QUEST. LXXII. What is justifying Faith?
ANSW. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner, by the Spirit and word of God; whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself, and all other creatures, to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person, righteous in the sight of God for salvation.
QUEST. LXXIII. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
ANSW. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God; not because of those graces which do always accompany it, or of those good works that are the fruits of it; nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for justification; but only as it is an instrument, by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.
We choose first to speak to the latter of these two answers, in which faith is considered as that whereby a sinner is justified, before the former of them, inasmuch as it seems better connected with what has been before insisted on, in explaining the doctrine of justification. And in considering the account we have of justifying faith, there are two things, which may be taken notice of, in this answer.
I. It is observed, that though there are other graces which always accompany faith and good works, that flow from it; yet none of these are said to justify a sinner in the sight of God.
II. How faith justifies, or what it is to be justified by faith.[49]
I. That though there are other graces which always accompany faith, and good works that flow from it; yet none of these are said to justify a sinner in the sight of God. There is an inseparable connexion between faith, and all other graces; which, though it be distinguished, is never separate from them. They are all considered as fruits of the Spirit, Gal. v. 22, 23. thus the apostle reckons up several other graces that are connected with faith, and proceed from the same Spirit, such as love, peace, joy, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, temperance: and the same apostle commends the church at Thessalonica for their work of faith; and considers this as connected with a labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Thess. i. 3. And the apostle Peter exhorts the church, to which he writes, to add to their faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge, to knowledge temperance, to temperance patience, to patience godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness charity, 2 Pet. i. 5, 6, 7. which supposes that all these graces ought to be connected together. And the apostle James calls it a dead faith, James ii. 17. which has not other works or graces joined with it; and, indeed, these graces are not only connected with it, but flow from it, or are the fruits thereof: thus we read of the heart’s being purified by faith, Acts xv. 9. that is, this grace, when acted in a right manner, will have a tendency, in some degree, to purge the soul from that moral impurity, which proceeds out of the heart of man, and is inconsistent with saving faith: and elsewhere we read of faith as working by love, Gal. v. 6. that is, exciting those acts of love, both to God and man, which contain a summary of practical religion. It is also said to overcome the world, 1 John v. 4. and it enables Christians to do or suffer great things for Christ’s sake, of which the apostle gives various instances in the Old Testament saints, Heb. xi. But, notwithstanding the connexion of other graces with faith, and those works which flow from it, we are never said, in scripture, to be justified thereby; not by love to God; nor by any act of obedience to him, which can be called no other than works: whereas, when the apostle speaks of our justification by faith, he puts it in opposition to works, when he says, that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law, Rom. ii. 28.
Object. To this it is objected, that the apostle here speaks concerning the ceremonial law, which he excludes from being the matter of our justification, and not the moral law, or any evangelical duty, such as love and sincere obedience, which, together with faith is the matter of our justification.
Answ. To this it may be replied, That when the apostle speaks of our justification by faith, without the deeds of the law, he does not hereby intend the ceremonial law; for those whom he describes as justified persons, are said to be, in a following verse, not only Jews, but Gentiles, that were converted to the Christian faith; the former, indeed, were under a temptation to seek to be justified by the ceremonial law, and so to conclude that they had a right to eternal life; because of their being distinguished from the world, by the external privileges of the covenant which they were under, many of which were contained in, or signified by that law: but the Gentiles had nothing to do with it, and therefore never expected to be justified by the ceremonial law; accordingly, when the apostle speaks of justification by faith without the deeds of the law, he cannot hereby be supposed to intend the ceremonial law. And if we look a little farther into the context, we shall find, by his method of reasoning, that he excludes all works in general, and opposes faith to them; for he argues, that we are justified in such a way, as tends to exclude boasting; but he that insists on any works performed by himself, as the matter of his justification, cannot do this any otherwise than in a boasting way, valuing himself, and founding his right to eternal life, upon them. We are not therefore justified by them, but by faith; that is, we are justified in such a way as that, while we lay claim to the greatest privileges from Christ, we are disposed to give him all the glory, or to renounce our own righteousness at the same time that we have recourse to his righteousness for justification, by faith.
But that it may farther appear, that our justification by faith, is opposed to justification by works, either those that accompany or flow from it, we may apply what has been before suggested, in considering the matter of our justification to this argument. If we consider the demands of justice, or what it may in honour reckon a sufficient compensation for the dishonour that has been brought to the divine name by sin, or what may be deemed a satisfactory payment of the outstanding debt of perfect obedience, which was due from us, or punishment, which we were liable to, according to the sanction of the divine law; we may easily infer, that no obedience, performed by us, though including in it the utmost perfection, that a fallen creature is capable of attaining, is a sufficient satisfaction; and if there can be no justification without satisfaction, then we cannot be justified thereby. Therefore it is a vain thing for persons to distinguish in this case, between works done before and after faith, as though the former only were excluded from being the matter of our justification; or to say, as some do, that we are not indeed justified by obedience to the moral law, but by our obeying the precepts which our Saviour has laid down in the gospel, such as faith, and repentance, &c. which they call obedience to the gospel as a new law: but let it be considered, that these evangelical duties are supposed to be performed as the result of a divine command, which has the formal nature of a law, whether they be contained in the moral law or no; therefore, when we are justified by faith in opposition to the works of the law, this must be opposed to obedience of any kind performed by us.
And this also appears from the nature of faith, to which justification, by the works of the law, is opposed; for faith is a soul-humbling grace, and includes in it a renouncing of all merit, or inducement taken from ourselves, as a reason why God should bestow on us the blessings we stand in need of; it trusts in Christ for righteousness, and in him alone, and therefore turns itself from any thing that may have the least tendency to eclipse his glory, as the only foundation of our justification: therefore, when we are said to be justified by faith, and not by the works of the law, the meaning is, we are justified in such a way as tends to set the crown upon Christ’s head, acknowledging him to be the only fountain from whence this privilege is derived.
It follows from hence that our justification cannot be founded on our repentance; though this is often maintained by those who are on the other side of the question, who suppose, that justification contains in it nothing else but forgiveness of sin; and if offences are to be forgiven by men, upon their repentance, or confessing their fault, then forgiveness may be expected from God, on our repentance: and some use a very unsavoury way of speaking, when they say, that our tears have a virtue to wash away our sins; and that they may give farther countenance to this opinion, they refer to that scripture, in which it is said, Repent, that your sins may be blotted out, Acts iii. 19. and others of the like nature; by which we are not to suppose, that the apostle means, that forgiveness of sin is founded on our repentance, as the matter of our justification in the sight of God; but that there is an inseparable connexion between our claim to forgiveness of sin, (together with all the fruits and effects of the death of Christ, whereby this blessing was procured) and repentance; so that one is not to be expected without the other; and though men are to forgive injuries in case the offender acknowledges his fault, and makes sufficient restitution; this they may do, inasmuch as the offence is only committed against a creature; and especially if the offence be of a private nature. But supposing this should be applied to juridical and forensick cases, will any one say, that the prince is obliged to forgive the criminal who is under a sentence of condemnation, because he is sorry for what he has done, or confesses his fault? Would this secure his honour as a law-giver? And if hereupon the offender were to be discharged from his guilt, would not this be a defect in the administration of the legislature? How then can this be applied to forgiveness, expected at the hand of God; in which justice, as well as mercy, is to have the glory that is due to it; and we are not only to be acquitted, but justified, or pronounced guiltless, since our acknowledgment of our offence cannot be reckoned a sufficient satisfaction to the justice of God?
Object. It is objected, by those on the other side of the question, that though repentance be not in itself a sufficient compensation to the justice of God for the crimes which we have committed; yet God may, by an act of grace, accept of it, as though it had been sufficient[50]. This they illustrate by a similitude taken from a person’s selling an estate of a considerable value, to one who has no money to buy it, provided he will pay a pepper-corn of acknowledgment. Thus, how insignificant soever, repentance, or any other grace, which is deemed the matter of our justification, be in itself, it is by an act of favour, deemed a sufficient price.
Answ. In answer to this I would observe, that the objection, which was before brought against the doctrine we have been maintaining, concerning the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, namely, that it was a putative righteousness, a not judging of things according to truth, and the like, seems to be of no weight when it affects their own cause; otherwise we might turn their argument against themselves, and ask them; whether this be for God to judge according to truth, when that is accepted as a sufficient payment, by his justice, which is in itself of no value? But passing this by, we may farther observe, that this is wholly to set aside the necessity of satisfaction, as the Socinians do; and therefore it is no wonder that they make use of this method of reasoning. As for others who do not altogether deny this doctrine, yet think that a small price may be deemed satisfactory for sin committed. That which may be replied to it, is, that if justification, as tending to advance the glory of divine justice, in taking away the guilt of sin, depends upon a price paid that is equivalent to the debt contracted; and nothing short of a price of infinite value can be reckoned an equivalent thereunto, then certainly that which is performed by men, cannot be deemed a sufficient payment, or accepted of as such.
It is a vain thing for persons to pretend that there is a difference between satisfying God, and satisfying his justice; or, that to satisfy God is to pay a price, be it never so small, that he demands; whereas, satisfying justice is paying a price equal to the thing purchased; since we must conclude, that God cannot deem any thing satisfactory to himself, that is not so to his justice. Therefore, this distinction will not avail, to free their argument from the absurdity that attends it.
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