Justification by Faith
Romans iii. 28. — “Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law.”
The labours of the early Reformers were specially directed to the interpretation of the term “Justification “; for among the errors of Komanism, which had been accumulating for ages, one of the most fatal was on this point. It subserved the popish defences of human merit, to teach that justification signified a change of character. Hence they taught, that to justify was to make just, in the sense of making holy; and they introduced the figment of a first and second justification. By the first, the unrighteous man was made righteous; by the second he was continued such.
So justification was confounded with sanctification. These opinions were almost universal among the Romanists. They were authoritatively established by the Council of Trent; and, what is more interesting to us, they have been revived, and earnestly maintained, by the Komanizing party in the Church of England. It is therefore of the utmost importance to attain a clear notion of justification, in its Scriptural sense.
To justify, then, is not to make just, in the sense of making holy, but to declare just. It is derived from courts of law, where every one who is arraigned is either justified or condemned. It is for this reason called a forensic or judicial term. To condemn, and to justify, are exact opposites. When the judge condemns a man, he does not by that act render him any worse than he was before: he simply adjudges him to be guilty. When the judge justifies a man, he does not by that act render him any better than he was before: he simply adjudges him to be innocent. In this sense, the term is used in the Scriptures: “If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that tlae judges may judge them, then they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked.” Deut. xxv. 1. “He that justiiieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.” Pro v. xvii. 15. It is obviously only in this declarative sense that God can be said to be justified by men, and Wisdom to be justified by her children.
We further observe, that where this term is used in a relio-ious sense, an allusion to forensic practice runs through the whole statement. Thus Job says: “How should man be just with God? if he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.” ix. 2, 3. And David: “Enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.” Ps. cxliii. 2. We seem by the Scriptural language to be introduced to a court: there are a law, a sanction, a tribunal, a judge, an accusation, a condemnation, an advocate, a surety, an acquittal. But there is not a syllable about changing the character; it is only a change of state, standing, or relation to law. A misunderstanding here, darkens the whole system of grace, and ensures an unsound theology. This, as Calvin says, is the very hinge on which the whole work of redemption turns. And en-or in this point is the more easy, because the word sometimes has another meaning; because it has been extensively used for sanctification; and because, in point of fact, justification and sanctification are inseparably connected. Justification, therefore, is an act of God, whereby he remits our sins, and accepts us as righteous.
Having settled the meaning of the term, we proceed to consider the act itself It will be agreed on all hands, that the moving or impulsive cause of our justification is the eternal goodness of God; but for which, no offender could ever have been received to favour. But men are so ignorant of God’s true character, that they sometimes ask the question in their hearts, if not with their lips. Why this circuitous method? Why might not God accept the sinner by a sovereign declaration, irrespective of any acts on his behalf? Such inquiries arise from exceedingly low thoughts of the most high God.
But let US present ourselves in thought before his awful tribunal. Let us meditate on that Judge whose brightness eclipses the stars, and whose holiness sheds condemnation on the heavens, whose anger shakes the earth, and whose power melts the mountains, whose justice is dreadful to angels, who acquits not the guilty, and whose wrath has ordained Tophet of old; and we shall be ready to exclaim, If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand!
The law of God partakes in an awful degree the majesty of that character of which it is the transcript. It is holy, just, and unchangeable. Every thing which made a law proper in the beginning, remains in full force to demand satisfaction to it. Eveiy reason which lay in the Divine mind for annexing a penalty remains in full force to exact the execution of that penalty. All the wisdom and justice which made it necessary that creatures should be threatened with punishment, in case of disobedience, make it necessary that the sinner s acceptance should not take place without some amends being made to the violated law. It is
146 JUSTiriCATIOx BY FAITH.
indeed a sovereign act of God, whidi justifies the sinner — an act of sovereign mercy; but an act in wliicli justice no less than mercy is exhibited and sustained.
Seeing, then, that something is necessary to manifest the glorious justice of God in accepting sinners, the question remains, what this is; in other words, what is the impulsive and meritorious cause, for the sake of which the sinner is justified in the sight of God? All answers to this question reduce themselves to these two: The ground of justification is something in the sinner, or something out of him; something done by himself, or something done for him, by another. He is justified either by works, or without works. And the doctrine which prevails in the Romish Church, is, that the sinner is justified, in some way or other, by works. The doctrine of the Scripture is, that he is justified without works. Indeed, so explicit is the language of Scripture on this point, and so distinctly is it sounded by the trumpet of Paul, as not merely his doctrine, but his capital doctrine, that few have the efii’ontery to declare in plain terms that their own works are the proper ground of their justification. In order, therefore, to guard against the finesse of errorists, we must examine a little their mode of evadino the truth.
It is agreed by all, and may be set aside among concessions, that spirits who have never sinned, and man in a state of innocence, were justified by works; that is, by an immaculate obedience to the law under which they were created. And in this case we have the simplest form of justification, namely God’s pronouncing him just, who is such j)roperly and in every sense. But the problem becomes less easy, when it refers to those who have already broken the law, as it is agreed that all men on earth have done.
There is a further concession to be made, in order to clear the question, and stop the mouths of adversaries. We fully admit, that he who is justified is in every case made the subject of holiness; which, if the term had not been abused, might be called inherent righteousness. Our opponents, not only of Kome but of Oxford, reproach evangelical teachers with rejecting inherent righteousness, both name and thing.
We indignantly resist the charge, and affirm that in every case of true justification, the adorable Spirit infuses a principle of holiness, which manifests itself in good works. But we firmly deny that these good works constitute, in whole or in any part, that righteousness whereby we are accepted in the sight of God. And this is the great position on which we make our first stand. Be it observed, that we deny this, as well of the principle as of the fruits; as well of works wrought after regeneration, as of works wrought before regeneration; as well of works wrought in faith, as of works wrought in unbelief; as well of works wrought with a spiritual influence, as of works wrought without a spiritual influence. Of works and of their principle, all and particular, we say they have no part in our justification.
The opponents of this doctrine, in order to give some place to the work of our Redeemer, teach that Christ has merited by his obedience, that internal righteousness should be communicated to us; but that the righteousness thus infused is our justifying righteousness. Their language is such as this: The righteousness by wMcli God justifies us, is that which lie gives us when he renews us in the spirit of our minds, so that we are not merely accounted righteous, but are such in reality.*^ This is familiarly known in theology as justification by infused or inherent righteousness; and it is wonderful, that at the very first presentation of the subject, it should find any tolerance in a soul which has ever been truly convinced of sin, or a conscience which has ever been arraigned before the bar of an infinitely holy and heart-searching God; or that it should ever be maintained, in the face of New Testament declarations that we are justified freely, and without works of law.
The Scriptures teach, and the most experienced Christians admit, that even after reseneration their obedience is unspeakably deficient in kind and degree; that in many things they all offend; that after all their performances, they are unprofitable servants; that their highest affections fall short of supreme love; and that there is no command, the spirit of which they have not broken, nor any hour of their lives, or single act, on which they could rest their hope
* Trent.
of justification in the sight of a holy God. Gratefully owning the influences of the Divine Spirit, in renewing and gradually sanctifying their souls, they nevertheless find no inherent riditeousness on which for an instant God could look with complacency.
On opening the New Testament, we are immediately struck with such passages as this: “Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no fl.esh be justified in his sight.” To an unsophisticated mind, this would seem to settle the question; but such is the ingenuity of unbelief, that we are constrained to spend some time in removing the glosses which have obscured the text.
When we are said to be justified without works, the works meant, say some, are those of the ceremonial law. As this is not the most tenable position of our adversaries, so neither is it their favourite one in the present day. The New Testament writers do not much advert to our modern distinction of ceremonial and moral law; but apart from this, the supposition cannot be sustained. The Apostle Paul, who is most frequent in treating this doctrine, does not merely assert that salvation is without works.
but in more tliaii one instance i)roceeds to prove it; and in every such case his argument is such as to show that he is not speaking of ritual or ceremonial works. Thus in the third chapter of Romans, when he concludes, “therefore, by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight,” the whole preceding argument is a series of charges against transgressors of moral precepts. There is not one word concerning the emptiness of rites, or even concerning their being fulfilled in Christ; j)oints which would have been unavoidable, if these onlv had been intended. If it had been his object to show that we are justified by moral, and not by ceremonial works, he would necessarily have contrasted the moral and the ceremonial law. On the contrary, the ojDposition which he establishes, is between works and faith, between law and i)romise, between debt and grace. And his principal instance of justification without works is that of Abraham, which occurred long before the institution of the Levitical service. Indeed, the presumption is so violent, that it has long since been abandoned by the most able controvertists even on the Romish side.
152 JUSTIFICATION BY iAITH.
A candid examination of the apostle’s argument will show, that under the name of law and of works, lie excludes moral as well as ceremonial requisitions, and obedience of every sort. This is aj)parent from the universality of the expressions, that we are justified “without works of law,” “without deeds of law,” that “a man is not justified by the works of the law,” that “no man is justified by the law, in the sight of God.”
It has therefore been pretended, that the works here excluded are works before regeneration, or without faith. So important a distinction could not have been left unexpressed. The opposition is not between one sort of works and another, but between debt and grace, between law and promise, between our own righteousness and the righteousness of God, between working and not working. The very tenour of his argument shows that it is the moral law which he excludes; for it is that law (Rom. iii.) which condemns both Jews and Gentiles, saying, “There is none righteous, no, not one.” It is that law, by which “is the knowledge of sin.” It is “the law of works,”
as ojDposed, not to ceremonies or imperfect obedience, but to the “law of faith.” It is that law which worketh wrath, and without which “there is no transgression.” It is that law which says, “Thou shalt not covet,” and those precepts, by which “the man that doeth them shall live in them.” This can be no other than the moral law, in all its extent.
That Paul does not mean to exclude such works only as are done without faith and before regeneration, is evident from the case of Abraham. He argues, that if Abraham were justified by works, he had whereof to glory. But he was justified as one who “worketh not.” Surely he of whom these things are spoken was not unreoenerate or unbelievins:. “Thou<>-h the life of the patriarch was spiritual and almost angelical, yet his works did not possess sufficient merit to justify him before God.”^^ Equally pertinent is the instance of David, who is adduced as describing “the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.”
Here and elsewhere Paul opposes works to
* Calvin.
faitL, and justification by works to justification by faith. By works, therefore, lie must mean obedience of every kind. And when lie excludes such works as might be matter of boasting, he manifestly excludes all works. The same thing is proved by the declarations, that we are justified gratuitously; that we are justified by Christ; and that we are justified by faith. The conclusion seems unavoidable, that we are justified by something out of ourselves; and that the matter of our justification is nothing which we can render to the requisition of the law. The ground of our acceptance must therefore be sought where the text places it, in the rio-hteousness of another. But how can this be?
All the acts and declarations of God are according to truth. As the God of infinite justice, he sees all things just as they are, and declares all things according to their reality. He cannot pronounce him righteous who is unrighteous; and as it is confessed that we have no righteousness of our own, it would be forever impossible for us to be justified, if God were not to behold us in another, rather than in ourselves. This is the great and precious mystery wLicli deserves our most special consideration. God looks upon Lis people as the body of Christ, as united to him — as one with him. Here we see the infinite importance of union with Christ. He not only represented his people, but acted as then’ head. From the moment of union, his acts are accounted theirs. And I have purposely introduced the consideration of this, before the inquiry, what constitutes the righteousness, that we might approach the latter cyuestion more free from prejudice. The way is therefore clear for the inquuy, What is the Scripture method of justification?
And here the reply of the word is perfectly intelligible. That which justifies us, is not the righteousness of law, the righteousness of works, or our own righteousness; but “the righteousness of God without the law;” “righteousness wdthout works;” “the righteousness of God which is by faith of Christ;” the “righteousness of faith.” It is the righteousness of Christ, for we are made “the righteousness of God in him.” The two most important questions concerning this righteousness are, —
15G JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.
1. What it is.
2. How it becomes ours.
1. It requires little consideration to perceive, that it is not the essential righteousness of the Divine nature in Christ, but his perfect satisfaction of the law. In a single word, the righteousness of Christ is his obedience; and his obedience rendered for us. The whole of his subjection to the law was mediatorial and representative. Except by virtue of the covenant of grace, the law made no demand that the Son of God should come under its yoke. In infinite mercy, he took our nature, to render to the law every satisfaction which was necessary to our salvation. This satisfaction is called his righteousness. It is called the “righteousness of God,” because he devised it, and because he accepts it. The debt which sinful man owes consists of two parts, — penalty and performance. The righteousness of Christ, to be available, must furnish both. Accordingly, he exhausted the penalty and fulfilled the precept. By one, he provided for the remission of our sins: by the other, he procured for us a right to salvation and reward. For justification is something more than the remission of sins: it includes both remission of sin and riD:ht to eternal life. Both are procured by the righteousness of Christ. That both are necessary, may be seen by the case of Adam in Paradise. At the very moment of his creation, he was perfectly innocent, and therefore in the state in which remission of sin places a sinner. But somethingmore was necessary to give a right to the rewards of life, namely, obedience to a prescribed law. By mere remission of sins, the believer would at best be no further advanced than was Adam at the moment of his creation. By a title to the rewards of life, he attains that place in the sight of God which Adam would have reached at the close of his probationary obedience. The former of these advantages is purchased for us, by our Surety’s endurance of the penalty of the law: the latter, by his performance of all its requisitions. Both are included under the term obedience. But while the righteousness of Christ is a resplendent whole, it admits of beino; considered under a twofold division, which we may now profitably contemplate.
((7) The Lord Jesus Christ, for our sakes, endured the penalty of the law. This includes the whole of his mysterious suffering. “Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” This expresses all. The law demanded the death of the sinner: it is satisfied by the death of an infinite Substitute. The all-wise Jehovah, who best understands the claims of his own glory, is pleased to recognize the suffering of his Son, as a more full satisfaction to the law, than the eternal pains of his people. It is the infinite dignity of the substitute which gives a value to temporal sufferings; making these more than equivalent, in the eye of the law, to the sufferings of creatures through all eternity. The crowning event of these sufferings was the death of Christ upon the cross; to which, therefore, above all the rest, our pardon is ascribed. This obedience of Christ to the penalty of the lav was propitiatory or. expiatory, washing away the guilt of our sin. It was a proper sacrifice, which gave significancy to all the sacrifices of the Levitical law.
For ages God had been educating his ancient Cliurcli in the persuasion, that without sliedclino; of blood there was no remission. Substitution was inscribed on every vessel, and altar of the tabernacle and the temple. The bloody services of the priesthood, for ages, were but a preparing of the way for the entrance of the great Pligh Priest. And every unblemished animal which panted and bled in the Levitical courts, foreshadowed the Lamb of God, “slain from the foundation of the world.” The ancient sinner, as he laid his hand on the head of the victim, typically transferred to it his guilt. The ancient priest, as he sprinkled the blood on the penitent, typically absolved him. It was one beino; sufferino; for another. It was the death of the sacrifice for the death of the sinner. All these shadows were accomplished in the death of Christ, who was both sacrifice and priest; and herein a glorious satisfaction was made to the law, in regard to its penalty. We are redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot;” “who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree; by whose stripes ye were healed.” He was made sin for us, a curse for US, that we might be the rishteousness of God in him. By his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for iis. This obedience of Christ unto death, whereby he made a full satisfaction to the law, in regard to its penalty, is known in theology as his passive obedience; and to this we owe the remission of our sins.
(b) The Lord Jesus Christ, for our sakes, fully obeyed the precept of the law. This is what the law demanded of the creature, to constitute a title to the rewards of life. The infinite dignity of the Mediator caused his obedience, though rendered in time, a satisfaction to the law more glorious and acceptable than the perfect obedience of all his people could have been. And it is quite as just and reasonable as what we have been considering. Yet, while all who admit a proper atonement agree that the sufferings and death of Christ were in order to the remission of our sins, there are many who deny that the personal holiness of Christ, and his subjection to the precept, had any similar intention. This is truly surprising, when we consider that it was no less necessary that the precept should be fulfilled in order to life, than that the penalty should be endured in order to pardon. Indeed, if the law demands one thing more than another, it is obedience. If any reparation is to be made, we might exi)ect it to be the reparation of due performance. The acts of the Surety, in what he did, are as available for us, as his jDains in what he suffered. Even his sufferings are inlcuded under the name of obedience — he was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” It was to be expected that our Surety should fulfil for us all the demands of the law, as well preceptive as punitive. It is undeniable that the Lord Jesus Christ was made under the law, that he subjected himself to it, and actually fulfilled it. It is reasonable to conclude that acts so important, included in his mediatorial life, were a part of his suretyship, and were rendered on our behalf And unless these acts are the ground of our acceptance, we must resort to our own acts for this end. But the letter of the Scriptures on this point is too plain to be mistaken. The obedience of Christ is expressly declared to be the ground of our acceptance, and the sufferings of
Christ are but a part of that obedience, and receive this name only in a secondary sense. He is the Lord our Righteousness. He is made of God unto us “righteousness.” And in terms which baffle all the ingenuity of opjDosers, we are told, that “as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” It is this which is called the active obedience of Christ; and these two taken together, the active and the passive obedience, constitute that one righteousness which is the sole meritorious ground of our acceptance. What he did, and what he suffered, are but one object in the sight of the law; a glorious righteousness, with which we are graciously invested; wrought out by our Head, in our nature, but deriving infinite value from the hidden fountain of the Godhead.
2. Havino; learned what this rio-hteousness is, the remaining question is. How it becomes ours. It does not avail for all, for some are never justified. The explanation is, that this righteousness is made over to those who be-JUSTIFICATIOX BY FAITH. Ify 3
lieve, and immediately upon their believing. Hence it is called “the rioiiteousness of fiitli “; the ^’ righteousness which is of faith “; the “righteousness of God Ly faith of Jesus Christ “; and we are repeatedly said to be “justified by faith.” These declarations are too numerous and too explicit to leave room for doubt, except as to the place which faith occupies in justification. And here arises a class of theologians, who teach that the. very act of fiiith is reckoned to our account, instead of the ricchteousness of our works. Thev conceive that they find some colour for this statement in such texts as these: “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” “Faith was reckoned to Abraham for rifirhteousness.” But if we carefully examine the reasoning of the apostle in these places, we shall find his meaning to be, that justification is a matter not of working, but of believing; in other words, that it is gratuitous. In his argument, to say that justification is by faith, is the same as to say that it is a matter of grace; and his olpject being to prove that Abraham was justified without works, lie cites the declaration that he was justified by faith.
Nothing short of perfection can justify. To suppose any such commutation in the demands of the law as should receive the act of helieviiig in place of other acts of obedience, is to annul the apostle’s argument, and the whole method of grace is simply the substitution of one work in place of all the rest; and, strange to say, it is assumed to get rid of the substitution of Christ for his people. The act of believing is of course a work, and as such is demanded by the law; but as such it is also excluded by the Gospel. The very gratuitousness of the salvation is vacated by considering faith as the ground of acceptance. Faith has indeed a value, which shall be pointed out, but one which renders this supposition unnecessary. All the cogent reasoning of the apostle against justification by works bears in full force against justification by faith considered as a work. He most carefully distinguishes faith from the righteousness which is received by it. That which justifies must be a perfect satisfaction to the law, which faith is not. If faith is the ground of our acceptance, we are justified without any satisfaction of the law; unless we say that it is satisfied by the obedience of Christ, which, indeed, is most true; but then the imputation of the act of faith is more than needless. To suppose the apostle, in the very discourses in which he is reasonino aojainst all rishteousness of our own, to represent the act of faith as set to the sinner’s account in lieu of obedience, is absurd in no ordinary degree.
These reasons go far to set aside the kindred error, that we are justified by faith, because it is considered as the root and principle of all obedience. Faith is here regarded as inchoate obedience. This is justification by works under the name of faith. The supposition destroys at a blow the gratuitousness of salvation. It is only a refined righteousness of works. It is as much our own righteousness, as works are our own righteousness. It is a payment of the debt, in a different denomination. Nothing can be plainer, than that in every declaration that we are justified by faith, there is involved a denial of our justification by any thing proceeding from ourselves. Does Paul say that” boast-
1G6 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.
ing is excluded “? “By what law?” “By the law of faith.” Does he say that Abraham was justified by faith? He adds: “Now to him that worketh not, .... but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned.” And such is the irreconcilable opposition between faith and works, as justify ins:, that Paul assumes it as a maxim, that “the law is not of faith, but the man that doeth them shall live in them.”
It is undoubtedly true, that faith worketh by love, and that love is the fulfilling of the law, and consequently that faith is the principle of all obedience. It is also true that no faith but that which is operative justifies; but it does not derive its power to justify from its fruitfulness. Indeed, the assumption is a covert method of bringing in inherent justification.
The Scripture, in sjieaking of justification passes very lightly over the act of believing, as if not to ascribe to it a substantive part in the work; always introducing it as a sign and proof of the freeness of the benefit, and always as the channel for communicating: somethinjhigher. It is this view which we should accustorn ourselves to take. Faith is simply instrumental and receptive. It is the liaiid stretched forth to receive an infinite bounty, namely, the perfect righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Its whole office is discharged when it brings the sinner into connection with that rii2:hteousness, to which he would otherwise have no claim. Being a j)ersuasion of God’s mercy, an acquiescence in God’s plan, involving a despair of our own strength, and an acknowledgment of free grace, faith is above all other exercises fitted to exclude the pretence of merit, and to exalt the riches of Christ. The moment a sinner believes, he is justified. It is of all things the furthest from his thoughts that this act constitutes any claim; he scarcely makes it an object of attention; his soul is absorbed in the infinite object which it apprehends. Yet at this point of time the righteousness of Christ becomes his own; and it becomes so, because faith unites him to the Surety. This is the secret of its power. It establishes the communication with the source of merit. He is thenceforth in Christ, and the riohteousness of God in him. Being one with Christ, he possesses in the eye of the law the acts and merits of Lis Head. These are no longer the righteousness of another infinitely removed from him, but of one with whom he has become indissolubly connected. The oneness is so complete, that it is likened to the unity of the Father and the Son. On the page of God’s awful account are written all the enormous debts of his people; but on the other page God’s own hand has written, in letters of blood, the payment of his Son. God is pleased to regard the righteousness of the Head as the righteousness of the members. Nor is there error or deception in such a reckoning. This righteousness, though not rendered by ourselves, is rendered for us by one who is our Surety; and “we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” “We are not declared righteous in ourselves, which would be false, but in Christ, which is most true.” * “God does not judge that we in our own persons have rendered this righteousness, which is false; but that Christ has so falfilled it for us, that we may justly be invested with his merit: which is so true, that it is the sum of the whole Gospel. “f It was rendered for
* Turret ine. f WitsliK.
no other purpose. The law made no demand of it, except for this purpose. The Son of God became incarnate, to render it. He was under no obligation, except the obligation of his people. When he bowed under the law, it was the world of elect sinners which bowed.” If one died for all, then all died.’’ The infinite Judge does not merely accept it: he devised it. It was the very thing which from all eternity he contemplated, as the most glorious satisfaction to the law; it would be the height of presumptuous scruple, for us to find fault with it. And all heaven rejoices in beholding a glorious body of saints, so united to the Messiah, that every act of his redounds to their salvation.
It is a view of the subject which avoids many difficulties and anticipates many objections. The union of believers with Christ is the ground of their receiving his righteousness. That is set to their account which has become theirs by this gracious connection. This, and no more, is what we mean by the imputation of Chi’ist’s righteousness. Instead of an arbitrary ascription to us of something contrary to fact, as our adversaries allege, it is God’s beholding us as intimately connected with the Gi’eat Surety. The obedience which lie rendered was rendered by him in our nature in our name, and as our covenant head. It was in its very intention that it should be regarded as ours. It had no other intention. Faith completes the union, long contemplated in the covenant, and thenceforth God regards the believer no longer in himself, but in Christ, and the Church of elect saints as the body of Christ, invested with his righteousness.
From what has been said, it is apparent that justification is instantaneous. The notion of progressive justification is inseparable from the tenet of inherent righteousness. At every moment the soul is either condemned or absolved, either unrighteous or righteous. It is equally apparent that the favourite Antinomian notion of eternal justification, is unscriptural. The covenant counsels of the Godhead and the purpose to justify, were indeed from eternity, but the act of justification takes place in time. Neither can we say that actual justification ensued immediately upon the accomplishment of the satisfaction by the Lord Jesus. For although, at that instant, the righteousness was complete, it was not yet applied to those for whom it was intended; because, as we have seen, this application is founded on the union of believers to Christ, which had not yet taken place in regard to all. The moment of justification is the moment of believing: in the order of time, it is therefore identical with, the moment of effectual calling. This appears from all those expressions which speak of believers as having been under condemnation and wrath, as passing from darkness to light, from enmity to friendship, from death to life. In regard to holy men who lived under the Old Testament, they were united by faith to a Redeemer not yet incarnate, and justified by a righteousness yet to come.
At this blessed moment of justification, the sinner is at once admitted to the favour of God. He is accepted as righteous. The law is as fully satisfied with regard to him, as if he had never sinned. The righteousness of Christ is now his rio-hteousness. He can no more come into condemnation, than Christ can come into condemnation. He is delivered from the guilt and penalty of all his sins. With regard to sins wliicli lie may hereafter commit, lie is not indeed pardoned; because it would be incongruous to say that sins are pardoned before they are committed; but God lias graciously accepted the righteousness of Christ, even in respect to these, and in process of time pardon is dispensed. The eflPect of this grace is to remove all condemnation and all punishment. That sin which has been visited on the Surety, will not be visited on us. The afflictions of this life are not legal pains, but fatherly trials and corrections. And death itself, being deprived of sin which is its sting, and the lasr which is its strength, is despoiled of all its punitive force. Here is a change of state so great, that it is amazing even to him who experiences it. The absolving act is not in every case pronounced to the soul of the believer: it is, however, sooner or later, sealed to every one by the Holy Spirit. But the vastness of its import will not be appreciated by any, until the time of the general judgment, when, before the assembled universe, the Judge shall acquit his people as a body, and welcome them to the joy of their Lord.
Such is the doctrine of the Bible on this important subject; and if my endeavour has been successful, I have shown that justification is a forensic term, expressing an act of God by which he accepts a sinner as righteous in the sight of the law; that the best obedience of the sinner, even in his renewed state, is insufficient for this end; that we are justified without works, and that the works thus excluded are not merely ceremonial works, nor works WTought in unbelief, but all works whatever; that the righteousness which justifies us is that of our Divine Mediator, consisting of what he did and what he suffered; that this righteousness becomes ours upon our believing; that the efficacy of faith does not arise from the act of believing being imputed in lieu of obedience, nor from faith viewed as the source of all obedience, but from its uniting us with the Lord Jesus Christ; that in consequence of this union, the acts of the Redeemer are considered as the acts of his people, which is otherwise called the imputation of his righteousness; and that hence the believing sinner receives the absolute remission of all his sins, with a right to eternal salvation.
Two reflections will sum up our discussion of the subject, and will at the same time be a reply to objections wliicli some think formidable.
1. The first is, that justification by faith is gratuitous justification. From beginning to end, the work of salvation is of grace. And it is futile to object that this grace is impaired by the satisfaction rendered to the law. The debt which we owed is indeed paid, but not p’aid by us. The means of paying it is freely given us by God. He who places in the hands of an insolvent debtor the amount which shall discharge all his liabilities, does not thereby lessen the obligation of the person relieved. Our own part in justification is merely receptive. It is not our own works or even our own faith which is the ground of our acceptance. And though the law is fully satisfied, and the debt cancelled, it is done by a gracious gift to us; and a gift from the hand of Almighty God. The oftended Judge is he, by whom the propitiation is devised, applied, accepted, and perfected. This is deeply impressed on the heart of the rejoicing believer. The more clearly he views the righteousness of the Surety as the basis of all his hope, the more humbly does he acknowledge that his salvation is all of grace. The doctrine is abasing to human pride and exalting to the riches of Divine favour. And we may confidently appeal to experience to show that none have been more constant in praise of free grace, than those who behold it manifested in the imputation of perfect righteousness.
2. The belief of justification by faith tends to personal holiness. In answer to the objection of adversaries, we maintain that the obligations to obedience are not weakened, but confirmed. He who expects justification in this way, so expects it, for the very reason that his conviction is so strong of the eternal obligation of the law, which could not relax one jot or tittle of its claim, without satisfaction. He connects with this such a sense of the evil of sin, as can be produced only by seeing it visited on the holy Son of God. He sees, as none others see, the dreadful nature of its punishment. He sees, as no others can see it, the infinite purity of the Divine character. But especially he feels the obligation of gratitude, for the free compassion and infinite love of God, so as to have a motive to obedience wMdi is the strongest possible. Every view which lie takes of the mediatorial work and suffering, affords a fresh inducement for him to live no longer unto himself, but unto him who loved him, and gave himself for him. Consequently, the history of the Church shows that Gospel morality has most flourished where this doctrine has been preached. To which side shall we look for strictness in observing the law of God — to the Romish body, where human merit was triumphant, or to the churches of the Reformation? Where shall we go to find poignant convictions of sin — to the assemblies where human merit is exalted, or to those where free salvation is proclaimed? What charge was ever more violently brought against our forefathers, than the charge of undue scrupulosity and pharisaical punctilio? To what class of preachers do worldly people attach themselves — to those who make every thing of morals, or to those who preach the righteousness of Christ? By whose labours are great reformations wrought, and extensive awakenings produced, if not by that of the defenders of a gracious justification?
Are any disposed to say, that a doctrine cannot be true, which is open to such an objection? We answer, the misrepresentation is as old as Paul himself. The truth was misconstrued even in a^DOstolic times. “What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.” The identity of the objection infers identity of doctrine. And we may reply, as Paul replied, “How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”
We may go further, and say, that of all means for promoting personal holiness, there is none more efficacious than the steady and ajQfectionate contemplation of the very truth which has now been presented. It is when we behold our blessed Saviour suffering for us, and obeying for us, that our self-devotion rises to its height. Draw your motives, beloved brethren, from the cross of Christ. Your obedience will then have a perennial spring. Instead of being a cold observance, it will be the outo-oino- of a melted, broken heart. The more free you feel yourself from the law as a covenant of works.
the more Aldll you feel it to be a delightful yoke as a rule of life. The more you feel disenthralled from the bondage of sin, the hardest of all masters, the more will you exult in the service of a gracious Lord. And if ever the insidious adversary should abuse your minds by Antinomian suggestions, you will answer his seductive argument, as it is answered by the apostle: “What then; shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves servants, his servants ye are? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but being made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness, having your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.”