Chapter VII: Part 7

We might here observe, that as some speak of pardon of sin’s being founded on our repentance; others speak of our justification as being by the act of faith, or by faith considered as a work, and in defending justification by works, as though it were not opposed to justification by faith (the contrary to which has been before proved) they argue, that we are often said, in scripture, to be justified by faith; but this faith is a work; therefore it cannot be denied but that we are justified by works. To which it may be replied, that it is one thing to say, that we are justified by faith, that is, a work, and another thing to say, that we are justified by it as a work; or, it is one thing to say, that we are justified for our faith, and another thing to say, that we are justified by it; which will more evidently appear under the following head, which we proceed to consider; namely,

II. What it is for us to be justified by faith, or how faith justifies. None can, with the least shadow of reason, deny, that justification by faith, is a scripture-mode of speaking, though some have questioned, whether the apostle’s words, _being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ_, gives countenance to the doctrine of justification by faith; for they observe, that by putting a stop immediately after the word _justified_, the sense would be, that they who are justified by Christ’s righteousness, have peace with God by faith, through the Lord Jesus Christ: but though this will a little alter the reading of the text; yet it will not overthrow the doctrine of justification by faith, as contained therein. For if we understand our _having peace with God_, as importing, that peace which they have a right to, who are interested in Christ’s righteousness, and not barely peace of conscience: then it will follow, that to have this peace by faith, is, in effect, the same as to be justified by faith; and this farther appears, from the following words, _by whom also we have access by faith into this grace, wherein we stand_. The _grace wherein we stand_, is that grace which is the foundation of our justification, and not barely peace of conscience: when we are therefore said to have access by faith unto this grace, it is the same as for us to be justified by faith.

Moreover, this is not the only place in which we are said to be justified by faith; for the apostle says elsewhere, _We are justified by the faith of Jesus Christ_, Gal. ii. 16. or by faith in Jesus Christ, and again, _the just shall live by faith_, Rom. i. 17. which, agreeably to the context, must be understood of their being justified by faith; in which sense the apostle particularly explains it elsewhere, Gal. iii. 11. and in another place he speaks of _the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ_, Rom. iii. 22. and also of a believer’s _waiting for the hope of righteousness by faith_, Gal. v. 5. We must not therefore deny that justification is by faith; but rather explain the sense of those scriptures that establish this doctrine, agreeably to the mind of the Holy Ghost therein.

There are various methods taken to explain the doctrine of justification by faith; particularly one that we think subversive of justification by Christ’s righteousness: the other, that which is contained in the answer which we are explaining.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus we have considered Christ’s righteousness as applied by faith; and it may be also observed, that there is one scripture, in which it is said to be _imputed by faith_, as the apostle Paul, when speaking concerning Abraham’s justification by faith, in this righteousness, says, _It was imputed to him for righteousness_; and adds, that _it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him, but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe_, Rom. iv. 22, 23, 24. in which scripture, I conceive, that imputation is taken for application; and accordingly the meaning is, the righteousness of Christ is so imputed, as that we have ground to place it to our own account, if we believe; which is the same with applying it by faith.[52]

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

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

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

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

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

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 consequence 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 scriptures 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.

[4.] From what has been said concerning justification by faith, we infer, the method, order and time, in which God justifies his people. There are some who not only speak of justification before faith, but from eternity; and consider it as an immanent act in God in the same sense as election is said to be. I will not deny eternal justification, provided it be considered as contained in God’s secret will, and not made the rule by which we are to determine ourselves to be in a justified state, and as such to have a right and title to eternal life, before it is revealed or apprehended by faith: if we take it in this sense, it is beyond dispute, that justification is not by faith; but inasmuch as the most known, yea, the only sense in which justification is spoken of, as applied to particular persons, is, that it is by faith: therefore, we must suppose,

_1st_, That it is a declared act. That which is hid in God, and not declared, cannot be said to be applied; and that which is not applied, cannot be the rule by which particular persons may judge of their state. Thus, if we speak of eternal election, and say, That God has peremptorily determined the state of those that shall be saved, that they shall not perish; this is nothing to particular persons, unless they have ground to conclude themselves elected. So if we say that God has, from all eternity, given his elect into Christ’s hands; that he has undertaken before the foundation of the world, to redeem them; and that, pursuant hereunto, God promised that he would give eternal life unto them; or, if we consider Christ as having fulfilled what he undertook from all eternity, finished transgression, brought in everlasting righteousness, and fully paid the debt which he undertook; consider him as being discharged, and receiving an acquittance, when raised from the dead; and all this as done in the name of the elect, as their head and representative; and if you farther consider them, as it is often expressed, as virtually justified in him; all this is nothing to them, with respect to their peace and comfort; they have no more a right to claim an interest in this privilege or relation, than if he had not paid a price for them. Therefore, we suppose that justification, as it is the foundation of our claim to eternal life, is a declared act.

_2d._ If justification be a declared act, there must be some method which God uses, whereby he declares, or makes it known. Now it is certain, that he, no where in scripture, tells an unbeliever that he has an interest in Christ’s righteousness, or that his sins are pardoned, or gives him any warrant to take comfort from any such conclusion; but, on the other hand, such an one has no ground to conclude any other, concerning himself, but that he is a child of wrath; for he is to judge of things according to the tenor of God’s revealed will. Christ’s righteousness is nothing to him in point of application; he is guilty of bold presumption if he lays claim to it, or takes comfort from it, as much as he would be were he to say, some are elected, therefore I am. Nevertheless,

_3d_, When a person believes, he has a right to conclude, that he is justified, or to claim all the privileges that result from it; and this is what we call justification by faith, which therefore cannot be before faith; for that which gives a person a right to claim a privilege, must be antecedent to this claim; or, that which is the foundation of a person’s concluding himself to be justified, must be antecedent to his making this conclusion; and in this respect, all who duly consider what they affirm, must conclude that justification is not before faith.

[5.] From what has been said concerning the office or use of faith in justification, as it is an instrument that applies Christ’s righteousness to ourselves, we infer; that it is more than an evidence of our justification: we do not indeed deny it to be an evidence that we were virtually justified in Christ as our head and representative, when he was raised from the dead, in the same sense as it is an evidence of our eternal election: but this is equally applicable to all other graces, and therefore cannot be a true description of justifying faith. If we are justified by faith, only as it is an evidence of our right to Christ’s righteousness, we are as much justified by love, patience, and submission to the divine will, or any other grace that accompanies salvation; but they who speak of faith as only an evidence, will not say that we are justified by all other graces, in the same sense as we are justified by faith; and indeed, the scripture gives us no warrant so to do.

[6.] From what has been said concerning faith as giving us a right to claim Christ’s righteousness, we infer; that a person is justified before he has what we call, the faith of assurance; of which more hereafter: therefore we consider the grace of faith, as justifying or giving us a right to claim Christ’s righteousness, whether we have an actual claim or no. This must be allowed, otherwise the loss of this assurance would infer the suspension or loss of our justification, and consequently would render our state as uncertain as our frames, or our peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, as liable to be lost as that peace and joy which we sometimes have in believing, and at other times are destitute of.

[7.] From what has been said concerning justifying faith’s being accompanied with all other graces, we infer; that that faith which is justifying, is also a saving grace, or a grace which accompanies salvation; but yet there is this difference between saving faith, as we generally call it, and justifying, in that the former respects Christ in all his offices, the latter considers him only in his Priestly office, or as set forth to be a propitiation for sin. And this leads us to consider the grace of faith in its larger extent, both with respect to its acts and objects, as contained in the former of the answers we are explaining: and therefore,

We are now to consider the nature of faith in general, or of that faith, which, as before explained, we call justifying. There are some things in this grace which are common to it with other graces; particularly, it is styled a saving grace, not as being the cause of our salvation, but as it accompanies, or is connected with it. Again, it is said to be wrought in the heart of a sinner, to distinguish it from other habits of a lower nature, which are acquired by us; and it is said to be wrought by the Spirit and Word of God; by his Spirit, as the principal efficient, who, in order thereunto, exerts his divine power; and by the word, as the instrument which he makes use of. The Word presents to us the object of faith; and it is God’s ordinance, in attending to which, he works and excites it.

Moreover, there are several things supposed or contained in this grace of faith, which are common to it, with other graces. As when a believer is said to be first convinced of sin and misery, and of his being unable to recover himself out of the lost condition in which he is, by nature; and the impossibility of his being recovered out of it by any other creature; in all these respects, faith contains in it several things in common with other graces; particularly with conversion, effectual calling, and repentance unto life. These things, therefore, we shall pass over as being considered elsewhere, and confine ourselves to what is peculiar to this grace mentioned in this answer; only some few things may be observed concerning it, as it is styled a saving grace, and wrought in the heart of man, by the Spirit and Word of God; and we shall add some other things, of which we have no particular account in this answer; which may contain a more full explication of this grace: in speaking to which, we shall observe the following method;

I. We shall consider the meaning of the word _faith_, in the more general idea of it.

II. We shall speak particularly concerning the various kinds of _faith_. And,

III. The various objects and acts of saving faith; especially as it assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, and receives, and rests upon, Christ and his righteousness, held forth therein.

IV. We shall consider it as a grace that accompanies salvation, and wrought in the heart by the power of the Spirit, and instrumentality of the word.

V. We shall consider it as strong or weak, increasing or declining, with the various marks and evidences thereof.

VI. We shall speak of the use of faith in the whole conduct of our lives; as every thing we do in an acceptable manner, is said to be done by it.

VII. We shall shew how it is to be attained or increased, and what are the means conducive thereunto.

I. Concerning the meaning of the word _faith_, in the more general idea thereof. It is either an assent to a truth, founded on sufficient evidence; or a confiding or relying on the word or power of one, who is able and willing to afford us sufficient help or relief.[59]

1. As to the former of these, as it contains an assent to a truth proposed and supported by sufficient evidence. This is more especially an act of the understanding; and it is necessary, in order hereunto, that something be discovered to us, as the matter of our belief, which demands or calls for our assent; and that is considered either only as true, or else, as true and good: if it be considered only as true, the faith, or assent that is required thereunto is speculative; but if we consider it not only as true, but good, or, as containing something redounding to our advantage; then the faith resulting from it is practical, and seated partly in the understanding, and partly in the will; or, at least, the will is influenced and inclined to embrace what the understanding not only assents to as true, but proposes to us as that which if enjoyed would tend very much to our advantage.

As to this general description of faith, as an assent to what is reported, founded upon sufficient evidence, we may farther consider;[60] that it is not in our power to believe a thing, unless the judgment be convinced, and we have ground to conclude it to be true, and accordingly there must be something which has a tendency to give this conviction; and that it is what we call evidence: every thing that is reported is not to be credited; since it has very often no appearance of truth in it: and it is reasonable for the understanding, to demand a proof before it yields an assent; and if it be a matter of report, then we are to consider the nature of the evidence, whether it be sufficient, or insufficient to persuade us to believe what is reported; and according to the strength or credibility thereof, we believe, hesitate about it, or utterly reject it. If, according to our present view of things, it may be true or false, we hardly call it the object of faith; we can only say concerning it, that it is probable; if it be, on the other hand, attested by such evidence, as cannot, without scepticism be denied; hence arises what we call certainty, or an assurance of faith, supported by the strongest evidence.

Moreover, according to the nature of the evidence, or testimony, on which it is founded, it is distinguished into human and divine; both of these are contained in the apostle’s words, _If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater_, 1 John v. 9. As for human testimony, though it may not be termed false, yet it can hardly be deemed any other than fallible, since it cannot be said concerning sinful man, that it is impossible for him to lie or deceive, or be deceived himself; but when we believe a thing on the divine testimony, our faith is infallible: it is as impossible for us to be deceived as it is for God to impart that to us, which is contrary to his infinite holiness and veracity. It is in this latter sense that we consider the word _faith_, when we speak of it as an act of religious worship, or included or supposed in our idea of saving faith; and so we style it a firm assent to every thing that God has revealed as founded on the divine veracity.

Let us now consider faith as it contains an assent to a thing, not only as true, but as good; upon which account we call it a practical assent, first seated in the understanding; and then the will embraces what the understanding discovers to be conducive to our happiness; we first believe the truth of it, and then regulate our conduct agreeably thereunto. As when a criminal hears a report of an act of grace being issued forth by the king, he does not rest in a bare assent to the truth thereof, but puts in his claim to it. Or, as when a merchant is credibly informed, that there are great advantages to be obtained by trading into foreign countries; he receives the report with a design to use all proper methods to partake of the advantage; as our Saviour illustrates it, when he compares _the kingdom of heaven unto a merchant man seeking goodly pearls; who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought_, Matt. xiii. 45. We have sufficient evidence to support our faith, that there is forgiveness of sin, through the blood of Christ; and that all spiritual blessings are treasured up in him, for the heirs of salvation: in this respect faith does not contain a bare speculative assent to the truth of this proposition; but it excites in us an endeavour to obtain these blessings in that way which is prescribed by him, who is the giver thereof.

2. Faith may be farther considered, as denoting an act of trust or dependence on him, who is the object thereof. This is very distinct from the former sense of the word: for though it supposes indeed an assent of the understanding to some truth proposed; yet this truth is of such a nature, as that it produces in us a resting or reliance on one who is able, and has expressed a willingness to do us good; and whose promise relating hereunto, is such, as we have ground to depend on. This supposes in him, who is the subject thereof, a sense of his own weakness or indigence, and in him that is the object of it, a fitness to be the object of trust, for his attaining relief: thus the sick man depends upon the skill and faithfulness of the physician, and determines to look no farther for help, but relies on his prescriptions, and uses the means that he appoints for the restoring of his health; or, as when a person is assaulted by one who threatens to ruin him, and is able to do it, as being an over-match for him, he has recourse to, and depends on the assistance of one that is able to secure and defend him, and thereby prevent the danger that he feared. Thus Jehoshaphat, when his country was invaded by a great multitude of foreign troops, being apprehensive that he was not able to withstand them; he exercises this faith of reliance on the divine power, when he says, _We have no might against this great company, that come against us; neither know we what to do, but our eyes are upon thee_, 2 Chron. xx. 12. And God is very often, in scripture, represented as the object of trust: so the church says, _I will trust, and not be afraid; for the Lord Jehovah is my strength_; and elsewhere, _he that walketh in darkness and hath no light_, Isa. xii. 2. that is, knows not which way to turn, is helpless and destitute of all comfort, is encouraged to _trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God_, chap. l. 10. This is truly and properly a divine faith, and accordingly an act of religious worship; and is opposed to a _trusting in man, and making flesh his arm_, Jer. xvii. 5. and it supposes a firm persuasion, that God is able to do all that for us which we stand in need of; and that he has promised that he will do us good, and that he will never fail nor forsake them that repose their trust or confidence in him: with this view the soul relies on his perfections, seeks to him for comfort, and lays the whole stress of his hope of salvation on him, not doubting concerning the event hereof, but concluding himself safe, if he can say, that _the eternal God is his refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms_, Deut. xxxiii. 27. This leads us,

II. To consider the various kinds of faith, as mentioned in scripture. Thus we read of a faith that was adapted to that extraordinary dispensation of providence, in which God was pleased to confirm some great and important truths by miracles; which is therefore styled a faith of miracles. There is also a faith that has no reference to a supernatural event, or confined to any particular age or state of the church, in which miracles are expected, but is founded on the gospel-revelation, which, how much soever it may resemble saving faith, yet falls short of it; and there is a faith which is inseparably connected with salvation.

1. Concerning the faith of miracles. This is what our Saviour intends, when he tells his disciples, That _if they had faith as a grain of mustard-seed, they should say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it should remove; and nothing should be impossible unto them_, Matt. xvii. 20. This is such a faith that many had, who were not in a state of salvation; as is plain from what our Saviour says, that _many will say to him in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name have done many wonderful works? to whom he will profess I never knew you_; and his commanding them to _depart from him_ as having _wrought iniquity_, chap. vii. 22, 23. And the apostle Paul supposes, that a person might have _all faith_, that is, this kind of faith; _so that he might remove mountains_, 1 Cor. xiii. 2. which is a proverbial expression, denoting, that extraordinary and miraculous events might attend it; and yet, at the same time, be destitute of _charity_, or love to God, and consequently without saving grace; and so appear, in the end, to _be nothing_.

Some have questioned whether this faith of miracles was peculiar to the gospel-dispensation, in the time of our Saviour and the apostles, and so was not required in those who wrought miracles under the Old Testament dispensation; though others suppose, that, from the nature of the thing, it was always necessary that faith should be exercised, when a miracle was wrought; though it is true, we have little or no account of this faith, as exercised by those that wrought miracles before our Saviour’s time; and therefore, we cannot so peremptorily determine this matter; but according to the account we have thereof in the New Testament, there were several things necessary to, or included in this faith of miracles.

(1.) Some important article of revealed religion must be proposed to be believed; and in order thereunto, an explicit appeal made to God, in expectation of his immediate interposure in working a miracle for that end: every thing that was the object of faith, was not, indeed, to be proved true by a miracle, but only those things which could not be sufficiently evinced without it, so as to beget a divine faith in those who were the subjects of conviction. We never read that miracles were wrought to convince the world that there was a God, or a providence; or, to persuade men concerning the truth of those things that might be sufficiently proved by rational arguments: but when there could not be such a proof given without the finger of God being rendered visible by a miracle wrought, then they depended on such an instance of divine condescension; and the people who were to receive conviction, were to expect such an extraordinary event.