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