I. That though there are other graces which always accompany faith, and
good works that flow from it; yet none of these are said to justify a
sinner in the sight of God. There is an inseparable connexion between
faith, and all other graces; which, though it be distinguished, is never
separate from them. They are all considered as _fruits of the Spirit_,
Gal. v. 22, 23. thus the apostle reckons up several other graces that
are connected with faith, and proceed from the same Spirit, such as
_love_, _peace_, _joy_, _long-suffering_, _gentleness_, _goodness_,
_meekness_, _temperance_: and the same apostle commends the church at
Thessalonica for their _work of faith; and_ considers this as connected
with a _labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ_,
1 Thess. i. 3. And the apostle Peter exhorts the church, to which he
writes, to _add to their faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge, to
knowledge temperance, to temperance patience, to patience godliness, to
godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness charity_, 2 Pet.
i. 5, 6, 7. which supposes that all these graces ought to be connected
together. And the apostle James calls it a _dead faith_, James ii. 17.
which has not other works or graces joined with it; and, indeed, these
graces are not only connected with it, but flow from it, or are the
fruits thereof: thus we read of the _heart’s being purified by faith_,
Acts xv. 9. that is, this grace, when acted in a right manner, will have
a tendency, in some degree, to purge the soul from that moral impurity,
which proceeds out of the heart of man, and is inconsistent with saving
faith: and elsewhere we read of _faith as working by love_, Gal. v. 6.
that is, exciting those acts of love, both to God and man, which contain
a summary of practical religion. It is also said to _overcome the
world_, 1 John v. 4. and it enables Christians to do or suffer great
things for Christ’s sake, of which the apostle gives various instances
in the Old Testament saints, Heb. xi. But, notwithstanding the connexion
of other graces with faith, and those works which flow from it, we are
never said, in scripture, to be justified thereby; not by love to God;
nor by any act of obedience to him, which can be called no other than
works: whereas, when the apostle speaks of our justification by faith,
he puts it in opposition to works, when he says, that _a man is
justified by faith, without the deeds of the law_, Rom. ii. 28.
_Object._ To this it is objected, that the apostle here speaks
concerning the ceremonial law, which he excludes from being the matter
of our justification, and not the moral law, or any evangelical duty,
such as love and sincere obedience, which, together with faith is the
matter of our justification.
_Answ._ To this it may be replied, That when the apostle speaks of our
justification by faith, without the deeds of the law, he does not hereby
intend the ceremonial law; for those whom he describes as justified
persons, are said to be, in a following verse, not only Jews, but
Gentiles, that were converted to the Christian faith; the former,
indeed, were under a temptation to seek to be justified by the
ceremonial law, and so to conclude that they had a right to eternal
life; because of their being distinguished from the world, by the
external privileges of the covenant which they were under, many of which
were contained in, or signified by that law: but the Gentiles had
nothing to do with it, and therefore never expected to be justified by
the ceremonial law; accordingly, when the apostle speaks of
justification by faith without the deeds of the law, he cannot hereby be
supposed to intend the ceremonial law. And if we look a little farther
into the context, we shall find, by his method of reasoning, that he
excludes all works in general, and opposes faith to them; for he argues,
that we are justified in such a way, as tends to exclude boasting; but
he that insists on any works performed by himself, as the matter of his
justification, cannot do this any otherwise than in a boasting way,
valuing himself, and founding his right to eternal life, upon them. We
are not therefore justified by them, but by faith; that is, we are
justified in such a way as that, while we lay claim to the greatest
privileges from Christ, we are disposed to give him all the glory, or to
renounce our own righteousness at the same time that we have recourse to
his righteousness for justification, by faith.
But that it may farther appear, that our justification by faith, is
opposed to justification by works, either those that accompany or flow
from it, we may apply what has been before suggested, in considering the
matter of our justification to this argument. If we consider the demands
of justice, or what it may in honour reckon a sufficient compensation
for the dishonour that has been brought to the divine name by sin, or
what may be deemed a satisfactory payment of the outstanding debt of
perfect obedience, which was due from us, or punishment, which we were
liable to, according to the sanction of the divine law; we may easily
infer, that no obedience, performed by us, though including in it the
utmost perfection, that a fallen creature is capable of attaining, is a
sufficient satisfaction; and if there can be no justification without
satisfaction, then we cannot be justified thereby. Therefore it is a
vain thing for persons to distinguish in this case, between works done
before and after faith, as though the former only were excluded from
being the matter of our justification; or to say, as some do, that we
are not indeed justified by obedience to the moral law, but by our
obeying the precepts which our Saviour has laid down in the gospel, such
as faith, and repentance, _&c._ which they call obedience to the gospel
as a new law: but let it be considered, that these evangelical duties
are supposed to be performed as the result of a divine command, which
has the formal nature of a law, whether they be contained in the moral
law or no; therefore, when we are justified by faith in opposition to
the works of the law, this must be opposed to obedience of any kind
performed by us.
And this also appears from the nature of faith, to which justification,
by the works of the law, is opposed; for faith is a soul-humbling grace,
and includes in it a renouncing of all merit, or inducement taken from
ourselves, as a reason why God should bestow on us the blessings we
stand in need of; it trusts in Christ for righteousness, and in him
alone, and therefore turns itself from any thing that may have the least
tendency to eclipse his glory, as the only foundation of our
justification: therefore, when we are said to be justified by faith, and
not by the works of the law, the meaning is, we are justified in such a
way as tends to set the crown upon Christ’s head, acknowledging him to
be the only fountain from whence this privilege is derived.
It follows from hence that our justification cannot be founded on our
repentance; though this is often maintained by those who are on the
other side of the question, who suppose, that justification contains in
it nothing else but forgiveness of sin; and if offences are to be
forgiven by men, upon their repentance, or confessing their fault, then
forgiveness may be expected from God, on our repentance: and some use a
very unsavoury way of speaking, when they say, that our tears have a
virtue to wash away our sins; and that they may give farther countenance
to this opinion, they refer to that scripture, in which it is said,
_Repent, that your sins may be blotted out_, Acts iii. 19. and others of
the like nature; by which we are not to suppose, that the apostle means,
that forgiveness of sin is founded on our repentance, as the matter of
our justification in the sight of God; but that there is an inseparable
connexion between our claim to forgiveness of sin, (together with all
the fruits and effects of the death of Christ, whereby this blessing was
procured) and repentance; so that one is not to be expected without the
other; and though men are to forgive injuries in case the offender
acknowledges his fault, and makes sufficient restitution; this they may
do, inasmuch as the offence is only committed against a creature; and
especially if the offence be of a private nature. But supposing this
should be applied to juridical and forensick cases, will any one say,
that the prince is obliged to forgive the criminal who is under a
sentence of condemnation, because he is sorry for what he has done, or
confesses his fault? Would this secure his honour as a law-giver? And if
hereupon the offender were to be discharged from his guilt, would not
this be a defect in the administration of the legislature? How then can
this be applied to forgiveness, expected at the hand of God; in which
justice, as well as mercy, is to have the glory that is due to it; and
we are not only to be acquitted, but justified, or pronounced guiltless,
since our acknowledgment of our offence cannot be reckoned a sufficient
satisfaction to the justice of God?
_Object._ It is objected, by those on the other side of the question,
that though repentance be not in itself a sufficient compensation to the
justice of God for the crimes which we have committed; yet God may, by
an act of grace, accept of it, as though it had been sufficient[50].
This they illustrate by a similitude taken from a person’s selling an
estate of a considerable value, to one who has no money to buy it,
provided he will pay a pepper-corn of acknowledgment. Thus, how
insignificant soever, repentance, or any other grace, which is deemed
the matter of our justification, be in itself, it is by an act of
favour, deemed a sufficient price.
_Answ._ In answer to this I would observe, that the objection, which was
before brought against the doctrine we have been maintaining, concerning
the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, namely, that it was a putative
righteousness, a not judging of things according to truth, and the like,
seems to be of no weight when it affects their own cause; otherwise we
might turn their argument against themselves, and ask them; whether this
be for God to judge according to truth, when that is accepted as a
sufficient payment, by his justice, which is in itself of no value? But
passing this by, we may farther observe, that this is wholly to set
aside the necessity of satisfaction, as the Socinians do; and therefore
it is no wonder that they make use of this method of reasoning. As for
others who do not altogether deny this doctrine, yet think that a small
price may be deemed satisfactory for sin committed. That which may be
replied to it, is, that if justification, as tending to advance the
glory of divine justice, in taking away the guilt of sin, depends upon a
price paid that is equivalent to the debt contracted; and nothing short
of a price of infinite value can be reckoned an equivalent thereunto,
then certainly that which is performed by men, cannot be deemed a
sufficient payment, or accepted of as such.
It is a vain thing for persons to pretend that there is a difference
between satisfying God, and satisfying his justice; or, that to satisfy
God is to pay a price, be it never so small, that he demands; whereas,
satisfying justice is paying a price equal to the thing purchased; since
we must conclude, that God cannot deem any thing satisfactory to
himself, that is not so to his justice. Therefore, this distinction will
not avail, to free their argument from the absurdity that attends it.
We might here observe, that as some speak of pardon of sin’s being
founded on our repentance; others speak of our justification as being by
the act of faith, or by faith considered as a work, and in defending
justification by works, as though it were not opposed to justification
by faith (the contrary to which has been before proved) they argue, that
we are often said, in scripture, to be justified by faith; but this
faith is a work; therefore it cannot be denied but that we are justified
by works. To which it may be replied, that it is one thing to say, that
we are justified by faith, that is, a work, and another thing to say,
that we are justified by it as a work; or, it is one thing to say, that
we are justified for our faith, and another thing to say, that we are
justified by it; which will more evidently appear under the following
head, which we proceed to consider; namely,
II. What it is for us to be justified by faith, or how faith justifies.
None can, with the least shadow of reason, deny, that justification by
faith, is a scripture-mode of speaking, though some have questioned,
whether the apostle’s words, _being justified by faith, we have peace
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ_, gives countenance to the
doctrine of justification by faith; for they observe, that by putting a
stop immediately after the word _justified_, the sense would be, that
they who are justified by Christ’s righteousness, have peace with God by
faith, through the Lord Jesus Christ: but though this will a little
alter the reading of the text; yet it will not overthrow the doctrine of
justification by faith, as contained therein. For if we understand our
_having peace with God_, as importing, that peace which they have a
right to, who are interested in Christ’s righteousness, and not barely
peace of conscience: then it will follow, that to have this peace by
faith, is, in effect, the same as to be justified by faith; and this
farther appears, from the following words, _by whom also we have access
by faith into this grace, wherein we stand_. The _grace wherein we
stand_, is that grace which is the foundation of our justification, and
not barely peace of conscience: when we are therefore said to have
access by faith unto this grace, it is the same as for us to be
justified by faith.
Moreover, this is not the only place in which we are said to be
justified by faith; for the apostle says elsewhere, _We are justified by
the faith of Jesus Christ_, Gal. ii. 16. or by faith in Jesus Christ,
and again, _the just shall live by faith_, Rom. i. 17. which, agreeably
to the context, must be understood of their being justified by faith; in
which sense the apostle particularly explains it elsewhere, Gal. iii.
11. and in another place he speaks of _the righteousness of God which is
by faith of Jesus Christ_, Rom. iii. 22. and also of a believer’s
_waiting for the hope of righteousness by faith_, Gal. v. 5. We must not
therefore deny that justification is by faith; but rather explain the
sense of those scriptures that establish this doctrine, agreeably to the
mind of the Holy Ghost therein.
There are various methods taken to explain the doctrine of justification
by faith; particularly one that we think subversive of justification by
Christ’s righteousness: the other, that which is contained in the answer
which we are explaining.
1. As to the former of these, namely, that which is inconsistent with
the doctrine of justification by Christ’s righteousness. This is
maintained by those who plead for justification by works; and
consequently, they say, that we are justified by faith, and all other
graces; which they call the conditions of our justification in the sight
of God; and indeed to be justified by faith, according to them, is
little other than to be justified for faith: whether they reckon it a
meritorious condition or no, they must own it to be a pleadable
condition; otherwise it would have no reference to justification; and if
it be taken in this sense, our justification depends as much upon it, as
though it had been meritorious. This is the account which some give of
justification; and to prepare the way for this opinion, they suppose,
that the terms of salvation, in the gospel, which are substituted in the
room of those which were required under the first covenant made with
Adam, are faith, repentance and sincere obedience, instead of perfect;
and that God in justifying a penitent, believing sinner, pursuant to the
performance of these conditions, declares his willingness, that there
should be a relaxation of that law which man was at first obliged to
obey; and accordingly, that sincerity is demanded by him instead of
perfection, or substituted in the room of it; this they call the new
law, or others style it a remedial law: so that instead of being
justified by Christ’s yielding perfect obedience, or paying the
out-standing debt, which we were obliged, by reason of the violation of
the first covenant, to pay, we are to be justified by our own imperfect
obedience.
But that which may be objected to this method of reasoning, is, that it
is inconsistent with the holiness of the divine nature, and the glory of
the justice of God, detracts from the honour of his law, and is, in
effect, to maintain that we are justified without satisfaction given.
For though these terms of our justification, and acceptance in the sight
of God, may be falsely styled a valuable consideration; yet none will
pretend to assert, that they are an infinite price; and nothing short of
that (which is no other than Christ’s righteousness) is sufficient to
answer this end. I am sensible, that they who lay down this plan of
justification, allege in defence thereof; that though these terms of
acceptance are of small value in themselves; yet God, by an act of
grace, reckons the payment of a small debt equivalent to that of a
greater, as has been before observed. And they speak of faith and
repentance as having a value set upon them by their reference to the
blood of Christ[51], who merited this privilege for us, that we should
be justified in such a way, or upon these conditions performed: they
call them indeed easier terms, or conditions, and include them all in
the general word sincerity, instead of perfection. But they are
nevertheless somewhat divided in their method of explaining themselves,
inasmuch as some suppose these conditions to be wholly in our own power,
without the aids of divine grace, as much as perfect obedience was in
the power of our first parents; whereas others ascribe a little more to
the grace of God, according as they explain the doctrine of effectual
calling; though they do not suppose, that these conditions are
altogether out of our own power; and they so far lay a foundation for
the sinner’s glorying herein, as that, they suppose, our right to
justification and eternal life is founded on them.
I cannot but think this method of explaining the doctrine of
justification to be subversive of the gospel, and that it is highly
derogatory to the glory of God to assert that he can dispense with the
demand of perfect obedience, and justify a person on easier terms; which
is little better than what the apostle calls _make void the law_: this,
says he, we are far from doing _by faith_, or by our asserting the
doctrine of justification by faith in Christ’s righteousness; _but we
rather establish it_ hereby: and to say that God sets such a value on
our performing these conditions of the new covenant, as that they are
deemed equivalent to Christ’s performing perfect obedience for us, this
reflects on his glory, as set forth, to be a propitiation for sin, to
declare God’s righteousness in the remission thereof; and detracts from
the obligation which we are laid under to him, for what he did and
suffered in our behalf, for our justification.
Moreover, to assert that God sets this value on our performances,
pursuant to Christ’s merit; or that they are highly esteemed by him,
because they are tinctured with his blood; this is contrary to the
design of his death, which was, not that such an estimate might be set
on what is done by us; but rather, that the iniquities that attend our
best performances may be forgiven; and that (though, when we have done
all, we are unprofitable servants,) we may be made accepted in the
Beloved; and having no justifying righteousness of our own, may be
justified, and glory in that which he hath wrought out for us.
And as for the supposition, that faith, repentance, and new obedience,
are not only conditions of justification, but easy to be performed: this
plainly discovers, that they who maintain it, either think too lightly
of man’s impotency and averseness to what is good, and his alienation
from the life of God, or are strangers to their own hearts, and are not
duly sensible that it is God that works in his people both to will and
to do, of his own good pleasure.
The only thing that I shall add, in opposition to the doctrine of
justification by works, is, that whatever is the matter or ground of our
justification in the sight of God, must be pleadable at his bar; for we
cannot be justified without a plea, and if any plea, taken from our own
works, be thought sufficient, how much soever the proud and deluded
heart of man may set too great a value upon them; yet God will not
reckon the plea valid, so as to discharge us from guilt, and give us a
right and title to eternal life on the account thereof; which leads us
to consider,
2. The method taken to explain this doctrine in the answer before us,
which we think agreeable to the divine perfections, and contains a true
state of the doctrine of justification by faith. We before considered
justification as a forensic act, that we might understand what is meant
by our sins being imputed to Christ our Head and Surety, and his
righteousness imputed to us, or placed to our account. And we are now to
speak of this righteousness as pleaded by, or applied to us, as the
foundation of our claim to all the blessings that were purchased by it.
Here we must consider a sinner as bringing in his plea, in order to his
discharge; and this is twofold.
(1.) If he be charged by men, or by Satan, with crimes not committed, he
pleads his own innocency; if charged with hypocrisy, he pleads his own
sincerity. Thus we are to understand several expressions in scripture to
this purpose; as for instance, when a charge of the like nature was
brought in against Job, Satan having suggested that he did not serve God
for nought; and that if God would touch his bone and his flesh, he would
curse him to his face: and his friends having often applied the
character they give of the hypocrite to him, and so concluding him to be
a wicked person, he says, _God forbid that I should justify you_; that
is, that I should acknowledge your charge to be just; _till I die, I
will not remove mine integrity from me: my righteousness I hold fast,
and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I
live_, Job xxvii. 5, 6. that is, I never will own what you insinuate,
that my heart is not right with God. And David, when complaining of the
ill-treatment which he met with from his enemies and persecutors, who
desired not only to _tread down his life upon the earth_, but to _lay
his honour in the dust_; to murder his name as well as his person, he
prays, _Judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness, and according
to mine integrity that is in me_, Psal. vii. 8. What could he plead
against maliciousness and false insinuations, but his righteousness or
his integrity? And elsewhere, when he says, _The Lord rewarded me
according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands
hath he recompensed me: For I have kept the ways of the Lord; his
judgments were before me. I was also upright before him, and have kept
myself from mine iniquity_, 2 Sam. xxii. 21, _&c. seq._ it is nothing
else but an intimation, that how much soever he might be charged with
the contrary vices, he was, in this respect, innocent: and though God
did not justify him at his tribunal, for this righteousness; yet, in the
course of his providence, he seemed to approve of his plea, so far as
that whatever the world thought of him, he plainly dealt with him as one
who was highly favoured by him; or whom, by his dealings with him, he
evidently distinguished from those whose hearts were not right with him.
It is true, some who plead for justification by our own righteousness,
allege these scriptures as a proof of it, without distinguishing between
the justification of our persons in the sight of God, and the
justification of our righteous cause; or our being justified when
accused at God’s tribunal, and our being justified, or vindicated from
those charges that are brought against us at man’s.
(2.) When a person stands at God’s tribunal, as we must suppose the
sinner to do, when bringing in his plea for justification in his sight;
then he has nothing else to plead but Christ’s righteousness; and faith
is that grace that pleads it: and in that respect we are said to be
justified by faith, or in a way of believing. Faith doth not justify by
presenting or pleading itself, or any other grace that accompanies or
flows from it, as the cause why God should forgive sin, or give us a
right to eternal life; for they have not sufficient worth or excellency
in them to procure these blessings. Therefore, when we are said to be
justified by faith, it is by faith, as apprehending, pleading, or laying
hold on Christ’s righteousness; and this gives occasion to divines to
call it the instrument of our justification. Christ’s righteousness is
the thing claimed or apprehended; and faith is that by which it is
claimed or apprehended; and, agreeably to the idea of an instrument, we
are said not to be justified for faith, but by it. Christ’s
righteousness is that which procures a discharge from condemnation for
all for whom it was wrought out; faith is the hand that receives it;
whereby a person has a right to conclude, that it was wrought out for
him. Christ’s righteousness is that which has a tendency to enrich and
adorn the soul; and faith is the hand that receives it, whereby it
becomes ours, in a way of fiducial application: and as the righteousness
of Christ is compared, in scripture, to a glorious robe, which renders
the soul beautiful, or is its highest and chief ornament; it is by faith
that it is put on; and, in this respect, as the prophet speaks, its
beauty is rendered _perfect through his comeliness, which is put upon
him_, Ezek. xvi. 14. so that Christ’s righteousness justifies, as it is
the cause of our discharge; faith justifies as the instrument that
applies this discharge to us; thus when it is said, _the just shall live
by faith_, faith is considered as that which seeks to, and finds this
life in him; the effect is, by a metonymy, applied to the instrument; as
when the husbandman is said to live or to be maintained by his plough,
and the artist to live by his hands, or the beggar by his empty hand
that receives the donative. If a person was in a dungeon, like the
prophet Jeremiah, and a rope is let down to draw him out of it, his
laying hold on it is the instrument, but the hand that draws him out, is
the principal cause of his release from thence; or, that we may make use
of a similitude that more directly illustrates the doctrine we are
maintaining, suppose a condemned malefactor had a pardon procured for
him, which gives him a right to liberty, or a discharge from the place
of his confinement, this must be pleaded, and his claim be rendered
visible; and after that he is no longer deemed a guilty person, but
discharged, in open court, from the sentence that he was under. Thus
Christ procures forgiveness by his blood; the gospel holds it forth, and
describes those who have a right to claim it as belonging to him in
particular: and hence arises a visible discharge from condemnation, and
a right to claim the benefits that attend it. If we understand
justification by faith, in this sense, we do not attribute too much to
faith on the one hand, nor too little to Christ’s righteousness on the
other.
And we rather choose to call faith an instrument, than a condition of
our justification, being sensible, that the word _condition_ is
generally used to signify that for the sake whereof, a benefit is
conferred, rather than the instrument by which it is applied; not but
that it may be explained in such a way, as is consistent with the
doctrine of justification by faith, as before considered. We do not deny
that faith is the condition of our claim to Christ’s righteousness; or
that it is God’s ordinance, without which we have no ground to conclude
our interest in it. We must therefore distinguish between its being a
condition of forgiveness, and its being a condition of our visible and
apparent right hereunto. This cannot be said to belong to us, unless we
receive it; neither can we conclude that we have an interest in Christ’s
redemption, any more than they for whom he did not lay down his life,
but by this medium. We must first consider Christ’s righteousness as
wrought out for all them that were given him by the Father; and faith is
that which gives us ground to conclude, that this privilege, in
particular, belongs to us.
This account of the use of faith in justification, we cannot but think
sufficient to obviate the most material objections that are brought
against our way of maintaining the doctrine of justification, _viz._ by
Christ’s righteousness, in one respect, and by faith in another. It is
an injurious suggestion to suppose that we deny the necessity of faith
in any sense, or conclude, that we may lay claim to this privilege
without it; since we strenuously assert the necessity, on the one hand,
of Christ’s righteousness being wrought out for us, and forgiveness
procured thereby; and, on the other hand, the necessity of our receiving
it, each of which is true in its respective place. Christ must have the
glory that is due to him, and faith the work, or office that belongs to
it.
Thus we have considered Christ’s righteousness as applied by faith; and
it may be also observed, that there is one scripture, in which it is
said to be _imputed by faith_, as the apostle Paul, when speaking
concerning Abraham’s justification by faith, in this righteousness,
says, _It was imputed to him for righteousness_; and adds, that _it was
not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him, but for us
also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe_, Rom. iv. 22, 23, 24.
in which scripture, I conceive, that imputation is taken for
application; and accordingly the meaning is, the righteousness of Christ
is so imputed, as that we have ground to place it to our own account, if
we believe; which is the same with applying it by faith.[52]
And whereas the apostle speaks elsewhere of _faith’s being counted for
righteousness_, ver. 5. it must be allowed, that there is a great deal
of difficulty in the mode of expression. If we assert that the act of
believing is imputed for righteousness, as they who establish the
doctrine of justification by works, or by faith as a work, we overthrow
that which we have been maintaining: and if, on the other hand, we
understand faith, for the object of faith, _viz._ what was wrought out
by Christ, which faith is conversant about, and conclude, (as I conceive
we ought to do,) that this, is imputed for righteousness, this is
supposed, by some, to deviate too much from the common sense of words,
to be allowed of: but if there be such a figurative way of speaking used
in other scriptures, why may we not suppose that it is used in this text
under our present consideration? If other graces are sometimes taken for
the object thereof, why may not faith be taken, by a metonymy, for its
object? Thus the apostle calls those whom he writes to, _his joy_, that
is, the object, or matter thereof, Phil. iv. 1. And in the book of
Canticles, the church calls Christ _her love_, Cant. iv. 8. that is, the
object thereof. And elsewhere, hope is plainly taken for the object of
it, when the apostle says, _Hope that is seen, is not hope: for what a
man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?_ Rom. viii. 24. By which he plainly
intends, that whatever is the object of hope, cannot be in our present
possession: and Christ is farther styled, _The blessed hope_, Tit. ii.
13. that is, the person whose appearance we hope for. And Jacob speaks
of God as _the fear of his father Isaac_, Gen. xxxi. 53. that is, the
person whom he worshipped with reverential fear; in all which cases the
phraseology is equally difficult with that of the text, under our
present consideration. Thus concerning Christ’s righteousness, as
wrought out for us, and applied by faith; which is the foundation of all
our peace and comfort, both in life and death; and therefore cannot but
be reckoned a doctrine of the highest importance: we shall now consider
some things that may be inferred from it. And,
[1.] From what has been said concerning justification, as founded in
Christ’s suretyship-righteousness, wrought out for us, by what was done
and suffered by him, in his human nature; and the infinite value
thereof, as depending on the glory of the divine nature, to which it is
united, we cannot but infer the absurdity of two contrary opinions,
namely, that of those who have asserted, that we are justified by the
essential righteousness of Christ as God[57]; and that of others, who
pretend, that because all mediatorial acts are performed by Christ only
as man: therefore the infinite dignity of the divine nature, has no
reference to their being satisfactory to divine justice. This is what
they mean when they say, that we are justified by Christ’s righteousness
as man, in opposition to our being justified by his essential
righteousness as God[58]: whereas, I think, the truth lies in a _medium_
between both these extremes; on the one hand we must suppose, that
Christ’s engagement to become a surety for us, and so stand in our room
and stead, and thereby to pay the debt which we had contracted to the
justice of God, could not be done in any other than the human nature;
for the divine nature is not capable of being under a law, or fulfilling
it, or, in any instance, of obeying, or suffering; and therefore, we
cannot be justified by Christ’s essential righteousness, as God; and, on
the other hand, what Christ did and suffered as man, would not have been
sufficient for our justification, had it not had an infinite value put
upon it, arising from the union of the nature that suffered with the
divine nature, which is agreeable to the apostle’s expression, when he
says, _God purchased the church with his own blood_, Acts, xx. 28.
[2.] From what has been said, concerning the fruits and effects of
justification, as by virtue hereof our sins are pardoned, and we made
accepted in the beloved, we infer; that it is not only an unscriptural
way of speaking, but has a tendency to overthrow the doctrine we have
been maintaining, to assert, as some do, that God is only rendered
reconcileable by what was done and suffered by Christ. This seems to be
maintained by those who treat on this subject, with a different view.
Some speak of God’s being rendered reconcileable by Christ’s
righteousness that they might make way for what they have farther to
advance, namely, that God’s being reconciled to a sinner, is the result
of his own repentance, or the amendment of his life, whereby he makes
his peace with him; which is to make repentance or reformation the
matter of our justification, and substitute it in the room of Christ’s
righteousness: therefore, they who speak of God’s being made
reconcileable in this sense, by his blood, are so far from giving a true
account of the doctrine of justification, that, in reality, they
overthrow it.
But there are others, who speak of God’s being reconcileable as the
consequence of Christ’s satisfaction, that they might not be thought to
assert that God is actually reconciled by the blood of Christ, to those
who are in an unconverted state, which is inconsistent therewith;
therefore they use this mode of expression, lest they should be thought
to give countenance to the doctrine of actual justification before
faith; but certainly we are under no necessity of advancing one
absurdity to avoid another: therefore, let it be here considered, that
the scripture speaks expressly of God’s being reconciled by the death of
Christ; and accordingly he is said to have _brought_ him _again from the
dead_, as a _God of peace_, Heb. xiii. 20. And elsewhere, he speaks of
_God’s having reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ_, 2 Cor. v. 18.
and not becoming reconcilable to us. Again, _When we were enemies we
were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being
reconciled, we shall be saved_, Rom. v. 10. that is, shall obtain the
saving effects of this reconciliation _by his life_. And again, _Having
made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all
things to himself: and you that were sometimes alienated, and enemies in
your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled, in the body of
his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable, and
unreprovable in his sight_, Col. i. 21, 22. Where he describes those who
were reconciled as once enemies, and speaks of this privilege as being
procured by the death of Christ, and of holiness here, and salvation
hereafter, as the consequence of it; therefore it is such a
reconciliation as is contained in our justification.
But though this appears very agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost, in
scripture, yet it must be understood in consistency with those other
scriptures, that represent persons in an unconverted state, as _children
of wrath_, Eph. ii. 3. and being _hateful_, Tit. iii. 3. that is, not
only deserving to be hated by God, but actually hated, as appears by the
many threatnings that are denounced against them, and their being in a
condemned state, that we may not give countenance to the doctrine of
some, who, not distinguishing between God’s secret and revealed will,
maintain that we are not only virtually, but actually justified before
we believe; as though we had a right to claim Christ’s righteousness
before we have any ground to conclude, that it was wrought out for us:
but what has been already suggested concerning justification by faith,
will, I think, sufficiently remove this difficulty.
The only thing that remains to be explained is; how God may be said to
be reconciled by the blood of Christ, to a person who is in an
unconverted state, and as such, represented as a child of wrath? for the
understanding of which, let us consider, that so long as a person is an
unbeliever, he has no ground to conclude, according to the tenor of
God’s revealed will, that he is reconciled to him, or that he is any
other than a child of wrath. Nevertheless, when we speak of God’s being
reconciled to his elect, according to the tenor of his secret will,
before they believe, that is in effect to say, that justification, as it
is an immanent act in God, is antecedent to faith, which is a certain
truth, inasmuch as faith is a fruit and consequence thereof: whereas,
God does not declare that he is reconciled to us, or give us ground to
conclude it; whereby we appear no longer to be children of wrath, till
we believe. If this be duly considered, we have no reason to assert,
that God is reconcileable, rather than reconciled by the death of
Christ, lest we should be thought to maintain the doctrine of
justification, or deliverance from wrath, as a declared act, before we
believe. And to this we may add, that God was reconcileable to his
elect, that is, willing to be reconciled to them before Christ died for
them; otherwise he would never have sent him into the world to make
reconciliation for the sins of his people: he was reconcileable, and
therefore designed to turn from the fierceness of his wrath; and in
order thereunto, he appointed Christ to make satisfaction for sin, and
procure peace for them.
[3.] There is not the least inconsistency between those scriptures
which speak of justification as being an act of God’s free grace, and
others, which speak of it as being, by faith, founded on Christ’s
righteousness; or between God’s pardoning sin freely, without regard
to any thing done by us to procure it; and yet insisting on, and
receiving a full satisfaction, as the meritorious and procuring cause
of it. This is sometimes objected against what we have advanced in
explaining the doctrine of justification, as being, in some respects,
an act of justice, and in others, of grace; as though it were
inconsistent with itself, and our method of explaining it were liable
to an absurdity, which is contrary to reason; as though two
contradictory propositions could be both true; namely, that
justification should be an act of the strictest justice, without any
abatement of the debt demanded, and yet of free grace, without
insisting on the payment of the debt: but this seeming contradiction
may be easily reconciled, if we consider that the debt was not paid by
us in our own persons; which had it been done, it would have been
inconsistent with forgiveness’s being an act of grace; but by our
surety, and in that respect there was no abatement of the debt, nor
did he receive a discharge by an act of grace, but was justified as
our head or surety, by his own righteousness, or works performed by
him; whereas, we are justified by his suretyship-righteousness,
without works performed by us; and this surety was provided for us; as
has been before observed; and therefore, when we speak of
justification, as being an act of grace, we distinguish between the
justification of our surety, after he had given full satisfaction for
the debt which we had contracted; and this payment’s being placed to
our account by God’s gracious imputation thereof to us, and our
obtaining forgiveness as the result thereof, which can be no other
than an act of the highest grace.
[4.] From what has been said concerning justification by faith, we
infer, the method, order and time, in which God justifies his people.
There are some who not only speak of justification before faith, but
from eternity; and consider it as an immanent act in God in the same
sense as election is said to be. I will not deny eternal justification,
provided it be considered as contained in God’s secret will, and not
made the rule by which we are to determine ourselves to be in a
justified state, and as such to have a right and title to eternal life,
before it is revealed or apprehended by faith: if we take it in this
sense, it is beyond dispute, that justification is not by faith; but
inasmuch as the most known, yea, the only sense in which justification
is spoken of, as applied to particular persons, is, that it is by faith:
therefore, we must suppose,
_1st_, That it is a declared act. That which is hid in God, and not
declared, cannot be said to be applied; and that which is not applied,
cannot be the rule by which particular persons may judge of their state.
Thus, if we speak of eternal election, and say, That God has
peremptorily determined the state of those that shall be saved, that
they shall not perish; this is nothing to particular persons, unless
they have ground to conclude themselves elected. So if we say that God
has, from all eternity, given his elect into Christ’s hands; that he has
undertaken before the foundation of the world, to redeem them; and that,
pursuant hereunto, God promised that he would give eternal life unto
them; or, if we consider Christ as having fulfilled what he undertook
from all eternity, finished transgression, brought in everlasting
righteousness, and fully paid the debt which he undertook; consider him
as being discharged, and receiving an acquittance, when raised from the
dead; and all this as done in the name of the elect, as their head and
representative; and if you farther consider them, as it is often
expressed, as virtually justified in him; all this is nothing to them,
with respect to their peace and comfort; they have no more a right to
claim an interest in this privilege or relation, than if he had not paid
a price for them. Therefore, we suppose that justification, as it is the
foundation of our claim to eternal life, is a declared act.
_2d._ If justification be a declared act, there must be some method
which God uses, whereby he declares, or makes it known. Now it is
certain, that he, no where in scripture, tells an unbeliever that he has
an interest in Christ’s righteousness, or that his sins are pardoned, or
gives him any warrant to take comfort from any such conclusion; but, on
the other hand, such an one has no ground to conclude any other,
concerning himself, but that he is a child of wrath; for he is to judge
of things according to the tenor of God’s revealed will. Christ’s
righteousness is nothing to him in point of application; he is guilty of
bold presumption if he lays claim to it, or takes comfort from it, as
much as he would be were he to say, some are elected, therefore I am.
Nevertheless,
_3d_, When a person believes, he has a right to conclude, that he is
justified, or to claim all the privileges that result from it; and this
is what we call justification by faith, which therefore cannot be before
faith; for that which gives a person a right to claim a privilege, must
be antecedent to this claim; or, that which is the foundation of a
person’s concluding himself to be justified, must be antecedent to his
making this conclusion; and in this respect, all who duly consider what
they affirm, must conclude that justification is not before faith.
[5.] From what has been said concerning the office or use of faith in
justification, as it is an instrument that applies Christ’s
righteousness to ourselves, we infer; that it is more than an evidence
of our justification: we do not indeed deny it to be an evidence that we
were virtually justified in Christ as our head and representative, when
he was raised from the dead, in the same sense as it is an evidence of
our eternal election: but this is equally applicable to all other
graces, and therefore cannot be a true description of justifying faith.
If we are justified by faith, only as it is an evidence of our right to
Christ’s righteousness, we are as much justified by love, patience, and
submission to the divine will, or any other grace that accompanies
salvation; but they who speak of faith as only an evidence, will not say
that we are justified by all other graces, in the same sense as we are
justified by faith; and indeed, the scripture gives us no warrant so to
do.
[6.] From what has been said concerning faith as giving us a right to
claim Christ’s righteousness, we infer; that a person is justified
before he has what we call, the faith of assurance; of which more
hereafter: therefore we consider the grace of faith, as justifying or
giving us a right to claim Christ’s righteousness, whether we have an
actual claim or no. This must be allowed, otherwise the loss of this
assurance would infer the suspension or loss of our justification, and
consequently would render our state as uncertain as our frames, or our
peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, as liable to be lost as
that peace and joy which we sometimes have in believing, and at other
times are destitute of.
[7.] From what has been said concerning justifying faith’s being
accompanied with all other graces, we infer; that that faith which is
justifying, is also a saving grace, or a grace which accompanies
salvation; but yet there is this difference between saving faith, as we
generally call it, and justifying, in that the former respects Christ in
all his offices, the latter considers him only in his Priestly office,
or as set forth to be a propitiation for sin. And this leads us to
consider the grace of faith in its larger extent, both with respect to
its acts and objects, as contained in the former of the answers we are
explaining: and therefore,
We are now to consider the nature of faith in general, or of that faith,
which, as before explained, we call justifying. There are some things in
this grace which are common to it with other graces; particularly, it is
styled a saving grace, not as being the cause of our salvation, but as
it accompanies, or is connected with it. Again, it is said to be wrought
in the heart of a sinner, to distinguish it from other habits of a lower
nature, which are acquired by us; and it is said to be wrought by the
Spirit and Word of God; by his Spirit, as the principal efficient, who,
in order thereunto, exerts his divine power; and by the word, as the
instrument which he makes use of. The Word presents to us the object of
faith; and it is God’s ordinance, in attending to which, he works and
excites it.
Moreover, there are several things supposed or contained in this grace
of faith, which are common to it, with other graces. As when a believer
is said to be first convinced of sin and misery, and of his being unable
to recover himself out of the lost condition in which he is, by nature;
and the impossibility of his being recovered out of it by any other
creature; in all these respects, faith contains in it several things in
common with other graces; particularly with conversion, effectual
calling, and repentance unto life. These things, therefore, we shall
pass over as being considered elsewhere, and confine ourselves to what
is peculiar to this grace mentioned in this answer; only some few things
may be observed concerning it, as it is styled a saving grace, and
wrought in the heart of man, by the Spirit and Word of God; and we shall
add some other things, of which we have no particular account in this
answer; which may contain a more full explication of this grace: in
speaking to which, we shall observe the following method;
I. We shall consider the meaning of the word _faith_, in the more
general idea of it.
II. We shall speak particularly concerning the various kinds of _faith_.
And,
III. The various objects and acts of saving faith; especially as it
assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, and receives, and
rests upon, Christ and his righteousness, held forth therein.
IV. We shall consider it as a grace that accompanies salvation, and
wrought in the heart by the power of the Spirit, and instrumentality of
the word.
V. We shall consider it as strong or weak, increasing or declining, with
the various marks and evidences thereof.
VI. We shall speak of the use of faith in the whole conduct of our
lives; as every thing we do in an acceptable manner, is said to be done
by it.
VII. We shall shew how it is to be attained or increased, and what are
the means conducive thereunto.
I. Concerning the meaning of the word _faith_, in the more general idea
thereof. It is either an assent to a truth, founded on sufficient
evidence; or a confiding or relying on the word or power of one, who is
able and willing to afford us sufficient help or relief.[59]
1. As to the former of these, as it contains an assent to a truth
proposed and supported by sufficient evidence. This is more especially
an act of the understanding; and it is necessary, in order hereunto,
that something be discovered to us, as the matter of our belief, which
demands or calls for our assent; and that is considered either only as
true, or else, as true and good: if it be considered only as true, the
faith, or assent that is required thereunto is speculative; but if we
consider it not only as true, but good, or, as containing something
redounding to our advantage; then the faith resulting from it is
practical, and seated partly in the understanding, and partly in the
will; or, at least, the will is influenced and inclined to embrace what
the understanding not only assents to as true, but proposes to us as
that which if enjoyed would tend very much to our advantage.
As to this general description of faith, as an assent to what is
reported, founded upon sufficient evidence, we may farther consider;[60]
that it is not in our power to believe a thing, unless the judgment be
convinced, and we have ground to conclude it to be true, and accordingly
there must be something which has a tendency to give this conviction;
and that it is what we call evidence: every thing that is reported is
not to be credited; since it has very often no appearance of truth in
it: and it is reasonable for the understanding, to demand a proof before
it yields an assent; and if it be a matter of report, then we are to
consider the nature of the evidence, whether it be sufficient, or
insufficient to persuade us to believe what is reported; and according
to the strength or credibility thereof, we believe, hesitate about it,
or utterly reject it. If, according to our present view of things, it
may be true or false, we hardly call it the object of faith; we can only
say concerning it, that it is probable; if it be, on the other hand,
attested by such evidence, as cannot, without scepticism be denied;
hence arises what we call certainty, or an assurance of faith, supported
by the strongest evidence.
Moreover, according to the nature of the evidence, or testimony, on
which it is founded, it is distinguished into human and divine; both of
these are contained in the apostle’s words, _If we receive the witness
of men, the witness of God is greater_, 1 John v. 9. As for human
testimony, though it may not be termed false, yet it can hardly be
deemed any other than fallible, since it cannot be said concerning
sinful man, that it is impossible for him to lie or deceive, or be
deceived himself; but when we believe a thing on the divine testimony,
our faith is infallible: it is as impossible for us to be deceived as it
is for God to impart that to us, which is contrary to his infinite
holiness and veracity. It is in this latter sense that we consider the
word _faith_, when we speak of it as an act of religious worship, or
included or supposed in our idea of saving faith; and so we style it a
firm assent to every thing that God has revealed as founded on the
divine veracity.
Let us now consider faith as it contains an assent to a thing, not only
as true, but as good; upon which account we call it a practical assent,
first seated in the understanding; and then the will embraces what the
understanding discovers to be conducive to our happiness; we first
believe the truth of it, and then regulate our conduct agreeably
thereunto. As when a criminal hears a report of an act of grace being
issued forth by the king, he does not rest in a bare assent to the truth
thereof, but puts in his claim to it. Or, as when a merchant is credibly
informed, that there are great advantages to be obtained by trading into
foreign countries; he receives the report with a design to use all
proper methods to partake of the advantage; as our Saviour illustrates
it, when he compares _the kingdom of heaven unto a merchant man seeking
goodly pearls; who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and
sold all that he had, and bought_, Matt. xiii. 45. We have sufficient
evidence to support our faith, that there is forgiveness of sin, through
the blood of Christ; and that all spiritual blessings are treasured up
in him, for the heirs of salvation: in this respect faith does not
contain a bare speculative assent to the truth of this proposition; but
it excites in us an endeavour to obtain these blessings in that way
which is prescribed by him, who is the giver thereof.
2. Faith may be farther considered, as denoting an act of trust or
dependence on him, who is the object thereof. This is very distinct from
the former sense of the word: for though it supposes indeed an assent of
the understanding to some truth proposed; yet this truth is of such a
nature, as that it produces in us a resting or reliance on one who is
able, and has expressed a willingness to do us good; and whose promise
relating hereunto, is such, as we have ground to depend on. This
supposes in him, who is the subject thereof, a sense of his own weakness
or indigence, and in him that is the object of it, a fitness to be the
object of trust, for his attaining relief: thus the sick man depends
upon the skill and faithfulness of the physician, and determines to look
no farther for help, but relies on his prescriptions, and uses the means
that he appoints for the restoring of his health; or, as when a person
is assaulted by one who threatens to ruin him, and is able to do it, as
being an over-match for him, he has recourse to, and depends on the
assistance of one that is able to secure and defend him, and thereby
prevent the danger that he feared. Thus Jehoshaphat, when his country
was invaded by a great multitude of foreign troops, being apprehensive
that he was not able to withstand them; he exercises this faith of
reliance on the divine power, when he says, _We have no might against
this great company, that come against us; neither know we what to do,
but our eyes are upon thee_, 2 Chron. xx. 12. And God is very often, in
scripture, represented as the object of trust: so the church says, _I
will trust, and not be afraid; for the Lord Jehovah is my strength_; and
elsewhere, _he that walketh in darkness and hath no light_, Isa. xii. 2.
that is, knows not which way to turn, is helpless and destitute of all
comfort, is encouraged to _trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon
his God_, chap. l. 10. This is truly and properly a divine faith, and
accordingly an act of religious worship; and is opposed to a _trusting
in man, and making flesh his arm_, Jer. xvii. 5. and it supposes a firm
persuasion, that God is able to do all that for us which we stand in
need of; and that he has promised that he will do us good, and that he
will never fail nor forsake them that repose their trust or confidence
in him: with this view the soul relies on his perfections, seeks to him
for comfort, and lays the whole stress of his hope of salvation on him,
not doubting concerning the event hereof, but concluding himself safe,
if he can say, that _the eternal God is his refuge, and underneath are
the everlasting arms_, Deut. xxxiii. 27. This leads us,
II. To consider the various kinds of faith, as mentioned in scripture.
Thus we read of a faith that was adapted to that extraordinary
dispensation of providence, in which God was pleased to confirm some
great and important truths by miracles; which is therefore styled a
faith of miracles. There is also a faith that has no reference to a
supernatural event, or confined to any particular age or state of the
church, in which miracles are expected, but is founded on the
gospel-revelation, which, how much soever it may resemble saving faith,
yet falls short of it; and there is a faith which is inseparably
connected with salvation.
1. Concerning the faith of miracles. This is what our Saviour intends,
when he tells his disciples, That _if they had faith as a grain of
mustard-seed, they should say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder
place, and it should remove; and nothing should be impossible unto
them_, Matt. xvii. 20. This is such a faith that many had, who were not
in a state of salvation; as is plain from what our Saviour says, that
_many will say to him in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name have
done many wonderful works? to whom he will profess I never knew you_;
and his commanding them to _depart from him_ as having _wrought
iniquity_, chap. vii. 22, 23. And the apostle Paul supposes, that a
person might have _all faith_, that is, this kind of faith; _so that he
might remove mountains_, 1 Cor. xiii. 2. which is a proverbial
expression, denoting, that extraordinary and miraculous events might
attend it; and yet, at the same time, be destitute of _charity_, or love
to God, and consequently without saving grace; and so appear, in the
end, to _be nothing_.
Some have questioned whether this faith of miracles was peculiar to the
gospel-dispensation, in the time of our Saviour and the apostles, and so
was not required in those who wrought miracles under the Old Testament
dispensation; though others suppose, that, from the nature of the thing,
it was always necessary that faith should be exercised, when a miracle
was wrought; though it is true, we have little or no account of this
faith, as exercised by those that wrought miracles before our Saviour’s
time; and therefore, we cannot so peremptorily determine this matter;
but according to the account we have thereof in the New Testament, there
were several things necessary to, or included in this faith of miracles.
(1.) Some important article of revealed religion must be proposed to be
believed; and in order thereunto, an explicit appeal made to God, in
expectation of his immediate interposure in working a miracle for that
end: every thing that was the object of faith, was not, indeed, to be
proved true by a miracle, but only those things which could not be
sufficiently evinced without it, so as to beget a divine faith in those
who were the subjects of conviction. We never read that miracles were
wrought to convince the world that there was a God, or a providence; or,
to persuade men concerning the truth of those things that might be
sufficiently proved by rational arguments: but when there could not be
such a proof given without the finger of God being rendered visible by a
miracle wrought, then they depended on such an instance of divine
condescension; and the people who were to receive conviction, were to
expect such an extraordinary event.
(2.) It was necessary that there should be a firm persuasion of the
truth of the doctrine, to be confirmed by a miracle in him that wrought
it, together with an explicit appeal to it for the conviction of those
whose faith was to be confirmed thereby: and sometimes we read, that
when miracles were to be wrought in favour of them, who before had a
sufficient proof that our Saviour was the Messiah, it was necessary that
they should have a strong persuasion concerning this matter, and that he
was able to work a miracle; otherwise they had no ground to expect that
the miracle should be wrought: in the former instance we read of
Christ’s disciples working miracles for the conviction of the Jews, and
exercising, at the same time, this faith of miracles; and in the latter
a general faith was demanded, that our Saviour was the Messiah, before
the miracle was wrought; in which sense we are to understand his reply
to the man who desired that he would cast the Devil out of his son; _If
thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth_, Mark
ix. 23. _q. d._ Thou hast had sufficient conviction that I am the
Messiah, by other miracles, and consequently hast no reason to doubt but
that I can cast the Devil out of thy son; therefore, if thou hast a
strong persuasion of the truth hereof, the thing that thou desirest
shall be granted: and elsewhere it is said, _He did not many mighty
works because of their unbelief_, Matt. xiii. 58.
(3.) How much soever a person might exercise this strong persuasion,
that a miracle should be wrought, which we generally call a faith of
miracles; yet I cannot think that this event always ensued without
exception. For sometimes God might refuse to work a miracle, that he
might hereby cast contempt on some vile persons, who pretended to this
faith of miracles; who, though they professed their faith in Christ as
the Messiah, yet their conversation contradicted their profession, and
therefore God would not put that honour upon them so as to work a
miracle at their desire; much less are we to suppose, that he would work
a miracle at any one’s pleasure, if they were persuaded that he would do
so. Again, sometimes God might refuse to exert his divine power, in
working a miracle, in judgment, when persons had had sufficient means
for their conviction by other miracles, but believed not. And finally,
when the truth of the Christian religion had been sufficiently confirmed
by miracles, they were less common; and then we read nothing more of
that faith which took its denomination from thence.
2. There is another kind of faith, which has some things in common with
saving faith, and is sometimes mistaken for it, but is vastly different
from it. This, in some, is called an historical faith; and in others, by
reason of the short continuance thereof, a temporary faith. An
historical faith is that whereby persons are convinced of the truth of
what is revealed in the gospel, though this has very little influence on
their conversation: such have right notions of divine things, but do not
entertain a suitable regard to them; religion with them is little more
than a matter of speculation; they do not doubt concerning any of the
important doctrines of the gospel, but are able and ready to defend them
by proper arguments: nevertheless, though, in words, they profess their
faith in Christ, in works they deny him: such as these the apostle
intends when he says; _Thou believest that there is one God, thou dost
well: the devils also believe and tremble_, James ii. 19. And he charges
them with a vain presumption, in that they expected to be justified
hereby; whereas their faith was without works, or those fruits which
were necessary to justify, or evince its sincerity; or to prove that it
was such a grace as accompanies salvation; and therefore he gives it no
better a character than that of a dead faith.
As for that which is called a temporary faith, this differs little from
the former, unless we consider it, as having a tendency, in some
measure, to excite the affections; and so far to regulate the
conversation, as that which is attended with a form of godliness, which
continues as long as this comports with, or is subservient to their
secular interest: but it is not such a faith as will enable them to pass
through fiery trials, or part with all things for Christ’s sake, or to
rejoice in him, as their portion, when they meet with little but
tribulation and persecution, in the world, for the sake of the gospel.
This will evidently discover the insincerity thereof; for it will wither
like a plant that is without a root: our Saviour speaks of it in the
parable, of the _seed that fell upon stony places, where they had not
much earth, and forthwith they sprang up, because they had no deepness
of earth; and when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they
had no root they withered away_; which he explains of him, _who heareth
the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; yet hath he not root in
himself, but endureth for a while; for when tribulation or persecution
ariseth, because of thy word, by and by he is offended_, Matt. xiii. 5,
6. compared with ver. 20, 21. This parable had a particular relation to
the Jews, who heard John the Baptist gladly, rejoicing in his light for
a season; and seemed to be convinced, by his doctrine, concerning the
Messiah, who was shortly to appear; but when they apprehended that his
kingdom, instead of advancing them to great honours in the world, was
like to expose them to tribulations and persecutions they were offended
in him; and this is also applicable to all those who think themselves
something, and are thought so by others, as to the profession they make
of Christ and his gospel; but afterwards appear to be nothing, deceiving
their own souls. This leads us,
3. To consider faith as a grace that is inseparably connected with
salvation, which is called justifying faith, and also a saving grace, in
this answer, in which the nature thereof is explained; and what may be
farther said concerning it will be considered under the following heads,
which we proposed to insist on in the general method before laid down;
and therefore we shall proceed,