« AnteriorContinuar »
order to his Juftification; and therefore it cannot possibly be, that such Faith has any Sort of .V-rks, any Sort of Obedience included in the Nitnre of it, as it is a justifying Faith. It justifies only as it receives a divine Gift freely offered; or, in the \poltle's Language, as it believeth on kirn nvho justifieth the Ungodly. Here is no Room left for any Evasion. Alter never so many critical Dstinctions are made, Him that tuorketh not, is Him that w'jrk
cth not. He moreover fhews us, that the Faith
under Consideration is a Believing on him that justifies the'Jngodly; and therefore cannot include evangelical Obedience in the Nature of it, unless evangelical Obedience and 'Jngodlimfs be the same Thing. —It is true, that a Person when justified, or when exercising that Faith through which he is justisied, ceases to be in his state and habitual Course ungodly' for he has xFaith which not only fends him to Chriji for Justisication, but for Sanclification too, and which not only embraces the P-omise, but the Precept too, and is a vital active Principle of all 0ledience. But then there is no Moment of Time intervenes between his State of Ungodlinefs and hi*'
justification He surther shews, that God imputeth
Righteoufnefs, for our Justisication, without Works; and therefore Obedience cannot be in laded in the Nature of justifying Faith as such, unless Obedience be -without works also.—Here likewise the Expressions are strong and plain. These is no Room for Shift or Cavil. When all the most plausible Pretences in the World arc made to avoid the Force of these Expressions, -.without lYorks, is -without Works still.
How admirable does the Pretence which I am opposing appear, when the Apistle does with his own Pen, in as strong and pointed Language as can be used, obviate the Pretence, rejsit it, and conT 3 sute 1
fute it, and that too, in the very Context upon which it is founded.—1 need therefore ofser no other Arguments to clear this Point; it is efsectually done to my Hand by the Apostle himself, and his Reasoning ought to take Place against all Objections. Could we be justified by any Sort of Works or Obedience, personally performed by us, we should have whereof to glory: And were our Justification a Reward given on Account of any Works of Obedience of ours, it would be of Debt, and not of Grace. But both these Things are inconsistent with God's gracious Dispensation towards us. He imputeth Righteoufnefs to him that •worketh not; He justifiesh the Ungodly; He irnfuteth Righteoufnefs without Works; and therefore the Faith, which is imputed unto Righteoufness, does not, cannot, as such, include any Sort of Obedience in the Nature of it.
I proceed now to prove to you, that the Faith which is imputed to Believers unto their Justification, is not their own personal Righteoufnef. This will evidently appear, if you duly consider these sollowing Arguments.
That Righteousnefs by which a Sinner is justified, is the Righteoufnefs of God.—The Righteousnefs of GOD is revealed from Faith to Faith. Rom i . 17. —We are made the Righteoufnefs of G D in him. 1 Cor. v. 21.—The Righteoufnefs of God which is by Faith of Jefus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe. Rom iii. 22. —Now it cannot be true, lhat the Righteoufnefs of God and our own inherent perfonal Righteoufnefs are the same Thing. —Tf it be pretended, that Faith is the Gift of God, and as sijch it is the Righteoufnefs of God, the Answer is easy. Faith, considered in itself as a Principle, is ours subjectively, and considered in its Ex•rcise, it is ours formally, or our own personal act;
and in that respect, so far as it is any Righteousness at all, it is our own personal Righteousness; and therefore, as it is our own personal Righteousness, it can no more properly be said to be the Righteousness of God, than our Breath can be said to be 'the Breath of God, our Words to be the Words of God, or our Loco-motion to be the Motion of God. For our Power to breathe, to speak, or to move, is as truly the Gift of God, as our Power to believe.— Besides, all Pretences of this Kind are utterly excluded by the quoted Texts. For if Faith cannot with any Propriety be said to be revealed from Faith to Faith; if we cannot with any Propriety say, that Faith is a Righteoufnefs by Faith of Jefui Christ; then Faith is not the Righteoufnefs of God, by which we are justisied; and therefore we cannot be justisied by Faith, as it is our own inherent personal Righteousness, and yet be justisied by the Righteoufnefs of God.
Moreover we are said to be made righteous by the Obedience of Christ, Rom. v. 19. and to be justisied by the Blood of Christ, Rom. v.o.—^nx. Faith, as it is our personal inherent Righteousness, is in no respect the Obedience of Christ, or the Blood of Christ; and therefore Faith, as it is our personal inherent Righteousness, can in no respect be that Righteoufnefs by which we are justisied, or made righteous before God.
Furthermore, Faith, as it is our persona! inherent Righteousness, is our envn ; but the Righteousness by which we are justisied is not our own. Not having my own Righteoufnefs, Phil, iii y. And therefore Faith, as our personal inherent Righteousness, does not justify us before God.
I will only add, if Faith, as it is our inherent personal Righteousness, cannot answer the Demands of the moral Law, it cannot justify us consistently
with with the Persections of the Divine Nature; but the former is true, and therefore the latter. If
there badbeen a Law given, which could have given Lise, verily Righteousness Jhould have been by the Lam), Gal. iii. 21. But this wasimpolfible in the Case of sallen Man, as being utterly inconsistent with the divine persections.—I think no Man will pretend, that our personal inherent Righteousness can answer the Demands of the moral Law. I fhall therefore only endeavour to lhew you how it is utterly inconsistent with the divine Persections that Sinners mould be justified by any Righteousness,which will not answer the Demands of the moral Law. .
It cannot be agreeable to the Justice of God, that we should be justified by any Righteousness, which will not answer the Demands of the moral Law. For which Reason, Godsending his own Son, in tie Likeness of sinsul Flesh andfor Sin, condemned Sin in the Flesh, that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us. Rom. viii. 3, 4. It is by declaring CnrijTs Righteousness (by which the Demands of the moral Law are satisfied) that God can be just, and yet the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus, Rom. iii. 26.—The glorious God justly gave us the Laiv as the Rule of our Obedience; justly required our persect Consormity to it, and justly annexed the Penalties. to it inCase of Disobedience. This Law was founded upon, and flowed from the Justice of the divine Nature. Obedience to it was required, and the Penalties of it were annexed, by the rectorai Justice of the great Governor of the World. And the Justice of God is now the lame. that it was when this Law was first given; and with the same inflexible Severity requires that it be fulfilled, and not a Title of it pass away, or be destroyed. The same Justice, which annexed the Penalties.) must be satisfied for the Violation of the Law, in such Manner as that the Honour of a righteous Judge may be secured, and the Penalty of the Law sulfilled. Whence it follows, that no personal inherent Righteousness of ours whatsoever can justify us before God, consistent with his rectora' Justice; because it cannot answer the Demands of the moral Law.
It is altogether impertinent to pretend, that Christ has procured easier Terms than Obedience to the Law of Nature; and that our sincere Obedience to the Gofpel is now the Condition of our Justification. For the Question still recurs, Which Way is the moral Law sulfilled ? Has Christ fulfilled that for us, and in our Place and Stead; or has he not? If he has, we then have a better Righteousness to plead for our. Justification than any personal inherent Righteousness of our own; but if he has not, the Law has still its sull Challenges «pon us (Penal, as well as Preceptive) notwithlumiing any Righteousness of our own, and we cannot be justified upon this Bottom, consistently With the governing Justice of God.
I must surther observe, it cannot be agreeable to 1M Holiness of God, that' Sinners Ihould be justified by any Righteousness whatfoever, which does not sully answer the Demands of the moral Law. The moral Law is (as it were) a Copy or Transept of the Holiness of God; and must therefore a perpetual and unalterable Rule of Righteousness to Man. There can strictly be no Righteousnefi> but by a complete Consormity to this Law; and hence none can, consistent with God's Holiness, be accepted by him as righteous, who have lot a sull Consormity to this original and only Rule of Righteousness to plead in their Favour. If therefore we can have no such persect Consormity t0 Amoral Law, to plead before God on Account