Page images
PDF
EPUB

spect be that righteoufnefs, by which we are juftified, or made righteous before God.

Furthermore, faith, as it is our perfonal inherent righteousness, is our own; but the righteousness by which we are justified, is not our own. Not having mine own righteousness, Phil. iii. 9. And therefore, faith, as our perfonal inherent righteousness, does not justify us before God.

I will only add, if faith, as it is our inherent perfonal righteoufnefs, cannot answer the demands of the moral law, it cannot juftify us, confiftently with the perfec tions of the divine nature: but the former is true, and therefore the latter. If there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteoufnefs fhould have been by the law, Gal. iii. 21. But this was impoffible in the cafe of fallen man, as being utterly inconfiftent with the divine perfections. I think, no man will pretend, that our personal inherent righteousness can answer the demands of the moral law. I fhall therefore only endeavour to fhew you, how it is utterly inconfiftent with the divine perfections, that finners fhould be juftified by any righteoufnefs, which will not anfwer the demands of the moral law.

It cannot be agreeable to the juftice of God, that we should be justified by any righteousness, which will not answer the demands of the moral law. For which reafon, God fending his own Son, in the likeness of finful flefb, and for fin, condemned fin in the flesh, that the righ teoufnefs of the law might be fulfilled in us, Rom. viii. 3, 4. It is by declaring Chrift's righteousness (by which the demands of the moral law are fatisfied) that God can be just, and yet the justifier of him which believeth in Jefus, Rom. iii. 26. The glorious God juftly gave us the law, as the rule of our obedience; juftly required our perfect conformity to it; and juftly annexed the penalties to it in case of disobedience. This law was founded upon, and flowed from the juftice of the divine nature. Obedience to it was required, and the penalties to it were annexed, by the rectoral juftice of the great governor of the world. And the justice of God is now the fame that it was when this law was firft given; and with the fame inflexible severity requires, that it be ful

filled, and not a title of it to pass away, or be destroyed. The fame juftice, which annexed the penalties, must be fatisfied for the violation of the law, in fuch manner as that the honour of a righteous Judge may be fecured, and the penalty of the law fulfilled. Whence it follows, that no personal inherent righteousness of ours whatfo. ever can juftify us before God, confiftent with his rectoral juftice; because it cannot answer the demands of the moral law.

It is altogether impertinent, to pretend, that Chrift has procured easier terms, than obedience to the law of nature. And that our fincere obedience to the gospel is now the condition of our juftification. For the question ftill recurs, which way is the moral law fulfilled? Has Christ fulfilled that for us, and in our place and ftead; or has he not? If he has, we then have a better righte oufnefs to plead for our juftification, than any perfonal inherent righteousness of our own. But if he has not, the law has ftill its full challenges upon us (penal, as well as preceptive) notwithstanding any righteoufnefs of our own, and we cannot be justified upon this bottom, confiftently with the governing juftice of God.

I must further obferve, it cannot be agreeable to the holiness of God, that finners fhould be juftified by any righteousness whatsoever, which does not fully anfwer the demands of the moral law. The moral law is (as it were) a copy or transcript of the holiness of God; and muft therefore be a perpetual and unalterable rule of righteousness to man. There can ftrictly be no righte ousness, but by a compleat conformity to this law: and hence none can, confiftent with God's holiness, be accepted by him as righteous, who have not a full conformity to this original and only rule of righteousness, to plead in their favour. If therefore, we can have no fuch perfect conformity to the moral law, to plead be fore God, on account of our own perfonal inherent righteoufnefs, or any other way, but on the account of the imputed righteoufnefs of Chrift only; then faith, as it is our own perfonal inherent righteoufnefs, cannot juftify us, confiftently with the rectoral holiness of God.

I may add, it cannot be agreeable to the truth of God, that we should be juftified by any righteousness which

will not fully answer the demand of the moral law. God has pronounced every one cursed who continues not in all things, written in the book of the law, to do them. If therefore we have nor a full conformity to all things written in the book of the law, if we have not a perfect obedience to his precepts, not a full fatisfaction for the violation of them, to plead in our favour, then either we must lie under the curfe, or God muft break his word. The latter you dare not suppose; and the former is, in its nature, abfolutely inconfiftent with our justification.

I know of but one answer, that can with any colour of reafon be made to these arguments: and that is, That Chrift's fulfilling the law for us is our legal righteoufnefs; as freeing us from the rigorous demands, and from the curfes of the moral law, but that our faith including fincere obedience in its nature, is our evange Jical righteousness, whereby we ourselves perfonally fu!fil the Gospel, and are hereby juftified before God. According to this diftinction, Chrift's righteousness is the matter or ground of our juftification, taken negatively, as it lies in abfolving us from the curfe of the law, and declaring our fins forgiven: but our own righteousness is the matter or ground of our juftification, confidered pofitively, as it lies in pronouncing us righteous, and fo intitled to the bleffing. Now the leaft that can be faid against this notion, is, that it eclipfes the honour of Chrift, as the Lord our righteousness, and leaves man whereof to glory. But the confideration of this will of course bring me to the last thing I proposed in anfwer to your objection.

If your own conftruction of those paffages in the fourth chapter to the Romans were granted; and faith as including evangelical obedience in it, is imputed to us for righteousness, yet this would make nothing against our juftification by the imputed righteousness of Chrift. For allowing, that faith be our perfonal evangelical righteousness, and that as fuch it will juftify us, or render us acceptable to God, as far as it goes, we must yet have Chrift's righteoufnefs imputed to us, or elfe lie under the curfe of the moral law, as I have already proved.

If faith including fincere obedience in it, be imputed

to us for righteoufnefs, this our perfonal righteoufnefs must be imputed to us, not for what it is not, but for what in truth it is, that is, an imperfect righteousness. God cannot judge that to be perfect, which is really imperfect. For his judgment ever is according to truth. And a weak, imperfect faith (as that of the beft is) cannot conftitute a perfect righteousnefs. Whence it follows, that we cannot, on account of this our perfonal righteousness, be effectually and thoroughly juftified: we cannot be perfectly acquitted from guilt and condemnation, we cannot be entitled to compleat happinefs and eternal life, by virtue of our own righteousness, and therefore it is of the laft neceffity, that we have fome other and better righteoufnefs, even a perfect one to plead, or elfe we muft perifh eternally. At leaft we cannot at prefent be justified on the footing of our own, righteousness, fo long as we are in this imperfect state, but muft wait for juftification of life, as a distant future benefit, not to be received till we are made perfect in holinefs. Whereas, by the whole current of fcripture, it appears that juftification is a prefent benefit, taking place in the life which now is. Believers have not a meer promife, that they fhall be juftified: But fuch are in exprefs terms reprefented in fcripture as already juftified, as actually pardoned and made acceptable in the Beloved, as paffed from death to life, and reinftated in God's fpecial favour, fo that there is now no condemnation to them, but they are now the heirs of falvation,

Thus, Sir, I have given you fome of the reasons I have against your author's interpretation of those pasfages in the fourth chapter to the Romans. Many other arguments might be added, further to illuftrate the truth; and to refute all pretences of this kind. But I am afraid I have been already too tedious: and I hope, what is already faid may prove sufficient for your fatisfaction.

You defire me < to give you a brief view of my fen<timents of thofe paflages; and to fhew you, in what • fenfe I understand faith to be imputed to us for righ teousness. You tell me that you cannot underftand how faith's being imputed to us for righteoufness, can ⚫ intend that Chrift's righteoufnefs is imputed to us.

:

The common interpretation of thefe paffages by our Proteftant divines, from the beginning of the reformation, is, that faith is imputed for righteoufnefs, not subjectively, or as it is an act of our own, and our own perfonal righteoufness: but objectively, or as it hath refpect to its object, and apprehends the righteousness of Chrift. That is, as faith is the band of union between Chrift and the foul, and interefts us in him, and his juftifying righteoufnefs, it is imputed to us for righteoufnefs. Thus it is the righteousness of faith, as faith is the term or mean of our intereft in Jefus Chrift's righteousness and yet it is the righteoufnefs of Chrift, as he was the immediate fubject and author of it, or as it was wrought out by him. Our faith is in a like manner faid to be the faith of Jefus Chrift, Rom. iii. 22. as Chrift's righteoufnefs is here faid to be the righteoufnefs of faith. Our faith is not called the faith of Chrift, as it is his perfonal act, (Chrift does not believe for us) but as it receives the Lord Jefus Chrift, and gives us an intereft in him. Nor is our faith our righteoufnefs, as it is our perfonal act, (our faith has not fulfilled the law, nor anfwered the demands of vindictive juftice) but it is our righteoufnefs, as it interefts us in what Chrift has done and fuffered for us, whereby the law is fulfilled and juftice fatisfied. In the former cafe, the object is put for the act: The faith of Christ, for believing in Chrift. And there can no reason be given, why with the fame propriety, in the latter cafe, the act may not be put for the object; the righteoufnefs of faith, for righteousness by or through faith; and why faith may not be counted for righteousness obtained by believing. It is remarkable, that the apoftle exprefly speaks of faith in this view, every where else befides this context: and therefore he ought to be here also understood in this fenfe, to make his doctrine confiftent. In this fenfe, faith is our juftifying righteoufnefs, as a condemned malefactor's accepting his prince's pardon is his delive. rance from execution; or as a beggar's accepting an alms is his preservative from ftarving. As in thefe cafes it is not the act of receiving but the benefit received, that is the prefervation; fo in that cafe it is not the act

« PreviousContinue »