Chapter IV: Part 4

4. That the power and grace of God, displayed in effectual calling, is irresistible, and consequently such as cannot but be effectual to produce that which is designed to be brought about thereby. To deny this, would be to infer, that the creature has an equal, if not a superior, force to God: for, as, in nature, every thing that impedes or stops a thing that is in motion, must have an equal force to resist with that which is affected by it; so, in the work of grace, if the will of man can render the power of God of none effect, or stop the progress of divine grace, contrary to his design or purpose, this must argue the creature’s power of resisting, equal to that which is put forth by God, in order to the bringing this work to perfection. This consequence is so derogatory to the divine glory, that no one who sees it to be just, will maintain the premises from whence it is deduced.

If it be said, that God may suffer himself to be resisted; and his grace, that would otherwise have been effectual, to be defeated; this will not much mend the matter; but only, in order to the avoiding one absurd consequence, bring in another; for if every one would have, what he purposes to be done brought to pass, and would not be disappointed, if he could help it, the same must be said of the great God. Now if God could have prevented his purpose from being defeated, but would not, this argues a defect of wisdom; if his own glory was designed, by purposing to do that which the creature renders ineffectual, then he misses of that end, which cannot but be the most valuable, and consequently most desirable: therefore, for God to suffer a purpose of this nature, to be defeated, supposing he could prevent it, is to suffer himself to be a loser of that glory which is due to his name. Moreover, this is directly contrary to what the apostle says, _Who hath resisted his will_, Rom. ix. 19. or who hath rendered the grace, which he designed should take effect, ineffectual, or, which is the same thing, who can do it?

The ground on which many have asserted, that the grace of God may be resisted, is taken from some scriptures, that speak of man’s being in open hostility against him. Thus we read of a bold daring sinner, as _stretching out his hand against God, and strengthening himself against the Almighty, running upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers_, Job xv. 25, 26. And Stephen reproves the Jews as having _always resisted the Holy Ghost, both they and their fathers_, Acts vii. 51, 52. and the Pharisees are said to _have rejected_, Luke vii. 30. or, as the word[27] might have been rendered, _disannulled the counsel of God against themselves_. And elsewhere, the prophet speaks of God’s _stretching out his hand all the day unto a disobedient and gainsaying people_, Rom. x. 21. These, and such like scriptures give occasion to some to suppose, that the power and grace, as well as the purpose of God, may be resisted.

But that we may understand the sense of these scriptures, and, at the same time not relinquish the doctrine we are maintaining, and thereby infer the consequence above-mentioned; we must distinguish between our opposition to God’s revealed will, contained in his word, which is the rule of duty to us; and resisting his secret will, which determines the event. Or, as it may be otherwise expressed, it is one thing to set ourselves against the objective grace of God, that is, the gospel, and another thing to defeat his subjective grace, that when he is about to work effectually in us, we should put a stop to his proceedings. The former no one denies; the latter we can, by no means, allow of. Persons may express a great deal of reluctancy and perverseness at that time, when God is about to subdue their stubborn and obstinate wills; but the power of God will break through all this opposition; and the will of man shall not be able to make his work void, or without effect. The Jews, as above-mentioned, might _resist the Holy Ghost_, that is, oppose the doctrines contained in scripture, which were given by the Spirit’s inspiration; and they might make this revelation of no effect, with respect to themselves; but had God designed that it should take effect, then he would have prevented their resisting it. Israel might _be a gainsaying people_, that is, they might oppose what God communicated to them by the prophets, which it was their duty and interest to have complied with; and so the offers of grace in God’s revealed will, might be in vain with respect to them; but it never was so with respect to those whom he designed to save: and if the hardened sinner, _stretching out his hand against God_, may be said hereby to express his averseness to holiness, and his desire to be exempted from the divine government; he may be found in open rebellion against him, as hating and opposing his law; but he cannot offer any real injury to his divine perfections, so as to detract from his glory, to render his purpose of no effect. Moses speaking concerning God’s works of providence, says, _They are perfect; for all his ways are judgment_, Deut. xxxii. 4. And elsewhere, God, by the prophet Isaiah, says, _I will work, and who shall let it_, Isa. xliii. 13. From whence he argues, his eternal Deity, and uncontroulable power, when he says, _before the day was, I am he, and there is none that can deliver out of my hand_; so that if a stop might be put to his works of providence, he would cease to be a God of infinite perfection; and may we not from hence infer, that his works of grace are not subject to any controul; so that when he designs to call any effectually, nothing shall prevent this end’s being answered, which is what we intend, when we speak of the power and grace of God as irresistible; which leads us to consider,

5. The season or time in which persons are effectually called; which in this answer, is said to be God’s accepted time. If the work be free and sovereign, without any motive in us, the time in which he does it, must be that which he thinks most proper. Here we may observe,

(1.) That some are regenerate in their infancy, when the word can have no instrumentality, in producing the least acts of grace; these have therefore the seeds thereof, which spring up, and discover themselves, when they are able to make use of the word. That persons are capable of regeneration from the womb, is no less evident, than that they are capable of having the seeds or principle of reason from thence, which they certainly have; and if it be allowed, that regeneration is connected with salvation, and that infants are capable of the latter, as our Saviour says, that _of such is the kingdom of God_; then they must be certainly capable of the former; and not to suppose some infants regenerate from the womb, would be to exclude a very great part of mankind from salvation, without scripture-warrant.

(2.) Others are effectually called in their childhood, or riper years, and some few in old age; that so no age of life may be an inducement to despair, or persons be thereby discouraged from attending on the means of grace. Thus it is said concerning Josiah, That _in the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet young, he began to seek after the God of David, his father_, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 1. and David was converted when he was a _youth, a stripling of a ruddy and beautiful countenance_, 1 Sam. xvi. 12. compared with chap. xvii. 56, 58. And Moses seems to have been effectually called, when he left Pharaoh’s court; and _it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel_; at which time he was _forty years old_, Acts vii. 23. And Abraham seems to have been made partaker of this grace, when he was called to leave his country, when he was seventy-five years old; before which, it is probable, that he, together with the rest of his father’s family, served other gods, Josh. xxiv. 2. compared with Gen. xii. 4. And we read, in one single instance, of a person converted in the very agonies of death, _viz._ the thief upon the cross, Luke xxiii. 43.

(3.) Sometimes, when persons seem most disposed hereunto, and are under the greatest convictions, and more inclined to reform their lives, than at other times, the work appears, by the issue thereof, to be no more than that of common grace, which miscarries and leaves them worse than they were before; and, it may be, after this, when they seem less inclined hereunto, that is, God’s accepted time, when he begins the work with power, which he afterwards carries on and completes. Some are suffered to run great lengths in sin, before they are effectually called; as the apostle Paul, _in whom God was pleased to shew forth all long suffering, as a pattern to them which should hereafter believe_, 1 Tim. i. 16. So that the time and means being entirely in his hand, as we ought not to presume, but wait for the day of salvation in all his ordinances; so, whatever our age and circumstances are, we are still encouraged to hope for the mercy of God, unto eternal life; or, that he will save and call us, with an holy calling.

Footnote 5:

That the invitations of the gospel are not restricted to a few amongst
a larger number who hear them, is clear, from various considerations.

The term evangel, or gospel, importing good tidings, evinces, that it
is designed not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance and
salvation.

The blessings, which it announces, lead to the same conclusion;
liberty is offered to the captives, and the opening of the prison to
those who are bound; those who labour and are heavily laden, are
invited to seek, and obtain rest: those who hunger and thirst after
righteousness, are assured that they shall be filled; the riches of
grace and of glory are promised to the poor in Spirit; sight is
offered to the blind; and howsoever diseased, those who are afflicted
are invited to come to the great Physician; and even those who are
dead in sin are revived by his life-giving word. Such are the
circumstances of the worst of men, who are consequently the objects of
the mercies proffered in the gospel.

The unregenerate elect, who stand amongst those who will not be saved,
are like them, possessed of prevailing inclinations to sin, and
equally impotent to good: they are all equally guilty of an aversation
of heart from God, and so possess in themselves nothing which can
evidence a right to gospel blessings more than others.

The invitations of the gospel are in universal terms, and although
such terms are sometimes restricted by the sense, yet where no such
restriction appears, they are to be taken in their own unlimited
extent; the ransom is asserted to have been rendered for all; the Lord
willeth not the destruction of any, but that all should turn and live;
Christ proclaimed to sinners, _if any man thirst, let him come unto me
and drink_; and directed his disciples to go and _teach all nations_;
and it is his will, that the gospel should be preached _unto every
creature_.

If in the day of final account, the abominable crimes of Sodom and
Gomorrha shall evince less guilt than the impenitency of Chorazin and
Bethsaida; the aggravation of guilt, which the gospel produces,
demonstrates that its messages are directed unto the worst of men, as
well as others.

Those who are guided by the light of nature, are guilty, because they
violate the rule of conscience: such as possessed the law of God were
still more guilty, but sinners under the light of the gospel, who
trample under foot the blood of Christ, and despise and reject the
mercies of the gospel, are guilty in the highest degree. It is just
that they should not receive the offered pardon, but remain under the
condemnation of the law, the dominion of iniquity, the slavery of
Satan, and be left in their beloved darkness until they sink in
despair. Yet nothing but their own aversion rejects the invitation, or
prevents their salvation: they are straitened in their own bowels, and
are the causes of their own destruction. Thus salvation is offered in
general, and God is just, though the application of it is plainly
special.

Footnote 6:

Vide Fuller’s “Gospel worthy of all Acceptation.”

Footnote 7:

_See Vol. II. page 333._

Footnote 8:

_This is what is generally called the_ formalis _ratio of liberty._

Footnote 9:

_We generally say, that whatever is essential to a thing, belongs to
it as such. And there is a known rule in logic_, A quatenus ad omne
valet consequentia; _and the then absurd consequences, above
mentioned, would necessarily follow from it._

Footnote 10:

_In this respect divines generally consider liberty as opposed to
co-action: but here we must distinguish between a natural co-action
and a moral one. Liberty is not opposed to a moral co-action, which is
very consistent with it. Thus an honest man cannot allow himself in a
vile action; he is under a moral constraint to the contrary; and yet
he abstains from sin freely. A believer loves Christ freely, as the
apostle Paul certainly did; and yet, at the same time, he was under
the constraint of the love of Christ; as he himself expresses it_, _2
Cor._ v. 14.

Footnote 11:

_This divines generally call_ spontaneity.

Footnote 12:

_This some call_ lubentia rationalis.

Footnote 13:

_This some divines call_ voluntas serva.

Footnote 14:

_The question between us and the Pelagians, is not whether the will
sometimes follows the dictates of the understanding, but, whether it
either always does so? or, if it be otherwise, whether that which
hinders it does not arise from a defect in these dictates of the
understanding? Accordingly they speak of the dictates of the
understanding as practical, and not barely speculative, and with a
particular application to ourselves. They also consider the will as
having been before in some suspense; but that dictate of the
understanding which it follows, is the last, after mature
deliberation; and it is supposed to have compared things together; and
therefore presents a thing, not only as good, but more eligible than
any thing else, which they call a comparate dictate of the
understanding; and by this means the will is persuaded to a
compliance. But though this may be true in many instances that are
natural; yet daily experience proves, that it does not hold good with
respect to things divine and supernatural._

Footnote 15:

The manners and maxims of the world accord with the inclinations of
the human mind, because they spring from them: the dispositions and
the pursuits of men are at variance with the laws of God, the
doctrines of the gospel, and the practice of the saints, this will
appear by comparing them. That the human mind should be brought to
submit to the self-denial requisite to the character of a true
christian, its bias or bent must be changed. Because men are moral
agents, various motives are addressed to them to induce such change,
when not attended to, they aggravate their guilt: when they are
followed by the change, which they have a tendency to produce, those
who yield are said to be “born of the word.” Were it not for the
information we derive from the scriptures we should probably look no
further than the proximate cause, and give man the glory; but these
teach us, that the Spirit of God is always in such change, if it be
real, the efficient cause: “God sanctifies _by_ the truth,” he
“_opens_ the heart to attend” to the word, and when any have _learned_
from and been _taught_ or _drawn_ by the Father they come unto Christ;
they are therefore also in a higher sense _born of the Spirit_.

This work of God immediately upon the mind, is possible to him, who
formed, sustains, and knows the secrets of the heart; if we are
unconscious of our creation, support in existence, and the access of
the Searcher of hearts to our minds, we may be unconscious of his
influence to change them. If this were sensible, it might be a motive
incompatible with the safety and moral government of beings, who at
best, whilst here, are imperfectly holy.

The communication of the knowledge of saving truths immediately is
unnecessary: we have the sacred scriptures, which are competent to
make us wise unto salvation. The inspiration anciently given, is
distinct from the change of bias, or disposition necessary to a
preparation for heaven, might exist without, and is therefore inferior
to it.

It is not the sole effect of moral suasion, it is a work of the spirit
not the letter, of power not the word: it is a birth, not by “blood,
nor by the will of the flesh, nor _by the will_ of man, but of God,”
and those only “who are of God, hear,” believe, and obey his word.

This influence is sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, riches to
the poor, health to the sick, and life to the dead. It is not
incompatible with moral agency, for the holy disposition is as free in
its operation, as the former sinful inclinations had been in theirs.
The necessity of it to salvation, is no excuse for the impenitent;
grace is not necessary to the vindication of Divine justice: the
preponderancy of inclinations to evil is the essence of, not an
apology for sin. It is very strange if, because a man is so intent
upon sinning that nothing can change him but the almighty power of the
Divine Spirit, he is on this very account innocent.—It does not render
the preaching of the word unnecessary, for besides that it is
commanded, and important to call men to repentance and faith, when the
grace has been given, God also usually accompanies his ordinances with
his Spirit’s influences, and seems in most cases, to direct in his
providence the blessings of his instructions to those whom he makes
the subjects of his grace.

Footnote 16:

“I have seen it objected, that to suppose a change effected in the
heart of man, otherwise than by the power of moral means, is palpably
absurd; as implying an evident impossibility in the nature of things.
It has been said, by a divine of advanced age, and good sense; ‘The
moral change of the mind in regeneration, is of an essentially
different kind from the mechanical change of the body, when that is
raised from the dead; and must be effected by the exertion of a
different kind of power. Each effect requires a power suited to its
nature: and the power proper for one can never produce the other. To
argue from one to the other of these effects, as the apostle has been
misunderstood to do, in Eph. i. 20, is therefore idle and
impertinent.—The Spirit of God is possessed of these two kinds of
power, and exerts the one or the other, accordingly as he wills to
produce a change of the moral or physical kind, in moral beings or
inanimate matter.’

“But to this philosophical objection, however plausible and
unanswerable it may appear, I think the reply of our Saviour to the
difficulty started by the Sadducees, respecting the resurrection and a
future state, is neither idle, nor impertinent: ‘Ye do err, not
knowing the scriptures, nor the power of _God_.’ The Almighty is not
limited, as men are, to these two modes of operation, by moral and
mechanical means. The Spirit of God is possessed of a power of working
in a manner different from either of these; that is, supernaturally.
The means by which effects are brought to pass in a natural way, must
indeed be different; according to the nature of those effects, and of
the subjects on which the operations are performed: but when once we
admit the idea of a work properly supernatural—an effect produced not
by the power of any means at all, we instantly lose sight of all
distinctions in the kind of power, or manner of working, adapted to
things of different natures. When God, by his omnipotent word alone,
called all nature into being at first, are we to suppose that he
exerted different powers, according to the natures of the things
designed to be created; and that the power proper to create inanimate
matter, could never create a thinking mind! Are we to conceive that
angels and the souls of men were persuaded into being, by arguments
and motives; and that the material world was forced out of nothing, by
the power of attraction! So, in regard to quickening the dead, are we
to imagine that God can give new life to a soul dead in sin, only by
moral suasion; and that, if he will reanimate bodies which have slept
thousands of years in the dust of the earth, he has no other way to do
it than by a physical operation! The body of Christ was raised to
life, I should suppose, not by any mechanical power, but
supernaturally. In this manner God always works, when he quickeneth
the dead, and calleth things that are not, as though they were. And
what absurdity can there be in supposing Him able to give a new
principle of action, as well as to give existence to any thing else,
in this immediate manner?

“Some sound and sensible divines, it must be granted, in order to
guard against the notion of regeneration’s being effected by moral
suasion, have called it a physical work, and a physical change; but
very needlessly, I apprehend, and with very evident impropriety. The
change is moral: the work producing it, neither moral nor physical;
but supernatural.”

DR. SMALLEY

Footnote 17:

Ὕπερβαλλον μεγεθος της δυναμεως αυτου—κατα την ενεργειαν του κρατους
της ισχυος αυτου.

Footnote 18:

The change in regeneration has been often called the communication of
_a principle of spiritual life_. It is described as life, in the
scriptures. Sensible objects make no impressions on dead bodies,
because insensible; and those, who receive no impressions from divine
truths, but remain unaffected by the charms of holiness, are
figuratively denominated _dead_. Life being the opposite of death,
such as are sensible of the Divine excellencies, and receive the
impressions which religious truths are calculated to make, may, in the
same manner, be termed _living_. Such also are called _spiritual_,
because this holy activity is communicated by the Spirit of God. “You
hath he quickened;” and, because it has for its object the things
which have been revealed by the Holy Spirit.

These terms are derived from the Scriptures, but the word _principle_
is destitute of such support. It is found in the Epistle to the
Hebrews: there it is used for those fundamental doctrines, which are
the _beginnings_ of the doctrine of the gospel; but this is not the
meaning of the term in the above description. This change is the
immediate work of God, and not the communication of some operative
axiom of truth. There are natural principles of action; as habit,
affection, and passion: and there are moral; as sense of duty, fear of
God, and love of holiness. These are all termed principles, because
they excite to action, and so are the beginnings, or causes of it. But
it is scarcely in this sense, that the term principle is used in the
description of regeneration; for it is said to be communicated, and so
must mean something distinct from, and the effect of the work of the
Spirit. Accordingly it has been called “a fixed impression of some
spiritual truth upon the heart.” But there is no truth, or other
motive, sufficient to prevail against the obduracy of the unrenewed
heart; or to become a _principle_ of action to a soul dead in sin.
Whatever that is in fallen man, which repels such motives, and
prevents their influence until some more worthy motive is thrown into
the scale, it is the work of the Spirit to remove it, and to give the
soul an activity towards holy things. No intervention of mediate
causes seems necessary; the Spirit of God is the agent; the soul of
the man is the subject of influence; and He is said to _open the
heart, to give a new heart, to create anew, to enlighten the mind in
the knowledge of the truth, to work in us to will and to do_, or _to
give sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf_. From such
scriptural expressions it may be gathered that sight, knowledge, new
dispositions, and a change of inclinations, are the _effects_ of
regeneration, and not the _thing itself_.

This change is more important than all the gifts of providence, if man
therefore be the author of it, he is his own greatest benefactor, and
must have the highest glory. If the Holy Spirit acts no otherwise on
the human soul, than by addressing motives, angelic natures do also
this; and no more power is ascribed to the Searcher of hearts, than to
them. Then also it will follow, that all professing christians are of
the same kind; and that it was improperly said, that they “were not of
us,” who afterwards have “departed from us.” Then also the advice to
those who are in the visible church “to examine,” and “prove
themselves,” whether Christ be “in them,” is without meaning, or
utility; because the thing to be inquired for is notorious, that is,
their visible profession. And to “be born again,” is but “to see the”
visible “kingdom” of Christ: and so the proposition spoken to
Nicodemus was merely identical.

Footnote 19:

_See Charnock, Vol. II. page 220, 221, &c. and Cole on Regeneration._

Footnote 20:

_See Charnock, Vol. II. page 232, who speaking concerning its being an
instrument, appointed by God, for this purpose, says, That God hath
made a combination between hearing and believing; so that believing
comes not without hearing, and whereas he infers from hence, that the
principle of grace is implanted, by hearing and believing the word, he
must be supposed to understand it, concerning the principle deduced
into act, and not his implanting the principle itself._

Footnote 21:

_See Charnock on Regeneration, Vol. II. page 70, 71._

Footnote 22:

_See Quest._ lxxv.

Footnote 23:

When it is said “_no man can come unto me, except the Father who hath
sent me, draw him_,” the negation must be understood as expressive of
_moral_ impotency, and as if it had been said “_ye will not come unto
me that ye might have life_;” but nevertheless as direct proof of the
absolute necessity of divine grace to the salvation of every person
who is saved. That the aid is not merely necessary to the
_understanding_ is evident from the guilt of unregeneracy, and from
the supposition of the Saviour whose reproof implies that it was the
carnality of the _heart_ which created the impotency to come unto or
believe on him.

The propriety of exhortations to turn, repent, believe, and work out
our own salvation, is obvious; because such impotency is chiefly an
aversion of heart. When such motives are ineffectual, they prove the
inveteracy of the opposition to God, and argue the greater guilt. They
are no evidence that grace is unnecessary, because they have an
important effect in the change of the man’s views, and pursuits, when
the Spirit of God has “_opened the heart_” to receive the necessary
impressions; and because these motives are rendered effectual by the
Divine Spirit. He grants us repentance, turns us, helps our unbelief,
strengthens our faith, and works in us both to will and to do of his
own good pleasure.

Because it is charged upon the evil that they “resist” the grace of
God, and therefore his Spirit will not always “strive” with men, it by
no means follows, that the success of grace depends merely upon our
yielding; as often as men yield to the strivings of the Spirit, a
victory is obtained; for the carnal heart inclines to evil until
subdued by him: we are “made willing in a day of his power.” Were it
otherwise the glory of man’s salvation would belong to himself, at
least in part; but the language of the believer is “_not unto us, O
Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name, be the glory given_.” Nor is
there any need to suppose man’s salvation thus imputable to himself in
order that the evil may be charged with the blame of his destruction;
for nothing excludes him but his own evil heart, and this is his sin.

It does not result that the man, who is thus “made willing,” is in
such manner constrained as that his holiness, being the effect of
compulsion, possesses no moral beauty; because he acts as freely as
the evil man does; and even more so, for the latter is a slave to his
preponderating evil inclinations. The believer chooses holiness, and
though he has nothing to boast of before God, his good works may well
justify him before men.

If it be yet objected, that this is a discouraging representation of
the way of obtaining happiness; it may be answered, that it can
discourage only those, who wish for happiness, at the same time that
they more strongly incline to sensuality; and such ought to be
discouraged in their vain expectations: but it is highly consolatory
to such as prefer holiness and heaven; for it not only discovers to
them, that God has wrought in them to will and to do, but that he is
engaged for them, and will accomplish their salvation.

Footnote 24:

_See Charnock on Regeneration, Vol. II. page 147, 148, &c._

Footnote 25:

_When we speak of effectual calling’s being the work of the Spirit,
the agency of the Father and Son is not excluded, since the divine
power, by which all effects are produced, belongs to the divine
essence, which is equally predicated of all the persons in the
Godhead; but when any work is peculiarly attributed to the Spirit,
this implies his personal glory’s being demonstrated thereby,
agreeably to what is elsewhere called the oeconomy of the divine
persons; which see farther explained in Vol. I. page 292, 293_, &c.

Footnote 26:

Ενεργεια.

Footnote 27:

Αθετησαι.

Quest. LXIX.

QUEST. LXIX. _What is the communion in grace, which the members of
the invisible church have with Christ?_

ANSW. The communion in grace, which the members of the invisible
church have with Christ, is, their partaking of the virtue of his
mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and
whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.

Having considered the vital union which the members of the invisible church have with Christ in their effectual calling, we are now led to speak concerning that communion in grace, which they have with him.

Communion with Christ doth not, in the least, import our being made partakers of any of the glories or privileges which belong to him as Mediator; but it consists, in our participation, of those benefits which he hath purchased for us; and it implies, on his part, infinite condescension, that he will be pleased to communicate such blessings on us, and on our’s, unspeakable honours and privileges, which we enjoy from him: it is sometimes called _fellowship_, 1 John i. 3. which is the result of friendship, and proceeds from his love: thus our Saviour speaks of his _loving them, and manifesting himself unto them_, John xiv. 21. It also proceeds from union with him, and is the immediate effect and consequence of effectual calling: therefore God is said to _have called us unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ_, 1 Cor. i. 9.

And it is farther said in this answer, to be a manifestation of our union with him. He has received those blessings for us, which he purchased by his blood; and, accordingly is the treasury, as well as the fountain of all grace; and we are therefore said to _receive of his fulness, grace for grace_, John i. 16. And the blessings which we are said to receive, by virtue of his mediation, are justification, adoption, and sanctification, with all other benefits that either accompany or flow from them; which are particularly explained in the following answers.

Quest. LXX., LXXI.

QUEST. LXX. _What is justification?_

ANSW. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in
which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their
persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them,
or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full
satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by
faith alone.

QUEST. LXXI. _How is justification an act of God’s free grace?_

ANSW. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a
proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice, in the behalf
of them that are justified; yet, inasmuch as God accepteth the
satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them,
did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his
righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their
justification, but faith; which also is his gift; their
justification is, to them, of free grace.

Hitherto we have been led to consider that change of heart and life which is begun in effectual calling; whereby a dead sinner is made alive, and one that was wholly indisposed for, and averse to the performance of good works, is enabled to perform them by the power of divine grace: and now we are to speak concerning that change of state which accompanies it; whereby one, who being guilty before God, was liable to the condemning sentence of the law, and expected no other than an eternal banishment from his presence, is pardoned, received into favour, and has a right to all the blessings which Christ has, by his obedience and sufferings, purchased for him. This is what we call justification; and it is placed immediately after the head of effectual calling, as being agreeable to the method in which it is insisted on in that golden chain of salvation, as the apostle says, _Whom he called, them he also justified_, Rom. viii. 30.

This is certainly a doctrine of the highest importance, inasmuch as it contains in it the way of peace, the foundation of all our hope, of the acceptance both of our persons and services, and beholding the face of God, at last, with joy. Some have styled it the very _basis_ of Christianity; and our forefathers thought it so necessary to be insisted on and maintained, according to the scripture-account thereof, that they reckoned it one of the principal doctrines of the reformation. And, indeed, the apostle Paul speaks of it as so necessary to be believed, that he concluded that the denying or perverting of it was the ground and reason of the Jews being rejected; _who being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish a righteousness of their own, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God_: and when they shall be called, if their call be intended, in that account which we have, of _the marriage of the Lamb, and his wife having made herself ready_, Rev. xix. 7. as many suppose, it is worth observing, that she is described as _arrayed in fine linen, which is the righteousness of saints_, or Christ’s righteousness, by which they are justified: this is that in which they glory; and therefore are represented as being convinced of the importance of that doctrine which, before, they were ignorant of. This we have an account of in these two answers, which we are now to explain, and shall endeavour to do it in the following method.

I. We shall consider what we are to understand by the word _justify_.

II. What are the privileges contained therein, as reduced to two heads, to wit, pardon of sin; and God’s accounting them who are justified, righteous in his sight? And,

III. What is the foundation of our justification? namely, a righteousness wrought out for us.

IV. The utter inability of fallen man to perform any righteousness, that can be the matter of his justification in the sight of God.

V. That our Lord Jesus Christ has wrought out this righteousness for us, as our surety, by performing active and passive obedience; which is imputed to us for our justification.

VI. We shall consider it as an act of God’s free grace. And,

VII. Shew the use of faith in justification, or in what respects faith is said to justify.

I. We shall consider in what sense we are to understand the word _justify_. As there are many disputes about the method of explaining the doctrines of justification; so there is a contest between us and the Papists, about the sense of the word; they generally supposing, that _to justify_, is to make inherently righteous and holy; because righteousness and holiness sometimes import the same thing; and both of them denote an internal change in the person who is so denominated; and accordingly they argue, that as to _magnify_ signifies to make great; to _fortify_, to make strong; so to _justify_ is to make just or holy: and they suppose, that whatever we do to make ourselves so, or whatever good works are the ingredients of our sanctification, these must be considered as the matter of our justification. And some Protestant divines have supposed, that the difference between them and us, is principally about the sense of a word; which favourable and charitable construction of their doctrine, would have been less exceptionable, if the Papists had asserted no more than that justification might have been taken in this sense, when considered, not as giving us a right to eternal life, or being the foundation of that sentence of absolution, which God passes upon us: but since this is the sense they give of it, when they say that we are justified by our inherent holiness, we are bound to conclude, that it is very remote from the scripture sense of the word.

We do not deny that justification is sometimes taken in a sense different from that which is intended by it, when used to signify the doctrine we are explaining. Sometimes nothing more is intended hereby, than our vindicating the divine perfections from any charge which is pretended to be brought against them. Thus the Psalmist says, _That thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest_, Psal. li. 4. And our Saviour is said to be justified, that is, his person or character vindicated or defended from the reproaches that were cast on him; as it is said, _Wisdom is justified of her children_, Matt. xi. 19. Luke vii. 35. Also we frequently read of the justification of the actions or conduct of persons, in scripture; in which sense their own works may be said to justify or vindicate them from the charge of hypocrisy or unregeneracy. Again, to justify is sometimes taken, in scripture, for using endeavours to turn many to righteousness: and therefore our translators have rendered the words, in the prophecy of Daniel, which signify, _they who justify many, they who turn many to righteousness, shall shine as the stars_, Dan. xii. 3.[28]

There are various other senses which are given of this word, which we pass over as not applicable to the doctrine we are maintaining, and therefore shall proceed to consider the sense in which it is used, when importing a sinner’s justification in the sight of God; wherein it is to be taken only in a forensick sense, and accordingly signifies a person’s being acquitted or discharged from guilt, or a liableness to condemnation, in such a way as is done in courts of judicature: thus we read in the judicial law, that _if there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them, then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked_, Deut. xxv. 1. where _to justify the righteous_, is to be understood for acquitting or discharging one that appears to be righteous, or not guilty, from condemnation; whereas _the wicked_, that is, they who appear to be guilty, are to be _condemned_: and in this sense the word is used, when applied to the doctrine of justification, in the New Testament, and particularly in Paul’s epistles; who largely insists on this subject.

Now that we may understand how a sinner may expect to be discharged at God’s tribunal, let us consider the methods of proceeding used in human courts of judicature: herein, it is supposed, that there is a law that forbids some actions which are deemed criminal; and also, that a punishment is annexed to this law, which renders the person that violated it, guilty; and then persons are supposed to be charged with the violation thereof; which charge, if it be not made good, they are said to be justified, that is, cleared from presumptive, not real guilt: but if the charge be made good, and he that fell under it, liable to punishment; if he suffer the punishment he is justified, as in crimes that are not of a capital nature; or if he be any otherwise cleared from the charge, so that his guilt be removed, then he is deemed a justified person: and so the law has nothing to lay to his charge, with respect to that which he was before accused of. Thus when a sinner, who had been charged with the violation of the divine law, found guilty before God, and exposed to a sentence of condemnation, is freed from it, then he is said to be justified; which leads us to consider,

II. The privileges contained in justification; which are forgiveness of sin and a right and title to eternal life. These are sufficiently distinguished, though never separated; so that when we find but one of them mentioned in a particular scripture, which treats on this subject, the other is not excluded. Forgiveness of sin is sometimes expressed in scripture, by a not imputing sin; and a right to life, includes in it our being made partakers of the adoption of children, and a right to the inheritance prepared for them. The apostle mentions both these together, when he speaks of our having _redemption through the blood of Christ, even the forgiveness of sins_; and being _made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light_, Col. i. 12, 14. And elsewhere he speaks of Christ’s _redeeming them that were under the law_; which includes the former branch of justification, and of their _receiving the adoption of children_, which includes the latter. And again he considers a justified person as _having peace with God_, which more especially respects pardon of sin, and of their _having access to the grace wherein they stand_, and their _rejoicing in hope of the glory of God_, Rom. v. 1, 2. which is what we are to understand by, or includes in it, their right to life.

That justification consists of both these branches, we maintain against the Papists, who suppose that it includes nothing else but forgiveness of sin, which is founded on the blood of Christ; whereas, according to them, our right to life depends on our internal qualifications, or sincere obedience. And besides these, there are some Protestant divines, who suppose that it consists only in pardon of sin; and this is asserted, by them, with different views; some do it as most consistent with the doctrine of justification by works, which they plead for; whereas, others do it as being most agreeable to another notion which they advance, namely, that we are justified only by Christ’s passive obedience; which will be considered under a following head. Again, there are others, whose sentiments of the doctrine of justification are agreeable to scripture, who maintain, that it includes both forgiveness of sins, and a right to life; but yet they add, that the former is founded on Christ’s passive obedience, and the latter on his active: whereas, we cannot but think, that the whole of Christ’s obedience, both active and passive, is the foundation of each of these; which will also be considered, when we come to speak concerning the procuring cause of our justification.

All that we shall observe at present, is, that these two privileges are inseparably connected; therefore, as no one can have a right to life, but he whose sins are pardoned; so no one can obtain forgiveness of sin, but he must, as the consequence hereof, have a right to life. As by the fall, man first became guilty, and then lost that right to life which was promised in case he had stood; so it is agreeable to the divine perfections, provided the guilt be removed, that he should be put in the same state as though it had not been contracted, and consequently, that he should not only have forgiveness of sins, but a right to life. Forgiveness of sin, without a right to eternal life, would render our justification incomplete; therefore, when any one is pardoned by an act of grace, he is put in possession of that which, by his rebellion, he had forfeited, he is considered, not only as released out of prison, but as one who has the privileges of a subject, such as those which he had before he committed the crime. Without this he would be like Absalom, when, upon Joab’s intercession with David, the guilt of murder, which he had contracted, was remitted so far, as that he had liberty to return from Geshur, whither he was fled: nevertheless, he reckons himself not fully discharged from the guilt he had contracted, and concludes his return to Jerusalem, as it were, an insignificant privilege; unless, by being admitted to see the king’s face, and enjoy the privileges which he was possessed of before, he might be dealt with as one who was taken into favour, as well as forgiven, 2 Sam. xiv. 2. which was accordingly granted. This leads us to consider these two branches of justification in particular. And,

1. Forgiveness of sin. Sin is sometimes represented as containing in it moral impurity, as opposed to holiness of heart and life; and accordingly is said, _to defile a man_, Matt. xv. 19, 20. and is set forth by several metaphorical expressions in scripture, which tend to beget an abhorrence of it as of things impure; in which sense it is removed in sanctification rather, than in justification; not but that divines sometimes speak of Christ’s redeeming us from the filth and dominion of sin, and our deliverance from it in justification: but these are to be understood as rendering us guilty; inasmuch as all moral pollutions are criminal, as contrary to the law of God; otherwise our deliverance from them would not be a branch of justification; and therefore, in speaking to this head, we shall consider sin as that which renders men guilty before God, and so shew what we are to understand by guilt.

This supposes a person to be under a law, and to have violated it; accordingly sin is described as the _transgression of the law_, 1 John iii. 4. The law of God, in common with all other laws, is primarily designed to be the rule of obedience; and in order thereunto, it is a declaration of the divine will, which, as creatures and subjects, we are under a natural obligation to comply with; and God, as a God of infinite holiness and sovereignty, cannot but signify his displeasure in case of disobedience; and therefore he has annexed a threatening to his law, or past a condemning sentence, as that which is due for every transgression: this divines sometimes call the sanction of the law, or a fence, with which it is guarded, that so, through the corruption of our nature, we may not conclude, that we may rebel against him with impunity: this the scripture styles, _The curse of the law_, Gal. iii. 10. So that guilt is a liableness to the curse or condemning sentence of the law, for our violation of it: this is sometimes called a debt of punishment, which we owe to the justice of God, for not paying that debt of obedience which was due from us to his law. Thus, when our Saviour advises us to pray, that our sins may be forgiven; he expresses it by _forgiving us our debts_, Luke xi. 4. Matt. vi. 12. so that forgiveness, as it is a freeing us from guilt, discharges us from the guilt of punishment which we were liable to.

There is a twofold debt which man owes to God; one he owes to him as a creature under a law; this is that debt of obedience, which he cannot be discharged from; and therefore, a justified person is, in this sense, as much a debtor as any other. There is also a debt which man contracts as a criminal, whereby he is liable to suffer punishment; this alone is removed in justification.

Moreover, we must carefully distinguish between the demerit of sin, or its desert of punishment; and the sinner’s obligation to suffer punishment for it. The former of these is inseparable from sin, and not removed, or, in the least lessened, by pardoning mercy; for sin is no less the object of the divine detestation; nor is its intrinsic evil, or demerit, abated by its being forgiven; and therefore, a justified person, remaining still a sinner, as transgressing the law of God, has as much reason to condemn himself, in this respect, as though he had not been forgiven. The Psalmist speaking concerning a person that is actually forgiven or justified, says, notwithstanding, that _if thou Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?_ Psal. cxxx. 3. He was, at the same time, in a justified state; but yet he concludes, that there is a demerit of punishment in every sin that he committed; though, when it is pardoned, the obligation to suffer punishment is taken away:[29] and therefore, the apostle speaking of such, says, _There is no condemnation to them_, Rom. viii. 1. We must farther distinguish between our having matter of condemnation in us; this a justified person has; and there being no condemnation to us; that is, the immediate result of being pardoned.

There are several expressions in scripture, whereby forgiveness is set forth, namely, God’s covering sin: thus the Psalmist says, _Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered_, Psal. xxxii. 1. or, his hiding his face from it, and blotting it out; or, _when it is sought for_, Psal. li. 9. its _not being found_, Jer. l. 20. and, _casting our sins into the depths of the sea_, Micah vii. 19. And elsewhere it is said, That when God had pardoned the sins of his people, _he did not behold iniquity in Jacob, nor see perverseness in Israel_, Numb, xxiii. 21. which amounts to the same thing as the foregoing expressions of its being covered, hid, blotted out, _&c._