Chapter 3: The Use of Faith in Justification; Its Special Object Further Cleared

THe description before given of Justifying faith does sufficiently manifest of what Use it is in justification. Nor shall I in general add much unto what may be thence observed unto that purpose. But whereas this Use of it has been expressed with some variety, and several ways of it asserted inconsistent with one another, they must be considered in our passage. And I shall do it with all brevity possible; for these things lead not in any part of the Controversie about the nature of justification, but are merely subservient unto other Conceptions concerning it. When Men have fixed their Apprehensions about the principal matters in Controversie, they express what concerns the Use of faith in an Accommodation thereunto. Supposing such to be the nature of justification as they assert, it must be granted that the Use of faith therein, must be what they plead for. And if what is peculiar unto any in the substance of the doctrine be disproved, they cannot deny but that their Notions about the Use of faith do fall unto the ground. Thus is it with all who affirm faith to be either the instrument, or the condition, or the Causa sine qua non, or the preparation and disposition of the subject, or a meritorious cause by way of condecency or congruity, in and of our justification. For all these notions of the Use of faith are suited and accommodated unto the Opinions of Men concerning the nature and principal causes of justification. Neither can any trial or Determination be made, as unto their truth and Propriety, but upon a previous judgment concerning those causes, and the whole nature of justification it self. Whereas therefore it were vain and endless to plead the principal matter in Controversie upon every thing that occasionally belongs unto it; and so by the title unto the whole Inheritance on every Cottage that is built on the premises, I shall briefly speak unto these various Conceptions about the Use of faith in our justification, rather to find out and give an understanding of what is intended by them, than to argue about their truth and Propriety, which depends on that wherein the substance of the Controversie does consist.

Protestant Divines until of late, have unanimously affirmed faith to be the instrumental cause of our justification. So it is expressed to be in many of the public Confessions of their churches. This notion of theirs concerning the nature and Use of faith, was from the first opposed by those of the Romansan church. Afterwards it was denied also by the socinians, as either false or improper. Socin. Miscellnn. Smalcius adv. Frantz. disput. 4 Schlicting. adver. Meisner. de Justificat. And of late this expression is disliked by some among our selves; wherein they follow Episcopius Curcellius and others of that way. Those who are sober and moderate do rather decline this notion and Expression as improper than reject them as untrue. And our safest course in these cases is to consider what is the thing or matter intended. If that be agreed upon, he deserves best of truth, who parts with strife about propriety of Expressions, before it be medled with. Tenacious pleading about them will surely render our Contentions Endless; and none will ever want an Appearance of probability to give them countenance in what they pretend. If our design in teaching be the same with that of the scripture, namely, to inform the minds of believers, and convey the light of the knowledge of God in Christ unto them, we must be contented sometimes to make use of such Expressions, as will scarce pass the Ordeal of arbitrary rules and distinctions through the whole compass of notional and artificial Sciences. And those who without more ado reject the instrumentality of faith in our justification as an unscriptural notion, as though it were easie for them with one breath to blow away the reasons and arguments of so many Learned Men as have pleaded for it, may not I think do amiss to review the grounds of their confidence. For the question being only concerning what is intended by it, it is not enough that the Term or word it self of an instrument is not found unto this purpose in the scripture. For on the same ground we may reject a Trinity of persons in the Divine essence, without an acknowledgment whereof, not one Line of the scripture can be rightly understood.

Those who assert faith to be as the Instrumental cause in our justification, do it with respect unto two ends. For first they design thereby to declare the meaning of those expressions in the scripture, wherein we are said to be justified absolutely, which must denote, either instrumentum aut formam, aut modum actionis.; Romans 3:28. Therefore we conclude that a Man is justified by faith. So , verse 22. ; Romans 1:17. Galatians 3:8. ; Ephesians 2:8. . Romans 3:22, 30. That is fide; ex fide, per fidem; which we can express only by faith or through faith. Propter fidem, or ; for our faith we are no where said to be justified. The inquiry is, what is the most proper, lightsome, and convenient way of declaring the meaning of these Expressions. This the Generality of protestants do judge to be by an instrumental cause. For some kind of causality they do plainly intimate, whereof the lowest and meanest is that which is instrumental. For they are used of faith in our justification before God, and of no other grace or duty whatever. Wherefore the proper work or Office of faith in our justification is intended by them. And is no where used in the whole New testament with a genitive case, (nor in any other good author) but it denotes an instrumental Efficiency at least. In the divine works of the Holy Trinity, the operation of the second person, who is in them a principal Efficient, yet is sometimes expressed thereby; it may be to denote the order of Operation in the Holy Trinity answering the order of Subsistence, though it be applied unto God absolutely or the father; Romans 11:35. , by him are all things. Again, ; and are directly opposed, Galatians 3:2. But when it is said that a man is not justified,, by the works of the law, it is acknowledged by all that the meaning of the Expression is to exclude all efficiency in every kind of such works from our justification. It follows therefore that where in opposition hereunto, we are said to be justified , by faith; an instrumental efficiency is intended. Yet will I not therefore make it my controversie with any, that faith is properly an instrument, or the instrumental cause in or of our justification; and so divert into an impertinent contest about the nature and kinds of Instruments and Instrumental causes as they are metaphysically hunted with a confused Cry of futilous terms and distinctions. But this I judge, that among all those notions of things which may be taken from common use and understanding to represent unto our minds the meaning and intention of the scriptural Expressions so often used, , there is none so proper as this of an instrument or Instrumental cause, seeing a causality is included in them, and that of any other kind certainly excluded; nor has it any of its own.

But it may be said, that if faith be the Instrumental cause of justification; it is either the instrument of God, or the instrument of believers themselves. That it is not the instrument of God is plain, in that it is a duty which he prescribs unto us; it is an Acts of our own; and it is we that believe not God; nor can any Acts of ours be the instrument of his work. And if it be our instrument, seeing an Efficiency is ascribed unto it, then are we the efficient causes of our own justification in some sense, and may be said to justify our selves, which is derogatory to the grace of God, and the Blood of Christ.

I confess that I lay not much weight on Exceptions of this nature. For (1) notwithstanding what is said herein, the scripture is express, that God justifies us by faith. It is one God which shall justify the Circumcision, (by faith) and the uncircumcision,, through or by faith, Romans 3:30. The scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through faith, Galatians 3:8. As he purifies the hearts of men by faith, Acts 15:9. Wherefore faith in some sense may be said to be the instrument of God in our justification; both as it is the means and way ordained and appointed by him on our part whereby we shall be justified, as also because he bestows it on us, and works it in us unto this end that we may be justified; For by grace we are saved, through faith, and that not of our selves, it is the Gift of God, Ephesians 3:8. If any one shall now say, that on these accounts, or with respect unto Divine Ordination and Operation concurring unto our justification, that faith is the instrument of God in its place and way, (as the gospel also is, Romans 1:16. and the ministers of it, 2 Corinthians 5:18. 1 Timothy 4:6. and the sacraments also, Romans 4:11. Titus 3:5. in their several places and kinds) unto our justification, it may be he will contribute unto a right conception of the work of God herein, as much as those shall by whom it is denied.

But that which is principally intended is, that it is the instrument of them that do believe. Neither yet are they said hereon to justify themselves. For whereas it does neither really produce the effect of justification by a physical operation, nor can do so, it being a pure Soveraign Acts of God; nor is morally any way meritorious thereof, nor does dispose the subject wherein it is unto the Introduction of an inherent formal cause of justification, there being no such thing in rerum natura, nor has any other Physical or moral respect unto the effect of justification, but what ariss merely from the constitution and appointment of God, there is no color of reason from the instrumentality of faith asserted, to ascribe the effect of justification unto any, but unto the principal efficient cause, which is God alone, and from whom it proceeds in a way of free and soveraign grace, disposing the order of things, and the relation of them one unto another, as seems good unto him. Romans 3:24. , verse 25. It is therefore the ordinance of God prescribing our duty, that we may be justified freely by his grace, having its use and operation towards that end after the manner of an instrument, as we shall see farther, immediately. Wherefore so far as I can discern, they contribute nothing unto the real understanding of this truth, who deny faith to be the instrumental cause of our justification, and on other grounds assert it to be the condition thereof, unless they can prove that this is a more natural exposition of those expressions, , which is the first thing to be enquired after. For all that we do in this matter is but to endeavour a right understanding of scripture propositions and expressions, unless we intend to wander extra oleas, and lose our selves in a maze of uncertain conjectures.

Secondly, They designed to declare the use of faith in justification, expressed in the scripture by apprehending and receiving of Christ, or his righteousness, and remission of sins thereby. The words whereby this use of faith in our justification is expressed are , and . And the constant use of them in the scripture is to take or receive what is offered, tendered, given or granted unto us; or to apprehend and lay hold of any thing thereby to make it our own, as is also used in the same sense. Hebrews 2:16. So are we said by faith to receive Christ, John 1:12. Colossians 2:6. The Abundance of grace and the Gift of righteousness, Romans 5:17. The word of promise, Acts 2:41. The word of God, Acts 8:14. 1 Thessalonians 1:6. chap. 2:13. The atonement made by the blood of Christ, Romans 5:11. The forgiveness of sins, Acts 10:43. chap. 26:18. The promise of the spirit, Galatians 3:14. The promises, Hebrews 9:15. There is therefore nothing that concurrs unto our justification, but we receive it by faith. And unbelief is expressed by not receiving, John 1:11. chap. 3:11. chap. 12:48. chap. 14:17. Wherefore the object of faith in our justification, that whereby we are justified, is tendered, granted and given unto us of God, the use of faith being to lay hold upon it, to receive it, so as that it may be our own. What we receive of outward things that are so given unto us, we do it by our hand which therefore is the instrument of that reception, that whereby we apprehend or lay hold of any thing to appropriate it unto our selves; and that because this is the peculiar Office which by nature it is assigned unto among all the members of the body. Other Uses it has, and other members on other Accounts may be as useful unto the body as it; but it alone is the instrument of receiving and apprehending that which being given, is to be made our own and to abide with us. Whereas therefore the righteousness wherewith we are justified is the Gift of God, which is tendred unto us in the promise of the gospel, the Use and Office of faith being to receive, apprehend, or lay hold of and appropriate this righteousness, I know not how it can be better expressed than by an instrument, nor by what notion of it more light of understanding may be conveyed unto our minds. Some may suppose other Notions are meet to express it by on other Accounts; and it may be so with respect unto other uses of it. But the sole present inquiry is, how it shall be declared, as that which receivs Christ, the atonement, the Gift of righteousness, which will prove its only use in our justification. He that can better express this than by an instrument, ordained of God unto this end, all whose use depends on that Ordination of God, will deserve well of the truth. It is true that all those who place the formal cause or reason of our justification in our selves, or our inherent righteousness, and so either directly or by just consequence deny all imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto our justification, are not capable of admitting faith to be an instrument in this work, nor are pressed with this consideration. For they acknowledge not that we receive a righteousness which is not our own by way of Gift, whereby we are justified, and so cannot allow of any instrument whereby it should be received. The righteousness it self being as they phrase it, putative, imaginary, a chimaera, a fiction, it can have no real accidents, nothing that can be really predicated concerning it. Wherefore as was said at the Entrance of this discourse, the truth and Propriety of this declaration of the Use of faith in our justification by an Instrumental cause, depends on the substance of the doctrine it self concerning the nature and principal causes of it, with which they must stand or fall. If we are justified through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which faith alone apprehends and receives, it will not be denied but that it is rightly enough placed as the Instrumental cause of our justification. And if we are justified by an inherent Evangelical righteousness of our own, faith may be the condition of its imputation, or a disposition for its Introduction, or a congruous merit of it, but an instrument it cannot be. But yet for the present it has this double advantage; (1) That it best and most appositely answers what is affirmed of the Use of faith in our justification, in the scripture, as the instances given do manifest; (2.) That no other notion of it can be so stated, but that it must be apprehended in order of time to be previous unto justification, which Justifying faith cannot be, unless a man may be a true believer with Justifying faith, and yet not be justified.

Some do plead that faith is the condition of our justification, and that otherwise it is not to be conceived of. As I said before, so I say again, I shall not contend with any man about words, Terms, or Expressions, so long as what is intended by them, is agreed upon. And there is an obvious sense wherein faith may be called the condition of our justification. For no more may be intended thereby, but that it is the duty on our part which God requirs, that we may be justified. And this the whole scripture bears witness unto. Yet this hinders not, but that as unto its Use, it may be the instrument whereby we apprehend or receive Christ and his righteousness. But to assert it the condition of our justification, or that we are justified by it as the condition of the New covenant, so as from a pre-conceived signification of that word, to give it another use in justification exclusive of that pleaded for, as the Instrumental cause thereof, is not easily to be admitted; because it supposs an Alteration in the substance of the doctrine it self.

The word is no where used in the scripture in this matter; which I argue no farther, but that we have no certain rule or standard to try and measure its signification by. Wherefore it cannot first be introduced in what sense men please, and then that sense turned into argument for other ends. For thus on a supposed concession, that it is the condition of our justification, some heighten it into a subordinate righteousness, imputed unto us, antecedently as I suppose, unto the imputation of the righteousness of Christ in any sense, whereof it is the condition. And some who pretend to lessen its efficiency or dignity in the use of it in our justification say, it is only causa sine qua non, which leaves us at as great an uncertainty as to the nature and efficacy of this condition as we were before. Nor is the true sense of things at all illustrated, but rather darkened by such notions.

If we may introduce words into religion no where used in the scripture (as we may and must if we design to bring light, and communicate proper apprehensions of the things contained unto the minds of men) yet are we not to take along with them arbitrary pre-conceived senses, forged either among Lawyers, or in the Peripatetical School. The use of them in the most approved authors of the Language whereunto they do belong, and their common vulgar acceptation among our selves, must determine their sense and meaning. It is known what confusion in the minds of men, the Introduction of words into Ecclesiastical doctrines, of whose signification there has not been a certain determinate rule agreed on, has produced. So the word merit was introduced by some of the Ancients, (as is plain from the design of their discourses where they use it) for impetration or acquisition quovis modo; by any means whatever. But there being no cogent reason to confine the word unto that precise signification, it has given occasion to as great a corruption as has befallen Christian religion. We must therefore make use of the best means we have to understand the meaning of this word, and what is intended by it, before we admit of its use in this case.

Conditio in the best Latine writers is variously used; answering in the Greek: That is, Status, Fortuna, Dignitas, Causa, Pactum initum. In which of their significations it is here to be understood is not easie to be determined. In common use among us, it sometimes denotes the state and Quality of men, that is, and , and sometimes a valuable consideration of what is to be done; that is, or . But herein it is applied unto things in great variety; sometimes the principal procuring purchasing cause is so expressed. As the condition whereon a man lends another an hundred pound, is that he be paid it again with Interest. The condition whereon a man conveys his Land unto another, is, that he receive so much money for it. So a condition is a valuable consideration. And sometimes it signifies such things as are added to the principal cause whereon its operation is suspended. As a man bequeaths an hundred pound unto another, on condition that he come or go to such a place to demand it. This is no valuable consideration, yet is the effect of the principal cause, or the will of the Testator suspended thereon. And as unto degrees of respect unto that whereof any thing is a condition, as to purchase, procurement, valuable consideration, necessary presence, the variety is endless. We therefore cannot obtain a determinate sense of this word condition, but from a particular declaration of what is intended by it, wherever it is used. And although this be not sufficient to exclude the Use of it from the declaration of the way and manner how we are justified by faith; yet is it so to exclude the imposition of any precise signification of it, any other than is given it by the matter treated of. Without this every thing is left ambiguous and uncertain whereunto it is applied.

For instance; It is commonly said that faith and New obedience are the condition of the New covenant. But yet because of the ambiguous signification and various use of that term (Condition) we cannot certainly understand what is intended in the assertion. If no more be intended, but that God in and by the New covenant does indispensibly require these things of us, that is, the Restipulation of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Christ from the dead, in order unto his own glory, and our full enjoyment of all the benefits of it, it is unquestionably true. But if it be intended, that they are such a condition of the covenant, as to be by us performed antecedently unto the participation of any grace, mercy, or Priviledge of it, so as that they should be the consideration and procuring causes of them, that they should be all of them as some speak, the reward of our faith and obedience, it is most false, and not only contrary to express testimonies of scripture, but destructive of the nature of the covenant it self. If it be intended that these things, though promised in the covenant and wrought in us by the grace of God, are yet duties required of us in order unto the participation and enjoyment of the full end of the covenant in glory, it is the truth which is asserted. But if it be said that faith and New obedience, that is the works of righteousness which we do, are so the condition of the covenant, as that whatever the one is ordained of God as a means of, and in order to such or such an end, as justification, that the other is likewise ordained unto the same end, with the same kind of Efficacy, or with the same respect unto the effect, it is expressly contrary to the whole scope and express design of the apostle on that subject. But it will be said that a condition in the sense intended, when faith is said to be the condition of our justification, is no more but that it is causa sine qua non; which is easie enough to be apprehended. But yet neither are we so delivered out of uncertainties, into a plain understanding of what is intended. For these causae sine quibus non, may be taken largely or more strictly and precisely. So are they commonly distinguished by the Masters in these Arts. Those so called in a larger sense, are all such causes in any kind of efficiency or merit, as are inferiour unto principal causes, and would operate nothing without them, but in conjunction with them have a real effective influence, Physical or Moral, into the production of the effect. And if we take a condition to be a causa sine qua non, in this sense, we are still at a loss what may be its Use, Efficiency or merit, with respect unto our justification. If it be taken more strictly for that which is necessarily present, but has no causality in any kind, not that of a receptive instrument, I cannot understand how it should be an ordinance of God. For every thing that he has appointed unto any end Moral or Spiritual, has by virtue of that Appointment, either a symbolical instructive efficacy, or an active efficiency, or a rewardable condecency with respect unto that end. Other things may be generally and remotely necessary unto such an end, so far as it partakes of the order of natural beings, which are not ordinances of God with respect thereunto, and so have no kind of causality with respect unto it, as it is Moral or Spiritual. So the Air we breath is needful unto the preaching of the word, and consequently a causa sine qua non thereof; but an ordinance of God with especial respect thereunto it is not. But every thing that he appoints unto an especial spiritual end, has an Efficacy or Operation in one or other of the ways mentioned. For they either concur with the principal cause in its internal Efficiency, or they operate externally in the removal of Obstacles and Hinderances that oppose the principal cause in its Efficiency. And this excludes all causes sine quibus non strictly so taken from any place among Divine ordinances. God appoints nothing for an end that shall do nothing. His sacraments are not , but by virtue of his Institution do exhibit that grace which they do not in themselves contain. The preaching of the word has a real Efficiency unto all the ends of it; so have all the Graces and duties that he works in us, and requirs of us; by them all are we made meet for the Inheritance of the saints in light; And our whole obedience through his gracious Appointment has a rewardable condecency with respect unto Eternal life. Wherefore as faith may be allowed to be the condition of our justification, if no more be intended thereby, but that it is what God requires of us that we may be justified; so to confine the declaration of its Use in our justification unto its being the condition of it, when so much as a determinate signification of it cannot be agreed upon, is subservient only unto the Interest of unprofitable strife and contention.

To close these discourses concerning faith and its Use in our justification, some things must yet be added concerning its especial object. For although what has been spoken already thereon, in the description of its nature and object in general, be sufficient in general to state its especial object also; yet there having been an inquiry concerning it, and debate about it in a peculiar notion, and under some especial terms, that also must be considered. And this is whether Justifying faith in our justification or its Use therein, do respect Christ as a king and prophet, as well as a Pri with the satisfaction that as such he made for us, and that in the same manner, and unto the same ends and Purposes. And I shall be brief in this inquiry, because it is but a late controversie, and it may be has more of Curiosity in its Disquisition, than of Edification in its Determination. However being not, that I know of, under these terms stated in any public Confessions of the reformed churches, it is free for any to express their Apprehensions concerning it. And to this purpose I say;

1. faith whereby we are justified in the receiving of Christ, principally respects his person for all those ends for which he is the ordinance of God. It does not in the first place as it is faith in general, respect his person absolutely, seeing its formal object as such, is the truth of God in the proposition, and not the thing it self proposed. Wherefore it so respects and receives Christ as proposed in the promise; the promise it self being the formal object of its assent.

2. We cannot so receive Christ in the promise, as in that Acts of receiving him to exclude the consideration of any of his Offices. For as he is not at any time to be considered by us, but as vested with all his Offices, so a distinct conception of the mind to receive Christ as a Pri, but not as a king or prophet, is not faith but unbelief, not the receiving but the rejecting of him.

3. In the receiving of Christ for justification formally, our distinct express design is to be justified thereby, and no more. Now to be justified is to be freed from the Guilt of sin, or to have all our sins pardoned, and to have a righteousness wherewith to appear before God, so as to be accepted with him, and a right to the Heavenly Inheritance. Every believer has other designs also, wherein he is equally concerned with this; as namely, the Renovation of his nature, the sanctification of his person, and Ability to live unto God in all holy obedience. But the things before mentioned are all that he aims at or designs in his Applications unto Christ, or his receiving of him unto justification. Wherefore,

4. Justifying faith in that Acts or work of it whereby we are justified, respects Christ in his Priestly Office alone, as he was the surety of the covenant, with what he did in the discharge thereof. The consideration of his other Offices is not excluded, but it is not formally comprised in the object of faith as Justifying.

5. When we say that the Sacerdotal Office of Christ, or the Blood of Christ, or the satisfaction of Christ is that alone which faith respects in justification, we do not exclude, yea we do really include and comprise in that assertion, all that depends thereon, or concurs to make them effectual unto our justification. As (1) The free grace and favor of God in giving of Christ for us and unto us, whereby we are frequently said to be justified, Romans 3:24. Ephesians 2:8. Titus 3:7. His wisdom, love, righteousness and power, are of the same consideration as has been declared. (2) Whatever in Christ himself was necessary antecedently unto his discharge of that Office, or was consequential thereof, or did necessarily accompany it. Such was his incarnation, the whole course of his obedience, his resurrection, ascension, exaltation and intercession. For the consideration of all these things is inseparable from the Discharge of his Priestly Office. And therefore is justification either expressly or virtually assigned unto them also, Genesis 3:15. 1 John 3:8. Hebrews 2:13, 14, 15, 16. Romans 4:25. Acts 5:31. Hebrews 7:27. Romans 8:34. But yet wherever our justification is so assigned unto them, they are not absolutely considered, but with respect unto their relation to his sacrifice and satisfaction. (3) All the means of the application of the sacrifice and righteousness of the Lord Christ unto us are also included therein. Such is the principal Efficient cause thereof which is the Holy Ghost, whence we are said to be justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God, 1 Corinthians 6:11. and the instrumental cause thereof on the part of God, which is the promise of the gospel, Romans 1:17. Galatians 3:22, 23. It would therefore be unduly pretended, that by this assertion we do narrow or straiten the object of Justifying faith as it Justifies. For indeed we assign a respect unto the whole Mediatory Office of Christ, not excluding the Kingly and Prophetical parts thereof; but only such a notion of them, as would not bring in more of Christ, but much of our selves into our justification. And the assertion as laid down may be proved.

1. From the Experience of all that are justified, or do seek for justification according unto the gospel. For under this notion of seeking for justification, or a righteousness unto justification, they were all of them to be considered, and do consider themselves as , guilty before God, subject, obnoxious, liable unto his wrath in the curse of the law; as we declared in the Entrance of this discourse, Romans 3:19. They were all in the same state that Adam was in after the Fall, unto whom God proposed the Relief of the incarnation and suffering of Christ, Genesis 3:15. And to seek after justification, is to seek after a discharge from this woful state and condition. Such persons have and ought to have other designs and desires also. For whereas the state wherein they are antecedent unto their justification, is not only a state of Guilt and wrath, but such also as wherein through the Depravation of their nature, the power of sin is prevalent in them, and their whole souls are defiled, they design and desire not only to be justified, but to be sanctified also. But as unto the Guilt of sin, and the want of a righteousness before God, from which justification is their Relief, herein I say they have respect unto Christ as set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his Blood. In their design for sanctification they have respect unto the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ, in their especial exercise. But as to their freedom from the Guilt of sin, and their Acceptance with God, or their justification in his sight, that they may be freed from condemnation, that they may not come into judgment; it is Christ crucified, it is Christ lifted up as the brazen Serpent in the Wilderness, it is the Blood of Christ, it is the propitiation that he was, and the atonement that he made, it is his bearing their sins, his being made sin and the curse for them, it is his obedience, the end which he put unto sin, and the Everlasting righteousness which he brought in, that alone their faith does fix upon and acquiesce in. If it be otherwise in the Experience of any, I acknowledge I am not acquainted with it. I do not say that conviction of sin is the only antecedent condition of actual justification. But this it is that makes a sinner subjectum capax Justificationis. No man therefore is to be considered as a person to be justified, but he who is actually under the power of the conviction of sin, with all the necessary consequents thereof. Suppose therefore any sinner in this condition, as it is described by the apostle, Romans 3. Guilty before God, with his mouth stopped as unto any pleas, defences or excuses; suppose him to seek after a Relief and Deliverance out of this estate, that is to be justified according to the gospel; he neither does, nor can wisely take any other course than what he is there directed unto by the same apostle, verse 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. Therefore by the Deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe, for there is no difference; For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ; whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his Blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. Whence I argue;

That which a Guilty condemned sinner finding no hope, nor Relief from the law of God the sole rule of all his obedience, does betake himself unto by faith that he may be delivered or justified, that is the especial object of faith as Justifying. But this is the grace of God alone through the redemption that is in Christ, or Christ proposed as a propitiation through faith in his Blood. Either this is so, or the apostle does not aright guide the souls and Consciences of men in that condition wherein he himself does place them. It is the Blood of Christ alone that he directs the faith unto of all them that would be justified before God. grace, redemption, propitiation, all through the Blood of Christ, faith does peculiarly respect and fix upon. This is that, if I mistake not, which they will confirm by their Experience, who have made any distinct observation of the actings of their faith in their justification before God.

2. The scripture plainly declares that faith as Justifying, respects the sacerdotal Office and Actings of Christ alone. In the great Representation of the justification of the church of Old in the Expiatory sacrifice, when all their sins and iniquities were pardoned, and their persons accepted with God, the acting of their faith was limited unto the Imposition of all their sins on the head of the sacrifice by the high Pri, Leviticus 16. By his knowledge, that is faith in him shall my righteous Servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities, Isaiah 53:11. That alone which faith respects in Christ as unto the justification of sinners, is his bearing their iniquities. Guilty convinced sinners look unto him by faith, as those who were stung with fiery Serpents did to the Brazen Serpent; that is, as he was lifted up on the Cross, John 3:14, 15. So did he himself express the nature and actings of faith in our justification, Romans 3:24, 25. being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his Blood. As he is a propitiation, as he shed his Blood for us, as we have redemption thereby, he is the peculiar object of our faith, with respect unto our justification. See to the same purpose, Romans 5:9, 10. Ephesians 1:7. Colossians 1:14. Ephesians 2:13, 14, 15, 16. Romans 8:3, 4. He was made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Corinthians 5:21. That which we seek after in justification is a participation of the righteousness of God; to be made the righteousness of God, and that not in our selves but in another, that is in Christ Jesus. And that alone which is proposed unto our faith as the means and cause of it, is, his being made sin for us, or a sacrifice for sin, wherein all the Guilt of our sins was laid on him, and he bare all our Iniquities. This therefore is its peculiar object herein. And wherever in the scripture we are directed to seek for the forgiveness of sins by the Blood of Christ, receive the atonement, to be justified through the faith of him as crucified, the object of faith in justification is limited and determined.

But it may be pleaded in Exception unto the testimonies, that no one of them does affirm, that we are justified by faith in the Blood of Christ alone; so as to exclude the consideration of the other Offices of Christ and their actings, from being the object of faith in the same manner, and unto the same ends, with his Sacerdotal Office, and what belongs thereunto, or is derived from it.

Answ. This exception derives from that common objection against the doctrine of justification by faith alone; namely that, That exclusive term alone, is not found in the scripture, or in any of the testimonies that are produced for justification by faith. But it is replyed with sufficient evidence of truth, that although the word be not found Syllabically used unto this purpose; yet there are exceptive Expressions equivalent unto it, as we shall see afterwards. It is so in this particular instance also. For (1) whereas our justification is expressly ascribed unto our faith in the Blood of Christ, as the propitiation for our sins, unto our believing in him as Crucified for us, and it is no where ascribed unto our receiving of him as king, Lord, or prophet; it is plain, that the former Expressions are virtually exclusive of the later consideration. (2) I do not say, That the consideration of the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ is excluded from our justification, as works are excluded in Opposition unto faith and grace. For they are so excluded, as that we are to exercise an act of our minds in their positive rejection, as saying, Get you hence, you have no Lot nor Portion in this matter. But as to these Offices of Christ, as to the object of faith as Justifying, we say only that they are not included therein. For so to believe to be justified by his Blood, as to exercise a positive act of the mind, excluding a compliance with his other Offices, is an impious Imagination.

3. Neither the consideration of these Offices themselves, nor of any of the peculiar Acts of them, are suited to give the souls and Consciences of convinced sinners, that Relief which they seek after in justification. We are not in this whole cause to lose out of our Eye, the state of the person who is to be justified, and what it is he does seek after, and ought to seek after, therein. Now this is pardon of sin, and righteousness before God alone. That therefore, which is no way suited to give or tender this Relief unto him, is not, nor can be the object of his faith, whereby he is justified in that exercise of it, whereon his justification does depend. This Relief it will be said, is to be had in Christ alone; it is true, but under what consideration? For the sole design of the sinner, is how he may be accepted with God, be at peace with him, have all his wrath turned away, by a propitiation or Attonement. Now this can no otherwise be done, but by the acting of some one, towards God, and with God on his behalf; for it is about the turning away of Gods anger, and Acceptance with him, that the inquiry is made. It is by the Blood of Christ, that we are made nigh, who were far off; Ephesians 2:13. By the Blood of Christ are we Reconciled who were Enemies; verse 16. By the Blood of Christ we have redemption. Romans 3:24, 25. Ephesians 1:7. &c. This therefore, is the object of faith.

All the actings of the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ, are all of them from God, that is in the name and authority of God towards us. Not any one of them is towards God on our behalf, so as that by vertue of them, we should expect Acceptance with God. They are all Good, Blessed, Holy, in themselves, and of an eminent tendency unto the glory of God in our salvation: Yea, they are no less necessary unto our salvation to the praise of Gods grace, then are the Attonement for sin and satisfaction which he made; for from them is the way of life Revealed unto us, grace communicated, our persons sanctified, and the reward bestowed. Yea, in the exercise of his Kingly power does the Lord Christ does pardon and justify sinners. Not that he did as a king constitute the law of justification, for it was given and established in the first promise, and he came to put it in Execution; John 3:16. But in the vertue of his Attonement and righteousness imputed unto them, he does both pardon and justify sinners. But they are the acts of his Sacerdotal Office alone, that respect God on our behalf. Whatever he did on earth with God for the church, in obedience, suffering, and offering up of himself, whatever he does in heaven in intercession, and Appearance in the presence of God for us, it all entirely belongs unto his Priestly Office. And in these things alone does the soul of a convinced sinner find Relief, when he seeks after Deliverance from the state of sin and Acceptance with God. In these therefore alone the peculiar object of his faith, that which will give him Rest and peace, must be comprized. And this last consideration is of it self sufficient to determine this difference.

Sundry things are Objected against this assertion, which I shall not here at large discuss, because what is material in any of them, will occur on other occasions, where its consideration will be more proper. In general it may be pleaded, that Justifying faith is the same with saving faith; nor is it said, that we are justified by this or that part of faith, but by faith in General, that is, as taken essentially for the entire grace of faith. And as unto faith in this sense, not only a respect unto Christ in all his Offices, but obedience it self also is included in it, as is evident in many places of the scripture. Wherefore there is no reason why we should limit the object of it, unto the person of Christ as acting in the discharge of his Sacerdotal Office, with the effects and Fruits thereof.

Answ. 1. Saving faith, and Justifying faith in any believer are one and the same, and the Adjuncts of Saving and Justifying are but external Denominations, from its distinct Operations and effects. But yet Saving faith does act in a peculiar manner, and is of peculiar use in justification, such as it is not of under any other consideration whatever. Wherefore (2) Although Saving faith as it is described in General, do ever include obedience, not as its Form or essence, but as the necessary effect is included in the cause, and the Fruit in the Fruit-bearing juyce, and is often mentioned as to its being and exercise, where there is no express mention of Christ, his Blood, and his righteousness, but is applied unto all the Acts, duties, and ends of the gospel; yet this proves not at all, but that as unto its duty, Place, and acting in our justification, it has a peculiar object. If it could be proved, that where justification is ascribed unto faith, that there it has any other object assigned unto it, as that which it rested in for the pardon of sin and Acceptance with God, this objection were of some force. But this cannot be done. (3)This is not to say, that we are justified by a part of faith, and not by it as considered essentially; for we are justified by the entire grace of faith, acting in such a peculiar way and manner; as others have observed. But the truth is, we need not insist on the Discussion of this inquiry. For the true meaning of it is, not whether any thing of Christ is to be excluded from being the object of Justifying faith, or of faith in our justification, but what in and of our selves under the name of receiving Christ, as our Lord and king is to be admitted unto an Efficiency or Conditionality in that work. As it is granted, that justifying faith is the receiving of Christ, so whatever belongs unto the person of Christ, or any Office of his, or any Acts in the discharge of any Office, that may be reduced unto any cause of our justification, the meritorious, procuring, material, formal, or manifesting cause of it, is so far as it does so, freely admitted to belong unto the object of Justifying faith. Neither will I contend with any upon this disadvantageous stating of the question, What of Christ is to be esteemed the object of Justifying faith, and what is not so. For the thing intended is only this; whether our own obedience, distinct from faith, or included in it, and in like manner as faith, be the condition of our justification before God. This being that which is intended, which the other question is but invented to lead unto a compliance with, by a more specious pretence then in it self it is capable of under those terms, it shall be examined and no otherwise.

The description of justifying faith given above makes its role in justification sufficiently clear. I will not add much in general to what may be observed from it on this point. But since this role has been described in various ways, with several conflicting accounts of it, these must be considered along the way. I will do so as briefly as possible, since these questions do not touch the heart of the controversy about the nature of justification — they are merely subordinate to larger questions about it. Once people have settled their views on the main disputed matters, they describe faith's role in terms that accommodate those views. Given what they assert about the nature of justification, they consider it necessary that faith's role be what they claim it to be. And if the distinctive substance of any position is disproved, its advocates cannot deny that their account of faith's role falls with it. This is true of all who say that faith is the instrument, or the condition, or the necessary antecedent, or the preparation and disposition of the subject, or a meritorious cause by fitness or suitability, in our justification. All these accounts of faith's role are shaped by and fitted to people's views on the nature and primary causes of justification. No evaluation or judgment of their truth and accuracy can be made without first settling those causes and the whole nature of justification itself. Since it would be tedious and endless to rehearse the main disputed matter every time something related to it comes up — like claiming the whole estate every time a tenant cottage on the property is mentioned — I will briefly address these various accounts of faith's role in our justification, aiming more to understand what each one intends than to argue about its accuracy, since that accuracy depends on what the substance of the whole controversy is.

Until recently, Protestant theologians unanimously affirmed faith to be the instrumental cause of our justification. This is expressed in many of the public confessions of their churches. Their view on the nature and role of faith was opposed from the start by those in the Roman church. Later it was denied also by the Socinians as either false or improper, as seen in Socinus's Miscellanies and in works by Smalcius, Schlichtingius, and others. More recently, this expression has been rejected by some among ourselves, following Episcopius, Curcellaeus, and others of that school. Those who are moderate and careful tend to avoid this language as improper rather than reject it as untrue. Our safest course in such cases is to ask what the thing itself actually means. Once that is agreed upon, the person who drops the quarrel over precise wording before it even begins serves truth best. Insisting stubbornly on particular expressions will make our disputes endless, and anyone can always find a plausible-sounding argument to justify their preferred terminology. If our goal in teaching matches that of Scripture — to inform the minds of believers and convey the knowledge of God in Christ — we must sometimes be willing to use expressions that may not survive the rigid tests of arbitrary rules and distinctions drawn from abstract academic disciplines. And those who simply dismiss the instrumentality of faith in justification as an unscriptural idea — as though they could with a single breath blow away the arguments of so many learned people who have defended it — would do well to reconsider the grounds of their confidence. The question is only about what the idea means, and it is not enough to point out that the precise word "instrument" does not appear in Scripture for this purpose. By that same logic we could reject the Trinity of persons in the divine being — yet not one line of Scripture can be rightly understood without acknowledging it.

Those who assert faith as the instrumental cause in our justification do so with two aims. First, they intend to explain the meaning of those Scripture expressions in which we are said to be justified — expressions that must denote either an instrument, a form, or a manner of action. Romans 3:28: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith." Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:8; Ephesians 2:8; Romans 3:22, 30. The Greek phrases used are equivalent to "by faith," "from faith," or "through faith" — all of which we can only render as "by faith" or "through faith." Nowhere are we said to be justified "for our faith," as if faith were the ground or merit of justification. The question is what the most accurate, illuminating, and fitting way is to express the meaning of these phrases. Most Protestants judge the best explanation to be an instrumental cause. For these phrases plainly suggest some kind of causality — and the lowest and most modest form of causality is the instrumental. These phrases are used of faith in our justification before God and of no other grace or duty whatsoever. They therefore point to faith's specific work or office in our justification. Indeed, in all of Greek literature — including the entire New Testament — the preposition "through" followed by a genitive case denotes at least instrumental efficiency. Even in the divine works of the Trinity, the operation of the second person — who is a principal efficient cause — is sometimes expressed by this construction, perhaps to indicate the order of operation in the Trinity corresponding to the order of subsistence, though the construction can also be applied to God absolutely or to the Father (Romans 11:35). Furthermore, justification "by the works of the law" and justification "through faith" are placed in direct opposition (Galatians 3:2). When it is said that a man is not justified by the works of the law, everyone acknowledges that this means to exclude all causal efficiency of any kind from such works. It follows that when, in contrast, we are said to be justified through faith, an instrumental efficiency is intended. I will not, however, make it my dispute that faith is technically a proper instrument or instrumental cause of our justification in some strict philosophical sense, thereby getting drawn into a pointless argument about the nature and kinds of instruments and instrumental causes as defined through a noisy chaos of scholastic terms and distinctions. But this I do hold: among all the concepts that can be drawn from common use and understanding to convey the meaning of those frequently used scriptural expressions, none is as fitting as the concept of an instrument or instrumental cause — since some kind of causality is included in those expressions, other kinds of causality are clearly excluded, and the instrumental is the only one that remains.

But it may be objected that if faith is the instrumental cause of justification, it must be either God's instrument or the believer's instrument. That it is not God's instrument is plain — it is a duty He prescribes to us, it is our own act, and it is we who believe, not God. No act of ours can be the instrument of His work. But if it is our instrument, and efficiency is attributed to it, then we are in some sense the efficient causes of our own justification — we are, in effect, justifying ourselves — which diminishes the grace of God and the blood of Christ.

I confess I do not place much weight on objections of this kind. For, first, despite what is said, Scripture plainly states that God justifies us by faith: "It is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith" (Romans 3:30). "The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith" (Galatians 3:8). "He purified their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9). Therefore, faith may in some sense be called God's instrument in our justification — both as the means and way He has ordained on our part by which we shall be justified, and because He gives it to us and works it in us for the specific purpose of our justification: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). If anyone says that on these grounds — considering divine ordination and God's concurrent operation in our justification — faith is God's instrument in its place and manner (just as the gospel is in Romans 1:16, and ministers of the gospel in 2 Corinthians 5:18 and 1 Timothy 4:6, and the sacraments in Romans 4:11 and Titus 3:5, each in their respective place and kind), it may be that such a person will contribute as much to a right understanding of God's work in justification as those who deny it.

But what is primarily intended is that faith is the instrument of those who believe. Yet even so, they are not thereby said to justify themselves. For faith does not produce the effect of justification by any physical operation — nor could it, since justification is a purely sovereign act of God. Nor is it morally meritorious of justification. Nor does it dispose the subject for the introduction of an inherent formal cause of justification, since no such thing exists. Nor does it have any other physical or moral connection to the effect of justification beyond what arises purely from God's appointment and ordination. Therefore, affirming the instrumentality of faith gives no reason whatsoever to attribute the effect of justification to anyone other than God as the sole principal efficient cause — the One from whom it proceeds freely and sovereignly, ordering things and their relationships as He sees fit (Romans 3:24-25). It is therefore God's ordained rule of duty that we may be justified freely by His grace — and faith has its use and operation toward that end in the manner of an instrument, as we will see further shortly. As far as I can discern, those who deny that faith is the instrumental cause of our justification and substitute for it the concept of a condition, contribute nothing to a real understanding of the truth — unless they can show that "condition" is a more natural explanation of the scriptural phrases in question, which is the first thing to be established. For all we are doing in this matter is seeking a right understanding of scriptural statements and expressions — unless we intend to wander far afield and lose ourselves in a maze of uncertain speculation.

Second, they aimed to describe the role of faith in justification as expressed in Scripture by the concepts of apprehending and receiving Christ — or His righteousness and the forgiveness of sins through Him. The Greek words used in Scripture to express this role mean taking or receiving what is offered, tendered, given, or granted to us — or laying hold of something to make it one's own. By faith we are said to receive Christ (John 1:12; Colossians 2:6), the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness (Romans 5:17), the word of promise (Acts 2:41), the word of God (Acts 8:14; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13), the atonement made by the blood of Christ (Romans 5:11), the forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43; Acts 26:18), the promise of the Spirit (Galatians 3:14), and the promises (Hebrews 9:15). There is therefore nothing that contributes to our justification that we do not receive by faith. And unbelief is expressed by not receiving (John 1:11; John 3:11; John 12:48; John 14:17). Therefore, the object of faith in our justification — the thing by which we are justified — is tendered, granted, and given to us by God. Faith's role is to lay hold of it, to receive it, so that it becomes our own. When we receive physical objects that are given to us, we do so with our hand — which is therefore the instrument of receiving, the means by which we apprehend or lay hold of anything in order to make it ours. This is the hand's particular office by nature among all the members of the body. The hand has other uses, and other members may serve the body equally well in other respects, but only the hand is the instrument of receiving and laying hold of what is given to us to be made our own and kept. Since the righteousness by which we are justified is God's gift tendered to us in the promise of the gospel, and since faith's role and office is to receive, apprehend, lay hold of, and appropriate this righteousness — I do not know how this can be better expressed than by the word instrument, nor what other concept would give our minds greater clarity. Some may prefer other concepts for other aspects of faith's role, and that may be appropriate for those other uses. But the sole question here is how to describe faith as the thing that receives Christ, the atonement, and the gift of righteousness — which is faith's only role in our justification. Anyone who can express this better than by an instrument ordained by God for this end — an instrument whose entire operation depends on that divine ordination — will be doing truth a service. It is true that those who locate the formal cause or ground of our justification in ourselves or in our inherent righteousness — and who thereby directly or by logical implication deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness to our justification — cannot accept faith as an instrument in this work, and are not challenged by this consideration. For they do not acknowledge that we receive by gift a righteousness that is not our own by which we are justified, and so they have no room for any instrument by which it should be received. Since the righteousness itself is, as they put it, fictional, imaginary, a chimera, a fabrication, it can have no real qualities and nothing real can truly be predicated of it. Therefore, as stated at the outset of this discussion, the truth and appropriateness of describing faith's role in justification as instrumental depends on the substance of the doctrine itself — on the nature and primary causes of justification — with which it must stand or fall. If we are justified through the imputation of Christ's righteousness, which faith alone apprehends and receives, then describing faith as the instrumental cause of our justification will not be denied. But if we are justified by an inherent evangelical righteousness of our own, then faith may be the condition of its imputation, or a disposition for its introduction, or a deserving of it by fitness — but an instrument it cannot be. For the present, the instrumental concept has this twofold advantage: first, it best and most precisely answers what Scripture says about faith's role in our justification, as the examples given demonstrate; and second, no other concept can be so stated without implying that faith must come before justification in time — which justifying faith cannot do, unless a person can be a true believer with justifying faith and yet not be justified.

Some argue that faith is the condition of our justification and that it cannot be conceived of in any other way. As I said before, I will not quarrel with anyone over words, terms, or expressions as long as what is meant by them is agreed upon. There is an obvious sense in which faith may be called the condition of our justification — meaning simply that it is the duty God requires of us in order that we may be justified. The whole of Scripture bears witness to this. And this does not prevent faith, in terms of its role, from also being the instrument by which we apprehend or receive Christ and His righteousness. But to assert faith as the condition of our justification — or to say that we are justified by faith as the condition of the new covenant — and then use a pre-loaded meaning of the word "condition" to assign faith a different role in justification that excludes the instrumental role — is not something easily to be accepted, because it presupposes an alteration in the very substance of the doctrine.

The word "condition" does not appear anywhere in Scripture in this connection — which I note not to press the argument further, but simply to observe that we have no certain rule or standard by which to fix its meaning. Therefore, it cannot be introduced in whatever sense people prefer and then have that sense pressed into service as an argument for other conclusions. For example, on the assumption that faith is granted to be a condition of our justification, some elevate it into a subordinate righteousness imputed to us — apparently before, or as a condition of, any imputation of Christ's righteousness in any sense. And some who claim to reduce faith's role or significance in justification say it is merely a necessary antecedent — which leaves us just as uncertain about the nature and efficacy of this condition as we were before. Such concepts neither illuminate nor clarify the true meaning of things — they only obscure it.

When we introduce into religious discussion words not found in Scripture — as we may and must do when we intend to bring clarity and communicate proper understanding of the things Scripture contains — we may not import with them arbitrary pre-conceived meanings forged in legal or philosophical schools. The meaning of such words must be determined by their usage in the best recognized authors of the language to which they belong, and by their common everyday meaning among speakers of that language. Everyone knows the confusion that has been introduced into church doctrine by bringing in words without an agreed and settled rule for their meaning. For example, the word "merit" was introduced by some of the ancient writers — as is plain from the context of their discussions — to mean simply obtaining or acquiring something by any means whatsoever. But because there was no compelling reason to hold the word to that precise meaning, it gave rise to as great a corruption as has ever afflicted the Christian religion. We must therefore use the best means available to understand the meaning of the word "condition" and what is intended by it before accepting its use in this discussion.

The Latin word "conditio" is used in various ways by the best Latin writers, corresponding to several Greek terms — meaning status, fortune, dignity, cause, or a compact entered into. Which of these meanings it carries in the present discussion is not easy to determine. In common English usage it sometimes refers to a person's state or quality — their rank or situation — and sometimes to a valuable consideration for something to be done. And in practice it is applied to things in a great variety of ways. Sometimes the primary, procuring, purchasing cause is described this way — as when the condition on which one man lends another a hundred pounds is that the money be repaid with interest, or the condition on which a man transfers his land is that he receives a certain sum of money for it. In these cases, a condition means a valuable consideration. At other times, it refers to something added to the principal cause on which the effect is suspended — as when a man bequeaths a hundred pounds to someone on condition that they come to a certain place to collect it. This is not a valuable consideration, yet the effect of the primary cause — the testator's will — is suspended on it. And as for the degrees of connection between a condition and what it conditions — whether by purchase, procurement, valuable consideration, or merely necessary presence — the variety is endless. We therefore cannot arrive at any fixed meaning for the word "condition" apart from a specific explanation of what is intended by it wherever it is used. While this does not rule out using the word to describe the way and manner in which we are justified by faith, it does rule out imposing any precise fixed meaning on it beyond what the subject matter itself supplies. Without that, everything to which the word is applied is left ambiguous and uncertain.

For instance: it is commonly said that faith and new obedience are the conditions of the new covenant. But because of the ambiguous and varied use of the term "condition," we cannot be certain what this assertion means. If it only means that God in and through the new covenant indispensably requires these things of us — that is, the response of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Christ, in order to His own glory and our full enjoyment of all the covenant's benefits — this is unquestionably true. But if it means that these things are conditions of the covenant that we must fulfill prior to receiving any of its grace, mercy, or privileges — so that our faith and obedience are the consideration and procuring causes of those gifts, and all of them are, as some put it, the rewards of our faith and obedience — this is utterly false, contrary to the express testimony of Scripture, and destructive of the covenant's very nature. If it means that these things — though promised in the covenant and worked in us by the grace of God — are nonetheless duties required of us in order for us to participate in and fully enjoy the covenant's final end in glory, this is the truth. But if it means that faith and new obedience — that is, the works of righteousness we do — are conditions of the covenant in such a way that whatever God has ordained faith to accomplish as its means and end (such as justification), God has equally ordained our works of obedience to accomplish in the same way and with the same kind of efficacy, this is directly contrary to the whole scope and explicit design of the apostle on that subject. It will be said that a condition, in the sense intended when faith is called the condition of our justification, is merely a necessary antecedent — something without which the effect would not occur — which is easy enough to understand. Yet even this does not bring us out of uncertainty into a clear understanding of what is intended. For necessary antecedents may be understood broadly or strictly and precisely. In the broader sense, they include all causes of any kind of efficiency or merit that are subordinate to the principal cause — causes that would accomplish nothing on their own but that, in conjunction with the principal cause, have a real effective influence, physical or moral, in producing the effect. If we take a condition to be a necessary antecedent in this broad sense, we are still left uncertain as to what its role, efficiency, or merit in our justification might be. If it is taken more strictly to mean something that must be present but has no causal role of any kind — not even as a receptive instrument — I cannot understand how it could be an ordinance of God. For everything God appoints for any moral or spiritual end has, by virtue of that appointment, either a symbolic and instructive power, an active efficiency, or a fitting connection that God rewards with respect to that end. Other things may be generally and remotely necessary to such an end — as it participates in the natural order of things — without being divine ordinances with respect to it, and thus without any kind of causal relation to it as something moral or spiritual. The air we breathe, for example, is necessary to the preaching of the word and is therefore in some sense a necessary antecedent to it — but it is not a divinely ordained instrument for that purpose. But everything God appoints for a particular spiritual end has an efficacy or operation through one of the channels mentioned. Such things either concur with the principal cause in its internal efficiency, or they operate externally by removing the obstacles and hindrances that oppose the principal cause in its work. This rules out all strictly understood "necessary antecedents" from having any place among divine ordinances. God appoints nothing for an end that accomplishes nothing. His sacraments are not mere empty symbols — by virtue of His institution they convey the grace they do not contain in themselves. The preaching of the word has a real efficacy for all its ends; so do all the graces and duties He works in us and requires of us. Through all of these we are made fit for the inheritance of the saints in light, and our whole obedience, through His gracious appointment, has a fitness He rewards with respect to eternal life. Therefore: faith may well be called the condition of our justification if nothing more is meant than that it is what God requires of us in order that we may be justified. But to limit the description of faith's role in our justification to its being a condition — when even a settled meaning for the term cannot be agreed upon — serves nothing but the cause of unprofitable strife and dispute.

To close this discussion of faith and its role in our justification, something must also be said about its specific object. Although what has already been said in the description of faith's general nature and object is in principle sufficient to address its specific object as well, this question has been debated under a particular formulation and certain specific terms that must also be considered. The question is this: does justifying faith in our justification, or faith in its role in justification, regard Christ as King and Prophet as well as Priest — together with the satisfaction He made as Priest — and does it do so in the same way and to the same ends and purposes? I will be brief on this question, since it is a relatively recent controversy and its investigation may involve more curiosity than its resolution contributes to spiritual edification. Since it has not, as far as I know, been formally stated in any of the public confessions of the Reformed churches, anyone is free to express their thinking on it. With that in mind, I say:

1. The faith by which we are justified — as it receives Christ — primarily regards His person for all the ends for which He is the ordinance of God. It does not, as faith in general, first regard His person in an absolute sense — since the formal object of faith as such is the truth of God in the proposition, not the thing proposed itself. Therefore faith regards and receives Christ as He is proposed in the promise, with the promise itself being the formal object of its agreement.

2. In receiving Christ through the promise, we cannot receive Him in a way that excludes consideration of any of His offices. He is never to be considered by us apart from all His offices, and any mental conception that aims to receive Christ as Priest but not as King or Prophet is not faith but unbelief — not receiving but rejecting Him.

3. When we receive Christ specifically for justification, our distinct and express aim is to be justified — nothing more or less. To be justified means to be freed from the guilt of sin, to have all our sins pardoned, to have a righteousness with which to appear before God so as to be accepted by Him, and to have a right to the heavenly inheritance. Every believer also has other aims in which they are equally concerned — the renewal of their nature, the sanctification of their person, and the ability to live to God in all holy obedience. But the things just mentioned are all that a believer aims at when turning to Christ or receiving Him specifically for justification.

4. Therefore, justifying faith — in that act or work by which we are justified — regards Christ in His priestly office alone, as the surety of the covenant, together with everything He did in discharging that office. The consideration of His other offices is not excluded, but it is not formally part of the object of faith as justifying.

5. When we say that Christ's priestly office — His blood and satisfaction — is the sole thing faith regards in justification, we do not exclude but actually include and comprehend in that statement everything that depends on it or concurs to make it effective for our justification. This includes: first, the free grace and favor of God in giving Christ for us and to us — through which we are frequently said to be justified (Romans 3:24; Ephesians 2:8; Titus 3:7) — along with His wisdom, love, righteousness, and power, as already described. Second, everything in Christ Himself that was necessarily prior to His discharge of that office, or that followed from it, or necessarily accompanied it — such as His incarnation, His whole course of obedience, His resurrection, ascension, exaltation, and intercession. The consideration of all these is inseparable from the discharge of His priestly office, and justification is therefore attributed to them as well, either explicitly or implicitly (Genesis 3:15; 1 John 3:8; Hebrews 2:13-16; Romans 4:25; Acts 5:31; Hebrews 7:27; Romans 8:34). Yet wherever justification is so attributed to these things, they are not considered in an absolute sense but in relation to His sacrifice and satisfaction. Third, all the means by which the sacrifice and righteousness of the Lord Christ are applied to us are also included — such as the primary efficient cause, which is the Holy Spirit (through whom we are said to be justified "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God," 1 Corinthians 6:11), and the instrumental cause on God's part, which is the promise of the gospel (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:22-23). It would therefore be unfair to claim that by this position we narrow or restrict the object of justifying faith as it justifies. We actually assign respect to the whole mediatorial office of Christ — not excluding His kingly and prophetical roles — but only excluding a conception of them that would bring not more of Christ but more of ourselves into our justification. And the position as stated can be proved.

1. Proof from the experience of all who are justified or who seek justification according to the gospel. For under the aspect of seeking justification — or seeking a righteousness unto justification — all such people considered and must consider themselves as guilty before God, exposed to His wrath under the curse of the law, as we established at the outset of this discussion (Romans 3:19). They were all in the same condition Adam was in after the fall — to whom God proposed the relief of Christ's incarnation and suffering (Genesis 3:15). To seek justification is to seek discharge from this wretched state and condition. Such people have, and rightly have, other desires as well. For the state they are in prior to justification is not only a state of guilt and wrath but also one in which the power of sin prevails — through the corruption of their nature — and their whole souls are defiled. They therefore seek not only to be justified but also to be sanctified. But with respect to the guilt of sin and the lack of a righteousness before God — which is what justification addresses — they look to Christ as set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood. In their seeking for sanctification, they look to Christ's kingly and prophetical offices in their particular exercise. But for their freedom from the guilt of sin, their acceptance with God, their justification in His sight — that they may be freed from condemnation, that they may not come into judgment — it is Christ crucified; it is Christ lifted up as the bronze serpent in the wilderness; it is the blood of Christ; it is the propitiation He was and the atonement He made; it is His bearing of their sins, His being made sin and the curse for them; it is His obedience, His putting an end to sin, and the everlasting righteousness He brought in — on these and these alone does faith fix and rest. If any person's experience is otherwise, I acknowledge I am not acquainted with it. I am not saying that conviction of sin is the only prior condition of actual justification — but it is what makes a sinner capable of being justified. No one, therefore, is to be considered as a candidate for justification unless they are actually under the power of the conviction of sin with all its necessary consequences. Consider then any sinner in the condition the apostle describes in Romans 3 — guilty before God, with their mouth stopped as to any pleas, defenses, or excuses. If that person seeks relief and deliverance from that condition — that is, seeks to be justified according to the gospel — they can take no other wise course than the one to which the same apostle directs them in verses 20-25: "By the works of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed."

From this I argue: whatever a guilty, condemned sinner — finding no hope or relief from the law of God, the sole rule of all obedience — turns to by faith in order to be delivered and justified, that is the specific object of justifying faith. And that is the grace of God alone through the redemption that is in Christ, or Christ as proposed as a propitiation through faith in His blood. Either this is so, or the apostle is not rightly guiding the souls and consciences of people in the very condition he himself places them in. It is the blood of Christ alone to which he directs the faith of all who would be justified before God — grace, redemption, propitiation, all through the blood of Christ. This, if I am not mistaken, is what those who have carefully observed the acts of their faith in their justification before God will confirm from their own experience.

2. Scripture plainly declares that justifying faith regards the priestly office and acts of Christ alone. In the great Old Testament representation of the church's justification through the atoning sacrifice — when all sins and iniquities were pardoned and persons were accepted by God — the act of their faith was restricted to the laying of all their sins on the head of the sacrifice by the high priest (Leviticus 16). "By His knowledge My righteous Servant will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities" (Isaiah 53:11). The sole thing faith regards in Christ for the justification of sinners is His bearing of their iniquities. Guilty, convicted sinners look to Him by faith as those bitten by fiery serpents looked to the bronze serpent — that is, as He was lifted up on the cross (John 3:14-15). Christ Himself expresses the nature and acts of faith in our justification this way: Romans 3:24-25 — "being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith." As He is a propitiation, as He shed His blood for us, as we have redemption through it — in this regard He is the specific object of our faith with respect to our justification. See also Romans 5:9-10; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Ephesians 2:13-16; Romans 8:3-4. "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). What we seek in justification is a share in the righteousness of God — to become the righteousness of God, not in ourselves but in another, namely in Christ Jesus. And the only thing proposed to our faith as the means and cause of this is His being made sin for us — made a sacrifice for sin — in which all the guilt of our sins was laid on Him and He bore all our iniquities. This, therefore, is faith's specific object in justification. And wherever Scripture directs us to seek the forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ, to receive the atonement, and to be justified through faith in Him as crucified, the object of justifying faith is fixed and defined.

But it may be objected against these passages that none of them actually states that we are justified by faith in the blood of Christ alone — so as to exclude consideration of Christ's other offices and their acts from being the object of faith in the same way and to the same ends as His priestly office and everything belonging to or derived from it.

Answer. This objection echoes the common argument against justification by faith alone — namely, that the exclusive word "alone" does not appear in Scripture or in any of the passages cited for justification by faith. But the sufficient reply is that while the word itself may not appear in exactly that form for this purpose, there are exclusive expressions in Scripture equivalent to it, as we will see later. The same applies in this particular case. First, since our justification is expressly attributed to faith in the blood of Christ as the propitiation for our sins and to believing in Him as crucified for us — and nowhere is it attributed to our receiving Him as King, Lord, or Prophet — it is plain that the former expressions effectively exclude the latter consideration. Second, I am not saying that consideration of Christ's kingly and prophetical offices is excluded from our justification in the way that works are excluded in contrast to faith and grace. Works are excluded in such a way that we are to exercise a positive mental act of rejecting them, saying, as it were, "Be gone, you have no part or share in this matter." But regarding Christ's other offices in relation to the object of justifying faith, we say only that they are not included within it. To believe for justification by His blood while simultaneously exercising a deliberate mental act of excluding compliance with His other offices would be an impious notion.

3. Neither the consideration of Christ's other offices themselves, nor any of their particular acts, is suited to give the souls and consciences of convicted sinners the relief they seek in justification. Throughout this entire discussion we must not lose sight of the condition of the person to be justified — what they are seeking and what they ought to seek in justification. And that is pardon of sin and righteousness before God alone. Therefore, whatever is not suited to offer or provide that relief to such a person cannot be the object of justifying faith in that exercise of it on which justification depends. It will be said that this relief is found in Christ alone — and that is true, but under what consideration? The sinner's sole concern is how he may be accepted by God, be at peace with Him, and have all His wrath turned away through a propitiation or atonement. This can only come about through someone acting toward God and with God on the sinner's behalf — for the question is about the turning away of God's anger and acceptance before Him. It is through the blood of Christ that those who were far off are brought near (Ephesians 2:13). It is through the blood of Christ that those who were enemies are reconciled (verse 16). It is through the blood of Christ that we have redemption (Romans 3:24-25; Ephesians 1:7; and others). This, therefore, is the object of faith.

All the acts of Christ's kingly and prophetical offices flow from God — that is, they come to us in God's name and authority. Not one of them acts toward God on our behalf in such a way that through them we could expect acceptance with God. They are all good, blessed, and holy in themselves, and powerfully directed toward God's glory in our salvation. Indeed, they are no less necessary to our salvation and the praise of God's grace than is the atonement and satisfaction He made for sin — for through them the way of life is revealed to us, grace is communicated, our persons are sanctified, and the reward is bestowed. And it is in the exercise of His kingly power that the Lord Christ pardons and justifies sinners. Not that He as King established the law of justification — for that was given and established in the first promise and He came to put it into effect (John 3:16) — but by virtue of His atonement and the righteousness imputed to sinners, He both pardons and justifies them. But it is the acts of His priestly office alone that act toward God on our behalf. Whatever He did on earth with God for the church — in obedience, suffering, and offering Himself up — and whatever He does in heaven in intercession and appearing in the presence of God for us, all belongs entirely to His priestly office. And in these things alone does the soul of a convicted sinner find relief when seeking deliverance from sin and acceptance with God. In these alone, therefore, must the specific object of faith be located — the thing that will give the soul rest and peace. This last consideration is in itself sufficient to settle the dispute.

Several objections are raised against this position, which I will not discuss at length here since what is substantive in any of them will arise again in contexts where it can be addressed more appropriately. In general, it may be argued that justifying faith is the same as saving faith, and that Scripture never says we are justified by this or that part of faith, but by faith in general — that is, faith taken as the complete grace of faith in its essence. And saving faith in this comprehensive sense includes not only a regard to Christ in all His offices but obedience as well, as is evident in many Scripture passages. There is therefore no reason to limit the object of faith to the person of Christ acting in the discharge of His priestly office with its effects and fruits.

Answer. 1. Saving faith and justifying faith in any believer are one and the same — "saving" and "justifying" are simply external descriptions derived from its distinct operations and effects. Yet saving faith acts in a particular and unique way in justification that is unlike its activity in any other regard. Therefore, second, although saving faith as broadly described always includes obedience — not as its form or essence, but as the necessary effect is included in the cause and the fruit in the life-bearing sap — and is often described in terms of its exercise where Christ, His blood, and His righteousness are not expressly mentioned, since it is applied to all the acts, duties, and ends of the gospel — this does not prove at all that faith lacks a specific object in its duty and role in our justification. If it could be shown that wherever justification is attributed to faith, faith has some other object assigned to it — something in which it rests for the pardon of sin and acceptance with God — this objection would carry some force. But this cannot be shown. Third, to affirm a specific object of justifying faith is not to say that we are justified by a part of faith and not by the whole grace of faith in its essence. We are justified by the entire grace of faith acting in a particular and specific way. But in truth, we need not dwell on this inquiry. For what is really being asked is not whether anything belonging to Christ is to be excluded from being the object of justifying faith, but whether anything in or of ourselves — under the label of receiving Christ as our Lord and King — is to be admitted as having causal or conditional efficiency in that work. Since it is granted that justifying faith is the receiving of Christ, anything belonging to the person of Christ, any of His offices, or any act in the discharge of any office that may be connected to any cause of our justification — whether the meritorious, procuring, material, formal, or manifesting cause — is freely admitted, so far as it does so, to belong to the object of justifying faith. Nor will I argue about the question as stated — "what of Christ is to be considered the object of justifying faith and what is not" — since that is not the real issue. What is actually intended is this: whether our own obedience — distinct from faith or included in it and functioning in the same way as faith — is the condition of our justification before God. That is the real question, and the other formulation is simply a more plausible-sounding way to lead people toward accepting it. That question will be examined on its own terms.