curse of the law, both as it respecteth justification itself, as also
the instrument or means that receiveth that righteousness which
justifieth.
1. As for that righteousness that justifieth, it is not personal
performances in us; for the person here justified stands, in that
respect, as one that worketh not, as one that is ungodly. 2. As it
respecteth the instrument that receiveth it, that faith, as in the
point of justifying righteousness, will not work, but believe, but
receive the works and righteousness of another; for works and faith in
this are set in opposition. He doth not work, he doth believe’ (Gal
3:12). He worketh not, but believeth on him who justifieth us, ungodly.
As Paul also saith in another place, The law is not of faith (Rom
10:5,6). And again, Works saith on this wise; faith, far different. The
law saith, Do this, and live. But the doctrine of faith saith, ‘If thou
shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine
heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For
with the heart man believeth unto righteousness,’ &c. (Rom 10:9,10).
Object. But faith is counted for righteousness.
Answ. True, but yet consider, that by faith we do oft understand the
doctrine of remission of sins, as well as the act of believing.
But again; faith when it hath received the Lord Jesus, it hath done
that which pleaseth God; therefore, the very act of believing is the
most noble in the world; believing sets the crown upon the head of
grace; it seals to the truth of the sufficiency of the righteousness of
Christ, and giveth all the glory to God (John 3:33). And therefore it
is a righteous act; but Christ himself, he is the Righteousness that
justifieth’ (Rom 4:20,25). Besides, faith is a relative, and hath its
relation as such. Its relation is the righteousness that justifieth,
which is therefore called the righteousness of faith, or that with
which faith hath to do (Rom 10:6). Separate these two, and
justification cannot be, because faith now wants his righteousness. And
hence it is you have so often such sayings as these—‘He that believeth
in me; he that believeth on him; believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and
thou shalt be saved’ (John 6:35,40). Faith, then, as separate from
Christ, doth nothing; nothing, neither with God nor man; because it
wants its relative; but let it go to the Lord Jesus—let it behold him
as dying, &c., and it fetches righteousness, and life, and peace out of
the virtue of his blood, &c. (Acts 10:29,31,33). Or rather, sees it
there as sufficient for me to stand just thereby in the sight of
Eternal Justice For him ‘God hath set forth to be a propitiation
through faith [belief] in his blood,’ with intent to justify him that
believeth in Jesus (Rom 3:25,26).
Twelfth. ‘Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man to
whom God imputeth righteousness without works’ (Rom 4:6).
Did our adversaries understand this one text, they would not so boldly
affirm, as they do, that the words, ‘impute, imputed, imputeth,
imputing,’ &c., are not used in scripture but to express men really and
personally to be that which is imputed unto them; for men are not
really and personally faith, yet faith is imputed to men; nay, they are
not really and personally sin, nor really and personally righteousness,
yet these are imputed to men: so, then, both good things and bad may
sometimes be imputed to men, yet themselves be really and personally
neither. But to come to the point: what righteousness hath that man
that hath no works? Doubtless none of his own; yet God imputeth
righteousness to him. Yea, what works of that man doth God impute to
him that he yet justifies as ungodly?
Further, He that hath works as to justification from the curse before
God, not one of them is regarded of God; so, then, it mattereth not
whether thou hast righteousness of thine own, or none. ‘Blessed is the
man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works.’ Man’s
blessedness, then, the blessedness of justification from the curse in
the sight of God, lieth not in good works done by us, either before or
after faith received, but in a righteousness which God imputeth without
works; as we ‘work not’ as we ‘are ungodly.’ ‘Blessed are they whose
iniquities are forgiven, and whose sin is covered’ (v 7). To forgive
and to cover are acts of mercy, not the cause of our merit. Besides,
where sin is real, there can be no perfect righteousness; but the way
of justification must be through perfect righteousness, therefore by
another than our own, ‘Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not
impute sin’ (v 8). The first cause, then, of justification before God,
dependeth upon the will of God, who will justify because he will;
therefore the meritorious cause must also be of his own providing, else
his will cannot herein be absolute; for if justification depend upon
our personal performances, then not upon the will of God. He may not
have mercy upon whom he will, but on whom man’s righteousness will give
him leave. But his will, not ours, must rule here; therefore his
righteousness, and his only (Rom 9:15,18). So, then, ‘men are justified
from the curse, in the sight of God, while sinners in themselves.’
Having passed over these few scriptures, I shall come to particular
instances of persons who have been justified; and shall briefly touch
their qualifications in the act of God’s justifying them. First, By the
Old Testament types. Second, By the New.
[First Position illustrated by Scripture types.]
First. By the Old [Testament types]. First. ‘Unto Adam also and to his
wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them’ (Gen
3:21).
In the beginning of this chapter you find these two persons reasoning
with the serpent, the effect of which discourse was, they take of the
forbidden fruit, and so break the command of God (vv 7-15). This done,
they hide themselves, and cover their nakedness with aprons. But God
finds out their sin, from the highest branch even to the roots thereof.
What followeth? Not one precept by which they should by works obtain
the favour of God, but the promise of a Saviour; of which promise this
twenty-first verse is a mystical interpretation: ‘The Lord God made
them coats of skins, and clothed them.’
Hence observe—1. That these coats were made, not before, but after they
had made themselves aprons; a plain proof their aprons were not
sufficient to hide their shame from the sight of God. 2. These coats
were made, not of Adam’s inherent righteousness, for that was lost
before by sin, but of the skins of the slain, types of the death of
Christ, and of the righteousness brought in thereby—‘By whose stripes
we are healed’ (Isa 53).[14] 3. This is further manifest; for the
coats, God made them; and for the persons, God clothed them therewith;
to show that as the righteousness by which we must stand just before
God from the curse is a righteousness of Christ’s performing, not of
theirs; so he, not they, must put it on them also, for of God we are in
Christ, and of God his righteousness is made ours (1 Cor 1:30).
But, I say, if you would see their antecedent qualifications, you find
them under two heads—rebellion [and] hypocrisy. Rebellion, in breaking
God’s command; hypocrisy, in seeking how to hide their faults from God.
Expound this by gospel language, and then it shows ‘that men are
justified from the curse, in the sight of God, while sinners in
themselves.’
Second. ‘The Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering’ (Gen 4:4).
By these words we find the person first accepted: ‘The Lord had respect
unto Abel.’ And indeed, where the person is not first accepted, the
offering will not be pleasing; the altar sanctifies the gift, and the
temple sanctifieth the gold; so the person, the condition of the
person, is that which makes the offering either pleasing or despising
(Matt 23:16-21). In the epistle to the Hebrews it is said, ‘By faith
Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he
obtained witness that he was righteous’ (Heb 11:4). Righteous before he
offered his gift, as his sacrifice testified; for God accepted of it.
‘By faith he offered.’ Wherefore faith was precedent, or before he
offered. Now faith hath to do with God through Christ; not with him
through our works of righteousness. Besides, Abel was righteous before
he offered, before he did do good, otherwise God would not have
testified of his gift. ‘By faith he obtained witness that he was
righteous,’ for God approved of his gifts. Now faith, I say, as to our
standing quit before the Father, respects the promise of forgiveness of
sins through the undertaking of the Lord Jesus. Wherefore Abel’s faith
as to justifying righteousness before God looked not forward to what
should be done by himself, but back to the promise of the seed of the
woman, that was to destroy the power of hell, and ‘to redeem them that
were under the law’ (Gen 3:15; Gal 4:4,5). By this faith he shrouds
himself under the promise of victory, and the merits of the Lord Jesus.
Now being there, God finds him righteous; and being righteous, ‘he
offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than his brother’; for Cain’s
person was not first accepted through the righteousness of faith going
before, although he seemed foremost as to personal acts of
righteousness (Gen 4). Abel therefore was righteous before he did good
works; but that could not be but alone through that respect God had to
him for the sake of the Messias promised before (3:15). But the Lord’s
so respecting Abel presupposeth that at that time he stood in himself
by the law a sinner, otherwise he needed not to be respected for and
upon the account of another. Yea, Abel also, forasmuch as he acted
faith before he offered sacrifice, must thereby entirely respect the
promise, which promise was not grounded upon a condition of works to be
found in Abel, but in and for the sake of the seed of the woman, which
is Christ; which promise he believed, and so took it for granted that
this Christ should break the serpent’s head—that is, destroy by himself
the works of the devil; to wit, sin, death, the curse, and hell (Gal
4:4). By this faith he stood before God righteous, because he had put
on Christ; and being thus, he offered; by which act of faith God
declared he was pleased with him, because he accepted of his sacrifice.
Third. ‘And the Lord said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger’
(Gen 25:23).
These words, after Paul’s exposition, are to be understood of
justification in the sight of God, according to the purpose and decree
of electing love, which had so determined long before, that one of
these children should be received to eternal grace; but mark, not by
works of righteousness which they should do, but ‘before they had done
either good or evil’; otherwise ‘the purpose of God according to
election,’ not of works, but of him that calleth, ‘could not stand,’
but fall in pieces (Rom 9:10-12). But none are received into eternal
mercy but such as are just before the Lord by a righteousness that is
complete; and Jacob having done no good, could by no means have that of
his own, and therefore it must be by some other righteousness, ‘and so
himself be justified from the curse, in the sight of God, while a
sinner in himself.’
Fourth. The same may be said concerning Solomon, whom the Lord loved
with special love, as soon as born into the world; which he also
confirmed with signal characters. ‘He sent,’ saith the Holy Ghost, ‘by
the hand of Nathan the prophet, and he called his name Jedidiah,
because the Lord loved him (2 Sam 12:24,25).[15] Was this love of God
extended to him because of his personal virtues? No, verily; for he was
yet an infant.[16] He was justified then in the sight of God from the
curse by another than his own righteousness.
Fifth. ‘And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own
blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said
unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live’ (Eze 16:6).
The state of this people you have in the former verses described, both
as to their rise and practice in the world (vv 1-5). 1. As to their
rise. Their original was the same with Canaan, the men of God’s curse
(Gen 9:25). ‘Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan’; the
same with other carnal men (Rom 3:9). ‘Thy father was an Amorite, and
thy mother an Hittite’ (Eze 16:3). Their condition, that is showed us
by this emblem—(1.) They had not been washed in water. (2.) They had
not been swaddled. (3.) They had not been salted. (4.) They brought
filth with them into the world. (5.) They lay stinking in their cradle.
(6.) They were without strength to help themselves. Thus they appear
and come by generation. 2. Again, as to their practice—(1.) They
polluted themselves in their own blood. (2.) They so continued till God
passed by—‘And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine
own blood’;—‘in thy blood, in thy blood’; it is doubled. Thus we see
they were polluted born, they continued in their blood till the day
that the Lord looked upon them; polluted, I say, to the loathing of
their persons, &c. Now this was the time of love—‘And when I passed by
thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when
thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in
thy blood, Live’ (Eze 16:6).
Quest. But how could a holy God say, ‘Live,’ to such a sinful people?
Answ. Though they had nought but sin, yet he had love and
righteousness. He had love to pity them; righteousness to cover
them—‘Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time
was the time of love’ (Eze 16:8). What follows? (1) ‘I spread my skirt
over thee’; and (2) ‘Covered thy nakedness’; yea, (3) ‘I sware unto
thee’; and (4) ‘Entered into covenant with thee’; and (5) ‘Thou
becamest mine.’ My love pitied thee; my skirt covered thee. Thus God
delivered them from the curse in his sight. ‘Then I washed thee with
water, after thou wast justified; yea, I thoroughly washed away thy
blood from thee, and anointed thee with oil’ (v 9).
Sanctification, then, is consequential, justification goes before. The
Holy Ghost by this scripture setteth forth to the life, free grace to
the sons of men, while they themselves are sinners. I say, while they
are unwashed, unswaddled, unsalted, but bloody sinners; for by these
words, ‘not washed, not salted, not swaddled,’ he setteth forth their
unsanctified state; yea, they were not only unsanctified, but also cast
out, without pity, to the loathing of their persons; yea, ‘no eye
pitied them, to do any of these things for them’; no eye but his, whose
glorious grace is unsearchable; no eye but his, who could look and
love; all others looked and loathed; but blessed be God that hath
passed by us in that day that we wallowed in our own blood; and blessed
be God for the skirt of his glorious righteousness wherewith he covered
us when we lay before him naked in blood. It was when we were in our
blood that he loved us; when we were in our blood he said, Live.
Therefore, ‘men are justified from the curse, in the sight of God,
while sinners in themselves.’
Sixth. ‘Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before
the angel’ (Zech 3:3).
The standing of Joshua here is as men used to stand that were arraigned
before a judge. ‘Joshua stood before the angel of the Lord, and Satan
standing at his right hand to resist him’ (v 1). The same posture as
Judas stood in when he was to be condemned. ‘Set thou,’ said David, ‘a
wicked man over him; and let Satan stand at his right hand’ (Psa
109:6). Thus, therefore, Joshua stood. Now Joshua was clothed, not with
righteousness, but with filthy rags! Sin upon him, and Satan by him,
and this before the angel! What must he do now? Go away? No; there he
must stand! Can he speak for himself? Not a word; guilt had made him
dumb! (Isa 53:12). Had he no place clean? No; he was clothed with
filthy garments! But his lot was to stand before Jesus Christ, that
maketh intercession for transgressors. ‘And the Lord said unto Satan,
The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen
Jerusalem, rebuke thee’ (Zech 3:2). Thus Christ saveth from present
condemnation those that be still in their sin and blood.[17]
But is he now quit? No; he standeth yet in filthy garments; neither can
he, by aught that is in him, or done by him, clear himself from him.
How then? Why, the Lord clothes him with change of raiment. The
iniquities were his own, the raiment was the Lord’s. ‘This is the
heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me,
saith the Lord’ (Isa 54:17). We will not here discourse of Joshua’s
sin, what it was, or when committed; it is enough to our purpose that
he was clothed with filthy garments; and that the Lord made a change
with him, by causing his iniquity to pass from him, and by clothing him
with change of raiment. But what had Joshua antecedent to this glorious
and heavenly clothing? The devil at his right hand to resist him, and
himself in filthy garments. ‘Now Joshua was clothed with filthy
garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto
those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from
him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass
from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment’ (Zech 3:
3,4).
Second. But to pass [from] the Old Testament types, and to come to the
New.
First. ‘And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed
with the devil prayed him that he might be with him. Howbeit Jesus
suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell
them how great things God hath done for thee, and hath had compassion
on thee’ (Mark 5:18,19).
The present state of this man is sufficiently declared in these
particulars—1. He was possessed with a devil; with devils, with many;
with a whole legion, which some say is six thousand, or thereabouts
(Matt 8). 2. These devils had so the mastery of him as to drive him
from place to place into the wilderness among the mountains, and so to
dwell in the tombs among the dead (Luke 8). 3. He was out of his wits;
he would cut his flesh, break his chains; nay, ‘no man could tame him’
(Mark 5:4-5). 4. When he saw Jesus, the devil in him, as being lord and
governor there, cried out against the Lord Jesus (v 7). In all this,
what qualification shows itself as precedent to justification? None but
such as devils work, or as rank bedlams have. Yet this poor man was
dispossessed, taken into God’s compassion, and was bid to show it to
the world. ‘Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the
Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee’ (v 19); which
last words, because they are added over and above his being
dispossessed of the devils, I understand to be the fruit of electing
love. ‘I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion,’ which
blesseth us with the mercy of a justifying righteousness; and all this,
as by this is manifest, without the least precedent qualification of
ours.
Second. ‘And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them
both’ (Luke 7:42).
The occasion of these words was, for that the Pharisee murmured against
the woman that washed Jesus’ feet, because ‘she was a sinner’; for so
said the Pharisee, and so saith the Holy Ghost (v 37). But, saith
Christ, Simon, I will ask thee a question, ‘A certain man had two
debtors: the one owed him five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And
when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both’ (v 38).
Hence I gather these conclusions—1. That men that are wedded to their
own righteousness understand not the doctrine of the forgiveness of
sins. This is manifested by the poor Pharisee; he objected against the
woman because she was a sinner. 2. Let Pharisees murmur still, yet
Christ hath pity and mercy for sinners. 3. Yet Jesus doth not usually
manifest mercy until the sinner hath nothing to pay. ‘And when they had
nothing to pay, he frankly,’ or freely, or heartily, ‘forgave them
both.’ If they had nothing to pay, then they were sinners; but he
forgiveth no man but with respect to a righteousness; therefore that
righteousness must be another’s; for in the very act of mercy they are
found sinners. They had nothing but debt, nothing but sin, nothing to
pay [with]. Then they were ‘justified freely by his grace, through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus.’ So, then, ‘men are justified from
the curse, in the sight of God, while sinners in themselves.’
Third. ‘And when he saw their faith, he said unto the man, Thy sins are
forgiven thee’ (Luke 5:20).
This man had not righteousness to stand just before God withal, for his
sins as yet remained unforgiven; wherefore, seeing guilt remained until
Christ remitted him, he was discharged while ungodly. And observe it,
the faith here mentioned is not to be reckoned so much the man’s, as
the faith of them that brought him; neither did it reach to the
forgiveness of sins, but to the miracle of healing; yet this man, in
this condition, had his sins forgiven him.
But again; set the case, the faith was only his, as it was not, and
that it reached to the doctrine of forgiveness, yet it did it without
respect to righteousness in himself; for guilt lay still upon him, he
had now his sins forgiven him. But this act of grace was a surprisal;
it was unlooked for. ‘I am found of them that sought me not’ (Isa
65:1). They came for one thing, he gave them another; they came for a
cure upon his body, but, to their amazement, he cured first his soul.
‘Thy sins are forgiven thee.’ Besides, to have his sins forgiven
betokeneth an act of grace; but grace and works as to this are opposite
(Rom 11:6). Therefore ‘men are justified from the curse, in the sight
of God, while sinners in themselves.’
Fourth. ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am
no more worthy to be called thy son’ (Luke 15:21).
What this man was is sufficiently declared in verse 13, &c. As 1. A
riotous spender of all—of time, talent, body, and soul. 2. He added to
this his rebellion, great contempt of his father’s house—he joined
himself to a stranger, and became an associate with swine (vv 15,17).
At last, indeed, he came to himself. But then observe—(1.) He sought
not justification by personal performances of his own; (2.) Neither did
he mitigate his wickedness; (3.) Nor excuse himself before his father;
but first resolveth to confess his sin; and coming to his father, did
confess it, and that with aggravating circumstances. ‘I have sinned
against heaven; I have sinned against thee; I am no more worthy to be
called thy son’ (v 18). Now what he said was true or false. If true,
then he had not righteousness. If false, he could not stand just in the
sight of his father by virtue of his own performances. And, indeed, the
sequel of the parable clears it. His ‘father said to his servant, Bring
forth the best robe,’ the justifying righteousness, ‘and put it on him;
and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet’ (v 22). This best
robe, then, being in the father’s house, was not in the prodigal’s
heart; neither stayed the father for further qualifications, but put it
upon him as he was, surrounded with sin and oppressed with guilt.
Therefore ‘men are justified from the curse, in the sight of God, while
sinners in themselves.’
Fifth. ‘For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was
lost’ (Luke 19:10).