viz.
i. justification by faith alone.
ii. pressing into the kingdom of god.
iii. ruth’s resolution.
iv. the justice of god in the damnation of sinners.
v. the excellency of jesus christ.
DELIVERED AT NORTHAMPTON,
CHIEFLY AT THE TIME OF THE LATE WONDERFUL POURING OUT OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD THERE.
Preface.
PREFACE.
the following discourses were all, excepting the last, delivered in the time of the late wonderful work of God’s power and grace in this place, and are now published [1] on the earnest desire of those to whom they were preached. These particular discourses are fixed upon, and designed for the press, rather than others that were delivered in that remarkable season, by their election. What has determined them in their choice, is the experience they hope they have had of special benefit to their souls from these discourses. Their desire to have them in their hands from the press has been long manifested, and often expressed to me; their earnestness in it is evident from this, that though it be a year of the greatest public charge of them that ever has been, by reason of the expense of building a new meeting-house, yet they chose rather to be at this additional expense now, though it be very considerable, than to have it delayed another year. I am fully sensible that their value for these discourses has arisen more from the frame in which they hear them, and the good which, through the sovereign blessing of God, they have received, than any real worth in them. And whatever the discourses are in themselves, yet those who heard them are not to be blamed or wondered at, if that is dear to them, which they hope God has made a means of saving and everlasting benefit. They have much insisted on this argument with me, to induce me to comply with their desire, viz. that they hoped the reading of these discourses would have a tendency in some measure to renew the same effect in them that was wrought in the hearing, and revive the memory of that great work of God, which this town has so much cause ever to remember; which argument has been of principal weight with me, to incline me to think it to be my duty to comply with their desire; though I cannot say there are no other considerations concurring to induce me to it.
With respect to the discourse on justification, besides the desire of my people to make it public, I have been advised to it by certain reverend gentlemen, my fathers, that happened to be the hearers of it (or, at least, part of it) when preached, whose opinions and advice, in such an affair, I thought should be of as great weight with me as of most that I was acquainted with.
The beginning of the late work of God in this place was so circumstanced, that I could not but look upon it as a remarkable testimony of God’s approbation of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, here asserted and vindicated.–By the noise that had a little before been raised in this country concerning that doctrine, people here seemed to have their minds put into an unusual ruffle; some were brought to doubt of that way of acceptance with God, which from their infancy they had been taught to be the only way; and many were engaged more thoroughly to look into the grounds of those doctrines in which they had been educated.–The following discourse of justification, that was preached (though not so fully as it is here printed) at two public lectures, seemed to be remarkably blessed, not only to establish the judgments of many in this truth, but to engage their hearts in a more earnest pursuit of justification, in that way that had been explained and defended; and at that time, while I was greatly reproached for defending this doctrine in the pulpit, and just upon my suffering a very open abuse for it, God’s work wonderfully brake forth amongst us, and souls began to flock to Christ, as the Saviour in whose righteousness alone they hoped to be justified. So that this was the doctrine on which this work in its beginning was founded, as it evidently was in the whole progress of it.
621 A great objection that is made against the old protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the scheme of those divines that have chiefly defended it, by those that value themselves upon the new fashioned divinity, is, that the scheme is too much incumbered with speculative niceties, and subtle distinctions, that, they say, serve only to involve the subject in endless controversy and dispute; whereas, their scheme, they suppose, is a plain, easy, and natural account of things. But their prejudice against distinctions in divinity, I humbly conceive, is carried to a great extreme. So great, so general, and loud a cry has been raised by modern philosophers and divines against the subtle distinctions of the schoolmen, for their learned impertinence, that many are ready to start at any thing that looks like nice distinction, and to condemn it for nonsense without examination. Upon the same account, we might expect to have St. Paul’s epistles, that are full of very nice distinctions, called nonsense and unintelligible jargon, had not they the good luck to be universally received by all Christians as part of the Holy Scriptures.
Our discovering the absurdity of the impertinent and abstruse distinctions of the school divines, may justly give us a distaste of such distinctions as have a show of learning in obscure words, but convey no light to the mind; but I can see no reason why we should also discard those that are clear and rational, and can be made out to have their foundation in truth, although they may be such as require some diligence and attention of mind clearly to apprehend them. So much of the Scripture scheme of justification as is absolutely necessary to salvation, may be very plain, and level with the understandings of the weakest Christians; but it does not therefore follow, that the Scripture teaches us no more about it that would be exceeding profitable for us to know, and by gaining the knowledge of which, we may obtain a more full and clear understanding of this doctrine, and be better able to solve doubts that may arise concerning it, and to defend it from the sophistry and cavils of subtle opposers.
It is so in most of the great doctrines of Christianity, that are looked upon as first principles of the christian faith, that though they contain something that is easy, yet they also contain great mysteries; and there is room for progress in the knowledge of them, and doubtless will be to the end of the world. But it is unreasonable, to expect that this progress should be made in the knowledge of things that are high and mysterious, without accurate distinction and close application of thought: and it is also unreasonable, to think that this doctrine, of the justification of a sinner by a mediator, should be without mysteries. We all own it to be a matter of pure revelations, above the light of natural reason, and that it is what the infinite wisdom of God revealed in the gospel mainly appears in, that he hath found out such a way of reconciliation of which neither men nor angels could have thought. And after all, shall we expect that this way, when found out and declared, shall contain nothing but what is obvious to the most cursory and superficial view, and may be fully and clearly comprehended without some diligence, accuracy, and careful distinction?
If the distinctions I have made use of in handling this subject are found to be inconsistent, trivial, and unscriptural niceties, tending only to cloud the subject, I ought to be willing that they should be rejected; but if on due examination they are found both scriptural and rational, I humbly conceive that it will be unjust to condemn them, merely because they are distinctions, under a notion that niceness in divinity never helps it, but always perplexes and darkens it. It is to God’s own revelation that I make my appeal, by which alone we can know in what way he will be pleased again to receive into favour those who have offended him and incurred his displeasure. If there be any part of the scheme here laid down, or any distinction here used, not warranted by Scripture, let it be rejected; and if any opposite scheme can be found that is more easy and plain, having fewer and more rational distinctions, and not demonstrably inconsistent with itself, and with the word of God, let it be received. Let the Arminian scheme of justification by our own virtue be as plain and natural as it will, if at the same time it is plainly contrary to the certain and demonstrable doctrine of the gospel, as contained in the Scriptures, we are bound to reject it, unless we reject the Scriptures themselves as perplexed and absurd, and make ourselves wiser than God, and pretend to know his mind better than himself.
This discourse on justification is printed much larger than it was preached; but the practical discourse that follow have but little added to them, and now appear in that very plain and unpolished dress in which they were first prepared and delivered; which was mostly at a time when the circumstances of the auditory they were preached to, were enough to make a minister neglect, forget, and despise such ornaments as politeness and modishness of style and method, when coming as a messenger from God to souls deeply impressed with a sense of their danger of God’s everlasting wrath, to treat with them about their eternal salvation.—However unable I am to preach or write politely, if I would, yet I have this to comfort me under such a defect, that God has showed us he does not need such talents in men to carry on his own work, and that he has been pleased to smile upon and bless a very plain unfashionable way of preaching. And have we not reason to think, that it ever has been, and ever will be, God’s manner, to bless the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe, let the elegance of language and excellency of style be carried to never so great a height, by the learning and wit of the present and future ages?
What is published at the end, concerning the excellency of Christ, is added on my own motion; thinking that a discourse on such an evangelical subject would properly follow others that were chiefly awakening, and that something of the excellency of the Saviour was proper to succeed those things that were to show the necessity of salvation. I pitched upon that particular discourse, partly because I had been earnestly importuned for a copy of it for the press, by some in another town in whose hearing it was occasionally preached.
I request every reader’s candid acceptance and due improvement of what is here offered; and especially would earnestly beseech the people of my own charge, not to fail of improving these discourses to those purposes that they have mentioned to me as the ends for which they desired to have them published, that I may have no cause to repent of my labour in transcribing, nor they of their cost in printing them. Happy would it be for us, and an unspeakable mercy of heaven, if God should bless what is here printed, so to revive the memory of the past great work of God amongst us, and the lively impressions and sense of divine things that persons then had on their minds, and to cause us to lament our declensions, so that the same work might renewedly break forth and go on amongst us! Surely we have seen much to excite our longings after such a mercy, and to encourage us to cry to God for it!
DISCOURSE. I. Justification by Faith alone.
622DISCOURSE I
justification by faith alone
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
The following things may be noted in this verse:
1. That justification respects a man as ungodly. This is evident by these words,—that justifieth the ungodly; which cannot imply less, than that God, in the act of justification, has no regard to any thing in the person justified, as godliness, or any goodness in him; but that immediately before this act, God beholds him only as an ungodly creature; so that godliness in the person to be justified is not so antecedent to his justification as to be the ground of it. When it is said that God justifies the ungodly, it is absurd to suppose that our godliness, taken as some goodness in us, is the ground of our justification; as, when it is said that Christ gave sight to the blind, to suppose that sight was prior to, and the ground of, that act of mercy in Christ; or as, if it should be said that such an one by his bounty has made a poor man rich, to suppose that it was the wealth of this poor man that was the ground of this bounty towards him and was the price by which it was procured.
2. It appears, that by him that worketh not, in this verse, is not meant one who merely does not comform to the ceremonial law; because he that worketh not and the ungodly, are evidently synonymous expressions, or what signify the same, as appears by the manner of their connexion; if not, to what purpose is the latter expression, the ungodly, brought in? The context gives no other occasion for it, but to show, that by the grace of the gospel, God in justification has no regard to any godliness of ours. The foregoing verse is, “Now to him that worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” In that verse, it is evident, gospel grace consists in the reward being given without works; and in this verse, which immediately follows it, and in sense is connected with it, gospel-grace consists in a man’s being justified as ungodly. By which it is most plain, that by him that worketh not, and him that is ungodly, are meant the same thing; and that therefore not only works of the ceremonial law are excluded in this business of justification, but works of morality and godliness.
3. It is evident in the words, that by the faith here spoken of, by which we are justified, is not meant the same thing as a course of obedience or righteousness, since the expression by which the faith is here denoted, is believing on him that justifies the ungodly.—They that oppose the Solifidians, as they call them, greatly insist on it, that we should take the words of Scripture concerning this doctrine in their most natural and obvious meaning; and how do they cry out, of our clouding this doctrine with obscure metaphors, and unintelligible figures of speech? But is this to interpret Scripture according to its most obvious meaning, when the Scripture speaks of our believing on him that justifies the ungodly, or the breakers of his law, to say, that the meaning of it is performing a course of obedience to his law, and avoiding the breaches of it? Believing on God as a justifer, certainly is a different thing from submitting to God as a lawgiver; especially believing on him as a justifier of the ungodly, or rebels against the lawgiver.
4.
It is evident that the subject of justification is looked upon as
destitute of any righteousness in himself, by that expression, it is counted or imputed to him for righteousness.—The
phrase, as the apostle uses it here and in the context, manifestly
imports, that God of his sovereign grace is pleased, in his dealings
with the sinner, so to regard one that has no righteousness, that the
consequence shall be the same as if he had. This however may be from
the respect it bears to some thing that is indeed righteous. It is
plain that this is the force of the expression in the preceding verses.
In the last verse but one, it is manifest, the apostle lays the stress
of his argument for the free grace of God—from that text of the Old
Testament about Abraham—on the word counted or imputed; and this is the thing that he supposed God to show his grace in, viz. in this counting
something for righteousness, in his consequential dealings with
Abraham, that was no righteousness in itself. And in the next verse
which immediately precedes the text, “Now to him that worketh, is the
reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt,” and word there translated reckoned, is the same that in the other verses is rendered imputed, and counted: and it is as much as if the apostle had said, “As to him that works, there is no need of any gracious reckoning or counting
it for righteousness, and causing the reward to follow as if it were a
righteousness; for if he has works, he has that which is a
righteousness in itself, to which the reward properly belongs.” This if
further evident by the words that follow,
That we are justified only by faith in Christ, and not by any manner of virtue or goodness of our own.
Such an assertion as this, I am sensible, many would be ready to call absurd, as betraying a great deal of ignorance, and containing much inconsistence; but I desire every one’s patience till I have done.
In handling this doctrine, I would,
I. Explain the meaning of it, and show how I would be understood by such an assertion.
II. Proceed to the consideration of the evidence of the truth of it.
III. Show how evangelical obedience is concerned in this affair.
IV. Answer objections.
V. Consider the importance of the doctrine.
I. I would explain the meaning of the doctrine, or show in what sense I assert it, and would endeavor to evince the truth of it: which may be done in answer to these two inquiries, viz. 1. What is meant by being justified? 2. What is meant when it is said, that this is, “by faith 623 alone, without any manner of virtue or goodness of our own?”
First, I would show what justification is, or what I suppose is meant in Scripture by being justified.
A person is said to be justified, when he is approved of God as free from the guilt of sin and its deserved punishment, and as having that righteousness belonging to him that entitles to the reward of life. That we should take the word in such a sense, and understand it as the judge’s accepting a person as having both a negative and positive righteousness belonging to him, and looking on him therefore as not only free from any obligation to punishment, but also as just and righteous, and so entitled to a positive reward, is not only most agreeable to the etymology and natural import of the word, which signifies to pass one for righteousness in judgment, but also manifestly agreeable to the force of the word as used in Scripture.
Some
suppose that nothing more is intended in Scripture by justification,
than barely the remission of sins. If so, it is very strange, if we
consider the nature of the case; for it is most evident, and none will
deny, that it is with respect to the rule or law of God we are under,
that we are said in Scripture to be either justified or condemned. Now
what is it to justify a person as the subject of a law or rule, but to
judge him as standing right with respect to that rule? To justify a
person in a particular case, is to approve of him as standing right, as
subject to the law in that case; and to justify in general is to pass
him in judgment, as standing right in a state correspondent to the law
or rule in general: but certainly, in order to a person’s being looked
on as standing right with respect to the rule in general, or in a state
corresponding with the law of God, more is needful than not having the
guilt of sin; for whatever that law is, whether a new or an old one,
doubtless something positive is needed in order to its being answered.
We are no more justified by the voice of the law, or of him that judges
according to it, by a mere pardon of sin, that Adam, our first surety,
was justified by the law, at the first point of his existence, before
he had fulfilled the obedience of the law, or had so much as any trial
whether he would fulfill it or no. If Adam had finished his course of
perfect obedience, he would have been justified: and certainly his
justification would have implied something more than what is merely
negative; he would have been approved of, as having fulfilled the
righteousness of the law, and accordingly would have been adjudged to
the reward of it. So Christ, our second surety, (in whose justification
all whose surety he is, are virtually justified,) was not justified
till he had done the work the Father had appointed him, and kept the
Father’s commandments through all trials; and then in his resurrection
he was justified. When he had been put to death in the flesh, but
quickened by the spirit,
But
that a believer’s justification implies not only remission of sins, or
acquittance from the wrath due to it, but also an admittance to a title
to that glory which is the reward of righteousness, is more directly
taught in the Scripture, particularly in
Secondly, To show what is meant when it is said, that this justification is by faith only, and not by any virtue or goodness of our own.
This inquiry may be subdivided into two, viz.
1. How it is by faith. 2. How it is by faith alone, without any manner of goodness of ours.
1. How justification is by faith.—Here the great difficulty has been about the import and force of the particle by, or what is that influence that faith has in the affair of justification that is expressed in Scripture by being justified by faith.
Here, if I may humbly express what seems evident to me, though faith be indeed the condition of justification so as nothing else is, yet this matter is not clearly and sufficiently explained by saying that faith is the condition of justification; and that because the word seems ambiguous, both in common use, and also as used in divinity. In one sense, Christ alone performs the condition of our justification and salvation; in another sense, faith is the condition of justification; in another sense, other qualifications and acts are conditions of salvation and justification too. There seems to be a great deal of ambiguity in such expressions as are commonly used, (which yet we are forced to use,) such as condition of salvation, what is required in order to salvation or justification, the terms of the covenant, and the like; and I believe they are understood in very different sense by different persons. And besides, as the word condition is very often understood in the common use of language, faith is not the only thing in us that is the condition of justification; for by the word condition, as it is very often (and perhaps most commonly) used, we mean any thing that may have the place of a condition in a conditional proposition, and as such is truly connected with the consequent, especially if the proposition holds both in the affirmative and negative, as the condition is either affirmed or denied. If it be that with which, or which being supposed, a thing shall be, and without which, or it being denied, a thing shall not be, we in such a case call it a condition of that thing. But in this sense faith is not the only condition of salvation or justification; for there are many things that accompany and flow from faith, with which justification shall be, and without which it will not be, and therefore are found to be put in Scripture in conditional propositions with justification and salvation in multitudes of places; such are love to God, and love to our brethren, forgiving men their trespasses, and many other good qualifications and acts. And there are many other things besides faith, which are directly proposed to us, to be pursued or performed by us, in order to eternal life, which if they are done, or obtained, we shall have eternal life, and if not done, or not obtained, we shall surely perish. And if faith was the only condition of justification in this sense, I do not apprehend that to say faith was the condition of justification, would express the sense of that phrase of Scripture, of being justified by faith. There is a difference between being justified by a thing, and that thing universally, necessarily, and inseparably attending justification; for so do a great many things that we are not said to be justified by. It is not the inseparable connexion with justification that the Holy Ghost would signify (or that is naturally signified) by such a phrase, but some particular influence that faith has in the affair, or some certain dependence that effect has on its influence.
624 Some, aware of this, have supposed, that the influence or dependence might well be expressed by faith’s being the instrument of our justification; which has been misunderstood, and injuriously represented, and ridiculed by those that have denied the doctrine of justification by faith alone, as though they had supposed faith was used as an instrument in the hand of God, whereby he performed and brought to pass that act of his, viz. approving and justifying the believer. Whereas it was not intended that faith was the instrument wherewith God justifies, but the instrument wherewith we receive justification; not the instrument wherewith the justifier acts in justifying, but wherewith the receiver of justification acts in accepting justification. But yet, it must be owned, this is an obscure way of speaking, and there must certainly be some impropriety in calling it an instrument wherewith we receive or accept justification; for the very persons who thus explain the matter, speak of faith as being the reception or acceptance itself; and if so, how can it be the instrument of reception or acceptance? Certainly there is a difference between the act and the instrument. Besides, by their own descriptions of faith, Christ, the mediator by whom, and his righteousness by which, we are justified, is more directly the object of this acceptance and justification, which is the benefit arising there from more indirectly; and therefore, if faith be an instrument, it is more properly the instrument by which we receive Christ, than the instrument by which we receive justification.
But I humbly conceive we have been ready to look too far to find out what that influence of faith in our justification is, or what is that dependence of this effect on faith, signified by the expression of being justified by faith, overlooking that which is most obviously pointed forth in the expression, viz. that (there being a mediator that has purchased justification) faith in this mediator is that which renders it a meet and suitable thing, in the sight of God, that the believer, rather than others, should have this purchased benefit assigned to him.—There is this benefit purchased, which God sees it to be a more meet and suitable thing that it should be assigned to some rather than others, because he sees them differently qualified; that qualification wherein the meetness to this benefit, as the case stands, consists, is that in us by which we are justified. If Christ had not come into the world and died, &c. to purchase justification, no qualification whatever in us could render it a meet or fit thing that we should be justified. But the case being as it now stands, viz. that Christ has actually purchased justification by his own blood for infinitely unworthy creatures, there may be certain qualifications found in some persons, which, either from the relation it bears to the mediator and his merits, or on some other account, is the thing that in the sight of God renders it a meet and condecent thing, that they should have an interest in this purchased benefit, and of which if any are destitute, it renders it an unfit and unsuitable thing that they should have it. The wisdom of God in his constitutions doubtless appears much in the fitness and beauty of them, so that those things are established to be done that are fit to be done, and that those things are connected in his constitution that are agreeable one to another. So God justifies a believer according to his revealed constitution, without doubt, because he sees something in this qualification that, as the case stands, renders it a fit thing that such should be justified; whether it be because faith is the instrument, or as it were the hand, by which he that has purchased justification is apprehended and accepted, or because it is the acceptance itself, or whatever else. To be justified, is to be approved by God as a proper subject of pardon, with a right to eternal life; and therefore, when it is said that we are justified by faith, what else can be understood by it, than that faith is that by which we are rendered approvable, fitly so, and indeed, as the case stands, proper subjects of this benefit?
This is something different from faith being the condition of justification, though inseparably connected with justification. So are many other things besides faith; and yet nothing in us but faith renders it meet that we should have justification assigned to us; as I shall presently show in answer to the next inquiry, viz.
2. How this is said to be by faith alone, without any manner of virtue or goodness of our own. This may seem to some to be attended with two difficulties, viz. how this can be said to be by faith alone, without any virtue or goodness of ours, when faith itself is a virtue, and one part of our goodness, and is not only some manner of goodness of ours, but is a very excellent qualification, and one chief part of the inherent holiness of a Christian? And if it be a part of our inherent goodness or excellency (whether it be this part or any other) that renders it a condecent or congruous thing that we should have this benefit of Christ assigned to us, what is this less than what they mean who talk of a merit of congruity? And moreover, if this part of our christian holiness qualifies us, in the sight of God, for this benefit of Christ, and renders it a fit or meet thing, in his sight, that we should have it, why should not other parts of holiness, and conformity of God, which are also very excellent, and have as much of the image of Christ in them, and are no less lovely in God’s eyes, qualify us as much, and have as much influence to render us meet, in God’s sight, for such a benefit as this? Therefore I answer,
When it is said, that we are not justified by any righteousness or goodness of our own, what is meant is, that it is not out of respect to the excellency or goodness of any qualifications or acts in us whatsoever, that God judges it meet that this benefit of Christ should be ours; and it is not, in any wise, on account of any excellency or value that there is in faith, that it appears in the sight of God a meet thing, that he who believes should have this benefit of Christ assigned to him, but purely from the relation faith has to the person in whom this benefit is to be had, or as it unites to that mediator, in and by whom we are justified. Here, for the greater clearness, I would particularly explain myself under several propositions.
(1.) It is certain that there is some union or relation that the people of Christ stand in to him, that is expressed in Scripture, from time to time, by being in Christ, and is represented frequently by those metaphors of being members of Christ, or being united to him as members to the head, and branches to the stock, [1] and is compared to a marriage union between husband and wife. I do not now pretend to determine of what sort this union is; nor is it necessary to my present purpose to enter into any manner of disputes about it. If any are disgusted at the word union, as obscure and unintelligible, the word relation equally serves my purpose. I do not now desire to determine any more about it, than all, of all sorts, will readily allow, viz. that there is a peculiar relation between true Christians and Christ, which there is not between him and others; and which is signified by those metaphorical expressions in Scripture, of being in Christ, being members of Christ, &c. [1]
625
(2.) This relation or union
to Christ, whereby Christians are said to be in Christ, (whatever it
be,) is the ground of their right to his benefits. This needs no proof;
the reason of the thing, at first blush, demonstrates it. It is
exceeding evident also by Scripture,
(3.) And thus it is that faith is the qualification in any person that renders it meet in the sight of God that he should be looked upon as having Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness belonging to him, viz. because it is that in him which, on his part, makes up this union between him and Christ. By what has been just now observed, it is a person’s being, according to scripture phrase, in Christ, that is the ground of having his satisfaction and merits belong to him, and a right to the benefits procured thereby. The reason of it is plain; it is easy to see how our having Christ’s merits and benefits belonging to us, following from our having (if I may so speak) Christ himself belonging to us, or our being united to him. And if so, it must also be easy to see how, or in what manner, that in a person, which on his part makes up the union between his soul and Christ, should be the thing on the account of which God looks on it as meet that he should have Christ’s merits belonging to him. It is a very different thing for God to assign to a particular person a right to Christ’s merits and benefits from regard to a qualification in him in this respect, from his doing it for him out of respect to the value or loveliness of that qualification, or as a reward of its excellency.
As there is nobody but what will allow that there is a peculiar relation between Christ and his true disciples, by which they are in some sense in Scripture said to be on; so I suppose there is nobody but what will allow, that there may be something that the true Christ does on his part, whereby he is active in coming into this relation or union; some uniting act, or that which is done towards this union or relation (or whatever any please to call it) on the Christian’s part. Now faith I suppose to be this act.
I
do not now pretend to define justifying faith, or to determine
precisely how much is contained in it, but only to determine thus much
concerning it, viz. That it is that by which the soul, which
before was separate and alienated from Christ, unites itself to him, or
ceases to be any longer in that state of alienation, and comes into
that forementioned union or relation to him; or to use the scripture
phrase, it is that by which the soul comes to Christ,
626
and receives him; and this is evident by the Scriptures using these very expressions to signify faith.
God does not give those that believe an union with or an interest in the Saviour as a reward for faith, but only because faith is the soul’s active uniting with Christ, or is itself the very act of unition, on their part. God sees it, that in order to an union being established between two intelligent active beings or persons, so as that they should be looked upon as one, there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive other, as actively joining themselves one to another. God, in requiring this in order to an union with Christ as one of his people, treats men as reasonable creatures, capable of act and choice; and hence sees it fit that they only who are one with Christ by their own act, should be looked upon as one in law. What is real in the union between Christ and his people, is the foundation of what is legal; that is, it is something really in them, and between them, uniting them, that is the ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as one by the Judge. And if there be any act or qualification in believers of that uniting nature, that it is meet on that account the Judge should look upon them and accept them as one, no wonder that upon the account of the same act or qualification, he should accept the satisfaction and merits of the one for the other, as if these were their own satisfaction and merits. This necessarily follows, or rather is implied.
And
thus it is that faith justifies, or gives an interest in Christ’s
satisfaction and merits, and a right to the benefits procured thereby, viz. as it thus makes Christ and the believer one
in the acceptance of the Supreme Judge. It is by faith that we have a
title to eternal life, because it is by faith that we have the Son of
God, by whom life is. The apostle John in these words,
Although, on account of faith in the believer, it is in the sight of God fit and congruous, both that he who believes should be looked upon as in Christ, and also as having an interest in his merits, in the way that has been now explained; yet it appears that this is very wide from a merit of congruity, or indeed any moral congruity at all to either. [1] There is a twofold fitness to a state; I know 627 not how to give them distinguishing names, otherwise than by calling the one a moral, and the other a natural fitness. A person has a moral fitness for a state, when his moral excellency commends him to it, or when his being put into such a good state is but a suitable testimony of regard to the moral excellency, or value, or amiableness of any of his qualifications or acts. A person has a natural fitness for a state, when it appears meet and condecent that he should be in such a state or circumstances, only from the natural concord or agreeableness there is between such qualifications and such circumstances; not because the qualifications are lovely or unlovely, but only because the qualifications and the circumstances are like one another, or do in their nature suit and agree or unite one to another. And it is on this latter account only that God looks on it fit by a natural fitness, that he whose heart sincerely unites itself to Christ as his Saviour, should be looked upon as united to that Saviour, and so having an interest in him; and not from any moral fitness there is between the excellency of such a qualification as faith, and such a glorious blessedness as the having an interest in Christ. God’s bestowing Christ and his benefits on a soul in consequence of faith, out of regard only to the natural concord there is between such a qualification of a soul, and such an union with Christ, and interest in him, makes the case very widely different from what it would be, if he bestowed this from regard to any moral suitableness. For, in the former case, it is only from God’s love of order that he bestows these things on the account of faith; in the latter, God doth it out of love to the grace of faith itself. God will neither look on Christ’s merits as ours, nor adjudge his benefits to us, till we be in Christ; nor will he look upon us as being in him, without an active unition of our hearts and souls to him; because he is a wise being, and delights in order, and not in confusion, and that things should be together or asunder according to their nature; and his making such a constitution is a testimony of his love of order. [1] Whereas if it were out of regard to any moral fitness or suitableness between faith and such blessedness, it would be a testimony of his love to the act or qualification itself. The one supposes this divine constitution to be a manifestation of God’s regard to the beauty of the act of faith; the other only supposes it to be a manifestation of his regard to the beauty of that order that there is in uniting those things that have a natural agreement, and congruity, and unition of the one with the other. Indeed a moral suitableness or fitness to a state includes a natural; for, if there be a moral suitableness that a person should be in such a state, there is also a natural suitableness; but such a natural suitableness as I have described, by no means necessarily includes a moral.
This is plainly what our divines intend when they say, that faith does not justify as a work, or a righteousness, viz.
that it does not justify as a part of our moral goodness or excellency,
or that it does not justify as man was to have been justified by the
covenant of works, which was, to have a title to eternal life given to
him of God, in testimony of his pleasedness with his works, or his
regard to the inherent excellency and beauty of his obedience. And this
is certainly what the apostle Paul means, when he so much insists upon
it, that we are not justified by works, viz.
that we are not justified by them as good works, or by any goodness,
value, or excellency of our works. For the proof of this I shall at
present mention but one thing, and
628
that is, the apostle from time to time speaking of our not being justified by works, as the thing that excludes all boasting,
From these things we may learn in what manner faith is the only condition of justification and salvation. For though it be not the only condition, so as alone truly to have the place of a condition in an hypothetical proposition, in which justification and salvation are the consequent, yet it is the condition of justification in a manner peculiar to it, and so that nothing else has a parallel influence with it; because faith includes the whole act of unition to Christ as a Saviour. The entire active uniting of the soul, or the whole of what is called coming to Christ, and receiving of him, is called faith in Scripture; and however other things may be no less excellent than faith, yet it is not the nature of any other graces or virtues directly to close with Christ as a mediator, any further than they enter into the constitution of justifying faith, and do belong to its nature.
Thus I have explained my meaning, in asserting it as a doctrine of the gospel, that we are justified by faith only, without any manner of goodness of our own.
I now proceed,
II. To the proof of it; which I shall endeavour to produce in the following arguments.
First, Such is our case, and the state of things, that neither faith, nor any other qualifications, or act or course of acts, does or can render it suitable that a person should have an interest in the Saviour, and so a title to his benefits, on account of any excellency therein, or any other way, than as something in him may unite him to the Saviour. It is not suitable that God should give fallen man an interest in Christ and his merits, as a testimony of his respect to any thing whatsoever as a loveliness in him; and that because it is not meet, till a sinner is actually justified, that any thing in him should be accepted of God, as any excellency or amiableness of his person; or that God, by any act, should in any manner or degree testify any pleasedness with him, or favour towards him, on the account of any thing inherent in him: and that for two reasons:
1. The nature of things will not admit of it. And this appears from the infinite guilt that the sinner till justified is under; which arises from the infinite evil or heinousness of sin. But because that is what some deny, I would therefore first establish that point, and show that sin is a thing that is indeed properly of infinite heinousness; and then show the consequence, that it cannot be suitable, till the sinner is actually justified, that God should by any act testify pleasedness with or acceptance of any excellency or amiableness of his person.
That the evil and demerit of sin is infinitely great, is most demonstrably evident, because what the evil or iniquity of sin consists in, is the violating of an obligation, or doing what we should not do; and therefore by how much the greater the obligation is that is violated, by so much the greater is the iniquity of the violation. But certainly our obligation to love or honour any being is great in proportion to the greatness or excellency of that being, or his worthiness to be loved and honoured. We are under greater obligations to love a more lovely being than a less lovely; and if a being be infinitely excellent or lovely, our obligations to love him are therein infinitely great. The matter is so plain, it seems needless to say much about it.
Some have argued exceeding strangely against the infinite evil of sin, from its being committed against an infinite object, that then it may as well be argued, that there is also an infinite value or worthiness in holiness and love to God, because that also has an infinite object; whereas the argument, from parity of reason, will carry it in the reverse. The sin of the creature against God is ill deserving in proportion to the distance there is between God and the creature; the greatness of the object, and the meanness of the subject, aggravates it. But it is the reverse with regard to the worthiness of the respect of the creature to God; it is worthless (and not worthy) in proportion to the meanness of the subject. So much the greater the distance between God and the creature, so much the less is the creature’s respect worthy of God’s notice or regard. The unworthiness of sin or opposition to God rises and is great in proportion to the dignity of the object and inferiority of the subject; but on the contrary, the value of respect rises in proportion to the value of the subject; and that for this plain reason, viz. that the evil of disrespect is in proportion to the obligation that lies upon the subject to the object; which obligation is most evidently increased by the excellency and superiority of the object. But on the contrary, the worthiness of respect to a being is in proportion to the obligation that lies on him who is the object, (or rather the reason he has,) to regard the subject, which certainly is in proportion to the subject’s value or excellency. Sin or disrespect is evil or heinous in proportion to the degree of what it denies in the object, and as it were takes from it, viz. its excellency and worthiness of respect; on the contrary, respect is valuable in proportion to the value of what is given to the object in that respect, which undoubtedly (other things being equal) is great in proportion to the subject’s value, or worthiness of regard; because the subject in giving his respect, can give no more than himself: so far as he gives his respect, he gives himself to the object; and therefore his gift is of greater or lesser value in proportion to the value of himself.
Hence, (by the way,) the love, honour, and obedience of Christ towards God, has infinite value, from the excellency and dignity of the person in whom these qualifications were inherent; and the reason why we needed a person of infinite dignity to obey for us, was because of our infinite comparative meanness, who had disobeyed, whereby our disobedience was infinitely aggravated. We needed one, the worthiness of whose obedience might be answerable to the unworthiness of our disobedience; and therefore needed one who was as great and worthy as we were unworthy.
Another objection (that perhaps may be thought hardly worth mentioning) is, that to suppose sin to be infinitely heinous, is to make all sins equally heinous; for how can any sin be more than infinitely heinous? But all that can be argued hence is, that no sin can be greater with respect to that aggravation, the worthiness of the object against whom it is committed. One sin cannot be more aggravated than another in that respect, because the aggravation of every sin is infinite; but that does not hinder, that some sins may be more heinous than others in other respects: as if we should suppose a cylinder infinitely long, it cannot be greater in that respect, viz. with respect to the length of it; but yet it may be doubled and trebled, and made a thousand-fold more, by the increase of other dimensions. Of sins that are all infinitely heinous, some may be more heinous than others; as well as of divers punishments that are all infinitely dreadful calamities, so that there is no finite calamity, however great, but what is infinitely less dreadful, or more eligible, than any of them, yet some of them may be a thousand times more dreadful than others. A punishment may be infinitely dreadful by reason of the infinite duration of it; and therefore cannot be greater with respect to that aggravation of it, viz. its length of continuance, but yet may be vastly more terrible on other accounts.
Having thus, as I imagine, made it clear, that all sin is infinitely heinous, and consequently that the sinner, before he is justified, is under infinite guilt in God’s sight; it now remains that I show the consequences, or how it follows from hence, that it is not suitable that God should give the sinner an interest in Christ’s merits, and so a title to his benefits, from regard to any qualifications, or act, or course of acts in him, on the account of any excellency or goodness whatsoever therein, but only as uniting to Christ; or (which fully implies it) that it is not suitable that God, by any act, should, in any manner or degree, testify any acceptance of, or pleasedness with, any thing, as any virtue, or excellency, or any part of loveliness, or valuableness in his person, until he is actually already interested in Christ’s merits. From the premises it follows, that before the sinner is already interested in 628Christ, and justified, it is impossible God should have any acceptance of or pleasedness with the person of the sinner, as in any degree lovely in his sight, or indeed less the object of his displeasure and wrath. For, by the supposition, the sinner still remains infinitely guilty in the sight of God; for guilt is not removed but by pardon: but to suppose the sinner already pardoned, is to suppose him already justified; which is contrary to the supposition. But if the sinner still remains infinitely guilty in God’s sight, that is the same thing as still to be beheld of God as infinitely the object of his displeasure and wrath, or infinitely hateful in his eyes; and if so, where is any room for any thing in him, to be accepted as some valuableness or acceptableness of him in God’s sight, or for any act of favour of any kind towards him, or any gift whatsoever to him, in testimony of God’s respect to an acceptance of something of him lovely and pleasing? If we should suppose that a sinner could have faith, or some other grace in his heart, and yet remain separate from Christ; and that he is not looked upon as being in Christ, or having any relation to him, it would not be meet that such true grace should be accepted of God as any loveliness of his person in the sight of God. If it should be accepted as the loveliness of the person as in some degree lovely to God; but this cannot be consistent with his still remaining under infinite guilt, or infinite unworthiness in God’s sight, which that goodness has no worthiness to balance. While God beholds the man as separate from Christ, he must behold him as he is in himself; and so his goodness cannot be beheld by God, but as taken with his guilt and hatefulness, and as put in the scales with it; an so his goodness is nothing; because there is a finite on the balance against an infinite whose proportion to it is nothing. In such a case, if the man be looked on as he is in himself, the excess of the weight in one scale above another, must be looked upon as the quality of the man. These contraries being beheld together, one takes from another, as one number is subtracted from another; and the man must be looked upon in God’s sight according to the remainder. For here, by the supposition, all acts of grace or favour, in not imputing the guilt as it is, are excluded, because that supposes a degree of pardon, and that supposes justification, which is contrary to what is supposed, viz. that the sinner is not already justified; and therefore things must be taken strictly as they are; and so the man is still infinitely unworthy and hateful in God’s sight, and he was before, without diminution, because his goodness bears no proportion to his unworthiness, and therefore when taken together is nothing.
Hence may be more clearly seen the force of that expression in the text, of believing on him that justifieth the ungodly; for though there is indeed something in man that is really and spiritually good, prior to justification, yet there is nothing that is accepted as any godliness or excellency of the person, till after justification. Goodness or loveliness of the person in the acceptance of God, in any degree, is not to be considered as prior but posterior in the order and method of God’s proceeding in this affair. Though a respect to the natural suitableness between such a qualification, and such a state, does go before justification, yet the acceptance even of faith, as any goodness or loveliness of the believer, follows justification. The goodness is on the forementioned account justly looked upon as nothing, until the man is justified; and therefore the man is respected in justification, as in himself altogether hateful.–Thus, the nature of things will not admit of a man having an interest given him in the merits or benefits of a Saviour, on the account of any thing as a righteousness, or a virtue, or excellency in him.
2. A divine constitution antecedent to that which establishes justification by a Saviour, (and indeed to any need of a Saviour,) stands in the way of it, viz. that original constitution or law which man was put under; by which constitution or law the sinner is condemned, till he has actually an interest in the Saviour, through whom he is set at liberty from that condemnation. But to suppose that God gives a man an interest in Christ in reward for his righteousness or virtue, is inconsistent with his still remaining under condemnation till he has an interest in Christ; because he supposes, that the sinner’s virtue is accepted, and he accepted for it, before he has an interest in Christ; inasmuch as an interest in Christ is given as a reward of his virtue. But the virtue must first be accepted, before it is rewarded, and the man must first be accepted for his virtue, before he is rewarded for it with so great and glorious a reward; for the very notion of a reward, is some good bestowed in testimony of respect to and acceptance of virtue in the person rewarded. It does not consist with the honour of the majesty of the King of heaven and earth, to accept of any thing from a condemned malefactor, condemned by the justice of his own holy law, till that condemnation be removed. And then, such acceptance is inconsistent with, and contradictory to, such remaining condemnation; for the law condemns him that violates it, to be totally rejected and case off by God. But how can a man continue under this condemnation, i.e. continue utterly rejected and case off by God. But how can a man continue under this condemnation, i.e. continue utterly rejected and case off by God, and yet his righteousness or virtue be accepted, and he himself accepted on the account of it, so as to have so glorious a reward as an interest in Christ bestowed as a testimony of that acceptance?
I know that the answer will be, that we now are not subject to that constitution which mankind were at first put under; but that God, in mercy to mankind, has abolished that rigorous constitution, and put us under a new law, and introduced a more mild constitution; and that the constitution or law itself not remaining, there is no need of supposing that the condemnation of it remains, to stand in the way of the acceptance of our virtue. And indeed there is no other way of avoiding this difficulty. The condemnation of the law must stand in force against man, till he is actually interested in the Saviour who has satisfied and answered the law, so as effectually to prevent any acceptance of his virtue, either before, or even in order to, such an interest, unless the law or constitution itself be abolished. But the scheme of those modern divines by whom this is maintained, seems to contain a great deal of absurdity and self-contradiction: they hold, that the old law given to Adam, which requires perfect obedience, is entirely repealed, and that instead of it we are put under a new law, which requires no more than imperfect sincere obedience, in compliance with our poor, infirm, impotent circumstances since the fall, whereby we are unable to perform that perfect obedience that was required by the first law; for they strenuously maintain, that it would be unjust in God to require any thing of us that is beyond our present power and ability to perform; and yet they hold, that Christ died to satisfy for the imperfections of our obedience, that so our imperfect obedience might be accepted instead of perfect. Now, how can these things hang together? I would ask, What law these imperfections of our obedience are a breach of? If they are not a breach of no law, then they are not sins; and if they be not sins, what need of Christ’s dying to satisfy for them? but if they are sins, and so the breach of some law, what law is it? They cannot be a breach of their new law, for that requires no other than imperfect obedience, or obedience with imperfections; and they cannot be a breach of the old law, for that they say is entirely abolished, and we never were under it; and we cannot break a law that we never were under. They say it would not be just in God to exact of us perfect obedience, because it would not be just in God to require more of us than we can perform in our present state, and to punish us for failing of it; and therefore, by their own scheme, the imperfections of our obedience do not deserve to be punished. What need therefore of Christ’s dying to satisfy for them? What need of Christ’s suffering to satisfy for that which is no fault, and in its own nature deserves no suffering? What need of Christ’s dying to purchase that our imperfect obedience should be accepted, when according to their scheme it would be unjust in itself that any other obedience than imperfect should be required? What need of Christ’s dying to make way for God’s accepting such an obedience, as it would in itself be unjust in him not to accept? Is there any need of Christ’s dying to persuade God not to do unjustly? If it be said, that Christ died to satisfy that law for us, that so we might not be under that law, but might be delivered 630from it, that so there might be room for us to be under a more mild law; still I would inquire, What need of Christ’s dying that we might not be under a law that (according to their scheme) it would in itself be unjust that we should be under, because in our present state we are not able to keep it? What need of Christ’s dying that we might not be under a law that it would be unjust that we should be under, whether Christ died or no?
Thus far I have argued principally from reason, and the nature of things:—I proceed now to the
Second argument, which is, That this is a doctrine which the Holy Scriptures, the revelation that God has given us of his mind and will—by which alone we can never come to know how those who have offended God can come to be accepted of him, and justified in his sight—is exceeding full. The apostle Paul is abundant in teaching, that “we are justified by faith alone, without the works of the law!” There is no one doctrine that he insists so much upon, and that he handles with so much distinctness, explaining, giving reasons, and answering objections.
Here it is not denied by any, that the apostle does assert, that we are justified by faith, without the works of the law, because the words are express; but only it is said that we take his words wrong, and understand that by them that never entered into his heart, in that when he excludes the works of the law, we understand him of the whole law of God, or the rule which he has given to mankind to walk by; whereas all that he intends is the ceremonial.
Some that oppose this doctrine indeed say, that the apostle sometimes means that it is by faith, i.e. a hearty embracing the gospel in its first act only, or without any preceding holy life, that persons are admitted into a justified state; but, say they, it is by a persevering obedience that they are continued in a justified state, and it is by this that they are finally justified. But this is the same thing as to say, that a man on his first embracing the gospel is conditionally justified and pardoned. To pardon sin, is to free the sinner from the punishment of it, or from that eternal misery that is due to it; and therefore if a person is pardoned, or freed from this misery, on his first embracing the gospel, and yet not finally freed, but his actual freedom still depends on some condition yet to be performed, it is inconceivable how he can be pardoned otherwise than conditionally; that is, he is not properly actually pardoned, and freed from punishment, but only he has God’s promise that he shall be pardoned on future conditions. God promises him, that now, if he perseveres in obedience, he shall be finally pardoned, or actually freed from hell; which is to make just nothing at all of the apostle’s great doctrine of justification by faith alone. Such a conditional pardon is no pardon or justification at all, any more than all mankind have, whether they embrace the gospel or no; for they all have a promise of final justification on conditions of future sincere obedience, as much as he that embraces the gospel. But not to dispute about this, we will suppose that there may be something or other at the sinner’s first embracing the gospel, that may properly be called justification or pardon, and yet that final justification, or real freedom from the punishment of sin, is still suspended on conditions hitherto unfulfilled; yet they who hold that sinners are thus justified on embracing the gospel, suppose that they are justified by this, no otherwise than as it is a leading act of obedience, or at least as virtue and moral goodness in them, and therefore would be excluded by the apostle as much as any other virtue or obedience, if it be allowed that he means the moral law, when he excludes works of the law. And therefore, if that point be yielded, that the apostle means the moral, and not only the ceremonial, law, their whole scheme falls to the ground.
And because the issue of the whole argument from those texts in St. Paul’s epistles depends on the determination of this point, I would be particular in the discussion of it.
Some of our opponents in this doctrine of justification, when they deny, that by the law the apostle means the moral law, or the whole rule of life which God has given to mankind, seem to choose to express themselves thus, that the apostle only intends the Mosaic dispensation. But this comes to just the same thing as if they said, that the apostle only means to exclude the works of the ceremonial law; for when they say, that it is intended only that we are not justified by the works of the Mosaic dispensation, if they mean any thing by it, it must be, that we are not justified by attending and observing what is Mosaic in that dispensation, or by what was peculiar to it, and wherein it differed from the christian dispensation; which is the same as that which is ceremonial and positive, and not moral, in that administration. So that this is what I have to disprove, viz. that the apostle, when he speaks of works of the law in this affair, means only works of the ceremonial law, or those observances that were peculiar to the Mosaic administration.
And here it must be noted, that nobody controverts it with them, whether the works of the ceremonial law be not included, or whether the apostle does not particularly argue against justification by circumcision, and other ceremonial observances; but all in question is, whether, when he denies justification by works of the law, he is to be understood only of the ceremonial law, or whether the moral law be not also implied and intended; and therefore those arguments which are brought to prove that the apostle meant the ceremonial law, are nothing to the purpose, unless they prove that the apostle meant those only.
What is much insisted on is, that it was the judaizing Christians being so fond of circumcision, and other ceremonies of the law, and depending so much on them, which was the very occasion of the apostle’s writing as he does against justification by the works of the law. But supposing it were so, that their trusting in works of the ceremonial law were the sole occasion of the apostle’s writing, (which yet there is no reason to allow, as may appear afterwards,) if their trusting in a particular work, as a work of righteousness, was all that gave occasion to the apostle to write, how does it follow, that therefore the apostle did not upon that occasion write against trusting in all works of righteousness whatsoever? Where is the absurdity of supposing that the apostle might take occasion, from his observing some to trust in a certain work as a work of righteousness, to write to them against persons trusting in any works or righteousness at all, and that it was a very proper occasion too? Yea, it would have been unavoidable for the apostle to have argued against trusting in a particular work, in the quality of a work of righteousness, which quality was general, but he must therein argue against trusting in works of righteousness in general. Supposing it had been some other particular sort of works that was the occasion of the apostle’s writing, as for instance, works of charity, and the apostle should hence take occasion to write to them not to trust in their works, could the apostle by that be understood of no other works besides works of charity? Would it have been absurd to understand him as writing against trusting in any work at all, because it was their trusting to a particular work that gave occasion to his writing?
Another
thing alleged, as an evidence that the apostle means the ceremonial
law—when he says, we cannot be justified by the works of the law—is,
that he uses this argument to prove it, viz. that the law he speaks of was given so long after the covenant with Abraham, in
But that the apostle does not mean only works of the ceremonial law, when he excludes works of the law in justification, but also of the moral law, and all works of obedience, virtue, and righteousness whatsoever, may appear by the following things.
1. The apostle does not only say, that we are not justified by the works of the law, but that we are not justified by works,
using a general term; as in our text, “to him that worketh not, but
believeth on him that justifieth,” &c.; and in the 6th verse,
2. In the
And it may be noted, that the apostle’s argument here is the same that I have already used, viz. that as we are in ourselves, and out of Christ, we are under the condemnation of that original law or constitution that God established with mankind; and therefore it is no way fit that any thing we do, any virtue or obedience of ours, should be accepted, or we accepted on the account of it.
3. The apostle, in all the preceding part of this epistle, wherever he has the phrase, the law, evidently intends the moral law principally. As in the 12th verse of the foregoing chapter:
4.
It is evident that when the apostle says, we cannot be justified by the
works of the law, he means the moral as well as ceremonial law, by his
giving this reason for it, that “by the law is the knowledge of sin,”
as
5.
It is evident that the apostle does not mean only the ceremonial law,
because he gives this reason why we have righteousness, and a title to
the privilege of God’s children, not by the law, but by faith, “that
the law worketh wrath.”
6.
It is evident that when the apostle says, we are not justified by the
works of the law, that he excludes all our own virtue, goodness, or
excellency, by that reason he gives for it, viz. “That boasting might be excluded.”
But it is said, that boasting is excluded, as circumcision was excluded, which was that the Jews especially used to glory in, and value themselves upon, above other nations.
To
this I answer, that the Jews were not only used to boast of
circumcision, but were notorious for boasting of their moral
righteousness. The Jews of those days were generally admirers and
followers of the Pharisees, who were full of their boasts of their
moral righteousness; as we may see by the example of the Pharisee
mentioned in the 18th of Luke, which Christ mentions as describing the
general temper of that sect:
7.
The reason given by the apostle why we can be justified only by faith,
and not by the works of the law, in the 3d chapter of Gal. viz.
8.
The apostle in like manner argues against our being justified by our
own righteousness, as he does against being justified by the works of
the law; and evidently uses the expressions, of our own righteousness, and works of the law, promiscuously, and as signifying the same thing. It is particularly evident by
The Jews also, in the New Testament, are condemned for trusting in their own righteousness in this sense;
But
we need not go to the writings of other penmen of the Scripture. If we
will allow the apostle Paul to be his own interpreter, he—when he
speaks of our own righteousness as that by which we are not justified
or saved—does not mean only a ceremonial righteousness, nor does he
only intend a way of religion and serving God, of our own choosing,
without divine warrant or prescription; but by our own righteousness he
means the same as a righteousness of our own doing, whether it be a
service or righteousness of God’s prescribing, or our own unwarranted
performing. Let it be an obedience to the ceremonial law, or a gospel
obedience, or what it will, if it be a righteousness of our own doing,
it is excluded by the apostle in this affair, as is evident by
9th
argument, That the apostle, when he denies justification by works,
works of the law, and our own righteousness, does not mean works of the
ceremonial law only.
It
is several ways manifest, that the apostle in this text, by “works of
righteousness which we have done,” does not mean only works of the
ceremonial law. It appears by the 3d verse,
But we need not go to the context, it is most apparent from the words themselves, that the apostle does not mean only works of the ceremonial law. If he had only said, it is not by our own works of righteousness; what could we understand by works of righteousness, but only righteous works, or, which is the same thing, good works? And to say, that it is by our own righteous works that we are justified, though not by one particular kind of righteous works, would certainly be a contradiction to such an assertion. But, the words are rendered yet more strong, plain, and determined in their sense, by those additional words, which we have done; which shows that the apostle intends to exclude all our own righteous or virtuous works universally. If it should be asserted concerning any commodity, treasure, or precious jewel, that it could not be procured by money, and not only so, but, to make the assertion the more strong, it should be asserted with additional words, that it could not be procured by money that men possess; how unreasonable would it be, after all, to say, that all that was meant was, that it could not be procured with brass money.
And what renders the interpreting of this text, as intending works of the ceremonial law, yet more unreasonable, is, that these works were indeed no works of righteousness at all, but were only falsely supposed to be so by the Jews. And this our opponents in this doctrine also suppose is the very reason why we are not justified by them, because they are not works of righteousness, or because (the ceremonial law being now abrogated) there is no obedience in them. But how absurd is it to say, that the apostle, when he says we are not justified by works of righteousness that we have done, meant only works of the ceremonial law, and that for that very reason, because they are not works of righteousness? To illustrate this by the forementioned comparison: If it should be asserted, that such a thing could not be procured by money that men possess, how ridiculous would it be to say, that the meaning only was, that it could not be procured by counterfeit money, and that for that reason, because it was not money. What scripture will stand before men, if they will take liberty to manage scripture thus? Or what one text is there in the Bible that may not at this rate be explained all away, and perverted to any sense men please?
But further, if we should allow that the apostle intends only to oppose justification by works of the ceremonial law in this text, yet it is evident by the expression he uses, that he means to oppose it under that notion, or in that quality, of their being works of righteousness of our own doing. But if the apostle argues against our being justified by works of the ceremonial law, under the notion of their being of that nature and kind, viz. works of our own doing; then it will follow, that the apostle’s argument is strong against, not only those, but all of that nature and kind, even all that are of our own doing.
If
there were no other text in the Bible about justification but this,
this would clearly and invincibly prove, that we are not justified by
any of our own goodness, virtue, or righteousness, or for the
excellency of righteousness of any thing that we have done in religion;
because it is here so fully and strongly asserted; but this text
abundantly confirms other texts of the apostle, where he denies
justification by works of the law. No doubt can be rationally made, but
that the apostle, when he shows, that God does not save us by “works of
righteousness that we have done,”
10. The apostle could not mean only works of the ceremonial law, when he says, we are not justified by the works of the law, because it is asserted of the saints under the Old Testament as well as New. If men are justified by their sincere obedience, it will then follow that formerly, before the ceremonial law was abrogated, men were justified by the works of the ceremonial law, as well as the moral. For if we are justified by our sincere obedience, then it alters not the case, whether the commands be moral or positive, provided they be God’s commands, and our obedience be obedience to God. And so the case must be just the same under the Old Testament, with the works of the moral law and ceremonial, according to the measure of the virtue of obedience there was in either. It is true, their obedience to the ceremonial law would have nothing to do in the affair of justification, unless it was sincere; and so neither would the works of the moral law. If obedience was the thing, then obedience to the ceremonial law, while that stood in force, and obedience to the moral law, had just the same sort of concern, according to the proportion of obedience that consists in each; as now under the New Testament, if obedience is what we are justified by, that obedience must doubtless comprehend obedience to all God’s commands now in force, to the positive precepts of attendance on baptism and the Lord’s supper, as well as moral precepts. If obedience be the thing, it is not because it is obedience to such a kind of commands, but because it is obedience. So that by this supposition, the saints under the Old Testament were justified, at least in part, by their obedience to the ceremonial law.
But
it is evident that the saints under the Old Testament were not
justified, in any measure, by the works of the ceremonial law. This may
be proved, proceeding on the foot of our adversaries’ own
interpretation of the apostle’s phrase, “the works of the law,” and
supposing them to mean by it only the works of the ceremonial law. To
instance in David, it is evident that he was not justified in any wise
by the works of the ceremonial law, by
11.
Another argument that the apostle, when he speaks of the two opposite
ways of justification, one by the works of the law, and the other by
faith, does not mean only the works of the ceremonial law, may be taken
from
First, That the
apostle here speaks of the same two opposite ways of justification, one
by the righteousness which is of the law, the other by faith, that he
had treated of in the former part of the epistle; and therefore it must
be the same law that is here spoken of. The same law is here meant as
in the last verses of the foregoing chapter, where he says, the Jews
had
Secondly,
It is manifest that Moses, when he describes the righteousness which is
of the law, or the way of justification by the law, in the words here
cited,
And
further, how can the apostle’s description that he here gives from
Moses, of this exploded way of justification by the works of the law,
consist with the Arminian scheme, of a way of justification by the
virtue of a sincere obedience, that still remains as the true and only
way of justification under the gospel? It is most apparent that it is
the design of the apostle to give a description of both the legal
rejected and the evangelical valid ways of justification, in that
wherein they are distinguished the one from the other. But how is it,
that “he who doth those things, shall live in them,” that
wherein the way of justification by the works of the law is
distinguished from that in which Christians under the gospel are
justified, according to their scheme; for still, according to them, it
may be said, in the same manner, of the precepts of the gospel, he that
doth these things, shall live in them. The difference lies only in the
things to be done, but not at all in that the doing of them is not the
condition of living in them, just in the one case, as in the other. The
words,
Thus I have spoken to a second argument, to prove that we are not justified by any manner of virtue or goodness of our own, viz. that to suppose otherwise, is contrary to the doctrine directly urged, and abundantly insisted on, by the apostle Paul in his epistles.
I now proceed to a
Third argument, viz. That to suppose that we are justified by our own sincere obedience, or any of our own virtue or goodness, derogates from gospel grace.
That
scheme of justification that manifestly takes from or diminishes the
grace of God, is undoubtedly to be rejected; for it is the declared
design of God in the gospel to exalt the freedom and riches of his
grace, in that method of justification of sinners, and way of admitting
them to his favour, and the blessed fruits of it, which it declares.
The Scripture teaches, that the way of justification appointed in the
gospel-covenant, is appointed for that end, that free grace might be
expressed, and glorified;
Those who maintain, that we are justified by our own sincere obedience, pretend that their scheme does not diminish the grace of the gospel; for they say, that the grace of God is wonderfully manifested in appointing such a way and method of salvation by sincere obedience, in assisting us to perform such an obedience, and in accepting our imperfect obedience, instead of perfect.
Let us therefore examine that matter, whether their scheme, of a man’s being justified by his own virtue and sincere obedience, does derogate from the grace of God or no; or whether free grace is not more exalted in supposing, as we do, that we are justified without any manner of goodness of our own. In order to this, I will lay down this self-evident
Proposition, that whatsoever that be by which the abundant benevolence of the giver is expressed, and gratitude in the receiver is obliged, that magnifies free grace. This I suppose none will ever controvert or dispute.—And it is not much less evident, that it doth both show a more abundant benevolence in the giver when he shows kindness without goodness or excellency in the object, to move him to it; and that it enhances the obligation to gratitude in the receiver.
1. It shows a more abundant goodness in the giver, when he shows kindness without any excellency in our persons or actions that should move the giver to love and beneficence. For it certainly shows the more abundant and overflowing goodness, or disposition to communicate good, by how much the less loveliness or excellency there is to entice beneficence. The less there is in the receiver to draw good-will and kindness, it argues the more of the principle of good-will and kindness in the giver. One that has but little of a principle of love and benevolence, may be drawn to do good, and to show kindness, when there is a great deal to draw him, or when there is much excellency and loveliness in the object to move good-will; when he whose goodness and benevolence is more abundant, will show kindness where there is less to draw it forth; for he does not so much need to have it drawn from without, he has enough of the principle within to move him of itself. Where there is most of the principle, there it is most sufficient for itself, and stands in least need of something without to excite it. For certainly a more abundant goodness more easily flows forth with less to impel or draw it, than where there is less; or, which is the same thing, the more any one is disposed of himself, the less he needs from without himself, to put him upon it, or stir him up to it. And therefore his kindness and goodness appears the more exceeding great, when it is bestowed without any excellency or loveliness at all in the receiver, or when the receiver is respected in the gift, as wholly without excellency. And much more still when the benevolence of the giver not only finds nothing in the receiver to draw it, but a great deal of hatefulness to repel it. The abundance of goodness is then manifested, not only in flowing forth without any thing extrinsic to put it forward, but in overcoming great repulsion in the object. And then does kindness and love appear most triumphant, and wonderfully great, when the receiver is not only wholly without all excellency or beauty to attract it, but altogether, yea infinitely, vile and hateful.
2. It is apparent also that it enhances the obligation to gratitude in the receiver. This is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, that the less worthy or excellent the object of benevolence, or the receiver of kindness, is, the more he is obliged, and the greater gratitude is due. He therefore is most of all obliged, that receives kindness without any goodness or excellency in himself, but with a total and universal hatefulness. And as it is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, so it is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, so it is agreeable to the word of God. How often does God in the Scripture insist on this argument with men, to move them to love him, and to acknowledge his kindness! How much does he insist on this as an obligation to gratitude, that they are so sinful, and undeserving, and ill deserving!
Therefore it certainly follows, that the doctrine which teaches, that God, when he justifies a man, and shows him such great kindness as to give him a right to eternal life, does not do it for any obedience, or any manner of goodness, of his; but that justification respects a man as ungodly, and wholly without any manner of virtue, beauty, or excellency. I say, this doctrine does certainly more exalt the free grace of God in justification, and man’s obligation to gratitude for such a favour, than the contrary doctrine, viz. That God, in showing this kindness to man, respects him as sincerely obedient and virtuous, and as having something in him that is truly excellent and lovely, and acceptable in his sight, and that this goodness or excellency of man is the very fundamental condition of the bestowment of that kindness on him, or of distinguishing him from others by that benefit. But I hasten to a
Fourth argument for the truth of the doctrine, That to suppose a man is justified by his own virtue or obedience, derogates from the honour of the Mediator, and ascribes that to man’s virtue which belongs only to the righteousness of Christ: it puts man in Christ’s stead, and makes him his own saviour, in a respect in which Christ only is his Saviour. And so it is a doctrine contrary to the nature and design of the gospel, which is to abase man, and to ascribe all the glory of our salvation to Christ the Redeemer. It is inconsistent with the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, which is a gospel-doctrine.
Here I would explain what we mean by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Prove the thing intended by it to be true. Show that this doctrine is utterly inconsistent with the doctrine of our being justified by our own virtue or sincere obedience.
First,
I would explain what we mean by the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness. Sometimes the expression is taken by our divines in a
larger sense, for the imputation of all that Christ did and suffered
for our redemption, whereby we are free from guilt, and stand righteous
in the sight of God; and so implies the imputation both of Christ’s
satisfaction and obedience. But here I intend it in a stricter sense,
for the imputation of that righteousness or moral goodness that
consists in the obedience of Christ. And by that righteousness being imputed
to us, is meant no other than this, that the righteousness of Christ is
accepted for us, and admitted instead of that perfect inherent
righteousness which ought to be in ourselves. Christ’s perfect
obedience shall be reckoned to our account, so that we shall have the
benefit of it, as though we had performed it ourselves. And so we
suppose that a title to eternal life is given us as the reward of this
righteousness. The Scripture uses the word impute in this sense, viz. for reckoning any thing belonging to any person, to another person’s account: as
The opposers of this doctrine suppose that there is an absurdity in supposing that God imputes Christ’s obedience to us, it is to suppose that God is mistaken, and thinks that we performed that obedience which Christ performed. But why cannot that righteousness be reckoned to our account, and be accepted for us, without any such absurdity? Why is there any more absurdity in it, than in a merchant’s transferring debt or credit from one man’s account to another, when one man pays a price for another, so that it shall be accepted as if that other had paid it? Why is there any more absurdity in supposing that Christ’s obedience is imputed to us, that that his satisfaction is imputed? If Christ has suffered the penalty of the law in our stead, then it will follow, that his suffering that penalty is imputed to us, that is accepted for us, and in our stead, and is reckoned to our account, as though we had suffered it. But why may not his obeying the law of God be as rationally reckoned to our account, as his suffering the penalty of the law? Why may not a price to bring into debt, be as rationally transferred from one person’s account to another, as a price to pay a debt? Having thus explained what we mean by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, I proceed,
Secondly, To prove that the righteousness of Christ is thus imputed.
1.
There is the very same need of Christ’s obeying the law in our stead,
in order to the reward, as of his suffering the penalty of the law in
our stead, in order to our escaping the penalty; and the same reason
why one should be accepted on our account, as the other. There is the
same need of one as the other, that the law of God might be answered;
one was as requisite to answer the law as the other. It is certain,
that was the reason why there was need that Christ should suffer the
penalty for us, even that the law might be answered; for this Scripture
plainly teaches. This is given as the reason why Christ was made a
curse for us, that the law threatened a curse to us,
Christ by suffering the penalty, and so making atonement for us, only removes the guilt of our sins, and so sets us in the same state that Adam was in the first moment of his creation; and it is no more fit that we should obtain eternal life only on that account, than that Adam should have the reward of eternal life, or of a confirmed and unalterable state of happiness, the first moments of his existence, without any obedience at all. Adam was not to have the reward merely on account of his being innocent; if so, he would have had it fixed upon him at once, as soon as ever he was created; for he was as innocent then as he could be. But he was to have the reward on account of his activeness in obedience; not on account merely of his not having done ill, but on account of his doing well.
So
on the same account we have not eternal life merely as void of guilt,
which we have by the atonement of Christ; but on the account of
Christ’s activeness in obedience, and doing well. Christ is our second
federal head, and is called the second Adam,
God saw meet to place man first in a state of trial, and not to give him a title to eternal life as soon as he had made him; because it was his will that he should first give honour to his authority, by fully submitting to it, in will and act, and perfectly obeying his law. God insisted upon it, that his holy majesty and law should have their due acknowledgement and honour from man, such as became the relation he stood in to that Being who created him, before he would bestow the reward of confirmed and everlasting happiness upon him; and therefore God gave him a law that he might have opportunity, by giving due honour to his authority in obeying it, to obtain this happiness. It therefore became Christ—seeing that, in assuming man to himself, he sought a title to this eternal happiness for him after he had broken the law—that he himself should become subject to God’s authority, and be in the form of a servant, that he might do that honour to God’s authority for him, by his obedience, which God at first required of man as the condition of his having a title to that reward. Christ came into the world to render the honour of God’s authority and law consistent with the salvation and eternal life of sinners; he came to save them, and yet withal to assert and vindicate the honour of the lawgiver, and his holy law. Now, if the sinner, after his sin was satisfied for, had eternal life bestowed upon him without active righteousness, the honour of his law would not be sufficiently vindicated. Supposing this were possible, that the sinner himself could, by suffering, pay the debt, and afterwards be in the same state that he was in before his probation, that is to say, negatively righteous, or merely without guilt; if he now at last should have eternal life bestowed upon him, without performing that condition of obedience; then God would recede from his law, and would give the promised reward, and his law never have respect and honour shown to it, in that way of being obeyed. But now Christ, by subjecting himself to the law, and obeying it, has done great honour to the law, and to the authority of God who gave it. That so glorious a person should become subject to the law, and fulfil it, has done much more to honour it, than if mere man had obeyed it. It was a thing infinitely honourable to God, that a person of infinite dignity was not ashamed to call him his God, and to adore and obey him as such. This was more to God’s honour than if any mere creature, of any possible degree of excellence and dignity, had so done.
It is absolutely necessary, that in order to a sinner’s being justified, the righteousness of some other should be reckoned to his account; for it is declared, that the person justified is looked upon as (in himself) ungodly; but God neither will nor can justify a person without a righteousness; for justification is manifestly a forensic term, as the word is used in Scripture, and a judicial thing, or the act of a judge. So that if a person should be justified without a righteousness, the judgment would not be according to truth. The sentence of justification would be a false sentence, unless there be a righteousness performed that is by the judge properly looked upon as his. To say, that God does not justify the sinner without sincere, though an imperfect, obedience, does not help the case; for an imperfect righteousness before a judge is no righteousness. To accept of something that falls short of the rule, instead of something else that answers the rule, is not judicial act, or act of a judge, but a pure act of sovereignty. An imperfect righteousness is no righteousness before a judge; for “righteousness (as one observes) is a relative thing, and has always relation to a law. The formal nature of righteousness, properly understood, lies in a conformity of actions to that which is the rule and measure of them.” Therefore that only is righteousness in the sight of a judge 637 that answers the law. [1] The law is the judge’s rule: if he pardons and hides what really is, and so does not pass sentence according to what things are in themselves, he either does not act the part of a judge, or else judges falsely. The very notion of judging is to determine what is, and what is not, in any one’s case. The judge’s work is twofold; it is to determine first what is fact, and then whether what is in fact be according to rule, or according to the law. If a judge has no rule or law established beforehand, by which he should proceed in judging, he has no foundation to go upon in judging, he has no opportunity to be a judge; nor is it possible that he should do the part of a judge. To judge without a law or rule by which to judge, is impossible; for the very notion of judging, is to determine whether the object of judgment be according to rule; and therefore God has declared, that when he acts as a judge, he will not justify the wicked, and cannot clear the guilty; and, by parity of reason, cannot justify without righteousness.
And the scheme of the old law’s being abrogated, and a new law introduced, will not help at all in this difficulty; for an imperfect righteousness cannot answer the law of God we are under, whether that be an old or a new one; for every law requires perfect obedience to itself. Every rule whatsoever requires perfect conformity to itself; it is a contradiction to suppose otherwise. For to say, that there is a law that does not require perfect obedience to itself, is to say that there is a law that does not require all that it requires. That law that now forbids sin, is certainly the law that we are now under, (let that be an old or a new one,) or else it is not sin. That which is not forbidden, and is the breach of the law, is no sin. But if we are now forbidden to commit sin, then it is by a law that we are now under; for surely we are neither under the forbiddings nor commanding of a law that we are not under. Therefore, if all sin is now forbidden, then we are now under a law that requires perfect obedience; and therefore nothing can be accepted as a righteousness in the sight of our Judge, but perfect righteousness. So that our Judge cannot justify us, unless he sees a perfect righteousness, some way belonging to us, either performed by ourselves, or by another, and justly and duly reckoned to our account.
God doth, in the sentence of justification, pronounce a man perfectly righteousness, or else he would need a further justification after he is justified. His sins being removed by Christ’s atonement, is not sufficient for his justification; for justifying a man, as has been already shown, is not merely pronouncing him innocent, or without guilt, but standing right with regard to the rule that he is under, and righteous unto life: but this, according to the established rule of nature, reason, and divine appointment, is a positive, perfect righteousness.
As there is the same need that Christ’s obedience should be reckoned to our account, as that his atonement should; so there is the same reason why it should. As if Adam had persevered, and finished his course of obedience, we should have received the benefit of his obedience, as much as now we have the mischief of his disobedience; so in like manner, there is reason that we should receive the benefit of the second Adam’s obedience, as of his atonement of our disobedience. Believers are represented in Scripture as being so in Christ, as that they are legally one, or accepted as one, by the Supreme Judge: Christ has assumed our nature, and has so assumed all in that nature that belongs to him, into such an union with himself, that he is become their head, and has taken them to be his members. And therefore, what Christ has done in our nature, whereby he did honour to the law and authority of God by his acts, as well as the reparation to the honour of the law by his sufferings, is reckoned to the believer’s account; so as that the believer should be made happy, because it was so well and worthily done by his Head, as well as freed from being miserable, because he has suffered for our ill and unworthy doing.
When
Christ had once undertaken with God to stand for us, and put himself
under our law, by that law he was obliged to suffer and by the same law
he was obliged to obey: by the same law, after he had taken man’s guilt
upon him, he himself, being our surety, could not be acquitted till he
had suffered, nor rewarded till he had obeyed: but he was not acquitted
as a private person, but as our head, and believers are acquitted in
his acquittance; nor was he accepted to a reward for his obedience, as
a private person, but as our head, and we are accepted to a reward in
his acceptance. The Scripture teaches us, that when Christ was raised
from the dead, he was justified; which justification, as I have already
shown, implies both his acquittance from our guilt, and his acceptance
to the exaltation and glory that was the reward of his obedience; but
believers, as soon as they believe, are admitted to partake with Christ
in this his justification: hence we are told, that he was “raised again
for our justification,”
If it be objected here, that there is this reason, why what Christ suffered should be accepted on our account, rather than the obedience he performed, that he was obliged to obedience for himself, but was not obliged to suffer but only on our account; to this I answer, That Christ was not obliged, on his own account, to undertake to obey. Christ, in his original circumstances, was in no subjection to the Father, being altogether equal with him: he was under no obligation to put himself in man’s stead, and under man’s law; or to put himself into any state of subjection to God whatsoever. There was a transaction between the Father and the Son, that was antecedent to Christ’s becoming man, and being made under the law, wherein he undertook to put himself under the law, and both to obey and to suffer; in which transaction these things were already virtually done in the sight of God; as is evident by this, that God acted on the ground of that transaction, justifying and saving sinners, as if the things undertaken had been actually performed long before they were performed indeed. And therefore, without doubt, in order to estimate the value and validity of what Christ did and suffered, we must look back to that transaction, wherein these things were first undertaken, and virtually done in the sight of God, and see what capacity and circumstances Christ acted in them, and we shall find that 638Christ was under no manner of obligation, either to obey the law, or to suffer its penalty. After this he was equally under obligation to both; for henceforward he stood as our surety or representative: and therefore this consequent obligation may be as much of an objection against the validity of his suffering the penalty, as against his obedience. But if we look to that original transaction between the Father and the Son, wherein both these were undertaken and accepted as virtually done in the sight of the Father, we shall find Christ acting with regard to both, as one perfectly in his own right, and under no manner of previous obligation to hinder the validity of either.
2.
To suppose that all Christ does is only to make atonement for us by
suffering, is to make him our Saviour but in part. It is to rob him of
half his glory as a Saviour. For if so, all that he does is to deliver
us from hell; he does not purchase heaven for us. The adverse scheme
supposes that he purchases heaven for us, in that he satisfies for the
imperfections of our obedience, and so purchases that our sincere
imperfect obedience might be accepted as the condition of eternal life;
and so purchases an opportunity for us to obtain heaven by our own
obedience. But to purchase heaven for us only in this sense, is to
purchase it in no sense at all; for all of it comes to no more than a
satisfaction for our sins, or removing the penalty by suffering in our
stead. For all the purchasing they speak of, that our imperfect
obedience should be accepted, is only to pay a debt for us; there is no
positive purchase of any good. We are taught in Scripture that heaven
is purchased for us; it is called the purchased possession,
3. Justification by the righteousness and obedience of Christ, is a doctrine that the Scripture teaches in very full terms;
Here possibly it may be objected, that this text means only, that we are justified by Christ’s passive obedience.
To
this I answer, whether we call it active or passive, it alters not the
case as to the present argument, as long as it is evident by the words,
that it is not merely under the notion of an atonement for
disobedience, or a satisfaction for unrighteousness, but under the
notion of a positive obedience, and a righteousness, or moral goodness,
that it justifies us, or makes us righteous; because both the words righteousness and obedience are used, and used
too as the opposites to sin and disobedience, and an offence.
By this it appears, that if Christ’s dying be here included in the words righteousness and obedience, it is not merely as a propitiation, or bearing a penalty of a broken law in our stead, but as his voluntary submitting and yielding himself to those sufferings, was an act of obedience to the Father’s commands, and so was a part of his positive righteousness, or moral goodness.
Indeed all obedience considered under the notion of righteousness, is something active, something done in voluntary compliance with a command; whether it may be done without suffering, or whether it be hard and difficult; yet as it is obedience, righteousness, or moral goodness, it must be considered as something voluntary and active. If any one is commanded to go through difficulties and sufferings, and he, in compliance with this command, voluntarily does it, he properly obeys in so doing; and as he voluntarily does it in compliance with a command, his obedience is as active as any whatsoever. It is the same sort of obedience, a thing of the very same nature, as when a man, in compliance with a command, does a piece of hard service, or goes through hard labour; and there is no room to distinguish between such obedience of it, as if it were a thing of quite a different nature, by such opposite terms as active and passive: all the distinction that can be pretended, is that which is between obeying an easy command and a difficult one. But is there from hence any foundation to make two species of obedience, one active and the other passive? There is no appearance of any such distinction ever entering into the hearts of any of the penmen of Scripture.
It is true, that of late, when a man refuses to obey the precept of a human law, but patiently yields himself up to suffer the penalty of the law, it is called passive obedience: but this I suppose is only a modern use of the word obedience; surely it is a sense of the word that the Scripture is a perfect stranger to. It is improperly called obedience, unless there be such a precept in the law, that he shall yield himself patiently to suffer, to which his so doing shall be an active voluntary conformity. There may in some sense be said to be a conformity of the law in a person’s suffering the penalty of the law; but no other conformity to the law is properly called obedience to it, but an active voluntary conformity to the precepts of it. The word obey is often found in Scripture with respect to the law of God to man, but never in any other sense.
It is true that Christ’s willingly
undergoing those sufferings which he endured, is a great part of that
obedience of righteousness by which we are justified. The sufferings of
Christ are respected in Scripture under a twofold consideration, either
merely as his being substituted for us, or put into our stead, in
suffering the penalty of the law; and so his sufferings are considered
as a satisfaction and propitiation for sin; or as he, in obedience to a
law or command of the Father, voluntarily submitted himself to those
sufferings, and actively yielded himself up to bear them; and so they
are considered as his righteousness, and a part of his active
obedience. Christ underwent death in obedience to the command of the
Father,
It can be no just objection against this, that the command of the Father to Christ that he should lay down his life, was no part of the law that we had broken; and therefore, that his obeying this command could be no part of that obedience that he performed for us, but only that which we had broken or failed of obeying. For although it must be the same legislative authority, whose honour is repaired by Christ’s obedience, that we have injured by our disobedience; yet there is no need that the law which Christ obeys should be precisely the same that Adam was to have obeyed, in that sense, that there should be no positive precepts wanting, nor any added. There was wanting the precept about the forbidden fruit, and there was added the ceremonial law. The thing required was perfect obedience. It is no matter whether the positive precepts were the same, if they were equivalent. The positive precepts that Christ was to obey, were much more than equivalent to what was wanting, because infinitely more difficult, particularly the command that he had received to lay down his life, which was his principal act of obedience, and which, above all other, is concerned in our justification. As that act of disobedience by which we fell, was disobedience to a positive precept that Christ never was under, viz. that of abstaining from the tree of knowledge of good and evil; so that act of obedience by which principally we are redeemed, is obedience to a positive precept that Adam never was under, viz. the precept of laying down his life. It was suitable that it should be a positive precept, that should try both Adam’s and Christ’s obedience. Such precepts are the greatest and most proper trial of obedience; because in them, the mere authority and will of the legislator is the sole ground of the obligation, (and nothing in the nature of the things themselves,) and therefore they are the greatest trial of any person’s respect to that authority and will.
The law that Christ was subject to, and obeyed, was in some sense the same that was given to Adam. There are innumerable particular duties required by the law only conditionally; and in such circumstances, are comprehended in some great and general rule of that law. Thus, for instance, there are innumerable acts of respect and obedience to men, which are required by the law of nature, (which was a law given to Adam,) which yet are not required absolutely, but upon many pre-requisite conditions; as, that there be men standing in such relations to us, and that they give forth such commands, and the like. So many acts of respect and obedience to God are included, in like manner, in the moral law conditionally, or such and such things being supposed; as Abraham’s going about to sacrifice his son, the Jews’ circumcising their children when eight days old, and Adam’s not eating the forbidden fruit; they are virtually comprehended in that great general rule of the moral law, that we should obey God, and be subject to him in whatsoever he pleases to command us. Certainly the moral law does as much require us to obey God’s positive commands, as it requires us to obey the positive commands of our parents. And thus all that Adam, and all that Christ was commanded, even his observing the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish worship, and his laying down his life, was virtually included in this same great law. [1]
It is no objection against the last-mentioned thing, even Christ’s laying down his life, it being included in the moral law given to Adam, because that law itself allowed of no occasion for any such thing; for the moral law virtually includes all right acts, on all possible occasions, even occasions that the law itself allows not: thus we are obliged by the moral law to mortify our lusts, and repent of our sins, though that law allows of no lust to mortify, of sin to repent of.
There is indeed
but one great law of God, and that is the same law that says, “if thou
sinnest, thou shalt die;” and “cursed is every one that continues not
in all things contained in this law to do them.” All duties of positive
institution are virtually comprehended in this law: and therefore, if
the Jews broke the ceremonial law, it exposed them to the penalty of
the law, or covenant of works, which threatened, “thou shalt surely
die.” The law is the eternal and unalterable rule of righteousness
between God and man, and therefore is the rule of judgment, by which
all that a man does shall be either justified or condemned; and no sin
exposes to damnation, but by the law. So now he that refuses to obey
the precepts that require an attendance on the sacraments of the New
Testament, is exposed to damnation, by virtue of the law or covenant of
works. It may moreover be argued, that all sins whatsoever are breaches
of the law or covenant of works, because all sins, even breaches of the
positive precepts, as well as others, have atonement by the death of
Christ: but what Christ died for, was to satisfy the law, or to bear
the curse of the law; as appears by
So
that Christ’s laying down his life might be part of that obedience by
which we are justified, though it was a positive precept not given to
Adam. It was doubtless Christ’s main act of obedience, because it was
obedience to a command that was attended with immensely the greatest
difficulty, and so to a command that was the greatest trial of his
obedience. His respect shown to God in it, and his honour to God’s
authority, was proportionably great. It is spoken of in Scripture as
Christ’s principal act of obedience.
Hence we may see how that the death of Christ did not only make atonement, but also merited eternal life; and hence we may see how by the blood of Christ we are not only redeemed from sin, but redeemed unto God; and therefore the Scripture seems every where to attribute the whole of salvation to the blood of Christ. This precious blood is as much the main price by which heaven is purchased, as it is the main price by which we are redeemed from hell. The positive righteousness of Christ, or that price by which he merited, was of equal value with that 640by which he satisfied; for indeed it was the same price. He spilled his blood to satisfy, and by reason of the infinite dignity of his person, his sufferings were looked upon as of infinite value, and equivalent to the eternal sufferings of a finite creature. And he spilled his blood out of respect to the honour of God’s majesty, and in submission to his authority, who had commanded him so to do: and his obedience therein was of infinite value; both because of the dignity of the person that performed it, and because he put himself to infinite expense to perform it, whereby the infinite degree of his regard to God’s authority appeared.
One would wonder what Arminians mean by Christ’s merits. They talk of Christ’s merits as much as any body, and yet deny the imputation of Christ’s positive righteousness. What should there be that any one should merit or deserve any thing by, besides righteousness or goodness? If any thing that Christ did or suffered, merited or deserved any thing, it was by virtue of the goodness, or righteousness, or holiness of it. If Christ’s sufferings and death merited heaven, it must be because there was an excellent righteousness and transcendent moral goodness in that act of laying down his life. And if by that excellent righteousness he merited heaven for us; then surely that righteousness is reckoned to our account, that we have the benefit of it, or, which is the same thing, it is imputed to us.
Thus, I hope, I have made it evident, that the righteousness of Christ is indeed imputed to us. I proceed now to the
Third
and last thing under this argument, That this doctrine, of the
imputation of Christ’s righteousness, is utterly inconsistent with the
doctrine of our being justified by our own virtue or sincere obedience.
If acceptance to God’s favour, and a title to life, be given to
believers as the reward of Christ’s obedience, then it is not given as
the reward of our own obedience. In what respect soever Christ is our
Saviour, that doubtless excludes our being our own saviours in that
same respect. If we can be our own saviours in the same respect that
Christ is, it will thence follow, that the salvation of Christ is
needless in that respect; according to the apostle’s reasoning,
Here perhaps it may be said, that a title to salvation is not directly given as the reward of our obedience; for that is not by any thing of ours, but only by Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness; but yet an interest in that satisfaction and righteousness if given as a reward of our obedience.
But this does not at all help the case; for this is to ascribe as much to our obedience as if we ascribed salvation to it directly, without the intervention of Christ’s righteousness. For it would be as a great thing for God to give us Christ, and his satisfaction and righteousness, in reward for our obedience, as to give us heaven immediately; it would be as great a reward, and as great a testimony of respect to our obedience. And if God gives as great a thing as salvation for our obedience, why could he not as well give salvation itself directly? and then there would have been no need of Christ’s righteousness. And indeed if God gives us Christ, or an interest in him, properly in reward of our obedience, he does really give us salvation in reward for our obedience: for the former implies the latter; yea, it implies it, as the greater implies the less. So that indeed it exalts our virtue and obedience more, to suppose that God gives us Christ in reward of that virtue and obedience, than if he should give salvation without Christ.
The thing that the Scripture guards and militates against, is our imagining that it is our own goodness, virtue, or excellency that instates us in God’s acceptance and favour. But to suppose that God gives us an interest in Christ in reward for our virtue, is as great an argument that it instates us in God’s favour, as if he bestowed a title to eternal life as its direct reward. If God gives us an interest in Christ as a reward of our obedience, it will then follow, that we are instated in God’s acceptance and favour by our own obedience, antecedent to our having an interest in Christ. For a rewarding any one’s excellency, evermore supposes favour and acceptance on the account of that excellency: it is the very notion of a reward, that it is a good thing, bestowed in testimony of respect and favour for the virtue or excellency rewarded. So that it is not by virtue of our interest in Christ and his merits, that we first come into favour with God, according to this scheme; for we are in God’s favour before we have any interest in those merits; in that we have an interest in those merits given as a fruit of God’s favour for our own virtue. If our interest in Christ be the fruit of God’s favour, then it cannot be the ground of it. If God did not accept us, and had no favour for us for our own excellency, he never would bestow so great a reward upon us, as a right in Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness. So that such a scheme destroys itself; for it supposes that Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness are necessary for us to recommend us to the favour of God; and yet supposes that we have God’s favour and acceptance before we have Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness, and have these given as a fruit of God’s favour.
Indeed, neither salvation itself, nor Christ the Saviour, are given as a reward of any thing in man: they are not given as a reward of faith, nor any thing else of ours: we are not united to Christ as a reward of our faith, but have union with him by faith, only as faith is the very act of uniting or closing on our part. As when a man offers himself to a woman in marriage, he does not give himself to her as a reward of her receiving him in marriage. Her receiving him is not considered as a worthy deed in her for which he rewards her by giving himself to her; but it is by her receiving him that the union is made, by which she hath him for her husband. It is on her part the unition itself. By these things it appears how contrary to the gospel of Christ their scheme is, who say that faith justifies as a principle of obedience, or as a leading act of obedience; or (as others) the sum and comprehension of all evangelical obedience. For by this, the obedience or virtue that is in faith gives it its justifying influence; and that is the same thing as to say, that we are justified by our own obedience, virtue, or goodness.
Having thus considered the evidence of the truth of the doctrine, I proceed now to the
III. Thing proposed, viz. “To show in what sense the act of a christian life, or of evangelical obedience, may be looked upon to be concerned in this affair.”
From what has been said already, it is manifest that they cannot have any concern in this affair as good works, or by virtue of any moral goodness in them; not as works of the law, or as that moral excellency, or any part of it, which is the fulfilment of that great, universal, and everlasting law or covenant of works which the great lawgiver has established, as the highest and unalterable rule of judgment, which Christ alone answers, or does any thing towards it.
It having been shown out of the Scripture, that it is only by faith, or the soul’s receiving and uniting to the Saviour who has wrought our righteousness, that we are justified; it therefore remains, that the acts of a christian life cannot be concerned in this affair any otherwise than as they imply, and are the expressions of, faith, and may be looked upon as so many acts of reception of Christ the Saviour. But the determining what concerns acts of christian obedience can have in justification in this respect, will depend on the resolving of another point, viz. Whether any other act of faith besides the first act, has any concern in our justification, or how far perseverance in faith, or the continued and renewed acts of faith, have influence in this affair. And it seems manifest that justification is by the first act of faith, in some respects, in a peculiar manner, because a sinner is actually and finally justified as soon as he has performed one act of faith; and faith in its first act does, virtually at least, depend on God for perseverance, and entitles to this among other benefits. But yet the perseverance of faith is not excluded in this affair; it is not only certainly connected with justification, but it is not to be excluded from that on which the justification of a sinner has a dependence, or that by which he is justified.
I have shown that the way in which justification has a
641
dependence on faith, is, that it is the qualification on which the
congruity of an interest in the righteousness of Christ depends, or
wherein such a fitness consists. But the consideration of the
perseverance of faith cannot be excluded out of this congruity or
fitness, for it is congruous that he that believes in Christ should
have an interest in Christ’s righteousness, and so in the eternal
benefits purchased by it, because faith is that by which the soul hath
union or oneness with Christ; and there is a natural congruity in it,
that they who are one with Christ should have a joint interest with him
in his eternal benefits; but yet this congruity depends on its being an
abiding union. As it is needful that the branch should abide in the
vine, in order to its receiving the lasting benefits of the root; so it
is necessary that the soul should abide in Christ, in order to its
receiving those lasting benefits of God’s final acceptance and favour.
So that although the sinner is actually and finally justified on the first acts of faith, yet the perseverance of faith, even then, comes into consideration, as one thing on which the fitness of acceptance to life depends. God, in the act of justification, which is passed on a sinner’s first believing, has respect to perseverance, as being virtually contained in that first act of faith; and it is looked upon, and taken by him that justifies, as being as it were a property in that faith. God has respect to the believer’s continuance in faith, and he is justified by that, as though it already were, because by divine establishment it shall follow; and it being by divine constitution connected with that first faith, as much as if it were a property in it, it is then considered as such, and so justification is not suspended; but were it not for this, it would be needful that is should be suspended, till the sinner had actually persevered in faith.
And
that it is so, that God in the act of final justification which he
passes at the sinner’s conversion, has respect to perseverance in
faith, and future acts of faith, as being virtually implied in the
first act, is further manifest by this, viz. That in a sinner’s
justification, at his conversion there is virtually contained a
forgiveness as to eternal and deserved punishment, not only of all past
sins, but also of all future infirmities and acts of sin that they
shall be guilty of; because that first justification is decisive and
final. And yet pardon, in the order of nature, properly follows the
crime, and also follows those acts of repentance and faith that respect
the crime pardoned, as is manifest both from reason and Scripture.
David, in the beginning of
But inasmuch as a sinner, in his first justification, is for ever justified and freed from all obligations to eternal punishment; it hence of necessity follows, that future faith and repentance are beheld, in that justification, as virtually contained in that first faith and repentance; because repentance of those future sins, and faith in a Redeemer, with respect to them, or, at least, the continuance of that habit and principle in the heart that has such an actual repentance and faith in its nature and tendency, is now made sure by God’s promise.—If remission of sins, committed after conversion, in the order of nature, follows that faith and repentance that is after them, then it follows that future sins are respected in the first justification, no otherwise than as future faith and repentance are respected in it. And future repentance and faith are looked upon by him that justifies, as virtually implied in the first repentance and faith, in the same manner as justification from future sins is virtually implied in the first justification; which is the thing that was to be proved.
And besides, if no other act of faith could be concerned in justification but the first act, it will then follow, that Christians ought never to seek justification by any other act of faith. For if justification is not to be obtained by after acts of faith, then surely it is not a duty to seek it by such acts: and so it can never be a duty for persons after they are once converted, by faith to seek to God, or believingly to look to him, for the remission of sin, or deliverance from the guilt of it, because deliverance from the guilt of sin is part of what belongs to justification. And if it be not proper for converts by faith to look to God through Christ for it, then it will follow, that it is not proper for them to pray for it; for christian prayer to God for a blessing, is but an expression of faith in God for that blessing; prayer is only the voice of faith. But if these things are so, it will follow that the petition of the Lord’s prayer, forgive us our debts, is not proper to be put up by disciples of Christ, or to be used in christian assemblies; and that Christ improperly directed his disciples to use that petition, when they were all of them, except Judas, converted before. The debt that Christ directs his disciples to pray for the forgiveness of, can mean nothing else but the punishment that sin deserves, or the debt that we owe to divine justice, the ten thousand talents we owe our Lord. To pray that God would forgive our debts, is undoubtedly the same thing as to pray that God would release us from obligation to due punishment; but releasing from obligation to the punishment due to sin, and forgiving the debt that we owe to divine justice, is what appertains to justification.
And then to suppose that no after acts of faith are concerned in the business of justification, and so that it is not proper for any ever to seek justification by such acts, would be for ever to cut off those Christians that are doubtful concerning their first act of faith, from the joy and peace of believing. As the business of a justifying faith is to obtain pardon and peace with God, by looking to God, and trusting in him for these blessings; so the joy and peace of that faith is in the apprehension of pardon and peace obtained by such a trust. This a Christian that is doubtful of his first act of faith cannot have from that act, because, by the supposition, he is doubtful whether it be an act of faith, and so whether he did obtain pardon and peace by that act. The proper remedy, in such a case, is now by faith to look to God in Christ for these blessings; but he is cut off from this remedy, because he is uncertain whether he has warranted so to do; for he does not know but that he has believed already; and if so, then he has no warrant to look to God by faith for these blessings now, 642because, by the supposition, no new act of faith is a proper means of obtaining these blessings. And so he can never properly obtain the joy of faith; for there are acts of true faith that are very weak, and the first act may be so as well as others: it may be like the first motion of the infant in the womb; it may be so weak an act, that the Christian, by examining it, may never be able to determine whether it was a true act of faith or no; and it is evident from fact, and abundant experience, that many Christians are for ever at a loss to determine which was their first act of faith. And those saints who have had a good degree of satisfaction concerning their faith, may be subject to great declensions and falls, in which case they are liable to great fears of eternal punishment; and the proper way of deliverance, is to forsake their sin by repentance, and by faith now to come to Christ for deliverance from the deserved eternal punishment; but this it would not be, if deliverance from that punishment was not this way to be obtained.
But
what is a still more plain and direct evidence of what I am now arguing
for, is, that the act of faith which Abraham exercised in the great
promise of the covenant of grace that God made to him, of which it is
expressly said,
Moreover, the apostle Paul, in the
On
the whole, it appears, that the perseverance of faith is necessary,
even to the congruity of justification; and that not the less, because
the sinner is justified, and perseverance promised, on the first act of
faith, but God, in that justification, has respect, not only to the
past act of faith, but to his own promise of future acts, and to the
fitness of a qualification beheld as yet only in his own promise. And
that perseverance in faith is thus necessary to salvation, not merely
as a sine qua non, nor as an universal
concomitant of it, but by reason of such an influence and dependence,
seems manifest by many scriptures: I would mention two or three;
And, as the congruity to a final justification depends on perseverance in faith, as well as the first act, so oftentimes the manifestation of justification in the conscience, arises as great deal more from after acts, than the first act. And all the difference whereby the first act of faith has a concern in this affair that is peculiar, seems to be, as it were, only an accidental difference, arising from the circumstance of time, or its being first in order of time; and not from any peculiar respect that God has to it, or any influence it has of a peculiar nature, in the affair of our salvation.
And
thus it is that a truly christian walk, and the acts of an evangelical,
child-like, believing obedience, are concerned in the affair of our
justification, and seem to be sometimes so spoken of in Scripture, viz.
as an expression of a persevering faith in the Son of God, the only
Saviour. Faith unites to Christ, and so gives a congruity to
justification, not merely as remaining a dormant principle in the
heart, but as being and appearing in its active expressions. The
obedience of a Christian, so far as it is truly evangelical, and
performed with the Spirit of the Son sent forth into the heart, has all
relation to Christ, the Mediator, and is but an expression of the
soul’s believing unition to Christ. All evangelical works are works of
that faith that worketh by love; and every such act of obedience,
wherein it is inward, and the act of the soul, is only a new effective
act of reception of Christ, and adherence to the glorious Saviour.
Hence that of the apostle,
And
that God in justification has respect, not only to the first act of
faith, but also to future persevering acts, as expressed in life, seems
manifest by
So that as was before said of faith, so may it be said of a child-like believing obedience, it has no concern in justification by any virtue or excellency in it; but only as there is a reception of Christ in it. And this is no more contrary to the apostle’s frequent assertion of our being justified without the works of the law, than to say that we are justified by faith; for faith is as much a work, or act of christian obedience, as the expressions of faith, in spiritual life and walk. And therefore, as we say that faith does not justify as a work, so we say of all these effective expressions of faith.
This is the reverse of the scheme of our modern divines, who hold, that faith justifies only as an act or expression of obedience; whereas, in truth, obedience has no concern in justification, any otherwise than as an expression of faith.
I now proceed to the
IV. Thing proposed, viz. To answer objections.
Object.
1. We frequently find promises of eternal life and salvation, and
sometimes of justification itself, made our own virtue and obedience.
Eternal life is promised to obedience, in
To this I answer,
1. These things being promised to our virtue and obedience, argues no more, that that there is a connexion between them and evangelical obedience; which, I have already observed, is not the thing in dispute. All that can be proved by obedience and salvation being connected in the promise, is, that obedience and salvation are connected in fact; which nobody denies; and whether it be owned or denied, is, as has been shown, nothing to the purpose. There is no need that an admission to a title to salvation, should be given on the account of our obedience, in order to the promises being true. If we find such a promise, that he that obeys shall be saved, or he that is holy shall be justified; all that is needful, in order to such promises being true, is, that it be really so, that he that obeys shall be saved, and that holiness and justification shall indeed go together. That proposition may be a truth, that he that obeys shall be saved; because obedience and salvation are 643connected together in fact; and yet an acceptance to a title to salvation not be granted upon the account of any of our own virtue or obedience. What is a promise, but only a declaration of future truth, for the comfort and encouragement of the person to whom it is declared? Promises are conditional propositions; and, as has been already observed, it is not the thing in dispute, whether other things besides faith may not have the place of the condition in such propositions wherein pardon and salvation are the consequent.
2. Promises may rationally be made to signs and evidences of faith, and yet the thing promised not be upon the account of the sign, but the thing signified. Thus, for instance, human government may rationally make promises of such and such privileges to those that can show such evidences of their being free of such a city, or members of such a corporation, or descended of such a family; when it is not at all for the sake of that which is the evidence or sign, in itself considered, that they are admitted to such a privilege, but only and purely for the sake of that which it is an evidence of. And though God does not stand in need of signs to know whether we have true faith or not, yet our own consciences do; so that it is much for our comfort that promises are made to signs of faith. Finding in ourselves a forgiving temper and disposition, may be a most proper and natural evidence to our consciences, that our hearts have, in a sense of our own utter unworthiness, truly closed and fallen in with the way of free and infinitely gracious forgiveness of our sins by Jesus Christ; whence we may be enabled, with the greater comfort, to apply to ourselves the promises of forgiveness by Christ.
3. It has been just now shown, how that acts of evangelical obedience are indeed concerned in our justification itself, and are not excluded from that condition that justification depends upon, without the least prejudice to that doctrine of justification by faith, without any goodness of our own, that has been maintained; and therefore it can be no objection against this doctrine, that we have sometimes in Scripture promises of pardon and acceptance made to such acts of obedience.
4. Promises of particular benefits implied in justification and salvation, may especially be fitly made to such expressions and evidences of faith as they have a peculiar natural likeness and suitableness to. As forgiveness is promised to a forgiving spirit in us; obtaining mercy is fitly promised to mercifulness in us, and the like; and that upon several accounts, they are the most natural evidences of our heart’s closing with those benefits by faith; for they do especially show the sweet accord and consent that there is between the heart and these benefits; and by reason of the natural likeness that there is between the virtue and the benefit, the one has the greater tendency to bring the other to mind; the practice of the virtue tends the more to renew the sense, and refresh the hope, of the blessing promised; and also to convince the conscience of the justice of being denied the benefit, if the duty be neglected. Besides the sense and manifestation of divine forgiveness in our own consciences—yea, and may exercises of God’s forgiving mercy, (as it respects God’s fatherly displeasure,) granted after justification, through the course of a Christian’s life—may be given as the proper rewards of a forgiving spirit, and yet this not be at all to the prejudice of the doctrine we have maintained; as will more fully appear, when we come to answer another objection hereafter to be mentioned.
Object. 2. Our own obedience, and inherent holiness, is necessary to prepare men for heaven; and therefore is doubtless what recommends persons to God’s acceptance, as the heirs of heaven.
To this I answer,
1. Our own obedience being necessary in order to a preparation for an actual bestowment of glory, is no argument that it is the thing upon the account of which we are accepted to a right to it. God may, and does do many things to prepare the saints for glory, after he has accepted them as the heirs of glory. A parent may do much to prepare a child for an inheritance in its education, after the child is an heir; yea, there are many things necessary to fit a child for the actual possession of the inheritance, yet not necessary in order to its having a right to the inheritance.
2. If every thing that is necessary to prepare men for glory must be the proper condition of justification, then perfect holiness is the condition of justification. Men must be made perfectly holy, before they are admitted to the enjoyment of the blessedness of heaven; for there must in no wise enter in there any spiritual defilement. And therefore, when a saint dies, he leaves all his sin and corruption when he leaves the body.
Object.
3. Our obedience is not only indissolubly connected with salvation, and
preparatory to it, but the Scripture expressly speaks of bestowing
eternal blessings as rewards for the good deeds of the saints.
In answer to the first
part of this objection, I would observe, that it does not argue that we
are justified by our good deeds, that we shall have eternal blessings
in reward for them; for it is in consequence of our justification, that
our good deeds become rewardable with spiritual and eternal rewards.
The acceptableness, and so the rewardableness, of our virtue, is not
antecedent to justification, but follows it, and is built entirely upon
it; which is the reverse of what those in the adverse scheme of
justification suppose, viz.
that justification is built on the acceptableness and reward of our
virtue. They suppose that a saving interest in Christ is given as a
reward of our virtue, or, (which is the same thing,) as a testimony of
God’s acceptance of our excellency in our virtue. But the contrary is
true; that God’s respect to our virtue as our amiableness in his sight,
and his acceptance of it as rewardable, is entirely built on our
interest in Christ already established. So that the relation to Christ,
whereby believers in scripture language are said to be in Christ, is
the very foundation of our virtues and good deeds being accepted of
God, and so of their being rewarded; for a reward is a testimony of
acceptance. For we, and all that we do, are accepted only in the
beloved,
The reason of this may be seen from what has been already said, to show it is not meet that any thing in us should be accepted of God as any excellency of our persons, until we are actually in Christ, and justified through him. The loveliness of the virtue of fallen creatures is nothing in the sight of God, till he beholds them in Christ, and clothed with his righteousness. 1. Because till then we stand condemned before God, by his own holy law, to his utter rejection and abhorrence. And, 2. Because we are infinitely guilty before him; and the loveliness of our virtue bears no proportion to our guilt, and must therefore pass for nothing before a strict judge. And, 3. Because our good deeds and virtuous acts themselves are in a sense corrupt; and the hatefulness of the corruption of them, if we are beheld as we are in ourselves, or separate from Christ, infinitely outweighs the loveliness of the good that is in them. So that if no other sin was considered but only that which attends the act of virtue itself, the loveliness vanishes into nothing in comparison of it; and therefore the virtue must pass for nothing, out of Christ. Not only are our best duties defiled, in being attended with the exercises of sin and corruption which precede, follow, and are intermingled with them; but even the holy acts themselves, and the gracious exercises of the godly, are defective. Though the act most simply considered is good, yet take the acts in their measure and dimensions, and the manner in which they are exerted, and they are sinfully defective; there is that defect in them that may well be called the corruption of them. That defect is properly sin, an expression of a vile sinfulness of heart, and what tends to provoke the just anger of God: not because the exercise of love and other grace is not equal to God’s loveliness; for it is impossible the love of creatures (men or angels) should be so; but because the act is so very disproportionate to the occasion given for love or other grace, considering God’s loveliness, the manifestation that is made of it, the exercises of kindness, the capacity of human nature, and our advantages (and the like) together.—A negative expression of corruption may be as truly sin, and as just cause of provocation, as a positive. Thus if a worthy and excellent person should, from mere generosity and goodness, exceedingly lay out himself, and with great expense and suffering save another’s life, or redeem him from some extreme calamity; and if that other person should never thank him for it, or express the least gratitude any way; this would be a negative expression of his ingratitude and baseness; but is equivalent to an act of ingratitude, or positive exercise of a base unworthy spirit; and is truly an expression of it, and brings as much blame as if he by some positive act had much injured another person. And so it would be (only in a lesser degree) if the gratitude was but very small, bearing no proportion to the benefit and obligation: as if, for so great and extraordinary a kindness, he should express no more gratitude than would have been becoming towards a person who had only given him a cup of water when thirsty, or shown him the way in a journey when at a loss, or had done him some such small kindness. If he should come to his benefactor to express his gratitude, and should do after this manner, he might truly be said to act unworthily and odiously; he would show a most ungrateful spirit. His doing after such a manner might justly be abhorred by all; and yet the gratitude, that little there is of it, most simply considered, and so far as it goes, is good. And so it is with respect to our exercise of love, and gratitude, and other graces, towards God; they are defectively corrupt and sinful, and, take them as they are, in their manner and measure, might justly be odious and provoking to God, and would necessarily be so, were we beheld out of Christ. For in that this defect is sin, it is infinitely hateful; and so the hatefulness of the very act infinitely outweighs the loveliness of it; because all sin has infinite hatefulness and heinousness; but our holiness has but little value and loveliness, as has been elsewhere demonstrated.
Hence, though it be true that the saints are rewarded for their good works, yet it is for Christ’s sake only, and not for the excellency of their works in themselves considered, or beheld separately from Christ; for so they have no excellency in God’s sight, or acceptableness to him, as has now been shown. It is acknowledged that God, in rewarding the holiness and good works of believers, does in some respect give them happiness as a testimony of his respect to the loveliness of their holiness and good works in his sight; for that is the very notion of a reward. But it is in a very different sense from what would have been if man had not fallen; which would have been to bestow eternal life on man, as a testimony of God’s respect to the loveliness of what man did, considered as in itself, and as in man separately by himself, and not beheld as a member of Christ. In which sense also, the scheme of justification we are opposing necessarily supposes the excellency of our virtue to be respected and rewarded; for it supposes a saving interest in Christ itself to be given as a reward of it.
Two
things come to pass, relating to the saints’ reward for their inherent
righteousness, by virtue of their relation to Christ. 1. The guilt of
their persons is all done away, and the pollution and hatefulness that
attends and is in their good works, is hid. 2. Their relation to Christ
adds a positive value and dignity to their good works in God’s sight.
That little holiness, and those faint and feeble acts of love, and
other grace, receive an exceeding value in the sight of God, by virtue
of God’s beholding them as in Christ, and as it were members of one so
infinitely worthy in his eyes; and that because God looks upon the
persons as of greater dignity on this account.
If
we suppose that not only higher degrees of glory in heaven, but heaven
itself, is in some respect given in reward for the holiness and good
works of the saints, in this secondary an derivative sense, it will not
prejudice the doctrine we have maintained. It is no way impossible that
God may bestow heaven’s glory wholly out of respect to Christ’s
righteousness, and yet in reward for man’s inherent holiness, in
different respects, and different ways. It may be only Christ’s
righteousness that God has respect to, for its own sake, the
independent acceptableness and dignity of it being sufficient of itself
to recommend all that believe in Christ to a title to this glory; and
so it may be only by this that persons enter into a title to heaven, or
have their prime right to it: and yet God may also have respect to the
saints’ own holiness, for Christ’s sake, and as deriving a value from
Christ’s merit, which he may testify in bestowing heaven upon them. The
saints being beheld as members of Christ, their obedience is looked
upon by God as something of Christ’s, it being the obedience of the
members of Christ; as the sufferings of the members of Christ are
looked upon, in some respect, as the sufferings of Christ. Hence the
apostle, speaking of his sufferings, says,
By the merit and righteousness of Christ, such favour of God towards the believer may be obtained, as that God may hereby be already, as it were, disposed to make them perfectly and eternally happy. But yet this does not hinder, but that God in his wisdom may choose to bestow this perfect and eternal happiness in this way, viz. in some respect as a reward of their holiness and obedience. It is not impossible but that the blessedness may be bestowed as a reward for that which is done after that an interest is already obtained in that favour, which (to speak of God after the manner of men) disposes God to bestow the blessedness. Our heavenly Father may already have that favour for a child, whereby he may be thoroughly ready to give the child an inheritance, because he is his child; which he is by the purchase of Christ’s righteousness: and yet that the Father may choose to bestow the inheritance on the child in a way of reward for his dutifulness, and behaving in a manner becoming a child. And so great a reward may not be judged more than a meet reward for his dutifulness; but that so great a reward is judged meet, does not arise from the excellency of the obedience absolutely considered, but from his standing in so near and honourable a relation to God, as that of a child, which is obtained only by the righteousness of Christ. And thus the reward, and the greatness of it, arises properly from the righteousness of Christ; though it be indeed in some sort the reward of their obedience. As a father might justly esteem the inheritance no more than a meet reward for the obedience of his child, and yet esteem it more than a meet reward for the obedience of a servant. The favour whence a believer’s heavenly Father bestows the eternal inheritance, and his title as an heir, is founded in that relation he stands in to him as a child, purchased by Christ’s righteousness; though he in wisdom chooses to bestow it in such a way, and therein to testify his acceptance of the amiableness of his obedience in Christ.
Believers
having a title to heaven by faith antecedent to their obedience, or its
being absolutely promised to them before, does not hinder but that the
actual bestowment of heaven may also be a testimony of God’s regard to
their obedience, though performed afterwards. Thus it was with Abraham,
the father and pattern of all believers: God bestowed upon him that
blessing of multiplying his seed as the stars of heaven, and causing
that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed, in
reward for his obedience in offering up his son Isaac,
From what has been said we may easily solve the difficulty arising from that text in
1.
God looks on these glorious benefits as a meet testimony of his regard
to the value which their persons have in his sight. But he sets this
value upon their persons purely for Christ’s sake. They are such
jewels, and have such preciousness in his eyes, only because they are
beheld in Christ, and by reason of the worthiness of the head they are
the members of, and the stock they are grafted into. And the value that
God sets upon them on this account is so great, that God thinks meet,
from regard to it, to admit them to such exceeding glory. The saints,
on account of their relation to Christ, are such precious jewels in
God’s sight, that they are thought worthy of a place in his own crown.
2.
From the value God sets upon their persons, for the sake of Christ’s
worthiness, he also sets a high value on their virtue and performances.
Their meek and quiet spirit is of great price in his sight. Their
fruits are pleasant fruits, their offerings are an odour of sweet smell
to him; and that because of the value he sets on their persons, as has
been already observed and explained. This preciousness or high
valuableness of believers is a moral fitness to a reward; and yet this
valuableness is all in the righteousness of Christ, that is the
foundation of it. The thing respected is not excellency in them
separately by themselves, or in their virtue by itself, but the value
in God’s account arises from other considerations; which is the natural
import of
There is a vast difference between this scheme, and what is supposed in the scheme of those that oppose the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This lays the foundation of first acceptance with God, and all actual salvation consequent upon it, wholly in Christ and his righteousness. On the contrary, in their scheme, a regard to man’s own excellency or virtue is supposed to be first, and to have the place of the first foundation in actual salvation, though not in that ineffectual redemption, which they suppose common 646to all. They lay the foundation of all discriminating salvation in man’s own virtue and moral excellency. This is the very bottom stone in this affair; for they suppose that it is from regard to our virtue, that even a special interest in Christ itself is given. The foundation being thus contrary, the whole scheme becomes exceeding diverse and contrary; the one is utterly inconsistent with our being justified by Christ’s righteousness, the other not at all.
From what has been said, we may understand, not only how the forgiveness of sin granted in justification is indissolubly connected with a forgiving spirit in us, but how there may be many exercises of forgiving mercy granted in reward for our forgiving those who trespass against us. For none will deny but that there are many acts of divine forgiveness towards the saints, that do not presuppose an unjustified state immediately preceding that forgiveness. None will deny, that saints who never fell from a justified state, yet commit many sins which God forgives afterwards, by laying aside his fatherly displeasure. This forgiveness may be in reward for our forgiveness, without any prejudice to the doctrine that has been maintained, as well as other mercies and blessings consequent on justification.
With respect to the second
part of the objection, that relates to the different degrees of glory,
and the seeming inconsistence there is in it, that the degrees of glory
in different saints should be greater or lesser according to their
inherent holiness and good works, and yet, that every one’s glory
should be purchased with the price of the very same imputed
righteousness,—I answer, That Christ, by his righteousness, purchased
for every one complete and perfect happiness, according to his
capacity. But this does not hinder but that the saints, being of
various capacities, may have various degrees of happiness, and yet all
their happiness be the fruit of Christ’s purchase. Indeed it cannot be
properly said, that Christ purchased any particular degree of
happiness, so that the value of Christ’s righteousness in the sight of
God, is sufficient to raise a believer so high in happiness, and no
higher, and so that if the believer were made happier, it would exceed
the value of Christ’s righteousness; but in general, Christ purchased
eternal life, or perfect happiness for all, according to their several
capacities. The saints are as so many vessels of different sizes, cast
into the sea of happiness, where every vessel is full; this Christ
purchased for all. But after all, it is left to God’s sovereign
pleasure to determine the largeness of the vessel; Christ’s
righteousness meddles not with this matter.
This
matter may be yet better understood, if we consider that Christ and the
whole church of saints are, as it were, one body, of which he is the
Head, and they members of different place and capacity: now the whole
body, head, and members, have communion in Christ’s righteousness; they
are all partakers of the benefit of it; Christ himself the Head is
rewarded for it, and every member is partaker of the benefit and
reward. But it does by no means follow, that every part should equally
partake of the benefit, but every part in proportion to its place and
capacity; the Head partakes of far more than other parts, and the more
noble members partake of more than the inferior. As it is in a natural
body that enjoys perfect health, the head, and the heart, and lungs,
have a greater share of this health, they have it more seated in them,
than the hands and feet, because they are parts of greater capacity;
though the hands and feet are as much in perfect health as those nobler
parts of the body. So it is in the mystical body of Christ, all the
members are partakers of the benefit of the Head; but it is according
to the different capacity and place they have in the body; and God
determines that place and capacity as he pleases; he makes whom he
pleases the foot, and whom he pleases the hand, and whom he pleases the
lungs, &c.
Object. 4. It may be objected against what has been supposed, (viz.
That rewards are given to our good works, only in consequence of an
interest in Christ, or in testimony of God’s respect to the excellency
or value of them in his sight, as built on an interest in Christ’s
righteousness already obtained,) That the Scripture speaks of an
interest in Christ itself, as being given out of respect to our moral
fitness.
To this I answer, That though persons when they are accepted, are not accepted as worthy, yet when they are rejected, they are rejected as unworthy.
He that does not love Christ above other things, but treats him with
such indignity, as to set him below earthly things, shall be treated as
unworthy of Christ; his unworthiness of Christ, especially in that
particular, shall be marked against him, and imputed to him. And though
he be a professing Christian, and live in the enjoyment of the gospel,
and has been visibly ingrafted into Christ, and admitted as one of his
disciples, as Judas was; yet he shall be thrust out in wrath, as a
punishment of his vile treatment of Christ. The forementioned words do
not imply, that if a man does love Christ above father and mother,
&c. that he would be worthy; the most they imply is, that such a visible Christian
647
shall be treated and thrust out as unworthy. He that believes is not
received for the worthiness or moral fitness of faith; but yet the
visible Christian is cast out by God, for the unworthiness and moral
unfitness of unbelief. A being accepted as one of Christ’s, is not the
reward of believing; but being thrust out from being one of Christ’s
disciples, after a visible admission as such, is properly a punishment
of unbelief.
Object. 5. It is objected against the doctrine of justification by faith alone, That repentance is evidently spoken of in Scripture as that which is in a special manner the condition of remission of sins; but remission of sins is by all allowed to be that wherein justification does (at least) in great part consist.
But it must certainly arise from a misunderstanding of what the Scripture says about repentance, to suppose that faith and repentance are two distinct things, that in like manner are the conditions of justification. For it is most plain from the Scripture, that the condition of justification, or that in us by which we are justified, is but one, and that is faith. Faith and repentance are not two distinct conditions of justification, nor are they two distinct things that together make one condition of justification; but faith comprehends the whole of that by which we are justified, or by which we come to have an interest in Christ, and there is nothing else has a parallel concern with it in the affair of our salvation. And this the divines on the other side themselves are sensible of, and therefore they suppose that the faith the apostle Paul speaks of, which he says we are justified by alone, comprehends in it repentance.
And
therefore, in answer to the objection, I would say, That when
repentance is spoken of in Scripture as the condition of pardon,
thereby is not intended any particular grace, or act, properly distinct
from faith, that has a parallel influence with it in the affair of our
pardon or justification; but by repentance is intended nothing distinct
from active conversion, (or conversion actively considered,) as it
respects the term from which. Active conversion is a motion or exercise
of the mind that respects two terms, viz. sin and
God; and by repentance is meant this conversion, or active change of
the mind, so far as it is conversant about the term from which, or
about sin. This is what the word repentance properly signifies; which, in the original of the New Testament, is NOT ENGLISH, and signifies a change of the mind, or, which is the same thing, the turning or the conversion of the mind. Repentance is this turning, as it respects
what is turned from.
If
we look over the scriptures that speak of evangelical repentance, we
shall presently see that repentance is to be understood in this sense;
as
Now
it is true, that conversion is the condition of pardon and
justification: but if it be so, how absurd is it to say, that
conversion is one condition of justification, and faith another, as
though they were two distributively distinct and parallel conditions!
Conversion is the condition of justification, because it is that great
change by which we are brought from sin to Christ, and by which we
become believers in him: agreeable to
And besides, evangelical repentance, being active conversion, is not to be treated of as a particular grace, properly and entirely distinct from faith, as by some it seems to have been. What is conversion, but the sinful, alienated soul’s closing with Christ, or the sinner’s being brought to believe in Christ? That exercise of soul in conversion that respects sin, cannot be excluded out of the nature of faith in Christ: there is something in faith, or closing with Christ, that respects sin, and that is evangelical repentance. That repentance which in Scripture is called, repentance for the remission of sins, is that very principle or operation of the mind itself that is called faith, so far as it is conversant about sin. Justifying faith in a Mediator is conversant about two things: it is conversant about sin or evil to be rejected and to be delivered from, and about positive good to be accepted and obtained by the Mediator; as conversant about the former of these, it is evangelical repentance, or repentance for remission of sins. Surely they must be very ignorant, or at least very inconsiderate, of the whole tenor of the gospel, who think that the repentance by which remission of sins is obtained, can be completed, as to all that is essential to it, without any respect to Christ, or application of the mind to the Mediator, who alone has made atonement for sin. Surely so great a part of salvation as remission of sins, is not to be obtained without looking or coming to the great and only 648 Saviour. It is true, repentance, in its more general abstracted nature, is only a sorrow for sin, and forsaking of it, which is a duty of natural religion; but evangelical repentance, or repentance for remission of sins, hath more than this essential to it; a dependence of soul on the Mediator for deliverance from sin, is of the essence of it.
That justifying repentance has the nature of faith, seems evident by
That in justifying faith which directly respects sin, or the evil to be delivered from by the Mediator, is as follows: a sense of our own sinfulness, and the hatefulness of it, and a hearty acknowledgement of its desert of the threatened punishment, looking to the free mercy of God in a Redeemer, for deliverance from it and its punishment.
Concerning this, here described, three things may be noted: 1. That it is the very same with that evangelical repentance to which remission of sins is promised in Scripture. 2. That it is of the essence of justifying faith, and is the same with that faith, so far as it is conversant about evil to be delivered from by the Mediator. 3. That this is indeed the proper and peculiar condition of remission of sins.
1.
All of it is essential to evangelical repentance, and is indeed the
very thing meant by that repentance, to which remission of sins is
promised in the gospel. As to the former part of the description, viz.
a sense of our own sinfulness, and hatefulness of it, and a hearty
acknowledgement of its desert of wrath, none will deny it to be
included in repentance: but this does not comprehend the whole essence
of evangelical repentance; but what follows does also properly and
essentially belong to its nature, looking to the free mercy of God in a
Redeemer, for deliverance from it, and the punishment of it. That
repentance to which remission is promised, not only always has this
with it, but it is contained in it, as what is of the proper nature and
essence of it: and respect is ever had to this in the nature of
repentance, whenever remission is promised to it; and it is especially
from respect to this in the nature of repentance, that it has that
promise made to it. If this latter part be missing, it fails of the
nature of that evangelical repentance to which remission of sins is
promised. If repentance remains in sorrow for sin, and does not reach
to a looking to the free mercy of God in Christ for pardon, it is not
that which is the condition of pardon, neither shall pardon be obtained
by it. Evangelical repentance is an humiliation for sin before God; but
the sinner never comes and humbles himself before God in any other
repentance, but that which includes hoping in his mercy for remission:
if sorrow be not accompanied with that, there will be no coming to God
in it, but a flying further from him. There is some worship of God in
justifying repentance; but that is not in any other repentance which
has not a sense of and faith in the divine mercy to forgive sin;
2. All the forementioned description is of the essence of justifying faith, and not different from it, so far as it is conversant about sin, or the evil to be delivered from by the Mediator. For it is doubtless of the essence of justifying faith, to embrace Christ as a Saviour from sin and its punishment; and all that is contained in that act is contained in the nature of faith itself. But in the act of embracing Christ as a Saviour from our sin and its punishment, is implied a sense of our sinfulness, and a hatred of our sins, or a rejecting them with abhorrence, and a sense of our desert of punishment. Embracing Christ as a Saviour from sin, implies the contrary act, viz. a rejecting sin. If we fly to the light to be delivered from darkness, the same act is contrary to darkness, viz. a rejecting of it. In proportion to the earnestness with which we embrace Christ as a Saviour from sin, in the same proportion is the abhorrence with which we reject sin, in the same act. Yea, suppose there be in the nature of faith, as conversant about sin, no more than the hearty embracing of Christ as a Saviour from the punishment of sin, this act will imply in it the whole of the above-mentioned description. It implies a sense of our own sinfulness. Certainly in the hearty embracing of a Saviour from the punishment of our sinfulness, there is the exercise of a sense that we are sinful. We cannot heartily embrace Christ as a Saviour from the punishment of that which we are not sensible we are guilty of. There is also in the same act, a sense of our desert of the threatened punishment. We cannot heartily embrace Christ as a Saviour from that which we are not sensible that we have deserved. For if we are not sensible that we have deserved the punishment, we shall not be sensible that we have any need of a Saviour from it, or, at least, shall not be convinced but that God who offers the Saviour, unjustly makes him needful; and we cannot heartily embrace such an offer. And further, there is implied in a hearty embracing Christ as a Saviour from punishment, not only a conviction of conscience, that we have deserved the punishment, such as the devils and damned have; but there is a hearty acknowledgment of it, with the submission of the soul, so as, with the accord of the heart, to own that God might be just in the punishment. If the heart rises against the act or judgment of God, in holding us obliged to the punishment, when he offers us his Son as a Saviour from the punishment, we cannot with the consent of the heart receive him in that 649character: but if persons thus submit to the righteousness of so dreadful a punishment of sin, this carries in it a hatred of sin.
That
such a sense of our sinfulness, and utter unworthiness, and desert of
punishment, belongs to the nature of saving faith, is what the
Scripture from time to time holds forth; as particularly in
These things do not necessarily suppose that repentance and faith are words of just the same signification; for it is only so much in justifying faith as respects the evil to be delivered from by the Saviour, that is called repentance. Besides, both repentance and faith, take them only in their general nature, are entirely distinct; repentance is a sorrow for sin, and forsaking of it; and faith is a trusting in God’s sufficiency and truth. But faith and repentance, as evangelical duties, or justifying faith, and repentance for remission of sins, contain more in them, and imply a respect to a mediator, and involve each other’s nature; [1] though they still bear the name of faith and repentance, from those general moral virtues—that repentance, which is a duty of natural religion, and that faith, which was a duty required under the first covenant—that are contained in this evangelical act; which severally appear, when this act is considered with respect to its different terms and objects.
It
may be objected here, that the Scripture sometimes mentions faith and
repentance together, as if they were entirely distinct things; as in
Another Scripture where faith and repentance are mentioned together, is
To this I answer, That faith and repentance, in their general nature, are distinct things; and repentance for the remission of sins, or that in justifying faith that respects the evil to be delivered from, so far as it regards that term, which is what especially denominates it repentance, has respect to God as the object, because he is the Being offended by sin, and to be reconciled, but that in this justifying act, whence it is denominated faith, does more especially respect Christ. But let us interpret it how we will, the objection of faith being here so distinguished from repentance, is as much of an objection against the scheme of those that oppose justification by faith alone, as against this scheme; for they hold that the justifying faith the apostle Paul speaks of, includes repentance, as has been already observed.
3.
This repentance that has been described, is indeed the special
condition of remission of sins. This seems very evident by the
Scripture, as particularly,
And the reason may be plain from what has been said. We need not wonder that what in faith especially respects sin, should be especially the condition of remission of sins; or that this motion or exercise of the soul, as it rejects and flies from evil, and embraces Christ as a Saviour from it, should especially be the condition of being free from that evil; and in like manner, as the same principle or motion, as it seeks good, and cleaves to Christ as the procurer of that good, should be the condition of obtaining that good. Faith with respect to good is accepting, and with respect to evil it is rejecting. Yea this rejecting evil is itself an act of acceptance; it is accepting freedom or separation from that evil; and this freedom or separation is the benefit bestowed in remission. No wonder that what in faith immediately respects this benefit, and is our acceptance of it, should be the special condition of our having it. It is so with respect to all the benefits that Christ has purchased. Trusting in God through Christ for such a particular benefit that we need, is the special condition of obtaining that benefit. When we need protection from enemies, the exercise of faith with respect to such a benefit, or trusting in Christ for protection from enemies, is especially the way to obtain that particular benefit, rather than trusting in Christ for something else; and so of any other benefit that might be mentioned. So prayer (which is the expression of faith) for a particular mercy needed, is especially the way to obtain that mercy. [1] So that no argument can be drawn from hence against the doctrine of justification by faith alone. And there is that in the nature of repentance, which peculiarly tends to establish the contrary of justification by works: for nothing so much renounces our own worthiness and excellency, as repentance; the very nature of it is to acknowledge our own utter sinfulness and unworthiness, and to renounce our own goodness, and all confidence in self; and so to trust in the propitiation of the Mediator, and ascribe all the glory of forgiveness to him.
Object. 6. The last objection I shall mention, is that paragraph in the
In answer to this objection, I would,
1. Take notice of the great unfairness of the divines that 650 oppose us, in the improvement they make of this passage against us. All will allow, that in that proposition of St. James, “By works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” one of the terms, either the word faith, or else the word justify, is not to be understood precisely in the same sense as the same terms when used by St. Paul; because they suppose, as well as we, that it was not the intent of the apostle James to contradict St. Paul in that doctrine of justification by faith alone, in which he had instructed the churches. But if we understand both the terms, as used by each apostle, in precisely the same sense, then what one asserts is a precise, direct, and full contradiction of the other, the one affirming and the other denying the very same thing. So that all the controversy from this text comes to this, viz. which of these two terms shall be understood in a diversity from St. Paul. They say that it is the word faith; for they suppose, that when the apostle Paul uses the word, and makes faith that by which alone we are justified, that then by it is understood a compliance with and practice of Christianity in general; so as to include all saving christian virtue and obedience. But as the apostle James uses the word faith in this place, they suppose thereby is to be understood only an assent of the understanding to the truth of gospel doctrines, as distinguished from good works, and that may exist separate from them, and from all saving grace. We, on the other hand, suppose that the word justify is to be understood in a different sense from the apostle Paul. So that they are forced to go as far in their scheme, in altering the sense of terms from Paul’s use of them, as we. But yet at the same time that they freely vary the sense of the former of them, viz. faith, yet when we understand the latter, viz. justify, in a different sense from St. Paul, they exclaim against us. What necessity of framing this distinction, but only to serve an opinion? At this rate a man may maintain any thing, though never so contrary to Scripture, and elude the clearest text in the Bible! though they do not show us why we have not as good warrant to understand the word justify in a diversity from St. Paul, as they the word faith. If the sense of one of the words must be varied on either scheme, to make the apostle James’s doctrine consistent with the apostle Paul’s; and if varying the sense of one term or the other be all that stands in the way of their agreeing with either scheme; and if varying the sense of the latter be in itself as fair as of the former, then the text lies as fair for one scheme as the other, and can no more fairly be an objection against our scheme than theirs. And if so, what becomes of all this great objection from this passage in James?
2. If there be no more difficulty in varying the sense of one of these terms than another, from any thing in the text itself, so as to make the words suit with either scheme, then certainly that is to be chosen that is most agreeable to the current of Scripture, and other places where the same matter is more particularly and fully treated of; and therefore that we should understand the word justify in this passage of James, in a sense in some respects diverse from that in which St. Paul uses it. For by what has been already said, it may appear, that there is no doctrine in the whole Bible more fully asserted, explained, and urged, than the doctrine of justification by faith alone, without any of our own righteousness.
3.
There is a very fair interpretation of this passage of St. James, no
way inconsistent with this doctrine of justification, which I have
shown that other scriptures abundantly teach, which the words
themselves will as well allow of, as that which the objectors put upon
them, and much better agrees with the context; and that is, that works
are here spoken of as justifying as evidences. A man may be said to be
justified by that which clears him, or vindicates him, or makes the
goodness of his cause manifest. When a person has a cause tried in a
civil court, and is justified or cleared, he may be said in different
senses to be justified or cleared, by the goodness of his cause, and by
the goodness of the evidences of it. He may be said to be cleared by
what evidences his cause to be good; but not in the same sense as he is
by that which makes his cause to be good. That which renders his cause
good, is the proper ground of his justification; it is by that that he
is himself a proper subject of it; but evidences justify, only as they
manifest that his cause is good in fact, whether they are of such a
nature as to have any influence to render it so or no. It is by works
that our cause appears to be good; but by faith our cause not only
appears to be good, but becomes good; because thereby we are united to
Christ. That the word justify should be sometimes understood to signify the former of these, as well as the latter, is agreeable to the
use of the word in common speech; as we say such an one stood up to justify another, i.e.
he endeavoured to show or manifest his cause to be good.–And it is
certain that the word is sometimes used in this sense in Scripture,
when speaking of our being justified before God; as where it is said,
we shall be justified by our words,
God
himself, when he acts towards men as judge, in order to a declarative
judgment, makes use of evidences, and so judges men by their works. And
therefore, at the day of judgment, God will judge men according to
their works: for though God will stand in no need of evidence to inform
him what is right, yet it is to be considered, that he will then sit in
judgment, not as earthly judges do, to find out what is right in a
cause, but to declare and manifest what is right: and therefore the day
is called by the apostle, “the day of the revelation of the righteous
judgment of God.”
To be justified, is to be approved of and accepted: but a man may be said to be approved and accepted in two respects; the one is to be approved really, and the other to be approved and accepted declaratively. Justification is twofold; it is either the acceptance and approbation of the judge itself, or the manifestation of that approbation, by a sentence or judgment declared by the judge, either to our own consciences, or to the world. If justification be understood in the former sense, for the approbation itself, that is only that by which we become fit to be approved: but if it be understood in the latter sense, for the manifestation of this approbation, it is by whatever is a proper evidence of that fitness. In the former, only faith is concerned; because it is by that only in us that we become fit to be accepted and approved: in the latter, whatever is an evidence of our fitness, is alike concerned. And therefore, take justification in this sense, and then faith, and all other graces and good works, have a common and equal concern in it: for any other grace, or holy act, is equally an evidence of a qualification for acceptance or approbation, as faith.
To
justify has always, in common speech, signified indifferently, either
simply approbation, or testifying that approbation; sometimes one, and
sometimes the other; because they are both the same, only as one is
outwardly what the other is inwardly. So we, and it may be all nations,
are wont to give the same name to two things, when one is only
declarative of the other. Thus sometimes judging, intends only judging
in our thoughts; at other times, testifying and declaring judgment. So
such
651words as justify, condemn, accept, reject,
prize, slight, approve, renounce, are sometimes put for mental acts, at
other times, for an outward treatment. So in the sense in which the
apostle James seems to use the word justify for manifestative justification, a man is justified not only by faith, but also by works; as a tree is manifested to be good, not only by immediately examining the tree, but also by the fruit,
[1]
The drift of the apostle does not require that he should be understood in any other sense; for all that he aims at, as appears by a view of the context, is to prove that good works are necessary. The error of those that he opposed was this, That good works were not necessary to salvation; that if they did but believe that there was but one God, and that Christ was the Son of God, and the like, and were baptized, they were safe, let them live how they would; which doctrine greatly tended to licentiousness. The evincing the contrary of this is evidently the apostle’s scope.
And that we should understand the apostle, of works justifying as an evidence,
and in a declarative judgment, is what a due consideration of the
context will naturally lead us to.–For it is plain, that the apostle is
here insisting on works, in the quality of a necessary manifestation
and evidence of faith, or as what the truth of faith is made to appear
by: as
That
the apostle speaks of works justifying only as a sign, or evidence, and
in God’s declarative judgment, is further confirmed by
And in the other instance when the apostle mentions,
4.
If, notwithstanding, any choose to take justification in St. James’s
precisely as we do in Paul’s epistles, for God’s acceptance or
approbation itself, and not any expression of that approbation; what
has been already said concerning the manner in which acts of
evangelical obedience are concerned in the affair of our justification,
affords a very easy, clear, and full answer. For it we take works as
acts or expressions of faith, they are not excluded; so a man is not
justified by faith only, but also by works; i.e., he is not justified
only by faith as a principle in the heart, or in its first and more
immanent acts, but also by the effective acts of it in life, which are
the expressions of the life of faith, as the operations and actions of
the body are of the life of that; agreeable to
What has been said in answer to these objections, may also, I hope, abundantly serve for an answer to another objection, often made against this doctrine, viz. that it encourages licentiousness in life. For, from what has been said, we may see that the Scripture doctrine of justification by faith alone, without any manner of goodness or excellency of ours, does in no wise diminish either the necessity or benefit of a sincere evangelical universal obedience. Man’s salvation is not only indissolubly connected with obedience, and damnation with the want of it, in those who have opportunity for it, but depends upon it in many respects. It is the way to salvation, and the necessary preparation for it; eternal blessings are bestowed in reward for it, and our justification in our own consciences and at the day of judgment, depends on it, as the proper evidence of our acceptable state; and that even in accepting of us as entitled to life in our justification, God has respect to this, as that on which the fitness of such an act of justification depends: so that our salvation does as truly depend upon it, as if we were justified for the moral excellency of it. And besides all this, the degree of our happiness to all eternity is suspended on, and determined by, the degree of this. So that this gospel-scheme of justification is as far from encouraging licentiousness, and contains as much to encourage and excite to strict and universal obedience, and the utmost possible eminency of holiness, as any scheme that can be devised, and indeed unspeakably more.
I come now to the
V. And last thing proposed, which is to consider the “importance of this doctrine.”
I know there are many who make as though this controversy was of no great importance; that it is chiefly a matter of nice speculation, depending on certain subtle distinctions, which many that make use of them do not understand themselves; and that the difference is not of such consequence as to be worth being zealous about; and that more hurt is done by raising disputes about it than good.
Indeed I am far from thinking that it is of absolute necessity persons should understand, and be agreed upon, all the distinctions needful particularly to explain and defend this doctrine against all cavils and objections. Yet all Christians should strive after an increase of knowledge; and none should content themselves without some clear and distinct understanding in this point. But we should believe in the general, according to the clear and abundant revelations of God’s word, that it is none of our own excellency, virtue, or righteousness, that is the ground of our being received from a state of condemnation into a state of acceptance in God’s sight, but only Jesus Christ, and his righteousness and worthiness, received by faith. This I think to be of great importance, at least in application to ourselves; and that for the following reasons.
1. The
Scripture treats of this doctrine, as a doctrine of very great
importance. That there is a certain doctrine of justification by faith,
in opposition to justification by the works of the law, which the
apostle Paul insists upon as of the greatest importance, none will
deny; because there is nothing in the Bible more apparent. The apostle,
under the infallible conduct of the Spirit of God, thought it worth his
most strenuous and zealous disputing about and defending. He speaks of
the contrary doctrine as fatal and ruinous to the souls of men, in the
latter end of the
2. The adverse scheme lays another foundation of man’s salvation than God hath laid. I do not now speak of that ineffectual redemption that they suppose to be universal, and what all mankind are equally subjects of; but, I say, it lays entirely another foundation of man’s actual, discriminating salvation, or that salvation wherein true Christians differ from wicked men. We suppose the foundations of this to be Christ’s worthiness and righteousness: on the contrary, that scheme supposes it to be men’s own virtue; even so, that this is the ground of a saving interest in Christ itself. It takes away Christ out of the place of the bottom stone, and puts in men’s own virtue in the room of him: so that Christ himself in the affair of distinguishing actual salvation, is laid upon this foundation. And the foundation being so different, I leave it to every out to judge whether the difference between the two schemes consists only in punctilios of small consequence. The foundation being contrary, makes the whole scheme exceeding diverse and opposite; the one is a gospel scheme, the other a legal one.
3. It is in this doctrine that the most essential difference lies between the covenant of grace and the first covenant. The adverse scheme of justification supposes that we are justified by our works, in the very same sense wherein man was to have been justified by his works under the first covenant. By that covenant our first parents were not to have had eternal life given them for any proper merit in their obedience; because their perfect obedience was a debt that they owed God. Nor was it to be bestowed for any proportion between the dignity of their obedience, and the value of the reward; but only it was to be bestowed from a regard to a moral fitness in the virtue of their obedience, to the reward of God’s favour; and a title to eternal life was to be given them, as a testimony of God’s pleasedness with their works, or his regard to the inherent beauty of their virtue. And so it is the very same way that those in the adverse scheme suppose that we are received into God’s special favour now, and to those saving benefits that are the testimonies of it. I am sensible the divines of that side entirely disclaim the popish doctrine of merit; and are free to speak of our utter unworthiness, and the great imperfections of all our services. But after all, it is our virtue, imperfect 653 as it is, that recommends men to God, by which good men come to have a saving interest in Christ, and God’s favour, rather than others; and these things are bestowed in testimony of God’s respect to their goodness. So that whether they will allow the term merit or no, yet they hold, that we are accepted by our own merit, in the same sense, though not in the same degree, as under the first covenant.
But
the great and most distinguishing difference between that covenant and
the covenant of grace is, that by the covenant of grace we are not thus
justified by our own works, but only by faith in Jesus Christ. It is on
this account chiefly that the new covenant deserves the name of a
covenant of grace, as is evident by
4.
This is the main thing for which fallen men stood in need of divine
revelation, to teach us how we who have sinned may come to be again
accepted of God; or, which is the same thing, how the sinner may be
justified. Something beyond the light of nature is necessary to
salvation chiefly on this account. Mere natural reason afforded no
means by which we could come to the knowledge of this, it depending on
the sovereign pleasure of the Being that we had offended by sin. This
seems to be the great drift of that revelation which God has given, and
of all those mysteries it reveals, all those great doctrines that are
peculiarly doctrines of revelation, and above the light of nature. It
seems to have been very much on this account, that it was requisite the
doctrine of the Trinity itself should be revealed to us; that by a
discovery of the concern of the several divine persons in the great
affair of our salvation, we might the better understand and see how all
our dependence in this affair is on God, and our sufficiency all in
him, and not in ourselves; that he is all in all in this business,
agreeable to
5.
The contrary scheme of justification derogates much from the honour of
God and the Mediator. I have already shown how it diminishes the glory
of the Mediator, in ascribing that to man’s virtue and goodness, which
belongs alone to his worthiness and righteousness. By the apostle’s
sense of the matter it renders Christ needless.
6.
The opposite scheme does most directly tend to lead men to trust in
their own righteousness for justification, which is a thing fatal to
the soul. This is what men are of themselves exceeding prone to do,
(and that though they are never so much taught the contrary,) through
the partial and high thoughts they have of themselves, and their
exceeding dullness of apprehending any such mystery as our being
accepted for the righteousness of another. But this scheme directly
teaches men to trust in their own righteousness for justification; in
that it teaches them that this is indeed what they must be justified
by, being the way of justification which God himself has appointed. So
that if a man had naturally no disposition to trust in his own
righteousness, yet if he embraced this scheme, and acted consistently,
it would lead him to it. But that trusting in our own righteousness, is
a thing fatal to the soul, is what the Scripture plainly teaches us. It
tells us, that it will cause that Christ shall profit us nothing, and
be of no effect to us,
How far a wonderful and mysterious agency of God’s Spirit may so influence some men’s hearts, that their practice in this regard may be contrary to their own principles, so that they shall not trust in their own righteousness, though they profess that men are justified by their own righteousness—or how far they may believe the doctrine of justification by men’s own righteousness in general, and yet not believe it in a particular application of it to themselves—or how far that error which they may have been led into by education, or cunning sophistry of others, may yet be indeed contrary to the prevailing disposition of their hearts, and contrary to their practice—or how far some may seem to maintain a doctrine contrary to this gospel-doctrine of justification, that really do not, but only express themselves differently from others; or seem to oppose it through their misunderstanding of our expressions, or we of theirs, when indeed our real sentiments are the same in the main—or may seem to differ more than they do, by using terms that are without a precisely fixed and determinate meaning—or to be wide in their sentiments from this doctrine, for want of a distinct understanding of it; whose hearts, at the same time, entirely agree with it, and if once it was clearly explained to their understandings, would immediately close with it, and embrace it:—how far these things may be, I will not determine; but am fully persuaded that great allowances are to be made on these and such like accounts, in innumerable instances; though it is manifest, from what has been said, that the teaching and propagating contrary doctrines and schemes, is of a pernicious and fatal tendency.
DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God.
DISCOURSE II
pressing into the kingdom of god.
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
In these words two things may be observed: First, Wherein the work and office of John the Baptist consisted, viz. in
preaching the kingdom of God, to prepare the way for its introduction
to succeed the law and the prophets. By the law and the prophets, in
the text, seems to be intended the ancient dispensation under the Old
Testament, which was received from Moses and the prophets. These are
said to be until John; not that the revelations given by them
are out of use since that time, but that the state of the church,
founded and regulated under God by them, the dispensation of which they
were the ministers, and wherein the church depended mainly on light
received from them, fully continued till John. He first began to
introduce the New-Testament dispensation, or gospel-state of the
church; which, with its glorious, spiritual, and eternal privileges and
blessings, is often called the kingdom of heaven, or kingdom of God.
John the Baptist preached, that the kingdom of God was at hand.
“Repent,” says he, “for the kingdom of heaven is at hand:” —“Since that
time,” says Christ, “the kingdom of God is preached.” John the Baptist
first began to preach it; and then after him, Christ and his disciples
preached the same. Thus Christ preached,
Secondly, We may observe wherein his success appeared, viz. in that since he began his ministry, every man pressed into that kingdom of God which he preached. The greatness of his success appeared in two things:
1. In the generalness of it, with regard to the subject, or the persons in whom the success appeared; every man. Here
is a term of universality; but it is not to be taken as universal with
regard to individuals, but kinds; as such universal terms are often
used in Scripture. When John reached, there was an extraordinary
pouring out of the Spirit of God that attended his preaching. An
uncommon awakening, and concern for salvation, appeared on the minds of
all sorts of persons; and even in the most unlikely persons, and those
from whom such a thing might least be expected; as the Pharisees, who
were exceeding proud, and self-sufficient, and conceited of their own
wisdom and righteousness, and looked on themselves fit to he teachers
of others, and used to scorn to be taught; and the Sadducees, who were
a kind of infidels, that denied any resurrection, angel, or spirit, or
any future stale. So that John himself seems to be surprised to see
them come to him, under such concern for their salvation; as in
DISCOURSE I
justification by faith alone
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
The following things may be noted in this verse:
1. That justification respects a man as ungodly. This is evident by these words,—that justifieth the ungodly; which cannot imply less, than that God, in the act of justification, has no regard to any thing in the person justified, as godliness, or any goodness in him; but that immediately before this act, God beholds him only as an ungodly creature; so that godliness in the person to be justified is not so antecedent to his justification as to be the ground of it. When it is said that God justifies the ungodly, it is absurd to suppose that our godliness, taken as some goodness in us, is the ground of our justification; as, when it is said that Christ gave sight to the blind, to suppose that sight was prior to, and the ground of, that act of mercy in Christ; or as, if it should be said that such an one by his bounty has made a poor man rich, to suppose that it was the wealth of this poor man that was the ground of this bounty towards him and was the price by which it was procured.
2. It appears, that by him that worketh not, in this verse, is not meant one who merely does not comform to the ceremonial law; because he that worketh not and the ungodly, are evidently synonymous expressions, or what signify the same, as appears by the manner of their connexion; if not, to what purpose is the latter expression, the ungodly, brought in? The context gives no other occasion for it, but to show, that by the grace of the gospel, God in justification has no regard to any godliness of ours. The foregoing verse is, “Now to him that worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” In that verse, it is evident, gospel grace consists in the reward being given without works; and in this verse, which immediately follows it, and in sense is connected with it, gospel-grace consists in a man’s being justified as ungodly. By which it is most plain, that by him that worketh not, and him that is ungodly, are meant the same thing; and that therefore not only works of the ceremonial law are excluded in this business of justification, but works of morality and godliness.
3. It is evident in the words, that by the faith here spoken of, by which we are justified, is not meant the same thing as a course of obedience or righteousness, since the expression by which the faith is here denoted, is believing on him that justifies the ungodly.—They that oppose the Solifidians, as they call them, greatly insist on it, that we should take the words of Scripture concerning this doctrine in their most natural and obvious meaning; and how do they cry out, of our clouding this doctrine with obscure metaphors, and unintelligible figures of speech? But is this to interpret Scripture according to its most obvious meaning, when the Scripture speaks of our believing on him that justifies the ungodly, or the breakers of his law, to say, that the meaning of it is performing a course of obedience to his law, and avoiding the breaches of it? Believing on God as a justifer, certainly is a different thing from submitting to God as a lawgiver; especially believing on him as a justifier of the ungodly, or rebels against the lawgiver.
4.
It is evident that the subject of justification is looked upon as
destitute of any righteousness in himself, by that expression, it is counted or imputed to him for righteousness.—The
phrase, as the apostle uses it here and in the context, manifestly
imports, that God of his sovereign grace is pleased, in his dealings
with the sinner, so to regard one that has no righteousness, that the
consequence shall be the same as if he had. This however may be from
the respect it bears to some thing that is indeed righteous. It is
plain that this is the force of the expression in the preceding verses.
In the last verse but one, it is manifest, the apostle lays the stress
of his argument for the free grace of God—from that text of the Old
Testament about Abraham—on the word counted or imputed; and this is the thing that he supposed God to show his grace in, viz. in this counting
something for righteousness, in his consequential dealings with
Abraham, that was no righteousness in itself. And in the next verse
which immediately precedes the text, “Now to him that worketh, is the
reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt,” and word there translated reckoned, is the same that in the other verses is rendered imputed, and counted: and it is as much as if the apostle had said, “As to him that works, there is no need of any gracious reckoning or counting
it for righteousness, and causing the reward to follow as if it were a
righteousness; for if he has works, he has that which is a
righteousness in itself, to which the reward properly belongs.” This if
further evident by the words that follow,
That we are justified only by faith in Christ, and not by any manner of virtue or goodness of our own.
Such an assertion as this, I am sensible, many would be ready to call absurd, as betraying a great deal of ignorance, and containing much inconsistence; but I desire every one’s patience till I have done.
In handling this doctrine, I would,
I. Explain the meaning of it, and show how I would be understood by such an assertion.
II. Proceed to the consideration of the evidence of the truth of it.
III. Show how evangelical obedience is concerned in this affair.
IV. Answer objections.
V. Consider the importance of the doctrine.
I. I would explain the meaning of the doctrine, or show in what sense I assert it, and would endeavor to evince the truth of it: which may be done in answer to these two inquiries, viz. 1. What is meant by being justified? 2. What is meant when it is said, that this is, “by faith 623 alone, without any manner of virtue or goodness of our own?”
First, I would show what justification is, or what I suppose is meant in Scripture by being justified.
A person is said to be justified, when he is approved of God as free from the guilt of sin and its deserved punishment, and as having that righteousness belonging to him that entitles to the reward of life. That we should take the word in such a sense, and understand it as the judge’s accepting a person as having both a negative and positive righteousness belonging to him, and looking on him therefore as not only free from any obligation to punishment, but also as just and righteous, and so entitled to a positive reward, is not only most agreeable to the etymology and natural import of the word, which signifies to pass one for righteousness in judgment, but also manifestly agreeable to the force of the word as used in Scripture.
Some
suppose that nothing more is intended in Scripture by justification,
than barely the remission of sins. If so, it is very strange, if we
consider the nature of the case; for it is most evident, and none will
deny, that it is with respect to the rule or law of God we are under,
that we are said in Scripture to be either justified or condemned. Now
what is it to justify a person as the subject of a law or rule, but to
judge him as standing right with respect to that rule? To justify a
person in a particular case, is to approve of him as standing right, as
subject to the law in that case; and to justify in general is to pass
him in judgment, as standing right in a state correspondent to the law
or rule in general: but certainly, in order to a person’s being looked
on as standing right with respect to the rule in general, or in a state
corresponding with the law of God, more is needful than not having the
guilt of sin; for whatever that law is, whether a new or an old one,
doubtless something positive is needed in order to its being answered.
We are no more justified by the voice of the law, or of him that judges
according to it, by a mere pardon of sin, that Adam, our first surety,
was justified by the law, at the first point of his existence, before
he had fulfilled the obedience of the law, or had so much as any trial
whether he would fulfill it or no. If Adam had finished his course of
perfect obedience, he would have been justified: and certainly his
justification would have implied something more than what is merely
negative; he would have been approved of, as having fulfilled the
righteousness of the law, and accordingly would have been adjudged to
the reward of it. So Christ, our second surety, (in whose justification
all whose surety he is, are virtually justified,) was not justified
till he had done the work the Father had appointed him, and kept the
Father’s commandments through all trials; and then in his resurrection
he was justified. When he had been put to death in the flesh, but
quickened by the spirit,
But
that a believer’s justification implies not only remission of sins, or
acquittance from the wrath due to it, but also an admittance to a title
to that glory which is the reward of righteousness, is more directly
taught in the Scripture, particularly in
Secondly, To show what is meant when it is said, that this justification is by faith only, and not by any virtue or goodness of our own.
This inquiry may be subdivided into two, viz.
1. How it is by faith. 2. How it is by faith alone, without any manner of goodness of ours.
1. How justification is by faith.—Here the great difficulty has been about the import and force of the particle by, or what is that influence that faith has in the affair of justification that is expressed in Scripture by being justified by faith.
Here, if I may humbly express what seems evident to me, though faith be indeed the condition of justification so as nothing else is, yet this matter is not clearly and sufficiently explained by saying that faith is the condition of justification; and that because the word seems ambiguous, both in common use, and also as used in divinity. In one sense, Christ alone performs the condition of our justification and salvation; in another sense, faith is the condition of justification; in another sense, other qualifications and acts are conditions of salvation and justification too. There seems to be a great deal of ambiguity in such expressions as are commonly used, (which yet we are forced to use,) such as condition of salvation, what is required in order to salvation or justification, the terms of the covenant, and the like; and I believe they are understood in very different sense by different persons. And besides, as the word condition is very often understood in the common use of language, faith is not the only thing in us that is the condition of justification; for by the word condition, as it is very often (and perhaps most commonly) used, we mean any thing that may have the place of a condition in a conditional proposition, and as such is truly connected with the consequent, especially if the proposition holds both in the affirmative and negative, as the condition is either affirmed or denied. If it be that with which, or which being supposed, a thing shall be, and without which, or it being denied, a thing shall not be, we in such a case call it a condition of that thing. But in this sense faith is not the only condition of salvation or justification; for there are many things that accompany and flow from faith, with which justification shall be, and without which it will not be, and therefore are found to be put in Scripture in conditional propositions with justification and salvation in multitudes of places; such are love to God, and love to our brethren, forgiving men their trespasses, and many other good qualifications and acts. And there are many other things besides faith, which are directly proposed to us, to be pursued or performed by us, in order to eternal life, which if they are done, or obtained, we shall have eternal life, and if not done, or not obtained, we shall surely perish. And if faith was the only condition of justification in this sense, I do not apprehend that to say faith was the condition of justification, would express the sense of that phrase of Scripture, of being justified by faith. There is a difference between being justified by a thing, and that thing universally, necessarily, and inseparably attending justification; for so do a great many things that we are not said to be justified by. It is not the inseparable connexion with justification that the Holy Ghost would signify (or that is naturally signified) by such a phrase, but some particular influence that faith has in the affair, or some certain dependence that effect has on its influence.
624 Some, aware of this, have supposed, that the influence or dependence might well be expressed by faith’s being the instrument of our justification; which has been misunderstood, and injuriously represented, and ridiculed by those that have denied the doctrine of justification by faith alone, as though they had supposed faith was used as an instrument in the hand of God, whereby he performed and brought to pass that act of his, viz. approving and justifying the believer. Whereas it was not intended that faith was the instrument wherewith God justifies, but the instrument wherewith we receive justification; not the instrument wherewith the justifier acts in justifying, but wherewith the receiver of justification acts in accepting justification. But yet, it must be owned, this is an obscure way of speaking, and there must certainly be some impropriety in calling it an instrument wherewith we receive or accept justification; for the very persons who thus explain the matter, speak of faith as being the reception or acceptance itself; and if so, how can it be the instrument of reception or acceptance? Certainly there is a difference between the act and the instrument. Besides, by their own descriptions of faith, Christ, the mediator by whom, and his righteousness by which, we are justified, is more directly the object of this acceptance and justification, which is the benefit arising there from more indirectly; and therefore, if faith be an instrument, it is more properly the instrument by which we receive Christ, than the instrument by which we receive justification.
But I humbly conceive we have been ready to look too far to find out what that influence of faith in our justification is, or what is that dependence of this effect on faith, signified by the expression of being justified by faith, overlooking that which is most obviously pointed forth in the expression, viz. that (there being a mediator that has purchased justification) faith in this mediator is that which renders it a meet and suitable thing, in the sight of God, that the believer, rather than others, should have this purchased benefit assigned to him.—There is this benefit purchased, which God sees it to be a more meet and suitable thing that it should be assigned to some rather than others, because he sees them differently qualified; that qualification wherein the meetness to this benefit, as the case stands, consists, is that in us by which we are justified. If Christ had not come into the world and died, &c. to purchase justification, no qualification whatever in us could render it a meet or fit thing that we should be justified. But the case being as it now stands, viz. that Christ has actually purchased justification by his own blood for infinitely unworthy creatures, there may be certain qualifications found in some persons, which, either from the relation it bears to the mediator and his merits, or on some other account, is the thing that in the sight of God renders it a meet and condecent thing, that they should have an interest in this purchased benefit, and of which if any are destitute, it renders it an unfit and unsuitable thing that they should have it. The wisdom of God in his constitutions doubtless appears much in the fitness and beauty of them, so that those things are established to be done that are fit to be done, and that those things are connected in his constitution that are agreeable one to another. So God justifies a believer according to his revealed constitution, without doubt, because he sees something in this qualification that, as the case stands, renders it a fit thing that such should be justified; whether it be because faith is the instrument, or as it were the hand, by which he that has purchased justification is apprehended and accepted, or because it is the acceptance itself, or whatever else. To be justified, is to be approved by God as a proper subject of pardon, with a right to eternal life; and therefore, when it is said that we are justified by faith, what else can be understood by it, than that faith is that by which we are rendered approvable, fitly so, and indeed, as the case stands, proper subjects of this benefit?
This is something different from faith being the condition of justification, though inseparably connected with justification. So are many other things besides faith; and yet nothing in us but faith renders it meet that we should have justification assigned to us; as I shall presently show in answer to the next inquiry, viz.
2. How this is said to be by faith alone, without any manner of virtue or goodness of our own. This may seem to some to be attended with two difficulties, viz. how this can be said to be by faith alone, without any virtue or goodness of ours, when faith itself is a virtue, and one part of our goodness, and is not only some manner of goodness of ours, but is a very excellent qualification, and one chief part of the inherent holiness of a Christian? And if it be a part of our inherent goodness or excellency (whether it be this part or any other) that renders it a condecent or congruous thing that we should have this benefit of Christ assigned to us, what is this less than what they mean who talk of a merit of congruity? And moreover, if this part of our christian holiness qualifies us, in the sight of God, for this benefit of Christ, and renders it a fit or meet thing, in his sight, that we should have it, why should not other parts of holiness, and conformity of God, which are also very excellent, and have as much of the image of Christ in them, and are no less lovely in God’s eyes, qualify us as much, and have as much influence to render us meet, in God’s sight, for such a benefit as this? Therefore I answer,
When it is said, that we are not justified by any righteousness or goodness of our own, what is meant is, that it is not out of respect to the excellency or goodness of any qualifications or acts in us whatsoever, that God judges it meet that this benefit of Christ should be ours; and it is not, in any wise, on account of any excellency or value that there is in faith, that it appears in the sight of God a meet thing, that he who believes should have this benefit of Christ assigned to him, but purely from the relation faith has to the person in whom this benefit is to be had, or as it unites to that mediator, in and by whom we are justified. Here, for the greater clearness, I would particularly explain myself under several propositions.
(1.) It is certain that there is some union or relation that the people of Christ stand in to him, that is expressed in Scripture, from time to time, by being in Christ, and is represented frequently by those metaphors of being members of Christ, or being united to him as members to the head, and branches to the stock, [1] and is compared to a marriage union between husband and wife. I do not now pretend to determine of what sort this union is; nor is it necessary to my present purpose to enter into any manner of disputes about it. If any are disgusted at the word union, as obscure and unintelligible, the word relation equally serves my purpose. I do not now desire to determine any more about it, than all, of all sorts, will readily allow, viz. that there is a peculiar relation between true Christians and Christ, which there is not between him and others; and which is signified by those metaphorical expressions in Scripture, of being in Christ, being members of Christ, &c. [1]
625
(2.) This relation or union
to Christ, whereby Christians are said to be in Christ, (whatever it
be,) is the ground of their right to his benefits. This needs no proof;
the reason of the thing, at first blush, demonstrates it. It is
exceeding evident also by Scripture,
(3.) And thus it is that faith is the qualification in any person that renders it meet in the sight of God that he should be looked upon as having Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness belonging to him, viz. because it is that in him which, on his part, makes up this union between him and Christ. By what has been just now observed, it is a person’s being, according to scripture phrase, in Christ, that is the ground of having his satisfaction and merits belong to him, and a right to the benefits procured thereby. The reason of it is plain; it is easy to see how our having Christ’s merits and benefits belonging to us, following from our having (if I may so speak) Christ himself belonging to us, or our being united to him. And if so, it must also be easy to see how, or in what manner, that in a person, which on his part makes up the union between his soul and Christ, should be the thing on the account of which God looks on it as meet that he should have Christ’s merits belonging to him. It is a very different thing for God to assign to a particular person a right to Christ’s merits and benefits from regard to a qualification in him in this respect, from his doing it for him out of respect to the value or loveliness of that qualification, or as a reward of its excellency.
As there is nobody but what will allow that there is a peculiar relation between Christ and his true disciples, by which they are in some sense in Scripture said to be on; so I suppose there is nobody but what will allow, that there may be something that the true Christ does on his part, whereby he is active in coming into this relation or union; some uniting act, or that which is done towards this union or relation (or whatever any please to call it) on the Christian’s part. Now faith I suppose to be this act.
I
do not now pretend to define justifying faith, or to determine
precisely how much is contained in it, but only to determine thus much
concerning it, viz. That it is that by which the soul, which
before was separate and alienated from Christ, unites itself to him, or
ceases to be any longer in that state of alienation, and comes into
that forementioned union or relation to him; or to use the scripture
phrase, it is that by which the soul comes to Christ,
626
and receives him; and this is evident by the Scriptures using these very expressions to signify faith.
God does not give those that believe an union with or an interest in the Saviour as a reward for faith, but only because faith is the soul’s active uniting with Christ, or is itself the very act of unition, on their part. God sees it, that in order to an union being established between two intelligent active beings or persons, so as that they should be looked upon as one, there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive other, as actively joining themselves one to another. God, in requiring this in order to an union with Christ as one of his people, treats men as reasonable creatures, capable of act and choice; and hence sees it fit that they only who are one with Christ by their own act, should be looked upon as one in law. What is real in the union between Christ and his people, is the foundation of what is legal; that is, it is something really in them, and between them, uniting them, that is the ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as one by the Judge. And if there be any act or qualification in believers of that uniting nature, that it is meet on that account the Judge should look upon them and accept them as one, no wonder that upon the account of the same act or qualification, he should accept the satisfaction and merits of the one for the other, as if these were their own satisfaction and merits. This necessarily follows, or rather is implied.
And
thus it is that faith justifies, or gives an interest in Christ’s
satisfaction and merits, and a right to the benefits procured thereby, viz. as it thus makes Christ and the believer one
in the acceptance of the Supreme Judge. It is by faith that we have a
title to eternal life, because it is by faith that we have the Son of
God, by whom life is. The apostle John in these words,
Although, on account of faith in the believer, it is in the sight of God fit and congruous, both that he who believes should be looked upon as in Christ, and also as having an interest in his merits, in the way that has been now explained; yet it appears that this is very wide from a merit of congruity, or indeed any moral congruity at all to either. [1] There is a twofold fitness to a state; I know 627 not how to give them distinguishing names, otherwise than by calling the one a moral, and the other a natural fitness. A person has a moral fitness for a state, when his moral excellency commends him to it, or when his being put into such a good state is but a suitable testimony of regard to the moral excellency, or value, or amiableness of any of his qualifications or acts. A person has a natural fitness for a state, when it appears meet and condecent that he should be in such a state or circumstances, only from the natural concord or agreeableness there is between such qualifications and such circumstances; not because the qualifications are lovely or unlovely, but only because the qualifications and the circumstances are like one another, or do in their nature suit and agree or unite one to another. And it is on this latter account only that God looks on it fit by a natural fitness, that he whose heart sincerely unites itself to Christ as his Saviour, should be looked upon as united to that Saviour, and so having an interest in him; and not from any moral fitness there is between the excellency of such a qualification as faith, and such a glorious blessedness as the having an interest in Christ. God’s bestowing Christ and his benefits on a soul in consequence of faith, out of regard only to the natural concord there is between such a qualification of a soul, and such an union with Christ, and interest in him, makes the case very widely different from what it would be, if he bestowed this from regard to any moral suitableness. For, in the former case, it is only from God’s love of order that he bestows these things on the account of faith; in the latter, God doth it out of love to the grace of faith itself. God will neither look on Christ’s merits as ours, nor adjudge his benefits to us, till we be in Christ; nor will he look upon us as being in him, without an active unition of our hearts and souls to him; because he is a wise being, and delights in order, and not in confusion, and that things should be together or asunder according to their nature; and his making such a constitution is a testimony of his love of order. [1] Whereas if it were out of regard to any moral fitness or suitableness between faith and such blessedness, it would be a testimony of his love to the act or qualification itself. The one supposes this divine constitution to be a manifestation of God’s regard to the beauty of the act of faith; the other only supposes it to be a manifestation of his regard to the beauty of that order that there is in uniting those things that have a natural agreement, and congruity, and unition of the one with the other. Indeed a moral suitableness or fitness to a state includes a natural; for, if there be a moral suitableness that a person should be in such a state, there is also a natural suitableness; but such a natural suitableness as I have described, by no means necessarily includes a moral.
This is plainly what our divines intend when they say, that faith does not justify as a work, or a righteousness, viz.
that it does not justify as a part of our moral goodness or excellency,
or that it does not justify as man was to have been justified by the
covenant of works, which was, to have a title to eternal life given to
him of God, in testimony of his pleasedness with his works, or his
regard to the inherent excellency and beauty of his obedience. And this
is certainly what the apostle Paul means, when he so much insists upon
it, that we are not justified by works, viz.
that we are not justified by them as good works, or by any goodness,
value, or excellency of our works. For the proof of this I shall at
present mention but one thing, and
628
that is, the apostle from time to time speaking of our not being justified by works, as the thing that excludes all boasting,
From these things we may learn in what manner faith is the only condition of justification and salvation. For though it be not the only condition, so as alone truly to have the place of a condition in an hypothetical proposition, in which justification and salvation are the consequent, yet it is the condition of justification in a manner peculiar to it, and so that nothing else has a parallel influence with it; because faith includes the whole act of unition to Christ as a Saviour. The entire active uniting of the soul, or the whole of what is called coming to Christ, and receiving of him, is called faith in Scripture; and however other things may be no less excellent than faith, yet it is not the nature of any other graces or virtues directly to close with Christ as a mediator, any further than they enter into the constitution of justifying faith, and do belong to its nature.
Thus I have explained my meaning, in asserting it as a doctrine of the gospel, that we are justified by faith only, without any manner of goodness of our own.
I now proceed,
II. To the proof of it; which I shall endeavour to produce in the following arguments.
First, Such is our case, and the state of things, that neither faith, nor any other qualifications, or act or course of acts, does or can render it suitable that a person should have an interest in the Saviour, and so a title to his benefits, on account of any excellency therein, or any other way, than as something in him may unite him to the Saviour. It is not suitable that God should give fallen man an interest in Christ and his merits, as a testimony of his respect to any thing whatsoever as a loveliness in him; and that because it is not meet, till a sinner is actually justified, that any thing in him should be accepted of God, as any excellency or amiableness of his person; or that God, by any act, should in any manner or degree testify any pleasedness with him, or favour towards him, on the account of any thing inherent in him: and that for two reasons:
1. The nature of things will not admit of it. And this appears from the infinite guilt that the sinner till justified is under; which arises from the infinite evil or heinousness of sin. But because that is what some deny, I would therefore first establish that point, and show that sin is a thing that is indeed properly of infinite heinousness; and then show the consequence, that it cannot be suitable, till the sinner is actually justified, that God should by any act testify pleasedness with or acceptance of any excellency or amiableness of his person.
That the evil and demerit of sin is infinitely great, is most demonstrably evident, because what the evil or iniquity of sin consists in, is the violating of an obligation, or doing what we should not do; and therefore by how much the greater the obligation is that is violated, by so much the greater is the iniquity of the violation. But certainly our obligation to love or honour any being is great in proportion to the greatness or excellency of that being, or his worthiness to be loved and honoured. We are under greater obligations to love a more lovely being than a less lovely; and if a being be infinitely excellent or lovely, our obligations to love him are therein infinitely great. The matter is so plain, it seems needless to say much about it.
Some have argued exceeding strangely against the infinite evil of sin, from its being committed against an infinite object, that then it may as well be argued, that there is also an infinite value or worthiness in holiness and love to God, because that also has an infinite object; whereas the argument, from parity of reason, will carry it in the reverse. The sin of the creature against God is ill deserving in proportion to the distance there is between God and the creature; the greatness of the object, and the meanness of the subject, aggravates it. But it is the reverse with regard to the worthiness of the respect of the creature to God; it is worthless (and not worthy) in proportion to the meanness of the subject. So much the greater the distance between God and the creature, so much the less is the creature’s respect worthy of God’s notice or regard. The unworthiness of sin or opposition to God rises and is great in proportion to the dignity of the object and inferiority of the subject; but on the contrary, the value of respect rises in proportion to the value of the subject; and that for this plain reason, viz. that the evil of disrespect is in proportion to the obligation that lies upon the subject to the object; which obligation is most evidently increased by the excellency and superiority of the object. But on the contrary, the worthiness of respect to a being is in proportion to the obligation that lies on him who is the object, (or rather the reason he has,) to regard the subject, which certainly is in proportion to the subject’s value or excellency. Sin or disrespect is evil or heinous in proportion to the degree of what it denies in the object, and as it were takes from it, viz. its excellency and worthiness of respect; on the contrary, respect is valuable in proportion to the value of what is given to the object in that respect, which undoubtedly (other things being equal) is great in proportion to the subject’s value, or worthiness of regard; because the subject in giving his respect, can give no more than himself: so far as he gives his respect, he gives himself to the object; and therefore his gift is of greater or lesser value in proportion to the value of himself.
Hence, (by the way,) the love, honour, and obedience of Christ towards God, has infinite value, from the excellency and dignity of the person in whom these qualifications were inherent; and the reason why we needed a person of infinite dignity to obey for us, was because of our infinite comparative meanness, who had disobeyed, whereby our disobedience was infinitely aggravated. We needed one, the worthiness of whose obedience might be answerable to the unworthiness of our disobedience; and therefore needed one who was as great and worthy as we were unworthy.
Another objection (that perhaps may be thought hardly worth mentioning) is, that to suppose sin to be infinitely heinous, is to make all sins equally heinous; for how can any sin be more than infinitely heinous? But all that can be argued hence is, that no sin can be greater with respect to that aggravation, the worthiness of the object against whom it is committed. One sin cannot be more aggravated than another in that respect, because the aggravation of every sin is infinite; but that does not hinder, that some sins may be more heinous than others in other respects: as if we should suppose a cylinder infinitely long, it cannot be greater in that respect, viz. with respect to the length of it; but yet it may be doubled and trebled, and made a thousand-fold more, by the increase of other dimensions. Of sins that are all infinitely heinous, some may be more heinous than others; as well as of divers punishments that are all infinitely dreadful calamities, so that there is no finite calamity, however great, but what is infinitely less dreadful, or more eligible, than any of them, yet some of them may be a thousand times more dreadful than others. A punishment may be infinitely dreadful by reason of the infinite duration of it; and therefore cannot be greater with respect to that aggravation of it, viz. its length of continuance, but yet may be vastly more terrible on other accounts.
Having thus, as I imagine, made it clear, that all sin is infinitely heinous, and consequently that the sinner, before he is justified, is under infinite guilt in God’s sight; it now remains that I show the consequences, or how it follows from hence, that it is not suitable that God should give the sinner an interest in Christ’s merits, and so a title to his benefits, from regard to any qualifications, or act, or course of acts in him, on the account of any excellency or goodness whatsoever therein, but only as uniting to Christ; or (which fully implies it) that it is not suitable that God, by any act, should, in any manner or degree, testify any acceptance of, or pleasedness with, any thing, as any virtue, or excellency, or any part of loveliness, or valuableness in his person, until he is actually already interested in Christ’s merits. From the premises it follows, that before the sinner is already interested in 628Christ, and justified, it is impossible God should have any acceptance of or pleasedness with the person of the sinner, as in any degree lovely in his sight, or indeed less the object of his displeasure and wrath. For, by the supposition, the sinner still remains infinitely guilty in the sight of God; for guilt is not removed but by pardon: but to suppose the sinner already pardoned, is to suppose him already justified; which is contrary to the supposition. But if the sinner still remains infinitely guilty in God’s sight, that is the same thing as still to be beheld of God as infinitely the object of his displeasure and wrath, or infinitely hateful in his eyes; and if so, where is any room for any thing in him, to be accepted as some valuableness or acceptableness of him in God’s sight, or for any act of favour of any kind towards him, or any gift whatsoever to him, in testimony of God’s respect to an acceptance of something of him lovely and pleasing? If we should suppose that a sinner could have faith, or some other grace in his heart, and yet remain separate from Christ; and that he is not looked upon as being in Christ, or having any relation to him, it would not be meet that such true grace should be accepted of God as any loveliness of his person in the sight of God. If it should be accepted as the loveliness of the person as in some degree lovely to God; but this cannot be consistent with his still remaining under infinite guilt, or infinite unworthiness in God’s sight, which that goodness has no worthiness to balance. While God beholds the man as separate from Christ, he must behold him as he is in himself; and so his goodness cannot be beheld by God, but as taken with his guilt and hatefulness, and as put in the scales with it; an so his goodness is nothing; because there is a finite on the balance against an infinite whose proportion to it is nothing. In such a case, if the man be looked on as he is in himself, the excess of the weight in one scale above another, must be looked upon as the quality of the man. These contraries being beheld together, one takes from another, as one number is subtracted from another; and the man must be looked upon in God’s sight according to the remainder. For here, by the supposition, all acts of grace or favour, in not imputing the guilt as it is, are excluded, because that supposes a degree of pardon, and that supposes justification, which is contrary to what is supposed, viz. that the sinner is not already justified; and therefore things must be taken strictly as they are; and so the man is still infinitely unworthy and hateful in God’s sight, and he was before, without diminution, because his goodness bears no proportion to his unworthiness, and therefore when taken together is nothing.
Hence may be more clearly seen the force of that expression in the text, of believing on him that justifieth the ungodly; for though there is indeed something in man that is really and spiritually good, prior to justification, yet there is nothing that is accepted as any godliness or excellency of the person, till after justification. Goodness or loveliness of the person in the acceptance of God, in any degree, is not to be considered as prior but posterior in the order and method of God’s proceeding in this affair. Though a respect to the natural suitableness between such a qualification, and such a state, does go before justification, yet the acceptance even of faith, as any goodness or loveliness of the believer, follows justification. The goodness is on the forementioned account justly looked upon as nothing, until the man is justified; and therefore the man is respected in justification, as in himself altogether hateful.–Thus, the nature of things will not admit of a man having an interest given him in the merits or benefits of a Saviour, on the account of any thing as a righteousness, or a virtue, or excellency in him.
2. A divine constitution antecedent to that which establishes justification by a Saviour, (and indeed to any need of a Saviour,) stands in the way of it, viz. that original constitution or law which man was put under; by which constitution or law the sinner is condemned, till he has actually an interest in the Saviour, through whom he is set at liberty from that condemnation. But to suppose that God gives a man an interest in Christ in reward for his righteousness or virtue, is inconsistent with his still remaining under condemnation till he has an interest in Christ; because he supposes, that the sinner’s virtue is accepted, and he accepted for it, before he has an interest in Christ; inasmuch as an interest in Christ is given as a reward of his virtue. But the virtue must first be accepted, before it is rewarded, and the man must first be accepted for his virtue, before he is rewarded for it with so great and glorious a reward; for the very notion of a reward, is some good bestowed in testimony of respect to and acceptance of virtue in the person rewarded. It does not consist with the honour of the majesty of the King of heaven and earth, to accept of any thing from a condemned malefactor, condemned by the justice of his own holy law, till that condemnation be removed. And then, such acceptance is inconsistent with, and contradictory to, such remaining condemnation; for the law condemns him that violates it, to be totally rejected and case off by God. But how can a man continue under this condemnation, i.e. continue utterly rejected and case off by God. But how can a man continue under this condemnation, i.e. continue utterly rejected and case off by God, and yet his righteousness or virtue be accepted, and he himself accepted on the account of it, so as to have so glorious a reward as an interest in Christ bestowed as a testimony of that acceptance?
I know that the answer will be, that we now are not subject to that constitution which mankind were at first put under; but that God, in mercy to mankind, has abolished that rigorous constitution, and put us under a new law, and introduced a more mild constitution; and that the constitution or law itself not remaining, there is no need of supposing that the condemnation of it remains, to stand in the way of the acceptance of our virtue. And indeed there is no other way of avoiding this difficulty. The condemnation of the law must stand in force against man, till he is actually interested in the Saviour who has satisfied and answered the law, so as effectually to prevent any acceptance of his virtue, either before, or even in order to, such an interest, unless the law or constitution itself be abolished. But the scheme of those modern divines by whom this is maintained, seems to contain a great deal of absurdity and self-contradiction: they hold, that the old law given to Adam, which requires perfect obedience, is entirely repealed, and that instead of it we are put under a new law, which requires no more than imperfect sincere obedience, in compliance with our poor, infirm, impotent circumstances since the fall, whereby we are unable to perform that perfect obedience that was required by the first law; for they strenuously maintain, that it would be unjust in God to require any thing of us that is beyond our present power and ability to perform; and yet they hold, that Christ died to satisfy for the imperfections of our obedience, that so our imperfect obedience might be accepted instead of perfect. Now, how can these things hang together? I would ask, What law these imperfections of our obedience are a breach of? If they are not a breach of no law, then they are not sins; and if they be not sins, what need of Christ’s dying to satisfy for them? but if they are sins, and so the breach of some law, what law is it? They cannot be a breach of their new law, for that requires no other than imperfect obedience, or obedience with imperfections; and they cannot be a breach of the old law, for that they say is entirely abolished, and we never were under it; and we cannot break a law that we never were under. They say it would not be just in God to exact of us perfect obedience, because it would not be just in God to require more of us than we can perform in our present state, and to punish us for failing of it; and therefore, by their own scheme, the imperfections of our obedience do not deserve to be punished. What need therefore of Christ’s dying to satisfy for them? What need of Christ’s suffering to satisfy for that which is no fault, and in its own nature deserves no suffering? What need of Christ’s dying to purchase that our imperfect obedience should be accepted, when according to their scheme it would be unjust in itself that any other obedience than imperfect should be required? What need of Christ’s dying to make way for God’s accepting such an obedience, as it would in itself be unjust in him not to accept? Is there any need of Christ’s dying to persuade God not to do unjustly? If it be said, that Christ died to satisfy that law for us, that so we might not be under that law, but might be delivered 630from it, that so there might be room for us to be under a more mild law; still I would inquire, What need of Christ’s dying that we might not be under a law that (according to their scheme) it would in itself be unjust that we should be under, because in our present state we are not able to keep it? What need of Christ’s dying that we might not be under a law that it would be unjust that we should be under, whether Christ died or no?
Thus far I have argued principally from reason, and the nature of things:—I proceed now to the
Second argument, which is, That this is a doctrine which the Holy Scriptures, the revelation that God has given us of his mind and will—by which alone we can never come to know how those who have offended God can come to be accepted of him, and justified in his sight—is exceeding full. The apostle Paul is abundant in teaching, that “we are justified by faith alone, without the works of the law!” There is no one doctrine that he insists so much upon, and that he handles with so much distinctness, explaining, giving reasons, and answering objections.
Here it is not denied by any, that the apostle does assert, that we are justified by faith, without the works of the law, because the words are express; but only it is said that we take his words wrong, and understand that by them that never entered into his heart, in that when he excludes the works of the law, we understand him of the whole law of God, or the rule which he has given to mankind to walk by; whereas all that he intends is the ceremonial.
Some that oppose this doctrine indeed say, that the apostle sometimes means that it is by faith, i.e. a hearty embracing the gospel in its first act only, or without any preceding holy life, that persons are admitted into a justified state; but, say they, it is by a persevering obedience that they are continued in a justified state, and it is by this that they are finally justified. But this is the same thing as to say, that a man on his first embracing the gospel is conditionally justified and pardoned. To pardon sin, is to free the sinner from the punishment of it, or from that eternal misery that is due to it; and therefore if a person is pardoned, or freed from this misery, on his first embracing the gospel, and yet not finally freed, but his actual freedom still depends on some condition yet to be performed, it is inconceivable how he can be pardoned otherwise than conditionally; that is, he is not properly actually pardoned, and freed from punishment, but only he has God’s promise that he shall be pardoned on future conditions. God promises him, that now, if he perseveres in obedience, he shall be finally pardoned, or actually freed from hell; which is to make just nothing at all of the apostle’s great doctrine of justification by faith alone. Such a conditional pardon is no pardon or justification at all, any more than all mankind have, whether they embrace the gospel or no; for they all have a promise of final justification on conditions of future sincere obedience, as much as he that embraces the gospel. But not to dispute about this, we will suppose that there may be something or other at the sinner’s first embracing the gospel, that may properly be called justification or pardon, and yet that final justification, or real freedom from the punishment of sin, is still suspended on conditions hitherto unfulfilled; yet they who hold that sinners are thus justified on embracing the gospel, suppose that they are justified by this, no otherwise than as it is a leading act of obedience, or at least as virtue and moral goodness in them, and therefore would be excluded by the apostle as much as any other virtue or obedience, if it be allowed that he means the moral law, when he excludes works of the law. And therefore, if that point be yielded, that the apostle means the moral, and not only the ceremonial, law, their whole scheme falls to the ground.
And because the issue of the whole argument from those texts in St. Paul’s epistles depends on the determination of this point, I would be particular in the discussion of it.
Some of our opponents in this doctrine of justification, when they deny, that by the law the apostle means the moral law, or the whole rule of life which God has given to mankind, seem to choose to express themselves thus, that the apostle only intends the Mosaic dispensation. But this comes to just the same thing as if they said, that the apostle only means to exclude the works of the ceremonial law; for when they say, that it is intended only that we are not justified by the works of the Mosaic dispensation, if they mean any thing by it, it must be, that we are not justified by attending and observing what is Mosaic in that dispensation, or by what was peculiar to it, and wherein it differed from the christian dispensation; which is the same as that which is ceremonial and positive, and not moral, in that administration. So that this is what I have to disprove, viz. that the apostle, when he speaks of works of the law in this affair, means only works of the ceremonial law, or those observances that were peculiar to the Mosaic administration.
And here it must be noted, that nobody controverts it with them, whether the works of the ceremonial law be not included, or whether the apostle does not particularly argue against justification by circumcision, and other ceremonial observances; but all in question is, whether, when he denies justification by works of the law, he is to be understood only of the ceremonial law, or whether the moral law be not also implied and intended; and therefore those arguments which are brought to prove that the apostle meant the ceremonial law, are nothing to the purpose, unless they prove that the apostle meant those only.
What is much insisted on is, that it was the judaizing Christians being so fond of circumcision, and other ceremonies of the law, and depending so much on them, which was the very occasion of the apostle’s writing as he does against justification by the works of the law. But supposing it were so, that their trusting in works of the ceremonial law were the sole occasion of the apostle’s writing, (which yet there is no reason to allow, as may appear afterwards,) if their trusting in a particular work, as a work of righteousness, was all that gave occasion to the apostle to write, how does it follow, that therefore the apostle did not upon that occasion write against trusting in all works of righteousness whatsoever? Where is the absurdity of supposing that the apostle might take occasion, from his observing some to trust in a certain work as a work of righteousness, to write to them against persons trusting in any works or righteousness at all, and that it was a very proper occasion too? Yea, it would have been unavoidable for the apostle to have argued against trusting in a particular work, in the quality of a work of righteousness, which quality was general, but he must therein argue against trusting in works of righteousness in general. Supposing it had been some other particular sort of works that was the occasion of the apostle’s writing, as for instance, works of charity, and the apostle should hence take occasion to write to them not to trust in their works, could the apostle by that be understood of no other works besides works of charity? Would it have been absurd to understand him as writing against trusting in any work at all, because it was their trusting to a particular work that gave occasion to his writing?
Another
thing alleged, as an evidence that the apostle means the ceremonial
law—when he says, we cannot be justified by the works of the law—is,
that he uses this argument to prove it, viz. that the law he speaks of was given so long after the covenant with Abraham, in
But that the apostle does not mean only works of the ceremonial law, when he excludes works of the law in justification, but also of the moral law, and all works of obedience, virtue, and righteousness whatsoever, may appear by the following things.
1. The apostle does not only say, that we are not justified by the works of the law, but that we are not justified by works,
using a general term; as in our text, “to him that worketh not, but
believeth on him that justifieth,” &c.; and in the 6th verse,
2. In the
And it may be noted, that the apostle’s argument here is the same that I have already used, viz. that as we are in ourselves, and out of Christ, we are under the condemnation of that original law or constitution that God established with mankind; and therefore it is no way fit that any thing we do, any virtue or obedience of ours, should be accepted, or we accepted on the account of it.
3. The apostle, in all the preceding part of this epistle, wherever he has the phrase, the law, evidently intends the moral law principally. As in the 12th verse of the foregoing chapter:
4.
It is evident that when the apostle says, we cannot be justified by the
works of the law, he means the moral as well as ceremonial law, by his
giving this reason for it, that “by the law is the knowledge of sin,”
as
5.
It is evident that the apostle does not mean only the ceremonial law,
because he gives this reason why we have righteousness, and a title to
the privilege of God’s children, not by the law, but by faith, “that
the law worketh wrath.”
6.
It is evident that when the apostle says, we are not justified by the
works of the law, that he excludes all our own virtue, goodness, or
excellency, by that reason he gives for it, viz. “That boasting might be excluded.”
But it is said, that boasting is excluded, as circumcision was excluded, which was that the Jews especially used to glory in, and value themselves upon, above other nations.
To
this I answer, that the Jews were not only used to boast of
circumcision, but were notorious for boasting of their moral
righteousness. The Jews of those days were generally admirers and
followers of the Pharisees, who were full of their boasts of their
moral righteousness; as we may see by the example of the Pharisee
mentioned in the 18th of Luke, which Christ mentions as describing the
general temper of that sect:
7.
The reason given by the apostle why we can be justified only by faith,
and not by the works of the law, in the 3d chapter of Gal. viz.
8.
The apostle in like manner argues against our being justified by our
own righteousness, as he does against being justified by the works of
the law; and evidently uses the expressions, of our own righteousness, and works of the law, promiscuously, and as signifying the same thing. It is particularly evident by
The Jews also, in the New Testament, are condemned for trusting in their own righteousness in this sense;
But
we need not go to the writings of other penmen of the Scripture. If we
will allow the apostle Paul to be his own interpreter, he—when he
speaks of our own righteousness as that by which we are not justified
or saved—does not mean only a ceremonial righteousness, nor does he
only intend a way of religion and serving God, of our own choosing,
without divine warrant or prescription; but by our own righteousness he
means the same as a righteousness of our own doing, whether it be a
service or righteousness of God’s prescribing, or our own unwarranted
performing. Let it be an obedience to the ceremonial law, or a gospel
obedience, or what it will, if it be a righteousness of our own doing,
it is excluded by the apostle in this affair, as is evident by
9th
argument, That the apostle, when he denies justification by works,
works of the law, and our own righteousness, does not mean works of the
ceremonial law only.
It
is several ways manifest, that the apostle in this text, by “works of
righteousness which we have done,” does not mean only works of the
ceremonial law. It appears by the 3d verse,
But we need not go to the context, it is most apparent from the words themselves, that the apostle does not mean only works of the ceremonial law. If he had only said, it is not by our own works of righteousness; what could we understand by works of righteousness, but only righteous works, or, which is the same thing, good works? And to say, that it is by our own righteous works that we are justified, though not by one particular kind of righteous works, would certainly be a contradiction to such an assertion. But, the words are rendered yet more strong, plain, and determined in their sense, by those additional words, which we have done; which shows that the apostle intends to exclude all our own righteous or virtuous works universally. If it should be asserted concerning any commodity, treasure, or precious jewel, that it could not be procured by money, and not only so, but, to make the assertion the more strong, it should be asserted with additional words, that it could not be procured by money that men possess; how unreasonable would it be, after all, to say, that all that was meant was, that it could not be procured with brass money.
And what renders the interpreting of this text, as intending works of the ceremonial law, yet more unreasonable, is, that these works were indeed no works of righteousness at all, but were only falsely supposed to be so by the Jews. And this our opponents in this doctrine also suppose is the very reason why we are not justified by them, because they are not works of righteousness, or because (the ceremonial law being now abrogated) there is no obedience in them. But how absurd is it to say, that the apostle, when he says we are not justified by works of righteousness that we have done, meant only works of the ceremonial law, and that for that very reason, because they are not works of righteousness? To illustrate this by the forementioned comparison: If it should be asserted, that such a thing could not be procured by money that men possess, how ridiculous would it be to say, that the meaning only was, that it could not be procured by counterfeit money, and that for that reason, because it was not money. What scripture will stand before men, if they will take liberty to manage scripture thus? Or what one text is there in the Bible that may not at this rate be explained all away, and perverted to any sense men please?
But further, if we should allow that the apostle intends only to oppose justification by works of the ceremonial law in this text, yet it is evident by the expression he uses, that he means to oppose it under that notion, or in that quality, of their being works of righteousness of our own doing. But if the apostle argues against our being justified by works of the ceremonial law, under the notion of their being of that nature and kind, viz. works of our own doing; then it will follow, that the apostle’s argument is strong against, not only those, but all of that nature and kind, even all that are of our own doing.
If
there were no other text in the Bible about justification but this,
this would clearly and invincibly prove, that we are not justified by
any of our own goodness, virtue, or righteousness, or for the
excellency of righteousness of any thing that we have done in religion;
because it is here so fully and strongly asserted; but this text
abundantly confirms other texts of the apostle, where he denies
justification by works of the law. No doubt can be rationally made, but
that the apostle, when he shows, that God does not save us by “works of
righteousness that we have done,”
10. The apostle could not mean only works of the ceremonial law, when he says, we are not justified by the works of the law, because it is asserted of the saints under the Old Testament as well as New. If men are justified by their sincere obedience, it will then follow that formerly, before the ceremonial law was abrogated, men were justified by the works of the ceremonial law, as well as the moral. For if we are justified by our sincere obedience, then it alters not the case, whether the commands be moral or positive, provided they be God’s commands, and our obedience be obedience to God. And so the case must be just the same under the Old Testament, with the works of the moral law and ceremonial, according to the measure of the virtue of obedience there was in either. It is true, their obedience to the ceremonial law would have nothing to do in the affair of justification, unless it was sincere; and so neither would the works of the moral law. If obedience was the thing, then obedience to the ceremonial law, while that stood in force, and obedience to the moral law, had just the same sort of concern, according to the proportion of obedience that consists in each; as now under the New Testament, if obedience is what we are justified by, that obedience must doubtless comprehend obedience to all God’s commands now in force, to the positive precepts of attendance on baptism and the Lord’s supper, as well as moral precepts. If obedience be the thing, it is not because it is obedience to such a kind of commands, but because it is obedience. So that by this supposition, the saints under the Old Testament were justified, at least in part, by their obedience to the ceremonial law.
But
it is evident that the saints under the Old Testament were not
justified, in any measure, by the works of the ceremonial law. This may
be proved, proceeding on the foot of our adversaries’ own
interpretation of the apostle’s phrase, “the works of the law,” and
supposing them to mean by it only the works of the ceremonial law. To
instance in David, it is evident that he was not justified in any wise
by the works of the ceremonial law, by
11.
Another argument that the apostle, when he speaks of the two opposite
ways of justification, one by the works of the law, and the other by
faith, does not mean only the works of the ceremonial law, may be taken
from
First, That the
apostle here speaks of the same two opposite ways of justification, one
by the righteousness which is of the law, the other by faith, that he
had treated of in the former part of the epistle; and therefore it must
be the same law that is here spoken of. The same law is here meant as
in the last verses of the foregoing chapter, where he says, the Jews
had
Secondly,
It is manifest that Moses, when he describes the righteousness which is
of the law, or the way of justification by the law, in the words here
cited,
And
further, how can the apostle’s description that he here gives from
Moses, of this exploded way of justification by the works of the law,
consist with the Arminian scheme, of a way of justification by the
virtue of a sincere obedience, that still remains as the true and only
way of justification under the gospel? It is most apparent that it is
the design of the apostle to give a description of both the legal
rejected and the evangelical valid ways of justification, in that
wherein they are distinguished the one from the other. But how is it,
that “he who doth those things, shall live in them,” that
wherein the way of justification by the works of the law is
distinguished from that in which Christians under the gospel are
justified, according to their scheme; for still, according to them, it
may be said, in the same manner, of the precepts of the gospel, he that
doth these things, shall live in them. The difference lies only in the
things to be done, but not at all in that the doing of them is not the
condition of living in them, just in the one case, as in the other. The
words,
Thus I have spoken to a second argument, to prove that we are not justified by any manner of virtue or goodness of our own, viz. that to suppose otherwise, is contrary to the doctrine directly urged, and abundantly insisted on, by the apostle Paul in his epistles.
I now proceed to a
Third argument, viz. That to suppose that we are justified by our own sincere obedience, or any of our own virtue or goodness, derogates from gospel grace.
That
scheme of justification that manifestly takes from or diminishes the
grace of God, is undoubtedly to be rejected; for it is the declared
design of God in the gospel to exalt the freedom and riches of his
grace, in that method of justification of sinners, and way of admitting
them to his favour, and the blessed fruits of it, which it declares.
The Scripture teaches, that the way of justification appointed in the
gospel-covenant, is appointed for that end, that free grace might be
expressed, and glorified;
Those who maintain, that we are justified by our own sincere obedience, pretend that their scheme does not diminish the grace of the gospel; for they say, that the grace of God is wonderfully manifested in appointing such a way and method of salvation by sincere obedience, in assisting us to perform such an obedience, and in accepting our imperfect obedience, instead of perfect.
Let us therefore examine that matter, whether their scheme, of a man’s being justified by his own virtue and sincere obedience, does derogate from the grace of God or no; or whether free grace is not more exalted in supposing, as we do, that we are justified without any manner of goodness of our own. In order to this, I will lay down this self-evident
Proposition, that whatsoever that be by which the abundant benevolence of the giver is expressed, and gratitude in the receiver is obliged, that magnifies free grace. This I suppose none will ever controvert or dispute.—And it is not much less evident, that it doth both show a more abundant benevolence in the giver when he shows kindness without goodness or excellency in the object, to move him to it; and that it enhances the obligation to gratitude in the receiver.
1. It shows a more abundant goodness in the giver, when he shows kindness without any excellency in our persons or actions that should move the giver to love and beneficence. For it certainly shows the more abundant and overflowing goodness, or disposition to communicate good, by how much the less loveliness or excellency there is to entice beneficence. The less there is in the receiver to draw good-will and kindness, it argues the more of the principle of good-will and kindness in the giver. One that has but little of a principle of love and benevolence, may be drawn to do good, and to show kindness, when there is a great deal to draw him, or when there is much excellency and loveliness in the object to move good-will; when he whose goodness and benevolence is more abundant, will show kindness where there is less to draw it forth; for he does not so much need to have it drawn from without, he has enough of the principle within to move him of itself. Where there is most of the principle, there it is most sufficient for itself, and stands in least need of something without to excite it. For certainly a more abundant goodness more easily flows forth with less to impel or draw it, than where there is less; or, which is the same thing, the more any one is disposed of himself, the less he needs from without himself, to put him upon it, or stir him up to it. And therefore his kindness and goodness appears the more exceeding great, when it is bestowed without any excellency or loveliness at all in the receiver, or when the receiver is respected in the gift, as wholly without excellency. And much more still when the benevolence of the giver not only finds nothing in the receiver to draw it, but a great deal of hatefulness to repel it. The abundance of goodness is then manifested, not only in flowing forth without any thing extrinsic to put it forward, but in overcoming great repulsion in the object. And then does kindness and love appear most triumphant, and wonderfully great, when the receiver is not only wholly without all excellency or beauty to attract it, but altogether, yea infinitely, vile and hateful.
2. It is apparent also that it enhances the obligation to gratitude in the receiver. This is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, that the less worthy or excellent the object of benevolence, or the receiver of kindness, is, the more he is obliged, and the greater gratitude is due. He therefore is most of all obliged, that receives kindness without any goodness or excellency in himself, but with a total and universal hatefulness. And as it is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, so it is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, so it is agreeable to the word of God. How often does God in the Scripture insist on this argument with men, to move them to love him, and to acknowledge his kindness! How much does he insist on this as an obligation to gratitude, that they are so sinful, and undeserving, and ill deserving!
Therefore it certainly follows, that the doctrine which teaches, that God, when he justifies a man, and shows him such great kindness as to give him a right to eternal life, does not do it for any obedience, or any manner of goodness, of his; but that justification respects a man as ungodly, and wholly without any manner of virtue, beauty, or excellency. I say, this doctrine does certainly more exalt the free grace of God in justification, and man’s obligation to gratitude for such a favour, than the contrary doctrine, viz. That God, in showing this kindness to man, respects him as sincerely obedient and virtuous, and as having something in him that is truly excellent and lovely, and acceptable in his sight, and that this goodness or excellency of man is the very fundamental condition of the bestowment of that kindness on him, or of distinguishing him from others by that benefit. But I hasten to a
Fourth argument for the truth of the doctrine, That to suppose a man is justified by his own virtue or obedience, derogates from the honour of the Mediator, and ascribes that to man’s virtue which belongs only to the righteousness of Christ: it puts man in Christ’s stead, and makes him his own saviour, in a respect in which Christ only is his Saviour. And so it is a doctrine contrary to the nature and design of the gospel, which is to abase man, and to ascribe all the glory of our salvation to Christ the Redeemer. It is inconsistent with the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, which is a gospel-doctrine.
Here I would explain what we mean by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Prove the thing intended by it to be true. Show that this doctrine is utterly inconsistent with the doctrine of our being justified by our own virtue or sincere obedience.
First,
I would explain what we mean by the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness. Sometimes the expression is taken by our divines in a
larger sense, for the imputation of all that Christ did and suffered
for our redemption, whereby we are free from guilt, and stand righteous
in the sight of God; and so implies the imputation both of Christ’s
satisfaction and obedience. But here I intend it in a stricter sense,
for the imputation of that righteousness or moral goodness that
consists in the obedience of Christ. And by that righteousness being imputed
to us, is meant no other than this, that the righteousness of Christ is
accepted for us, and admitted instead of that perfect inherent
righteousness which ought to be in ourselves. Christ’s perfect
obedience shall be reckoned to our account, so that we shall have the
benefit of it, as though we had performed it ourselves. And so we
suppose that a title to eternal life is given us as the reward of this
righteousness. The Scripture uses the word impute in this sense, viz. for reckoning any thing belonging to any person, to another person’s account: as
The opposers of this doctrine suppose that there is an absurdity in supposing that God imputes Christ’s obedience to us, it is to suppose that God is mistaken, and thinks that we performed that obedience which Christ performed. But why cannot that righteousness be reckoned to our account, and be accepted for us, without any such absurdity? Why is there any more absurdity in it, than in a merchant’s transferring debt or credit from one man’s account to another, when one man pays a price for another, so that it shall be accepted as if that other had paid it? Why is there any more absurdity in supposing that Christ’s obedience is imputed to us, that that his satisfaction is imputed? If Christ has suffered the penalty of the law in our stead, then it will follow, that his suffering that penalty is imputed to us, that is accepted for us, and in our stead, and is reckoned to our account, as though we had suffered it. But why may not his obeying the law of God be as rationally reckoned to our account, as his suffering the penalty of the law? Why may not a price to bring into debt, be as rationally transferred from one person’s account to another, as a price to pay a debt? Having thus explained what we mean by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, I proceed,
Secondly, To prove that the righteousness of Christ is thus imputed.
1.
There is the very same need of Christ’s obeying the law in our stead,
in order to the reward, as of his suffering the penalty of the law in
our stead, in order to our escaping the penalty; and the same reason
why one should be accepted on our account, as the other. There is the
same need of one as the other, that the law of God might be answered;
one was as requisite to answer the law as the other. It is certain,
that was the reason why there was need that Christ should suffer the
penalty for us, even that the law might be answered; for this Scripture
plainly teaches. This is given as the reason why Christ was made a
curse for us, that the law threatened a curse to us,
Christ by suffering the penalty, and so making atonement for us, only removes the guilt of our sins, and so sets us in the same state that Adam was in the first moment of his creation; and it is no more fit that we should obtain eternal life only on that account, than that Adam should have the reward of eternal life, or of a confirmed and unalterable state of happiness, the first moments of his existence, without any obedience at all. Adam was not to have the reward merely on account of his being innocent; if so, he would have had it fixed upon him at once, as soon as ever he was created; for he was as innocent then as he could be. But he was to have the reward on account of his activeness in obedience; not on account merely of his not having done ill, but on account of his doing well.
So
on the same account we have not eternal life merely as void of guilt,
which we have by the atonement of Christ; but on the account of
Christ’s activeness in obedience, and doing well. Christ is our second
federal head, and is called the second Adam,
God saw meet to place man first in a state of trial, and not to give him a title to eternal life as soon as he had made him; because it was his will that he should first give honour to his authority, by fully submitting to it, in will and act, and perfectly obeying his law. God insisted upon it, that his holy majesty and law should have their due acknowledgement and honour from man, such as became the relation he stood in to that Being who created him, before he would bestow the reward of confirmed and everlasting happiness upon him; and therefore God gave him a law that he might have opportunity, by giving due honour to his authority in obeying it, to obtain this happiness. It therefore became Christ—seeing that, in assuming man to himself, he sought a title to this eternal happiness for him after he had broken the law—that he himself should become subject to God’s authority, and be in the form of a servant, that he might do that honour to God’s authority for him, by his obedience, which God at first required of man as the condition of his having a title to that reward. Christ came into the world to render the honour of God’s authority and law consistent with the salvation and eternal life of sinners; he came to save them, and yet withal to assert and vindicate the honour of the lawgiver, and his holy law. Now, if the sinner, after his sin was satisfied for, had eternal life bestowed upon him without active righteousness, the honour of his law would not be sufficiently vindicated. Supposing this were possible, that the sinner himself could, by suffering, pay the debt, and afterwards be in the same state that he was in before his probation, that is to say, negatively righteous, or merely without guilt; if he now at last should have eternal life bestowed upon him, without performing that condition of obedience; then God would recede from his law, and would give the promised reward, and his law never have respect and honour shown to it, in that way of being obeyed. But now Christ, by subjecting himself to the law, and obeying it, has done great honour to the law, and to the authority of God who gave it. That so glorious a person should become subject to the law, and fulfil it, has done much more to honour it, than if mere man had obeyed it. It was a thing infinitely honourable to God, that a person of infinite dignity was not ashamed to call him his God, and to adore and obey him as such. This was more to God’s honour than if any mere creature, of any possible degree of excellence and dignity, had so done.
It is absolutely necessary, that in order to a sinner’s being justified, the righteousness of some other should be reckoned to his account; for it is declared, that the person justified is looked upon as (in himself) ungodly; but God neither will nor can justify a person without a righteousness; for justification is manifestly a forensic term, as the word is used in Scripture, and a judicial thing, or the act of a judge. So that if a person should be justified without a righteousness, the judgment would not be according to truth. The sentence of justification would be a false sentence, unless there be a righteousness performed that is by the judge properly looked upon as his. To say, that God does not justify the sinner without sincere, though an imperfect, obedience, does not help the case; for an imperfect righteousness before a judge is no righteousness. To accept of something that falls short of the rule, instead of something else that answers the rule, is not judicial act, or act of a judge, but a pure act of sovereignty. An imperfect righteousness is no righteousness before a judge; for “righteousness (as one observes) is a relative thing, and has always relation to a law. The formal nature of righteousness, properly understood, lies in a conformity of actions to that which is the rule and measure of them.” Therefore that only is righteousness in the sight of a judge 637 that answers the law. [1] The law is the judge’s rule: if he pardons and hides what really is, and so does not pass sentence according to what things are in themselves, he either does not act the part of a judge, or else judges falsely. The very notion of judging is to determine what is, and what is not, in any one’s case. The judge’s work is twofold; it is to determine first what is fact, and then whether what is in fact be according to rule, or according to the law. If a judge has no rule or law established beforehand, by which he should proceed in judging, he has no foundation to go upon in judging, he has no opportunity to be a judge; nor is it possible that he should do the part of a judge. To judge without a law or rule by which to judge, is impossible; for the very notion of judging, is to determine whether the object of judgment be according to rule; and therefore God has declared, that when he acts as a judge, he will not justify the wicked, and cannot clear the guilty; and, by parity of reason, cannot justify without righteousness.
And the scheme of the old law’s being abrogated, and a new law introduced, will not help at all in this difficulty; for an imperfect righteousness cannot answer the law of God we are under, whether that be an old or a new one; for every law requires perfect obedience to itself. Every rule whatsoever requires perfect conformity to itself; it is a contradiction to suppose otherwise. For to say, that there is a law that does not require perfect obedience to itself, is to say that there is a law that does not require all that it requires. That law that now forbids sin, is certainly the law that we are now under, (let that be an old or a new one,) or else it is not sin. That which is not forbidden, and is the breach of the law, is no sin. But if we are now forbidden to commit sin, then it is by a law that we are now under; for surely we are neither under the forbiddings nor commanding of a law that we are not under. Therefore, if all sin is now forbidden, then we are now under a law that requires perfect obedience; and therefore nothing can be accepted as a righteousness in the sight of our Judge, but perfect righteousness. So that our Judge cannot justify us, unless he sees a perfect righteousness, some way belonging to us, either performed by ourselves, or by another, and justly and duly reckoned to our account.
God doth, in the sentence of justification, pronounce a man perfectly righteousness, or else he would need a further justification after he is justified. His sins being removed by Christ’s atonement, is not sufficient for his justification; for justifying a man, as has been already shown, is not merely pronouncing him innocent, or without guilt, but standing right with regard to the rule that he is under, and righteous unto life: but this, according to the established rule of nature, reason, and divine appointment, is a positive, perfect righteousness.
As there is the same need that Christ’s obedience should be reckoned to our account, as that his atonement should; so there is the same reason why it should. As if Adam had persevered, and finished his course of obedience, we should have received the benefit of his obedience, as much as now we have the mischief of his disobedience; so in like manner, there is reason that we should receive the benefit of the second Adam’s obedience, as of his atonement of our disobedience. Believers are represented in Scripture as being so in Christ, as that they are legally one, or accepted as one, by the Supreme Judge: Christ has assumed our nature, and has so assumed all in that nature that belongs to him, into such an union with himself, that he is become their head, and has taken them to be his members. And therefore, what Christ has done in our nature, whereby he did honour to the law and authority of God by his acts, as well as the reparation to the honour of the law by his sufferings, is reckoned to the believer’s account; so as that the believer should be made happy, because it was so well and worthily done by his Head, as well as freed from being miserable, because he has suffered for our ill and unworthy doing.
When
Christ had once undertaken with God to stand for us, and put himself
under our law, by that law he was obliged to suffer and by the same law
he was obliged to obey: by the same law, after he had taken man’s guilt
upon him, he himself, being our surety, could not be acquitted till he
had suffered, nor rewarded till he had obeyed: but he was not acquitted
as a private person, but as our head, and believers are acquitted in
his acquittance; nor was he accepted to a reward for his obedience, as
a private person, but as our head, and we are accepted to a reward in
his acceptance. The Scripture teaches us, that when Christ was raised
from the dead, he was justified; which justification, as I have already
shown, implies both his acquittance from our guilt, and his acceptance
to the exaltation and glory that was the reward of his obedience; but
believers, as soon as they believe, are admitted to partake with Christ
in this his justification: hence we are told, that he was “raised again
for our justification,”
If it be objected here, that there is this reason, why what Christ suffered should be accepted on our account, rather than the obedience he performed, that he was obliged to obedience for himself, but was not obliged to suffer but only on our account; to this I answer, That Christ was not obliged, on his own account, to undertake to obey. Christ, in his original circumstances, was in no subjection to the Father, being altogether equal with him: he was under no obligation to put himself in man’s stead, and under man’s law; or to put himself into any state of subjection to God whatsoever. There was a transaction between the Father and the Son, that was antecedent to Christ’s becoming man, and being made under the law, wherein he undertook to put himself under the law, and both to obey and to suffer; in which transaction these things were already virtually done in the sight of God; as is evident by this, that God acted on the ground of that transaction, justifying and saving sinners, as if the things undertaken had been actually performed long before they were performed indeed. And therefore, without doubt, in order to estimate the value and validity of what Christ did and suffered, we must look back to that transaction, wherein these things were first undertaken, and virtually done in the sight of God, and see what capacity and circumstances Christ acted in them, and we shall find that 638Christ was under no manner of obligation, either to obey the law, or to suffer its penalty. After this he was equally under obligation to both; for henceforward he stood as our surety or representative: and therefore this consequent obligation may be as much of an objection against the validity of his suffering the penalty, as against his obedience. But if we look to that original transaction between the Father and the Son, wherein both these were undertaken and accepted as virtually done in the sight of the Father, we shall find Christ acting with regard to both, as one perfectly in his own right, and under no manner of previous obligation to hinder the validity of either.
2.
To suppose that all Christ does is only to make atonement for us by
suffering, is to make him our Saviour but in part. It is to rob him of
half his glory as a Saviour. For if so, all that he does is to deliver
us from hell; he does not purchase heaven for us. The adverse scheme
supposes that he purchases heaven for us, in that he satisfies for the
imperfections of our obedience, and so purchases that our sincere
imperfect obedience might be accepted as the condition of eternal life;
and so purchases an opportunity for us to obtain heaven by our own
obedience. But to purchase heaven for us only in this sense, is to
purchase it in no sense at all; for all of it comes to no more than a
satisfaction for our sins, or removing the penalty by suffering in our
stead. For all the purchasing they speak of, that our imperfect
obedience should be accepted, is only to pay a debt for us; there is no
positive purchase of any good. We are taught in Scripture that heaven
is purchased for us; it is called the purchased possession,
3. Justification by the righteousness and obedience of Christ, is a doctrine that the Scripture teaches in very full terms;
Here possibly it may be objected, that this text means only, that we are justified by Christ’s passive obedience.
To
this I answer, whether we call it active or passive, it alters not the
case as to the present argument, as long as it is evident by the words,
that it is not merely under the notion of an atonement for
disobedience, or a satisfaction for unrighteousness, but under the
notion of a positive obedience, and a righteousness, or moral goodness,
that it justifies us, or makes us righteous; because both the words righteousness and obedience are used, and used
too as the opposites to sin and disobedience, and an offence.
By this it appears, that if Christ’s dying be here included in the words righteousness and obedience, it is not merely as a propitiation, or bearing a penalty of a broken law in our stead, but as his voluntary submitting and yielding himself to those sufferings, was an act of obedience to the Father’s commands, and so was a part of his positive righteousness, or moral goodness.
Indeed all obedience considered under the notion of righteousness, is something active, something done in voluntary compliance with a command; whether it may be done without suffering, or whether it be hard and difficult; yet as it is obedience, righteousness, or moral goodness, it must be considered as something voluntary and active. If any one is commanded to go through difficulties and sufferings, and he, in compliance with this command, voluntarily does it, he properly obeys in so doing; and as he voluntarily does it in compliance with a command, his obedience is as active as any whatsoever. It is the same sort of obedience, a thing of the very same nature, as when a man, in compliance with a command, does a piece of hard service, or goes through hard labour; and there is no room to distinguish between such obedience of it, as if it were a thing of quite a different nature, by such opposite terms as active and passive: all the distinction that can be pretended, is that which is between obeying an easy command and a difficult one. But is there from hence any foundation to make two species of obedience, one active and the other passive? There is no appearance of any such distinction ever entering into the hearts of any of the penmen of Scripture.
It is true, that of late, when a man refuses to obey the precept of a human law, but patiently yields himself up to suffer the penalty of the law, it is called passive obedience: but this I suppose is only a modern use of the word obedience; surely it is a sense of the word that the Scripture is a perfect stranger to. It is improperly called obedience, unless there be such a precept in the law, that he shall yield himself patiently to suffer, to which his so doing shall be an active voluntary conformity. There may in some sense be said to be a conformity of the law in a person’s suffering the penalty of the law; but no other conformity to the law is properly called obedience to it, but an active voluntary conformity to the precepts of it. The word obey is often found in Scripture with respect to the law of God to man, but never in any other sense.
It is true that Christ’s willingly
undergoing those sufferings which he endured, is a great part of that
obedience of righteousness by which we are justified. The sufferings of
Christ are respected in Scripture under a twofold consideration, either
merely as his being substituted for us, or put into our stead, in
suffering the penalty of the law; and so his sufferings are considered
as a satisfaction and propitiation for sin; or as he, in obedience to a
law or command of the Father, voluntarily submitted himself to those
sufferings, and actively yielded himself up to bear them; and so they
are considered as his righteousness, and a part of his active
obedience. Christ underwent death in obedience to the command of the
Father,
It can be no just objection against this, that the command of the Father to Christ that he should lay down his life, was no part of the law that we had broken; and therefore, that his obeying this command could be no part of that obedience that he performed for us, but only that which we had broken or failed of obeying. For although it must be the same legislative authority, whose honour is repaired by Christ’s obedience, that we have injured by our disobedience; yet there is no need that the law which Christ obeys should be precisely the same that Adam was to have obeyed, in that sense, that there should be no positive precepts wanting, nor any added. There was wanting the precept about the forbidden fruit, and there was added the ceremonial law. The thing required was perfect obedience. It is no matter whether the positive precepts were the same, if they were equivalent. The positive precepts that Christ was to obey, were much more than equivalent to what was wanting, because infinitely more difficult, particularly the command that he had received to lay down his life, which was his principal act of obedience, and which, above all other, is concerned in our justification. As that act of disobedience by which we fell, was disobedience to a positive precept that Christ never was under, viz. that of abstaining from the tree of knowledge of good and evil; so that act of obedience by which principally we are redeemed, is obedience to a positive precept that Adam never was under, viz. the precept of laying down his life. It was suitable that it should be a positive precept, that should try both Adam’s and Christ’s obedience. Such precepts are the greatest and most proper trial of obedience; because in them, the mere authority and will of the legislator is the sole ground of the obligation, (and nothing in the nature of the things themselves,) and therefore they are the greatest trial of any person’s respect to that authority and will.
The law that Christ was subject to, and obeyed, was in some sense the same that was given to Adam. There are innumerable particular duties required by the law only conditionally; and in such circumstances, are comprehended in some great and general rule of that law. Thus, for instance, there are innumerable acts of respect and obedience to men, which are required by the law of nature, (which was a law given to Adam,) which yet are not required absolutely, but upon many pre-requisite conditions; as, that there be men standing in such relations to us, and that they give forth such commands, and the like. So many acts of respect and obedience to God are included, in like manner, in the moral law conditionally, or such and such things being supposed; as Abraham’s going about to sacrifice his son, the Jews’ circumcising their children when eight days old, and Adam’s not eating the forbidden fruit; they are virtually comprehended in that great general rule of the moral law, that we should obey God, and be subject to him in whatsoever he pleases to command us. Certainly the moral law does as much require us to obey God’s positive commands, as it requires us to obey the positive commands of our parents. And thus all that Adam, and all that Christ was commanded, even his observing the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish worship, and his laying down his life, was virtually included in this same great law. [1]
It is no objection against the last-mentioned thing, even Christ’s laying down his life, it being included in the moral law given to Adam, because that law itself allowed of no occasion for any such thing; for the moral law virtually includes all right acts, on all possible occasions, even occasions that the law itself allows not: thus we are obliged by the moral law to mortify our lusts, and repent of our sins, though that law allows of no lust to mortify, of sin to repent of.
There is
indeed but one great law of God, and that is the same law that says,
“if thou sinnest, thou shalt die;” and “cursed is every one that
continues not in all things contained in this law to do them.” All
duties of positive institution are virtually comprehended in this law:
and therefore, if the Jews broke the ceremonial law, it exposed them to
the penalty of the law, or covenant of works, which threatened, “thou
shalt surely die.” The law is the eternal and unalterable rule of
righteousness between God and man, and therefore is the rule of
judgment, by which all that a man does shall be either justified or
condemned; and no sin exposes to damnation, but by the law. So now he
that refuses to obey the precepts that require an attendance on the
sacraments of the New Testament, is exposed to damnation, by virtue of
the law or covenant of works. It may moreover be argued, that all sins
whatsoever are breaches of the law or covenant of works, because all
sins, even breaches of the positive precepts, as well as others, have
atonement by the death of Christ: but what Christ died for, was to
satisfy the law, or to bear the curse of the law; as appears by
So
that Christ’s laying down his life might be part of that obedience by
which we are justified, though it was a positive precept not given to
Adam. It was doubtless Christ’s main act of obedience, because it was
obedience to a command that was attended with immensely the greatest
difficulty, and so to a command that was the greatest trial of his
obedience. His respect shown to God in it, and his honour to God’s
authority, was proportionably great. It is spoken of in Scripture as
Christ’s principal act of obedience.
Hence we may see how that the death of Christ did not only make atonement, but also merited eternal life; and hence we may see how by the blood of Christ we are not only redeemed from sin, but redeemed unto God; and therefore the Scripture seems every where to attribute the whole of salvation to the blood of Christ. This precious blood is as much the main price by which heaven is purchased, as it is the main price by which we are redeemed from hell. The positive righteousness of Christ, or that price by which he merited, was of equal value with that 640by which he satisfied; for indeed it was the same price. He spilled his blood to satisfy, and by reason of the infinite dignity of his person, his sufferings were looked upon as of infinite value, and equivalent to the eternal sufferings of a finite creature. And he spilled his blood out of respect to the honour of God’s majesty, and in submission to his authority, who had commanded him so to do: and his obedience therein was of infinite value; both because of the dignity of the person that performed it, and because he put himself to infinite expense to perform it, whereby the infinite degree of his regard to God’s authority appeared.
One would wonder what Arminians mean by Christ’s merits. They talk of Christ’s merits as much as any body, and yet deny the imputation of Christ’s positive righteousness. What should there be that any one should merit or deserve any thing by, besides righteousness or goodness? If any thing that Christ did or suffered, merited or deserved any thing, it was by virtue of the goodness, or righteousness, or holiness of it. If Christ’s sufferings and death merited heaven, it must be because there was an excellent righteousness and transcendent moral goodness in that act of laying down his life. And if by that excellent righteousness he merited heaven for us; then surely that righteousness is reckoned to our account, that we have the benefit of it, or, which is the same thing, it is imputed to us.
Thus, I hope, I have made it evident, that the righteousness of Christ is indeed imputed to us. I proceed now to the
Third
and last thing under this argument, That this doctrine, of the
imputation of Christ’s righteousness, is utterly inconsistent with the
doctrine of our being justified by our own virtue or sincere obedience.
If acceptance to God’s favour, and a title to life, be given to
believers as the reward of Christ’s obedience, then it is not given as
the reward of our own obedience. In what respect soever Christ is our
Saviour, that doubtless excludes our being our own saviours in that
same respect. If we can be our own saviours in the same respect that
Christ is, it will thence follow, that the salvation of Christ is
needless in that respect; according to the apostle’s reasoning,
Here perhaps it may be said, that a title to salvation is not directly given as the reward of our obedience; for that is not by any thing of ours, but only by Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness; but yet an interest in that satisfaction and righteousness if given as a reward of our obedience.
But this does not at all help the case; for this is to ascribe as much to our obedience as if we ascribed salvation to it directly, without the intervention of Christ’s righteousness. For it would be as a great thing for God to give us Christ, and his satisfaction and righteousness, in reward for our obedience, as to give us heaven immediately; it would be as great a reward, and as great a testimony of respect to our obedience. And if God gives as great a thing as salvation for our obedience, why could he not as well give salvation itself directly? and then there would have been no need of Christ’s righteousness. And indeed if God gives us Christ, or an interest in him, properly in reward of our obedience, he does really give us salvation in reward for our obedience: for the former implies the latter; yea, it implies it, as the greater implies the less. So that indeed it exalts our virtue and obedience more, to suppose that God gives us Christ in reward of that virtue and obedience, than if he should give salvation without Christ.
The thing that the Scripture guards and militates against, is our imagining that it is our own goodness, virtue, or excellency that instates us in God’s acceptance and favour. But to suppose that God gives us an interest in Christ in reward for our virtue, is as great an argument that it instates us in God’s favour, as if he bestowed a title to eternal life as its direct reward. If God gives us an interest in Christ as a reward of our obedience, it will then follow, that we are instated in God’s acceptance and favour by our own obedience, antecedent to our having an interest in Christ. For a rewarding any one’s excellency, evermore supposes favour and acceptance on the account of that excellency: it is the very notion of a reward, that it is a good thing, bestowed in testimony of respect and favour for the virtue or excellency rewarded. So that it is not by virtue of our interest in Christ and his merits, that we first come into favour with God, according to this scheme; for we are in God’s favour before we have any interest in those merits; in that we have an interest in those merits given as a fruit of God’s favour for our own virtue. If our interest in Christ be the fruit of God’s favour, then it cannot be the ground of it. If God did not accept us, and had no favour for us for our own excellency, he never would bestow so great a reward upon us, as a right in Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness. So that such a scheme destroys itself; for it supposes that Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness are necessary for us to recommend us to the favour of God; and yet supposes that we have God’s favour and acceptance before we have Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness, and have these given as a fruit of God’s favour.
Indeed, neither salvation itself, nor Christ the Saviour, are given as a reward of any thing in man: they are not given as a reward of faith, nor any thing else of ours: we are not united to Christ as a reward of our faith, but have union with him by faith, only as faith is the very act of uniting or closing on our part. As when a man offers himself to a woman in marriage, he does not give himself to her as a reward of her receiving him in marriage. Her receiving him is not considered as a worthy deed in her for which he rewards her by giving himself to her; but it is by her receiving him that the union is made, by which she hath him for her husband. It is on her part the unition itself. By these things it appears how contrary to the gospel of Christ their scheme is, who say that faith justifies as a principle of obedience, or as a leading act of obedience; or (as others) the sum and comprehension of all evangelical obedience. For by this, the obedience or virtue that is in faith gives it its justifying influence; and that is the same thing as to say, that we are justified by our own obedience, virtue, or goodness.
Having thus considered the evidence of the truth of the doctrine, I proceed now to the
III. Thing proposed, viz. “To show in what sense the act of a christian life, or of evangelical obedience, may be looked upon to be concerned in this affair.”
From what has been said already, it is manifest that they cannot have any concern in this affair as good works, or by virtue of any moral goodness in them; not as works of the law, or as that moral excellency, or any part of it, which is the fulfilment of that great, universal, and everlasting law or covenant of works which the great lawgiver has established, as the highest and unalterable rule of judgment, which Christ alone answers, or does any thing towards it.
It having been shown out of the Scripture, that it is only by faith, or the soul’s receiving and uniting to the Saviour who has wrought our righteousness, that we are justified; it therefore remains, that the acts of a christian life cannot be concerned in this affair any otherwise than as they imply, and are the expressions of, faith, and may be looked upon as so many acts of reception of Christ the Saviour. But the determining what concerns acts of christian obedience can have in justification in this respect, will depend on the resolving of another point, viz. Whether any other act of faith besides the first act, has any concern in our justification, or how far perseverance in faith, or the continued and renewed acts of faith, have influence in this affair. And it seems manifest that justification is by the first act of faith, in some respects, in a peculiar manner, because a sinner is actually and finally justified as soon as he has performed one act of faith; and faith in its first act does, virtually at least, depend on God for perseverance, and entitles to this among other benefits. But yet the perseverance of faith is not excluded in this affair; it is not only certainly connected with justification, but it is not to be excluded from that on which the justification of a sinner has a dependence, or that by which he is justified.
I have shown that the way in which justification has a
641
dependence on faith, is, that it is the qualification on which the
congruity of an interest in the righteousness of Christ depends, or
wherein such a fitness consists. But the consideration of the
perseverance of faith cannot be excluded out of this congruity or
fitness, for it is congruous that he that believes in Christ should
have an interest in Christ’s righteousness, and so in the eternal
benefits purchased by it, because faith is that by which the soul hath
union or oneness with Christ; and there is a natural congruity in it,
that they who are one with Christ should have a joint interest with him
in his eternal benefits; but yet this congruity depends on its being an
abiding union. As it is needful that the branch should abide in the
vine, in order to its receiving the lasting benefits of the root; so it
is necessary that the soul should abide in Christ, in order to its
receiving those lasting benefits of God’s final acceptance and favour.
So that although the sinner is actually and finally justified on the first acts of faith, yet the perseverance of faith, even then, comes into consideration, as one thing on which the fitness of acceptance to life depends. God, in the act of justification, which is passed on a sinner’s first believing, has respect to perseverance, as being virtually contained in that first act of faith; and it is looked upon, and taken by him that justifies, as being as it were a property in that faith. God has respect to the believer’s continuance in faith, and he is justified by that, as though it already were, because by divine establishment it shall follow; and it being by divine constitution connected with that first faith, as much as if it were a property in it, it is then considered as such, and so justification is not suspended; but were it not for this, it would be needful that is should be suspended, till the sinner had actually persevered in faith.
And
that it is so, that God in the act of final justification which he
passes at the sinner’s conversion, has respect to perseverance in
faith, and future acts of faith, as being virtually implied in the
first act, is further manifest by this, viz. That in a sinner’s
justification, at his conversion there is virtually contained a
forgiveness as to eternal and deserved punishment, not only of all past
sins, but also of all future infirmities and acts of sin that they
shall be guilty of; because that first justification is decisive and
final. And yet pardon, in the order of nature, properly follows the
crime, and also follows those acts of repentance and faith that respect
the crime pardoned, as is manifest both from reason and Scripture.
David, in the beginning of
But inasmuch as a sinner, in his first justification, is for ever justified and freed from all obligations to eternal punishment; it hence of necessity follows, that future faith and repentance are beheld, in that justification, as virtually contained in that first faith and repentance; because repentance of those future sins, and faith in a Redeemer, with respect to them, or, at least, the continuance of that habit and principle in the heart that has such an actual repentance and faith in its nature and tendency, is now made sure by God’s promise.—If remission of sins, committed after conversion, in the order of nature, follows that faith and repentance that is after them, then it follows that future sins are respected in the first justification, no otherwise than as future faith and repentance are respected in it. And future repentance and faith are looked upon by him that justifies, as virtually implied in the first repentance and faith, in the same manner as justification from future sins is virtually implied in the first justification; which is the thing that was to be proved.
And besides, if no other act of faith could be concerned in justification but the first act, it will then follow, that Christians ought never to seek justification by any other act of faith. For if justification is not to be obtained by after acts of faith, then surely it is not a duty to seek it by such acts: and so it can never be a duty for persons after they are once converted, by faith to seek to God, or believingly to look to him, for the remission of sin, or deliverance from the guilt of it, because deliverance from the guilt of sin is part of what belongs to justification. And if it be not proper for converts by faith to look to God through Christ for it, then it will follow, that it is not proper for them to pray for it; for christian prayer to God for a blessing, is but an expression of faith in God for that blessing; prayer is only the voice of faith. But if these things are so, it will follow that the petition of the Lord’s prayer, forgive us our debts, is not proper to be put up by disciples of Christ, or to be used in christian assemblies; and that Christ improperly directed his disciples to use that petition, when they were all of them, except Judas, converted before. The debt that Christ directs his disciples to pray for the forgiveness of, can mean nothing else but the punishment that sin deserves, or the debt that we owe to divine justice, the ten thousand talents we owe our Lord. To pray that God would forgive our debts, is undoubtedly the same thing as to pray that God would release us from obligation to due punishment; but releasing from obligation to the punishment due to sin, and forgiving the debt that we owe to divine justice, is what appertains to justification.
And then to suppose that no after acts of faith are concerned in the business of justification, and so that it is not proper for any ever to seek justification by such acts, would be for ever to cut off those Christians that are doubtful concerning their first act of faith, from the joy and peace of believing. As the business of a justifying faith is to obtain pardon and peace with God, by looking to God, and trusting in him for these blessings; so the joy and peace of that faith is in the apprehension of pardon and peace obtained by such a trust. This a Christian that is doubtful of his first act of faith cannot have from that act, because, by the supposition, he is doubtful whether it be an act of faith, and so whether he did obtain pardon and peace by that act. The proper remedy, in such a case, is now by faith to look to God in Christ for these blessings; but he is cut off from this remedy, because he is uncertain whether he has warranted so to do; for he does not know but that he has believed already; and if so, then he has no warrant to look to God by faith for these blessings now, 642because, by the supposition, no new act of faith is a proper means of obtaining these blessings. And so he can never properly obtain the joy of faith; for there are acts of true faith that are very weak, and the first act may be so as well as others: it may be like the first motion of the infant in the womb; it may be so weak an act, that the Christian, by examining it, may never be able to determine whether it was a true act of faith or no; and it is evident from fact, and abundant experience, that many Christians are for ever at a loss to determine which was their first act of faith. And those saints who have had a good degree of satisfaction concerning their faith, may be subject to great declensions and falls, in which case they are liable to great fears of eternal punishment; and the proper way of deliverance, is to forsake their sin by repentance, and by faith now to come to Christ for deliverance from the deserved eternal punishment; but this it would not be, if deliverance from that punishment was not this way to be obtained.
But
what is a still more plain and direct evidence of what I am now arguing
for, is, that the act of faith which Abraham exercised in the great
promise of the covenant of grace that God made to him, of which it is
expressly said,
Moreover, the apostle Paul, in the
On
the whole, it appears, that the perseverance of faith is necessary,
even to the congruity of justification; and that not the less, because
the sinner is justified, and perseverance promised, on the first act of
faith, but God, in that justification, has respect, not only to the
past act of faith, but to his own promise of future acts, and to the
fitness of a qualification beheld as yet only in his own promise. And
that perseverance in faith is thus necessary to salvation, not merely
as a sine qua non, nor as an universal
concomitant of it, but by reason of such an influence and dependence,
seems manifest by many scriptures: I would mention two or three;
And, as the congruity to a final justification depends on perseverance in faith, as well as the first act, so oftentimes the manifestation of justification in the conscience, arises as great deal more from after acts, than the first act. And all the difference whereby the first act of faith has a concern in this affair that is peculiar, seems to be, as it were, only an accidental difference, arising from the circumstance of time, or its being first in order of time; and not from any peculiar respect that God has to it, or any influence it has of a peculiar nature, in the affair of our salvation.
And
thus it is that a truly christian walk, and the acts of an evangelical,
child-like, believing obedience, are concerned in the affair of our
justification, and seem to be sometimes so spoken of in Scripture, viz.
as an expression of a persevering faith in the Son of God, the only
Saviour. Faith unites to Christ, and so gives a congruity to
justification, not merely as remaining a dormant principle in the
heart, but as being and appearing in its active expressions. The
obedience of a Christian, so far as it is truly evangelical, and
performed with the Spirit of the Son sent forth into the heart, has all
relation to Christ, the Mediator, and is but an expression of the
soul’s believing unition to Christ. All evangelical works are works of
that faith that worketh by love; and every such act of obedience,
wherein it is inward, and the act of the soul, is only a new effective
act of reception of Christ, and adherence to the glorious Saviour.
Hence that of the apostle,
And
that God in justification has respect, not only to the first act of
faith, but also to future persevering acts, as expressed in life, seems
manifest by
So that as was before said of faith, so may it be said of a child-like believing obedience, it has no concern in justification by any virtue or excellency in it; but only as there is a reception of Christ in it. And this is no more contrary to the apostle’s frequent assertion of our being justified without the works of the law, than to say that we are justified by faith; for faith is as much a work, or act of christian obedience, as the expressions of faith, in spiritual life and walk. And therefore, as we say that faith does not justify as a work, so we say of all these effective expressions of faith.
This is the reverse of the scheme of our modern divines, who hold, that faith justifies only as an act or expression of obedience; whereas, in truth, obedience has no concern in justification, any otherwise than as an expression of faith.
I now proceed to the
IV. Thing proposed, viz. To answer objections.
Object.
1. We frequently find promises of eternal life and salvation, and
sometimes of justification itself, made our own virtue and obedience.
Eternal life is promised to obedience, in
To this I answer,
1. These things being promised to our virtue and obedience, argues no more, that that there is a connexion between them and evangelical obedience; which, I have already observed, is not the thing in dispute. All that can be proved by obedience and salvation being connected in the promise, is, that obedience and salvation are connected in fact; which nobody denies; and whether it be owned or denied, is, as has been shown, nothing to the purpose. There is no need that an admission to a title to salvation, should be given on the account of our obedience, in order to the promises being true. If we find such a promise, that he that obeys shall be saved, or he that is holy shall be justified; all that is needful, in order to such promises being true, is, that it be really so, that he that obeys shall be saved, and that holiness and justification shall indeed go together. That proposition may be a truth, that he that obeys shall be saved; because obedience and salvation are 643connected together in fact; and yet an acceptance to a title to salvation not be granted upon the account of any of our own virtue or obedience. What is a promise, but only a declaration of future truth, for the comfort and encouragement of the person to whom it is declared? Promises are conditional propositions; and, as has been already observed, it is not the thing in dispute, whether other things besides faith may not have the place of the condition in such propositions wherein pardon and salvation are the consequent.
2. Promises may rationally be made to signs and evidences of faith, and yet the thing promised not be upon the account of the sign, but the thing signified. Thus, for instance, human government may rationally make promises of such and such privileges to those that can show such evidences of their being free of such a city, or members of such a corporation, or descended of such a family; when it is not at all for the sake of that which is the evidence or sign, in itself considered, that they are admitted to such a privilege, but only and purely for the sake of that which it is an evidence of. And though God does not stand in need of signs to know whether we have true faith or not, yet our own consciences do; so that it is much for our comfort that promises are made to signs of faith. Finding in ourselves a forgiving temper and disposition, may be a most proper and natural evidence to our consciences, that our hearts have, in a sense of our own utter unworthiness, truly closed and fallen in with the way of free and infinitely gracious forgiveness of our sins by Jesus Christ; whence we may be enabled, with the greater comfort, to apply to ourselves the promises of forgiveness by Christ.
3. It has been just now shown, how that acts of evangelical obedience are indeed concerned in our justification itself, and are not excluded from that condition that justification depends upon, without the least prejudice to that doctrine of justification by faith, without any goodness of our own, that has been maintained; and therefore it can be no objection against this doctrine, that we have sometimes in Scripture promises of pardon and acceptance made to such acts of obedience.
4. Promises of particular benefits implied in justification and salvation, may especially be fitly made to such expressions and evidences of faith as they have a peculiar natural likeness and suitableness to. As forgiveness is promised to a forgiving spirit in us; obtaining mercy is fitly promised to mercifulness in us, and the like; and that upon several accounts, they are the most natural evidences of our heart’s closing with those benefits by faith; for they do especially show the sweet accord and consent that there is between the heart and these benefits; and by reason of the natural likeness that there is between the virtue and the benefit, the one has the greater tendency to bring the other to mind; the practice of the virtue tends the more to renew the sense, and refresh the hope, of the blessing promised; and also to convince the conscience of the justice of being denied the benefit, if the duty be neglected. Besides the sense and manifestation of divine forgiveness in our own consciences—yea, and may exercises of God’s forgiving mercy, (as it respects God’s fatherly displeasure,) granted after justification, through the course of a Christian’s life—may be given as the proper rewards of a forgiving spirit, and yet this not be at all to the prejudice of the doctrine we have maintained; as will more fully appear, when we come to answer another objection hereafter to be mentioned.
Object. 2. Our own obedience, and inherent holiness, is necessary to prepare men for heaven; and therefore is doubtless what recommends persons to God’s acceptance, as the heirs of heaven.
To this I answer,
1. Our own obedience being necessary in order to a preparation for an actual bestowment of glory, is no argument that it is the thing upon the account of which we are accepted to a right to it. God may, and does do many things to prepare the saints for glory, after he has accepted them as the heirs of glory. A parent may do much to prepare a child for an inheritance in its education, after the child is an heir; yea, there are many things necessary to fit a child for the actual possession of the inheritance, yet not necessary in order to its having a right to the inheritance.
2. If every thing that is necessary to prepare men for glory must be the proper condition of justification, then perfect holiness is the condition of justification. Men must be made perfectly holy, before they are admitted to the enjoyment of the blessedness of heaven; for there must in no wise enter in there any spiritual defilement. And therefore, when a saint dies, he leaves all his sin and corruption when he leaves the body.
Object.
3. Our obedience is not only indissolubly connected with salvation, and
preparatory to it, but the Scripture expressly speaks of bestowing
eternal blessings as rewards for the good deeds of the saints.
In answer to the first
part of this objection, I would observe, that it does not argue that we
are justified by our good deeds, that we shall have eternal blessings
in reward for them; for it is in consequence of our justification, that
our good deeds become rewardable with spiritual and eternal rewards.
The acceptableness, and so the rewardableness, of our virtue, is not
antecedent to justification, but follows it, and is built entirely upon
it; which is the reverse of what those in the adverse scheme of
justification suppose, viz.
that justification is built on the acceptableness and reward of our
virtue. They suppose that a saving interest in Christ is given as a
reward of our virtue, or, (which is the same thing,) as a testimony of
God’s acceptance of our excellency in our virtue. But the contrary is
true; that God’s respect to our virtue as our amiableness in his sight,
and his acceptance of it as rewardable, is entirely built on our
interest in Christ already established. So that the relation to Christ,
whereby believers in scripture language are said to be in Christ, is
the very foundation of our virtues and good deeds being accepted of
God, and so of their being rewarded; for a reward is a testimony of
acceptance. For we, and all that we do, are accepted only in the
beloved,
The reason of this may be seen from what has been already said, to show it is not meet that any thing in us should be accepted of God as any excellency of our persons, until we are actually in Christ, and justified through him. The loveliness of the virtue of fallen creatures is nothing in the sight of God, till he beholds them in Christ, and clothed with his righteousness. 1. Because till then we stand condemned before God, by his own holy law, to his utter rejection and abhorrence. And, 2. Because we are infinitely guilty before him; and the loveliness of our virtue bears no proportion to our guilt, and must therefore pass for nothing before a strict judge. And, 3. Because our good deeds and virtuous acts themselves are in a sense corrupt; and the hatefulness of the corruption of them, if we are beheld as we are in ourselves, or separate from Christ, infinitely outweighs the loveliness of the good that is in them. So that if no other sin was considered but only that which attends the act of virtue itself, the loveliness vanishes into nothing in comparison of it; and therefore the virtue must pass for nothing, out of Christ. Not only are our best duties defiled, in being attended with the exercises of sin and corruption which precede, follow, and are intermingled with them; but even the holy acts themselves, and the gracious exercises of the godly, are defective. Though the act most simply considered is good, yet take the acts in their measure and dimensions, and the manner in which they are exerted, and they are sinfully defective; there is that defect in them that may well be called the corruption of them. That defect is properly sin, an expression of a vile sinfulness of heart, and what tends to provoke the just anger of God: not because the exercise of love and other grace is not equal to God’s loveliness; for it is impossible the love of creatures (men or angels) should be so; but because the act is so very disproportionate to the occasion given for love or other grace, considering God’s loveliness, the manifestation that is made of it, the exercises of kindness, the capacity of human nature, and our advantages (and the like) together.—A negative expression of corruption may be as truly sin, and as just cause of provocation, as a positive. Thus if a worthy and excellent person should, from mere generosity and goodness, exceedingly lay out himself, and with great expense and suffering save another’s life, or redeem him from some extreme calamity; and if that other person should never thank him for it, or express the least gratitude any way; this would be a negative expression of his ingratitude and baseness; but is equivalent to an act of ingratitude, or positive exercise of a base unworthy spirit; and is truly an expression of it, and brings as much blame as if he by some positive act had much injured another person. And so it would be (only in a lesser degree) if the gratitude was but very small, bearing no proportion to the benefit and obligation: as if, for so great and extraordinary a kindness, he should express no more gratitude than would have been becoming towards a person who had only given him a cup of water when thirsty, or shown him the way in a journey when at a loss, or had done him some such small kindness. If he should come to his benefactor to express his gratitude, and should do after this manner, he might truly be said to act unworthily and odiously; he would show a most ungrateful spirit. His doing after such a manner might justly be abhorred by all; and yet the gratitude, that little there is of it, most simply considered, and so far as it goes, is good. And so it is with respect to our exercise of love, and gratitude, and other graces, towards God; they are defectively corrupt and sinful, and, take them as they are, in their manner and measure, might justly be odious and provoking to God, and would necessarily be so, were we beheld out of Christ. For in that this defect is sin, it is infinitely hateful; and so the hatefulness of the very act infinitely outweighs the loveliness of it; because all sin has infinite hatefulness and heinousness; but our holiness has but little value and loveliness, as has been elsewhere demonstrated.
Hence, though it be true that the saints are rewarded for their good works, yet it is for Christ’s sake only, and not for the excellency of their works in themselves considered, or beheld separately from Christ; for so they have no excellency in God’s sight, or acceptableness to him, as has now been shown. It is acknowledged that God, in rewarding the holiness and good works of believers, does in some respect give them happiness as a testimony of his respect to the loveliness of their holiness and good works in his sight; for that is the very notion of a reward. But it is in a very different sense from what would have been if man had not fallen; which would have been to bestow eternal life on man, as a testimony of God’s respect to the loveliness of what man did, considered as in itself, and as in man separately by himself, and not beheld as a member of Christ. In which sense also, the scheme of justification we are opposing necessarily supposes the excellency of our virtue to be respected and rewarded; for it supposes a saving interest in Christ itself to be given as a reward of it.
Two
things come to pass, relating to the saints’ reward for their inherent
righteousness, by virtue of their relation to Christ. 1. The guilt of
their persons is all done away, and the pollution and hatefulness that
attends and is in their good works, is hid. 2. Their relation to Christ
adds a positive value and dignity to their good works in God’s sight.
That little holiness, and those faint and feeble acts of love, and
other grace, receive an exceeding value in the sight of God, by virtue
of God’s beholding them as in Christ, and as it were members of one so
infinitely worthy in his eyes; and that because God looks upon the
persons as of greater dignity on this account.
If
we suppose that not only higher degrees of glory in heaven, but heaven
itself, is in some respect given in reward for the holiness and good
works of the saints, in this secondary an derivative sense, it will not
prejudice the doctrine we have maintained. It is no way impossible that
God may bestow heaven’s glory wholly out of respect to Christ’s
righteousness, and yet in reward for man’s inherent holiness, in
different respects, and different ways. It may be only Christ’s
righteousness that God has respect to, for its own sake, the
independent acceptableness and dignity of it being sufficient of itself
to recommend all that believe in Christ to a title to this glory; and
so it may be only by this that persons enter into a title to heaven, or
have their prime right to it: and yet God may also have respect to the
saints’ own holiness, for Christ’s sake, and as deriving a value from
Christ’s merit, which he may testify in bestowing heaven upon them. The
saints being beheld as members of Christ, their obedience is looked
upon by God as something of Christ’s, it being the obedience of the
members of Christ; as the sufferings of the members of Christ are
looked upon, in some respect, as the sufferings of Christ. Hence the
apostle, speaking of his sufferings, says,
By the merit and righteousness of Christ, such favour of God towards the believer may be obtained, as that God may hereby be already, as it were, disposed to make them perfectly and eternally happy. But yet this does not hinder, but that God in his wisdom may choose to bestow this perfect and eternal happiness in this way, viz. in some respect as a reward of their holiness and obedience. It is not impossible but that the blessedness may be bestowed as a reward for that which is done after that an interest is already obtained in that favour, which (to speak of God after the manner of men) disposes God to bestow the blessedness. Our heavenly Father may already have that favour for a child, whereby he may be thoroughly ready to give the child an inheritance, because he is his child; which he is by the purchase of Christ’s righteousness: and yet that the Father may choose to bestow the inheritance on the child in a way of reward for his dutifulness, and behaving in a manner becoming a child. And so great a reward may not be judged more than a meet reward for his dutifulness; but that so great a reward is judged meet, does not arise from the excellency of the obedience absolutely considered, but from his standing in so near and honourable a relation to God, as that of a child, which is obtained only by the righteousness of Christ. And thus the reward, and the greatness of it, arises properly from the righteousness of Christ; though it be indeed in some sort the reward of their obedience. As a father might justly esteem the inheritance no more than a meet reward for the obedience of his child, and yet esteem it more than a meet reward for the obedience of a servant. The favour whence a believer’s heavenly Father bestows the eternal inheritance, and his title as an heir, is founded in that relation he stands in to him as a child, purchased by Christ’s righteousness; though he in wisdom chooses to bestow it in such a way, and therein to testify his acceptance of the amiableness of his obedience in Christ.
Believers
having a title to heaven by faith antecedent to their obedience, or its
being absolutely promised to them before, does not hinder but that the
actual bestowment of heaven may also be a testimony of God’s regard to
their obedience, though performed afterwards. Thus it was with Abraham,
the father and pattern of all believers: God bestowed upon him that
blessing of multiplying his seed as the stars of heaven, and causing
that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed, in
reward for his obedience in offering up his son Isaac,
From what has been said we may easily solve the difficulty arising from that text in
1.
God looks on these glorious benefits as a meet testimony of his regard
to the value which their persons have in his sight. But he sets this
value upon their persons purely for Christ’s sake. They are such
jewels, and have such preciousness in his eyes, only because they are
beheld in Christ, and by reason of the worthiness of the head they are
the members of, and the stock they are grafted into. And the value that
God sets upon them on this account is so great, that God thinks meet,
from regard to it, to admit them to such exceeding glory. The saints,
on account of their relation to Christ, are such precious jewels in
God’s sight, that they are thought worthy of a place in his own crown.
2.
From the value God sets upon their persons, for the sake of Christ’s
worthiness, he also sets a high value on their virtue and performances.
Their meek and quiet spirit is of great price in his sight. Their
fruits are pleasant fruits, their offerings are an odour of sweet smell
to him; and that because of the value he sets on their persons, as has
been already observed and explained. This preciousness or high
valuableness of believers is a moral fitness to a reward; and yet this
valuableness is all in the righteousness of Christ, that is the
foundation of it. The thing respected is not excellency in them
separately by themselves, or in their virtue by itself, but the value
in God’s account arises from other considerations; which is the natural
import of
There is a vast difference between this scheme, and what is supposed in the scheme of those that oppose the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This lays the foundation of first acceptance with God, and all actual salvation consequent upon it, wholly in Christ and his righteousness. On the contrary, in their scheme, a regard to man’s own excellency or virtue is supposed to be first, and to have the place of the first foundation in actual salvation, though not in that ineffectual redemption, which they suppose common 646to all. They lay the foundation of all discriminating salvation in man’s own virtue and moral excellency. This is the very bottom stone in this affair; for they suppose that it is from regard to our virtue, that even a special interest in Christ itself is given. The foundation being thus contrary, the whole scheme becomes exceeding diverse and contrary; the one is utterly inconsistent with our being justified by Christ’s righteousness, the other not at all.
From what has been said, we may understand, not only how the forgiveness of sin granted in justification is indissolubly connected with a forgiving spirit in us, but how there may be many exercises of forgiving mercy granted in reward for our forgiving those who trespass against us. For none will deny but that there are many acts of divine forgiveness towards the saints, that do not presuppose an unjustified state immediately preceding that forgiveness. None will deny, that saints who never fell from a justified state, yet commit many sins which God forgives afterwards, by laying aside his fatherly displeasure. This forgiveness may be in reward for our forgiveness, without any prejudice to the doctrine that has been maintained, as well as other mercies and blessings consequent on justification.
With respect to the second
part of the objection, that relates to the different degrees of glory,
and the seeming inconsistence there is in it, that the degrees of glory
in different saints should be greater or lesser according to their
inherent holiness and good works, and yet, that every one’s glory
should be purchased with the price of the very same imputed
righteousness,—I answer, That Christ, by his righteousness, purchased
for every one complete and perfect happiness, according to his
capacity. But this does not hinder but that the saints, being of
various capacities, may have various degrees of happiness, and yet all
their happiness be the fruit of Christ’s purchase. Indeed it cannot be
properly said, that Christ purchased any particular degree of
happiness, so that the value of Christ’s righteousness in the sight of
God, is sufficient to raise a believer so high in happiness, and no
higher, and so that if the believer were made happier, it would exceed
the value of Christ’s righteousness; but in general, Christ purchased
eternal life, or perfect happiness for all, according to their several
capacities. The saints are as so many vessels of different sizes, cast
into the sea of happiness, where every vessel is full; this Christ
purchased for all. But after all, it is left to God’s sovereign
pleasure to determine the largeness of the vessel; Christ’s
righteousness meddles not with this matter.
This
matter may be yet better understood, if we consider that Christ and the
whole church of saints are, as it were, one body, of which he is the
Head, and they members of different place and capacity: now the whole
body, head, and members, have communion in Christ’s righteousness; they
are all partakers of the benefit of it; Christ himself the Head is
rewarded for it, and every member is partaker of the benefit and
reward. But it does by no means follow, that every part should equally
partake of the benefit, but every part in proportion to its place and
capacity; the Head partakes of far more than other parts, and the more
noble members partake of more than the inferior. As it is in a natural
body that enjoys perfect health, the head, and the heart, and lungs,
have a greater share of this health, they have it more seated in them,
than the hands and feet, because they are parts of greater capacity;
though the hands and feet are as much in perfect health as those nobler
parts of the body. So it is in the mystical body of Christ, all the
members are partakers of the benefit of the Head; but it is according
to the different capacity and place they have in the body; and God
determines that place and capacity as he pleases; he makes whom he
pleases the foot, and whom he pleases the hand, and whom he pleases the
lungs, &c.
Object. 4. It may be objected against what has been supposed, (viz.
That rewards are given to our good works, only in consequence of an
interest in Christ, or in testimony of God’s respect to the excellency
or value of them in his sight, as built on an interest in Christ’s
righteousness already obtained,) That the Scripture speaks of an
interest in Christ itself, as being given out of respect to our moral
fitness.
To this I answer, That though persons when they are accepted, are not accepted as worthy, yet when they are rejected, they are rejected as unworthy.
He that does not love Christ above other things, but treats him with
such indignity, as to set him below earthly things, shall be treated as
unworthy of Christ; his unworthiness of Christ, especially in that
particular, shall be marked against him, and imputed to him. And though
he be a professing Christian, and live in the enjoyment of the gospel,
and has been visibly ingrafted into Christ, and admitted as one of his
disciples, as Judas was; yet he shall be thrust out in wrath, as a
punishment of his vile treatment of Christ. The forementioned words do
not imply, that if a man does love Christ above father and mother,
&c. that he would be worthy; the most they imply is, that such a visible Christian
647
shall be treated and thrust out as unworthy. He that believes is not
received for the worthiness or moral fitness of faith; but yet the
visible Christian is cast out by God, for the unworthiness and moral
unfitness of unbelief. A being accepted as one of Christ’s, is not the
reward of believing; but being thrust out from being one of Christ’s
disciples, after a visible admission as such, is properly a punishment
of unbelief.
Object. 5. It is objected against the doctrine of justification by faith alone, That repentance is evidently spoken of in Scripture as that which is in a special manner the condition of remission of sins; but remission of sins is by all allowed to be that wherein justification does (at least) in great part consist.
But it must certainly arise from a misunderstanding of what the Scripture says about repentance, to suppose that faith and repentance are two distinct things, that in like manner are the conditions of justification. For it is most plain from the Scripture, that the condition of justification, or that in us by which we are justified, is but one, and that is faith. Faith and repentance are not two distinct conditions of justification, nor are they two distinct things that together make one condition of justification; but faith comprehends the whole of that by which we are justified, or by which we come to have an interest in Christ, and there is nothing else has a parallel concern with it in the affair of our salvation. And this the divines on the other side themselves are sensible of, and therefore they suppose that the faith the apostle Paul speaks of, which he says we are justified by alone, comprehends in it repentance.
And
therefore, in answer to the objection, I would say, That when
repentance is spoken of in Scripture as the condition of pardon,
thereby is not intended any particular grace, or act, properly distinct
from faith, that has a parallel influence with it in the affair of our
pardon or justification; but by repentance is intended nothing distinct
from active conversion, (or conversion actively considered,) as it
respects the term from which. Active conversion is a motion or exercise
of the mind that respects two terms, viz. sin and
God; and by repentance is meant this conversion, or active change of
the mind, so far as it is conversant about the term from which, or
about sin. This is what the word repentance properly signifies; which, in the original of the New Testament, is NOT ENGLISH, and signifies a change of the mind, or, which is the same thing, the turning or the conversion of the mind. Repentance is this turning, as it respects
what is turned from.
If
we look over the scriptures that speak of evangelical repentance, we
shall presently see that repentance is to be understood in this sense;
as
Now
it is true, that conversion is the condition of pardon and
justification: but if it be so, how absurd is it to say, that
conversion is one condition of justification, and faith another, as
though they were two distributively distinct and parallel conditions!
Conversion is the condition of justification, because it is that great
change by which we are brought from sin to Christ, and by which we
become believers in him: agreeable to
And besides, evangelical repentance, being active conversion, is not to be treated of as a particular grace, properly and entirely distinct from faith, as by some it seems to have been. What is conversion, but the sinful, alienated soul’s closing with Christ, or the sinner’s being brought to believe in Christ? That exercise of soul in conversion that respects sin, cannot be excluded out of the nature of faith in Christ: there is something in faith, or closing with Christ, that respects sin, and that is evangelical repentance. That repentance which in Scripture is called, repentance for the remission of sins, is that very principle or operation of the mind itself that is called faith, so far as it is conversant about sin. Justifying faith in a Mediator is conversant about two things: it is conversant about sin or evil to be rejected and to be delivered from, and about positive good to be accepted and obtained by the Mediator; as conversant about the former of these, it is evangelical repentance, or repentance for remission of sins. Surely they must be very ignorant, or at least very inconsiderate, of the whole tenor of the gospel, who think that the repentance by which remission of sins is obtained, can be completed, as to all that is essential to it, without any respect to Christ, or application of the mind to the Mediator, who alone has made atonement for sin. Surely so great a part of salvation as remission of sins, is not to be obtained without looking or coming to the great and only 648 Saviour. It is true, repentance, in its more general abstracted nature, is only a sorrow for sin, and forsaking of it, which is a duty of natural religion; but evangelical repentance, or repentance for remission of sins, hath more than this essential to it; a dependence of soul on the Mediator for deliverance from sin, is of the essence of it.
That justifying repentance has the nature of faith, seems evident by
That in justifying faith which directly respects sin, or the evil to be delivered from by the Mediator, is as follows: a sense of our own sinfulness, and the hatefulness of it, and a hearty acknowledgement of its desert of the threatened punishment, looking to the free mercy of God in a Redeemer, for deliverance from it and its punishment.
Concerning this, here described, three things may be noted: 1. That it is the very same with that evangelical repentance to which remission of sins is promised in Scripture. 2. That it is of the essence of justifying faith, and is the same with that faith, so far as it is conversant about evil to be delivered from by the Mediator. 3. That this is indeed the proper and peculiar condition of remission of sins.
1.
All of it is essential to evangelical repentance, and is indeed the
very thing meant by that repentance, to which remission of sins is
promised in the gospel. As to the former part of the description, viz.
a sense of our own sinfulness, and hatefulness of it, and a hearty
acknowledgement of its desert of wrath, none will deny it to be
included in repentance: but this does not comprehend the whole essence
of evangelical repentance; but what follows does also properly and
essentially belong to its nature, looking to the free mercy of God in a
Redeemer, for deliverance from it, and the punishment of it. That
repentance to which remission is promised, not only always has this
with it, but it is contained in it, as what is of the proper nature and
essence of it: and respect is ever had to this in the nature of
repentance, whenever remission is promised to it; and it is especially
from respect to this in the nature of repentance, that it has that
promise made to it. If this latter part be missing, it fails of the
nature of that evangelical repentance to which remission of sins is
promised. If repentance remains in sorrow for sin, and does not reach
to a looking to the free mercy of God in Christ for pardon, it is not
that which is the condition of pardon, neither shall pardon be obtained
by it. Evangelical repentance is an humiliation for sin before God; but
the sinner never comes and humbles himself before God in any other
repentance, but that which includes hoping in his mercy for remission:
if sorrow be not accompanied with that, there will be no coming to God
in it, but a flying further from him. There is some worship of God in
justifying repentance; but that is not in any other repentance which
has not a sense of and faith in the divine mercy to forgive sin;
2. All the forementioned description is of the essence of justifying faith, and not different from it, so far as it is conversant about sin, or the evil to be delivered from by the Mediator. For it is doubtless of the essence of justifying faith, to embrace Christ as a Saviour from sin and its punishment; and all that is contained in that act is contained in the nature of faith itself. But in the act of embracing Christ as a Saviour from our sin and its punishment, is implied a sense of our sinfulness, and a hatred of our sins, or a rejecting them with abhorrence, and a sense of our desert of punishment. Embracing Christ as a Saviour from sin, implies the contrary act, viz. a rejecting sin. If we fly to the light to be delivered from darkness, the same act is contrary to darkness, viz. a rejecting of it. In proportion to the earnestness with which we embrace Christ as a Saviour from sin, in the same proportion is the abhorrence with which we reject sin, in the same act. Yea, suppose there be in the nature of faith, as conversant about sin, no more than the hearty embracing of Christ as a Saviour from the punishment of sin, this act will imply in it the whole of the above-mentioned description. It implies a sense of our own sinfulness. Certainly in the hearty embracing of a Saviour from the punishment of our sinfulness, there is the exercise of a sense that we are sinful. We cannot heartily embrace Christ as a Saviour from the punishment of that which we are not sensible we are guilty of. There is also in the same act, a sense of our desert of the threatened punishment. We cannot heartily embrace Christ as a Saviour from that which we are not sensible that we have deserved. For if we are not sensible that we have deserved the punishment, we shall not be sensible that we have any need of a Saviour from it, or, at least, shall not be convinced but that God who offers the Saviour, unjustly makes him needful; and we cannot heartily embrace such an offer. And further, there is implied in a hearty embracing Christ as a Saviour from punishment, not only a conviction of conscience, that we have deserved the punishment, such as the devils and damned have; but there is a hearty acknowledgment of it, with the submission of the soul, so as, with the accord of the heart, to own that God might be just in the punishment. If the heart rises against the act or judgment of God, in holding us obliged to the punishment, when he offers us his Son as a Saviour from the punishment, we cannot with the consent of the heart receive him in that 649character: but if persons thus submit to the righteousness of so dreadful a punishment of sin, this carries in it a hatred of sin.
That
such a sense of our sinfulness, and utter unworthiness, and desert of
punishment, belongs to the nature of saving faith, is what the
Scripture from time to time holds forth; as particularly in
These things do not necessarily suppose that repentance and faith are words of just the same signification; for it is only so much in justifying faith as respects the evil to be delivered from by the Saviour, that is called repentance. Besides, both repentance and faith, take them only in their general nature, are entirely distinct; repentance is a sorrow for sin, and forsaking of it; and faith is a trusting in God’s sufficiency and truth. But faith and repentance, as evangelical duties, or justifying faith, and repentance for remission of sins, contain more in them, and imply a respect to a mediator, and involve each other’s nature; [1] though they still bear the name of faith and repentance, from those general moral virtues—that repentance, which is a duty of natural religion, and that faith, which was a duty required under the first covenant—that are contained in this evangelical act; which severally appear, when this act is considered with respect to its different terms and objects.
It
may be objected here, that the Scripture sometimes mentions faith and
repentance together, as if they were entirely distinct things; as in
Another Scripture where faith and repentance are mentioned together, is
To this I answer, That faith and repentance, in their general nature, are distinct things; and repentance for the remission of sins, or that in justifying faith that respects the evil to be delivered from, so far as it regards that term, which is what especially denominates it repentance, has respect to God as the object, because he is the Being offended by sin, and to be reconciled, but that in this justifying act, whence it is denominated faith, does more especially respect Christ. But let us interpret it how we will, the objection of faith being here so distinguished from repentance, is as much of an objection against the scheme of those that oppose justification by faith alone, as against this scheme; for they hold that the justifying faith the apostle Paul speaks of, includes repentance, as has been already observed.
3.
This repentance that has been described, is indeed the special
condition of remission of sins. This seems very evident by the
Scripture, as particularly,
And the reason may be plain from what has been said. We need not wonder that what in faith especially respects sin, should be especially the condition of remission of sins; or that this motion or exercise of the soul, as it rejects and flies from evil, and embraces Christ as a Saviour from it, should especially be the condition of being free from that evil; and in like manner, as the same principle or motion, as it seeks good, and cleaves to Christ as the procurer of that good, should be the condition of obtaining that good. Faith with respect to good is accepting, and with respect to evil it is rejecting. Yea this rejecting evil is itself an act of acceptance; it is accepting freedom or separation from that evil; and this freedom or separation is the benefit bestowed in remission. No wonder that what in faith immediately respects this benefit, and is our acceptance of it, should be the special condition of our having it. It is so with respect to all the benefits that Christ has purchased. Trusting in God through Christ for such a particular benefit that we need, is the special condition of obtaining that benefit. When we need protection from enemies, the exercise of faith with respect to such a benefit, or trusting in Christ for protection from enemies, is especially the way to obtain that particular benefit, rather than trusting in Christ for something else; and so of any other benefit that might be mentioned. So prayer (which is the expression of faith) for a particular mercy needed, is especially the way to obtain that mercy. [1] So that no argument can be drawn from hence against the doctrine of justification by faith alone. And there is that in the nature of repentance, which peculiarly tends to establish the contrary of justification by works: for nothing so much renounces our own worthiness and excellency, as repentance; the very nature of it is to acknowledge our own utter sinfulness and unworthiness, and to renounce our own goodness, and all confidence in self; and so to trust in the propitiation of the Mediator, and ascribe all the glory of forgiveness to him.
Object. 6. The last objection I shall mention, is that paragraph in the
In answer to this objection, I would,
1. Take notice of the great unfairness of the divines that 650 oppose us, in the improvement they make of this passage against us. All will allow, that in that proposition of St. James, “By works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” one of the terms, either the word faith, or else the word justify, is not to be understood precisely in the same sense as the same terms when used by St. Paul; because they suppose, as well as we, that it was not the intent of the apostle James to contradict St. Paul in that doctrine of justification by faith alone, in which he had instructed the churches. But if we understand both the terms, as used by each apostle, in precisely the same sense, then what one asserts is a precise, direct, and full contradiction of the other, the one affirming and the other denying the very same thing. So that all the controversy from this text comes to this, viz. which of these two terms shall be understood in a diversity from St. Paul. They say that it is the word faith; for they suppose, that when the apostle Paul uses the word, and makes faith that by which alone we are justified, that then by it is understood a compliance with and practice of Christianity in general; so as to include all saving christian virtue and obedience. But as the apostle James uses the word faith in this place, they suppose thereby is to be understood only an assent of the understanding to the truth of gospel doctrines, as distinguished from good works, and that may exist separate from them, and from all saving grace. We, on the other hand, suppose that the word justify is to be understood in a different sense from the apostle Paul. So that they are forced to go as far in their scheme, in altering the sense of terms from Paul’s use of them, as we. But yet at the same time that they freely vary the sense of the former of them, viz. faith, yet when we understand the latter, viz. justify, in a different sense from St. Paul, they exclaim against us. What necessity of framing this distinction, but only to serve an opinion? At this rate a man may maintain any thing, though never so contrary to Scripture, and elude the clearest text in the Bible! though they do not show us why we have not as good warrant to understand the word justify in a diversity from St. Paul, as they the word faith. If the sense of one of the words must be varied on either scheme, to make the apostle James’s doctrine consistent with the apostle Paul’s; and if varying the sense of one term or the other be all that stands in the way of their agreeing with either scheme; and if varying the sense of the latter be in itself as fair as of the former, then the text lies as fair for one scheme as the other, and can no more fairly be an objection against our scheme than theirs. And if so, what becomes of all this great objection from this passage in James?
2. If there be no more difficulty in varying the sense of one of these terms than another, from any thing in the text itself, so as to make the words suit with either scheme, then certainly that is to be chosen that is most agreeable to the current of Scripture, and other places where the same matter is more particularly and fully treated of; and therefore that we should understand the word justify in this passage of James, in a sense in some respects diverse from that in which St. Paul uses it. For by what has been already said, it may appear, that there is no doctrine in the whole Bible more fully asserted, explained, and urged, than the doctrine of justification by faith alone, without any of our own righteousness.
3.
There is a very fair interpretation of this passage of St. James, no
way inconsistent with this doctrine of justification, which I have
shown that other scriptures abundantly teach, which the words
themselves will as well allow of, as that which the objectors put upon
them, and much better agrees with the context; and that is, that works
are here spoken of as justifying as evidences. A man may be said to be
justified by that which clears him, or vindicates him, or makes the
goodness of his cause manifest. When a person has a cause tried in a
civil court, and is justified or cleared, he may be said in different
senses to be justified or cleared, by the goodness of his cause, and by
the goodness of the evidences of it. He may be said to be cleared by
what evidences his cause to be good; but not in the same sense as he is
by that which makes his cause to be good. That which renders his cause
good, is the proper ground of his justification; it is by that that he
is himself a proper subject of it; but evidences justify, only as they
manifest that his cause is good in fact, whether they are of such a
nature as to have any influence to render it so or no. It is by works
that our cause appears to be good; but by faith our cause not only
appears to be good, but becomes good; because thereby we are united to
Christ. That the word justify should be sometimes understood to signify the former of these, as well as the latter, is agreeable to the
use of the word in common speech; as we say such an one stood up to justify another, i.e.
he endeavoured to show or manifest his cause to be good.–And it is
certain that the word is sometimes used in this sense in Scripture,
when speaking of our being justified before God; as where it is said,
we shall be justified by our words,
God
himself, when he acts towards men as judge, in order to a declarative
judgment, makes use of evidences, and so judges men by their works. And
therefore, at the day of judgment, God will judge men according to
their works: for though God will stand in no need of evidence to inform
him what is right, yet it is to be considered, that he will then sit in
judgment, not as earthly judges do, to find out what is right in a
cause, but to declare and manifest what is right: and therefore the day
is called by the apostle, “the day of the revelation of the righteous
judgment of God.”
To be justified, is to be approved of and accepted: but a man may be said to be approved and accepted in two respects; the one is to be approved really, and the other to be approved and accepted declaratively. Justification is twofold; it is either the acceptance and approbation of the judge itself, or the manifestation of that approbation, by a sentence or judgment declared by the judge, either to our own consciences, or to the world. If justification be understood in the former sense, for the approbation itself, that is only that by which we become fit to be approved: but if it be understood in the latter sense, for the manifestation of this approbation, it is by whatever is a proper evidence of that fitness. In the former, only faith is concerned; because it is by that only in us that we become fit to be accepted and approved: in the latter, whatever is an evidence of our fitness, is alike concerned. And therefore, take justification in this sense, and then faith, and all other graces and good works, have a common and equal concern in it: for any other grace, or holy act, is equally an evidence of a qualification for acceptance or approbation, as faith.
To
justify has always, in common speech, signified indifferently, either
simply approbation, or testifying that approbation; sometimes one, and
sometimes the other; because they are both the same, only as one is
outwardly what the other is inwardly. So we, and it may be all nations,
are wont to give the same name to two things, when one is only
declarative of the other. Thus sometimes judging, intends only judging
in our thoughts; at other times, testifying and declaring judgment. So
such
651words as justify, condemn, accept, reject,
prize, slight, approve, renounce, are sometimes put for mental acts, at
other times, for an outward treatment. So in the sense in which the
apostle James seems to use the word justify for manifestative justification, a man is justified not only by faith, but also by works; as a tree is manifested to be good, not only by immediately examining the tree, but also by the fruit,
[1]
The drift of the apostle does not require that he should be understood in any other sense; for all that he aims at, as appears by a view of the context, is to prove that good works are necessary. The error of those that he opposed was this, That good works were not necessary to salvation; that if they did but believe that there was but one God, and that Christ was the Son of God, and the like, and were baptized, they were safe, let them live how they would; which doctrine greatly tended to licentiousness. The evincing the contrary of this is evidently the apostle’s scope.
And that we should understand the apostle, of works justifying as an evidence,
and in a declarative judgment, is what a due consideration of the
context will naturally lead us to.–For it is plain, that the apostle is
here insisting on works, in the quality of a necessary manifestation
and evidence of faith, or as what the truth of faith is made to appear
by: as
That
the apostle speaks of works justifying only as a sign, or evidence, and
in God’s declarative judgment, is further confirmed by
And in the other instance when the apostle mentions,
4.
If, notwithstanding, any choose to take justification in St. James’s
precisely as we do in Paul’s epistles, for God’s acceptance or
approbation itself, and not any expression of that approbation; what
has been already said concerning the manner in which acts of
evangelical obedience are concerned in the affair of our justification,
affords a very easy, clear, and full answer. For it we take works as
acts or expressions of faith, they are not excluded; so a man is not
justified by faith only, but also by works; i.e., he is not justified
only by faith as a principle in the heart, or in its first and more
immanent acts, but also by the effective acts of it in life, which are
the expressions of the life of faith, as the operations and actions of
the body are of the life of that; agreeable to
What has been said in answer to these objections, may also, I hope, abundantly serve for an answer to another objection, often made against this doctrine, viz. that it encourages licentiousness in life. For, from what has been said, we may see that the Scripture doctrine of justification by faith alone, without any manner of goodness or excellency of ours, does in no wise diminish either the necessity or benefit of a sincere evangelical universal obedience. Man’s salvation is not only indissolubly connected with obedience, and damnation with the want of it, in those who have opportunity for it, but depends upon it in many respects. It is the way to salvation, and the necessary preparation for it; eternal blessings are bestowed in reward for it, and our justification in our own consciences and at the day of judgment, depends on it, as the proper evidence of our acceptable state; and that even in accepting of us as entitled to life in our justification, God has respect to this, as that on which the fitness of such an act of justification depends: so that our salvation does as truly depend upon it, as if we were justified for the moral excellency of it. And besides all this, the degree of our happiness to all eternity is suspended on, and determined by, the degree of this. So that this gospel-scheme of justification is as far from encouraging licentiousness, and contains as much to encourage and excite to strict and universal obedience, and the utmost possible eminency of holiness, as any scheme that can be devised, and indeed unspeakably more.
I come now to the
V. And last thing proposed, which is to consider the “importance of this doctrine.”
I know there are many who make as though this controversy was of no great importance; that it is chiefly a matter of nice speculation, depending on certain subtle distinctions, which many that make use of them do not understand themselves; and that the difference is not of such consequence as to be worth being zealous about; and that more hurt is done by raising disputes about it than good.
Indeed I am far from thinking that it is of absolute necessity persons should understand, and be agreed upon, all the distinctions needful particularly to explain and defend this doctrine against all cavils and objections. Yet all Christians should strive after an increase of knowledge; and none should content themselves without some clear and distinct understanding in this point. But we should believe in the general, according to the clear and abundant revelations of God’s word, that it is none of our own excellency, virtue, or righteousness, that is the ground of our being received from a state of condemnation into a state of acceptance in God’s sight, but only Jesus Christ, and his righteousness and worthiness, received by faith. This I think to be of great importance, at least in application to ourselves; and that for the following reasons.
1. The
Scripture treats of this doctrine, as a doctrine of very great
importance. That there is a certain doctrine of justification by faith,
in opposition to justification by the works of the law, which the
apostle Paul insists upon as of the greatest importance, none will
deny; because there is nothing in the Bible more apparent. The apostle,
under the infallible conduct of the Spirit of God, thought it worth his
most strenuous and zealous disputing about and defending. He speaks of
the contrary doctrine as fatal and ruinous to the souls of men, in the
latter end of the
2. The adverse scheme lays another foundation of man’s salvation than God hath laid. I do not now speak of that ineffectual redemption that they suppose to be universal, and what all mankind are equally subjects of; but, I say, it lays entirely another foundation of man’s actual, discriminating salvation, or that salvation wherein true Christians differ from wicked men. We suppose the foundations of this to be Christ’s worthiness and righteousness: on the contrary, that scheme supposes it to be men’s own virtue; even so, that this is the ground of a saving interest in Christ itself. It takes away Christ out of the place of the bottom stone, and puts in men’s own virtue in the room of him: so that Christ himself in the affair of distinguishing actual salvation, is laid upon this foundation. And the foundation being so different, I leave it to every out to judge whether the difference between the two schemes consists only in punctilios of small consequence. The foundation being contrary, makes the whole scheme exceeding diverse and opposite; the one is a gospel scheme, the other a legal one.
3. It is in this doctrine that the most essential difference lies between the covenant of grace and the first covenant. The adverse scheme of justification supposes that we are justified by our works, in the very same sense wherein man was to have been justified by his works under the first covenant. By that covenant our first parents were not to have had eternal life given them for any proper merit in their obedience; because their perfect obedience was a debt that they owed God. Nor was it to be bestowed for any proportion between the dignity of their obedience, and the value of the reward; but only it was to be bestowed from a regard to a moral fitness in the virtue of their obedience, to the reward of God’s favour; and a title to eternal life was to be given them, as a testimony of God’s pleasedness with their works, or his regard to the inherent beauty of their virtue. And so it is the very same way that those in the adverse scheme suppose that we are received into God’s special favour now, and to those saving benefits that are the testimonies of it. I am sensible the divines of that side entirely disclaim the popish doctrine of merit; and are free to speak of our utter unworthiness, and the great imperfections of all our services. But after all, it is our virtue, imperfect 653 as it is, that recommends men to God, by which good men come to have a saving interest in Christ, and God’s favour, rather than others; and these things are bestowed in testimony of God’s respect to their goodness. So that whether they will allow the term merit or no, yet they hold, that we are accepted by our own merit, in the same sense, though not in the same degree, as under the first covenant.
But
the great and most distinguishing difference between that covenant and
the covenant of grace is, that by the covenant of grace we are not thus
justified by our own works, but only by faith in Jesus Christ. It is on
this account chiefly that the new covenant deserves the name of a
covenant of grace, as is evident by
4.
This is the main thing for which fallen men stood in need of divine
revelation, to teach us how we who have sinned may come to be again
accepted of God; or, which is the same thing, how the sinner may be
justified. Something beyond the light of nature is necessary to
salvation chiefly on this account. Mere natural reason afforded no
means by which we could come to the knowledge of this, it depending on
the sovereign pleasure of the Being that we had offended by sin. This
seems to be the great drift of that revelation which God has given, and
of all those mysteries it reveals, all those great doctrines that are
peculiarly doctrines of revelation, and above the light of nature. It
seems to have been very much on this account, that it was requisite the
doctrine of the Trinity itself should be revealed to us; that by a
discovery of the concern of the several divine persons in the great
affair of our salvation, we might the better understand and see how all
our dependence in this affair is on God, and our sufficiency all in
him, and not in ourselves; that he is all in all in this business,
agreeable to
5.
The contrary scheme of justification derogates much from the honour of
God and the Mediator. I have already shown how it diminishes the glory
of the Mediator, in ascribing that to man’s virtue and goodness, which
belongs alone to his worthiness and righteousness. By the apostle’s
sense of the matter it renders Christ needless.
6.
The opposite scheme does most directly tend to lead men to trust in
their own righteousness for justification, which is a thing fatal to
the soul. This is what men are of themselves exceeding prone to do,
(and that though they are never so much taught the contrary,) through
the partial and high thoughts they have of themselves, and their
exceeding dullness of apprehending any such mystery as our being
accepted for the righteousness of another. But this scheme directly
teaches men to trust in their own righteousness for justification; in
that it teaches them that this is indeed what they must be justified
by, being the way of justification which God himself has appointed. So
that if a man had naturally no disposition to trust in his own
righteousness, yet if he embraced this scheme, and acted consistently,
it would lead him to it. But that trusting in our own righteousness, is
a thing fatal to the soul, is what the Scripture plainly teaches us. It
tells us, that it will cause that Christ shall profit us nothing, and
be of no effect to us,
How far a wonderful and mysterious agency of God’s Spirit may so influence some men’s hearts, that their practice in this regard may be contrary to their own principles, so that they shall not trust in their own righteousness, though they profess that men are justified by their own righteousness—or how far they may believe the doctrine of justification by men’s own righteousness in general, and yet not believe it in a particular application of it to themselves—or how far that error which they may have been led into by education, or cunning sophistry of others, may yet be indeed contrary to the prevailing disposition of their hearts, and contrary to their practice—or how far some may seem to maintain a doctrine contrary to this gospel-doctrine of justification, that really do not, but only express themselves differently from others; or seem to oppose it through their misunderstanding of our expressions, or we of theirs, when indeed our real sentiments are the same in the main—or may seem to differ more than they do, by using terms that are without a precisely fixed and determinate meaning—or to be wide in their sentiments from this doctrine, for want of a distinct understanding of it; whose hearts, at the same time, entirely agree with it, and if once it was clearly explained to their understandings, would immediately close with it, and embrace it:—how far these things may be, I will not determine; but am fully persuaded that great allowances are to be made on these and such like accounts, in innumerable instances; though it is manifest, from what has been said, that the teaching and propagating contrary doctrines and schemes, is of a pernicious and fatal tendency.
DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God.
DISCOURSE II
pressing into the kingdom of god.
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
In these words two things may be observed: First, Wherein the work and office of John the Baptist consisted, viz. in
preaching the kingdom of God, to prepare the way for its introduction
to succeed the law and the prophets. By the law and the prophets, in
the text, seems to be intended the ancient dispensation under the Old
Testament, which was received from Moses and the prophets. These are
said to be until John; not that the revelations given by them
are out of use since that time, but that the state of the church,
founded and regulated under God by them, the dispensation of which they
were the ministers, and wherein the church depended mainly on light
received from them, fully continued till John. He first began to
introduce the New-Testament dispensation, or gospel-state of the
church; which, with its glorious, spiritual, and eternal privileges and
blessings, is often called the kingdom of heaven, or kingdom of God.
John the Baptist preached, that the kingdom of God was at hand.
“Repent,” says he, “for the kingdom of heaven is at hand:” —“Since that
time,” says Christ, “the kingdom of God is preached.” John the Baptist
first began to preach it; and then after him, Christ and his disciples
preached the same. Thus Christ preached,
Secondly, We may observe wherein his success appeared, viz. in that since he began his ministry, every man pressed into that kingdom of God which he preached. The greatness of his success appeared in two things:
1. In the generalness of it, with regard to the subject, or the persons in whom the success appeared; every man. Here
is a term of universality; but it is not to be taken as universal with
regard to individuals, but kinds; as such universal terms are often
used in Scripture. When John reached, there was an extraordinary
pouring out of the Spirit of God that attended his preaching. An
uncommon awakening, and concern for salvation, appeared on the minds of
all sorts of persons; and even in the most unlikely persons, and those
from whom such a thing might least be expected; as the Pharisees, who
were exceeding proud, and self-sufficient, and conceited of their own
wisdom and righteousness, and looked on themselves fit to he teachers
of others, and used to scorn to be taught; and the Sadducees, who were
a kind of infidels, that denied any resurrection, angel, or spirit, or
any future stale. So that John himself seems to be surprised to see
them come to him, under such concern for their salvation; as in
2.
His success appeared in the manner in which his hearers sought the
kingdom of God; they pressed into it. It is elsewhere set forth by
their being violent for the kingdom of heaven, and taking it by force.
The doctrine that I observe from the words is this.—“It concerns every one that would obtain the kingdom of God, to be pressing into it.”—In discoursing on this subject, I would,
First, Show what is that way of seeking salvation that seems to be pointed forth in the expression of pressing into the kingdom of God.
Secondly, Give the reasons why it concerns every one that would obtain the kingdom of God, to seek it in this way.—And then make application.
I. I would show what manner of seeking salvation seems to be denoted by “pressing into the kingdom of God.”
1. This expression denotes strength of desire. Men
in general who live under the light of the gospel, and are not
atheists, desire the kingdom of God; that is, they desire to go to
heaven rather than to hell. Most of them indeed are not much concerned
about it; but on the contrary, live a secure and careless life. And
some who are many degrees above these, being under some degrees of the
awakenings of God’s Spirit, yet are not pressing into the kingdom of
God. But they that may be said to be truly so, have strong desires to
get out of a natural condition, and to get an interest in Christ. They
have such a conviction of the misery of their present state, and of the
extreme necessity of obtaining a better, that their minds are as it
were possessed with and wrapped up in concern about it. To obtain
salvation is desired by them above all things in the world. This
concern is so great that it very much shuts out other concerns. They
used before to have the stream of their desires after other things, or,
it may be, had their concern divided between this and them; but when
they come to answer the expression in the text, of pressing into the kingdom of God, this
concern prevails above all others; it lays other things low, and does
in a manner engross the care of the mind. This seeking eternal life
should not only be one concern that our souls are taken up about with
other things; but salvation should be sought as the one thing needful,
2. Pressing into the kingdom of heaven denotes earnestness and firmness of resolution. There should be strength of resolution, accompanying strength of desire, as it was in the psalmist, in the place just now referred to; “one thing have I desired, and that will I seek after.” In order to a thorough engagedness of the mind in this affair, both these must meet together. Besides desires after salvation, there should be an earnest resolution in persons to pursue this good as much as lies in their power; to do all that in the use of their utmost strength they are able to do, in an attendance on every duty, and resisting and militating against all manner of sin, and to continue in such a pursuit.
There are two things needful in a person, in order to these strong resolutions; there must be a sense of the great importance and necessity of the mercy sought, and there must also be a sense of opportunity to obtain it, or the encouragement there is to seek it. The strength of resolution depends on the sense which God gives to the heart of these things. Persons without such a sense, may seem to themselves to take up resolutions; they may, as it were, force a promise to themselves, and say within themselves, “I will seek as long as I live, I will not give up till I obtain,” when they do but deceive themselves. Their hearts are not in it; neither do they indeed take up any such resolution as they seem to themselves to do. It is the resolution of the mouth more than of the heart; their hearts are not strongly bent to fulfil what their mouth says. The firmness of resolution lies in the fulness of the disposition of the heart to do what is resolved to be done. Those who are pressing into the kingdom of God, have a disposition of heart to do every thing that is required, and that lies in their power to do, and to continue in it. They have not only earnestness, but steadiness of resolution: they do not seek with a wavering unsteady heart, by turns or fits, being off and on; but it is the constant bent of the soul, if possible, to obtain the kingdom of God.
3. By pressing into the kingdom of God is signified greatness of endeavour. It is expressed in
4. Pressing into the kingdom of God denotes an engagedness and earnestness, that is directly about that business of getting into the kingdom of God. Persons may be in very great exercise and distress of mind, and that about the condition of their souls; their thoughts and cares may be greatly engaged and taken up about things of a spiritual nature, and yet not be pressing into the kingdom of God, nor towards it. The exercise of their minds is not directly about the work of seeking salvation, in a diligent attendance on the means that God hath appointed in order to it, but something else that is beside their business; it may be about God’s decrees and secret purposes, prying into them, searching for signs whereby they may determine, or at least conjecture, what they are before God makes them known by their accomplishment. They distress their minds with fears that they be not elected, or that they have committed the unpardonable sin, or that their day is past, and that God has given them up to judicial and final hardness, and never intends to show them mercy; and therefore, that it is in vain for them to seek salvation. Or they entangle themselves about the doctrine of original sin, and other mysterious doctrines of religion that are above their comprehension. Many persons that seem to be in great distress about a future eternal state, get much into a way of perplexing themselves with such things as these. When it is so, let them be never so much concerned and engaged in their minds, they cannot be said to be pressing towards the kingdom of God; because their exercise is not in their work, but rather that which tends to hinder them in their work. If they are violent, they are only working violently to entangle themselves, and lay blocks in their own way; their pressure is not forwards. Instead of getting along, they do but lose their time, and worse than merely lose it; instead of fighting with the giants that stand in the way to keep them out of Canaan, they spend away their time and strength in conflicting with shadows that appear by the way-side.
Hence
we are not to judge of the hopefulness of the way that persons are in,
or of the probability of their success in seeking salvation, only by
the greatness of the concern and distress that they are in; for many
persons have needless distresses that they had much better be without.
It is thus very often with persons overrun with the distemper of
melancholy; whence the adversary of souls is wont to take great
advantage. But then are persons in the most likely way to obtain the
kingdom of heaven, when the intent of their minds, and the engagedness
of their spirits, is about their proper work and business, and all the bent of their souls is to attend on God’s means, and to do what
656
he commands and directs them to. The apostle tells us,
5. By pressing into the kingdom of God is denoted a breaking through opposition and difficulties. There
is in the expression a plain intimation of difficulty. If there were no
opposition, but the way was all clear and open, there would be no need
of pressing to get along. They therefore that are pressing into the
kingdom of God, go on with such engagedness, that they break through
the difficulties that are in their way. They are so set for salvation,
that those things by which others are discouraged, and stopped, and
turned back, do not stop them, but they press through them. Persons
ought to be so resolved for heaven, that if by any means they can obtain, they will obtain.
Whether those means be difficult or easy, cross or agreeable, if they
are requisite means of salvation, they should be complied with. When
any thing is presented to be done, the question should not be, Is it
easy or hard? is it agreeable to my carnal inclinations or interest, or
against them? But is it a required means of my obtaining an interest in
Jesus Christ, and eternal salvation? Thus the apostle,
He that is pressing into the kingdom of God, commonly finds many things in the way that are against the grain; but he is not stopped by the cross that lies before him, but takes it up, and carries it. Suppose there be something incumbent on him to do, that is cross to his natural temper, and irksome to him on that account; suppose something that he cannot do without suffering in his estate, or that he apprehends will look odd and strange in the eyes of others, and expose him to ridicule and reproach, or any thing that will offend a neighbour, and get his ill-will, or something that will be very cross to his own carnal appetite— he will press through such difficulties. Every thing that is found to be a weight that hinders him in running this race he casts from him, though it be a weight of gold or pearls; yea, if it be a right hand or foot that offends him, he will cut them off, and will not stick at plucking out a right eye with his own hands. These things are insuperable difficulties to those who are not thoroughly engaged in seeking their salvation; they are stumbling-blocks that they never get over. But it is not so with him that presses into the kingdom of God. Those things (before he was thoroughly roused from his security) about which he was wont to have long parleyings and disputings with his own conscience—employing carnal reason to invent arguments and pleas of excuse—he now sticks at no longer; he has done with this endless disputing and reasoning, and presses violently through all difficulties. Let what will be in the way, heaven is what he must and will obtain, not if he can without difficulty, but if it be possible. He meets with temptation: the devil is often whispering in his ear, setting allurements before him, magnifying the difficulties of the work he is engaged in, telling him that they are insuperable, and that he can never conquer them, and trying all ways in the world to discourage him; but still he presses forward. God has given and maintains such an earnest spirit for heaven, that the devil cannot stop him in his course; he is not at leisure to lend an ear to what he has to say.—I come now,
II. To show why the kingdom of heaven should be sought in this manner.—It should be thus sought,
1. On account of the extreme necessity we are in of getting into the kingdom of heaven. We are in a perishing necessity of it; without it we are utterly and eternally lost. Out of the kingdom of God is no safety; there is no other hiding-place; this is the only city of refuge, in which we can be secure from the avenger that pursues all the ungodly. The vengeance of God will pursue, overtake, and eternally destroy, them that are not in this kingdom. All that are without this enclosure will be swallowed up in an overflowing fiery deluge of wrath. They may stand at the door and knock, and cry, Lord, Lord, open to us, in vain; they will be thrust back; and God will have no mercy on them; they shall be eternally left of him. His fearful vengeance will seize them; the devils will lay hold of them; and all evil will come upon them; and there will be none to pity or help; their case will be utterly desperate, and infinitely doleful. It will be a gone case with them; all offers of mercy and expressions of divine goodness will be finally withdrawn, and all hope will be lost. God will have no kind of regard to their well-being; will take no care of them to save them from any enemy, or any evil; but himself will be their dreadful enemy, and will execute wrath with fury, and will take vengeance in an inexpressibly dreadful manner. Such as shall be in this case will be lost and undone indeed! They will be sunk down into perdition, infinitely below all that we can think. For who knows the power of God’s anger? And who knows the misery of that poor worm, on whom that anger is executed without mercy?
2. On account of the shortness and uncertainty of the opportunity for
getting into this kingdom. When a few days are past, all our
opportunity for it will be gone. Our day is limited. God has set our
bounds, and we know not where. While persons are out of this kingdom,
they are in danger every hour of being overtaken with wrath. We know
not how soon we shall get past that line, beyond which there is no
work, device, knowledge, nor wisdom; and therefore we should do what we
have to do with our might,
3. On account of the difficulty of
setting into the kingdom of God. There are innumerable difficulties in
the way; such as few conquer: most of them that try have not
resolution, courage, earnestness, and constancy enough; but they fail,
give up, and perish. The difficulties are too many and too great for
them that do not violently press forward. They never get along, but
stick by the way; are turned aside, or turned back, and ruined.
4. The possibility of obtaining. Though it be attended with so much difficulty, yet it is not a thing impossible.
5. It is meet that the kingdom of heaven should be thus sought, because of the great excellency of it. We are willing to seek earthly things, of trifling value, with great diligence, and through much difficulty; it therefore certainly becomes us to seek that with great earnestness which is of infinitely greater worth and excellence. And how well may God expect and require it of us, that we should seek it in such a manner, in order to our obtaining it!
6. Such a manner of seeking is needful to prepare persons for the kingdom of God. Such earnestness and thoroughness of endeavours, is the ordinary means that God makes use of to bring persons to an acquaintance with themselves, to a sight of their own hearts, to a sense of their own helplessness, and to a despair in their own strength and righteousness. And such engagedness and constancy in seeking the kingdom of heaven, prepare the soul to receive it the more joyfully and thankfully, and the more highly to prize and value it when obtained. So that it is 657in mercy to us, as well as for the glory of his own name, that God has appointed such earnest seeking, to be the way in which he will bestow the kingdom of heaven.
APPLICATION.
The use I would make of this doctrine, is of exhortation to all Christless persons to press into the kingdom of God. Some of you are inquiring what you shall do? You seem to desire to know what is the way wherein salvation is to be sought, and how you may be likely to obtain it. You have now heard the way that the holy word of God directs to. Some are seeking, but it cannot be said of them that they are pressing into the kingdom of heaven. There are many that in time past have sought salvation, but not in this manner, and so they never obtained, but are now gone to hell. Some of them sought it year after year, but failed of it, and perished at last. They were overtaken with divine wrath, and are now suffering the fearful misery of damnation, and have no rest day nor night, having no more opportunity to seek, but must suffer and be miserable throughout the never-ending ages of eternity. Be exhorted, therefore, not to seek salvation as they did, but let the kingdom of heaven suffer violence from you.
Here I would first answer an objection or two, and then proceed to give some directions how to press into the kingdom of God.
Object. 1. Some may be ready to say, We cannot do this of ourselves; that strength of desire, and firmness of resolution, that have been spoken of, are out of our reach. If I endeavour to resolve and to seek with engagedness of spirit, I find I fail; my thoughts are presently off from the business, and I feel myself dull, and my engagedness relaxed, in spite of all I can do.
Ant. 1. Though earnestness of mind be not immediately in your power, yet the consideration of what has been now said of the need of it, may be a means of stirring you up to it. It is true, persons never will be thoroughly engaged in this business, unless it be by God’s influence; but God influences persons by means. Persons are not stirred up to a thorough earnestness without some considerations that move them to it. And if persons can but be made sensible of the necessity of salvation, and also duly consider the exceeding difficulty of it, and the greatness of the opposition, and how short and uncertain the time is, but yet are sensible that they have an opportunity, and that there is a possibility of their obtaining, they will need no more in order to their being thoroughly engaged and resolved in this matter. If we see persons slack and unresolved, and unsteady, it is because they do not enough consider these things.
2. Though strong desires and resolutions of mind be not in your power, yet painfulness of endeavours is in your power. It is in your power to take pains in the use of means, yea very great pains. You can be very painful and diligent in watching your own heart, and striving against sin. Though there is all manner of corruption in the heart continually ready to work, yet you can very laboriously watch and strive against these corruptions; and it is in your power, with great diligence to attend the matter of your duty towards God and towards your neighbour. It is in your power to attend all ordinances, and all public and private duties of religion, and to do it with your might. It would be a contradiction to suppose that a man cannot do these things with all the might he has, though he cannot do them with more might than he has. The dulness and deadness of the heart, and slothfulness of disposition, do not hinder men being able to take pains, though it hinders their being willing. That is one thing wherein your laboriousness may appear, even striving against your own dulness. That men have a dead and sluggish heart, does not argue that they be not able to take pains; it is so far from that, that it gives occasion for pains. It is one of the difficulties in the way of duty, that persons have to strive with, and that gives occasion for struggling and labour. If there were no difficulties attended seeking salvation, there would be no occasion for striving; a man would have nothing to strive about. There is indeed a great deal of difficulty attending all duties required of those that would obtain heaven. It is an exceeding difficult thing for them to keep their thoughts; it is a difficult thing seriously, or to any good purpose, to consider matters of the greatest importance; it is a difficult thing to hear, or read, or pray attentively. But it does not argue that a man cannot strive in these things because they are difficult; nay, he could not strive therein if there were not difficulty in them. For what is there excepting difficulties that any can have to strive or struggle with in any affair or business? Earnestness of mind, and diligence of endeavour, tend to promote each other. He that has a heart earnestly engaged, will take pains; and he that is diligent and painful in all duty, probably will not be so long before he finds the sensibleness of his heart and earnestness of his spirit greatly increased.
Object. 2. Some may object, that if they are earnest, and take a great deal of pains, they shall be in danger of trusting to what they do; they are afraid of doing their duty for fear of making a righteousness of it.
Ans. There is ordinarily no kind of seekers that trust so much to what they do, as slack and dull seekers. Though all seeking salvation, that have never been the subjects of a thorough humiliation, do trust in their own righteousness; yet some do it much more fully than others. Some though they trust in their own righteousness, yet are not quiet in it. And those who are most disturbed in their self-confidence, (and therefore in the likeliest way to be wholly brought off from it,) are not such as go on in a remiss way of seeking, but such as are most earnest and thoroughly engaged; partly because in such a way conscience is kept more sensible. A more awakened conscience will not rest so quietly in moral and religious duties, as one that is less awakened. A dull seeker’s conscience will be in a great measure satisfied and quieted with his own works and performances; but one that is thoroughly awakened cannot be stilled or pacified with such things as these. In this way persons gain much more knowledge of themselves, and acquaintance with their own hearts, than in a negligent, slight way of seeking; for they have a great deal more experience of themselves. It is experience of ourselves, and finding what we are, that God commonly makes use of as the means of bringing us off from all dependence on ourselves. But men never get acquaintance with themselves so fast, as in the most earnest way of seeking. They that are in this way have more to engage them to think of their sins, and strictly to observe themselves, and have much more to do with their own hearts, than others. Such a one has much more experience of his own weakness, than another that does not put forth and try his strength; and will therefore sooner see himself dead in sin. Such a one, though he hath a disposition continually to be flying to his own righteousness, yet finds rest in nothing; he wanders about from one thing to another, seeking something to ease his disquieted conscience; he is driven from one refuge to another, goes from mountain to hill, seeking rest and finding none; and therefore will the sooner prove that there is no rest to be found, nor trust to be put, in any creature whatsoever.
It is therefore quite a wrong notion that some entertain, that the more they do, the more they shall depend on it. Whereas the reverse is true; the more they do, or the more thorough they are in seeking, the less will they be likely to rest in their doings, and the sooner will they see the vanity of all that they do. So that persons will exceedingly miss it, if ever they neglect to do any duty either to God or man, whether it be any duty of religion, justice, or charity, under a notion of its exposing them to trust in their own righteousness. It is very true, that it is a common thing for persons, when they earnestly seek salvation, to trust in the pains that they take: but yet commonly those that go on in a more slight way, trust a great deal more securely to their dull services, than he that is pressing into the kingdom of God does to his earnestness. Men’s slackness in religion, and their trust in their own righteousness, strengthen and establish one another. Their trust in what they have done, and what they now do, settles them in a slothful rest and ease, and hinders their being sensible of their need of rousing up themselves and pressing forward. And on the other hand, their negligence 658genre tends so to benumb them, and keep them in such ignorance of themselves, that the most miserable refuges are stupidly rested in as sufficient. Therefore we see, that when persons have been going on for a long time in such a way, and God afterwards comes more thoroughly to awaken them, and to stir them up to be in good earnest, he shakes all their old foundations, and rouses them out of their old resting-places; so that they cannot quiet themselves with those things that formerly kept them secure.
I would now proceed to give some directions how you should press into the kingdom of God.
1. Be directed to sacrifice every thing to
your soul’s eternal interest. Let seeking this be so much your bent,
and what you are so resolved in, that you will make every thing give
place to it. Let nothing stand before your resolution of seeking the
kingdom of God. Whatever it be that you used to look upon as a
convenience, or comfort, or ease, or thing desirable on any account, if
it stands in the way of this great concern, let it be dismissed without
hesitation; and if it be of that nature that it is likely always to be
a hinderance, then wholly have done with it, and never entertain any
expectation from it more. If in time past you have, for the sake of
worldly gain, involved yourself in more care and business than you find
to be consistent with your being so thorough in the business of
religion as you ought to be, then get into some other way, though you
suffer in your worldly interest by it. Or if you have heretofore been
conversant with company that you have reason to think have been and
will be a snare to you, and a hinderance to this great design in any
wise, break off from their society, however it may expose you to
reproach from your old companions, or let what will be the effect of
it. Whatever it be that stands in the way of your most advantageously
seeking salvation—whether it be some dear sinful pleasure, or strong
carnal appetite, or credit and honour, or the good-will of some persons
whose friendship you desire, and whose esteem and liking you have
highly valued—and though there be danger, if you do as you ought, that
you shall be looked upon by them as odd and ridiculous, and become
contemptible in their eyes—or if it be your ease and indolence, and
aversion to continual labour; or your outward convenience in any
respect, whereby you might avoid difficulties of one kind or other—let all go;
offer up all such things together, as it were, in one sacrifice, to the
interest of your soul. Let nothing stand in competition with this, but
make every thing to fall before it. If the flesh must be crossed, then
cross it, spare it not, crucify it, and do not be afraid of being too
cruel to it.
2. Be directed to forget the things that are behind;
that is, not to keep thinking and making much of what you have done,
but let your mind be wholly intent on what you have to do. In some
sense you ought to look back; you should look back on your sins.
3. Labour to get your heart thoroughly disposed to go on and hold out to the end. Many that seem to be earnest have not a heart thus disposed. It is a common thing for persons to appear greatly affected for a little while; but all is soon past away, and there is no more to be seen of it. Labour therefore to obtain a thorough willingness and preparation of spirit, to continue seeking, in the use of your utmost endeavours, without limitation; and do not think your whole life too long. And in order to this, be advised to two things.
(1.) Remember that if ever God bestows mercy upon you, he will use his sovereign pleasure about the time when. He will bestow it on some in a little time, and on others not till they have sought it long. If other persons are soon enlightened and comforted, while you remain long in darkness, there is no other way but for you to wait. God will act arbitrarily in this matter, and you cannot help it. You must even be content to wait, in a way of laborious and earnest striving, till his time comes. If you refuse, you will but undo yourself; and when you shall hereafter find yourself undone, and see that your case is past remedy, how will you condemn yourself for foregoing a great probability of salvation, only because you had not patience to hold out, and was not willing to be at the trouble of a persevering labour! And what will it avail before God or your own conscience to say, that yon could not bear to be obliged to seek salvation so long, when God bestowed it on others that sought it but for a very short time? Though God may have bestowed the testimonies of his favour on others in a few days or hours after they have begun earnestly to seek it, how does that alter the case as to you, if there proves to be a necessity of your laboriously seeking many years before you obtain them? Is salvation less worth taking a great deal of pains for, because, through the sovereign pleasure of God, others have obtained it with comparatively little pains? If there are two persons, the one of which has obtained converting grace with comparative ease, and another that has obtained it after continuing for many years in the greatest and most earnest labours after it, how little difference does it make at last, when once salvation is obtained! Put all the labour and pains, the long-continued difficulties and strugglings, of the one in the scale against salvation, and how little does it subtract; and put the ease with which the other has obtained in the scale with salvation, and how little does it add! What is either added or substituted is lighter than vanity, and a thing worthy of no consideration, when compared with that infinite benefit that is obtained. Indeed if you were ten thousand years, and all that time should strive and press 659forward with as great earnestness as ever a person did for one day, all this would hear no proportion to the importance of the benefit; and it will doubtless appear little to you, when once you come to he in actual possession of eternal glory, and to see what that eternal misery is which you have escaped. You must not think much of your pains, and of the length of time; you must press towards the kingdom of God, and do your utmost, and hold out to the end, and learn to make no account of it when you have done. You must undertake the business of seeking salvation upon these terms, and with no other expectations than this, that if ever God bestows mercy it will be in his own time; and not only so, but also that when you have done all, God will not hold himself obliged to show you mercy at last.
(2.) Endeavour now thoroughly to weigh in your mind the difficulty, and to count the cost of perseverance in seeking salvation. You that are now setting out in this business, (as there are many here who have very lately set about it;—Praised be the name of God that he has stirred you up to it!) be exhorted to attend this direction. Do not undertake in this affair with any other thought but of giving yourself wholly to it for the remaining part of your life, and going through many and great difficulties in it. Take heed that you do not engage secretly upon this condition, that you shall obtain in a little time, promising yourself that it shall be within this present season of the pouring out of God’s Spirit, or with any other limitation of time whatsoever. Many, when they begin, (seeming to set out very earnestly,) do not expect that they shall need to seek very long, and so do not prepare themselves for it. And therefore, when they come to find it otherwise, and meet with unexpected difficulty, they are found unguarded, and easily overthrown. But let me advise you all who are now seeking salvation, not to entertain any self-flattering thoughts; but weigh the utmost difficulties of perseverance, and be provided for them, having your mind fixed in it to go through them, let them be what they will. Consider now beforehand, how tedious it would be, with utmost earnestness and labour, to strive after salvation for many years, in the mean time receiving no joyful or comfortable evidence of your having obtained. Consider what a great temptation to discouragement there probably would be in it; how apt you would be to yield the case; how ready to think that it is in vain for you to seek any longer, and that God never intends to show you mercy, in that he has not yet done it; how apt you would be to think with yourself, “What an uncomfortable life do I live! how much more unpleasantly do I spend my time than others that do not perplex their minds about the things of another world, but are at ease, and take the comfort of their worldly enjoyments!” Consider what a temptation there would probably be in it, if you saw others brought in that began to seek the kingdom of heaven long after you, rejoicing in a hope and sense of God’s favour, after but little pains and a short time of awakening; while you, from day to day, and from year to year, seemed to labour in vain. Prepare for such temptations now. Lay in beforehand for such trials and difficulties, that you may not think any strange thing has happened when they come.
I hope that those who have given attention to what has been said, have by this time conceived, in some measure, what is signified by the expression in the text, and after what manner they ought to press into the kingdom of God. Here is this to induce you to a compliance with what you have been directed to; if you sit still, you die; if you go backward, behold you shall surely die; if you go forward, you may live. And though God has not bound himself to any thing that a person does while destitute of faith, and out of Christ, yet there is great probability, that in a way of hearkening to this counsel you will live; and that by pressing onward, and persevering, you will at last, as it were by violence, take the kingdom of heaven. Those of you who have not only heard the directions given, but shall through God’s merciful assistance, practise according to them, are those that probably will overcome. These we may well hope at last to see standing with the Lamb on mount Sion, clothed in white robes, with palms in their hands; when all your labour and toil will be abundantly compensated, and you will not repent that you have taken so much pains, and denied yourself so much, and waited so long. This self-denial, this waiting, will then look little, and vanish into nothing in your eyes, being all swallowed up in the first minute’s enjoyment of that glory that you will then possess, and will uninterruptedly possess and enjoy to all eternity.
4th direction. Improve the present season of the pouring out of the Spirit of God on this town. Prudence in any affair whatsoever consists very much in minding and improving our opportunities. If you would have spiritual prosperity, you must exercise prudence in the concerns of your souls, as well as in outward concerns when you seek outward prosperity. The prudent husbandman will observe his opportunities; he will improve seed-time and harvest; he will make his advantage of the showers and shines of heaven. The prudent merchant will discern his opportunities; he will not be idle on a market-day; he is careful not to let slip his seasons for enriching himself: So will those who prudently seek the fruits of righteousness, and the merchandise of wisdom, improve their opportunities for their eternal wealth and happiness.
God is pleased at this time, in a very remarkable manner, to pour out his Spirit amongst us; (glory be to his name!) You that have a mind to obtain converting grace, and to go to heaven when you die, now is your season! Now, if you have any sort of prudence for your own salvation, and have not a mind to go to hell, improve this season! Now is the accepted time! Now is the day of salvation! You that in time past have been called upon, and have turned a deaf ear to God’s voice, and long stood out and resisted his commands and counsels, hear God’s voice to-day, while it is called to-day! Do not harden your hearts at such a day as this! Now you have a special and remarkable price put into your hands to get wisdom, if you have but a heart to improve it.
God
hath his certain days or appointed seasons of exercising both mercy and
judgment. There are some remarkable times of wrath, laid out by God for
his awful visitation, and the executions of his anger; which times are
called days of vengeance,
We are directed to seek the Lord while he may be found, and to call upon him while he is near,
How should it move you to consider that you have this opportunity now in your hands! You are in the actual 660 possession of it! If it were past, it would not be in your power to recover it, or in the power of any creature to bring it back for you; but it is not past; it is now, at this day. Now is the accepted time, even while it is called to-day! Will you sit still at such a time? Will you sleep in such a harvest? Will you deal with a slack hand, and stay behind out of mere sloth, or love to some lust, or lothness to grapple with some small difficulty, or to put yourself a little out of your way, when so many are flowing to the goodness of the Lord? You are behind still; and so you will be in danger of being left behind, when the whole number is completed that are to enter in, if you do not earnestly bestir yourself! To be left behind at the close of such a season as this, will be awful—next to being left behind on that day when God’s saints shall mount up as with wings to meet the Lord in the air—and will be what will appear very threatening of it.
God is now calling you in an extraordinary manner: and it is agreeable to the will and word of Christ, that I should now, in his name, call you, as one set over you, and sent to you to that end; so it is his will that you should hearken to what I say, as his voice. I therefore beseech you in Christ’s stead now to press into the kingdom of God! Whoever you are, whether young or old, small or great; if you are a great sinner, if you have been a backslider, if you have quenched the Spirit, be who you will, do not stand making objections, but arise, apply yourself to your work! Do what you have to do with your might. Christ is calling you before, and holding forth his grace, and everlasting benefits, and wrath is pursuing you behind; wherefore fly for your life, and look not behind you!
But here I would particularly direct myself to several sorts of persons.
I. To those sinners who are in a measure awakened, and are concerned for their salvation. You have reason to be glad that you have such an opportunity, and to prize it above gold. To induce you to prize and improve it, consider several things.
1. God has doubtless a design now to deal forth saving blessings to a number. God has done it to some already, and it is not probable that he has yet finished his work amongst us: we may well hope still to see others brought out of darkness into marvellous light. And therefore,
2. God comes this day, and knocks at many persons’ doors, and at your door among the rest. God seems to be come in a very unusual manner amongst us, upon a gracious and merciful design; a design of saving a number of poor miserable souls out of a lost and perishing condition, and of bringing them into a happy state and eternal glory! This is offered to you, not only as it has always been in the word and ordinances, but by the particular influences of the Spirit of Christ awakening you! This special offer is made to many amongst us; and you are not passed over. Christ has not forgot you; but has come to your door; and there as it were stands waiting for you to open to him. If you have wisdom and discretion to discern your own advantage, you will know that now is your opportunity.
3.
How much more easily converting grace is obtained at such a time, than
at other times! The work is equally easy with God at all times; but
there is far less difficulty in the way as to men at such a
time, than at other times. It is, as I said before, a day of God’s
gracious visitation; a day that he has as it were set apart for the
more liberally and bountifully dispensing of his grace; a day wherein
God’s hand is opened wide. Experience shows it. God seems to be more
ready to help, to give proper convictions, to help against temptations,
and let in divine light. He seems to carry on his work with a more
glorious discovery of his power, and Satan is more chained up than at
other times. Those difficulties and temptations that persons before
stuck at, from year to year, they are soon helped over. The work of God
is carried on with greater speed and swiftness, and there are often
instances of sudden conversion at such a time. So it was in the
apostles’ days, when there was a time of the most extraordinary pouring
out of the Spirit that ever was. How quick and sudden were conversions
in those days! Such instances as that of the jailer abounded then, in
fulfilment, of that prophecy,
4. There are probably some here present that are now concerned about their salvation, that never will obtain. It is not to be supposed that all that are now moved and awakened, will ever be savingly converted. Doubtless there are many now seeking that will not be able to enter. When has it been so in times past, when there has been times of great outpourings of God’s Spirit, but that many who for a while have inquired with others, what they should do to be saved, have failed, and afterwards grown hard and secure? All of you that are now awakened, have a mind to obtain salvation, and probably hope to get a title to heaven, in the time of this present moving of God’s Spirit: but yet, (though it be awful to be spoken, and awful to be thought,) we have no reason to think any other, than that some of you will burn in hell to all eternity. You all are afraid of hell, and seem at present disposed to take pains to be delivered from it; and yet it would be unreasonable to think any other, than that some of you will have your portion in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. Though there are so many that seem to obtain so easily, having been but a little while under convictions, yet, for all that, some never will obtain. Some will soon lose the sense of things they now have; though their awakenings seem to be very considerable for the present, they will not hold; they have not hearts disposed to hold on through very many difficulties. Some that have set out for heaven, and hope as much as others to obtain, are indeed but slighty and slack, even now, in the midst of such a time as this. And others, who for the present seem to be more in earnest, will probably, before long, decline and fail, and gradually return to be as they were before. The convictions of some seem to be great, while that which is the occasion of their convictions is new; which, when that begins to grow old, will gradually decay and wear off. Thus, it may be, the occasion of your awakening has been the hearing of the conversion of some person, or seeing so extraordinary a dispensation of Providence as this in which God now appears amongst us; but by and by the newness and freshness of these things will be gone, and so will not affect your mind as now they do; and it may be your convictions will go away with it.
Though this be a time wherein God doth more liberally bestow his grace, and so a time of greater advantage for obtaining it; yet there seems to be, upon some accounts, greater danger of backsliding, than when persons are awakened at other times. For commonly such extraordinary times do not last long; and then when they cease, there are multitudes that lose their convictions as it were together.
We speak of it as a happy thing, that God is pleased to cause such a time amongst us, and so it is indeed: but there are some to whom it will be no benefit; it will be an occasion of their greater misery; they will wish they had never seen this time; it will be more tolerable for those that never saw it, or any thing like it, in the day of judgment, than for them. It is an awful consideration, that there are probably those here, whom the great Judge will hereafter call to a strict account about this very thing, why they no better improved this opportunity, when he set open the fountain of his grace, and so loudly called upon them, and came and strove with them in particular, by the awakening influences of his Spirit; and they will have no good account to give to the Judge, but their mouths will be stopped, and they will stand speechless before him.
You had need therefore to be earnest, and very resolved in this affair, that you may not be one of those who shall thus fail, that you may so fight, as not uncertainly, and so run, as that you may win the prize.
661
5. Consider in what sad circumstances times of extraordinary effusion
of God’s Spirit commonly leave persons, when they leave them
unconverted. They find them in a doleful, because in a natural, condition; but commonly leave them
in a much more doleful condition. They are left dreadfully hardened,
and with a great increase of guilt, and their souls under a more strong
dominion and possession of Satan. And frequently seasons of
extraordinary advantage for salvation, when they pass over persons, and
they do not improve them, nor receive any good in them, seal their
damnation. As such seasons leave them, God for ever leaves them, and
gives them up to judicial hardness.
6. Consider, that it is very uncertain whether you will ever see such another time as this. If there should be such another time, it is very uncertain whether you will live to see it. Many that are now concerned for their salvation amongst us, will probably be in their graves, and it may be in hell, before that time; and if you should miss this opportunity, it may be so with you. And what good will that do you, to have the Spirit of God poured out upon earth, in the place where you once lived, while you are tormented in hell? What will it avail you, that others are crying, What shall I do to be saved? while you are shut up for ever in the bottomless pit, and are wailing and gnashing your teeth in everlasting burnings?
Wherefore improve this opportunity, while God is pouring out his Spirit, and you are on earth, and while you dwell in that place where the Spirit of God is thus poured out, and you yourself have the awakening influences of it, that you may never wail and gnash your teeth in hell, but may sing in heaven for ever, with others that are redeemed from amongst men, and redeemed amongst us.
7. If you should see another such time, it will be under far greater disadvantages than now. You will probably then be much older, and will have more hardened your heart; and so will be under less probability of receiving good. Some persons are so hardened in sin, and so left of God, that they can live through such a time as this, and not be much awakened or affected by it; they can stand their ground, and be but little moved. And so it may be with you, by another such time, if there should be another amongst us, and you should live to see it. The case in all probability will be greatly altered with you by that time. If you should continue Christless and graceless till then, you will be much further from the kingdom of God, and much deeper involved in snares and misery; and the devil will probably have a vastly greater advantage against you, to tempt and confound you.
8.
We do not know but that God is now gathering in his elect, before some
great and sore judgment. It has been God’s manner before he casts off a
visible people, or brings some great and destroying judgments upon
them, first to gather in his elect, that they may be secure. So it was
before the casting off the Jews from being God’s people. There was
first a very remarkable pouring out of the Spirit, and gathering in of
the elect, by the preaching of the apostles and evangelists, as we read
in the beginning of the Acts: but after this harvest and its gleanings
were over, the rest were blinded, and hardened; the gospel had little
success amongst them, and the nation was given up, and cast off from
being God’s people, and their city and land was destroyed by the Romans
in a terrible manner; and they have been cast off by God now for a
great many ages, and still remain a hardened and rejected people. So we
read in the beginning of the 7th chapter of the Revelations, that God,
when about to bring destroying judgments on the earth, first sealed his
servants in the forehead. He set his seal upon the hearts of the elect,
gave them the saving influences and indwelling of his Spirit, by which
they were sealed to the day of redemption.
And this may be the case now, that God is about, in a great measure, to forsake this land, and give up this people, and to bring most awful and overwhelming judgments upon it, and that he is now gathering in his elect, to secure them from the calamity. The state of the nation, and of this land, never looked so threatening of such a thing as at this day. The present aspect of things exceedingly threatens vital religion, and even those truths that are especially the foundation of it, out of this land. If it should be so, how awful will the case be with those that shall be left, and not brought in, while God continues the influences of his Spirit, to gather in those that are to be redeemed from amongst us!
9.
If you neglect the present opportunity, and be finally unbelieving,
those that are converted in this time of the pouring out of God’s
Spirit will rise up in judgment against you. Your neighbours, your
relations, acquaintance, or companions that are converted, will that
day appear against you. They will not only be taken while you are left,
mounting up with joy to meet the Lord in the air—at his right hand with
glorious saints and angels, while you are at the left with devils—but
how they will rise up in judgment against you.
However friendly you have been together, and have taken pleasure in one
another’s company, and have often familiarly conversed together, they
will then surely appear against you. They will rise up as witnesses and
will declare what a precious opportunity you had, and did not improve;
how you continued unbelieving, and rejected the offers of a Saviour,
when those offers were made in so extraordinary a manner, and when so
many others were prevailed upon to accept of Christ; how you was
negligent and slack, and did not know the things that belonged to your
peace, in that your day. And not only so, but they shall be your
judges, as assessors with the great Judge; and as such will appear
against you; they will be with the Judge in passing sentence upon you.
10. And lastly, You do not know that you shall live through the present time of the pouring out of God’s Spirit. You may be taken away in the midst of it, or you may be taken away in the beginning of it; as God in his providence is putting you in mind, by the late instance of death in a young person in the town. [1] God has of late been very awful in his dealings with us, in the repeated deaths of young persons amongst us. This should stir every one up to be in the more haste to press into the kingdom of God, that so you may be safe whenever death comes. This is a blessed season and opportunity; but you do not know how little of it you may have. You may have much less of it than others; may by death be suddenly snatched away from all advantages that are here enjoyed for the good of souls. Therefore make haste, and escape for thy life. One moment’s delay is dangerous; for wrath is pursuing, and divine vengeance hanging over every uncovered person.
Let
these considerations move every one to be improving this opportunity,
that while others receive saving good, and are made heirs of eternal
glory, you may not be left behind, in the same miserable doleful
circumstances in which you came into the world, a poor captive to sin
and Satan, a lost sheep, a perishing, undone creature, sinking down
into everlasting perdition; that you may not be one of them spoken of,
II. I would address myself to such as yet remain unawakened. It is an awful thing that there should be any one person remaining secure amongst us at such a time as this; but yet it is to be feared that there are some of this sort. I would here a little expostulate with such persons.
1. When do you expect that it will be more likely that you should be awakened and wrought upon than now? You are in a Christless condition; and yet without doubt intend to go to heaven; and therefore intend to be converted some time before you die; but this is not to be expected till you are first awakened, and deeply concerned about the welfare of your soul, and brought earnestly to seek God’s converting grace. And when do you intend that this shall be? How do you lay things out in your own mind, or what projection have you about this matter? Is it ever so likely that a person will be awakened, as at such a time as this? How do we see many, who before were secure, now roused out of their sleep, and crying, What shall I do to be saved? But you are yet secure! Do you flatter yourself that it will be more likely you should be awakened when it is a dull and dead time? Do you lay matters out thus in your own mind, that though you are senseless when others are generally awakened, that yet you shall be awakened when others are generally senseless? Or do you hope to see another such time of the pouring out of God’s Spirit hereafter? And do you think it will be more likely that you should be wrought upon then, than now? And why do you think so? Is it because then you shall be so much older than you are now, and so that your heart will be grown softer and more tender with age? or because you will then have stood out so much longer against the calls of the gospel, and all means of grace? Do you think it more likely that God will give you the needed influences of his Spirit then, than now, because then you will have provoked him so much more, and your sin and guilt will be so much greater? And do you think it will be any benefit to you, to stand it out through the present season of grace, as proof against the extraordinary means of awakening there are? Do you think that this will be a good preparation for a saving work of the Spirit hereafter?
2. What means do you expect to be awakened by? As to the awakening awful things of the word of God, you have had those set before you times without number, in the most moving manner that the dispensers of the word have been capable of. As to particular solemn warnings, directed to those that are in your circumstances, you have had them frequently, and have them now from time to time. Do you expect to be awakened by awful providences? Those also you have lately had, of the most awakening nature, one after another. Do you expect to be moved by the deaths of others? We have lately had repeated instances of these. There have been deaths of old and young: the year has been remarkable for the deaths of young persons in the bloom of life; and some of them very sudden deaths. Will the conversion of others move you? There is indeed scarce any thing that is found to have so great a tendency to stir persons up as this: and this you have been tried with of late in frequent instances; but are hitherto proof against it. Will a general pouring out of the Spirit, and seeing a concern about salvation amongst all sorts of people, do it? This means you now have, but without effect. Yea, you have all these things together; you have the solemn warnings of God’s word, and awful instances of death, and the conversion of others, and see a general concern about salvation: but all together do not move you to any great concern about your own precious, immortal, and miserable soul. Therefore consider by what means it is that you expect ever to be awakened.
You have heard that it is probable some who are now awakened, will never obtain salvation; how dark then does it look upon you that remain stupidly unawakened! Those who are not moved at such a time as this, come to adult age, have reason to fear whether they are not given up to judicial hardness. I do not say they have reason to conclude it, but they have reason to fear it. How dark doth it look upon you, that God comes and knocks at so many persons’ doors, and misses yours! that God is giving the strivings of his Spirit so generally amongst us, while you are left senseless!
3. Do you expect to obtain salvation without ever seeking it? If you are sensible that there is a necessity of your seeking in order to obtaining, and ever intend to seek, one would think you could not avoid it at such a time as this. Inquire therefore, whether you intend to go to heaven, living all your days a secure, negligent, careless life.—Or,
4.
Do you think you can bear the damnation of hell? Do you imagine that
you can tolerably endure the devouring fire, and everlasting burnings?
Do you hope that you shall be able to grapple with the vengeance of God
Almighty, when he girds himself with strength, and clothes himself with
wrath? Do you think to strengthen yourself against God, and to be able
to make your part good with him?
III. I would direct myself to them who are grown considerably into years, and are yet in a natural condition. I would now take occasion earnestly to exhort you to improve this extraordinary opportunity, and press into the kingdom of God. You have lost many advantages that once you had, and now have not the same advantages that others have. The case is very different with you from what it is with many of your neighbours. You, above all, had need to improve such an opportunity. Now is the time for you to bestir yourself, and take the kingdom of heaven!—Consider,
1. Now there seems to be a door opened for old sinners. Now God is dealing forth freely to all sorts: his hand is opened wide, and he does not pass by old ones so much as he used to do. You are not under such advantages as others who are younger; but yet, so wonderfully has God ordered it, that now you are not destitute of great advantage. Though old in sin, God has put a new and extraordinary advantage into your hands. O! improve this price you have to get wisdom! You that have been long seeking to enter in at the strait gate and yet remain without, now take your opportunity and press in! You that have been long in the wilderness, fighting with various temptations, labouring under discouragements, ready to give up the case, and have been often tempted to despair, now, behold the door that God opens for you! Do not give way to discouragements now; this is not a time for it. Do not spend time in thinking, that you have done what you can already, and that you are not elected, and in giving way to other perplexing, weakening, disheartening temptations. Do not waste away this precious opportunity in such a manner. You have no time to spare for such things as these; God calls you now to something else. Improve this time in seeking and striving for salvation, and not in that which tends to hinder it.— It is no time now for you to stand talking with the devil; but hearken to God, and apply yourself to that which he does now so loudly call you to.
Some of you have often lamented the loss of past opportunities, particularly, the loss of the time of youth, and have been wishing that you had so good an opportunity again; and have been ready to say, “O! if I was young again, how would I improve such an advantage!” That opportunity which you have had in time past is irrecoverable; you can never have it again: but God can give you other advantages of another sort, that are very great, and he is so doing at this day. He is now putting a new opportunity into your hands; though not of the same kind with that which you once had, and have lost, yet in some respects as great of another kind. If you lament your folly in neglecting and losing past opportunities, then do not be guilty of the folly of neglecting the opportunity which God now gives you. This opportunity you could 663 not have purchased, if you would have given all that you had in the world for it. But God is putting it into your hands himself, of his own free and sovereign mercy, without your purchasing it. Therefore when you have it, do not neglect it.
2.
It is a great deal more likely with respect to such persons than
others, that this is their last time. There will be a last time of
special offer of salvation to impenitent sinners—“God’s Spirit shall
not always strive with man,”
It
seems by God’s providence, as though God had yet an elect number
amongst old sinners in this place, that perhaps he is now about to
bring in. It looks as though there were some that long lived under Mr.
Stoddard’s ministry, that God has not utterly cast off, though they
stood it out under such great means as they then enjoyed. It is to be
hoped that God will now bring in a remnant from among them. But it is
the more likely that God is now about finishing with them, one way or
other, for their having been so long the subjects of such extraordinary
means. You have seen former times of the pouring out of God’s Spirit
upon the town, when others were taken and you left, others were called
out of darkness into marvellous light, and were brought into a glorious
and happy state, and you saw not good when good came. How dark will
your circumstances appear, if you shall also stand it out through this
opportunity, and still be left behind! Take heed that you be not of
those spoken of,
Those of you that are already grown old in sin, and are now under awakenings, when you feel your convictions begin to go off, if ever that should be, then remember what you have now been told; it may well then strike you to the heart!
IV. I would direct the advice to those that are young, and now under their first special convictions. I would earnestly urge such to improve this opportunity, and press into the kingdom of God.—Consider two things,
1. You have all manner of advantages now centering upon you. It is a time of great advantage for all; but your advantages are above others. There is no other sort of persons that have now so great and happy an opportunity as you have—You have the great advantage that is common to all who live in this place, viz. That now it is a time of the extraordinary pouring out of the Spirit of God. And have you not that great advantage, the awakening influences of the Spirit of God on you in particular? and besides, you have this peculiar advantage, that you are now in your youth. And added to this, you have another unspeakable advantage, that you now are under your first convictions. Happy is he that never has hardened his heart, and blocked up his own way to heaven by backsliding, and has now the awakening influences of God’s Spirit, if God does but enable him thoroughly to improve them! Such above all in the world bid fair for the kingdom of God. God is wont on such, above any kind of persons, as it were easily and readily to bestow the saving grace and comforts of his Spirit. Instances of speedy and sudden conversion are most commonly found among such. Happy are they that have the Spirit of God with them, and never have quenched it, if they did but know the price they have in their hands!
If you have a sense of your necessity of salvation, and the great worth and value of it, you will be willing to take the surest way to it, or that which has the greatest probability of success: and that certainly is, thoroughly to improve your first convictions. If you do so, it is not likely that you will fail; there is the greatest probability that you will succeed.—What is it not worth, to have such an advantage in one’s hands for obtaining eternal life? The present season of the pouring out of God’s Spirit, is the first that many of you who are now under awakenings have ever seen, since you came to years of understanding. On which account, it is the greatest opportunity that ever you have had, and probably by far the greatest that ever you will have. There are many here present who wish they had such an opportunity, but they never can obtain it; they cannot buy it for money; but you have it in your possession, and can improve it if you will. But yet,
2. There is on some accounts greater danger that such as are in your circumstances will fail of thoroughly improving their convictions, with respect to stedfastness and perseverance, than others. Those that are young are more unstable than elder persons. They who never had convictions before, have less experience of the difficulty of the work they have engaged in; they are more ready to think that they shall obtain salvation easily, and are more easily discouraged by disappointments; and young persons have less reason and consideration to fortify them against temptations to backsliding. You should therefore labour now the more to guard against such temptations. By all means make but one work of seeking salvation! Make thorough work of it the first time! There are vast disadvantages that they bring themselves under, who have several turns of seeking with great intermissions. By such a course, persons exceedingly wound their own souls, and entangle themselves in many snares. Who are those that commonly meet with so many difficulties, and are so long labouring in darkness and perplexity, but those who have had several turns at seeking salvation; who have one while had convictions, and then have quenched them, and then have set about the work again, and have backslidden again, and have gone on after that manner? The children of Israel would not have been forty years in the wilderness, if they had held their courage, and had gone on as they set out; but they were of an unstable mind, and were for going back again into Egypt.—Otherwise, if they had gone right forward without discouragement, as God would have led them, they would have soon entered and taken possession of Canaan. They had got to the very borders of it when they turned back, but were thirty-eight years after that, before they got through the wilderness. Therefore, as you regard the interest of your soul, do not run yourself into a like difficulty, by unsteadiness, intermission, and backsliding; but press right forward, from henceforth, and make but one work of seeking, converting, and pardoning grace, however great, and difficult, and long a work that may be.+
DISCOURSE. III. Ruth
664DISCOURSE III.
ruth’s resolution
And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go: and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.
The historical things in this book of Ruth, seem to be inserted in the canon of the Scripture, especially on two accounts:
First, Because Christ was of Ruth’s posterity. The Holy Ghost thought fit to take particular notice of that marriage of Boaz with Ruth, whence sprang the Saviour of the world. We may often observe it, that the Holy Spirit who indited the Scriptures, often takes notice of little things, or minute occurrences, that do but remotely relate to Jesus Christ.
Secondly, Because
this history seems to be typical of the calling of the Gentile church,
and indeed of the conversion of every believer. Ruth was not originally
of Israel, but was a Moabitess, an alien from the commonwealth of
Israel: but she forsook her own people, and the idols of the Gentiles,
to worship the God of Israel, and to join herself to that people.
Herein she seems to be a type of the Gentile church, and also of every
sincere convert. Ruth was the remote mother of Christ; he came of her
posterity: so the church is Christ’s mother, as she is represented,
Naomi was now returning out of the land of Moab, into the land of Israel, with her two daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth; who will represent to us two sorts of professors of religion: Orpah, those who indeed make a fair profession, and seem to set out well, but continue only for a while, and then turn back; Ruth, those who are sound and sincere, and therefore are stedfast and persevering in their way. Naomi, in the preceding verses, represents to her daughters the difficulties of their leaving their own country to go with her. And in this verse may be observed,
1.
The remarkable conduct and behaviour of Ruth on this occasion; with
what inflexible resolution she cleaves to Naomi, and follows her. When
Naomi first arose to return from the country of Moab into the land of
Israel, Orpah and Ruth both set out with her; and Naomi exhorts them
both to return. And both wept, and seemed as if they could not bear the
thoughts of leaving her, and appeared as if they were resolved to go
with her.
2. I would particularly observe that wherein the virtuousness of this her resolution consists, viz. that
it was for the sake of the God of Israel, and that she might be one of
his people, that she was thus resolved to cleave to Naomi:
From the words thus opened, I observe this for the subject of my present discourse:—“When those that we have formerly been conversant with, are turning to God, and joining themselves to his people, it ought to be our firm resolution, that we will not leave them; but that their people shall be our people, and their God our God.”
It sometimes happens, that of those who have been conversant one with another—who have dwelt together as neighbours, and have been often together as companions, or united in their relation, and have been together in darkness, bondage, and misery, in the service of Satan—some are enlightened, and have their minds changed, are made to see the great evil of sin, and have their hearts turned to God. They are influenced by the Holy Spirit of God, to leave their company that are on Satan’s side, and to join themselves with that blessed company that are with Jesus Christ. They are made willing to forsake the tents of wickedness, to dwell in the land of uprightness with the people of God.
And sometimes this proves a final parting or separation between them and those with whom they have been formerly conversant. Though it may be no parting in outward respects, they may still dwell, and converse one with another; yet in other respects, it sets them at a great distance. One is a child of God, and the other his enemy; one is in a miserable, and the other in a happy, condition; one is a citizen of the heavenly Zion, the other is under condemnation to hell. They are no longer together in those respects wherein they used to be together. They used to be of one mind to serve sin, and do Satan’s work; now they are of contrary minds. They used to be together in worldliness and sinful vanity; now they are of exceeding different dispositions. They are separated as they are in different kingdoms; the one remains in the kingdom of darkness, the other is translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son. And sometimes they are finally separated in these respects: while one dwells in the land of Israel, and in the house of God; the other, like Orpah, lives and dies in the land of Moab.
Now it is lamentable, it is awful being parted so. It is doleful, when of those who have formerly been together in sin, some turn to God, and join themselves with his people, that it should prove a parting between them and their former companions and acquaintance. It should be our firm and inflexible resolution in such a case, that it shall 665 be no parting, but that we will follow them, that their people shall be our people, and their God our God; and that for the following reasons:
I. Because their God is a glorious God. There is none like him, who is infinite in glory and excellency. He is the most high God, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders. His name is excellent in all the earth, and his glory is above the heavens. Among the gods there is none like unto him; there is none in heaven to be compared to him, nor are there any among the sons of the mighty that can be likened unto him. Their God is the fountain of all good, and an inexhaustible fountain; he is an all-sufficient God, able to protect and defend them, and do all things for them. He is the King of glory, the Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle: a strong rock, and a high tower. There is none like the God of Jeshurun, who rideth on the heaven in their help, and in his excellency on the sky: the eternal God is their refuge, and underneath are everlasting arms. He is a God who hath all things in his hands, and does whatsoever he pleases: he killeth and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up; he maketh poor and maketh rich: the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s. Their God is an infinitely holy God; there is none holy as the Lord. And he is infinitely good and merciful. Many that others worship and serve as gods, are cruel beings, spirits that seek the ruin of souls; but this is a God that delighteth in mercy; his grace is infinite, and endures for ever. He is love itself, an infinite fountain and ocean of it.
Such a God is their God! Such is the excellency of Jacob! Such is the God of them who have forsaken their sins and are converted! They have made a wise choice who have chosen this for their God. They have made a happy exchange indeed, that have exchanged sin, and the world, for such a God!
They have an excellent and glorious Saviour, who is the only-begotten Son of God; the brightness of his Father’s glory; one in whom God from eternity had infinite delight; a Saviour of infinite love; one that has shed his own blood, and made his soul an offering for their sins, and one that is able to save them to the uttermost.
II. Their people are
an excellent and happy people. God has renewed them, and stamped his
own image upon them, and made them partakers of his holiness. They are
more excellent than their neighbours,
The people of God are the most excellent and happy society in the world. That God whom they have chosen for their God, is their Father; he has pardoned all their sins, and they are at peace with him; and he has admitted them to all the privileges of his children. As they have devoted themselves to God, so he has given himself to them. He is become their salvation, and their portion: his power and mercy, and all his attributes, are theirs. They are in a safe state, free from all possibility of perishing: Satan has no power to destroy them. God carries them on eagle’s wings, far above Satan’s reach, and above the reach of all the enemies of their souls. God is with them in this world; they have his gracious presence. God is for them; who then can be against them? As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so Jehovah is round about them. God is their shield, and their exceeding great reward; and their fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ: and they have the divine promise and oath, that in the world to come they shall dwell for ever in the glorious presence of God.
It
may well be sufficient to induce us to resolve to cleave to those that
forsake their sins and idols to join themselves with this people, that
God is with them,
III. Happiness is
no where else to be had, but in their God, and with their people. There
are that are called gods many, and lords many. Some make gods of their
pleasures; some choose Mammon for their god; some make gods of their
own supposed excellences, or the outward advantages they have above
their neighbours: some choose one thing for their god, and others
another. But men can be happy in no other but the God of Israel: he is
the only fountain of happiness. Other gods cannot help in calamity; nor
can any of them afford what the poor empty soul stands in need of. Let
men adore those other gods never so much, and call upon them never so
earnestly, and serve them never so diligently, they will nevertheless
remain poor, wretched, unsatisfied, undone creatures. All other people
are miserable, but that people whose God is the Lord.—The world is
divided into two societies: the people of God, the little flock of Jesus Christ, that company that we
read of,
IV. When those that we have formerly been conversant with are turning to God and to his people, their example ought to influence us. Their example should be looked upon as the call of God to us, to do as they have done. God, when he changes the heart of one, calls upon another; especially does he loudly call on those that have been their friends and acquaintance. We have been influenced by their examples in evil; and shall we cease to follow them, when they make the wisest choice that ever they made, and do the best thing that ever they did? If we have been companions with them in worldliness, in vanity, in unprofitable and sinful conversation, it will be a hard case, if there must be a parting now, because we are not willing to be companions with them in holiness and true happiness. Men are greatly influenced by seeing one another’s prosperity in other things. If those whom they have been much conversant with, grow rich, and obtain any great earthly advantages, it awakens their ambition, and eager desire after the like prosperity: how much more should they be influenced, and stirred up to follow them, and be like them, when they obtain that spiritual and eternal happiness, that is of infinitely more worth, than all the prosperity and glory of this world!
V. Our resolutions to cleave to and follow those that are turning to God, and joining themselves to his people, ought to be fixed
and strong, because of the great difficulty of it. If we will cleave to
them, and have their God for our God, and their people for our people,
we must mortify and deny all our lusts, and cross every evil appetite
and inclination, and for ever part with all sin. But our lusts are many
and violent. Sin is naturally exceeding dear to us; to part with it is
compared to plucking out our right eyes. Men may refrain from wonted
ways of sin for a little while, and may deny their lusts in a partial
degree, with less difficulty; but it is heart-rending work, finally to
part with all sin, and to give our dearest lusts a bill of divorce,
utterly to send them away. But this we must do, if we would follow
those that are truly turning to God: yea, we must not only forsake sin,
but must, in a sense, forsake all the world,
666 Thus, it was a hard thing for Ruth to forsake her native country, her father and mother, her kindred and acquaintance, and all the pleasant things she had in the land of Moab, to dwell in the land of Israel, where she never had been. Naomi told her of the difficulties once and again. They were too hard for her sister Orpah; the consideration of them turned her back after she was set out. Her resolution was not firm enough to overcome them. But so firmly resolved was Ruth, that she brake through all; she was stedfast in it, that, let the difficulty be what it would, she would not leave her mother-in-law. So persons had need to be very firm in their resolution to conquer the difficulties that are in the way of cleaving to them who are indeed turning from sin to God.
Our cleaving to them, and having their God for our God, and their people for our people, depends on our resolution and choice; and that in two respects.
1. The firmness of
resolution in using means in order to it, is the way to have means
effectual. There are means appointed in order to our becoming some of
the true Israel, and having their God for our God; and the thorough use
of these means is the way to have success; but not a slack or slighty
use of them. And that we may be thorough, there is need of strength of
resolution, a firm and inflexible disposition and bent of mind to be
universal in the use of means, and to do what we do with our might, and
to persevere in it.
2. A choosing of their God, and their people, with a full determination, and with the whole soul, is the condition of an union with them. God gives every man his choice in this matter: as Orpah and Ruth had their choice, whether they would go with Naomi into the land of Israel, or stay in the land of Moab. A natural man may choose deliverance from hell; but no man doth ever heartily choose God and Christ, and the spiritual benefits that Christ has purchased, and the happiness of God’s people, till he is converted. On the contrary, he is averse to them; he has no relish of them; and is wholly ignorant of their inestimable worth and value.
Many carnal men seem to choose these things, but do it not really; as Orpah seemed at first to choose to forsake Moab to go into the land of Israel: but when Naomi came to set before her the difficulty of it, she went back; and thereby showed that she was not fully determined in her choice, and that her whole soul was not in it as Ruth’s was.
APPLICATION.
The
use that I shall make of what has been said, is to move sinners to this
resolution, with respect to those amongst us that have lately turned to
God, and joined themselves to the flock of Christ. Through the abundant
mercy and grace of God to us in this place, it may be said of many of
you that are in a Christless condition, that you have lately been left
by those that were formerly with you in such a state. Some of those
with whom you have formerly been conversant, have lately forsaken a
life of sin and the service of Satan, and have turned to God, and fled
to Christ, and joined themselves to that blessed company that are with
him. They formerly were with you in sin and in misery; but now they are
with you no more in that state or manner of life. They are changed, and
have fled from the wrath to come; they have chosen a life of holiness
here, and the enjoyment of God hereafter. They were formerly your
associates in bondage, and were with you in Satan’s business; but now
you have their company no longer in these things. Many of you have seen
those you live with, under the same roof, turning from being any longer
with you in sin, to be with the people of Jesus Christ. Some of you
that are husbands, have had your wives; and some of you that are wives,
have had your husbands; some of you that are children, have had your
parents; and parents have had your children; many of you have had your
brothers and sisters; and many your near neighbours, and acquaintance,
and special friends; many of you that are young have had your
companions: I say, many of you have had those that you have been thus
concerned with, leaving you, forsaking that doleful life and wretched
state in which you still continue. God, of his good pleasure and
wonderful grace, hath lately caused in this place multitudes to forsake
their old abodes in the land of Moab, and under the gods of Moab, and
go into the land of Israel, to put their trust under the wings of the
Lord God of Israel. Though you and they have been nearly related, and
have dwelt together, or have been often together and intimately
acquainted, they have been taken, and you hitherto left! O let it not
be the foundation of a final parting! But earnestly follow them; be
firm in your resolution in this matter. Do not as Orpah did, who,
though at first she made as though she would follow Naomi, yet when she
had the difficulty set before her, went back: but say as Ruth,
You are old sinners, who have lived long in the service of Satan, have lately seen some that have travelled with you in the paths of sin these many years, turning to God. They with you enjoyed great means and advantages, had calls and warnings with you, and with you passed through remarkable times of the pouring out of God’s Spirit in this place, and hardened their hearts and stood it out with you, and with you have grown old in sin; yet you have seen some of them turning to God, i. e. you have seen those evidences of it in them, whence you may rationally judge that it is so. O! let it not be a final parting! You have been thus long together in sin, and under condemnation; let it be your firm resolution, that, if possible, you will be with them still, now they are in a holy and happy state, and that you will follow them into the holy and pleasant land.—You that tell of your having been seeking salvation for many years, (though, without doubt, in a poor dull way, in comparison of what you ought to have done,) have seen some old sinners and old seekers, as you are, obtaining mercy. God has lately roused them from their dulness, and caused them to alter their hand, and put them on more thorough endeavours; and they have now, after so long a time, heard God’s voice, and have fled for refuge to the rock of ages. Let this awaken earnestness and resolution in you. Resolve that you will not leave them.
You who are in your youth, how many have you seen of your age and standing, that have of late hopefully chosen God for their God, and Christ for their Saviour! You have followed them in sin, and have perhaps followed them into vain company; and will you not now follow them to Christ?—And you who are children, know that there have lately been some of your sort who have repented of their sins, loved the Lord Jesus Christ, and trusted in him, and are become God’s children, as we have reason to hope: let it stir you up to resolve to your utmost to seek and cry to God, that you may have the like change made in your hearts, that their people may be your people, and their God your God.
You who are great sinners, who have made yourselves distinguishingly guilty by the wicked practices you have lived in, know that there are some of your sort who have lately (as we have reason to hope) had their hearts broken for sin, and have forsaken it, and trusted in the blood of Christ for the pardon of it. They have chosen a holy life, and have betaken themselves to the ways of wisdom: let it excite and encourage you resolutely to cleave to them, and earnestly to follow them.
Let the following things be considered:
1.
That your soul is as precious as theirs. It is immortal as theirs is;
and stands in as much need of happiness, and can as ill bear eternal
misery. You was born in the same miserable condition that they were,
having the same wrath of God abiding on you. You must stand before the
same Judge; who will be as strict in judgment with you as with them;
and your own righteousness will stand you in no more stead before him
than theirs; and therefore you stand in as absolute necessity of a
Saviour as they. Carnal confidences can no more answer your end than
theirs; nor
667can this world or its enjoyments serve to
make you happy without God and Christ, more than them. When the
bridegroom comes, the foolish virgins stand in as much need of oil as
the wise,
2.
Unless you follow them in their turning to God, their conversion will
be a foundation of an eternal separation between you and them. You will
be in different interests, and in exceeding different states, as long
as you live; they the children of God, and you the children of Satan;
and you will be parted in another world; when you come to die, there
will be a vast separation made between you.
3. Consider the great encouragement that God gives you, earnestly to strive for the same blessing that others have obtained. There is great encouragement in the word of God to sinners to seek salvation, in the revelation we have of the abundant provision made for the salvation even of the chief of sinners, and in the appointment of so many means to be used with and by sinners, in order to their salvation; and by the blessing which God in his word connects with the means of his appointment. There is hence great encouragement for all, at all times, that will be thorough in using of these means. But now God gives extraordinary encouragement in his providence, by pouring out his Spirit so remarkably amongst us, and bringing savingly home to himself all sorts, young and old, rich and poor, wise and unwise, sober and vicious, old self-righteous seekers, and profligate livers: no sort are exempt. There is at this day amongst us the loudest call, and the greatest encouragement, and the widest door opened to sinners, to escape out of a state of sin and condemnation, that perhaps God ever granted in New England. Who is there that has an immortal soul, so sottish as not to improve such an opportunity, and that will not bestir himself with all his might? How unreasonable is negligence, and how exceeding unreasonable is discouragement, at such a day as this! Will you be so stupid as to neglect your soul now? Will any mortal amongst us be so unreasonable as to lag behind, or look back in discouragement, when God opens such a door? Let every person be thoroughly awake! Let every one encourage himself now to press forward, and fly for his life!
4.
Consider how earnestly desirous they that have obtained are that you
should follow them, and that their people should be your people, and
their God your God. They desire that you should partake of that great
good which God has given them, and that unspeakable and eternal
blessedness which he has promised them. They wish and long it. If you
do not go with them, and are not still of their company, it will not be
for want of their willingness, but your own. That of Moses to Hobab is
the language of every true saint of your acquaintance to you.
5.
Consider what a doleful company will be left after this extraordinary
time of mercy is over. We have reason to think that there will be a
number left. We read that when Ezekiel’s healing waters increased so
abundantly, and the healing effect of them was so very general; yet
there were certain places, where the waters came, that never were
healed.
DISCOURSE. IV. The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners.
DISCOURSE IV.
the justice of god in the damnation of sinners.
—That every mouth may be stopped.—
The
main subject of the doctrinal part of this epistle, is the free grace
of God in the salvation of men by Jesus Christ; especially as it
appears in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. And the more
clearly to evince this doctrine, and show the reason of it, the
apostle, in the first place, establishes that point, that no flesh
living can be justified by the deeds of the law. And to prove it, he is
very large and particular in showing, that all mankind, not only the
Gentiles, but Jews, are under sin, and so under the condemnation of the
law; which is what he insists upon from the beginning of the epistle to
this place. He first begins with the Gentiles; and in the first chapter
shows that they are under sin, by setting forth the exceeding
corruptions and horrid wickedness that overspread the Gentile world:
and then through the second chapter, and the former part of this third
chapter, to the text and following verse, he shows the same of the
Jews, that they also are in the same circumstances with the Gentiles in
this regard. They had a high thought of themselves, because they were
God’s covenant people, and circumcised, and the children of Abraham.
They despised the Gentiles as polluted, condemned, and accursed; but
looked on themselves, on account of their external privileges, and
ceremonial and moral righteousness, as a pure and holy people, and the
children of God; as the apostle observes in the second chapter. It was
therefore strange doctrine to them, that they also were unclean and
guilty in God’s sight, and under the condemnation and curse of the law.
The apostle therefore, on account of their strong prejudices against
such doctrine, the more particularly insists upon it, and shows that
they are no better than the Gentiles; as in the
The things that the law says, are sufficient to stop the mouths of all mankind, in two respects.
1. To stop them from boasting of their righteousness, as the Jews were wont to do; as the apostle observes in the (
669
2. To stop them from making any excuse for ourselves, or objection
against the execution of the sentence of the law, or the infliction of
the punishment that it threatens. That this is intended, appears by the
words immediately following,
And thus the apostle proves, that no flesh can be justified in God’s sight by the deeds of the law; as he draws the conclusion in the following verse; and so prepares the way for establishing the great doctrine of justification by faith alone, which he proceeds to do in the following part of the chapter, and of the epistle.
DOCTRINE.
“It is just with God eternally to cast off and destroy sinners.”—For this is the punishment which the law condemns to—The truth of this doctrine may appear by the joint consideration of two things, viz. Man’s sinfulness, and God’s sovereignty.
I. It appears from the consideration of man’s sinfulness. And that whether we consider the infinitely evil nature of all sin, or how much sin men are guilty of.
1. If we consider the infinite evil and heinousness of sin in general, it is not unjust in God to inflict what punishment is deserved; because the very notion of deserving any punishment is, that it may be justly inflicted. A deserved punishment and a just punishment are the same thing. To say that one deserves such a punishment, and yet to say that he does not justly deserve it, is a contradiction; and if he justly deserves it, then it may be justly inflicted.
Every crime or fault deserves a greater or less punishment, in proportion as the crime itself is greater or less. If any fault deserves punishment, then so much the greater the fault, so much the greater is the punishment deserved. The faulty nature of any thing is the formal ground and reason of its desert of punishment; and therefore the more any thing hath of this nature, the more punishment it deserves. And therefore the terribleness of the degree of punishment, let it be never so terrible, is no argument against the justice of it, if the proportion does but hold between the heinousness of the crime and the dreadfulness of the punishment; so that if there be any such thing as a fault infinitely heinous, it will follow that it is just to inflict a punishment for it that is infinitely dreadful.
A crime is more or less heinous, according as we are under greater or less obligations to the contrary. This is self-evident; because it is herein that the criminalness or faultiness of any thing consists, that it is contrary to what we are obliged or bound to, or what ought to be in us. So the faultiness of one being hating another, is in proportion to his obligation to love him. The crime of one being despising and casting contempt on another, is proportionably more or less heinous, as he was under greater or less obligations to honour him. The fault of disobeying another, is greater or less, as any one is under greater or less obligations to obey him. And therefore if there be any being that we are under infinite obligations to love, and honour, and obey, the contrary towards him must be infinitely faulty.
Our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority; for that is the very meaning of the words. When we say any one is very lovely, it is the same as to say, that he is one very much to be loved. Or if we say such a one is more honourable than another, the meaning of the words is, that he is one that we are more obliged to honour. If we say any one has great authority over us, it is the same as to say, that he has great right to our subjection and obedience.
But God is a being infinitely lovely, because he hath infinite excellency and beauty. To have infinite excellency and beauty, is the same thing as to have infinite loveliness. He is a being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; and therefore he is infinitely honourable. He is infinitely exalted above the greatest potentates of the earth, and highest angels in heaven; and therefore he is infinitely more honourable than they. His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him.
So
that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must
be a crime infinitely heinous, and so deserving infinite
punishment.—Nothing is more agreeable to the common sense of mankind,
than that sins committed against any one, must be proportionably
heinous to the dignity of the being offended and abused; as it is also
agreeable to the word of God,
If there be any evil or faultiness in sin against God, there is certainly infinite evil: for if it be any fault at all, it has an infinite aggravation, viz. that it is against an infinite object. If it be ever so small upon other accounts, yet if it be any thing, it has one infinite dimension; and so is an infinite evil. Which may be illustrated by this: if we suppose a thing to have infinite length, but no breadth and thickness, (a mere mathematical line,) it is nothing: but if it have any breadth and thickness, though never so small, and infinite length, the quantity of it is infinite; it exceeds the quantity of any thing, however broad, thick, and long, wherein these dimensions are all finite.
So that the objections made against the infinite punishment of sin, from the necessity, or rather previous certainty, of the futurition of sin, arising from the unavoidable original corruption of nature, if they argue any thing, argue against any faultiness at all: for if this necessity or certainty leaves any evil at all in sin, that fault must be infinites by reason of the infinite object.
But every such objector as would argue from hence, that there is no fault at all in sin, confutes himself, and shows his own insincerity in his objection. For at the same time that he objects, that men’s acts are necessary, and that this kind of necessity is inconsistent with faultiness in the act, his own practice shows that he does not believe what he objects to be true: otherwise why does he at all blame men? Or why are such persons at all displeased with men, for abusive, injurious, and ungrateful acts towards them? Whatever they pretend, by this they show that indeed they do believe that there is no necessity in men’s acts that is inconsistent with blame. And if their objection be this, that this previous certainty is by God’s own ordering, and that where God orders an antecedent certainty of acts, he transfers all the fault from the actor on himself; their practice shows, that at the same time they do not believe this, but fully believe the contrary: for when they are abused by men, they are displeased with men, and not with God only.
The light of nature teaches all mankind, that when an injury is voluntary, it is faulty, without any consideration of what there might be previously to determine the futurition of that evil act of the will. And it really teaches this as much to those that object and cavil most as to others; as their universal practice shows. By which it appears, that such objections are insincere and perverse. Men will mention others’ corrupt nature when they are injured, as a thing that aggravates their crime, and that wherein their faultiness partly consists. How common is it for persons, when they look on themselves greatly injured by another, to inveigh against him, and aggravate his baseness, by saying, “He is a man of a most perverse 670spirit: he is naturally of a selfish, niggardly, or proud and haughty temper: he is one of a base and vile disposition.” And yet men’s natural and corrupt dispositions are mentioned as an excuse for them, with respect to their sins against God, as if they rendered them blameless.
2.
That it is just with God eternally to cast off wicked men, may more
abundantly appear, if we consider how much sin they are guilty of. From
what has been already said, it appears, that if men were guilty of sin
but in one particular, that is sufficient ground of their eternal
rejection and condemnation. If they are sinners, that is
enough. Merely this, might be sufficient to keep them from ever lifting
up their heads, and cause them to smite on their breasts, with the
publican that cried,” God be merciful to me a sinner.” But sinful men
are full of sin; principles and acts of sin: their guilt is like great
mountains, heaped one upon another, till the pile is grown up to
heaven. They are totally corrupt, in every part, in all their
faculties; in all the principles of their nature, their understandings,
and wills; and in all their dispositions and affections. Their heads,
their hearts, are totally depraved; all the members of their bodies are
only instruments of sin; and all their senses, seeing, hearing,
tasting, &c. are only inlets and outlets of sin, channels of
corruption. There is nothing but sin, no good at all.
And there are actual wickednesses without number or measure. There are breaches of every command, in thought, word, and deed: a life full of sin; days and nights filled up with sin; mercies abused and frowns despised; mercy and justice, and all the divine perfections, trampled on; and the honour of each person in the Trinity trod in the dirt. Now if one sinful word or thought has so much evil in it, as to deserve eternal destruction, how do they deserve to be eternally cast off and destroyed, that are guilty of so much sin!
II. If with man’s sinfulness, we consider God’s sovereignty, it may serve further to clear God’s justice in the eternal rejection and condemnation of sinners, from men’s cavils and objections. I shall not now pretend to determine precisely, what things are, and what things are not, proper acts and exercises of God’s holy sovereignty; but only, that God’s sovereignty extends to the following things.
1. That such is God’s sovereign power and right, that he is originally under no obligation to keep men from sinning; but may in his providence permit and leave them to sin. He was not obliged to keep either angels or men from falling. It is unreasonable to suppose, that God should be obliged, if he makes a reasonable creature capable of knowing his will, and receiving a law from him, and being subject to his moral government at the same time to make it impossible for him to sin, or break his law. For if God be obliged to this, it destroys all use of any commands, laws, promises, or threatenings, and the very notion of any moral government of God over those reasonable creatures. For to what purpose would it be, for God to give such and such laws, and declare his holy will to a creature, and annex promises and threatenings to move him to his duty, and make him careful to perform it, if the creature at the same time has this to think of, that God is obliged to make it impossible for him to break his laws? How can God’s threatenings move to care or watchfulness, when, at the same time, God is obliged to render it impossible that he should be exposed to the threatenings? Or, to what purpose is it for God to give a law at all? For according to this supposition, it is God, and not the creature, that is under law. It is the lawgiver’s care, and not the subject’s, to see that his law is obeyed; and this care is what the lawgiver is absolutely obliged to! If God be obliged never to permit a creature to fall, there is an end of all divine laws, or government, or authority of God over the creature; there can be no manner of use of these things.
God may permit sin, though the being of sin will certainly ensue on that permission: and so, by permission, he may dispose and order the event. If there were any such thing as chance, or mere contingence, and the very notion of it did not carry a gross absurdity, (as might easily be shown that it does,) it would have been very unfit that God should have left it to mere chance, whether man should fall or no. For chance, if there should be any such thing, is undesigning and blind. And certainly it is more fit that an event of so great importance, and which is attended with such an infinite train of great consequences, should be disposed and ordered by infinite wisdom, than that it should be left to blind chance.
If it be said, that God need not have interposed to render it impossible for man to sin, and yet not leave it to mere contingence or blind chance neither; but might have left it with man’s free will, to determine whether to sin or no: I answer, if God did leave it to man’s free will, without any sort of disposal, or ordering [or rather, adequate cause] in the case, whence it should be previously certain how that free will should determine, then still that first determination of the will must be merely contingent or by chance. It could not have any antecedent act of the will to determine it; for I speak now of the very first act or motion of the will, respecting the affair that may be looked upon as the prime ground and highest source of the event. To suppose this to be determined by a foregoing act is a contradiction. God’s disposing this determination of the will by his permission, does not at all infringe the liberty of the creature. It is in no respect any more inconsistent with liberty, than mere chance or contingence. For if the determination of the will be from blind, undesigning chance, it is no more from the agent himself, or from the will itself, than if we suppose, in the case, a wise, divine disposal by permission.
2. It was fit that it should be at the ordering of the divine wisdom and good pleasure, whether every particular man should stand for himself, or whether the first father of mankind should be appointed as the moral and federal head and representative of the rest. If God has not liberty in this matter to determine either of these two as he pleases, it must be because determining that the first father of men should represent the rest, and not that every one should stand for himself, is injurious to mankind. For if it be not injurious, how is it unjust? But it is not injurious to mankind; for there is nothing in the nature of the case itself, that makes it better that each man should stand for himself, than that all should be represented by their common father; as the least reflection or consideration will convince any one. And if there be nothing in the nature of the thing that makes the former better for mankind than the latter, then it will follow, that they are not hurt in God’s choosing and appointing the latter, rather than the former; or, which is the same thing, that it is not injurious to mankind.
3. When men are fallen, and become sinful, God by his sovereignty has a right to determine about their redemption as he pleases. He has a right to determine whether he will redeem any or not. He might, if he had pleased, have left all to perish, or might have redeemed all. Or, he may redeem some, and leave others; and if he doth so, he may take whom he pleases, and leave whom he pleases. To suppose that all have forfeited his favour, and deserved to perish, and to suppose that he may not leave any one individual of them to perish, implies a contradiction; because it supposes that such a one has a claim to God’s favour, and is not justly liable to perish; which is contrary to the supposition.
It is meet that God should order all these things according to his own pleasure. By reason of his greatness and glory, by which he is infinitely above all, he is worthy to be sovereign, and that his pleasure should in all things take place. He is worthy that he should make himself 671his end, and that he should make nothing but his own wisdom his rule in pursuing that end, without asking leave or counsel of any, and without giving account of any of his matters. It is fit that he who is absolutely perfect, and infinitely wise, and the Fountain of all wisdom, should determine every thing [that he effects] by his own will, even things of the greatest importance. It is meet that he should be thus sovereign, because he is the first being, the eternal being, whence all other beings are. He is the Creator of all things; and all are absolutely and universally dependent on him; and therefore it is meet that he should act as the sovereign possessor of heaven and earth.
APPLICATION.
In the improvement of this doctrine, I would chiefly direct myself to sinners who are afraid of damnation, in a use of conviction. This may be matter of conviction to you, that it would be just and righteous with God eternally to reject and destroy you. This is what you are in danger of. You who are a Christless sinner, are a poor condemned creature: God’s wrath still abides upon you; and the sentence of condemnation lies upon you. You are in God’s hands, and it is uncertain what he will do with you. You are afraid what will become of you. You are afraid that it will be your portion to suffer eternal burnings; and your fears are not without grounds; you have reason to tremble every moment. But be you never so much afraid of it, let eternal damnation be never so dreadful, yet it is just. God may nevertheless do it, and be righteous, and holy, and glorious. Though eternal damnation be what you cannot bear, and how much soever your heart shrinks at the thoughts of it, yet God’s justice may be glorious in it. The dreadfulness of the thing on your part, and the greatness of your dread of it, do not render it the less righteous on God’s part. If you think otherwise, it is a sign that you do not see yourself, that you are not sensible what sin is, nor how much of it you have been guilty of. Therefore for your conviction, be directed,
First, To look over your past life: inquire at the mouth of conscience, and hear what that has to testify concerning it. Consider what you are, what light you have had, and what means you have lived under: and yet how you have behaved yourself! What have those many days and nights you have lived been filled up with? How have those years that have rolled over your heads, one after another, been spent? What has the sun shone upon you for, from day to day, while you have improved his light to serve Satan by it? What has God kept your breath in your nostrils for, and given you meat and drink, that you have spent your life and strength, supported by them, in opposing God, and rebellion against him?
How many sorts of wickedness have you not been guilty of! How manifold have been the abominations of your life! What profaneness and contempt of God has been exercised by you! How little regard have you had to the Scriptures, to the word preached, to sabbaths, and sacraments! How profanely have you talked, many of you, about those things that are holy! After what manner have many of you kept God’s holy day, not regarding the holiness of the time, nor caring what you thought of in it! Yea, you have not only spent the time in worldly, vain, and unprofitable thoughts, but immoral thoughts; pleasing yourself with the reflection on past acts of wickedness, and in contriving new acts. Have not you spent much holy time ingratifying your lusts in your imaginations; yea, not only holy time, but the very time of God’s public worship, when you have appeared in God’s more immediate presence? How have you not only not attended to the worship, but have in the mean time been feasting your lusts, and wallowing yourself in abominable uncleanness! How many sabbaths have you spent, one after another, in a most wretched manner! Some of you not only in worldly and wicked thoughts, but also a very wicked outward behaviour! When you on sabbath-days have got along with your wicked companions, how has holy time been treated among you! What kind of conversation has there been! Yea, how have some of you, by a very indecent carriage, openly dishonoured and cast contempt on the sacred services of God’s house, and holy day! And what you have done some of you alone, what wicked practices there have been in secret, even in holy time, God and your own consciences know.
And how have you behaved yourself in the time of family prayer! And what a trade have many of you made of absenting yourselves from the worship of the families you belong to, for the sake of vain company! And how have you continued in the neglect of secret prayer! therein wilfully living in a known sin, going abreast against as plain a command as any in the Bible! Have you not been one that has cast off fear, and restrained prayer before God?
What
wicked carriage have some of you been guilty of towards your parents!
How far have you been from paying that honour to them which God has
required! Have you not even harboured ill-will and malice towards them?
and when they have displeased you, have wished evil to them? yea, and
shown your vile spirit in your behaviour? and it is well if you have
not mocked them behind their backs; and, like the accursed Ham and
Canaan, as it were, derided your parents’ nakedness instead of covering
it, and hiding your eyes from it. Have not some of you often disobeyed
your parents, yea, and refused to be subject to them? Is it not a
wonder of mercy and forbearance, that the proverb has not before now
been accomplished on you,
What revenge and malice have you been guilty of towards your neighbours! How have you indulged this spirit of the devil, hating others, and wishing evil to them, rejoicing when evil befell them, and grieving at others’ prosperity, and lived in such a way for a long time! Have not some of you allowed a passionate furious spirit, and behaved yourselves in your anger more like wild beasts than like Christians?
What covetousness has been in many of you! Such has been your inordinate love of the world, and care about the things of it, that it has taken up your heart; you have allowed no room for God and religion; you have minded the world more than your eternal salvation. For the vanities of the world you have neglected reading, praying, and meditation; for the things of the world you have broken the sabbath; for the world you have spent a great deal of your time in quarrelling. For the world you have envied and hated your neighbour; for the world you have cast God, and Christ, and heaven, behind your back; for the world you have sold your own soul. You have as it were drowned your soul in worldly cares and desires; you have been a mere earth-worm, that is never in its element but when grovelling and buried in the earth.
How much of a spirit of pride, has appeared in you, which is in a peculiar manner the spirit and condemnation of the devil! How have some of you vaunted yourselves in your apparel! others in their riches! others in their knowledge and abilities! How has it galled you to see others above you! How much has it gone against the grain for you to give others their due honour! And how have you shown your pride by setting up your wills in opposing others, and stirring up and promoting division, and a party spirit in public affairs.
How sensual have you been! Are there not some here that have debased themselves below the dignity of human nature, by wallowing in sensual filthiness, as swine in the mire, or as filthy vermin feeding with delight on rotten carrion? What intemperance have some of you been guilty of! How much of your precious time have you spent away at the tavern, and in drinking companies, when you ought to have been at home seeking God and your salvation in your families and closets!
And what abominable lasciviousness have
some of you been guilty of! How have you indulged yourself from day to
day, and from night to night, in all manner of unclean imaginations!
Has not your soul been filled with them, till it has become a hold of
foul spirits, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird? What
foul-mouthed persons have some of you been, often in lewd and
lascivious talk and unclean songs, wherein were things not
672fit to be spoken! And such company, where
such conversation has been carried on, has been your delight. And with
what unclean acts and practices have you defiled yourself! God and your
own consciences know what abominable lasciviousness you have practised
in things not fit to be named, when you have been alone; when you ought
to have been reading, or meditating, or on your knees before God in
secret prayer. And how have you corrupted others, as well as polluted
yourselves! What vile uncleanness have you practised in company! What
abominations have you been guilty of in the dark! Such as the apostle
doubtless had respect to in
What lying have some of you been guilty of, especially in your childhood! And have not your heart and lips often disagreed since you came to riper years? What fraud, and deceit, and unfaithfulness, have many of you practised in your own dealings with your neighbours, of which your own heart is conscious, if you have not been noted by others.
And how have some of you behaved yourselves in your family relations! How have you neglected your children’s souls! And not only so, but have corrupted their minds by your bad examples; and instead of training them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, have rather brought them up in the devil’s service!
How have some of you attended that sacred ordinance of the Lord’s supper without any manner of serious preparation, and in a careless slighty frame of spirits, and chiefly to comply with custom! Have you not ventured to put the sacred symbols of the body and blood of Christ into your mouth, while at the same time you lived in ways of known sins, and intended no other than still to go on in the same wicked practices? And, it may be, have sat at the Lord’s table with rancour in your heart against some of your brethren that you have sat therewith. You have come even to that holy feast of love among God’s children, with the leaven of malice and envy in your heart; and so have eat and drank judgment to yourself.
What stupidity and sottishness has attended your course of wickedness: which has appeared in your obstinacy under awakening dispensations of God’s word and providence. And how have some of you backslidden after you have set out in religion, and quenched God’s Spirit after he had been striving with you! And what unsteadiness, and slothfulness, and long misimprovement of God’s strivings with you, have you been chargeable with!
Now, can you think when you have thus behaved yourself, that God is obliged to show you mercy? Are you not after all this ashamed to talk of its being hard with God to cast you off? Does it become one who has lived such a life to open his mouth to excuse himself, to object against God’s justice in his condemnation, or to complain of it as hard in God not to give him converting and pardoning grace, and make him his child, and bestow on him eternal life? or to talk of his duties and great pains in religion, as if such performances were worthy to be accepted, and to draw God’s heart to such a creature? If this has been your manner, does it not show how little you have considered yourself, and how little a sense you have had of your own sinfulness?
Secondly, Be
directed to consider, if God should eternally reject and destroy you,
what an agreeableness and exact mutual answerableness there would be
between God so dealing with you, and your spirit and behaviour. There
would not only be an equality, but a similitude. God declares, that his
dealings with men shall be suitable to their disposition and practice.
Here I would particularly show,—1. That if God should eternally destroy you, it would be agreeable to your treatment of God. 2. That it would be agreeable to your treatment of Jesus Christ. 3. That it would be agreeable to your behaviour towards your neighbours. 4. That it would be according to your own foolish behaviour towards yourself.
I. If God should for ever cast you off, it would be exactly agreeable to your treatment of him. That you may be sensible of this, consider,
1. You never have exercised the least degree of love to God; and therefore it would be agreeable to your treatment of him if he should never express any love to you. When God converts and saves a sinner, it is a wonderful and unspeakable manifestation of divine love. When a poor lost soul is brought home to Christ, and has all his sins forgiven him, and is made a child of God, it will take up a whole eternity to express and declare the greatness of that love. And why should God be obliged to express such wonderful love to you, who never exercised the least degree of love to him in all your life? You never have loved God, who is infinitely glorious and lovely; and why then is God under obligation to love you, who are all over deformed and loathsome as a filthy worm, or rather a hateful viper? You have no benevolence in your heart towards God; you never rejoiced in God’s happiness; if he had been miserable, and that had been possible, you would have liked it as well as if he were happy; you would not have cared how miserable he was, nor mourned for it, any more than you now do for the devil’s being miserable. And why then should God be looked upon as obliged to take so much care for your happiness, as to do such great things for it, as he doth for those that are saved? Or why should God be called hard, in case he should not be careful to save you from misery? You care not what becomes of God’s glory; you are not distressed how much soever his honour seems to suffer in the world: and why should God care any more for your welfare? Has it not been so, that if you could but promote your private interest, and gratify your own lusts, you cared not how much the glory of God suffered? And why may not God advance his own glory in the ruin of your welfare, not caring how much your interest suffers by it? You never so much as stirred one step, sincerely making the glory of God your end, or acting from real respect to him; and why then is it hard if God do not do such great things for you, as the changing of your nature, raising you from spiritual death to life, conquering the powers of darkness for you, translating you out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of his dear Son, delivering you from eternal misery, and bestowing upon you eternal glory? You were not willing to deny yourself for God; you never cared to put yourself out of your way for Christ; whenever any thing cross or difficult came in your way, that the glory of God was concerned in, it has been your manner to shun it, and excuse yourself from it. You did not care to hurt yourself for Christ, whom you did not see worthy of it; and why then must it be looked upon as a hard and cruel thing, if Christ has not been pleased to spill his blood and be tormented to death for such a sinner.
2. You have slighted God; and why then may not God justly slight you? When sinners are sensible in some measure of their misery, they are ready to think it hard that God will take no more notice of them; that he will see them in such a lamentable distressed condition, beholding their burdens and tears, and seem to slight it, and manifest no pity to them. Their souls they think are precious: it would be a dreadful thing if they should perish, and burn in hell for ever. They do not see through it, that God should make so light of their salvation. But then, ought they not to consider, that as their souls are precious, so is God’s honour precious? The honour of the infinite God, the great King of heaven and earth, is a thing of as great importance, (and surely may justly be so esteemed by God,) as the happiness of you, a poor little worm. But yet you have slighted that honour of God, and valued it 673no more than the dirt under your feet. You have been told that such and such things were contrary to the will of a holy God, and against his honour; but you cared not for that. God called upon you, and exhorted you to be more tender of his honour; but you went on without regarding him. Thus have you slighted God! And yet, is it hard that God should slight you? Are you more honourable than God, that he must be obliged to make much of you, how light soever you make of him and his glory?
And
you have not only slighted God in time past, but you slight him still.
You indeed now make a pretence and show of honouring him in your
prayers, and attendance on other external duties, and by sober
countenance, and seeming devoutness in your words and behaviour; but it
is all mere dissembling. That downcast look and seeming reverence, is
not from any honour you have to God in your heart, though you would
have God take it so. You who have not believed in Christ, have not the
least jot of honour to God; that show of it is merely forced, and what
you are driven to by fear, like those mentioned in
Seeing you thus disregard so great a God, is it a heinous thing for God to slight you, a little, wretched, despicable creature; a worm, a mere nothing, and less than nothing; a vile insect, that has risen up in contempt against the Majesty of heaven and earth?
3. Why should God be looked upon as obliged to bestow salvation upon you, when you have been so ungrateful for the mercies he has bestowed upon you already? God has tried you with a great deal of kindness, and he never has sincerely been thanked by you for any of it. God has watched over you, and preserved you, and provided for you, and followed you with mercy all your days; and yet you have continued sinning against him. He has given you food and raiment, but you have improved both in the service of sin. He has preserved you while you slept; but when you arose, it was to return to the old; trade of sinning. God, notwithstanding this ingratitude, has still continued his mercy; but his kindness has never won your heart, or brought you to a more grateful behaviour towards him. It may be you have received many remarkable mercies, recoveries from sickness, or preservations of your life when exposed by accidents, when if you had died, you would have gone directly to hell; but you never had any true thankfulness for any of these mercies. God has kept you out of hell, and continued your day of grace, and the offers of salvation, so long a time; while you did not regard your own salvation so much as in secret to ask God for it. And now God has greatly added to his mercy to you, by giving you the strivings of his Spirit, whereby a most precious opportunity for your salvation is in your hands. But what thanks has God received for it? What kind of returns have you made for all this kindness? As God has multiplied mercies, so have you multiplied provocations.
And yet now are you ready to quarrel for mercy, and to find fault with God, not only that he does not bestow more mercy, but to contend with him, because he does not bestow infinite mercy upon you, heaven with all it contains, and even himself, for your eternal portion. What ideas have you of yourself, that you think God is obliged to do so much for you, though you treat him ever so ungratefully for his kindness wherewith you have been followed all the days of your life.
4. You have
voluntarily chosen to be with Satan in his enmity and opposition to
God; how justly therefore might you be with him in his punishment! You
did not choose to be on God’s side, but rather chose to side with the
devil, and have obstinately continued in it, against God’s often
repeated calls and counsels. You have chosen rather to hearken to Satan
than to God, and would be with him in his work. You have given yourself
up to him, to be subject to his power and government, in opposition to
God; how justly therefore may God also give you up to him, and leave
you in his power, to accomplish your ruin! Seeing you have yielded
yourself to his will, to do as he would have you, surely God may leave
you in his hands to execute his will upon you. If men will be with
God’s enemy, and on his side, why is God obliged to redeem them out of
his hands, when they have done his work? Doubtless you would be glad to
serve the devil, and be God’s enemy while you live, and then to have
God your friend, and deliver you from the devil, when you come to die.
But will God be unjust if he deals otherwise by you? No, surely! It
will be altogether and perfectly just, that you should have your
portion with him with whom you have chosen to work; and that you should
be in his possession to whose dominion you have yielded yourself; and
if you cry to God for deliverance, he may most justly give you that
answer,
5.
Consider how often you have refused to hear God’s calls to you, and how
just it would therefore be, if he should refuse to hear you when you
call upon him. You are ready, it may be, to complain that you have
often prayed, and earnestly begged of God to show you mercy, and yet
have no answer of prayer: One says, I have been constant in prayer for
so many years, and God has not heard me. Another says, I have done what
I can; I have prayed as earnestly as I am able; I do not see how I can
do more; and it will seem hard if after all I am denied. But do you
consider how often God has called, and you have denied him? God has
called earnestly and for a long time; he has called and called again in
his word, and in his providence, and you have refused. You was not
uneasy for fear you should not show regard enough to his calls. You let
him call as loud and as long as he would; for your part, you had no
leisure to attend to what he said; you had other business to mind; you
had these and those lusts to gratify and please, and worldly concerns
to attend; you could not afford to stand considering of what God had to
say to you. When the ministers of Christ have stood and pleaded with
you, in his name, sabbath after sabbath, and have even spent their
strength in it, how little was you moved! It did not alter you, but you
went on still as you used to do; when you went away, you returned again
to your sins, to your lasciviousness, to your vain mirth, to your
covetousness, to your intemperance, and that has been the language of
your heart and practice,
6. Have you not taken encouragement to sin against God, on that very presumption, that God would show you mercy when you sought it? And may not God justly refuse you that mercy that you have so presumed upon? 674You have flattered yourself, that though you did so, yet God would show you mercy when you cried earnestly to him for it: how righteous therefore would it be in God, to disappoint such a wicked presumption! It was upon that very hope that you dared to affront the Majesty of heaven so dreadfully as you have done; and can you now be so sottish as to think that God is obliged not to frustrate that hope?
When a sinner takes encouragement to neglect secret prayer which God has commanded, to gratify his lusts, to live a carnal vain life, to thwart God, to run upon him, and contemn him to his face, thinking with himself, “If I do so, God would not damn me; he is a merciful God, and therefore when I seek his mercy he will bestow it upon me;” must God be accounted hard because he will not do according to such a sinner’s presumption?
Cannot he be excused from showing such a sinner mercy when he is pleased to seek it, without incurring the charge of being unjust; if this be the case, God has no liberty to vindicate his own honour and majesty; but must lay himself open to all manner of affronts, and yield himself up to the abuses of vile men, though they disobey, despise, and dishonour him, as much as they will; and when they have done, his mercy and pardoning grace must not be in his own power and at his own disposal, but he must be obliged to dispense it at their call. He must take these bold and vile contemners of his Majesty, when it suits them to ask it, and must forgive all their sins, and not only so, but must adopt them into his family, and make them his children, and bestow eternal glory upon them. What mean, low, and strange thoughts have such men of God, who think thus of him! Consider, that you have injured God the more, and have been the worse enemy to him, for his being a merciful God. So have you treated that attribute of God’s mercy! How just is it therefore that you never should have any benefit of that attribute!
There
is something peculiarly heinous in sinning against the mercy of God
more than other attributes. There is such base and horrid ingratitude,
in being the worse to God because he is a being of infinite goodness
and grace, that it above all things renders wickedness vile and
detestable. This ought to win us, and engage us to serve God better;
but instead of that, to sin against him the more, has something
inexpressibly bad in it, and does in a peculiar manner enhance guilt,
and incense wrath; as seems to be intimated,
The greater the mercy of God is, the more should you be engaged to love him, and live to his glory. But it has been contrariwise with you; the consideration of the mercies of God being so exceeding great, is the thing wherewith you have encouraged yourself in sin. You have heard that the mercy of God was without bounds, that it was sufficient to pardon the greatest sinner, and you have upon that very account ventured to be a very great sinner. Though it was very offensive to God, though you heard that God infinitely hated sin, and that such practices as you went on in were exceeding contrary to his nature, will, and glory, yet that did not make you uneasy; you heard that he was a very merciful God, and had grace enough to pardon you, and so cared not how offensive your sins were to him. How long have some of you gone on in sin, and what great sins have some of you been guilty of, on that presumption! Your own conscience can give testimony to it, that this has made you refuse God’s calls, and has made you regardless of his repeated commands. Now, how righteous would it be if God should swear in his wrath, that you should never be the better for his being infinitely merciful!
Your ingratitude has been the greater, that you have not only abused the attribute of God’s mercy, taking encouragement from it to continue in sin, but you have also presumed that God would exercise infinite mercy to you in particular; which consideration should have especially endeared God to you. You have taken encouragement to sin the more, from that consideration, that Christ came into the world and died to save sinners; such thanks has Christ had from you, for enduring such a tormenting death for his enemies! Now, how justly might God refuse that you should ever be the better for his Son’s laying down his life! It was because of these things that you put off seeking salvation. You would take the pleasures of sin still longer, hardening yourself because mercy was infinite, and it would not be too late, if you sought it afterwards; now, how justly may God disappoint you in this, and so order it that it shall be too late.
7.
How have some of you risen up against God, and in the frame of your
minds opposed him in his sovereign dispensations! And how justly upon
that account might God oppose you, and set himself against you! You
never yet would submit to God; never willingly comply, that God should
have dominion over the world, and that he should govern it for his own
glory, according to his own wisdom. You, a poor worm, a potsherd, a
broken piece of an earthen vessel, have dared to find fault and quarrel
with God.
If you have been restrained by fear from openly venting your opposition and enmity of heart against God’s government, yet it has been in you; you have not been quiet in the frame of your mind; you have had the heart of a viper within, and have been ready to spit your venom at God. It is well if sometimes you have not actually done it, by tolerating blasphemous thoughts and malignant risings of heart against him; yea, and the frame of your heart in some measure appeared in impatient and fretful behaviour.—Now, seeing you have thus opposed God, how just is it that God should oppose you! Or is it because you are so much better, and so much greater than God, that it is a crime for him to make that opposition against you which you make against him? Do you think that the liberty of making opposition is your exclusive prerogative, so that you may be an enemy to God, but God must by no means be an enemy to you, but must be looked upon under obligation nevertheless to help you, and save you by his blood, and bestow his best blessings upon you?
Consider how in the frame of your mind you have thwarted God in those very exercises of mercy towards others that you are seeking for yourself. God exercising his infinite grace towards your neighbours, has put you into an ill frame, and it may be, set you in a tumult of mind. How justly therefore may God refuse ever to exercise that mercy towards you! Have you not thus opposed God showing mercy to others, even at the very time when you pretended to be earnest with God for pity and help for yourself? yea, and while you was endeavouring to get something wherewith to recommend yourself to God? And will you look to God still with a challenge of mercy, and contend with him for it notwithstanding? Can you who have such a heart, and have thus behaved yourself, come to God for any other than mere sovereign mercy?
II. If you should for ever be cast off by God, it would be agreeable to your treatment of Jesus Christ. It would have been just with God if he had cast you off for ever, without ever making you the offer of a Saviour. But God hath not done that; he has provided a Saviour for sinners, and offered him to you, even his own Son Jesus Christ, who is the only Saviour of men. All that are not forever cast off are saved by him. God offers men salvation through him, and has promised us, that if we come to him, we shall not be cast off. But if you have treated, and still treat, this Saviour after such a manner, that if you should be eternally cast off by God, it would be most agreeable to your behaviour towards him; which appears by this, viz. “That you reject Christ, and will not have him for your Saviour.”
If God offers you a Saviour from deserved punishment, and you will not receive him, then surely it is just that you should go without a Saviour. Or is God obliged, because you do not like this Saviour, to provide you another? 675 He has given an infinitely honourable and glorious person, even his only-begotten Son, to be a sacrifice for sin, and so provided salvation; and this Saviour is offered to you: now if you refuse to accept him, is God therefore unjust if he does not save you? Is he obliged to save you in a way of your own choosing, because you do not like the way of his choosing? Or will you charge Christ with injustice because he does not become your Saviour, when at the same time you will not have him when he offers himself to you, and beseeches you to accept of him as your Saviour?
I am sensible that by this time many persons are ready to object against this. If all should speak what they now think, we should hear a murmuring all over the meeting-house, and one and another would say, “I cannot see how this can be, that I am not willing that Christ should be my Saviour, when I would give all the world that he was my Saviour: how is it possible that I should not be willing to have Christ for my Saviour, when this is what I am seeking after, and praying for, and striving for, as for my life?”
Here therefore I would endeavour to convince you, that you are under a gross mistake in this matter. And, 1st, I would endeavour to show the grounds of your mistake. And, 2dly, To demonstrate to you, that you have rejected, and do wilfully reject, Jesus Christ.
1st, That you may see the weak grounds of your mistake, consider,
1. There is a great deal of difference between a willingness not to be damned, and a being willing to receive Christ for your Saviour. You have the former; there is no doubt of that: nobody supposes that you love misery so as to choose an eternity of it; and so doubtless you are willing to be saved from eternal misery. But that is a very different thing from being willing to come to Christ: persons very commonly mistake the one for the other, but they are quite two things. You may love the deliverance, but hate the deliverer. You tell of a willingness; but consider what is the object of that willingness. It does not respect Christ; the way of salvation by him is not at all the object of it; but it is wholly terminated on your escape from misery. The inclination of your will goes no further than self, it never reaches Christ. You are willing not to be miserable; that is, you love yourself, and there your will and choice terminate. And it is but a vain pretence and delusion to say or think, that you are willing to accept of Christ.
2.
There is certainly a great deal of difference between a forced
compliance and a free willingness. Force and freedom cannot consist
together. Now that willingness, whereby you think you are willing to
have Christ for a Saviour, is merely a forced thing. Your heart does
not go out after Christ of itself, but you are forced and driven to
seek an interest in him. Christ has no share at all in your heart;
there is no manner of closing of the heart with Him. This forced
compliance is not what Christ seeks of you; he seeks a free and willing
acceptance,
2dly, To show that you are not willing to have Christ for a Saviour. To convince you of it, consider,
1. How it is possible that you should be willing to accept of Christ as a Saviour from the desert of a punishment that you are not sensible you have deserved. If you are truly willing to accept of Christ as a Saviour, it must be as a sacrifice to make atonement for your guilt. Christ came into the world on this errand, to offer himself as an atonement, to answer for our desert of punishment. But how can you be willing to have Christ for a Saviour from a desert of hell, if you be not sensible that you have a desert of hell? If you have not really deserved everlasting burnings in hell, then the very offer of an atonement for such a desert is an imposition upon you. If you have no such guilt upon you, then the very offer of a satisfaction for that guilt is an injury, because it implies in it a charge of guilt that you are free from. Now therefore it is impossible that a man who is not convinced of his guilt can be willing to accept of such an offer; because he cannot be willing to accept the charge which the offer implies. A man who is not convinced that he has deserved so dreadful a punishment, cannot willingly submit to be charged with it. If he thinks he is willing, it is but a mere forced, feigned business; because in his heart he looks upon himself greatly injured; and therefore he cannot freely accept of Christ, under that notion of a Saviour from the desert of such a punishment; for such an acceptance is an implicit owning that he does deserve such a punishment.
I do not say, but that men may be willing to be saved from an undeserved punishment; they may rather not suffer it than suffer it. But a man cannot be willing to accept one at God’s hands, under the notion of a Saviour from a punishment deserved from him which he thinks he has not deserved; it is impossible that any one should freely allow a Saviour under that notion. Such an one cannot like the way of salvation by Christ; for if he thinks he has not deserved hell, then he will think that freedom from hell is a debt; and therefore cannot willingly and heartily receive it as a free gift.—If a king should condemn a man to some tormenting death, which the condemned person thought himself not deserving of, but looked upon the sentence as unjust and cruel, and the king, when the time of execution drew nigh, should offer him his pardon, under the notion of a very great act of grace and clemency, the condemned person never could willingly and heartily allow it under that notion, because be judged himself unjustly condemned.
Now by this it is evident that you are not willing to accept of Christ as your Saviour; because you never yet had such a sense of your own sinfulness, and such a conviction of your great guilt in God’s sight, as to be indeed convinced that you lay justly condemned to the punishment of hell. You never was convinced that you had forfeited all favour, and was in God’s hands, and at his sovereign and arbitrary disposal, to be either destroyed or saved, just as he pleased. You never yet was convinced of the sovereignty of God. Hence are there so many objections arising against the justice of your punishment from original sin, and from God’s decrees, from mercy shown to others, and the like.
2. That you are not sincerely willing to accept of Christ as your Saviour, appears by this, That you never have been convinced that he is sufficient for the work of your salvation. You never had a sight or sense of any such excellency or worthiness in Christ, as should give such great value to his blood and his mediation with God, as that it was sufficient to be accepted for such exceeding guilty creatures, who have so provoked God, and exposed themselves to such amazing wrath. Saying it is so, and allowing it to be as others say, is a very different thing from being really convinced of it, and a being made sensible of it in your own heart. The sufficiency of Christ depends upon, or rather consists in, his excellency. It is because he is so excellent a person that his blood is of sufficient value to atone for sin, and it is hence that his obedience is so worthy in God’s sight; it is also hence that his intercession is so prevalent; and therefore those that never had any spiritual sight or sense of Christ’s excellency, cannot be sensible of his sufficiency.
And that sinners are not convinced that Christ is sufficient for the work he has undertaken, appears most manifestly when they are under great convictions of their sin, and danger of God’s wrath. Though it may be before they thought they could allow Christ to be sufficient, (for it is easy to allow any one to be sufficient for our defence at a time when we see no danger,) yet when they come to be sensible of their guilt and God’s wrath, what discouraging thoughts do they entertain! How are they ready to 676draw towards despair, as if there were no hope or help for such wicked creatures as they! The reason is, They have no apprehension or sense of any other way that God’s majesty can be vindicated, but only in their misery. To tell them of the blood of Christ signifies nothing, it does not relieve their sinking, despairing hearts. This makes it most evident that they are not convinced that Christ is sufficient to be their Mediator.—And as long as they are unconvinced of this, it is impossible they should be willing to accept of him as their Mediator and Saviour. A man in distressing fear will not willingly betake himself to a fort that he judges not sufficient to defend him from the enemy. A man will not willingly venture out into the ocean in a ship that he suspects is leaky, and will sink before he gets through his voyage.
3.
It is evident that you are not willing to have Christ for your Saviour,
because you have so mean an opinion of him, that you durst not trust
his faithfulness. One that undertakes to be the Saviour of souls had
need be faithful; for if he fails in such a trust, how great is the
loss! But you are not convinced of Christ’s faithfulness; as is
evident, because at such times as when you are in a considerable
measure sensible of your guilt and God’s anger, you cannot be convinced
that Christ is willing to accept of you, or that he stands ready to
receive you, if you should come to him, though Christ so much invites
you to come to him. and has so fully declared that he will not reject
you, if you do come; as particularly,
4. You are not willing to be saved in that way by Christ, as is evident, because you are not willing that your own goodness should be set at nought. In the way of salvation by Christ men’s own goodness is wholly set at nought; there is no account at all made of it. Now you cannot be willing to be saved in away wherein your own goodness is set at nought, as is evident, since you make much of it yourself. You make much of your prayers and pains in religion, and are often thinking of them; how considerable do they appear to you, when you look back upon them! And some of you are thinking how much more you have done than others, and expecting some respect or regard that God should manifest to what you do. Now, if you make so much of what you do yourself, it is impossible that you should be freely willing that God should make nothing of it. As we may see in other things; if a man is proud of a great estate, or if he values himself much upon his honourable office, or his great abilities, it is impossible that he should like it, and heartily approve or it, that others should make light of these things and despise them.
Seeing therefore it is so evident, that you refuse to accept of Christ as your Saviour, why is Christ to be blamed that he does not save you? Christ has offered himself to you to be your Saviour in time past, and he continues offering himself still, and you continue to reject him, and yet complain that he does not save you.—So strangely unreasonable, and inconsistent with themselves, are gospel sinners!
But I expect there are many of you that still object. Such an objection as this, is probably now in the hearts of many here present.
Object. If I am not willing to have Christ for my Saviour, I cannot make myself willing.—But I would give an answer to this objection by laying down two things, that must be acknowledged to be exceeding evident.
1. It is no excuse, that you cannot receive Christ of yourself, unless you would if you could. This is so evident of itself, that it scarce needs any proof. Certainly if persons would not if they could, it is just the same thing as to the blame that lies upon them, whether they can or cannot. If you were willing, and then found that you could not, your being unable would alter the case, and might be some excuse; because then the defect would not be in your will, but only in your ability. But as long as you will not, it is no matter, whether you have ability or no ability.
If you are not willing to accept of Christ, it follows that you have no sincere willingness to be willing; because the will always necessarily approves of and rests in its own acts. To suppose the contrary would be to suppose a contradiction; it would be to suppose that a man’s will is contrary to itself, or that he wills contrary to what he himself wills. As you are not willing to come to Christ, and cannot make yourself willing, so you have no sincere desire to be willing; and therefore may most justly perish without a Saviour. There is no excuse at all for you; for say what you will about your inability, the seat of your blame lies in your perverse will, that is an enemy to the Saviour. It is in vain for you to tell of your want of power, as long as your will is found defective. If a man should hate you, and smite you in the face, but should tell you at the same time, that he hated you so much, that he could not help choosing and willing so to do, would you take it the more patiently for that? Would not your indignation be rather stirred up the more?
2. If you would be willing if you could, that is no excuse, unless your willingness to be willing be sincere. That which is hypocritical, and does not come from the heart, but is merely forced, ought wholly to be set aside, as worthy of no consideration; because common sense teaches, that what is not hearty, but hypocritical, is indeed nothing, being only a show of what is not; but that which is good for nothing, ought to go for nothing. But if you set aside all that is not free, and call nothing a willingness, but a free hearty willingness, then see how the case stands, and whether or no you have not lost all your cause for standing out against the calls of the gospel. You say you would make yourself willing to accept if you could; but it is not from any good principle that you are willing for that. It is not from any free inclination, or true respect to Christ, or any love to your duty, or any spirit of obedience. It is not from the influence of any real respect, or tendency in your heart, towards any thing good, or from any other principle than such as is in the hearts of devils, and would make them have the same sort of willingness in the same circumstances It is therefore evident, that there can be no goodness in that would be willing to come to Christ: and that which has no goodness, cannot be an excuse for any badness. If there be no good in it, then it signifies nothing, and weighs nothing, when put into the scales to counterbalance that which is bad.
Sinners therefore spend their time in foolish arguing and objecting, making much of that which is good for nothing, making those excuses that are not worth offering. It is in vain to keep making objections. You stand justly condemned. The blame lies at your door: Thrust it off from you as often as you will, it will return upon you. Sew fig-leaves as long as you will, your nakedness will appear. You continue wilfully and wickedly rejecting Jesus Christ, and will not have him for your Saviour, and therefore it is sottish madness in you to charge Christ with injustice that he does not save you.
Here is the sin of unbelief! Thus the guilt of that great sin lies upon you! If you never had thus treated a Saviour, you might most justly have been damned to all eternity: it would but be exactly agreeable to your treatment of God. But besides this, when God, notwithstanding, has offered you his own dear Son, to save you from this endless misery you had deserved, and not only so, but to make you happy eternally in the enjoyment of himself, you have refused him, and would not have him for your Saviour, and still refuse to comply with the offers of the gospel; what can render any person more inexcusable? If you should now perish for ever, what can you have to say?
Hereby the justice of God in your destruction appears in two respects:
1. It is more abundantly manifest that it is just that you should be destroyed. Justice never appears so conspicuous as it does after refused and abused mercy. Justice in damnation appears abundantly the more clear and bright, after a wilful rejection of offered salvation. What can an offended prince do more than freely offer pardon to a condemned malefactor? And if he refuses to accept of it, will any one say that his execution is unjust?
2. God’s justice will appear in your greater destruction. 677 Besides the guilt that you would have had if a Saviour never had been offered. You bring that great additional guilt upon you, of most ungratefully refusing offered deliverance. What more base and vile treatment of God can there be, than for you, when justly condemned to eternal misery, and ready to be executed, and God graciously sends his own Son, who comes and knocks at your door with a pardon in his hand, and not only a pardon, but a deed of eternal glory; I say, what can be worse, than for you, out of dislike and enmity against God and his Son, to refuse to accept those benefits at his hands? How justly may the anger of God be greatly incensed and increased by it! when a sinner thus ungratefully rejects mercy, his last error is worse than the first; this is more heinous than all his former rebellion, and may justly bring down more fearful wrath upon him.
The heinousness of this sin of rejecting a Saviour especially appears in two things:
1.
The greatness of the benefits offered: which appears in the greatness
of the deliverance, which is from inexpressible degrees of corruption
and wickedness of heart and life, the least degree of which is
infinitely evil; and from misery that is everlasting; and in the
greatness and glory of the inheritance purchased and offered.
2.
The wonderfulness of the way in which these benefits are procured and
offered. That God should lay help on his own Son, when our case was so
deplorable that help could be had in no mere creature; and that he
should undertake for us, and should come into the world, and take upon
him our nature, and should not only appear in a low state of life, but
should die such a death, and endure such torments and contempt for
sinners while enemies, how wonderful is it! And what tongue or pen can
set forth the greatness of the ingratitude, baseness, and perverseness
there is in it, when a perishing sinner that is in the most extreme
necessity of salvation, rejects it, after it is procured in such a way
as this! That so glorious a person should be thus treated, and that
when he comes on so gracious an errand! That he should stand so long
offering himself and calling and inviting, as he has done to many of
you, and all to no purpose, but all the while be set at nought! Surely
you might justly be cast into hell without one more offer of a Saviour!
yea, and thrust down into the lowest hell! Herein you have exceeded the
very devils; for they never rejected the offers of such glorious mercy;
no, nor of any mercy at all. This will be the distinguishing
condemnation of gospel-sinners,
III. If God should for ever cast you off and destroy you, it would be agreeable to your treatment of others—It would be no other than what would be exactly answerable to your behaviour towards your fellow-creatures, that have the same human nature, and are naturally in the same circumstances with you, and that you ought to love as yourself. And that appears especially in two things.
1. You have many of
you been opposite in your spirit to the salvation of others. There are
several ways that natural men manifest a spirit of opposition against
the salvation of souls. It sometimes appears by a fear that their
companions, acquaintance, and equals, will obtain mercy, and so become
unspeakably happier than they. It is sometimes manifested by an
uneasiness at the news of what others have hopefully obtained. It
appears when persons envy others for it, and dislike them the more, and
disrelish their talk, and avoid their company, and cannot bear to hear
their religious discourse, and especially to receive warnings and
counsels from them. And it oftentimes appears by their backwardness to
entertain charitable thoughts of them, and by their being brought with
difficulty to believe that they have obtained mercy, and a forwardness
to listen to any thing that seems to contradict it. The devil hated to
own Job’s sincerity,
Thus have many of you been opposite to the salvation of others, who stand in as great necessity of it as you. You have been against their being delivered from everlasting misery, who can bear it no better than you; not because their salvation would do you any hurt, or their damnation help you, any otherwise than as it would gratify that vile spirit that is so much like the spirit of the devil, who, because he is miserable himself, is unwilling that others should be happy. How just therefore is it that God should be opposite to your salvation! If you have so little love or mercy in you as to begrudge your neighbour’s salvation, whom you have no cause to hate, but the law of God and nature requires you to love, why is God bound to exercise such infinite love and mercy to you, as to save you at the price of his own blood? you, whom he is no way bound to love, but who have deserved his hatred a thousand and a thousand times? You are not willing that others should be converted, who have behaved themselves injuriously towards you; and yet, will you count it hard if God does not bestow converting grace upon you that have deserved ten thousand times as ill of God, as ever any of your neighbours have of you? You are opposite to God’s showing mercy to those that you think have been vicious persons, and are very unworthy of such mercy. Is others’ unworthiness a just reason why God should not bestow mercy on them? and yet will God be heard, if, notwithstanding all your unworthiness, and the abominableness of your spirit and practice in his sight, he does not show you mercy? You would have God bestow liberally on you, and upbraid not; but yet when he shows mercy to others, you are ready to upbraid as soon as you hear of it: you immediately are thinking with yourself how ill they have behaved themselves; and it may be your mouths on this occasion are open, enumerating and aggravating the sins they have been guilty of. You would have God bury all your faults, and wholly blot out all your transgressions; but yet if he bestows mercy on others, it may be you will take that occasion to rake up all their old faults that you can think of. You do not much reflect on and condemn yourself for your baseness and unjust spirit towards others, in your opposition to their salvation; you do not quarrel with yourself, and condemn yourself for this; but yet you in your heart will quarrel with God, and fret at his dispensations, because you think he seems opposite to showing mercy to you. One would think that the consideration of these things should for ever stop your mouth.
2.
Consider how you have promoted others’ damnation. Many of you, by the
bad examples you have set, by corrupting the minds of others, by your
sinful conversation, by leading them into or strengthening them in sin,
and by the mischief you have done in human society other ways that
might be mentioned, have been guilty of those things that have tended
to others’ damnation. You have heretofore appeared on the side of sin
and Satan, and have strengthened their interest, and have been many
ways accessary to others’ sins, have hardened their hearts, and thereby
have done what has tended to the ruin of their souls.—Without doubt
there are those here present who
678have been in a great measure the means of
others’ damnation. One man may really be a means of others’ damnation
as well as salvation. Christ charges the scribes and Pharisees with
this,
IV. If God should eternally cast you off, it would but be agreeable to your own behaviour towards yourself; and that in two respects:
1. In being so careless of your own salvation. You have refused to take care for your salvation, as God has counselled and commanded you from time to time; and why may not God neglect it, now you seek it of him? Is God obliged to be more careful of your happiness, than you are either of your own happiness or his glory? Is God bound to take that care for you, out of love to you, that you will not take for yourself, either from love to yourself, or regard to his authority? How long, and how greatly, have you neglected the welfare of your precious soul, refusing to take pains and deny yourself, or put yourself a little out of your way for your salvation, while God has been calling upon you! Neither your duty to God, nor love to your own soul, were enough to induce you to do little things for your own eternal welfare; and yet do you now expect that God should do great things, putting forth almighty power, and exercising infinite mercy for it? You was urged to take care for your salvation, and not to put it off. You was told that was the best time before you grew older, and that it might be, if you would put it off, God would not hear you afterwards; but yet you would not hearken; you would run the venture of it. Now how justly might God order it so, that it should be too late, leaving you to seek in vain! You was told, that you would repent of it if you delayed; but you would not hear: how justly therefore may God give you cause to repent of it, by refusing to show you mercy now! If God sees you going on in ways contrary to his commands and his glory, and requires you to forsake them, and tells you that they tend to the destruction of your own soul, and therefore counsels you to avoid them, and you refuse; how just would it be if God should be provoked by it, henceforward to be as careless of the good of your soul as you are yourself!
2. You have not only neglected your salvation, but you have wilfully taken direct courses to undo yourself. You have gone on in those ways and practices which have directly tended to your damnation, and have been perverse and obstinate in it. You cannot plead ignorance: you had all the light set before you that you could desire. God told you that you was undoing yourself; but yet you would do it. He told you that the path you was going in led to destruction, and counselled you to avoid it; but you would not hearken. How justly therefore may God leave you to be undone! You nave obstinately persisted to travel in the way that leads to hell for a long time, contrary to God’s continual counsels and commands, till it may be at length you are got almost to your journey’s end, and are come near to hell’s gate, and so begin to be sensible of your danger and misery; and now account it unjust and hard if God will not deliver you! You have destroyed yourself, and destroyed yourself wilfully, contrary to God’s repeated counsels, yea, and destroyed yourself in fighting against God. Now therefore, why do you blame any but yourself if you are destroyed? If you will undo yourself in opposing God, and while God opposes you by his calls and counsels, and, it may be too, by the convictions of his Spirit, what can you object against it, if God now leaves you to be undone? You would have your own way, and did not like that God should oppose you in it, and your way was to ruin your own soul; how just therefore is it, if, now at length, God ceases to oppose you, and falls in with you, and lets your soul be ruined; and as you would destroy yourself, so should put to his hand to destroy you too! The ways you went on in had a natural tendency to your misery: if you would drink poison in opposition to God, and in contempt of him and his advice, who can you blame but yourself if you are poisoned, and so perish? If you would run into the fire against all restraints both of God’s mercy and authority, you must even blame yourself if you are burnt.
Thus I have proposed some things to your consideration, which, if you are not exceeding blind, senseless, and perverse, will stop your mouth, and convince you that you stand justly condemned before God; and that he would in no wise deal hardly with you, but altogether justly, in denying you any mercy, and in refusing to hear your prayers, though you pray never so earnestly, and never so often, and continue in it never so long. God may utterly disregard your tears and moans, your heavy heart, your earnest desires, and great endeavours; and he may cast you into eternal destruction, without any regard to your welfare, denying you converting grace, and giving you over to Satan, and at last cast you into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, to be there to eternity, having no rest day or night, for ever glorifying his justice upon you in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.
Object. But here many may still object, (for I am sensible it is a hard thing to stop sinners’ mouths,) “God shows mercy to others that have done these things as well as I, yea, that have done a great deal worse than I.”
Ans. 1. That does not prove that God is any way bound to
show mercy to you, or them either. If God bestows it on others, he does
not so because he is bound to bestow it: he might if he had pleased,
with glorious justice, have denied it them. If God bestows it on some,
that does not prove that he is bound to bestow it on any;
and if he is bound to bestow it on none, then he is not bound to bestow
it on you. God is in debt to none; and if he gives to some that he is
not in debt to, because it is his pleasure, that does not bring him
into debt to others. It alters not the case as to you, whether others
have it, or have it not: you do not deserve damnation the less, than if
mercy never had been bestowed on any at all.
2. If this objection be good, then the exercise of God’s mercy is not in his own right, and his grace is not his own to give. That which God may not dispose of as he pleases, is not his own; for that which is one’s own, is at his own disposal: but if it be not God’s own, then he is not capable of making a gift or present of it to any one; it is impossible to give what is a debt.—What is it that you would make of God? Must the great God be tied up, that he must not use his own pleasure in bestowing his own gifts, but if he bestows them on one, must be looked upon obliged to bestow them on another? Is not God worthy to have the same right, with respect to the gifts of his grace, that a man has to his money or goods? Is it because God is not so great, and should be more in subjection than man, that this cannot be allowed him? If any of you see cause to show kindness to a neighbour, do all the rest of your neighbours come to you, and tell you, that you owe them so much as you have given to such a man? But this is the way that you deal with God, as though God were not worthy to have as absolute a property in his goods, as you have in yours.
At
this rate God cannot make a present of any thing; he has nothing of his
own to bestow: if he has a mind to show peculiar favour to some, or to
lay some particular persons under peculiar obligations to him, he
cannot do it; because he has no special gift at his own disposal. If
this be the case, why do you pray to God to bestow saving grace upon
you? If God does not do fairly to deny it you,
679
because he bestows it on others, then it is not worth your while
to pray for it, but you may go and tell him that he has bestowed it on others as bad or worse than you, and so demand it of him as a debt. And at this rate persons never need to thank God
for salvation, when it is bestowed; for what occasion is there to thank
God for that which was not at his own disposal, and that he could not
fairly have denied? The thing at bottom is, that men have low thoughts
of God, and high thoughts of themselves; and therefore it is that they
look upon God as having so little right, and they so much.
3. God may justly show greater respect to others than to you, for you have shown greater respect to others than to God. You have rather chosen to offend God than men. God only shows a greater respect to others, who are by nature your equals, than to you; but you have shown a greater respect to those that are infinitely inferior to God than to him. You have shown a greater regard to wicked men than to God; you have honoured them more, loved them better, and adhered to them rather than to him. Yea, you have honoured the devil, in many respects, more than God: you have chosen his will and his interest, rather than God’s will and his glory: you have chosen a little worldly self, rather than God: you have set more by a vile lust than by him: you have chosen these things, and rejected God. You have set your heart on these things, and cast God behind your back: and where is the injustice if God is pleased to show greater respect to others than to you, or if he chooses others and rejects you? You have shown great respect to vile and worthless things, and no respect to God’s glory; and why may not God set his love on others, and have no respect to your happiness? You have shown great respect to others, and not to God, whom you are laid under infinite obligations to respect above all; and why may not God show respect to others, and not to you, who never have laid him under the least obligation?
And will you not be ashamed, notwithstanding all these things, still to open your mouth, to object and cavil about the decrees of God, and other things that you cannot fully understand. Let the decrees of God be what they will, that alters not the case as to your liberty, any more than if God had only foreknown. And why is God to blame for decreeing things? Especially since he decrees nothing but good. How unbecoming an infinitely wise Being would it have been to have made a world, and let things run at random, without disposing events, or fore-ordering how they should come to pass? And what is that to you, how God has fore-ordered things, as long as your constant experience teaches you, that it does not hinder your doing what you choose to do. This you know, and your daily practice and behaviour amongst men declares that you are fully sensible of it, with respect to yourself and others. Still to object, because there are some things in God’s dispensations above your understanding, is exceedingly unreasonable. Your own conscience charges you with great guilt, and with those things that have been mentioned, let the secret things of God be what they will. Your conscience charges you with those vile dispositions, and that base behaviour towards God, that you would at any time most highly resent in your neighbour towards you, and that not a whit the less for any concern those secret counsels and mysterious dispensations of God may have in the matter. It is in vain for you to exalt yourself against an infinitely great, and holy, and just God. If you continue in it, it will be to your eternal shame and confusion, when hereafter you shall see at whose door all the blame of your misery lies.
I will finish what I have to say to natural men in the application of this doctrine, with a caution not to improve the doctrine to discouragement. For though it would be righteous in
God for ever to cast you off, and destroy you, yet it would also be
just in God to save you, in and through Christ, who has made complete
satisfaction for all sin.
Indeed
it would not become the glory of God’s majesty to show mercy to you, so
sinful and vile a creature, for any thing that you have done; for such
worthless and despicable things as your prayers, and other religious
performances. It would be very dishonourable and unworthy of God so to
do, and it is in vain to expect it. He will show mercy only on Christ’s
account, and that, according to his sovereign pleasure, on whom he
pleases, when he pleases, and in what manner he pleases. You cannot
bring him under obligation by your
works; do what you will, he will not look on himself obliged. But if it
be his pleasure, he can honourably show mercy through Christ to any
sinner of you all, not one in this congregation excepted.—Therefore
here is encouragement for you still to seek and wait, notwithstanding
all your wickedness; agreeable to Samuel’s speech to the children of
Israel, when they were terrified with the thunder and rain that God
sent, and when guilt stared them in the face,
I would conclude this discourse by putting the godly in mind of the freeness and wonderfulness of the grace of God towards them. For such were the same of you.—The case was just so with you as you have heard; you had such a wicked heart, you lived such a wicked life, and it would have been most just with God for ever to have cast you off: but he has had mercy upon you; he hath made his glorious grace appear in your everlasting salvation. You had no love to God; but yet he has exercised unspeakable love to you. You have contemned God, and set light by him; but so great a value has God’s grace set on you and your happiness, that you have been redeemed at the price of the blood of his own Son. You chose to be with Satan in his service; but yet God hath made you a joint heir with Christ of his glory. You was ungrateful for past mercies; yet God not only continued those mercies, but bestowed unspeakably greater mercies upon you. You refused to hear when God called; yet God heard you when you called. You abused the infiniteness of God’s mercy to encourage yourself in sin against him; yet God has manifested the infiniteness of that mercy, in the exercises of it towards you. You have rejected Christ, and set him at nought; and yet he is become your Saviour. You have neglected your own salvation; but God has not neglected it. You have destroyed yourself; but yet in God has been your help. God has magnified his free grace towards you, and not to others; because he has chosen you, and it hath pleased him to set his love upon you.
O!
what cause is here for praise! What obligations you are under to bless
the Lord who hath dealt bountifully with you, and magnify his holy
name! What cause for you to praise God in humility, to walk humbly
before him.
DISCOURSE. V. The Excellency of Jesus Christ.
680DISCOURSE V.
the excellency of christ.
And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne, and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain—.
The
visions and revelations the apostle John had of the future events of
God’s providence, are here introduced with a vision of the book of
God’s decrees, by which those events were fore-ordained. This is
represented (ver. 1.) as a book in the right hand of him who sat on the
throne, “written within and on the back side, and sealed with seven
seals.” Books, in the form in which they were wont of old to be made,
were broad leaves of parchment or paper, or something of that nature,
joined together at one edge, and so rolled up together, and then
sealed, or some way fastened together, to prevent their unfolding and
opening. Hence we read of the roll of a book,
When John saw this book, he tells us, he
Many things might be observed in the words of the text; but it is to my present, purpose only to take notice of the NOT ENGLISH appellations here given to Christ.
1. He is called the Lion. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah. He
seems to the Lion of the tribe of Judah, in allusion to what Jacob said
in his blessing of the tribes on his death-bed; who, when he came to
bless Judah, compares him to a lion,
2. He is called a Lamb. John was told of a Lion that had prevailed to open the book, and probably expected to see a lion in his vision; but while he is expecting, behold a Lamb appears to open the book, an exceeding diverse kind of creature from a lion. A lion is a devourer, one that is wont to make terrible slaughter of others; and no creature more easily falls a prey to him than a lamb. And Christ is here represented not only as a Lamb, a creature very liable to be slain, but a “Lamb as it had been slain,” that is, with the marks of its deadly wounds appearing on it.
That which I would observe from the words, for the subject of my present discourse, is this, viz.—
“There is an admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies in Jesus Christ.”
The lion and the lamb, though very diverse kinds of creatures, yet have each their peculiar excellencies. The lion excels in strength, and in the majesty of his appearance and voice: the lamb excels in meekness and patience, besides the excellent nature of the creature as good for food, and yielding that which is fit for our clothing, and being suitable to be offered in sacrifice to God. But we see that Christ is in the text compared to both; because the diverse excellencies of both wonderfully meet in him,—In handling this subject I would,
First, Show wherein there is an admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies in Christ.
Secondly, How this admirable conjunction of excellencies appear in Christ’s acts.
And then make application.
First, I would show wherein there is an admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies in Jesus Christ. Which appears in three things:
I. There is a conjunction of such excellencies in Christ, as, in our manner of conceiving, are very diverse one from another.
II. There is in him a conjunction of such really diverse excellencies, as otherwise would have seemed to us utterly incompatible in the same subject.
III. Such diverse excellencies are exercised in him towards men that otherwise would have seemed impossible to be exercised towards the same object.
I. There is a conjunction of such excellencies in Christ, as, in our manner of conceiving, are very diverse one from another. Such are the various divine perfections and excellencies that Christ is possessed of. Christ is a divine person; and therefore has all the attributes of God. The difference between these is chiefly relative, and in our manner of conceiving them. And those which, in this sense, are most diverse, meet in the person of Christ. I shall mention two instances
1. There do meet
in Jesus Christ infinite highness and infinite condescension. Christ,
as he is God, is infinitely great and high above all. He is higher than
the kings of the earth, for he is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He
is higher than the heavens, and higher than the highest angels of
heaven. So great is he, that all men, all kings and princes, are as
worms of the dust before him; all nations are as the drop of the
bucket, and the light dust of the balance; yea, and angels themselves
are as nothing
681before him. He is so high, that he is
infinitely above any need of us; above our reach, that we cannot be
profitable to him; and above our conceptions, that we cannot comprehend
him.
And
yet he is one of infinite condescension. None are so low or inferior,
but Christ’s condescension is sufficient to take a gracious notice of
them. He condescends not only to the angels, humbling himself to behold
the things that are done in heaven, but he also condescends to such
poor creatures as men; and that not only so as to take notice of
princes and great men, but of those that are of meanest rank and
degree, “the poor of the world,”
Yea, so great is his condescension, that it is not only sufficient to take some gracious notice of such as these, but sufficient for every thing that is an act of condescension. His condescension is great enough to become their friend; to become their companion, to unite their souls to him in spiritual marriage. It is enough to take their nature upon him, to become one of them, that he may be one with them. Yea, it is great enough to abase himself yet lower for them, even to expose himself to shame and spitting; yea, to yield up himself to an ignominious death for them. And what act of condescension can be conceived of greater? Yet such an act as this, has his condescension yielded to, for those that are so low and mean, despicable and unworthy!
Such a conjunction of infinite highness and low condescension, in the same person, is admirable. We see, by manifold instances, what a tendency a high station has in men, to make them to be of a quite contrary disposition. If one worm be a little exalted above another, by having more dust, or a bigger dunghill, how much does he make of himself! What a distance does he keep from those that are below him! And a little condescension is what he expects should be made much of, and greatly acknowledged. Christ condescends to wash our feet; but how would great men, (or rather the bigger worms,) account themselves debased by acts of far less condescension!
2. There meet in Jesus Christ, infinite justice and infinite grace. As Christ is a divine person, he is infinitely holy and just; hating sin, and disposed to execute condign punishment for sin. He is the Judge of the world, and the infinitely just Judge of it, and will not at all acquit the wicked, or by any means clear the guilty.
And yet he is infinitely gracious and merciful. Though his justice be so strict with respect to all sin, and every breach of the law, yet he has grace sufficient for every sinner, and even the chief of sinners. And it is not only sufficient for the most unworthy to show them mercy, and bestow some good upon them, but to bestow the greatest good; yea, it is sufficient to bestow all good upon them, and to do all things for them. There is no benefit or blessing that they can receive, so great but the grace of Christ is sufficient to bestow it on the greatest sinner that ever lived. And not only so, but so great is his grace, that nothing is too much as the means of this good. It is sufficient not only to do great things, but also to suffer in order to it; and not only to suffer, but to suffer most extremely even unto death, the most terrible of natural evils; and not only death, but the most ignominious and tormenting, and every way the most terrible that men could inflict; yea, and greater sufferings than men could inflict, who could only torment the body. He had sufferings in his soul, that were the more immediate fruits of the wrath of God against the sins of those he undertakes for.
II. There do meet in the person of Christ such really diverse excellencies, which otherwise would have been thought utterly incompatible in the same subject; such as are conjoined in no other person whatever, either divine, human, or angelical; and such as neither men nor angels would ever have imagined could have met together in the same person, had it not been seen in the person of Christ. I would give some instances.
1. In the person of Christ do meet together infinite glory and lowest humility. Infinite glory, and the virtue of humility, meet in no other person but Christ. They meet in no created person; for no created person has infinite glory; and they meet in no other divine person but Christ. For though the divine nature be infinitely abhorrent to pride, yet humility is not properly predicable of God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, that exists only in the divine nature; because it is proper excellency only of a created nature; for it consists radically in a sense of a comparative lowness and littleness before God, or the great distance between God and the subject of this virtue; but it would be a contradiction to suppose any such thing in God.
But
in Jesus Christ, who is both God and man, those two diverse
excellencies are sweetly united. He is a person infinitely exalted in
glory and dignity.
But
however he is thus above all, yet he is lowest of all in humility.
There never was so great an instance of this virtue among either men or
angels, as Jesus. None ever was so sensible of the distance between God
and him, or had a heart so lowly before God, as the man Christ Jesus.
2. In the person of Christ do meet together infinite majesty and transcendent meekness. These again are two qualifications that meet together in no other person but Christ. Meekness, properly so called, is a virtue proper only to the creature: we scarcely ever find meekness mentioned as a divine attribute in Scripture; at least not in the New Testament; for thereby seems to be signified, a calmness and quietness of spirit, arising from humility in mutable beings that are naturally liable to be put into a ruffle by the assaults of a tempestuous and injurious world. But Christ being both God and man, hath both infinite majesty and superlative meekness.
Christ was a person of infinite majesty. It is he that is spoken of,
And yet he was the most marvellous instance of meekness, and humble quietness of spirit, that ever was; agreeable to the prophecies of him,
3. There meet in the person of Christ the deepest reverence towards God and equality with
God. Christ, when on earth, appeared full of holy reverence towards the
Father. He paid the most reverential worship to him, praying to him
with postures of reverence. Thus we read of his “kneeling down and
praying,”
4. There are conjoined in the person of Christ infinite worthiness of good, and the greatest patience under
sufferings of evil. He was perfectly innocent, and deserved no
suffering. He deserved nothing from God by any guilt of his own; and he
deserved no ill from men. Yea, he was not only harmless and undeserving
of suffering, but he was infinitely worthy; worthy of the infinite love
of the Father, worthy of infinite and eternal happiness, and infinitely
worthy of all possible esteem, love, and service from all men. And yet
he was perfectly patient under the greatest sufferings that ever were
endured in this world.
5. In the person of Christ are conjoined an exceeding spirit of obedience, with supreme dominion over heaven and earth. Christ is the Lord of all things in two respects: he is so, as God-man and Mediator; and thus his dominion is appointed, and given him of the Father. Having it by delegation from God, he is as it were the Father’s vicegerent. But he is Lord of all things in another respect, viz. as he is (by his original nature) God; and so he is by natural right the Lord of all, and supreme over all as much as the Father. Thus, he has dominion over the world, not by delegation, but in his own right. He is not an under God, as the Arians suppose, but, to all intents and purposes, supreme God.
And
yet in the same person is found the greatest spirit of obedience to the
commands and laws of God that ever was in the universe; which was
manifest in his obedience here in this world.
6. In the person of Christ are conjoined absolute sovereignty and perfect resignation. This
is another unparalleled conjunction. Christ, as he is God, is the
absolute sovereign of the world; the sovereign disposer of all events.
The decrees of God are all his sovereign decrees; and the work of
creation, and all God’s works of providence, are his sovereign works.
It is he that worketh all things according to the counsel of his own
will.
But
yet Christ was the most wonderful instance of resignation that ever
appeared in the world. He was absolutely and perfectly resigned when he
had a near and immediate prospect of his terrible sufferings, and the
dreadful cup that he was to drink. The idea and expectation of this
made his soul exceeding sorrowful, even unto death, and put him into
such an agony, that his sweat was as it were great drops or clots of
blood, falling down to the ground. But in such circumstances he was
wholly resigned to the will of God.
7. In Christ do meet together self-sufficiency, and an entire trust and
reliance on God; which is another conjunction peculiar to the person of
Christ. As he is a divine person, he is self-sufficient, standing in
need of nothing. All creatures are dependent on him, but he is
dependent on none, but is absolutely independent. His proceeding from
the Father, in his eternal generation or filiation, argues no proper
dependence on the will of the Father;
for that proceeding was natural and necessary, and
not arbitrary. But yet Christ entirely trusted in God: his enemies say
that of him, “He trusted in God that he would deliver him,”
III.
Such diverse excellencies are expressed in him towards men, that
otherwise would have seemed impossible to be exercised towards the same
object; as particularly these three, justice, mercy, and truth. The
same that are mentioned
So the immutable truth of God, in the threatenings of his law against the sins of men, was never so manifested as it is in Jesus Christ; for there never was any other so great a trial of the unalterableness of the truth of God in those threatenings, as when sin came to be imputed to his own Son. And then in Christ has been seen already an actual complete accomplishment of those threatenings, which never has been nor will be seen in any other instance; because the eternity that will be taken up in fulfilling those threatenings on others, never will be finished. Christ manifested an infinite regard to this truth of God in his sufferings. And, in his judging the world, he makes the covenant of works, that contains those dreadful threatenings, his rule of judgment. He will see to it, that it is not infringed in the least jot or tittle: he will do nothing contrary to the threatenings of the law, and their complete fulfilment. And yet in him we have many great and precious promises, promises of perfect deliverance from the penalty of the law. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. And in him are all the promises of God, yea, and Amen.
Having thus shown wherein there is an admirable conjunction of excellencies in Jesus Christ, I now proceed,
Secondly, To show how this admirable conjunction of excellencies appears in Christ’s acts.
1.
It appears in what Christ did in taking on him our nature. In this act,
his infinite condescension wonderfully appeared, that he who was God
should become man; that the word should be made flesh, and should take
on him a nature infinitely below his original nature! And it appears
yet more remarkably in the low circumstances of his incarnation: he was
conceived in the womb of a poor young woman, whose poverty appeared in
this, when she came to offer sacrifices of her purification, she
brought what was allowed of in the law only in case of poverty; as
And
though his infinite condescension thus appeared in the manner of his
incarnation, yet his divine dignity also appeared in it; for though he
was conceived in the womb of a poor virgin, yet he was conceived there
by the power of the Holy Ghost. And his divine dignity also appeared in
the holiness of his conception and birth. Though he was conceived in
the womb of one of the corrupt race of mankind, yet he was conceived
and born without sin; as the angel said to the blessed Virgin,
His infinite condescension marvellously appeared in the manner of his birth. He was brought forth in a stable, because there was no room for them in the inn. The inn was taken up by others, that were looked upon as persons of greater account. The blessed Virgin, being poor and despised, was turned or shut out. Though she was in such necessitous circumstances, yet those that counted themselves her betters would not give place to her; and therefore, in the time of her travail, she was forced to betake herself to a stable; and when the child was born, it was wrapped in swaddling-clothes, and laid in a manger. There Christ lay a little infant; and there he eminently appeared as a lamb. But yet this feeble infant, born thus in a stable, and laid in a manger, was born to conquer and triumph over Satan, that roaring lion. He came to subdue the mighty powers of darkness, and make a show of them openly; and so to restore peace on earth, and to manifest God’s good-will towards men, and to bring glory to God in the highest; according as the end of his birth was declared by the joyful songs of the glorious hosts of angels appearing to the shepherds at the same time that the infant lay in the manger; whereby his divine dignity was manifested.
II. This admirable conjunction of excellencies appears in the acts and various passages of Christ’s life. Though Christ dwelt in mean outward circumstances, whereby his condescension and humility especially appeared, and his majesty was veiled; yet his divine dignity and glory did in many of his acts shine through the veil, and it illustriously appeared, that he was not only the Son of man, but the great God.
Thus, in the circumstances of his infancy, his outward meanness appeared; yet there was something then to show forth his divine dignity, in the wise men’s being stirred up to come from the east to give honour to him, their being led by a miraculous star, and coming and falling down and worshipping him, and presenting him with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. His humility and meekness wonderfully appeared in his subjection to his mother and reputed father when he was a child. Herein he appeared as a lamb. But his divine glory broke forth and shone when, at twelve years old, he disputed with doctors in the temple. In that he appeared, in some measure, as the Lion of the tribe of Judah.
And
so, after he entered on his public ministry, his marvellous humility
and meekness was manifested in his choosing to appear in such mean
outward circumstances; and in being contented in them, when he was so
poor that he had not where to lay his head, and depended on the charity
of some of his followers for his subsistence; as appears by
And
though Christ ordinarily appeared without outward glory, and in great
obscurity, yet at a certain time he threw off the veil, and appeared in
his divine majesty, so far as it could be outwardly manifested to men
in this frail state, when he was transfigured in the mount. The apostle
Peter,
And at the same time that Christ was wont to appear in such meekness, condescension, and humility, in his familiar discourses with his disciples, appearing therein as the Lamb of God; he was also wont to appear as The Lion of the tribe of Judah, with divine authority and majesty, in his so sharply rebuking the scribes and Pharisees, and other hypocrites.
III.
This admirable conjunction of excellencies remarkably appears in his
offering up himself a sacrifice for sinners in his last sufferings. As
this was the greatest thing in all the works of redemption, the
greatest act of Christ in that work; so in this act especially does
there appear that admirable conjunction of excellencies that has been
spoken of. Christ never so much appeared as a lamb, as when he was
slain: “He came like a lamb to the slaughter,”
1.
Then was Christ in the greatest degree of his humiliation, and yet by
that, above all other things, his divine glory appears. Christ’s
humiliation was great, in being born in such a low condition, of a poor
virgin, and in a stable. His humiliation was great, in being subject to
Joseph the carpenter, and Mary his mother, and afterwards living in
poverty, so as not to have where to lay his head; and in suffering such
manifold and bitter reproaches as he suffered, while he went about
preaching and working miracles. But his humiliation was never so great
as it was in his last sufferings, beginning with his agony in the
garden, till he expired on the cross. Never was he subject to such
ignominy as then; never did he suffer so much pain in his body, or so
much sorrow in his soul; never was he in so great an exercise of his
condescension, humility, meekness, and patience, as he was in these
last sufferings; never was his divine glory and majesty covered with so
thick and dark a veil; never did he so empty himself and make himself
of no reputation, as at this time. And yet, never was his divine glory
so manifested, by any act of his, as in yielding himself up to these
sufferings. When the fruit of it came to appear, and the mystery and
ends of it to be unfolded in its issue, then did the glory of it
appear; then did it appear as the most glorious act of Christ that ever
he exercised towards the creature. This act of his is celebrated by the
angels and hosts of heaven with peculiar praises, as that which is
above all others glorious, as you may see in the context,
2.
He never in any act gave so great a manifestation of love to God, and
yet never so manifested his love to those that were enemies to God, as
in that act. Christ never did any thing whereby his love to the Father
was so eminently manifested, as in his laying down his life, under such
inexpressible sufferings, in obedience to his command, and for the
vindication of the honour of his authority and majesty; nor did ever
any mere creature give such a testimony of love to God as that was. And
yet this was the greatest expression of his love to sinful men who were
enemies to God;
3. Christ never so eminently appeared for divine justice, and yet never suffered so much from divine
justice, as when he offered up himself a sacrifice for our sins. In
Christ’s great sufferings, did his infinite regard to the honour of
God’s justice distinguishingly appear; for it was from regard to that that
he thus humbled himself. And yet in these sufferings, Christ was the
mark of the vindictive expressions of that very justice of God.
Revenging justice then spent all its force upon him, on account of our
guilt; which made him sweat blood, and cry out upon the cross, and
probably rent his vitals—broke his heart, the fountain of blood, or
some other blood vessels—and by the violent fermentation turned his
blood to water. For the blood and water that issued out of his side,
when pierced by the spear, seems to have been extravasated blood; and
so there might be a kind of literal fulfilment of
4. Christ’s holiness never so illustriously shone forth as it did in his last sufferings; and yet he never was to such a degree treated as guilty. Christ’s holiness never had such a trial as it had then; and therefore never had so great a manifestation. When it was tried in this furnace, it came forth as gold, or as silver purified seven times. His holiness then above all appeared in his stedfast pursuit of the honour of God, and in his obedience to him. For his yielding himself unto death was transcendently the greatest act of obedience that ever was paid to God by any one since the foundation of the world.
And yet then Christ was in the greatest degree treated as a wicked person would have been. He was apprehended and bound as a malefactor. His accusers represented him as a most wicked wretch. In his sufferings before his crucifixion, he was treated as if he had been the worst and vilest of mankind; and then, he was put to a kind of death, that none but the worst sort of malefactors were wont to suffer, those that were most abject in their persons, and guilty of the blackest crimes. And he suffered as though guilty from God himself, by reason of our guilt imputed to him; for he who knew no sin, was made sin for us; he 685 was made subject to wrath, as if he had been sinful himself. He was made a curse for us.
Christ never so greatly manifested his hatred of sin, as against God, as in his dying to take away the dishonour that sin had done to God; and yet never was he to such a degree subject to the terrible effects of God’s hatred of sin, and wrath against it, as he was then. In this appears those diverse excellencies meeting in Christ, viz. love to God, and grace to sinners.
5.
He never was so dealt with, as unworthy, as in his last sufferings; and
yet it is chiefly on account of them that he is accounted worthy. He
was therein dealt with as if he had not been worthy to live: they cry
out, “Away with him! away with him! Crucify him.”
6.
Christ in his last sufferings suffered most extremely from those
towards whom he was then manifesting his greatest act of love. He never
suffered so much from his Father, (though not from any hatred to him,
but from hatred to our sins,) for he then forsook him, or took away the comforts of his presence; and then “it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and put him to grief,” as
7.
It was in Christ’s last sufferings, above all, that he was delivered up
to the power of his enemies; and yet by these, above all, he obtained
victory over his enemies. Christ never was so in his enemies’ hands, as
in the time of his last sufferings. They sought his life before; but
from time to time they were restrained, and Christ escaped out of their
hands; and this reason is given for it, that his time was not yet come. But
now they were suffered to work their will upon him; he was in a great
degree delivered up to the malice and cruelty of both wicked men and
devils. And therefore when Christ’s enemies came to apprehend him, he
says to them,
And
yet it was principally by means of those sufferings that he conquered
and overthrew his enemies. Christ never so effectually bruised Satan’s
head, as when Satan bruised his heel. The weapon with which Christ
warred against the devil, and obtained a most complete victory and
glorious triumph over him, was the cross, the instrument and weapon
with which he thought he had overthrown Christ, and brought on him
shameful destruction.
Thus Christ appeared at the same time, and in the same act, as both a lion and a lamb. He appeared as a lamb in the hands of his cruel enemies; as a lamb in the paws, and between the devouring jaws, of a roaring lion; yea, he was a lamb actually slain by this lion: and yet at the same time, as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, he conquers and triumphs over Satan, destroying his own devourer; as Samson did the lion that roared upon him, when he rent him as he would a kid. And in nothing has Christ appeared so much as a lion, in glorious strength destroying his enemies, as when he was brought as a lamb to the slaughter. In his greatest weakness he was most strong; and when he suffered most from his enemies, he brought the greatest confusion on his enemies.—Thus this admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies was manifest in Christ, in his offering up himself to God in his last sufferings.
IV.
It is still manifest in his acts, in his present state of exaltation in
heaven. Indeed, in his exalted state, he most eminently appears in
manifestation of those excellencies, on the account of which he is
compared to a lion; but still he appears as a lamb;
5. And lastly, this
admirable conjunction of excellencies will be manifest in Christ’s acts
at the last judgment. He then, above all other times, will appear as the Lion of the tribe of Judah in
infinite greatness and majesty, when he shall come in the glory of his
Father, with all the holy angels, and the earth shall tremble before
him, and the hills shall melt. This is he (
And yet he will at the same time appear as a Lamb to his saints; he will receive them as friends and brethren, treating them with infinite mildness and love. There shall be nothing in him terrible to them; but towards them he will clothe himself wholly with sweetness and endearment. The church shall be then admitted to him as his bride; that shall be her wedding-day. The saints shall all be sweetly invited to come with him to inherit the kingdom, and reign in it with him to all eternity.
APPLICATION.
I.
From this doctrine we may learn one reason why Christ is called by such
a variety of names, and held forth under such a variety of
representations, in Scripture. It is the better to signify and exhibit
to us that variety of excellencies that meet together and are conjoined
in him. Many appellations are mentioned together in one verse,
By
reason of the same wonderful conjunction, Christ is represented by a
great variety of sensible things, that are on some account excellent.
Thus in some places he is called a Sun, as
II. Let the consideration of this wonderful meeting of diverse excellencies in Christ induce you to accept of him, and close with him as your Saviour. As all manner of excellencies meet in him, so there are concurring in him all manner of arguments and motives, to move you to choose him for your Saviour, and every thing that tends to encourage poor sinners to come and put their trust in him: his fulness and all-sufficiency as a Saviour gloriously appear in that variety of excellencies that has been spoken of.
Fallen man is in a state of exceeding great misery, and is helpless in it; he is a poor weak creature, like an infant cast out in its blood in the day that it is born. But Christ is the Lion of the tribe of Judah; he is strong, though we are weak; he hath prevailed to do that for us which no creature else could do. Fallen man is a mean despicable creature, a contemptible worm; but Christ, who has undertaken for us, is infinitely honourable and worthy. Fallen man is polluted, but Christ is infinitely holy; fallen man is hateful, but Christ is infinitely lovely; fallen man is the object of God’s indignation, but Christ is infinitely dear to him. We have dreadfully provoked God, but Christ has performed that righteousness which is infinitely precious in God’s eyes.
And here is not only infinite strength and infinite worthiness, but infinite condescension, and love and mercy, as great as power and dignity. If you are a poor, distressed sinner, whose heart is ready to sink for fear that God never will have mercy on you, you need not be afraid to go to Christ, for fear that he is either unable or unwilling to help you. Here is a strong foundation, and an inexhaustible treasure, to answer the necessities of your poor soul; and here is infinite grace and gentleness to invite and imbolden a poor, unworthy, fearful soul to come to it. If Christ accepts of you, you need not fear but that you will be safe; for he is a strong Lion for your defence. And if you come, you need not fear but that you shall be accepted; for he is like a Lamb to all that come to him, and receives them with infinite grace and tenderness. It is true he has awful majesty; he is the great God, and infinitely high above you; but there is this to encourage and imbolden the poor sinner, that Christ is man as well as God; he is a creature, as well as the Creator; and he is the most humble and lowly in heart of any creature in heaven or earth. This may well make the poor unworthy creature bold in coming to him. You need not hesitate one moment; but may run to him, and cast yourself upon him. You will certainly be graciously and meekly received by him. Though he is a lion, he will only be a lion to your enemies; but he will be a lamb to you. It could not have been conceived, had it not been so in the person of Christ, that there could have been so much in any Saviour, that is inviting and tending to encourage sinners to trust in him. Whatever your circumstances are, you need not be afraid to come to such a Saviour as this. Be you never so wicked a creature, here is worthiness enough; be you never so poor, and mean, and ignorant a creature, there is no danger of being despised; for though he be so much greater than you, he is also immensely more humble than you. Any one of you that is a father or mother, will not despise one of your own children that comes to you in distress: much less danger is there of Christ despising you, if you in your heart come to him. Here let me a little expostulate with the poor, burdened, distressed soul.
1.
What are you afraid of, that you dare not venture your soul upon
Christ? Are you afraid that he cannot save you; that he is not strong
enough to conquer the enemies of your soul? But how can you desire one
stronger than the “mighty God?” as Christ is called,
2. What is there that you can desire should be in a Saviour, that is not in Christ? Or, wherein should you desire a Saviour should be otherwise than Christ is? What excellency is there wanting? What is there that is great or good; what is there that is venerable or winning; what is there that is adorable or endearing; or, what can you think of that would be encouraging, which is not to be found in the person of Christ? Would you have your Saviour to be great and honourable, because you are not willing to be beholden to a mean person? And, is not Christ a person honourable enough to be worthy that you should be dependent on him; is he not a person high enough to be appointed to so honourable a work as your salvation? Would you not only have a Saviour of high degree, but would you have him, notwithstanding his exaltation and dignity, to be made also of low degree, that he might have experience of afflictions and trials, that he might learn by the things that he has suffered, to pity them that suffer and are tempted? And has not Christ been made low enough for you? and has he not suffered enough? Would you not only have him possess experience of the afflictions you now suffer, but also of that amazing wrath that you fear hereafter, that he may know how to pity those that are in danger, and afraid of it? This Christ has had experience of, which experience gave him a greater sense of it, a thousand times, than you have, or any man living has. Would you have your Saviour to be one who is near to God, that so his mediation might be prevalent with him? And can you desire him to be nearer to God than Christ is, who is his only-begotten Son, of the same essence with the Father? And would you not only have him near to God, but also near to you, that you may have free access to him? And would you have him nearer to you than to be in the same nature, united to you by a spiritual union, so close as to be fitly represented by the union of the wife to the husband, of the branch to the vine, of the member to the head; yea, so as to be one spirit? For so he will be united to you, if you accept of him. Would you have a Saviour that has given some great and extraordinary testimony of mercy and love to sinners, by something that he has done, as well as by what he says? And can you think or conceive of greater things than Christ has done? Was it not a great thing for him, who was God, to take upon him human nature; to be not only God, but man thenceforward to all eternity? But would you look upon suffering for sinners to be a yet greater testimony of love to sinners, than merely doing, though it be ever so extraordinary a thing that he has done? And would you desire that a Saviour should suffer more than Christ has suffered for sinners? What is there wanting, or what would you add if you could, to make him more fit to be your Saviour? But further, to induce you to accept of Christ as your Saviour, consider two things particularly.
(1.) How
much Christ appears as the Lamb of God in his invitations to you to
come to him and trust in him. With what sweet grace and kindness does
he, from time to time, call and invite you; as
(2.)
If you do come to Christ, he will appear as a Lion, in his glorious
power and dominion, to defend you. All those excellencies of his, in
which he appears as a lion, shall be yours, and shall be employed for
you in your defence, for your safety, and to promote your glory; he
will be as a lion to fight against your enemies. He that touches you,
or offends you, will provoke his wrath, as he that stirs up a lion.
Unless your enemies can conquer this Lion, they shall not be able to
destroy or hurt you; unless they are stronger than he, they shall not
be able to hinder your happiness.
III. Let what has been said be improved to induce you to love the Lord Jesus Christ, and choose him for your friend and portion. As there is such an admirable meeting of diverse excellencies in Christ, so there is every thing in him to render him worthy of your love and choice, and to win and engage it. Whatsoever there is or can be desirable in a friend, is in Christ, and that to the highest degree that can be desired.
Would you choose for a friend a person of great dignity? It is a thing taking with men to have those for their friends who are much above them; because they look upon themselves honoured by the friendship of such. Thus, how taking would it be with an inferior maid to be the object of the dear love of some great and excellent prince. But Christ is infinitely above you, and above all the princes of the earth; for he is the King of kings. So honourable a person as this offers himself to you, in the nearest and dearest friendship.
And
would you choose to have a friend not only great but good? In Christ
infinite greatness and infinite goodness meet together, and receive
lustre and glory one from another. His greatness is rendered lovely by
his goodness. The greater any one is without goodness, so much the
greater evil; but when infinite goodness is joined with greatness, it
renders it a glorious and adorable greatness. So, on the other hand,
his infinite goodness receives lustre from his greatness. He that is of
great understanding and ability, and is withal of a good and excellent
disposition, is deservedly more esteemed than a lower and lesser being,
with the same kind inclination and good will. Indeed goodness is
excellent in whatever subject it be found; it is beauty and excellency
itself, and renders all excellent that are possessed of it; and yet
most excellent when joined with greatness. The very same excellent
qualities of gold render the body in which they are inherent more
precious, and of greater value, when joined with greater than when with
lesser dimensions. And how glorious is the sight, to see him who is the
great Creator and supreme Lord of heaven and earth, full of
condescension, tender pity and mercy, towards the mean and unworthy!
His almighty power, and infinite majesty and self-sufficiency, render
his exceeding love and grace the more surprising. And how do his
condescension and compassion endear his majesty, power, and dominion,
and render those attributes pleasant, that would otherwise be only
terrible! Would you not desire that your friend, though great and
honourable, should be of such condescension and grace, and so to have
the way opened to free access to him, that his exaltation above you
might not hinder your free enjoyment of his friendship?—And would you
choose not only that the infinite greatness and majesty of your friend
should be, as it were, mollified and sweetened with condescension and
grace; but would you also desire to have your friend brought nearer to
you? Would you choose a friend far above you, and yet as it were upon a
level with you too? Though it be taking with men to have a near and
dear friend of superior dignity, yet there is also an inclination in
them to have their friend a sharer with them in circumstances. Thus is
Christ. Though he be the great God, yet he has, as it were, brought
himself down to be upon a level with you, so as to become man as you
are, that he might not only be your Lord, but your brother, and that he
might be the more fit to be a companion for such a worm of the dust.
This is one end of Christ’s taking upon him man’s nature, that his
people might be under advantages for a more familiar converse with him,
than the infinite distance of the divine nature would allow of. And
upon this account the church longed for Christ’s incarnation,
But is it not enough in order to invite and encourage you to free access to a friend so great and high, that he is one of infinite condescending grace, and also has taken your own nature, and is become man? But would you, further to imbolden and win you, have him a man of wonderful meekness and humility? Why, such an one is Christ! He is not only become man for you, but far the meekest and most humble of all men, the greatest instance of these sweet virtues that ever was, or will be. And besides these, he has all other human excellencies in the highest perfection. These, indeed, are no proper addition to his divine excellencies. Christ has no more excellency in his person, since his incarnation, than he had before; for divine excellency is infinite, and cannot be added to. Yet his human excellencies are additional manifestations of his glory and excellency to us, and are additional recommendations of him to our esteem and love, who are of finite comprehension. Though his human excellencies are but communications and reflections of his divine; and though this light, as reflected, falls infinitely short of the divine fountain of light in its immediate glory; yet the reflection shines not without its proper advantages, as presented to our view and affection. The glory of Christ in the qualifications of his human nature, appears to us in excellencies that are of our own kind, and are exercised in our own way and manner; and so, in some respects, are peculiarly fitted to invite our acquaintance and draw our affection. The glory of Christ as it appears in his divinity, though far brighter, more dazzles our eyes, and exceeds the strength of our sight or our comprehension; but, as it shines in the human excellencies of Christ, it is brought more to a level with our conceptions, and suitableness to our nature and manner, yet retaining a semblance of the same divine beauty, and a savour of the same divine sweetness. But as both divine and human excellencies meet together in Christ, they set off and recommend each other to us. It tends to endear the divine majesty and holiness of Christ to us, that these are attributes of one in our nature, one of us, who is become our brother, and is the meekest and humblest of men. It encourages us to look upon these divine perfections, however high and great; since we have some near concern in, and liberty freely to enjoy them. And on the other hand, how much more glorious and surprising do the meekness, the humility, obedience, resignation, and other human excellencies of Christ appear, when we consider that they are in so great a person, as the eternal Son of God, the Lord of heaven and earth!
By your choosing Christ for your friend and portion, you will obtain these two infinite benefits.
1. Christ will give himself to you, with all those various excellencies that meet in him, to your full and everlasting enjoyment. He will ever after treat you as his dear friend; and you shall ere long be where he is, and shall behold his glory, and dwell with him, in most free and intimate communion and enjoyment.
When
the saints get to heaven, they shall not merely see Christ, and have to
do with him as subjects and servants with a glorious and gracious Lord
and Sovereign, but Christ will entertain them as friends and brethren.
This we may learn from the manner of Christ’s conversing with his
disciples here on earth: though he was their sovereign Lord, and did
not refuse, but required, their supreme respect and adoration, yet he
did not treat them as earthly sovereigns are wont to do their subjects.
He did not keep them at an awful distance; but all along conversed with
them with the most friendly familiarity, as a father amongst a company
of children, yea, as with brethren. So he did with the twelve, and so
he did with
689Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. He told his
disciples, that he did not call them servants, but friends; and we read
of one of them that leaned on his bosom: and doubtless he will not
treat his disciples with less freedom and endearment in heaven. He will
not keep them at a greater distance for his being in a state of
exaltation; but he will rather take them into a state of exaltation
with him. This will be the improvement Christ will make of his own
glory, to make his beloved friends partakers with him, to glorify them
in his glory, as he says to his Father,
When
Christ was going to heaven, he comforted his disciples with the
thought, that after a while, he would come again and take them to
himself, that they might be with him. And we are not to suppose that
when the disciples got to heaven, they found him keeping a greater
distance than he used to do. No, doubtless, he embraced them as
friends, and welcomed them to his and their Father’s house, and to his
and their glory. They who had been his friends in this world, who had
been together with him here, and had together partaken of sorrows and
troubles, are now welcomed by him to rest, and to partake of glory with
him. He took them and led them into his chambers, and showed them all
his glory; as he prayed,
Yea,
the saints’ conversation with Christ in heaven shall not only be as
intimate, and their access to him as free, as of the disciples on
earth, but in many respects much more so; for in heaven, that vital
union shall be perfect, which is exceeding imperfect here. While the
saints are in this world, there are great remains of sin and darkness,
to separate or disunite them from Christ, which shall then all be
removed. This is not a time for that full acquaintance, and those
glorious manifestations of love, which Christ designs for his people
hereafter; which seems to be signified by his speech to Mary Magdalene,
when ready to embrace him, when she met him after his resurrection;
When
the saints shall see Christ’s glory and exaltation in heaven, it will
indeed possess their hearts with the greater admiration and adoring
respect, but will not awe them into any separation, but will serve only
to heighten their surprise and joy, when they find Christ condescending
to admit them to such intimate access, and so freely and fully
communicating himself to them. So that if we choose Christ for our
friend and portion, we shall hereafter be so received to him, that
there shall be nothing to hinder the fullest enjoyment of him, to the
satisfying the utmost cravings of our souls. We may take our full swing
at gratifying our spiritual appetite after these holy pleasures. Christ
will then say, as in
2.
By your being united to Christ, you will have a more glorious union
with and enjoyment of God the Father, than otherwise could be. For
hereby the saints’ relation to God becomes much nearer; they are the
children of God in a higher manner than otherwise could be. For, being
members of God’s own Son, they are in a sort partakers of his relation
to the Father: they are not only sons of God by regeneration, but by a
kind of communion in the sonship of the eternal Son. This seems to be
intended,
So we being members of the Son, are partakers in our measure of the Father’s love to the Son, and complacence in him.
And thus is the affair of our redemption ordered, that thereby we are brought to an immensely more exalted kind of union with God, and enjoyment of him, both the Father and the Son, than otherwise could have been. For Christ being united to the human nature, we have advantage for a more free and full enjoyment of him, than we could have had if he had remained only in the divine nature. So again, we being united to a divine person, as his members, can have a more intimate union and intercourse with God the Father, who is only in the divine nature, than otherwise could be. Christ, who is a divine person, by taking on him our nature, descends from the infinite distance and height above us, and is brought nigh to us; whereby we have advantage for the full enjoyment of him. And, on the other hand, we, by being in Christ a divine person, do as it were ascend up to God, through the infinite distance, and have hereby advantage for the full enjoyment of him also.
This was the design of Christ, that he, and his Father, and his people, might all be united in one.