Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

assert that the act of believing is imputed for righteousness, as they who establish the doctrine of justification by works, or by faith as a work, we overthrow that which we have been main

"ances he will place his faith, and by mere favour value it equal to a complete "performance of his duty, and reward him as if he were a perfectly righteous "person."

Faith is the mind's assent to external evidence; faith thus strictly considered as an act, is man's act, as much so as any can be, and as the understanding at least in its application to the evidence must be accompanied by the consent of the will, here is every thing that is necessary to constitute a work, and accordingly it is commanded as a duty, the neglect of which is criminal. If it be thus that faith justifies the believer in the sight of God, then there is no propriety in saying we are not justified by works, and if it were possible still less in adducing the example of Abraham's justification by that which was no more than a duty to prove that we cannot be justified by works, "Christ being the end of "the law for righteousness to every one who believeth." If man can be so justified boasting is not excluded he has whereof to glory.

But the design of the apostle was to show that Abraham himself one of the holiest of men with all his good deeds, and implicit obedience to divine com. mands was not justified for his own holiness or godliness, for that is the opi non he is combating, but by what he calls faith. When the things which we are required to believe are of a spiritual nature, the "carnal mind” requires to be freed from its prejudices before it will "receive them," and because supernatu ral aid is necessary to such minds and all naturally possess them, such "faith" must unquestionably be " the gift of God" in a sense higher than that of every other species of faith exercised under the support of Divine Providence. If faith is a gift of God it merits nothing for us, can never create an obligation on Divine justice for remuneration, and so can never be a justifying righteousness.

In his epistle to the Galatians that which he terms a being "justified by faith" he also denominates a being "justified by faith in Christ" so that his justifying faith is not merely a belief of the truth of what God has spoken, but is connected in some manner with Christ, and that it is not the mere act of believing in Christ which is the ground of such justification is plain from this, that he expresses the same thing by the words, "being justified by Christ." If it is true that we are justified by faith, and also justified by Christ, it must be meant in different senses, and to give effect to these words thus differently connected, it seems necessary to suppose the righteousness of Christ as the meritorious cause or ground of justification, and faith the instrumental. "To as many as received him to them gave "he power to become the sons of God, even to as many as believed on his name," or at least as the concomitant of it, where all other requisites exist as well as grace for its production.

It is not the holiness of his faith that is accounted for righteousness to him; faith is a holy duty but not more so than some others, and not so much so as love, "now abide faith, hope, love, and the greatest of these is love;" nor are christians ever said to be justified by love, joy, peace, patience, or by any other grace, except by faith. From whence it follows that it is not the holiness of faith for which the believer is justified, and yet that there is some property not common to any other grace or duty, which must be concerned in our justification; an no doubt it is because faith lays hold on him for whose sake alone we can be jusLified.

Or faith may be put for its object, as the words fear, hope, joy, and love are; God is our fear, our hope, &c. "Thy faith hath saved thee," it was not her faith, but its object, Christ's power, that healed her.

The seed which was promised embraced Christ, whose day Abraham saw afar off; so this faith had the Redeemer for its object. In the epistle to the Galatians there follow the quotation these words, " as many as are of faith are the childrea "of Abraham," these are called his spiritual seed, and believe in Christ, now all who believe in Christ are thereby the children of Abraham, and Abraham their

taining and if, on the other hand, we understand faith, for the object of faith, viz. what was wrought out by Christ, which faith is conversant about, and conclude, (as I conceive we ought to do,) that this, is imputed for righteousness, this is supposed, by some, to deviate too much from the common sense of words, to be allowed of: but if there be such a figurative way of speaking used in other scriptures, why may we not suppose that it is used in this text under our present consideration? If other graces are sometimes taken for the object thereof, why may not faith be taken, by a metonymy, for its object? Thus the apostle calls those whom he writes to, his joy, that is, the object, or matter thereof, Phil. iv. 1. And in the book of Canticles, the church calls Christ her love, Cant. iv. 8. that is, the object thereof. And elsewhere, hope is plainly taken for the object of it, when the apostle says, Hope that is seen, is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? Rom. viii. 24. By which he plainly intends, that whatever is the object of hope, cannot be in our present possession: and Christ is farther styled, The blessed hope, Tit. ii. 13. that is, the person whose appearance we hope for. And Jacob speaks of God as the fear of his father Isaac, Gen. xxxi. 53. that is, the son whom he worshipped with reverential fear; in all which cases the phraseology is equally difficult with that of the text, under our present consideration. Thus concerning Christ's righteousnesss, as wrought out for us, and applied by faith; which is the foundation of all our peace and comfort, both in life and death; and therefore cannot but be reckoned a doctrine of the highest importance: we shall now consider some things that may be inferred from it. And,

[1.] From what has been said concerning justification, as founded in Christ's suretyship-righteousness, wrought out for us, by what was done and suffered by him, in his human nature; and the infinite value thereof, as depending on the glory of the divine nature, to which it is united, we cannot but infer the absurdity of two contrary opinions, namely, that of those who have asserted, that we are justified by the essential righteousness of Christ as God *; and that of others, who pretend, that because all mediatorial acts are performed by Christ only as man therefore the infinite dignity of the divine nature, has no reference to their being satisfactory to divine justice. This is what they mean when they say, that we are justified by *This opinion was propagated soon after the reformation, by Andr. Osiander, who lived a little before the middle of the sixteenth century.

father or pattern of faith, his faith must have been of the same kind. There could have been little propriety in giving a faith of any other kind as a pattern to those who are to believe in Christ that they may be "justified by his blood."

Christ's righteousness as man, in opposition to our being justified by his essential righteousness as God *: whereas, I think, the truth lies in a medium between both these extremes; on the one hand we must suppase, that Christ's engagement to become a surety for us, and so stand in our room and stead, and thereby to pay the debt which we had contracted to the justice of God, could not be done in any other than the human nature; for the divine nature is not capable of being under a law, or fulfilling it, or, in any instance, of obeying, or suffering; and therefore, we cannot be justified by Christ's essential righteousness, as God; and, on the other hand, what Christ did and suffered as man, would not have been sufficient for our justification, had it not had an infinite value put upon it, arising from the union of the nature that suffered with the divine nature, which is agreeable to the apostle's expression, when he says, God purchased the church with his own blood, Acts,

XX. 28.

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

But there are others, who speak of God's being reconcileable as the consequence of Christ's satisfaction, that they might not be thought to assert that God is actually reconciled by the blood of Christ, to those who are in an unconverted state, which is inconsistent therewith; therefore they use this mode of expression, lest they should be thought to give countenance to the doctrine of actual justification before faith; but certainly we are under no necessity of advancing one absurdity to avoid an

This opinion was propagated soon after by Stancarus, in opposition to Osiander, whom Du Pin reckons amongst the Socinians, or, at least, that after he had advanced this notion, he denied the doctrine of the Trinity. See Du Pin's esti hist, sixteenth century, book iv. chap. 6.]

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

other: therefore, let it be here considered, that the scripture speaks expressly of God's being reconciled by the death of Christ; and accordingly he is said to have brought him again from the dead, as a God of peace, Heb. xiii. 20. And elsewhere, he speaks of God's having reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. v. 18. and not becoming reconcilable to us. Again, When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved, Rom. v. 10. that is, shall obtain the saving effects of this reconciliation by his life. And again, Having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself: and you that were sometimes alienated, and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled, in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable, and unreprovable in his sight, Col. i. 21, 22. Where he describes those who were reconciled as once enemies, and speaks of this privilege as being procured by the death of Christ, and of holiness here, and salvation hereafter, as the consequence of it; therefore it is such a reconciliation as is contained in our justification.

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

The only thing that remains to be explained is; how God may be said to be reconciled by the blood of Christ, to a person who is in an unconverted state, and as such, represented as a child of wrath? for the understanding of which, let us consider, that so long as a person is an unbeliever, he has no ground to conclude, according to the tenor of God's revealed will, that he is reconciled to him, or that he is any other than a child of wrath. Nevertheless, when we speak of God's being reconciled to his elect, according to the tenor of his secret will, before they believe, that is in effect to say, that justification, as it is an immanent act in God, is antecedent to faith, which is a certain truth, inasmuch as faith is a fruit and con

sequence thereof: whereas, God does not declare that he is reconciled to us, or give us ground to conclude it; whereby we appear no longer to be children of wrath, till we believe. If this be duly considered, we have no reason to assert, that God is reconcileable, rather than reconciled by the death of Christ, lest we should be thought to maintain the doctrine of justification, or deliverance from wrath, as a declared act, before we believe. And to this we may add, that God was reconcileable to his elect, that is, willing to be reconciled to them before Christ died for them; otherwise he would never have sent him into the world to make reconciliation for the sins of his people: he was reconcileable, and therefore designed to turn from the fierceness of his wrath; and in order thereunto, he appointed Christ to make satisfaction for sin, and procure peace for them.

[3.] There is not the least inconsistency between those scrip tures which speak of justification as being an act of God's free grace, and others, which speak of it as being, by faith, founded on Christ's righteousness; or between God's pardoning sin freely, without regard to any thing done by us to procure it; and yet insisting on, and receiving a full satisfaction, as the meritorious and procuring cause of it. This is sometimes objected against what we have advanced in explaining the doctrine of justification, as being, in some respects, an act of justice, and in others, of grace; as though it were inconsistent with itself, and our method of explaining it were liable to an absurdity, which is contrary to reason; as though two contradictory propositions could be both true; namely, that justification should be an act of the strictest justice, without any abatement of the debt demanded, and yet of free grace, without insisting on the payment of the debt: but this seeming contradiction may be easily reconciled, if we consider that the debt was not paid by us in our own persons; which had it been done, it would have been inconsistent with forgiveness's being an act of grace; but by our surety, and in that respect there was no abatement of the debt, nor did he receive a discharge by an act of grace, but was justified as our head or surety, by his own righteousness, or works performed by him; whereas, we are justified by his suretyship-righteousness, without works performed by us; and this surety was provided for us; as has been before observed; and therefore, when we speak of justification, as being an act of grace, we distinguish between the justification of our surety, after he had given full satisfaction for the debt which we had contracted; and this payment's being placed to our account by God's gracious imputation thereof to us, and our obtaining forgiveness as the result thereof, which can be no other than an act of the highest grace.

« AnteriorContinuar »