performed after he was justified he  was  ma
nifested and declared so to be. And that this was the whole  of  his
design he manifests in the next verse, where he declares what he had
proved  by  this instance, verse 22, "Seest thou how  faith  wrought
with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" Two things  he
enforces  as proved unto the conviction of him with whom he  had  to
do:--1. That true faith will operate by works; so did Abraham's,--it
was  effective in obedience. 2. That it was made perfect  by  works;
that  is,  evidenced  so  to  be,--for "teleios,  teleioumai,"  does
nowhere in the Scripture signify the internal, formal perfecting  of
any thing, but only the external complement or perfection of it,  or
the  manifestation of it. It was complete as unto its proper effect,
when he was first justified; and it was now manifested so to be. See
Matt.5:48; Col.4:12; 2 Cor.12:9. "This," says the apostle,  "I  have
proved  in  the instance of Abraham,--namely, that it  is  works  of
obedience  alone that can evince a man to be justified, or  to  have
that  faith  whereby he may be so." He adds, in the confirmation  of
what  he  had  affirmed, verse 23, "And the Scripture was  fulfilled
which  saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him  for
righteousness, and he was called The friend of God."
   Two  things  the apostle affirms herein:--1. That  the  Scripture
mentioned  was fulfilled. It was so in that justification  by  works
which  he  ascribes unto Abraham. But how this Scripture was  herein
fulfilled, either as unto the time wherein it was spoken, or as unto
the  thing  itself,  any  otherwise but as  that  which  is  therein
asserted  was evidenced and declared, no man can explain.  What  the
Scripture  affirmed so long before of Abraham was then evidenced  to
be  most  true, by the works which his faith produced; and  so  that
Scripture was accomplished. For otherwise, supposing the distinction
made between faith and works by himself, and the opposition that  he
puts between them, adding thereunto the sense given of this place by
the  apostle  Paul,  with the direct importance of  the  words,  and
nothing  can  be more contradictory unto his design (namely,  if  he
intended  to prove our justification before God by works)  than  the
quotation  of this testimony. Wherefore, this Scripture  was  [not],
nor can be, otherwise fulfilled by Abraham's justification by works,
but  only  that by and upon them he was manifested so to be.  2.  He
adds,  that  hereon  he was called The friend of  God.   So  he  is,
Isa.41:8  ;  as also, 2 Chron.20:7.  This is of the same  importance
with his being justified by works: for he was not thus called merely
as  a  justified  person,  but  as one  who  had  received  singular
privileges from God, and answered them by a holy walking before him.
Wherefore,  his  being  called  "The  friend  of  God,"  was   God's
approbation  of his faith and obedience; which is the  justification
by  works  that  the  apostle asserts.  Hereon  he  makes  a  double
conclusion (for the instance of Rahab being of the same nature,  and
spoken  unto before, I shall not insist again upon it):--l. As  unto
his  present argument, verse 24. 2. As unto the whole of his design,
verse  26. The first is, "That by works a man is justified, and  not
by  faith only";--"Ye see then, you whom I design to convince of the
vanity  of that imagination, that you are justified by a dead faith,
a  breathless carcase of faith, a mere assent unto the truth of  the
gospel, and profession of it, consistent with all manner of impiety,
and  wholly destitute of good fruits: you may see what faith  it  is
that  is required unto justification and salvation. For Abraham  was
declared  to  be  righteous, to be justified, on  that  faith  which
wrought  by  works, and not at all by such a faith  as  you  pretend
unto."  A  man  is justified by works, as Abraham was  when  he  had
offered up his son to God; that is, what he really was by faith long
before,  as the Scripture testifies, was then and thereby  evidenced
and  declared.  And, therefore, let no man suppose that by the faith
which  they boasted of, any one is or can be justified, seeing  that
whereon  Abraham  was  declared to be so, was that  which  evidenced
itself  by its fruits. 2. He lays down that great conclusion;  which
he  had  evinced  by his whole disputation, and which  at  first  he
designed  to confirm, verse 26, "For as the body without the  spirit
is  dead, so faith without works is dead also." A breathless carcase
and an unworking faith are alike, as unto all the ends of natural or
spiritual  life. This was that which the apostle designed  from  the
beginning  to  convince  vain  and  barren  professors  of;   which,
accordingly, he has given sufficient reason and testimony for.


