Chapter 18: Justification as Declared in Paul's Epistles, Especially Romans

THat the way and manner of our justification before God, with all the causes and means of it are designedly declared by the apostle in the epistle unto the Romans, Chap. 3:4, 5. as also vindicated from objections, so as to render his discourse thereon the proper Seat of this doctrine, and whence it is principally to be learned, cannot modestly be denied. The late exceptions of some, That this doctrine of justification by faith, without works, is found only in the Writings of S. Paul, and that his Writings are obscure and intricate, are both false and scandalous to Christian religion, so as that in this place we shall not afford them the least consideration. He wrote , as he was moved by the Holy Ghost. And as all the matter delivered by him was sacred truth, which immediately requires our faith and obedience, so the way and manner wherein he declared it, was such as the Holy Ghost judged most expedient for the edification of the church. And as he said himself with confidence, That if the gospel which he Preached, and as it was Preached by him, though accounted by them foolishness, was hid, so as that they could not understand, nor comprehend the Mystery of it, it was hid unto them that are lost; so we may say, That if what he delivers in particular concerning our justification before God, seems obscure, difficult, or perplexed unto us, it is from our prejudices, corrupt affections, or weakness of understanding at best, not able to comprehend the glory of this Mystery of the grace of God in Christ, and not from any defect in his way, and manner of the Revelation of it. Rejecting therefore all such perverse insinuations, in a due sense of our own weakness, and acknowledgment that at best we know but in part, we shall humbly inquire into the Blessed Revelation of this great Mystery of the justification of a sinner before God, as by him declared in those chapters of his glorious epistle to the Romans; and I shall do it with all briefness possible, so as not on this occasion to repeat what has been already spoken, or to anticipate what may be spoken in place more convenient.

The first thing he does, is to prove all men to be under sin, and to be guilty before God. This he givs as the conclusion of his preceding discourse from Chap. 1:18. or what he had evidently evinced thereby, Chap. 3. verse 19, 23. Hereon an inquiry does arise, how any of them come to be justified before God. And whereas justification is a sentence upon the consideration of a righteousness, his grand inquiry is what that righteousness is, on the consideration whereof a Man may be so justified. And concerning this, he affirms expressly that it is not the righteousness of the law, nor of the works of it; whereby what he does intend, has been in part before declared, and will be further manifested in the proofs of our discourse. Wherefore in general he declares, that the righteousness whereby we are justified, is the righteousness of God, in opposition unto any righteousness of our own, Chap. 1:17, Chap. 3:21, 22. And he describes this righteousness of God by three properties, (1.) That it is , without the law, Ver. 21. separated in all its concerns from the law; not attainable by it, nor any works of it; which they have no influence into. It is neither our obedience unto the law, nor attainable thereby. Nor can any expression more separate and exclude the works of obedience unto the law, from any concernment in it, then this does: Wherefore, what ever is, or can be performed by our selves in obedience unto the law, is rejected from any interest in this righteousness of God, or the procurement of it to be made ours. (2.) That yet it is witnessed unto by the law. Ver. 21. The law and the prophets.

The apostle by this distinction of the books of the Old testament, into the law and the prophets, manifests that by the law he understands the books of Moses; and in them, testimony is given unto this righteousness of God, four ways.

(1.) By a declaration of the causes of the necessity of it unto our justification. This is done in the account given of our Apostasie from God, of the loss of his Image, and the state of sin that insued thereon. For hereby an end was put unto all possibility and hope of acceptance with God, by our own Personal righteousness. By the entrance of sin, our own righteousness went out of the world; so that there must be another righteousness prepared and approved of God, and called The righteousness of God, in opposition unto our own, or all relation of love and favor between God and Man, must cease for ever.

(2.) In the way of recovery from this state, generally declared in the first promise of the Blessed Seed, by whom this righteousness of God was to be wrought and introduced; for he alone was to make an end of sin, and to bring in Everlasting righteousness,Daniel 9:24. That righteousness of God, that should be the means of the justification of the church in all ages, and under all dispensations.

(3.) By stopping up the way unto any other righteousness through the Threatnings of the law, and that curse which every transgression of it, was attended withal. Hereby it was plainly and fully declared, that there must be such a righteousness provided for our justification before Men, as would answer and remove that curse.

(4.) In the Prefiguration and Representation of that only way and means, whereby this righteousness of God was to be wrought. This it did in all its Sacrifices, especially in the great Anniversary sacrifice on the Day of expiation, wherein all the sins of the church, were laid on the head of the sacrifice, and so carried away. (3.) He describes it by the only way of our participation of it, the only means on our part of the communication of it unto us. And this is by faith alone. The righteousness of God which is by the faith of Christ Jesus, unto all, and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference. Ver. 22. faith in Christ Jesus is so the only way and means, whereby this righteousness of God comes upon us, or is communicated unto us, that it is so unto all that have this faith, and only unto them, and that without difference on the consideration of any thing else besides. And although faith taken absolutely, may be used in various senses, yet as thus specified and limited, the faith of Christ Jesus, or as he calls it, the faith that is in me. Acts 26:18. It can intend nothing but the reception of him, and trust in him, as the ordinance of God for righteousness and salvation.

This description of The righteousness of God revealed in the gospel, which the apostle asserts as the only means and cause of our justification before God, with the only way of its participation and communication unto us by the faith of Christ Jesus, fully confirms the truth we plead for. For if the righteousness wherewith we must be justified before God be not our own, but the righteousness of God, as these things are directly opposed, Philippians 3:9. And the only way whereby it comes upon us, or we are made partakers of it, is by the faith of Jesus Christ, then our own personal inherent righteousness or obedience, has no interest in our justification before God; which argument is insoluble, nor is the force of it to be waved by any distinctions whatever, if we keep our hearts unto a due reverence of the authority of God in his word.

Having fully proved, That no Men living have any righteousness of their own, whereby they may be justified, but are all shut up under the guilt of sin; and having declared, That there is a righteousness of God now fully revealed in the gospel, whereby alone we may be so; leaving all Men in themselves unto their own lot, In as much as all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, he proceeds to declare the nature of our justification before God in all the causes of it. Ver. 24, 25, 26. 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. To declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness, that he might be just, and the Justifier of them that believe in Jesus.

Here it is, that we may, and ought if any where, to expect the interest of our personal obedience under some qualification or other, in our justification to be declared. For if it should be supposed (which yet it cannot with any pretence of reason) that in the foregoing discourse, the apostle had excluded only the works of the law, as absolutely perfect, or as wrought in our own strength without the aid of grace, or as meritorious; yet having generally excluded all works from our justification, Ver. 20. Without distinction or limitation, it might well be expected, and ought to have been so; that upon the full declaration which he gives us of the nature and way of our justification in all the causes of it, he should have assigned the place, and consideration which our own personal righteousness had in our justification before God; the first or second, or continuation of it, somewhat or other, or at least, made some mention of it, under the qualification of gracious, sincere, or Evangelical, that it might not seem to be absolutely excluded. It is plain the apostle thought of no such thing, nor was at all solicitous about any reflection that might be made on his doctrine, as though it overthrew the necessity of our own obedience. Take in the consideration of the apostles design, with the circumstances of the context, and the argument from his utter silence, about our own personal righteousness in our justification before God, is unanswerable. But this is not all; we shall find in our progress, that it is expressly and directly excluded by him.

All unprejudiced persons must needs think that no words could be used, more express and emphatical, to secure the whole of our justification unto the Freegrace of God, [〈1 page duplicate〉][〈1 page duplicate〉] through the Blood, or mediation of Christ, wherein it is faith alone that gives us an interest, than these used here by the apostle. And for my part, I shall only say, that I know not how to express my self in this matter, in words and terms more express or significant of the conception of my mind. And if we could all but subscribe the answer here given by the apostle; how, by what means, on what grounds, or by what causes, are we justified before God; namely, that we are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his Blood, &c. There might be an end of this Controversie.

But the principal passages of this testimony must be distinctly considered, (1.) The principal efficient cause is first expressed with a peculiar emphasis; or the causa , being justified freely by his grace. God is the principal efficient cause of our justification, and his grace is the only moving cause thereof. I shall not stay upon the exception of those of the Romansan church, namely, that by which their Translation renders per gratiam Dei, the internal inherent grace of God, which they make the formal cause of justification, is intended. For they have nothing to prove it, but that which overthrows it; namely, that it is added unto freely, which were needless, if it signifie the Free-grace or favor of God. For both these expressions gratis per gratiam, freely by grace, are put together to give the greater emphasis unto this assertion, wherein the whole of our justification is vendicated unto the Free-grace of God. So far as they are distinguishable, the one denotes the principle from whence our justification proceeds, namely grace; and the other, the manner of its operation, it works freely. Besides, the grace of God in this subject, does every where constantly signifie his goodness, love, and favor, as has been undeniably proved by many. See Romans 5:15. Ephesians 2:4, 8, 9:2 Timothy 1:9. Titus 3:4, 5.

Being justified , so the LXX. render the Hebrew particle ; without price, without merit, without cause; and sometimes it is used for without end, that is, what is done in vain; as is used by the apostle, Galatians 2:21. without price or reward, Genesis 29:15. Exodus 21:22. 2 kings 24:25. without cause or merit or any means of procurement, 1 Samuel 19:5. 2 Samuel 24:24. Psalm 69:4. Psalm 102. In this sense it is rendred by , John 15:25. The design of the word is to exclude all consideration of any thing in us that should be the cause or condition of our justification. ; favor, absolutely considered may have respect unto somewhat in him towards whom it is shewed; so it is said that Joseph found grace or favor in the eyes of Potiphar, Genesis 29:4. but he found it not , without any consideration or cause; for he saw that the Lord was with him and made all that he did to prosper in his hand, verse 3. But no words can be found out to free our justification before God from all respect unto any thing in our selves, but only what is added expressly as the means of its participation on our part, through faith in his blood, more emphatical than these here used by the apostle; ; freely by his grace. And with whom this is not admitted as exclusive of all works or obedience of our own, of all conditions, preparations and merit, I shall despair of ever expressing my conceptions about it intelligibly unto them.

Having asserted this righteousness of God as the cause and means of our justification before him, in opposition unto all righteousness of our own; and declared the cause of the communication of it unto us on the part of God, to be mere free Sovereign grace, the means on our part, whereby according unto the ordination of God, we do receive, or are really made partakers of that righteousness of God whereon we are justified, is by faith; ; that is by faith alone. Nothing else is proposed, nothing else required unto this end. It is replied, that there is no intimation that is by faith alone, or that faith is asserted to be the means of our justification exclusively unto other Graces or works. But there is such an exclusion directly included in the description given of that faith whereby we are justified with respect unto its especial object by faith in his blood. For faith respecting the blood of Christ, as that whereby propitiation was made for sin, in which respect alone, the apostle affirms that we are justified through faith, admits of no association with any other Graces or duties. Neither is it any part of their nature to fix on the blood of Christ, for justification before God: wherefore they are all here directly excluded. And those who think otherwise, may try how they can introduce them into this context without an evident corrupting of it, and perverting of its sense. Neither will the other evasion yield our Adversaries the least relief: namely, that by faith not the single grace of faith is intended, but the whole obedience required in the new covenant, faith and works together. For as all works whatever, as our works, are excluded in the declaration of the causes of our justification on the part of God freely by his grace, by vertue of that great rule, Romans 11:6. If it be of grace, then no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace; so the determination of the object of faith in its act or duty whereon we are justified, namely the blood of Christ is absolutely exclusive of all works from an interest in that duty. For whatever looks unto the blood of Christ, for justification, is faith and nothing else. And as for the calling of it a single act or duty, I refer the reader unto our preceding discourse about the nature of justifying faith.

Three things the apostle inferrs from the declaration he had made of the nature and causes of our justification before God, all of them further illustrating the meaning and sense of his words.

1. That Boasting is excluded; , verse 27. Apparent it is from hence, and from what he affirms concerning Abraham, Chap. 4. verse 2. that a great part, at least, of the controversie he had about justification, was whether it did admit of any or in those that were justified. And it is known that the jews placed all their Hopes in those things whereof they thought they could boast, namely their Priviledges and their righteousness. But from the declaration made of the nature and causes of justification, the apostle infers that all Boasting whatever is utterly shut out of doors; . Boasting, in our language is the name of a vice; and is never used in a good sense. But and , the words used by the apostle, are of an indifferent signification, and as they are applied may denote a Vertue as well as a Vice. So they do, Hebrews 3:6.

But alwayes, and in all places, they respect something that is peculiar in or unto them, unto whom they are ascribed. Wherever any thing is ascribed unto one and not unto another, with respect unto any good end, there is fundamentum, a foundation for boasting. All this says the apostle in the matter of our justification is utterly excluded. But wherever respect is had unto any condition or qualification in one more than another, especially if it be of works, it givs a ground of boasting, as he affirms, Chap. 4:2. And it appears from comparing that verse with this, that wherever there is any influence of our own works into our justification, there is a ground of boasting; but in Evangelical justification, no such boasting in any kind can be admitted: Wherefore there is no place for works in our justification before God; for if there were, it is impossible but that a in one kind or other before God, or man must be admitted.

2. He infers a general conclusion, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, verse 28. What is meant by the law, and what by the works of the law in this discourse of the apostle about our justification, has been before declared. And if we are justified freely through faith in the Blood of Christ, that faith, which has the propitiation of Christ for its especial object, or as it has so, can take no other grace nor duty into Partnership with it self therein: and being so justified as that all such boasting is excluded as necessarily exults from any differencing Graces or works in our selves, wherein all the works of the law are excluded, it is certain that it is by faith alone in Christ that we are justified. All works are not only excluded, but the way unto their return is so shut up by the method of the apostles discourse, that all the reinforcements which the wit of man can give unto them, will never introduce them into our justification before God.

3. He asserts from hence, that we do not make void the law through grace, but establish it, verse 31. which how it is done, and how alone it can be done, has been before declared.

This is the substance of the Resolution the apostle gives unto that great inquiry, how a guilty convinced sinner may come to be justified in the sight of God. The sovereign grace of God, the mediation of Christ, and faith in the Blood of Christ, are all that he requirs thereunto. And whatever notions men may have about justification in other respects, it will not be safe to venture on any other Resolution of this case and inquiry; nor are we wiser than the Holy Ghost.

Romans Chap. 4.

In the beginning of the fourth chapter he confirms what he had before doctrinally declared, by a signal instance; and this was of the justification of Abraham, who being the father of the Faithful, his justification is proposed as the pattern of ours, as he expressly declares vers. 22, 23, 24. And some few things I shall observe on this instance in our passage unto the fifth verse; where I shall fix our discourse.

1. He denies that Abraham was justified by works, vers. 2. And (1.) These works were not those of the Jewish law, which alone some pretend to be excluded from our justification in this place. For they were the works he performed some hundreds of years before the giving of the law at Sinai: wherefore they are the works of his Moral obedience unto God that are intended. (2.) Those works must be understood which Abraham had then, when he is said to be justified in the testimony produced unto that purpose; But the works that Abraham then had, were works of righteousness, performed in faith and love to God, works of New obedience under the Conduct and aids of the Spirit of God; works required in the covenant of grace. These are the works excluded from the justification of Abraham. And these things are plain, express and evident, not to be eluded by any distinctions or Evasions. All Abraham's Evangelical works are expressly excluded from his justification before God.

2. He proves by the testimony of scripture, declaring the nature and grounds of the justification of Abraham, that he was justified no other way, but that which he had before declared, namely by grace through faith in Christ Jesus, vers. 3. Abraham believed God (in the promise of Christ and his mediation) and it was counted unto him for righteousness, vers. 3. He was justified by faith in the way before described (for other justification by faith there is none) in opposition unto all his own works, and Personal righteousness thereby.

3. From the same testimony he declares how he came to be Partaker of that righteousness whereon he was justified before God, which was by imputation; it was counted or imputed unto him for righteousness. The nature of imputation has been before declared.

4. The especial nature of this imputation, namely that it is of grace without respect unto works, he asserts and proves, vers. 4. from what is [••]ntrary thereunto, Now to him that works is the reward [•]ot reckon'd of grace, but of debt. Where works are of any consideration, there is no room for that kind of imputation whereby Abraham was justified, for it was a gracious imputation, and that is not of what is our own antecedently thereunto, but what is made our own by that imputation. For what is our own cannot be imputed unto us in a way of grace, but only reckon'd ours in a way of debt. That which is our own with all the effects of it, is due unto us. And therefore they who plead that faith it self is imputed unto us, to give some countenance unto an imputation of grace, do say it is imputed not for what it is, for then it would be reckoned of debt, but for what it is not. So Socinus, Cum fides imputatur nobis pro justitia, ideo imputatur quia nec ipsa fides justitia est, nec vere in se eam continet, De Servat. part. 4. cap. 2. which kind of imputation being indeed only a false Imagination, we have before disproved. But all works are inconsistent with that imputation whereby Abraham was justified. It is otherwise with him that works, so as thereon to be justified, then it was with him. Yea, say some, all works that are meritorious, that are performed with an opinion of merit, that make the reward to be of debt, are excluded, but other works are not. This distinction is not learned from the apostle. For according unto him, if this be merit and meritorious, that the reward be reckon'd of debt, then all works in justification are so. For without distinction or limitation he affirms, that unto him that works, the reward is not reckon'd of grace, but of debt. He does not exclude some sort of works, or works in some sense, because they would make the reward of debt, but affirms that all would do so unto the exclusion of gracious imputation. For if the foundation of imputation be in our selves, imputation by grace is excluded. In the fifth verse the Sum of the apostles doctrine, which he had contended for, and what he had proved, is expressed. But to him that works not, but believs on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. It is granted on all hands, that the close of the verse his faith is counted for righteousness, does express the justification of the person intended. He is justified, and the way of it is, his faith is counted or imputed. Wherefore the foregoing words declare the subject of justification, and its qualification, or the description of the person to be justified with all that is required on his part thereunto.

And first, it is said of him, that he is, ; who works not. It is not required unto his justification that he should not work, that he should not perform any duties of obedience unto God in any kind, which is working. For every person in the world is always obliged unto all duties of obedience, according to the light and knowledg of the will of God, the means whereof is afforded unto him. But the expression is to be limited by the subject matter treated of. He who works not, with respect unto justification; though not the design of the person, but the nature of the thing is intended. To say, he who works not is justified through believing, is to say that his works whatever they be, have no influence into his justification, nor has God in justifying of him any respect unto them. Wherefore he alone who works not, is the subject of justification, the person to be justified; that is, God considers no mans works, no mans duties of obedience in his justification; seeing we are justified , freely by his grace. And when God affirms expressly, that he justifies him who works not, and that freely by his grace, I cannot understand what place our works or duties of obedience, can have in our justification. For why should we trouble our selves to invent of what consideration they may be in our justification before God, when he himself affirms, that they are of none at all. Neither are the words capable of any evading interpretation. He that works not, is he that works not, let men say what they please, and distinguish as long as they will. And it is a boldness not to be justified, for any to rise up in opposition unto such express Divine testimonies, however they may be harnessed with Philosophical Notions and arguings, which are but as Thorns and Briars, which the word of God will pass through and consume.

But the apostle further adds in the description of the subject of justification that God justifies the ungodly. This is that expression which has stirred up so much wrath amongst many, and on the account whereof, some seem to be much displeased with the apostle himself. If any other person dare but say that God justifies the ungodly, he is presently reflected on, as one that by his doctrine would overthrow the necessity of Godliness, holiness, obedience, or Good works. For what need can there be of any of them, if God justifies the ungodly? Howbeit this is a Periphrasis of God that he is he that justifies the ungodly; this is his prerogative and property, as such will he be believed in and worshipped, which adds weight and Emphasis unto the Expression. And we must not foregoe this testimony of the Holy Ghost, let men be as angry as they please.

But the difference is about the meaning of the words. If so, it may be allowed without mutual offence, though we should mistake their proper sense. Only it must be granted, that God justifies the ungodly. That is, say some, those who formerly were ungodly, not those who continue ungodly when they are justified. And this is most true. All that are justified were before ungodly; and all that are justified are at the same instant made godly. But the question is, whether they are godly or Ungodly antecedently in any moment of time unto their justification; if they are considered as godly, and are so indeed, then the apostles words are not true, that God justifies the ungodly; for the contradictory proposition is true, God justifies none but the godly. For these propositions, God justifies the ungodly, and God justifies none but the godly, are contradictory. For here are expressly & , which is .

Wherefore, although in and with the justification of a sinner, he is made godly, for he is endowed with that faith which purifies the heart, and is a vital principle of all obedience, and the conscience is purged from Dead works by the Blood of Christ; yet antecedently unto his justification he is ungodly and considered as ungodly, as one that works not, as one whose duties and obedience contribute nothing unto his justification. As he works not, all works are excluded from being the causa per quam; and as he is ungodly, from being the causa sine qua non of his justification.

The Qualification of the subject, or the means on the part of the person to be justified, and whereby he becomes actually so to be, is faith or believing. But believs on him who justifies the ungodly. That is, it is faith alone. For it is the faith of him who works not; and not only so, but its especial object, God as justifying the ungodly, is exclusive of the concomitancy of any works whatever.

This is faith alone, or it is impossible to express faith alone, without the literal use of that word alone. But faith being asserted, in opposition unto all works of ours, unto him that works not, and its especial nature declared in its especial object, God as justifying the ungodly, that is, freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, no place is left for any works to make the least approach towards our justification before God, under the covert of any distinction whatever. And the nature of Justifying faith is here also determined. It is not a mere assent unto Divine Revelations; it is not such a firm assent unto them, as should cause us to yield obedience unto all the precepts of the scripture, though these things are included in it; but it is a believing on, and trusting unto him that justifies the ungodly, through the mediation of Christ.

Concerning this person, the apostle affirms that his faith is counted for righteousness. That is, he is justified in the way and manner before declared. But there is a difference about the sense of these words. Some say, the meaning of them is, that faith as an act, a grace, a duty or work of ours, is so imputed. Others say, that it is faith as it apprehends Christ and his righteousness, which is properly imputed unto us, that is intended. So faith they say justifies, or is counted for righteousness relatively, not properly, with respect unto its object; and so acknowledg a Trope in the words. And this is fiercely opposed, as though they denied the express words of the scripture, when yet they do but interpret this expression once only used, by many others, wherein the same thing is declared. But those who are for the first sense, do all affirm that faith here is to be taken as including obedience or works, either as the form and essence of it, or as such necessary concomitants as have the same influence with it into our justification, or are in the same manner the condition of it. But as herein they admit also of a Trope in the words which they so fiercely blame in others, so they give this sense of the whole, unto him that works not, but believs in him that justifies the ungodly, his faith and works are counted to him for righteousness; which is not only to deny what the apostle affirms, but to assign unto him a plain contradiction.

And, I do a little marvel that any unprejudiced person, should expound this Solitary Expression in such a sense, as is contradictory unto the design of the apostle, the words of the same Period, and the whole ensuing Context. For that which the apostle proposs unto confirmation, which contains his whole design, is, that we are justified by the righteousness which is of God by faith in the blood of Christ. That this cannot be faith it self, shall immediately be made evident; And in the words of the Text, all works are excluded, if any words be sufficient to exclude them. But faith absolutely as a single grace, Acts and duty of ours, much more as it includs obedience in it, is a work, and in the later sense it is all works. And in the ensuing Context, he proves that Abraham was not justified by works. But not to be justified by works, and to be justified by some works, as faith it self is a work; and if as such it be imputed unto us for righteousness, we are justified by it as such; are contradictory. Wherefore I shall oppose some few arguments unto this feigned sense of the apostles words.

1. To believe absolutely, as faith is an Acts and duty of of ours, and works, are not opposed; for faith is a work an especial kind of Working. But faith as we are justified by it, and works, or to work, are opposed. To him that works not, but believs. So Galatians 2:16. Ephesians 2:8.

2. It is the righteousness of God that is imputed unto us. For we are made the righteousness of God in Christ, 2 Corinthians 5:21. The righteousness of God upon them that believe, Romans 3:21, 22. But faith absolutely considered, is not the righteousness of God, God imputes unto us righteousness without works, Romans 4:16. But there is no intimation of a double imputation of two sorts of Righteousnesses, of the righteousness of God, and that which is not so. Now faith absolutely considered, is not The righteousness of God. For,

1. That whereunto the righteousness of God is revealed, whereby we believe and receive it, is not its self the righteousness of God. For nothing can be the cause or means of of it self: But the righteousness of God is revealed unto faith, Romans 1:16. And by it is it received, Romans 3:22. Chap. 5:11.

2. faith is not the righteousness of God which is by faith: But the righteousness of God which is imputed unto us is, the righteousness of God which is by faith, Romans 3:22. Philippians 3:9.

3. That whereby the righteousness of God is to be sought, obtained, and submitted unto, is not that righteousness it self. But such is faith, Romans 9:30, 31. Chap. 10:30.

4. The righteousness which is imputed unto us, is not our own antecedently unto that imputation. That I may be found in him, not having my own righteousness, Philippians 3:9. But faith is a mans own. Shew me your faith, I will shew you my faith, Jam. 2:18.

5. God imputes righteousness unto us, Romans 4:6. And that righteousness which God imputes unto us, is the righteousness whereby we are justified, for it is imputed unto us that we may be justified. But we are justified by the obedience and Blood of Christ. By the obedience of one we are made righteous, Romans 5:19. Much more now being justified by his Blood, verse 9. He has put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, Hebrews 9:26. Isai. 53:11. By his knowledg shall my righteous Servant justify many, for he shall bear their Iniquities. But faith is neither the obedience, nor the Blood of Christ.

6. faith, as we said before, is our own. And that which is our own may be imputed unto us. But the discourse of the apostle is about that which is not our own antecedently unto imputation, but is made ours thereby, as we have proved; for it is of grace. And the imputation of what is really our own unto us antecedently unto that imputation, is not of grace in the sense of the apostle. For what is so imputed, is imputed for what it is, and nothing else. For that imputation is but the judgment of God concerning the thing imputed, with respect unto them whose it is. So the Fact of Phineas was imputed unto him for righteousness. God judged it, and declared it to be a righteous rewardable act. Wherefore if our faith and obedience be imputed unto us, that imputation is only the judgment of God that we are believers and Obedient. The righteousness of the righteous, says the prophet, shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him, Ezekiel 18:20. As the wickedness of the wicked is upon him, or is imputed unto him, so the righteousness of the righteous is upon him, or is imputed unto him. And the wickedness of the wicked is on him, when God judgs him wicked as his works are. So is the righteousness of a man upon him, or imputed unto him, when God judgs of his righteousness as it is. Wherefore if faith absolutely considered, be imputed unto us as it contains in it self, or as it is accompanied with works of obedience: then it is imputed unto us, either for a perfect righteousness which it is not, or for an imperfect righteousness which it is; or the imputation of it, is the accounting of that to be a perfect righteousness, which is but imperfect; but none of these can be affirmed.

1. It is not imputed unto us for a perfect righteousness, the righteousness required by the law, for so it is not. Episcopius confesss in his disputation, Disput. 43. §. 7, 8. that the righteousness which is imputed unto us must be absolutissima & perfectissima, most absolute and most perfect. And thence he thus defins the imputation of righteousness unto us, name]y that it is, gratiosa Divinae mentis aestimatio, qua credentem in filium suum, eo loco reputat ac si perfecte justus esset ac legi & voluntati ejus per omnia semper paruisset. And no man will pretend, that faith is such a most absolute and most perfect righteousness, as that by it the righteousness of the law should be fulfilled in us, as it is by that righteousness which is imputed unto us.

2. It is not imputed unto us for what it is, an imperfect righteousness. For, (1.) This would be of no advantage unto us. For we cannot be justified before God by an imperfect righteousness, as is evident in the prayer of the Psalmist, Psalm 143:2. Enter not into judgment with your servant, for in your sight no man living, (no Servant of yours who has the most perfect, or highest measure of imperfect righteousness) shall be justified. (2.) The imputation of any thing unto us, that was ours antecedently unto that imputation, for what it is, and no more, is contrary unto the imputation described by the apostle, as has been proved.

3. This imputation pleaded for, cannot be a judging of that to be a perfect righteousness which is imperfect. For the judgment of God is according to truth. But without judging it to be such, it cannot be accepted as such. To accept of any thing, but only for what we judg it to be, is to be deceived.

Lastly, if faith, as a work be imputed unto us, then it must be as a work wrought in faith. For no other work is accepted with God. Then must that faith also wherein it is wrought be imputed unto us; for that also is faith and a good work. That therefore must have another faith from whence it must proceed. And so in infinitum.

Many other things there are in the ensuing Explication of the justification of Abraham, the nature of his faith and his righteousness before God, with the application of them unto all that do believe, which may be justly pleaded unto the same purpose with those passages of the Context which we have insisted on. But if every testimony should be pleaded which the Holy Ghost has given unto this truth, there would be no end of writing. One thing more I shall observe and put an end unto our discourse on this chapter.

Vers. 6, 7, 8. The apostle pursues his argument to prove the freedom of our justification by faith, without respect unto works, through the imputation of righteousness in the instance of pardon of sin, which essentially belongs thereunto. And this he does by the testimony of the Psalmist, who placs the blessedness of a man in the remission of sins. His design is not thereby to declare the full nature of justification, which he had done before, but only to prove the freedom of it from any respect unto works in the instance of that essential part of it. Even as David also describs the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputes righteousness without works (which was the only thing he designed to prove by this testimony) saying, Blessed are they whose Iniquities are forgiven. He describes their blessedness by it, not that their whole blessedness does consist therein; but this concurs unto it wherein no respect can possibly be had unto any works whatever. And he may justly from hence describe the blessedness of a man, in that the imputation of righteousness, and the Non-Tmputation of sin (both which the apostle mentions distinctly) wherein his whole blessedness as unto justification does consist, are inseparable. And because remission of sin is the first part of justification, and the principal part of it, and has the imputation of righteousness always accompanying it, the blessedness of a man may be well described thereby. Yea, whereas all Spiritual Blessings go together in Christ, Ephesians 1:3. A mans blessedness may be described by any of them. But yet the imputation of righteousness, and the remission of sin are not the same, no more than righteousness imputed, and sin remitted are the same. Nor does the apostle propose them as the same, but mentions them distinctly, both being equally necessary unto our compleat justification, as has been proved.

Chap. 5. Vers. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.

Wherefore as by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. For until the law sin was in the world: But sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come: But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one, many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: For the judgment was by one to condemnation; but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one mans offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation: Even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners: So by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entred that the offence might abound: But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin has reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord.

The apostle Chap. 3:27. affirms, That in this matter of justification, all or boasting, is excluded. But here in the verse foregoing, he grants a boasting or a . And not only so, but we also glory in God; he excludes boasting in our selves, because there is nothing in us to procure or promote our own justification. He allows it us, in God, because of the eminency and excellency of the way and means of our justification, which in his grace he has provided. And the or boasting in God here allowed us, has a peculiar respect unto what the apostle had in prospect further to discourse of. , and not only so, includes what he had principally treated of before, concerning our justification so far, as it consists in the pardon of sin. For although he does suppose, yea, and mention the imputation of righteousness also unto us; yet principally he declares our justification by the pardon of sin, and our freedom from condemnation, whereby all boasting in our selves, is excluded. But here he designs a further progress, as unto that whereon our glorying in God, on a right and title freely given us unto eternal life, does depend. And this is the imputation of the righteousness and obedience of Christ unto the justification of life, or the reign of grace, through righteousness, unto eternal life.

Great complaints have been made by some concerning the obscurity of the discourse of the apostle in this place, by reason of sundry Ellipses, Antapodota, Hyperbata, and other figures of Speech, which either are, or are feigned to be therein. Howbeit I cannot but think, that if Men acquainted with the common principles of Christian religion, and sensible in themselves of the nature and guilt of our original apostasie from God, would without prejudice read , this place of the scripture, they will grant that the design of the apostle is to prove; that as the sin of Adam was imputed unto all Men unto condemnation, so the righteousness and obedience of Christ is imputed unto all that believe unto the justification of life. The sum of it is given by Theodoret, Dial. 3. Vide, quomodo quae Christi sunt cum iis quae sunt Adami conferantur, cum morbo medicina, cum vulnere emplastrum, cum Peccato justitia, cum execratione benedictio, cum condemnatione remissio, cum transgressione obedientia, cum morte vita, cum inferis regnum, Christus cum Adam, homo cum homine.

The differences that are among Interpreters about the Exposition of these words, relate unto the use of some Particles, Prepositions, and the dependance of one passage upon another; on none of which the confirmation of the truth pleaded for does depend. But the plain design of the apostle, and his express propositions are such, as if Men could but acquiesce in them, might put an end unto this controversie.

Socinus acknowledgs that this place of scripture does give, as he speaks the greatest occasion unto our opinion in this matter: For he cannot deny, but, at least, a great appearance of what we believe, is represented in the words of the apostle. He does therefore use his utmost endeavor to wrest and deprave them: And yet, although most of his Artifices are since traduced into the Annotations of others upon the place, he himself producs nothing material, but what is taken out of Origen, and the Comment of Pelagius on this epistle, which is extant in the works of Jerome, and was urged before him by Erasmus. The substance of what he pleads for is, That the actual transgression of Adam is not imputed unto his posterity, nor a depraved nature from thence communicated unto them. Only whereas he had incurred the penalty of death, all that derive their nature from him in that condition, are rendred subject unto death also. And as for that corruption of nature which is in us, or a proneness unto sin, it is not derived from Adam, but is an habit contracted by many continued acts of our own. So also on the other hand, that the obedience or righteousness of Christ, is not imputed unto us. Only when we make our selves to become his Children by our obedience unto him; he having obtained eternal life for himself by his obedience unto God, we are made partakers of the benefits thereof. This is the substance of his long disputation on this subject, De Servator. lib. 4. cap. 6. But this is not to expound the words of the apostle, but expressly to contradict them, as we shall see in the insuing consideration of them.

I intend not an Exposition of the whole discourse of the apostle, but only of those passages in it, which evidently declare the way and manner of our justification before God.

A comparison is here proposed and pursued between the First Adam, by whom sin was brought into the world; and the Second Adam, by whom it is taken away. And a comparison it is , of things contrary, wherein there is a similitude in some things, and a dissimilitude in others, both sorts illustrating the truth declared in it. The general proposition of it is contained in Ver. 12. As by one Man sin entred into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all Men, for that all have sinned. The entrance of sin and punishment into the world, was by one Man; and that by one sin as he afterward declares. Yet were they not confined unto the person of that one Man, but belonged equally unto all. This the apostle expresss inverting the order of the effect and cause. In the entrance of it, he first mentions the cause or sin, and then the effect or punishment, By one Man sin entred into the world, and death by sin: But in the application of it unto all Men, he expresss first the effect, and then the cause; death passed on all Men, for that all had sinned. death on the first entrance of sin, passed on all; that is, all Men became liable and obnoxious unto it, as the punishment due to sin. All Men that ever were, are, or shall be, were not then existent in their own persons. But yet were they all of them, then, upon the first entrance of sin, made subject to death, or liable unto punishment. They were so by vertue of Divine Constitution upon their foederal existence in the one Man that sinned. And actually they became obnoxious in their own persons unto the sentence of it, upon their first natural existence being born children of wrath.

It is hence manifest what sin it is that the apostle intends, namely, The actual sin of Adam; the one sin of that one common person whil he was so. For although the corruption and depravation of our nature, does necessarily insue thereon, in every one that is brought forth actually in the world by Natural Generation; yet is it the guilt of Adams actual sin alone, that rendred them all obnoxious unto death upon the First entrance of sin into the world. So death entred by sin, the guilt of it, obnoxiousness unto it, and that with respect unto all Men universally.

Death here compriss the whole punishment due unto sin, be it what it will, concerning which we need not here to dispute. The wages of sin is death, Romans 6:23. and nothing else. Whatever sin deserves in the justice of God. whatever punishment God at any time appointed or threatned unto it, it is comprised in death: In the day you eat thereof, you shalt die the death. This therefore the apostle lays down as the foundation of his discourse, and of the comparison which he intends; namely, that in and by the actual sin of Adam, all Men are made liable unto death, or unto the whole punishment due unto sin. That is, the guilt of that sin is imputed unto them. For nothing is intended by the imputation of sin unto any, but the rendring them justly obnoxious unto the punishment due unto that sin. As the not imputing of sin, is the freeing of Men from being subject or liable unto punishment. And this sufficiently evidencs the vanity of the Pelagian Gloss that death passed upon all, merely by vertue of natural propagation from him who had deserved it, without any imputation of the guilt of sin unto them; which is a contradiction unto the plain words of the apostle. For it is the guilt of sin, and not natural propagation that he affirms to be the cause of death.

Having mentioned sin and death, the one as the only cause of the other, the guilt of sin of the punishment of death, sin deserving nothing but death, and death being due unto nothing but sin, he declares how all Men universally became liable unto this punishment, or guilty of death. , in quo omnes peccaverunt; in whom all have sinned. For it relates unto the one Man that sinned, in whom all sinned; which is evident from the effect thereof, in as much as in him all died, 1 Corinthians 15:22. Or as it is here, on his sin death passed on all Men. And this is the evident sense of the words, being put for , which is not unusual in the scripture. See Matthew 15:5. Romans 4:18. Chap. 5:2. Philippians 1:3. Hebrews 9:17. And it is so often used by the best writers in the Greek Tongue: So Hesiod , modus in omnibus rebus optimus. So , in vobis situm est. , hoc in me situm est. And this reading of the words is contended for by Austine against the Pelagians rejecting their eo quod or propterea. But I shall not contend about the reading of the words. It is the artifice of our adversaries to perswade Men, that the force of our argument to prove from hence the imputation of the sin of Adam unto his posterity, does depend solely upon this interpretation of these words, , by, in whom. We shall therefore grant them their desire, that they are better rendred by eo quod, propterea, or quatenus; in as much, because. Only we must say, that here is a reason given, Why death passed on all Men, in as much as all have sinned, that is, in that sin whereby death entred into the world.

It is true! death by vertue of the original constitution of the law, is due unto every sin, when ever it is committed. But the present inquiry is, how death passed at once on all Men, how they came liable and obnoxious unto it upon its first entrance by the actual sin of Adam; which cannot be by their own actual sin. Yea the apostle in the next verses affirms, That death passed on them also, who never sinned actually, or as Adam did, whose sin was actual. And if the actual sins of Men in imitation of Adams sin were intended, then should Men be made liable to death, before they had sinned. For death upon its first entrance into the world, passed on all Men, before any one Man had actually sinned, but Adam only. But that Men should be liable unto death, which is nothing but the punishment of sin, when they have not sinned, is an open contradiction. For although God by his sovereign power might inflict death on an innocent creature, yet that an innocent creature should be guilty of death is impossible. For to be guilty of death, is to have sinned. Wherefore this expression, In as much as all have sinned, expressing the desert and guilt of death, then when sin and death first entred into the world, no sin can be intended in it, but the sin of Adam, and our interest therein; Eramus enim omnes ille unus homo. And this can be no otherwise, but by the imputation of the guilt of that sin unto us. For the act of Adam not being ours inherently and subjectively, we cannot be concerned in its effect, but by the imputation of its guilt. For the communication of that unto us which is not inherent in us, is, that which we intend by imputation.

This is the of the intended collation, which I have insisted the longer on, because the apostle lays in it the foundation of all that he afterwards infers, and asserts in in the whole comparison. And here some say there is an in his discourse, that is, he lays down the proposition on the part of Adam, but does not shew what answers to it on the contrary in Christ. And Origen gives the reason of the silence of the apostle herein, namely, Lest what is to be said therein, should be abused by any unto sloth and negligence. For whereas he says , (as, which is a note of similitude) By one Man sin entred into the world, and death by sin; so the or reddition should be, So by one, righteousness entred into the world, and life by righteousness.

This he acknowledgs to be the genuine filling up of the comparison, but was not expressed by the apostle, Lest Men should abuse it unto negligence or security, supposing that to be done already, which should be done afterwards. But as this plainly contradicts and everts most of what he further asserts in the Exposition of the place; so the apostle concealed not any truth upon such considerations. And as he plainly expresss that which is here intimated, Ver. 19. So he shews how foolish and wicked any such imaginations are, as suppose that any countenance is given hereby unto any, to indulge themselves in their sins.

Some grant, therefore, that the apostle does conceal the Expression of what is ascribed unto Christ, in opposition unto what he had affirmed of Adam and his sin, unto Ver. 19. But the truth is, it is sufficiently included in the close of Ver. 14. where he affirms of Adam, that in those things whereof he treats, He was the figure of him that was to come. For the way and manner whereby he introduced righteousness and life, and communicated them unto Men, answered the way and manner whereby Adam introduced sin and death which passed on all the world. Adam being the figure of Christ, look how it was with him, with respect unto his Natural Posterity as unto sin and death; so it is with the Lord Christ, the Second Adam, and his Spiritual Posterity, with respect unto righteousness and life. Hence we argue,

If the actual sin of Adam was so imputed unto all his posterity, as to be accounted their own sin unto condemnation, then is the actual obedience of Christ, the Second Adam imputed unto all his Spiritual Seed, that is, unto all believers unto justification. I shall not here further press this argument, because the ground of it will occur unto us afterwards.

The two next verses containing an objection and an answer returned unto them, wherein we have no immediate concernment, I shall pass by.

Vers. 15, 16. The apostle proceeds to explain his Comparison in those things, wherein there is a dissimilitude between the comparates.

But not as the offence, so is the free gift; for if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, by one Man Jesus Christ, has abounded unto many.

The opposition is between on the one hand, and on the other; between which, a dissimilitude is asserted, not as unto their opposite effects of death and life, but only as unto the degrees of their efficacy, with respect unto those effects, , the offence, the fall, the sin, the transgression; that is, , the disobedience of one, Ver. 19. Hence the first sin of Adam, is generally called the fall,. That which is opposed hereunto, is ; Donum, Donum gratuitum; Beneficium, id quod Deus gratificatur; that is, , as it is immediately explained. The grace of God, and the free gift by grace, through Jesus Christ. Wherefore, although this word, in the next verse, does precisely signifie the righteousness of Christ, yet here it comprehends all the causes of our justification, in opposition unto the fall of Adam, and the entrance of sin thereby.

The consequent and effect of the offence, the fall, is, that many be dead. No more is here intended by many, but only that the effects of that one offence were not confined unto one: And if we inquire who, or how many those many are, the apostle tells us, that they are all Men universally, that is, all the posterity of Adam. By this one offence, because they all sinned, therein they are all dead; that is, rendered obnoxious and liable unto death, as the punishment due unto that one offence. And hence also it appears, how vain it is to wrest those words of Ver. 12. In as much as all have sinned, unto any other sin, but the first sin in Adam; seeing it is given as the reason why death passed on them, it being here plainly affirmed, That they are dead, or that death passed on them by that one offence.

The efficacy of the free gift opposed hereunto, is expressed, as that which abounded much more. Besides the thing it self asserted, which is plain and evident, the apostle seems to me to argue the equity of our justification by grace, through the obedience of Christ, by comparing it with the condemnation that befel us by the sin and disobedience of Adam. For if it were just, meet, and equal that all Men should be made subject unto condemnation for the sin of Adam; it is much more so, that those who believe, should be justified by the obedience of Christ, through the grace and free donation of God. But wherein, in particular the gift by grace, abounded unto many, above the efficacy of the fall to condemn, he declares afterwards. And, that whereby we are freed from condemnation, more eminently then we are made obnoxious unto it by the fall and sin of Adam, by that alone we are justified before God. But this is by the grace of God, and the gift by grace, through Jesus Christ alone; which we plead for Ver. 16. Another difference between the comparates is expressed, or rather the instance is given in particular of the dissimilitude asserted in general before.

And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; for the judgment was by one to condemnation; but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

, By one that sinned, is the same with , by one sin, one offence, the one sin of that one Man., we render judgment. Most Interpreters do it by reatus, guilt, or crimen, which is derived from it. So Judicium, is used in the Hebrew for guilt, Jere. 26:11. The judgment of death is to this Man, this Man is guilty of death, has deserved to die. First therefore there was the sin, the fallof one Man that sinned; it was his actual sin alone. Thence followed , reatus, guilt; this was common unto all. In and by that one sin, guilt came upon all. And the end hereof, that which it rendered Men obnoxious unto, is , condemnation; guilt unto condemnation; and this guilt unto condemnation which came upon all, was of one person, or sin. This is the order of things on the part of Adam, (1.) the one sin. (2.) the guilt that thereon insued unto all. (3.) the condemnation which that guilt deserved. And their Antitheta or Opposites in the Second Adam, are (1.) the free donation of God. (2.) the gift of grace it self, or the righteousness of Christ. (3.) or , justification of life. But yet though the apostle does thus distinguish these things to illustrate his comparison and opposition, yet that which he intends by them all, is the righteousness and obedience of Christ, as he declares Ver. 18, 19. This in the matter of our justification, he (1.) calls with respect unto the free gratuitous grant of it by grace of God, ; and (2.) with respect unto us who receive it. A free gift it is unto us; and (3.) , with respect unto its effect of making us righteous.

Whereas therefore, by the sin of Adam imputed unto them, guilt came on all men unto condemnation, we must inquire wherein the free gift was otherwise. Not as by one that sinned, so was the gift. And it was so in two things: For (1.) condemnation came upon all by one offence. But being under the guilt of that one offence, we contract the guilt of many more innumerable. Wherefore if the free gift had respect only unto that one offence, and intended it self no further, we could not be delivered; wherefore it is said to be of many offences, that is, of all our sins and trespasses whatever. (2.) Adam and all his posterity in him, were in a state of acceptation with God, and placed in a way of obtaining eternal life and blessedness, wherein God himself would have been their reward. In this estate by the entrance of sin, they lost the favor of God, and incurred the guilt of death or condemnation, for they are the same. But they lost not an immediate right and title unto life and blessedness. For this they had not, nor could have before the course of obedience prescribed unto them was accomplished. That therefore, which came upon all by the one offence, was the loss of Gods favor in the approbation of their present state, and the judgment or guilt of death and condemnation. But an immediate right unto eternal life, by that one sin was not lost. The free gift is not so: For as by it we are freed, not only from one sin, but from all our sins, so also by it we have a right and title unto eternal life. For therein grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life, Ver. 22.

The same truth is further explained and confirmed, Ver. 17. For if by one Mans offence death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. The design of the apostle having been sufficiently manifested in our observations on the former verses, I shall from this only observe those things which more immediately concern our present subject. And (1.) it is worth observation, with what variety of expressions the apostle sets forth the grace of God in the justification of believers. . Nothing is omitted that may any way express the freedom, sufficiency, and efficacy of grace unto that end. And although these terms seem some of them to be coincident in their signification, and to be used by him promiscuously, yet do they every one include something that is peculiar, and all of them set forth the whole work of grace. seems to me, to be used in this argument for , which is the foundation of a cause in tryal, the matter pleaded, whereon the person tried is to be acquitted and justified. And this is the righteousness of Christ; of one, , or a free donation is exclusive of all desert and conditions on our part, who do receive it. And it is that whereby we are freed from condemnation, and have a right unto the justification of life. is the free grace and favor of God, which is the original or efficient cause of our justification, as was declared Chap. 3:24. has been explained before. , the abundance of grace, is added to secure believers of the certainty of the effect. It is that whereunto nothing is wanting unto our justification. expresss the free grant of that righteousness which is imputed unto us unto the justification of life, afterwards called the obedience of Christ. Be Men as wise and learned as they please, it becomes us all to learn to think, and speak of those Divine Mysteries from this Blessed apostle, who knew them better then we all, and besides, wrote by divine inspiration.

And it is marvellous unto me, how Men can break through the fence that he has made about the grace of God, and obedience of Christ in the work of our justification before God, to introduce their our own works of obedience, and to find a place for them therein. But the design of Paul and some Men in declaring this point of our justification before God, seems to be very opposite and contrary. His whole discourse is concerning the grace of God, the death, Blood, and obedience of Christ, as if he could never sufficiently satisfy himself in the setting out, and declaration of them, without the least mention of any works or duties of our own, or the least intimation of any use that they are of herein. But all their pleas are for their own works and duties; and they have invented as many terms to set them out by, as, the Holy Ghost has used for the expression and declaration of the grace of God. Instead of the words of wisdom before mentioned, which the Holy Ghost has taught, wherewith he fills up his discourse, theirs are filled with conditions, preparatory dispositions, merits, causes, and I know not what trappings for our own works. For my part I shall chuse rather to learn of him, and accommodate my conceptions and expressions of gospel Mysteries, and of this, in especial, concerning our justification, unto his who cannot deceive me; than trust to any other conduct, how specious soever its pretences may be.

2. It is plain in this verse, that no more is required of any one unto justification, but that he receive the abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness. For this is the description that the apostle gives of those that are justified, as unto any thing that on their part is required. And as this excludes all works of righteousness which we do; for by none of them do we receive the abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness; so it does also the imputation of faith it self unto our justification, as it is an act and duty of our own: For faith is that whereby we receive the gift of righteousness, by which we are justified. For it will not be denied, but that we are justified by the gift of righteousness, or the righteousness which is given unto us; for by it have we right and title unto life. But our faith is not this gift, for that which receivs, and that which is received, are not the same.

3. Where there is , and , abounding grace, superabounding grace, exerted in our justification, no more is required thereunto. For how can it be said to abound, yea, to superabound, not only to the freeing of us from condemnation; but the giving of us a title unto life, if in any thing it is to be supplied, and eeked out by works and duties of our own. The things intended do fill up these expressions, although to some they are but an empty noise.

4. There is a gift of righteousness required unto our justification, which all must receive, who are to be justified. And all are justified who do receive it; for they that receive it shall reign in life by Jesus Christ. And hence it follows, (1.) That the righteousness whereby we are justified before God, can be nothing of our own, nothing inherent in us, nothing performed by us. For it is that which is freely given us, and this donation is by imputation: Blessed is the Man unto whom the Lord imputes righteousness, Chap. 4:6. And by faith we receive what is so given and imputed, and otherwise we contribute nothing unto our participation of it. This it is to be justified in the sense of the apostle, (2.) It is such a righteousness as gives right and title unto eternal life. For they that receive it, shall reign in life. Wherefore it cannot consist in the pardon of sin alone. For (1.) the pardon of sin can in no tolerable sense be called the gift of righteousness. pardon of sin is one thing, and righteousness another. (2.) pardon of sin does not give right and title unto eternal life. It is true, he whose sins are pardoned shall inherit eternal life; but not merely by vertue of that pardon, but through the imputation of righteousness which does inseparably accompany it, and is the ground of it.

The description which is here given of our justification by grace, in opposition unto the condemnation, that we were made liable unto by the sin of Adam, and in exaltation above it, as to the efficacy of grace above that of the first sin, in that thereby not one but all sins are forgiven, and not only so, but a right unto life eternal is communicated unto us, is this, That we receive the grace of God, and the gift of righteousness, which gives us a right unto life by Jesus Christ. But this is to be justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ received by faith alone.

The conclusion of what has been evinced in the management of the comparison insisted on is fully expressed and further confirmed Ver. 18, 19.

Ver. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all Men unto condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all Men unto the justification of life. So we read the words. By the offence of one; the Greek Copies vary here. Some read , whom Beza follows, and our Translation in the Margin; by one offence; most by , by the offence of one; and so afterwards as unto righteousness; but both are unto the same purpose. For the one offence intended, is the offence of one, that is, of Adam: And the one righteousness is the righteousness of one, Jesus Christ.

The Introduction of this assertion by , the note of a Syllogistical inference, declares what is here asserted to be the substance of the truth pleaded for. And the comparison is continued, , these things have themselves after the same manner.

That which is affirmed on the one side, is, ; by the sin or fall of one, on all Men unto condemnation, that is, judgment, say we, repeating from the foregoing verse. But is guilt, and that only. By the sin of one, all Men became guilty, and were made obnoxious unto condemnation. The guilt of it is imputed unto all Men. For no otherwise can it come upon them unto condemnation, no otherwise can they be rendered obnoxious unto death and judgment on the account thereof. For we have evinced that by death and condemnation in this disputation of the apostle, the whole punishment due unto sin, is intended. This therefore is plain and evident on that hand.

In answer hereunto, the of one as to the causality of justification, is opposed unto the of the other, as unto its causality unto, or of condemnation. , By the righteousness of one. That is, the righteousness that is pleadable unto justification. For that is a righteousness pleaded for justification. By this, say our Translators, the free gift came upon all; repeating from the foregoing verse, as they had done before on the other hand. The Syriack Translation renders the words without the aid of any supplement: Therefore as by the sin of one, condemnation was unto all men, so by the righteousness of one, justification unto life shall be unto all Men. And the sense of the words is so made plain without the supply of any other word into the Text. But whereas in the original the words are not , but , and so in the later clause, somewhat from his own foregoing words, is to be supplied to answer the intention of the apostle. And this is gratiosa donatio, the free grant of righteousness; or the free gift of righteousness unto justification. The righteousness of one Christ Jesus, is freely granted unto all believers, to the justification of life. For the all Men here mentioned are described by, and limited unto them that receive the abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness by Christ, Ver. 17.

Some vainly pretend from hence a general grant of righteousness and life unto all men, whereof the greatest part are never made partakers; then which nothing can be more opposite nor contradictory unto the apostles design. Men are not made guilty of condemnation from the sin of Adam, by such a Divine constitution, as that they may, or on some conditions may not be obnoxious thereunto, Every one so soon as he actually exists, and by vertue thereof is a descendant from the first Adam, is actually in his own person liable thereunto, and the wrath of God abids on him. And no more are intended on the other side, but those only who by their relation through faith unto the Lord Christ the second Adam, are actually interessed in the justification of life. Neither is the controversie about the universality of redemption by the death of Christ herein concerned. For those by whom it is asserted, do not affirm that it is thence necessary that the free gift unto the justification of life, should come on all, for that they know it does not do. And of a provision of righteousness and life for men in case they do believe, although it be true, yet nothing is spoken in this place. Only the certain Justificatin of them that believe, and the way of it is declared. Nor will the Analogy of the Comparison here insisted on, admit of any such interpretation. For the all on the one hand, are all and only those who derive their being from Adam by natural propagation. If any man might be supposed not to do so, he would not be concerned in his sin or Fall. And so really it was with the man Christ Jesus. And those on the other hand, are only those who derive a spiritual life from Christ. Suppose a man not to do so, and he is no way interessed in the righteousness of the one unto the justification of life. Our argument from the words is this; As the sin of one that came on all unto condemnation, was the sin of the first Adam imputed unto them, so the righteousness of the one unto the justification of life that comes on all believers, is the righteousness of Christ imputed unto them. And what can be more clearly affirmed or more evidently confirmed than this is by the apostle, I know not. Yet is it more plainly expressed, verse 19.

For as by one mans Disobedience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

This is well explained by Cyrillus Alexandrinus in Joan. Lib. 11. Cap. 25. Quemadmodum praevaricatione primi hominis ut in primitiis generis nostri, morti addicti fuimus; eodem modo per obedientiam & justitiam Christi, in quantum seipsum legi subjecit, quamvis legis author esset, benedictio & vivificatio quae per spiritum est, ad totam nostram penetravit naturam. And by Leo. Epist. 12. ad Juvenalem. Ut autem reparet omnium vitam, recepit omnium causam; ut sicut per unius reatum omnes facti fuerunt peccatores, ita per unius innocentiam omnes fierent innocentes; inde in homines manaret justitia, ubi est humana suscepta natura.

That which he before called & he now expresss by and , Disobedience and obedience. The of Adam or his Disobedience was his actual transgression of the law of God. Hereby, says the apostle, many were made sinners. sinners in such a sense as to be obnoxious unto death and condemnation. For liable unto death they could not be made, unless they were first made sinners or guilty. And this they could not be, but that they are esteemed to have sinned in him, whereon the guilt of his sin was imputed unto them. This therefore he affirms, namely that the actual sin of Adam was so the sin of all men, as that they were made sinners thereby, obnoxious unto death and condemnation.

That which he opposs hereunto, is the obedience of one, that is, of Jesus Christ. And this was the Actual obedience that he yielded unto the whole law of God. For as the Disobedience of Adam was his actual Transgression of the whole law; so the obedience of Christ was his actual accomplishment or fulfilling of the whole law. This the Antithesis does require.

Hereby many are made righteous. How? By the imputation of that obedience unto them. For so and no otherwise, are men made sinners by the imputation of the Disobedience of Adam. And this is that which gives us a right and title unto eternal life; as the apostle declares, vers. 21. That as sin reigned unto death; so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life. This righteousness is no other but the obedience of one, that is, of Christ, as it is called, vers. 18. And it is said to come upon us, that is, to be imputed unto us; For blessed is the man unto whom God imputes righteousness. And hereby we have not only deliverance from that death and condemnation whereunto we were liable by the sin of Adam, but the pardon of many Offences, that is, of all our Personal sins, and a right unto life eternal through the grace of God; for we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

And these things are thus plainly and fully delivered by the apostle, unto whose sense and expressions also (so far as may be) it is our duty to accommodate ours. What is offered in opposition hereunto, is so made up of Exceptions and Evasions, perplexed Disputes, and leads us so far off from the plain words of the scripture, that the conscience of a convinced sinner knows not what to fix upon to give it rest and saisfaction, nor what it is that is to be believed unto justification.

Piscator in his Scholia on this chapter and elsewhere, insists much on a specious argument against the imputation of the obedience of Christ unto our justification. But it proceeds evidently on an open mistake and false supposition, as well as it is contradictory unto the plain words of the Text. It is true which he observes and proves, that our redemption, reconciliation, pardon of sin, and Justifiation are often ascribed unto the death and Blood of Christ in a signal manner. The reasons of it have partly been intimated before, and a further account of them, shall be given immediately. But it does not thence follow, that the obedience of his life wherein he fulfilled the whole law, being made under it for us, is excluded from any causality therein, or is not imputed unto us. But in opposition thereunto he thus argus.

Si obedientia vitae Christi nobis ad justitiam imputaretur, non fuit opus Christum pro nobis mori; mori enim necesse fuit pro nobis injustis, 1 Peter 3:18. Quod si ergo justi effecti sumus per vitam illius, causa nulla relicta fuit cur pro nobis moreretur; quia justitia Dei non patitur ut puniat justos. At punivit nos in Christo, seu quod idem valet punivit Christum pro nobis, & loco nostri, posteaquam ille sancte vixisset, ut certum est è Scriptura. Ergo non sumus justi effecti per sanctam vitam Christi. Item, Christus mortuus est ut justitiam illam Dei nobis acquireret. 2 Corinthians 5:21. Non igitur illam acquisiverat ante mortem.

But this whole argument, I say, proceeds upon an evident mistake. For it supposs such an order of things, as that the obedience of Christ or his righteousness in fulfilling the law, is first imputed unto us, and then the righteousness of his death is afterwards to take place, or to be imputed unto us, which on that supposition he says would be of no use. But no such order or Divine constitution is pleaded or pretended in our justification. It is true, the life of Christ, and his obedience unto the law did precede his sufferings, and undergoing the curse thereof; neither could it otherwise be. For this order of these things between themselves was made necessary from the law of nature; But it does not thence follow that it must be observed in the imputation or application of them unto us. For this is an effect of Soveraign wisdom and grace, not respecting the natural order of Christs obedience and suffering, but the moral order of the things whereunto they are appointed. And although we need not assert, nor do I so do, different acts of the imputation of the obedience of Christ unto the justification of life, or a right and title unto life eternal, and of the suffering of Christ unto the pardon of our sins and freedom from condemnation; but by both we have both according unto the ordinance of God, that Christ may be all in all; Yet as unto the effects themselves, in the method of Gods bringing sinners unto the justification of life, the application of the death of Christ unto them unto the pardon of sin and freedom from condemnation, is in order of nature, and in the exercise of faith, antecedent unto the application of his obedience unto us, for a right and title unto life eternal.

The state of the person to be justified, is a state of sin and wrath, wherein he is liable unto death and condemnation. This is that which a convinced sinner is sensible of, and which alone in the first place he seeks for deliverance from. What shall we do to be saved? This in the first place is presented unto him in the doctrine and promise of the gospel, which is the rule and instrument of its application. And this is the death of Christ. Without this no actual righteousness imputed unto him, not the obedience of Christ himself, will give him relief. For he is sensible that he has sinned, and thereby come short of the glory of God, and under the sentence condemnatory of the law. Until he receives a deliverance from hence, it to no purpose to propose that unto him which should give him right unto life eternal. But upon a supposition hereof, he is no less concern'd in what shall yet further give him title thereunto, that he may reign in life through righteousness. Herein I say in its order, conscience is no less concern'd than in deliverance from condemnation. And this order is expressed in the declaration of the Fruit and effects of the mediation of Christ. Daniel 9:24. To make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness. Neither is there any force in the objection against it, that actually the obedience of Christ did precede his suffering. For the method of their application is not prescribed thereby; And the state of sinners to be justified, with the nature of their justification requires it should be otherwise, as God also has ordained. But because the obedience and sufferings of Christ, were concomitant from first to last, both equally belonging unto his state of Exinanition, and cannot in any act or instance be separated, but only in notion or imagination, seeing he suffered in all his obedience, and obeyed in all his suffering, Hebrews 5:8. And neither part of our justification, in freedom from condemnation, and right unto life eternal, can be supposed to be or exist without the other according unto the ordinance and constitution of God, the whole effect is jointly to be ascribed unto the whole mediation of Christ, so far as he acted towards God in our behalf, wherein he fulfilled the whole law both as to the penalty exacted of sinners, and the righteousness it requires unto life as an eternl reward. And there are many reasons why our justification is in the scripture by the way of Eminency ascribed unto the death and blood-shedding of Christ.

For, (1.) The grace and love of God, the principal efficient cause of our justification, are therein made most eminent and conspicuous. For this is most frequently in the scripture proposed unto us as the highest instance, and undeniable demonstration of Divine love and grace. And this is that which principally we are to consider in our justification, the glory of them being the end of God therein. He made us accepted in the Beloved to the praise of the glory of his grace, Ephesians 1:6. Wherefore this being the fountain, spring and sole cause, both of the obedience of Christ, and of the imputation thereof unto us, with the pardon of sin and righteousness thereby, it is every where in the scripture proposed as the prime object of our faith in our justification, and opposed directly unto all our own works whatever. The whole of Gods design herein, is, that grace may reign through righteousness unto eternal life. Whereas therefore this is made most evident and conspicuous in the death of Christ, our justification is in a peculiar manner assigned thereunto.

2. The love of Christ himself and his grace are peculiarly exalted in our justification; that all men may honor the Son, even as they honor the father. Frequently are they expressed unto this purpose, 2 Corinthians 8:9. Galatians 2:20. Philippians 3:6, 7. Revelation 1:5, 6. And those also are most eminently exalted in his death, so as that all the effects and fruits of them are ascribed thereunto in a peculiar manner. As nothing is more ordinary than, among many things that concur to the same effect, to ascribe it unto that which is most eminent among them, especially if it cannot be conceived as separated from the rest.

3. This is the clear testimony, that what the Lord Christ did and suffered was for us, and not for himself. For without the consideration hereof, all the obedience which he yielded unto the law, might be looked on as due only on his own account, and himself to have been such a savior as the socinians imagine, who should do all with us from God, and nothing with God for us. But the suffering of the curse of the law by him who was not only an innocent man, but also the Son of God, openly testifies that what he did and suffered was for us, and not for himself. It is no wonder therefore if our faith as unto justification be in the first place, and principally directed unto his death and Bloodshedding.

4. All the obedience of Christ had still respect unto the sacrifice of himself, which was to ensue, wherein it received its accomplishment, and whereon its efficacy unto our justification did depend. For as no imputation of actual obedience would justify sinners from the condemnation that was passed on them for the sin of Adam; so although the obedience of Christ was not a mere preparation or qualification of his person for his suffering; yet its efficacy unto our justification did depend on his suffering that was to ensue, when his soul was made an offering for sin.

5. As was before observed, reconciliation and the pardon of sin through the Blood of Christ, do directly in the first place respect our relief from the state and condition whereinto we were cast by the sin of Adam, in the loss of the favor of God, and liableness unto death; this therefore is that which principally and in the first place a lost convinced sinner, such as Christ calls unto himself, does look after. And therefore justification is eminently and frequently proposed as the effect of the Bloodshedding and death of Christ, which are the direct cause of our reconciliation and pardon of sin. But yet from none of these considerations, does it follow that the obedience of the one man Christ Jesus is not imputed unto us, whereby grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life.

The same truth is fully asserted and confirmed Chap. 8. verse 1, 2, 3, 4. But this place has been of late so explained and so vindicated by another in his learned and Judicious Exposition of it, (namely Dr. Jacombe) as that nothing remains of weight to be added unto what has been pleaded and argued by him, part. 1. vers. 4. pag. 587. and onwards. And indeed the answers which he subjoyns (to the arguments whereby he confirms the truth) to the most usual and important objections against the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, are sufficient to give just satisfaction unto the minds of unprejudiced, unengaged persons. I shall therefore pass over this testimony, as that which has been so lately pleaded and vindicated; and not press the same things, it may be (as is not unusual) unto their disadvantage.

Chap. 10. Vers. 3, 4.

For they (the jews who had a zeal for God, but not according to knowledg) being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness unto every one that believs.

What is here determined, the apostle enters upon the proposition and declaration of, Chap. 9. vers. 30. And because what he had to propose was somewhat strange, and unsuited unto the common apprehensions of men, he introducs it with that prefatory Interrogation, ; which he useth on the like occasions, Chap. 3:5. Chap. 6:1. Chap. 7:7. Chap. 9:14. What shall we then say? that is, is there in this matter unrighteousness with God? as vers. 14. or what shall we say unto these things, or this is that which is to be said herein? That which hereon he asserts is, that the gentiles which followed not after righteousness have attained unto righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith; But Israel which followed after the law of righteousness has not attained unto the law of righteousness, that is, unto righteousness it self before God.

Nothing seems to be more contrary unto reason, than what is here made manifest by the event. The gentiles who lived in sin and Pleasures, not once endeavouring to attain unto any righteousness before God, yet attained unto it upon the preaching of the gospel. Israel on the other hand, which followed after righteousness, diligently in all the works of the law and duties of obedience unto God thereby, came short of it, attained not unto it. All Preparations, all Dispositions, all merit as unto righteousness and justification are excluded from the gentiles. For in all of them there is more or less a following after righteousness which is denied of them all. Only by faith in him who justifies the ungodly, they attain righteousness, or they attained the righteousness of faith. For to attain righteousness by faith, and to attain the righteousness which is of faith, are the same. Wherefore all things that are comprized any way in following after righteousness, such as are all our duties and works, are excluded from any influence into our justification. And this is expressed to declare the sovereignty and freedom of the grace of God herein; Namely that we are justified freely by his grace, and that on our part all boasting is excluded. Let men pretend what they will, and dispute what they please, those who attain unto righteousness and justification before God, when they follow not after righteousness, they do it by the gratuitous imputation of the righteousness of another unto them.

It may be it will be said; it is true in the time of their Heathenism they did not at all follow after righteousness, but when the truth of the gospel was revealed unto them, then they followed after righteousness and did attain it. But (1.) This is directly to contradict the apostle in that it says, that they attain'd not righteousness, but only as they followed after righteousness, whereas he affirms the direct contrary. (2.) It takes away the distinction which he puts between them and Israel; namely, that the one followed after righteousness, and the other did not. (3.) To follow after righteousness in this place, is to follow after a righteousness of our own; To establish their own righteousness, Chap. 10:3. But this is so far from being a means of attaining righteousness, as that it is the most effectual obstruction thereof.

If therefore those who have no righteousness of their own, who are so far from it, that they never endeavoured to attain it, do yet by faith receive that righteousness wherewith they justified before God, they do so by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto them, or let some other way be assigned.

In the other side of the instance concerning Israel some must hear whether they will or not, that wherewith they are not pleased.

Three things are expressed of them; 1. Their Attempt. 2. Their Success. 3. The reason of it.

Their Attempt or Endeavour was in this, that they followed after the law of righteousness., the word whereby their endeavour is expressed, signifies that which is earn, diligent and sincere. By it does the apostle declare what his was, and what ours ought to be in the duties and exercise of gospel obedience, Philippians 3:12. They were not indiligent in this matter, but instantly served God day and night. Nor were they Hypocritical; for the apostle bears them record in this matter, that they had a zeal of God, Chap. 10:2. And that which they thus endeavoured after was the law of righteousness. That law which prescribed a perfect personal righteousness before God; the things which if a man do them, he shall live in them, Chap. 10:5. Wherefore the apostle has no other respect unto the Ceremonial law in this place, but only as it was branched out from the Moral law by the will of God, and as the obedience unto it belonged thereunto. When he speaks of it separately he calls it the law of commandments contained in ordinances, but it is no where called the law of righteousness, the law whose righteousness is fulfilled in us, Chap. 8:4. wherefore their following after this law of righteousness, was their diligence in the performance of all duties of obedience, according unto the Directions and precepts of the Moral law.

2. The issue of this attempt is, that they attained not unto the law of righteousness; that is, they attained not unto a righteousness before God hereby. Though this was the end of the law namely a righteousness before God, wherein a man might live, yet could they never attain it.

3. An account is given of the reason of their failing, in attaining that which they so earnestly endeavoured after. And this was in a double mistake that they were under; first, in the means of attaining it; secondly, in the righteousness it self, that was to be sought after. The first is declared Ver. 32. Because not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. faith and works are the two only ways whereby righteousness may be attained, and they are opposite and inconsistent; so that none does or can seek after righteousness by them both. They will not be mixed and made one intire means of attaining righteousness. They are opposed as grace and works; what is of the one, is not of the other, Romans 11:6. Every composition of them in this matter, is, Male sartae gratia nequicquam coit & rescinditur. And the reason is, because the righteousness which faith seeks after, or which is attainable by faith, is that which is given to us, imputed unto us, which faith does only receive. It receives the abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness. But that which is attainable by works, is our own, inherent in us, wrought out by us, and not imputed unto us: For it is nothing but those works themselves, with respect unto the law of God.

And if righteousness before God, be to be obtained alone by faith, and that in contradistinction unto all works, which if a Man do them according unto the law, he shall even live in them, then is it by faith alone that we are justified before God, or nothing else, on our part, is required thereunto. And of what nature this righteousness must be, is evident.

Again, if faith and works are opposed as contrary and inconsistent, when considered as the means of attaining righteousness or justification before God, as plainly they are, then is it impossible we should be justified before God by them in the same sense way and manner. Wherefore when the apostle James affirms, That a Man is justified by works, and not by faith only, he cannot intend our justification before God, where it is impossible they should both concur. For not only are they declared inconsistent by the apostle in this place, but it would introduce several sorts of righteousness unto justification, that are inconsistent and destructive of each other. This was the first mistake of the jews, whence this miscarriage insued; they sought not after righteousness by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.

Their second mistake was as unto the righteousness it self, whereon a Man might be justified before God. For this they judged was to be their own righteousness. Chap. 10:3. Their own Personal righteousness consisting in their own duties of obedience, they looked on as the only righteousness, whereon they might be justified before God. This therefore they went about to establish as the Pharisees did. Luke 18:11, 12. And this mistake, with their design thereon, to establish their own righteousness, was the principal cause that made them reject the righteousness of God, as it is with many at this day.

What ever is done in us, or performed by us, as obedience unto God, is our own righteousness. Though it be done in faith, and by the aids of Gods grace; yet is it subjectively ours, and so far as it is a righteousness, it is our own. But all righteousness which is our own whatever, is so far divers from the righteousness, by which we are to be justified before God, as that the most earn endeavor to establish it, that is, to render it such, as by which we may be justified, is an effectual means to cause us to refuse a submission unto, and an acceptance of that, whereby alone we may be so.

This ruined the jews, and will be the ruine of all that shall follow their example in seeking after justification; yet is it not easie for Men to take any other way, or to be taken off from this. So the apostle intimates in that expression, They submitted not themselves unto the righteousness of God. This righteousness of God is of that nature, that the proud mind of Man is altogether unwilling to bow and submit it self unto; yet can it no otherwise be attained, but by such a submission or subjection of mind, as contains in it a total Renuntiation of any righteousness of our Men. And those who reproach others for affirming, That Men indeavoring after Morality or Moral righteousness, and resting therein, are in no good way for the participation of the grace of God by Jesus Christ, do expressly deride the doctrine of the apostle, that is, of the Holy Ghost himself.

Wherefore, the plain design of the apostle is to declare, that not only faith, and the righteousness of it, and a righteousness of our own by works are inconsistent, that is, as unto our justification before God; but also that the intermixture of our own works, in seeking after righteousness, as the means thereof does wholly divert us from the acceptance of, or submission unto the righteousness of God. For the righteousness which is of faith, is not our own, it is the righteousness of God, that which he imputes unto us. But the righteousness of works is our own, that which is wrought in us, and by us. And as works have no aptitude nor meetness in themselves to attain or receive a righteousness, which because it is not our own is imputed unto us, but are repugnant unto it, as that which will cast them down from their legal dignity of being our righteousness: So faith has no aptitude nor meetness in it self, to be an Inherent righteousness, or so to be esteemed, or as such to be imputed unto us, seeing its principal faculty and efficacy consists in fixing all the trust, confidence, and expectation of the soul, for righteousness and acceptation with God, upon another.

Here was the ruine of those jews; they judged it a better, a more probable, yea, a more righteous and holy way for them, constantly to indeavor after a righteousness of their own by duties of obedience unto the law of God, then to imagine that they could come to acceptance with God by faith in another. For tell them, and such as they, what you please, if they have not a righteousness of their own, that they can set upon its legs, and make to stand before God, the law will not have its accomplishment, and so will condemn them.

To demolish this last fort of unbelief, the apostle grants that the law must have its end, and be compleatly fulfilled, or there is no appearing for us as righteous before God; and withal shews them how this is done, and where alone it is to be sought after. For Christ (says he) is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believs, Ver. 4. We need not trouble our selves to inquire in what various sense Christ may be said to be , the end, the complement, the perfection of the law. The apostle sufficiently determins his intention, in affirming not absolutely that he is the end of the law, but he is so for righteousness unto every one that believs. The matter in question, Is a righteousness unto justification before God. And this is acknowledged to be the righteousness which the law requires. God looks for no righteousness from us, but what is prescribed in the law. The law is nothing but the rule of righteousness; Gods prescription of a righteousness, and all the duties of it unto us. That we should be righteous herewith before God, was the first original end of the law. Its other ends at present of the conviction of sin, and judging or condemning for it, were accidental unto its primitive constitution. This righteousness, which the law requires, which is all and only that righteousness which God requires of us, the accomplishment of this end of the law, the jews sought after by their own personal performance of the works and duties of it. But hereby in the utmost of their endeavors they could never fulfil this righteousness, nor attain this end of the law, which yet if Men do not, they must perish for ever.

Wherefore the apostle declares, That all this is done another way; that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled, and its end, as unto a righteousness before God, attained, and that is in and by Christ. For what the law required, that he accomplished which is accounted unto every one that believes.

Herein the apostle issus the whole disquisition about a righteousness wherewith we may be justified before God, and in particular, how satisfaction is given unto the demands of the law. That which we could not do, that which the law could not effect in us, in that it was weak through the flesh, that which we could not attain by the works and duties of it, that Christ has done for us, and so is the end of the law, for righteousness unto every one that believs.

The law demands a righteousness of us; the accomplishment of this righteousness is the end which it aims at, and which is necessary unto our justification before God. This is not to be attained by any works of our own, by any righteousness of our own. But the Lord Christ is this for us, and unto us; which, how he is or can be but by the imputation of his obedience and righteousness in the accomplishment of the law, I cannot understand; I am sure the apostle does not declare.

The way whereby we attain unto this end of the law, which we cannot do by our utmost endeavors to establish our own righteousness, is by faith alone, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness unto every one that believs. To mix any thing with faith herein, as it is repugnant unto the nature of faith and works, with respect unto their aptitude and meetness, for the attaining of a righteousness, so it is as directly contradictory unto the express design and words of the apostle, as any thing that can be invented.

Let Men please themselves with their distinctions which I understand not (and yet perhaps should be ashamed to say so, but that I am perswaded they understand them not themselves, by whom they are used) or with cavils, objections, feigned consequences, which I value not: Here I shall for ever desire to fix my soul, and herein to acquiesce; namely, That Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, to every one that does believe. And I do suppose, that all they who understand aright what it is that the law of God does require of them, how needful it is that it be complied withal, and that the end of it be accomplished, with the utter insufficiency of their own endeavors unto those ends, will, at least, when the time of disputing is over, betake themselves unto the same refuge and rest.

The next place I shall consider in the epistle of this apostle is 1 Corinthians 1:30. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.

The design of the apostle in these words is to manifest, that whatever is wanting unto us on any account that we may please God, live unto him, and come to the injoyment of him, that we have in and by Jesus Christ: And this on the part of God from mere, free, and sovereign grace, as Ver. 26, 27, 28, 29. do declare. And we have all these things by vertue of our insition or implantation in him; , from of, or by him. He by his grace is the principal efficient cause hereof. And the effect is, that we in Christ Jesus; that is ingrafted in him, or united unto him, as Members of his Mystical body, which is the constant sense of that expression in the scripture. And the benefits which we receive hereby are enumerated in the following words. But first the way whereby we are made partakers of them, or they are communicated unto us, is declared; who of God is made unto us. It is so ordained of God, that he himself shall be made or become all this unto us. , where , denotes the efficient cause, as did before. But how is Christ thus made unto us of God, or what act of God is it that is intended thereby. Socinus says it is a General act of the providence of God, whence it is come to pass, or is so faln out, that one way or other the Lord Christ should be said to be all this unto us. But it is an especial ordinance and Institution of Gods sovereign grace and wisdom, designing Christ to be all this unto us, and for us, with actual imputation thereon, and nothing else, that is intended. Whatever interest therefore we have in Christ, and what ever benefit we have by him, it all depends on the sovereign grace and constitution of God, and not on any thing in our selves. Whereas then we have no righteousness of our own, he is appointed of God to be our righteousness, and is made so unto us; which can be no otherwise, but that his righteousness is made ours. For he is made it unto us (as he is likewise the other things mentioned) so as that all boasting, that is in our selves, should be utterly excluded, and that he that gloris, should glory in the Lord, Ver. 29, 31. Now there is such a righteousness, or such a way of being righteous whereon we may have somewhat to glory, Romans 4:2. And which does not exclude boasting, Chap. 3:27. And this cannot possibly be but when our righteousness is inherent in us. For that however it may be procured, or purchased, or wrought in us, is yet our own, so far as any thing can be our own, whil we are creatures. This kind of righteousness therefore is here excluded. And the Lord Christ being so made righteousness unto us of God, as that all boasting and glorying on our part, or in our selves, may be excluded, yea, being made so, for this very end, that so it should be, it can be no otherwise, but by the imputation of his righteousness unto us. For thereby is the grace of God, the honor of his person and mediation exalted, and all occasion of glorying in our selves utterly prescinded. We desire no more from this testimony, but that whereas we are in our selves destitute of all righteousness in the sight of God, Christ is by a gracious act of Divine imputation made of God righteousness unto us, in such a way, as that all our glorying ought to be in the grace of God, and the righteousness of Christ himself. Bellarmine attempts three answers unto this testimony, the two first whereof are coincident; and in the third, being on the rack of light and truth, he confesss and grants all that we plead for. (1.) He says, That Christ is said to be our righteousness, because he is the efficient cause of it, as God is said to be our strength; and so there is in the words a Metonymy of the effect for the cause. And I say it is true, That the Lord Christ, by his Spirit, is the efficient cause of our Personal, Inherent righteousness. By his grace it is effected and wrought in us; he renews our natures into the Image of God, and without him we can do nothing: So that our habitual and actual Rightousness is from him. But this Personal righteousness is our sanctification and nothing else. And although the same internal habit of Inherent grace, with operations suitable thereunto, be sometimes called our sanctification, and sometimes our righteousness, with respect unto those operations; yet is it never distinguished into our sanctification, and our righteousness. But his being made righteousness unto us in this place, is absolutely distinct from his being made sanctification unto us, which is that Inherent righteousness which is wrought in us by the Spirit and grace of Christ. And his working Personal righteousness in us, which is our sanctification, and the imputation of his righteousness unto us, whereby we are made righteous before God, are not only consistent, but the one of them cannot be without the other.

2. He pleads, That Christ is said to be made righteousness unto us, as he is made redemption. Now he is our redemption, because he has redeemed us. So is he said to be made righteousness unto us, because by him we become righteous; or as another speaks, Because by him alone we are justified. This is the same plea with the former, namely, that there is a metonymy of the effect for the cause in all these expressions; yet what cause they intend it to be, who expound the words By him alone we are justified, I do not understand. But Bellarmine is approaching yet nearer the truth, for as Christ is said to be made of God, redemption unto us, because by his Blood we are redeemed, or freed from sin, death, and hell, by the ransome he paid for us, or have redemption through his Blood, even the forgiveness of sins: So he is said to be made righteousness unto us, because through his righteousness granted unto us of God (as Gods making him to be righteousness unto us, and our becoming the righteousness of God in him; and the imputation of his righteousness unto us, that we may be righteous before God, are the same) we are justified.

His third answer, as was before observed, grants the whole of what we plead. For it is the same which he gives unto Jere. 23:6. which place he conjoyns with this, as of the same sense and importance, giving up his whole cause in satisfaction unto them, in the words before transcribed. Lib. 2. cap. 10.

Socinus Prefacs his answer unto this testimony with an Admiration, That any should make use of it, or plead it in this cause, it is so impertinent unto the purpose. And indeed, a pretended contempt of the arguments of his Adversaries is, the principle Artifice he makes use of in all his Replies and Evasions; wherein I am sorry to see that he is followed by most of them, who together with him, do oppose the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. And so of late the use of this testimony which reduced Bellarmine to so great a strait, is admired at, on the only ground and reason wherewith it is opposed by Socinus. Yet are his exceptions unto it such, as that I cannot also but a little on the other hand wonder, that any learned Man should be troubled with them, or seduced by them. For he only pleads, That if Christ be said to be made righteousness unto us, because his righteousness is imputed unto us; then is he said to be made wisdom unto us, because his wisdom is so imputed, and so of his sanctification which none will allow; yea, he must be redeemed for us, and his redemption be imputed unto us. But there is nothing of force, nor truth in this pretence. For it is built only on this Supposition, That Christ must be made unto us of God, all these things, in the same way and manner; whereas they are of such different natures, that it is utterly impossible he should so be. For instance, he is made sanctification unto us, in that by his Spirit and grace we are freely sanctified. But he cannot be said to be made redemption unto us, in that by his Spirit and grace we are freely redeemed. And, if he is said to be made righteousness unto us, because by his Spirit and grace he works inherent righteousness in us, then is it plainly the same with his being made sanctification unto us. Neither does he himself believe that Christ is made all these things unto us in the same way and manner. And therefore does he not assign any special way whereby he is so made them all; but clouds it in an ambiguous expression, that he becomes all these things unto us in the providence of God. But ask him in particular, how Christ is made sanctification unto us, and he will tell you that it was by his doctrine and example alone, with some such general assistance of the Spirit of God as he will allow. But now, this is no way at all whereby Christ was made redemption unto us; which being a thing external, and not wrought in us, Christ can be no otherwise made redemption unto us, then by the imputation unto us of what he did, that we might be redeemed, or reckoning it on our account. Not that he was redeemed for us, as he childishly cavils, but that he did that whereby we are redeemed. Wherefore Christ is made of God righteousness unto us in such a way and manner, as the nature of the thing does require. Say some, it is because by him we are justified. Howbeit the Text says not, That by him we are justified, but he is of God made righteousness unto us, which is not our justification, but the ground cause and reason whereon we are justified. righteousness is one thing, and justification is another. Wherefore we must inquire how we come to have that righteousness whereby we are justified. And this the same apostle tells us plainly is by imputation. Blessed is the Man unto whom the Lord imputes righteousness, Romans 4:6. It follows then, that Christ being made unto us of God righteousness, can have no other sense, but that his righteousness is imputed unto us, which is what this Text does undeniably confirm.

2 Corinthians 5:21.

The truth pleaded for, is yet more emphatically expressed. For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. The Paraphrase of Austine on these words gives the sense of them. Ipse peccatum ut nos justitia, non nostra sed Dei, non in nobis sed in ipso; sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum, non in se, sed in nobis constitutum. Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap. 4. And the words of Chrysostome upon this place, unto the same purpose, have been cited before at large.

To set out the greatness of the grace of God in our reconciliation by Christ, he describes him by that Paraphrasis , who knew no sin, or who knew not sin. He knew sin in the notion or understanding of its nature; and he knew it experimentally in the effects which he underwent and suffered; but he knew it not, that is, was most remote from it, as to its commission or guilt. So that he knew no sin, is absolutely no more; but he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, as it is expressed 1 Peter 2:22. Or, that he was holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners. Hebrews 7:26. Howbeit, there is an Emphasis in the expression which is not to be neglected. For as it is observed by Chrysostome, as containing an auxesis (,) and by sundry learned persons after him. So those who desire to learn the excellency of the grace of God herein, will have an impression of a sense of it on their minds, from this emphatical expression, which the Holy Ghost chose to make use of unto that end, and the observation of it is not to be despised.

He has made him to be sin; that is, say many Expositors, A sacrifice for sin. Quemadmodum oblatus est pro peccatis, non immerito peccatum factus dicitur, quia & bestia in lege quae pro peccatis offerebatur, peccatum nuncupatur. Ambros. in locum. So the sin and Trespass offering are often expressed by and , the sin and trespass or guilt. And I shall not contend about this Exposition, because that signified in it, is according unto the truth. But there is another more proper signification of the word; being put for , sin for a sinner; that is, Passively not Actively, not by Inhesion but imputation. For this this the phrase of speech, and force of the Antithesis seem to require. Speaking of another sense, Estius himself on the place adds, as that which he approves. Hic intellectus explicandus est per Commentarium Graecorum Chrysostomi & caeterorum; quia peccatum emphaticῶs interpretantur magnum peccatorem; ac si dicat Apostolus, nostri causa tractavit eum tanquam ipsum peccatum, ipsum scelus, id est, tanquam hominem insigniter sceleratum, ut in quo posuerit iniquitates omnium nostrum. And if this be the interpretation of the Greek Scholiasts, as indeed it is, Luther was not the first, who affirmed, That Christ was made the greatest sinner, namely, by imputation. But we shall allow the former Exposition, provided, that the true notion of a sin offering, or expiatory sacrifice be admitted. For although this neither was, nor could consist in the transfusion of the inherent sin of the person unto the sacrifice; yet did it so in the translation of the guilt of the sinner unto it, as is fully declared Levit. 16:20, 21. Only I must say, that I grant this signification of the word to avoid contention. For whereas some say, that signifies sin, and a sacrifice for sin, it cannot be allowed, in Kal, signifies to err, to sin, to transgress the law of God: In Piel it has a contrary signification, namely, to cleanse from sin, or to make expiation of sin. Hence is most frequently used with respect unto its derivation from the first conjugation, and signifies sin, transgression, and guilt. But sometimes with respect unto the second, and then it signifies a sacrifice for sin, to make expiation of it. And so it is rendered by the LXX, sometimes by , Ezekiel 44:27. sometimes , Exodus 30:10. Ezekiel 43:23. A propitiation, a Propitiatory sacrifice. Sometimes by , Numbers 19:19. and , Purification or Cleasing. But absolutely does no where in any good author, nor in the scripture signifie a sacrifice for sin unless it may be allowed to do so in this one place alone. For whereas the LXX do render constantly by where it signifies sin; where it denotes an offering for sin, and they retain that word, they do it by , an Elliptical expression which they invented for that which they knew of its self neither did, nor could signifie, Leviticus 4:3, 14, 32, 35. Chap. 5:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Chap. 6:30. Chap. 8:2. And they never omit the preposition, unless they name the sacrifice, as . This is observed also by the apostle the new testament. For twice expressing the sin-offering by this word, he useth that phrase Romans 8:3. Hebrews 10:6. But no where useth to that purpose. If it be therefore of that signification in this place, it is so here alone. And whereas some think, that it answers Piaculum in the Latine, it is also a mistake, for the first signification of is confessed to be sin, and they would have it supposed that thence it is abused to signifie a sacrifice for sin. But Piaculum is properly a sacrifice, or any thing whereby sin is expiated or satisfaction is made for it. And very rarely it is abused to denote such a sin or crime as deserves public expiation, and is not otherwise to be pardoned, so VirgilDistulit in seram commissa Piacula mortem. But we shall not contend about words, whil we can agree about what is intended.

The only inquiry is, how God did make him to be sin. He has made him to be sin; so that an act of God is intended. And this is elsewhere expressed, by his laying all our Iniquities upon him, or causing them to meet on him, Isaiah 53:6. And this was by the imputation of our sins unto him, as the sins of the people were put on the head of the Goat that they should be no more theirs but his, so as that he was to carry them away from them. Take sin in either sense before mentioned, either of a sacrifice for sin, or a sinner, and the imputation of the guilt of sin, antecedently unto the punishment of it, and in order thereunto, must be understood. For in every sacrifice for sin there was an imposition of sin on the Beast to be offered antecedent unto the Sacrificing of it, and therein its suffering by death. Therefore in every offering for sin, he that brought it was to put his hand on the head of it, Leviticus 1:4. And that the transferring of the guilt of sin unto the offering, was thereby signified, is expressly declared, Leviticus 16:21. Wherefore if God made the Lord Christ a sin offering for us, it was by the imputation of the guilt of sin unto him antecedently unto his suffering. Nor could any offering be made for sin, without a Typical translation of the guilt of sin unto it. And therefore when an offering was made for the expiation of the guilt of an uncertain Murther, those who were to make it by the law, namely, the Elders of the City that were next unto the place where the man was slain, were not to offer a sacrifice, because there was none to confess guilt over it, or to lay guilt upon it; But whereas the neck of an Heifer was to be stricken off, to declare the punishment due unto Blood, they were to wash their hands over it to testifie their own Innocency, Deuteronomy 21:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. But a sacrifice for sin without the imputation of guilt there could not be. And if the word be taken in the second sense, namely, for a sinner, that is, by imputation, and in Gods esteem, it must be by the imputation of guilt. For none can in any sense be denominated a sinner from mere suffering. None indeed do say, that Christ was made sin, by the imputation of punishment unto him, which has no proper sense; But they say, sin was imputed unto him as unto punishment, which is indeed to say, that the guilt of sin was imputed unto him. For the guilt of sin, is its respect unto punishment, or the obligation unto punishment which attends it. And that any one should be punished for sin without the imputation of the guilt of it unto him, is impossible; and were it possible would be unjust. For it is not possible that any one should be punished for sin properly, and yet that sin be none of his. And if it be not his by inhaesion, it can be his no other way but by imputation. One may suffer on the occasion of the sin of another, that is no way made his, but he cannot be punished for it; for punishment is the recompence of sin on the account of its guilt. And were it possible, where is the righteousness of punishing any one for that which no way belongs unto him? Besides, imputation of sin and punishing are distinct acts, the one preceding the other, and therefore the former is only of the guilt of sin; Wherefore the Lord Christ was made sin for us by the imputation of the guilt of our sins unto him.

But it is said, that if the guilt of sin were imputed unto Christ, he is excluded from all possibility of merit, for he suffered but what was his due; And so the whole work of Christs satisfaction is subverted. This must be so, if God in judgment did reckon him guilty and a sinner. But there is an ambiguity in these expressions. If it be meant that God in judgment did reckon him guilty and a sinner inherently in his own person, no such thing is intended. But God laid all our sins on him, and in judgment spared him not, as unto what was due unto them. And so he suffered not what was his due upon his own account, but what was due unto our sin, which is impiety to deny; For if it were not so, he dyed in vain, and we are still in our sins. And as his satisfaction consists herein, nor could be without it, so does it not in the least derogate from his merit. For supposing the infinite dignity of his person, and his voluntary susception of our sin to answer for it, which altered not his state and condition, his obedience therein was highly meritorious.

In answer hereunto, and by vertue hereof, we are made the righteousness of God in him. This was the end of his being made sin for us. And by whom are we so made: It is by God himself, for it is God that justifies, Romans 8:33. It is God who imputes righteousness; Chap. 4:6. Wherefore it is the Acts of God in our justification that is intended. And to be made the righteousness of God, is to be made righteous before God, though emphatically expressed by the abstract for the concrete, to answer what was said before of Christ being made sin for us. To be made the righteousness of God, is to be justified; and to be made it so in him, as he was made sin for us, is to be justified by the imputation of his righteousness unto us, as our sin was imputed unto him.

No man can assign any other way whereby he was made sin, especially his being made so by God, but by Gods laying all our Iniquities upon him, that is, imputing our sin unto him. How then are we made the righteousness of God in him? By the infusion of an habit of grace say the papists generally; Then by the rule of the Antithesis, he must be made sin for us, by the infusion of an habit of sin, which would be a blasphemous imagination. By his meriting, procuring, and purchasing righteousness for us say others: so possibly we might be made righteous by him; but so we cannot be made righteous in him. This can only be by his righteousness, as we are in him, or united unto him. To be righteous in him is to be righteous with his righteousness, as we are one mystical person with him. Wherefore

To be made the righteousness of God in Christ as he was made sin for us, and because he was so, can be no other but to be made righteous by the imputation of his righteousness unto us, as we are in him or united unto him. All other expositions of these words are both jejune and forced, leading the mind from the first, plain, obvious sense of them.

Bellarmine excepts unto this interpretation, and it is his first argument against the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. lib. 2. cap. 7. de justificatione. Quinto refellitur, quoniam si vere nobis imputetur justitia Christi ut per eam justi habeamur ac censeremur, ac si proprie nostra esset intrinseca formalisque justitia, profecto non minus justi haberi & censeri deberemus quam ipse Christus: proinde deberemus dici atque haberi Redemptores, & salvatores mundi quod est absurdissimum. So full an answer has been returned hereunto, and that so frequently, by protestant Divines, as that I would not have mentioned it, but that diverse among our selves are pleased to borrow it from him, and make use of it. For, say they, if the righteousness of Christ be imputed unto us so as thereby to be made ours, then are we as righteous as Christ himself, because we are righteous with his righteousness. Answ. 1. These things are plainly affirmed in the scripture, that as unto our selves, and in our selves, we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness is as filthy Rags, Isaiah 64:6. on the one hand; And that in the Lord we have righteousness and strength, in the Lord we are justified and do glory, Isaiah 45:24, 25. on the other: That if we say we have no sin, we deceive our selves; and yet that we are the righteousness of God in Christ. Wherefore these things are consistent what ever cavils the wit of men can raise against them; And so they must be esteemed, unless we will comply with Socinus his rule of interpretation; namely, that where any thing seems repugnant unto our reason, though it be never so expressly affirmed in the scripture, we are not to admit of it, but find out some interpretation though never so forced, to bring the sense of the words unto our reason. Wherefore (2) notwithstanding the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us, and our being made righteous therewith, we are sinners in our selves, (the Lord knows greatly so, the best of us) and so cannot be said to be as righteous as Christ, but only to be made righteous in him who are sinners in our selves. (3) To say, that we are as righteous as Christ, is to make a comparison between the personal righteousness of Christ, and our personal righteousness, if the comparison be of things of the same kind. But this is foolish and impious; For notwithstanding all our personal righteousness, we are sinful, he knew no sin. And if the comparison be between Christs personal inherent righteousness, and righteousness imputed unto us, inhaesion and imputation being things of diverse kinds, it is fond and of no consequence. Christ was actively righteous, we are passively so. When our sin was imputed unto him, he did not thereby become a sinner as we are, actively and inherently a sinner, but passively only, and in Gods estimation. As he was made sin, yet knew no sin, so we are made righteous, yet are sinful in our selves. (4) The righteousness of Christ as it was his personally was the righteousness of the Son of God; in which respect it had in itself an infinite perfection and value; But it is imputed unto us only with respect unto our personal want, not as it was satisfactory for all; but as our souls stand in need of it, and are made partakers of it. There is therefore no ground for any such comparison. (5) As unto what is added by Bellarmine that we may hereon be said to be Redeemers and Saviours of the world, the absurdity of the assertion falls upon himself, we are not concerned in it. For he affirms directly, lib. 1. de purgator. cap. 14. That a man may be rightly called his own Redeemer and savior, which he endeavours to prove from Daniel 4. And some of his church affirms that the saints may be called the Redeemers of others, though improperly. But we are not concerned in these things; seeing from the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, it follows only that those unto whom it is imputed are Redeemed and Saved, not at all that they are Redeemers and Saviours. It belongs also unto the vindication of this testimony to shew the vanity of his Seventh argument in the same case, because that also is made use of by some among our selves, and it is this. If by the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, we may be truly said to be righteous and the Sons of God, then may Christ by the imputation of our unrighteousness be said to be a sinner and a child of the Devil. Ans. (1) That which the scripture affirms concerning the imputation of our sins unto Christ is, that he was made sin for us. This the Greek Expositors, Chrysostome, Theophylact and Oecumenius with many others take for a sinner. But all affirm, that denomination to be taken from imputation only; he had sin imputed unto him, and underwent the punishment due unto it, as we have righteousness imputed unto us, and enjoy the benefit of it. (2) The imputation of sin unto Christ, did not carry along with it any thing of the pollution or filth of sin to be communicated unto him by transfusion, a thing impossible; so that no denomination can thence arise which should include in it, any respect unto them; A thought hereof is impious and dishonourable unto the Son of God. But his being made sin through the imputation of the guilt of sin, is his honor and glory. (3) The imputation of the sin of Fornicators, Idolaters, Adulterers, &c. such as the Corinthians were before their conversion unto Christ, does not on any ground bring him under a denomination from those sins. For they were so in themselves actively, inherently. subjectively, and thence were so called. But that he who knew no sin, voluntarily taking on him to answer for the guilt of those sins, which in him was an act of righteousness and the highest obedience unto God, should be said to be an Idolater, &c. is a fond imagination. The denomination of a sinner from sin inherent, actually committed, defiling the soul, is a reproach, and significative of the utmost unworthiness; But even the denomination of a sinner, by the imputation of sin, without the least personal guilt or defilement, being undergone by him unto whom it is imputed, in an act of the highest obedience, and tending unto the greatest glory of God, is highly honourable and glorious. But (4) The imputation of sin unto Christ, was antecedent unto any real union between him and sinners, whereon he took their sin on him, as he would, and for what ends he would. But the imputation of his righteousness unto believers, is consequential in order of nature unto their union with him, whereby it becomes theirs in a peculiar manner; so as that there is not a parity of reason that he should be esteemed a sinner, as that they should be accounted righteous. And (5) we acquiesce in this, that on the imputation of sin unto Christ, it is said that God made him to be sin for us, which he could not be, but thereby; and he was so by an act transient in its effects for a time only, that time wherein he underwent the punishment due unto it. But on the imputation of his righteousness unto us, we are made the righteousness of God with an everlasting righteousness that abides ours always. (6) To be a child of the Devil by sin, is to do the works of the Devil, John 8:44. But the Lord Christ in taking our sins upon him, when imputed unto him, did the work of God in the highest act of holy obedience, evidencing himself to be the Son of God thereby, and destroying the work of the Devil. So foolish and impious is it, to conceive that any absolute change of state or relation in him did ensue thereon.

That by the righteousness of God in this place, our own faith and obedience according to the gospel, as some would have it, are intended, is so alien from the scope of the place, and sense of the words, as that I shall not particularly examine it. The righteousness of God is revealed to faith, and received by faith, and is not therefore faith it self. And the force of the Antithesis is quite perverted by this conceit. For where is it in this, that he was made sin by the imputation of our sin unto him, and we are made righteousness, by the imputation of our own faith and obedience unto our selves. But as Christ had no concern in sin, but as God made him sin, it was never in him inherently; so have we no interest in this righteousness, it is not in us inherently, but only is imputed unto us. Besides the act of God, in making us righteous, is his justifying of us. But this is not by the infusion of the habit of faith and obedience, as we have proved. And what act of God is intended by them, who affirm, That the righteousness of God which we are made, is our own righteousness, I know not. The constitution of the gospel law it cannot be; for that makes no Man righteous. And the persons of believers are the object of this act of God, and that as they are considered in Christ.

Galatians 2:16.

The epistle of the same apostle unto the Galatians, is wholly designed unto the vindication of the doctrine of justification by Christ, without the works of the law, with the use and means of its improvement. The sum of his whole design is laid down in the repetition of his words unto the apostle Peter, on the occasion of his failure, there related Chap. 2:86. Knowing that a Man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed on Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law, shall no flesh be justified.

That which he does here assert, was such a known, such a fundamental principle of truth among all believers, that their conviction and knowledge of it, was the ground and occasion of their transition, and passing over from Judaism unto the gospel and faith in Jesus Christ thereby.

And in the words the apostle determines that great inquiry, how, or by what means a Man is, or may be justified before God. The subject spoken of is expressed indefinitely; A Man, that is, any Man, a jew, or a gentile, a believer, or an unbeliever. The apostle that spoke, and they to whom he spoke; the Galatians to whom he wrote, who also for some time had believed and made profession of the gospel.

The answer given unto the question, is both Negative and Positive, both asserted with the highest assurance, and as the common faith of all Christians, but only those who had been carried aside from it by Seducers. He asserts, that this is not, this cannot be by the works of the law. What is intended by the law in these disputations of the apostle, has been before declared and evinced. The law of Moses is sometimes signally intended; not absolutely, but as it was the present instance of Mens cleaving unto the law of righteousness, and not submitting themselves thereon unto the righteousness of God. But that the consideration of the Moral law, and the duties of it, is in this argument any where excepted by him, is a weak imagination; yea, it would except the Ceremonial law it self; for the observation of it, whil it was in force, was a duty of the Moral law.

And the works of the law, are the works and duties of obedience which this law of God requires, performed in the manner that it prescribes, namely, in faith, and out of love unto God above all, as has been proved. To say, that the apostle excluds only works absolutely perfect, which none ever did, or could perform since the entrance of sin, is to suppose him to dispute with great earnestness, and many arguments against that which no Man asserted, and which he does not once mention in all his discourse. Nor can he be said to exclude only works that are looked on as meritorious, seeing he excluds all works that there may be no place for merit in our justification, as has also been proved. Nor did these Galatians, whom he writes unto, and convincs them of their error, look for justification from any works, but such as they performed then, when they were believers. So that all sorts of works are excluded from any interest in our justification. And so much weight does the apostle lay on this exclusion of works from our justification, as that he affirms, That the admittance of it overthrows the whole gospel, Ver. 21. For, says he, if righteousness be by the law, then is Christ dead in vain; and it is dangerous venturing on so sharp a fence.

Not this, or that sort of works; not this, or that manner of the performance of them; not this, or that kind of interest in our justification, but all works of what sort soever, and however performed, are excluded from any kind of consideration in our justification, as our works or duties of obedience. For these Galatians whom the apostle reproves, desired no more, but that in the justification of a believer, works of the law, or duties of obedience, might be admitted into a conjunction or copartnership witn faith in Christ Jesus. For that they would exclude faith in him, and assign justification unto works without it, nothing is intimated, and it is a foolish imagination. In opposition hereunto he positively ascribes our justification unto faith in Christ alone: Not by works but by faith, is by faith alone. That the Particles are not exceptive, but adversative, has not only been undeniably proved by protestant Divines, but is acknowledged by those of the Romansan church, who pretend unto any modesty in this Controversie. The words of Estius on this place deserve to be transcribed, Nisi per fidem Jesu Christi sententiam reddit obscuram particula Nisi (so the vulgar Latin renders , instead of sed or sed tantum) quae si proprie ut Latinis auribus sonat accipiatur, exceptionem facit ab eo quod praecedit, ut sensus sit hominem non justificari ex operibus Legis, nisi fides in Chrislum ad ea opera accedat, quae si accesserit justificari eum per legis opera. Sed cum hic sensus Justificationem dividat, partim eam tribuens operibus legis, partim fidei Christi, quod est contra definitam & absolutam Apostoli sententiam, manifestum est, interpretationem illam tanquam Apostolico sensui & scopo contrariam omnino repudiandam esse. Verum constat voculam (nisi) frequenter in Scripturis adversative sumi, ut idem valeat quod Sed tantum. So he according to his usual candor and ingenuity.

It is not probable that we shall have an end of contending in this world, when Men will not acquiesce in such plain Determinations of Controversies given by the Holy Ghost himself.

The Interpretation of this place given, as the meaning of the apostle, That Men cannot be justified by those works which they cannot perform, that is, works absolutely perfect; but may be so, and are so, by those which they can, and do perform, if not in their own strength, yet by the aid of grace: And that faith in Christ Jesus which the apostle opposs absolutely unto all works whatever, does include in it all those works which he excludes, and that with respect unto that end or effect with respect whereunto they are excluded, cannot well be supposed to be suitable unto the mind of the Holy Ghost.

Ephesians 2:8, 9, 10.

For by grace ye are saved through faith, and that not of your selves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any Man should boast. For we are his Workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has fore-ordained that we should walk in them.

Unless it had seemed good unto the Holy Ghost to have expressed before hand all the evasions and subterfuges, which the wit of Man in after ages could invent, to pervert the doctrine of our justification before God, and to have rejected them, it is impossible they could have been more plainly prevented then they are in this context. If we may take a little unprejudiced consideration of it, I suppose what is affirmed will be evident.

It cannot be denied, but that the design of the apostle from the beginning of this chapter, unto the end of Ver. 11. is to declare the way whereby lost and condemned sinners come to be delivered, and translated out of that condition into an estate of acceptance with God, and eternal salvation thereon. And therefore in the first place, he fully describs their natural state, with their being obnoxious unto the wrath of God thereby. For such was the method of this apostle, unto the declaration of the grace of God in any kind, he did usually, yea, constantly premise the consideration of our sin, misery, and ruine. Others now like not this method so well. Howbeit this hinders not, but that it was his. Unto this purpose he declares unto the Ephesians, That they were dead in trespasses and sins, expressing the power that sin had on their souls, as unto Spiritual life, and all the actions of it; but withal that they lived and walked in sin, and on all accounts were the children of wrath, or subject and liable unto eternal condemnation, Ver. 1, 2, 3. What such persons can do towards their own deliverance, there are many terms found out to express, all passing my understanding, seeing the intire design of the apostle is to prove, that they can do nothing at all. But another cause, or other causes of it, he finds out, and that in direct express opposition unto any thing that may be done by our selves unto that end. , Ver. 4. It is not a work for us to undertake; it is not what we can contribute any thing unto: But God, who is rich in mercy. The adversative includes an opposition, unto every thing on our part, and incloss the whole work to God. Would Men have rested on this Divine Revelation, the church of God had been free from many of those perverse opinions and wrangling disputes, which it has been pestered withal. But they will not so easily part with thoughts of some kind of interest in being the authors of their own happiness. Wherefore two things we may observe in the apostles assignation of the causes of our deliverance from a state of sin, and acceptance with God.

1. That he assigns the whole of this work absolutely unto grace, love, and mercy, and that with an exclusion of the consideration of any thing on our part, as we shall see immediately, Ver. 5, 8.

2. He magnifies this grace in a marvellous manner. For (1.) He expresss it by all names and titles whereby it is signified as , mercy, love, grace, and Kindness. For he would have us to look only unto grace herein. (2.) He ascribes such Adjuncts, and gives such Epithets, unto that Divine mercy and grace which is the sole cause of our deliverance in and by Jesus Christ, as render it singular, and herein solely to be adored, . Rich in mercy. Great love wherewith he loved us. The exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindness, Ver. 4, 5, 6, 7. It cannot reasonably be denied, but that the apostle does design deeply to affect the mind and heart of believers with a sense of the grace and love of God in Christ, as the only cause of their justification before God. I think no words can express those conceptions of the mind, which this Representation of grace does suggest. Whether they think it any part of their duty to be like minded, and comply with the apostle in this design, who scarce ever mention the grace of God, unless it be in a way of diminution from its efficacy, and unto whom such Ascriptions unto it as are here made by him, are a matter of contempt, is not hard to judge.

But it will be said these are good words indeed, but they are only general; there is nothing of argument in all this adoring of the grace of God in the work of our salvation. It may be so it seems to many. But yet to speak plainly, there is to me more argument in this one consideration, namely, of the Ascription made in this cause unto the grace of God in this place, then in an hundred Sophisms, suited neither unto the expressions of the scripture, nor the experience of them that do believe. He that is possessed with a due apprehension of the grace of God, as here represented, and under a sense that it was therein, the design of the Holy Ghost, to render it glorious, and alone to be trusted unto, will not easily be induced to concern himself in those additional supplies unto it from our own works and obedience, which some would suggest unto him. But we may yet look further into the words.

The case which the apostle states, the inquiry which he has in hand, whereon he determins as to the truth, wherein he instructs the Ephesians, and in them the whole church of God, is, How a lost condemned sinner may come to be accepted with God, and thereon saved. And this is the sole inquiry wherein we are, or intend in this controversie to be concerned. Further we will not proceed, either upon the invitation or provocation of any. Concerning this, his position and determination is, That we are saved by grace.

This first he occasionally interposs in his enumeration of the benefits we receive by Christ, Ver. 5. But not content therewith, he again directly asserts it, Ver. 8. in the same words; for he seems to have considered how slow Men would be in the admittance of this truth, which at once deprives them of all boastings in themselves.

What it is that he intends by our being saved, must be inquired into. It would not be prejudicial unto, but rather advance the truth we plead for, if by our being saved, eternal salvation were intended. But that cannot be the sense of it in this place, otherwise than as that salvation is included in the causes of it, which are effectual in this life. Nor do I think that in that expression, By grace ye are saved, our justification only is intended, although it be so principally. conversion unto God and sanctification, are also included therein, as is evident from Ver. 5, 6. And they are no less of sovereign grace, than is our justification it self. But the apostle speaks of what the Ephesians being now believers, and by vertue of their being so, were made partakers of in this life. This is manifest in the whole context. For having in the beginning of the chapter described their condition, what it was in common with all the Posterity of Adam by nature, Ver. 1, 2, 3. He moreover declares their condition in particular, in opposition to that of the jews, as they were gentiles, Idolaters, Atheists, Ver. 11, 12. Their present delivery by Jesus Christ from this whole miserable state and condition, that which they were under in common with all mankind, and that which was a peculiar aggravation of its misery in themselves, is that which he intends by their being saved. That which was principally designed in the description of this state is, That therein and thereby they were liable unto the wrath of God, guilty before him, and obnoxious unto his judgment. This he expresss in the declaration of it. Ver. 3. Answerable unto that method, and those grounds, he every where proceeds on in declaring the doctrine of justification.

Romans 3:19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. Titus 3:3, 4, 5. From this state they had deliverance by faith in Christ Jesus. For unto as many as received him, power is given to be the sons of God. John 1:12. He that believs on him, is not condemned, that is, he is saved, in the sense of the apostle in this place. John 3:15. He that believs on the Son of God has everlasting life, (is saved) but he that believs not, the wrath of God abids on him. Ver. 36. And in this sense, saved, and salvation, are frequently used in the scripture. Besides he gives us so full a description of the salvation, which he intends from Ver. 13. unto the end of the chapter, that there can be no doubt of it. It is our being made nigh by the Blood of Christ, Ver. 13. Our peace with God by his death, Ver. 14, 15. Our reconciliation by the Blood of the Cross, Ver. 16. Our access unto God, and all Spiritual priviledges thereon depending, Ver. 18, 19, 20, &c.

Wherefore the inquiry of the apostle and his determination thereon, is concerning the causes of our justification before God. This he declares and fixs both Positively and Negatively. Positively (1.) In the supream moving cause on the part of God. This is that free sovereign grace and love of his, which he illustrates by its adjuncts and properties before mentioned. (2.) In the meritorious procuring cause of it, which is Jesus Christ in the work of his mediation, as the ordinance of God for the rendring this grace effectual unto his glory, Ver. 7, 13, 16. (3.) In the only means or instrumental cause on our part, which is faith. By grace are ye saved through faith, Ver. 8. And lest he should seem to derogate any thing from the grace of God, in asserting the necessity and use of faith, he adds, That Epanorthosis, and that not of our selves, it is the gift of God. The communication of this faith unto us is no less of grace then is the justification which we obtain thereby. So has he secured the whole work unto the grace of God through Christ, wherein we are interested by faith alone.

But not content herewith, he describes this work Negatively, or adds an exclusion of what might be pretended to have a concernment therein. And therein three things are stated distinctly. (1.) What it is he so excludes. (2.) The reason whereon he does so. (3.) The confirmation of that reason, wherein he obviates an objection that might arise thereon.

1. That which he excludes is works, not of works, Ver. 9. And what works he intends at least principally, himself declares. works, say some, of the law, the law of Moses. But what concernment had these Ephesians therein, that the apostle should inform them, that they were not justified by those works. They were never under that law, never sought for righteousness by it, nor had any respect unto it, but only, that they were delivered from it. But it may be he intends only works wrought in the strength of our own natural abilities, without the aids of grace, and before believing. But what were the works of these Ephesians antecedent unto believing, he before and afterwards declares. For being dead in trespasses and sins, they walked according to the course of this world in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh, and of the mind, Ver. 1, 2, 3. It is certain enough that these works have no influence into our justification; and no less certain, that the apostle had no reason to exclude them from it, as though any could pretend to be advantaged by them, in that which consists in a deliverance from them. Wherefore the works here excluded by the apostle, are those works which the Ephesians now performed, when the were believers, quickned with Christ; even the works which God has fore-ordained, that we should walk in them, as he expressly declared, Ver. 10. And these works he excluds not only in opposition unto grace, but in opposition unto faith also. Through faith not of works. Wherefore he does not only reject their merit, as inconsistent with grace, but their cointer on our part with, or subsequent interest unto faith, in the work of justification before God.

If we are saved by grace through faith in Christ exclusively unto all works of obedience whatever, then cannot such works be the whole or any part of our righteousness unto the justification of life. Wherefore another righteousness we must have or perish for ever. Many things I know are here offered, and many distinctions coyned to retain some interest of works in our justification before God; But whether it be the safest way to trust unto them, or unto this plain, express, Divine testimony, will not be hard for any to determine when they make the case their own.

2. The apostle adds a reason of this exclusion of works, not of works left any one should boast. God has ordained the order and method of our justification by Christ in the way expressed, that no man might have ground, reason, or occasion to glory or boast in or of himself. So it is expressed, 1 Corinthians 1:21, 30, 31. Romans 3:32. To exclude all glorying or boasting on our part, is the design of God. And this consists in an ascription of something unto our selves, that is not in others, in order unto justification. And it is works alone that can administer any occasion of this boasting; For if Abraham were justified by works, he had whereof to glory, Romans 4:2. And it is excluded alone by the law of faith, Romans 3:27. For the nature and use of faith, is to find righteousness in another. And this boasting, all works are apt to beget in the minds of men, if applied unto justification. And where there is any boasting of this nature, the design of God towards us in this work of his grace, is frustrated what lieth in us.

That which I principally insist on from hence, is, that there are no boundaries fixed in scripture unto the interest of works in justification, so as no boasting should be included in them. The papists make them meritorious of it, at least of our second justification as they call it. This, say some, ought not to be admitted; for it includs boasting, merit and boasting are inseparable. Wherefore say others, they are only causa sine qua non, they are the condition of it; or they are our Evangelical righteousness before God whereon we are Evangelically justified, or they are a subordinate righteousness, whereon we obtain an interest in the righteousness of Christ; or are comprized in the condition of the new covenant whereby we are justified, or are included in faith, being the form of it, or of the essence of it, one way or other: For herein men express themselves in great variety. But so long as our works are hereby asserted in order unto our justification, how shall a man be certain that they do not include boasting; or, that they do express the true sense of these words, not of works lest any man should boast. There is some kind of Ascription unto our selves in this matter, which is boasting. If any shall say, that they know well enough what they do, and know that they do not boast in what they ascribe unto works, I must say that in general I cannot admit it. For the papists affirm of themselves, that they are most remote from boasting; yet I am very well satisfied that boasting and merit are inseparable. The question is not what men think they do, but what judgment the scripture passs on what they do. And if it be said, that what is in us, is also of the grace and Gift of God, and is so acknowledged, which excludes all boasting in our selves, I say it was so by the Pharisee, and yet was he an horrible boaster. Let them therefore be supposed to be wrought in us in what way men please, if they be also wrought by us, and so be the works of righteousness, which we have done, I fear their Introduction into our justification, does include boasting in it, because of this assertion of the apostle, not of works lest any man should boast. Wherefore because this is a dangerous point, unless men can give us the direct, plain indisputable bounds of the Introduction of our works into our justification, which cannot include boasting in it, it is the safest course utterly to exclude them, wherein I see no danger of any mistake in these words of the Holy Ghost, not of works lest any man should boast. For if we should be unadvisedly seduced into this boasting, we should lose all the benefit which we might otherwise expect by the grace of God.

3. The apostle gives another reason why it cannot be of works, and withal obviates an objection, which might arise from what he had declared, verse 10. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained, that we should walk in them. And the force of his reason, which the causal Conjunction intimates the Introduction of, consists in this: That all good works, those concerning which he treats, Evangelical works, are the effects of the grace of God in them that are in Christ Jesus, and so are truly justified antecedently in order of nature unto them. But that which he principally designed in these words, was that which he is still mindful of, wherever he treats of this doctrine, namely to obviate an objection that he foresaw some would make against it, and that is this; If good works be thus excluded from our justification before God, then of what use are they? we may live as we list, utterly neglect them, and yet be justified. And this very objection do some men continue to manage, with great vehemency against the same doctrine. We meet with nothing in this cause more frequently than that if our justification before God be not of works some way or other, if they be not antecedaneously required thereunto, if they are not a previous condition of it, then there is no need of them: Men may safely live in an utter neglect of all obedience unto God. And on this Theme men are very apt to enlarge themselves, who otherwise give no great evidences of their own Evangelical obedience. To me it is marvellous, that they heed not unto what party they make an Accession in the management of this objection; namely unto that of them, who were the Adversaries of the doctrine of grace taught by the apostle. It must be elsewhere considered. For the present I shall say no more, but that if the answer here given by the apostle be not satisfactory unto them, if the grounds and reasons of the necessity and use of good works here declared, be not judged by them sufficient to establish them in their proper place and order, I shall not esteem my self obliged to attempt their further satisfaction.

Philippians 3:8, 9.

Yea doubtless, and I account all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledg of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung that I may win Christ, and be found in him not having mine own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

This is the last testimony which I shall insist upon, and although it be of great importance, I shall be the more brief in the consideration of it, because it has been lately pleaded and vindicated by another, whereunto I do not expect any tolerable reply. For what has since been attempted by one, it is of no weight. He is in this matter . And the things that I would observe from and concerning this testimony, may be reduced into the ensuing heads.

1. That which the apostle designs from the beginning of this chapter, and in these verses, in an especial manner to declare what it is on the account whereof we are accepted with God, and have thereon cause to rejoyce. This he fixs in general in an interest in and participation of Christ by faith in opposition unto all Legal Priviledges and advantages, wherein the jews whom he reflected upon did boast and rejoyce, Rejoyce in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, Vers. 3.

2. He supposs that unto that Acceptance before God wherein we are to Rejoyce, there is a righteousness necessary; And to whatever it be is the sole ground of that acceptance. And to give evidence hereunto,

3. He declares that there is a twofold righteousness that may be pleaded and trusted unto to this purpose. (1.) Our own righteousness which is of the law. (2.) That which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. These he asserts to be opposite and inconsistent as unto the end of our justification and acceptance with God; Not having mine own righteousness, but that which is, &c. And an intermediate righteousness between these he acknowledgs not.

4. Placing the instance in himself, he declares emphatically (so as there is scarce a greater , or vehemency of Speech, in all his Writings,) which of those it was that he adhered unto, and placed his confidence in. And in the handling of this subject, there were some things which engaged his holy mind into an earnestness of expression in the exaltation of one of these, namely of the righteousness which is of God by faith, and the depression of the other, or his own righteousness. As,

1. This was the turning point, whereon he and others had forsaken their Judaism and betaken themselves unto the gospel. This therefore was to be secured as the main instance, wherein the greatest controversie that ever was in the world was debated. So he expresss it, Galatians 2:15.16. We who are jews by nature and not sinners of the gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. (2.) Hereon there was great opposition made unto this doctrine by the jews in all places and in many of them the minds of multitudes were turned off from the truth (which the most are generally prone unto in this case) and perverted from the simplicity of the gospel. This greatly affected his holy soul, and he takes notice of it in most of his epistles. (3.) The weight of the doctrine it self, with that unwillingness which is in the minds of men by nature to embrace it, as that which lays the axe to the root of all Spiritual pride, elation of mind, and Self-pleasing whatever, whence innumerable Subterfuges have been, and are sought out to avoid the efficacy of it, and to keep the souls of men from that universal resignation of themselves unto sovereign grace in Christ, which they have naturally such an aversation unto, did also affect him. (4.) He had himself been a great sinner in the days of his ignorance by a peculiar opposition unto Christ and the gospel; This he was deeply sensible of; and therewithal of the excellency of the grace of God and the righteousness of Christ, whereby he was delivered. And men must have some experience of what he felt in himself as unto sin and grace, before they can well understand his expressions about them.

5. Hence it was, that in many other places of his Writings, but in this especially, he treats of these things with a greater earnestness and vehemency of Spirit than ordinary. Thus (1.) On the part of Christ whom he would exalt he mentions not only the knowledg of him, but , The excellency of the knowledg of Christ Jesus my Lord, with an Emphasis in every word; And those other redoubled expressions, all loss for him, that I may win him, that I may be found in him, that I may know him, all argue the working of his affections under the Conduct of faith and truth unto an acquiescency in Christ alone, as all and in all. Somewhat of this frame of mind is necessary unto them that would believe his doctrine. Those who are utter strangers unto the one, will never receive the other. (2.) In his expression of all other other things that are our own, that are not Christ, whether Priviledges or duties, however good, useful, excellent, they may be in themselves, yet in Comparison of Christ and his righteousness, and with respect unto the end of our standing before God, and acceptance with him, with the same vehemency of Spirit he casts contempt upon, calling them , Dogs meat to be left for them whom he calls Dogs, that is, evil Workers, of the Concision; or the wicked jews who adhered pertinaciously unto the righteousness of the law, verse 2. This account of the earnestness of the apostle in this argument, and the warmth of his Expressions, I thought meet to give as that which gives light into the whole of his design.

6. The question being thus stated, the inquiry is what any person who desires acceptance with God, or a righteousness whereon he may be justified before him, ought to betake himself unto. One of the ways proposed he must close with all. Either he must comply with the apostle in his Resolution to reject all his own righteousness, and to betake himself unto the righteousness of God, which is by faith in Christ Jesus alone, or find out for himself, or get some to find out for him, some exceptions unto the apostles conclusion, or some distinctions that may prepare a reserve for his own works, one way or other in his justification before God. Here every one must chuse for himself. In the mean time, we thus argue. If our own righteousness, and the righteousness which is of God by faith; or that which is through the faith of Christ Jesus (namely, the righteousness which God imputes unto us, Romans 4:6. Or the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness thereby, which we receive, Romans 5:17.) are opposite, and inconsistent in the work of justification before God, then are we justified by faith alone through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us. The consequence is plain from the removal of all other ways, causes, means, and conditions of it, as inconsistent with it. But the antecedent is expressly the apostles; Not my own, but that of God. Again,

That whereby, and wherewith we are found in Christ, is that whereby alone we are justified before God; for to be found in Christ, expresss the state of the person that is to be justified before God: Whereunto is opposed to be found in our selves. And according unto these different states does the judgment of God pass concerning us. And as for those who are found in themselves, we know what will be their portion. But in Christ we are found by faith alone.

All manner of evasions are made use of by some, to escape the force of this testimony. It is said in general, That no sober minded Man can imagine the apostle did not desire to be found in gospel righteousness, or, That by his own righteousness he meant that. For it is that alone can intitle us unto the benefits of Christs righteousness. Nollem Dictum. (1.) The censure is too severe to be cast on all protestant writers without exception, who have expounded this place of the apostle; and all others, except some few of late, influenced by the heat of the Controversie wherein they are ingaged. (2.) If the gospel righteousness intended be his own Personal righteousness and obedience, there is some want of consideration in affirming, That he did not desire to be found in it. That wherein we are found, thereon are we to be judged; to be found in our own Evangelical righteousness before God, is to enter into judgment with God thereon, which those who understand any thing aright of God and themselves, will not be free unto. And to make this to be the meaning of his words, I desire not to be found in my own righteousness which is after the law, but I desire to be found in mine own righteousness which is according to the gospel; whereas, as they are his own inherent righteousness, they are both the same, does not seem a proper interpretation of his words, and it shall be immediately disproved. (3.) That our Personal gospel righteousness, does intitle us unto the benefits of Christs righteousness, that is, as unto our justification before God, is gratis dictum, not one testimony of scripture can be produced that gives the least countenance unto such an assertion. That it is contrary unto many express testimonies, and inconsistent with the freedom of the grace of God in our justification, as proposed in the scripture, has been proved before. Nor do any of the places which assert the necessity of obedience and good works in believers, that is, justified persons unto salvation, any way belong unto the proof of this assertion; or, in the least express, or intimate any such thing. And in particular, the assertion of it is expressly contradictory unto that of the apostle, Titus 3:4, 5. But I forbear, and proceed to the consideration of the special answers, that are given unto this testimony, especially those of Bellarmine, whereunto I have as yet, seen nothing added with any pretence of reason in it.

1. Some say, that by his own righteousness which the apostle rejects, he intends only his righteousness , or by the works of the law. But this was only an outward external righteousness, consisting in the observation of Rites and Ceremonies, without respect unto the inward frame or obedience of the heart. But this is an impious imagination. The righteousness which is by the law, is the righteousness which the law requires, and those works of it, which if a Man do, he shall live in them; for the doers of the law shall be justified, Romans 2:16. Neither did God ever give any law of obedience unto Man, but what obliged him to love the Lord his God with all his heart, and all his soul. And it is so far from being true, That God by the law required an external righteousness only, that he frequently condemns it as an abomination to him, where it is alone.

2. Others say, that it is the righteousness whatever it be, which he had during his Pharisaism. And although he should be allowed in that state, to have lived in all good conscience, instantly to have served God day and night, and to have had respect as well unto the internal, as the external works of the law; yet all these works being before faith, before conversion to God, may be, and are to be rejected as unto any concurrence unto our justification. But works wrought in faith, by the aid of grace, Evangelical works are of another consideration, and together with faith, are the condition of justification.

Answ. 1. That in the matter of our justification the apostle opposs Evangelical works, not only unto the grace of God, but also unto the faith of believers, was proved in the consideration of the foregoing testimony.

2. He makes no such distinction, as that pretended, namely, That works are of two sorts; whereof one is to be excluded from any interest in our justification, but not the other; neither does he any where else, treating of the same subject, intimate any such distinction; but on the contrary, declares that use of all works of obedience in them that believe, which is exclusive of the supposition of any such distinction but he directly expresss, in this rejection, his own righteousness, that is, his Personal Inherent righteousness whatever it be, and however it be wrought.

3. He makes a plain distinction of his own twofold estate, namely, that of his Judaism which he was in before his conversion, and that which he had by faith in Christ Jesus. In the first state, he considers the priviledges of it, and declares what judgment he made concerning them upon the Revelation of Jesus Christ unto him, , says he, referring unto the time past, namely, at his first conversion. I considered them with all the advantages, gain, and reputation, which I had by them, but rejected them all for Christ, because the esteem of them and continuance in them as priviledges, was inconsistent with faith in Christ Jesus. Secondly, he proceeds to give an account of himself and his thoughts, as unto his present condition. For it might be supposed, that although he had parted with all his legal priviledges for Christ; yet now being united unto him by faith, he had something of his own, wherein he might rejoyce, and on the account whereof he might be accepted with God (the thing inquired after) or else he had parted with all for nothing. Wherefore he who had no design to make any reserves of what he might glory in, plainly declares what his judgment is concerning all his present righteousness, and the ways of obedience which he was now ingaged in, with respect unto the ends inquired after,Ver. 8. . The bringing over of what was affirmed before concerning his Judaical priviledges into this verse, is an effect of a very superficiary consideration of the context. For (1.) there is a plain in these words . He could not more plainly express the heightning of what he had affirmed by a Proceed unto other things, or the consideration of himself in another state. But moreover, beyond what I have already asserted. (2.) The change of the time expressed by respects what was past, into wherein he has respect only unto what was present, not what he had before rejected and forsaken, makes evident his progress unto the consideration of things of another nature. Wherefore unto the rejection of all his former Judaical priviledges, he adds his judgment concerning his own present Personal righteousness. But whereas it might be objected, That rejecting all both before and after conversion, he had nothing left to rejoyce in, to glory in, to give him acceptance with God; he assures us of the contrary, namely, that he found all these things in Christ, and the righteousness of God which is by faith. He is therefore in these words, Not having mine own righteousness, which is by the law; so far from intending only the righteousness which he had before his conversion, as that he intends it not at all.

The words of Davenant on this passage of the apostle, being in my judgment not only sober, but weighty also, I shall transcribe them. Hic docet Apostolus quaenam illa justitia sit qua nitendum coram Deo, nimirum quae per fidem apprehenditur, at haec imputata est: Causam etiam ostendit cur jure nostra fiat, nimirum quia nos Christi sumus & in Christo comperimur; quia igitur insiti sumus in corpus ejus & coalescimus cum illo in unam personam, ideo ejus justitia nostra reputatur. De Justif. Habit. cap. 38. For whereas some begin to interpret our being in Christ, and being found in him, so as to intend no more but our profession of the faith of the gospel, The faith of the Catholick church in all ages concerning the Mystical union of Christ and believers, is not to be blown away with a few empty words and unproved Assertions.

The answer therefore is full and clear unto the general Exception, namely, that the apostle rejects our Legal, but not our Evangelical righteousness. For (1.) the apostle rejects, disclaims, disowns nothing at all, not the one, nor the other absolutely, but in comparison of Christ, and with respect unto the especial end of justification before God, or a righteousness in his sight (2.) In that sense he rejects all our own righteousness, but our Evangelical righteousness, in the sense pleaded for, is our own, inherent in us, performed by us. (3.) Our Legal righteousness, and our Evangelical, so far as an Inherent righteousness is intended, are the same, and the different ends and use of the same righteousness, is alone intended in that distinction, so far as it has sense in it. That which in respect of Motives unto it, the ends of it, with the especial causes of its acceptance with God. is Evangelical, in respect of its original Prescription, rule, and measure, is Legal. When any can instance in any Acts or duty, in any habit or effect of it, which are not required by that law which injoyns us to love the Lord our God, with all our heart, soul, and mind, and our neighbor as our selves; they shall be attended unto. (4.) The apostle in this case rejects all the works of righteousness which we have done, Titus 3:5. But our Evangelical righteousness consists in the works of righteousness which we do. (5.) He disclaims all that is our own. And if the Evangelical righteousness intended be our own, he sets up another in opposition unto it; and which therefore is not our own, but as it is imputed unto us. And I shall yet add some other reasons which render this pretence useless, or shew the falsness of it.

1. Where the apostle does not distinguish or limit what he speaks of, what ground have we to distinguish or limit his Assertions. Not by works, says he, sometimes absolutely, sometimes the works of righteousness which we have done; that is, not by some sort of works say those who plead the contrary: But by what warrant? (2.) The works which they pretend to be excluded, as wherein our own righteousness that is rejected does consist, are works wrought without faith, without the aid of grace: But these are not good works, nor can any be denominated righteous from them, nor is it any righteousness that consists in them alone. For without faith it is impossible to please God: And to what purpose should the apostle exclude evil works and hypocritical, from our justification? Who ever imagined, that any could be justified with respect unto them. There might have been some pretence for this gloss, had the apostle said his own works; but whereas he rejects his own righteousness, to restrain it unto such works as are not righteous, as will denominate none righteous, as are no righteousness at all, is most absurd. (3.) works wrought in faith, if applied unto our justification, do give occasion unto, or include boasting, more then any others, as being better and more praise worthy then they. (4.) The apostle elswhere excludes from justification the works that Abraham had done when he had been a believer many years; and the works of David when he described the Blessedness of a Man by the forgiveness of sins. (5.) The state of the question which he handles in his epistle unto the Galatians, was expressly about the works of them that did believe. For he does not disspute against the jews, who would not be pressed in the least with his arguments, namely, that if the inheritance were by the law, then the promise was of none effect; and if righteousness were by the law, then did Christ die in vain: For these things they would readily grant. But he speaks unto them that were believers, with respect unto those works which they would have joyned with Christ and the gospel, in order unto justification. (6.) If this were the mind of the apostle, that he would exclude one sort of works, and assert the necessity of another unto the same end, why did he not once say so, especially considering how necessary it was that so he should do, to answer those objections against his doctrine which he himself takes notice of, and returns answer unto on other grounds, without the least intimation of any such distinction.

Bellarmine considers this testimony in three places, Lib. 1. cap. 18. Lib. 1. cap. 19. Lib. 5. cap. 5. De Justificat. And he returns three answers unto it, which contain the substance of all that is pleaded by others unto the same purpose. 1. He says, That the righteousness which is by the law, and which is opposed unto the righteousness which is by faith, is not the righteousness written in the law, or which the law requires, but a righteousness wrought without the aid of grace, by the knowledge of the law alone. 2. That the righteousness which is by the faith of Christ, are opera nostra justa facta ex fide, our own righteous works wrought in faith, which others call our Evangelical works. (3.) That it is blasphemous to call the duties of Inherent Righteousnes loss and dung. But he labors in the fire with all his sophistry. For as to the first, (1.) That by the righteousness which is by the law, the righteousness which the law requires, is not intended, is a bold assertion, and expressly contradictory unto the apostle, Romans 9:31. Chap. 10:5. In both places he declares the righteousness of the law to be the Righteousnes that the law requires. (2.) The works which he excludes, he calls the works of righteousness that we have done, Titus 3:5. which are the works that the law requires. Unto the second, I say (1.) That the substance of it, is, That the apostle should profess that I desire to be found in Christ, not having my own righteousness, but having my own righteousness; for Evangelical Inherent righteousness was properly his own. And I am sorry that some should apprehend that the apostle in these words did desire to be found in his own righteousness in the presence of God, in order unto his justification. For nothing can be more contrary, not only unto the perpetual tenor and design of all his discourses, on this subject, but also unto the testimony of all other holy Men in the scripture, to the same purpose, as we have proved before. And I suppose there are very few true believers at present, whom they will find to comply and joyn with, them in this desire of being found in their own Personal Evangelical righteousness, or the works of righteousness which they have done, in their tryal before God, as unto their justification. We should do well to read our own hearts, as well as the books of others in this matter. (2.) The righteousness which is of God by faith, is not our own obedience or righteousness, but that which is opposed unto it: That which God imputes unto us, Romans 4:6. That which we receive by way of gift, Romans 5:17. (3.) That by the righteousness which is by the faith of Christ Jesus our own Inherent righteousness is not intended, is evident from hence, That the apostle excludes all his own righteousness, as, and when he was found in Christ, that is, what ever he had done as a believer. And if there be not an opposition in these words, between a righteousness that is our own, and that which is not our own, I know not in what words it can be expressed. Unto the third I say, (1.) The apostle does not, nor do we say, that he does, call our Inherent righteousness dung, but only that he accounts it so. (2.) He does not account it so absolutely, which he is most remote from, but only in comparison with Christ. (3.) He does not esteem it so in it self, but only as unto his trust in it, with respect unto one especial end, namely, our justification before God. (4.) The prophet Isaiah in the same respect, terms all our righteousness filthy rags, Chap. 64:6. And is an expression of as much contempt, as .

5. Some say all works are excluded as meritorious of grace, life, and salvation, but not as the condition of our justification before God. But (1.) what ever the apostle excludes, he does it absolutely, and with all respects, because he sets up something else in opposition unto it. (2.) There is no ground left for any such distinction in this place: For all that the apostle requires unto our justification is, (1.) That we be found in Christ, not in our selves. (2.) That we have the righteousness of God, not our own. (3.) That we be made partakers of this righteousness by faith, which is the substance of what we plead for.

That the way and means of our justification before God — along with all its causes — are deliberately set out by the apostle in Romans 3-4, and defended against objections there, so that this portion of Scripture is the proper home of this doctrine and the primary place to learn it, cannot be honestly denied. The recent claims by some that the doctrine of justification by faith without works appears only in Paul's writings, and that Paul's writings are obscure and difficult, are both false and a disgrace to the Christian faith — so much so that I will not spend a moment on them here. He wrote as he was moved by the Holy Spirit. All that he delivered was sacred truth that demands our faith and obedience, and the manner in which he declared it was what the Holy Spirit judged most fitting for the building up of the church. As Paul himself said with confidence, if the gospel he preached — though considered foolishness by some — was hidden and incomprehensible to anyone, it was hidden to those who are perishing. In the same way, if what he teaches about our justification before God seems obscure or confusing to us, the fault lies in our own prejudices, corrupt desires, or weakness of understanding — an inability to grasp the glory of this mystery of God's grace in Christ. The problem is not in the way he revealed it. Rejecting all such perverse insinuations, and with a due sense of our own weakness and an acknowledgment that at best we know only in part, we will humbly inquire into the blessed revelation of this great mystery of the justification of a sinner before God as Paul declared it in those chapters of his glorious letter to the Romans. I will do so as briefly as possible, not repeating what has already been said or anticipating what can be more conveniently addressed later.

The first thing Paul does is prove that all people are under sin and guilty before God. He states this as the conclusion of his preceding argument (Romans 1:18 through Romans 3:19, 23). This raises the question: how can any of them come to be justified before God? Since justification is a verdict rendered on the basis of a righteousness, his central question is: what righteousness is there on the basis of which a person may be so justified? On this point, he states explicitly that it is not the righteousness of the law or the works of the law — what he means by this has been partly explained already and will be further shown as we proceed. He then declares in general that the righteousness by which we are justified is the righteousness of God, in direct contrast to any righteousness of our own (Romans 1:17; 3:21-22). He describes this righteousness of God by three characteristics. First, it is apart from the law (Romans 3:21) — entirely separate from the law in all its workings, not attainable through it or through any of its works, which have no influence over it. It is neither our obedience to the law nor something obtainable through such obedience. No expression could more completely separate and exclude works of obedience to the law from any role in this righteousness of God or its procurement for us. Therefore, whatever we can perform in obedience to the law is excluded from any part in this righteousness of God. Second, it is nevertheless attested by the law — "the Law and the Prophets" (Romans 3:21).

By distinguishing the Old Testament books into "the Law" and "the Prophets," Paul shows that by "the law" he means the books of Moses. These bear witness to the righteousness of God in four ways.

First, by explaining why this righteousness is necessary for our justification. This is done in the account of our fall from God, the loss of His image, and the state of sin that followed. That fall ended all possibility and hope of being accepted by God through our own personal righteousness. When sin entered, our own righteousness went out of the world. Either a different righteousness had to be prepared and approved by God — a righteousness called the righteousness of God in contrast to our own — or all the relationship of love and favor between God and humanity had to end forever.

Second, by pointing to the way of recovery from this condition, generally set out in the first promise of the blessed Seed through whom this righteousness of God was to be accomplished and brought in. He alone was to make an end of sin and bring in everlasting righteousness (Daniel 9:24) — a righteousness of God that would be the means of justification for the church in every age and under every dispensation.

Third, by closing off the way to any other righteousness through the law's threats and the curse that accompanied every transgression of it. This plainly and fully declared that a righteousness had to be provided for our justification that would answer and remove that curse.

Fourth, by prefiguring and representing the only way and means by which this righteousness of God was to be accomplished. This was done through all of its sacrifices — especially the great annual sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, when all the sins of the congregation were laid on the head of the sacrifice and carried away. Third, Paul describes the only way we participate in this righteousness — the only means on our part by which it is communicated to us. That means is faith alone. "The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction" (Romans 3:22). Faith in Jesus Christ is so completely the only way this righteousness of God comes upon us and is communicated to us that it is given to all who have this faith — and only to them — without any difference on the basis of anything else. Although faith considered in the abstract can be used in various senses, when specified and defined as faith in Jesus Christ — or as Paul calls it elsewhere, "faith in Me" (Acts 26:18) — it can mean nothing other than receiving Him and trusting in Him as God's appointed means of righteousness and salvation.

This description of the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel — which Paul asserts as the only means and cause of our justification before God, with the only way of participating in it through faith in Jesus Christ — fully confirms the truth we are arguing for. If the righteousness by which we must be justified before God is not our own but God's righteousness, as these two are directly set in opposition in Philippians 3:9, and if the only way it comes upon us or we become partakers of it is through faith in Jesus Christ, then our own personal, inherent righteousness or obedience has no role in our justification before God. This argument is unanswerable, and no distinction can blunt its force — so long as we keep our hearts in proper reverence for the authority of God in His word.

Having fully proved that no living person has any righteousness of their own by which they might be justified, that all are condemned under the guilt of sin, and having declared that there is a righteousness of God now fully revealed in the gospel by which alone we may be justified — leaving all people in themselves to their own lot, since "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" — Paul goes on to describe the full nature of our justification before God in all its causes. Romans 3:24-26: "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; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

If there were anywhere in Scripture where we should expect to find personal obedience — under some qualification — assigned a role in justification, it is here. Even if one supposed (which cannot be reasonably argued) that earlier in his discussion Paul had excluded only works of the law considered as perfectly performed, or performed in our own strength without grace, or as meritorious — he had already in Romans 3:20 excluded all works from justification without any distinction or qualification. So here, where he gives the full explanation of justification in all its causes, we would naturally expect him to assign whatever role our personal righteousness plays — whether in a first or second justification, or in its continuation, or in some other way — and to distinguish it as gracious, sincere, or evangelical so that it would not appear to be absolutely excluded. But it is plain that no such thing crossed Paul's mind. He showed no concern at all about the impression that his doctrine might seem to overthrow the necessity of our own obedience. Taking into account the apostle's stated purpose and the circumstances of the context, the argument from his complete silence about personal righteousness in our justification before God is unanswerable. And this is not all — as we will see going forward, he explicitly and directly excludes it.

Any fair-minded reader must acknowledge that no words could be more emphatic or expressive in securing the whole of our justification to the free grace of God, through the blood and mediation of Christ — in which faith alone gives us a share — than these words of the apostle. For my own part, I can only say that I do not know how to express this matter in terms more clear or precise than Paul's own. If we could all simply accept the apostle's answer to the great question — how, by what means, on what grounds, and through what causes are we justified before God — namely, that we are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation through faith in His blood, and so on, there might be an end to this controversy.

But the main elements of this testimony must be considered separately. First, the chief efficient cause is expressed with special emphasis: "being justified freely by His grace" — that is, God is the chief efficient cause of our justification, and His grace is the only moving cause. I will not linger over the objection raised by the Roman church — that the words "by His grace" refer to internal, inherent grace infused into us, which they claim is the formal cause of justification. They have nothing to support this reading except what actually overturns it: the fact that "freely" is added to "by grace" — which would be redundant if "grace" already meant free favor. The two expressions — "freely" and "by grace" — are combined precisely to give the greater emphasis to this statement, by which the whole of our justification is assigned to the free grace of God. As far as the two can be distinguished, one points to the source from which justification flows — grace — while the other indicates how it operates — freely. Moreover, throughout this subject, the grace of God consistently and unmistakably means His goodness, love, and favor — as has been conclusively shown by many. See Romans 5:15; Ephesians 2:4, 8-9; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:4-5.

"Freely" — the Greek word used here by the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew — means without price, without merit, without cause; sometimes it means without purpose, as in something done in vain (as Paul uses it in Galatians 2:21). It is used to mean without price or payment in Genesis 29:15 and Exodus 21:22; without cause or merit or any basis in 1 Samuel 19:5, 2 Samuel 24:24, and Psalm 69:4; and in John 15:25 it is translated as "without cause." The word's design is to exclude all consideration of anything in us that could be the cause or condition of our justification. "Grace" considered in the abstract may have reference to something in the person toward whom it is shown — Joseph found favor in Potiphar's eyes (Genesis 39:4), but not without reason, for Potiphar saw that the Lord was with him and made everything he did prosper (verse 3). But no words could be found that more completely free our justification before God from all reference to anything in ourselves — apart from what is expressly added as the means of receiving it on our part, namely through faith in His blood — than these: "freely by His grace." For those who refuse to accept this as exclusive of all our works and obedience, all conditions, preparations, and merit, I despair of ever expressing this truth to them in any way they would find intelligible.

Having asserted God's righteousness as the cause and means of our justification — in opposition to all righteousness of our own — and having declared that the cause of its communication to us on God's part is pure, sovereign free grace, Paul then states the means on our part by which we receive this righteousness of God and actually become partakers of it: it is by faith. Nothing else is proposed or required for this purpose. It is objected that there is no indication that it is by faith alone, or that faith is asserted as the exclusive means of justification. But that exclusion is directly contained in the description Paul gives of this faith with respect to its specific object: "faith in His blood." For faith that fixes on the blood of Christ as the propitiation for sin — which is the only respect in which Paul says we are justified through faith — admits no partnership with any other grace or duty. It is not part of their nature to rest on the blood of Christ for justification before God. Therefore all other graces and duties are directly excluded here. Those who think otherwise may try to introduce them into this context without clearly corrupting and distorting its meaning. Nor will the other evasion give our opponents any relief — namely, that by "faith" Paul does not mean faith as a single grace but the whole obedience the new covenant requires, faith and works together. For all works whatsoever, as our works, are already excluded in Paul's description of justification on God's side — "freely by His grace" — by the force of the great rule of Romans 11:6: "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." And the specific object Paul assigns to faith in the act by which we are justified — the blood of Christ — absolutely excludes all works from any part in that act. Whatever looks to the blood of Christ for justification is faith and nothing else. As for the claim that this reduces faith to a single act or duty, I refer the reader to the earlier discussion of the nature of justifying faith.

From his declaration of the nature and causes of our justification before God, Paul draws three further inferences, all of which shed additional light on the meaning of his words.

First, boasting is excluded (Romans 3:27). It is clear from this passage and from what Paul says about Abraham in Romans 4:2 that a large part of the controversy he was engaged in concerned whether anything in those who are justified gives them grounds for boasting. The Jews placed all their hopes in things they thought they could boast about — their privileges and their righteousness. But from his declaration of the nature and causes of justification, Paul concludes that all boasting whatsoever is completely shut out. In English, "boasting" always names a vice. But the Greek words Paul uses are neutral in themselves and can describe either a virtue or a vice, as in Hebrews 3:6.

But in every case, these words refer to something distinctive or unique to the person to whom they are ascribed. Wherever something is credited to one person and not another with respect to any good end, there is a foundation for boasting. Paul says all such grounds are completely excluded in the matter of justification. But wherever any condition or qualification in one person is considered over against another's — especially if it involves works — it provides a basis for boasting, as Paul affirms in Romans 4:2. Comparing that verse with Romans 3:27 makes it plain: wherever our own works have any influence in our justification, there is a basis for boasting. But in evangelical justification, no such boasting of any kind can be admitted. Therefore there is no place for works in our justification before God — for if there were, it would be impossible to avoid some form of boasting, either before God or before men.

Second, Paul draws the general conclusion that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28). What Paul means by the law and the works of the law in his argument about justification has already been explained. If we are justified freely through faith in the blood of Christ — that faith which has Christ's propitiation as its specific object — then that faith cannot take any other grace or duty in as a partner. And since we are justified in a way that excludes all boasting necessarily arising from any distinguishing graces or works in ourselves — which excludes all works of the law — it is certain that we are justified by faith alone in Christ. Works are not merely excluded; the path for their return is closed off so thoroughly by Paul's line of argument that all the ingenuity people can devise will never reintroduce them into our justification before God.

Third, Paul asserts from this that we do not overthrow the law through grace but rather uphold it (Romans 3:31). How this is accomplished — and how it can only be accomplished in this way — has already been explained.

This is the substance of Paul's answer to the great question of how a guilty, convicted sinner can come to be justified in the sight of God. The sovereign grace of God, the mediation of Christ, and faith in the blood of Christ — these are all he requires for it. Whatever ideas people may have about justification from other angles, it is not safe to build on any other answer to this question. We are not wiser than the Holy Spirit.

Romans 4

At the beginning of chapter four, Paul confirms what he had established doctrinally by presenting a significant example: the justification of Abraham. Since Abraham is the father of the faithful, his justification is offered as the pattern for ours, as Paul explicitly states in verses 22-24. I will note a few things about this example on the way to verse five, where I will focus the discussion.

First, Paul denies that Abraham was justified by works (Romans 4:2). These works were not the works of the Jewish law — which some claim is all that is excluded from justification in this passage. They were works Abraham performed hundreds of years before the law was given at Sinai. Therefore what is in view is his moral obedience to God. Moreover, we must understand the works Abraham had at the time when he is said to have been justified in the testimony Paul cites. The works Abraham had at that time were works of righteousness performed in faith and love toward God — works of new obedience under the guidance and help of the Spirit of God, works required in the covenant of grace. These are the works excluded from Abraham's justification. This is plain, clear, and unmistakable — it cannot be evaded by any distinctions. All of Abraham's gospel-wrought works are explicitly excluded from his justification before God.

Second, Paul proves by the scriptural testimony concerning Abraham's justification that he was justified in no other way than what Paul had already declared — by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 4:3). "Abraham believed God" — in the promise of Christ and His mediation — "and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Romans 4:3). He was justified by faith in the way Paul had described — there is no other justification by faith — in direct opposition to all his own works and personal righteousness.

Third, from the same testimony Paul declares how Abraham came to participate in the righteousness on the basis of which he was justified before God: by imputation — it was credited or imputed to him as righteousness. The nature of imputation has already been explained.

Fourth, Paul asserts and proves the specific character of this imputation — that it is of grace, without any respect to works — from what is contrary to it: "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due" (Romans 4:4). Where works have any weight, there is no room for the kind of imputation by which Abraham was justified — because that was a gracious imputation, and grace does not impute what is already ours, but makes something ours through that imputation. What is already ours, along with all its effects, is something that is owed to us. That is why those who argue that faith itself is what is imputed to us — in order to give some credibility to an imputation of grace — say it is imputed not for what it actually is (which would make it a matter of debt) but for what it is not. Socinus makes exactly this argument: "When faith is imputed to us as righteousness, it is imputed for that reason because faith itself is not righteousness, nor does it truly contain righteousness in itself" (De Servatore, part 4, cap. 2). This kind of imputation — which is actually nothing but a false invention — has already been disproved. All works are incompatible with the imputation by which Abraham was justified. The situation of the person justified by works is entirely different from his. Some say that only meritorious works — works performed with a claim to merit, works that make the reward a matter of debt — are excluded, but not other works. But this distinction does not come from Paul. According to Paul, if merit means making the reward a matter of debt, then all works in justification are meritorious — for without any distinction or qualification he says that to the one who works, the reward is not credited as grace but as debt. He does not exclude some works, or works understood in some particular sense, because they would make the reward a matter of debt. He says that all of them would do so, and therefore all exclude gracious imputation. If the foundation of imputation lies within ourselves, imputation by grace is ruled out. In verse five, the sum of Paul's argument — what he had contended for and proved — is expressed: "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness." Everyone agrees that the final clause — "his faith is credited as righteousness" — describes the justification of the person in view. He is justified, and the means is this: his faith is credited or imputed. The earlier words therefore describe the subject of justification, his qualification, and what is required of him.

First, the subject of justification is described as one "who does not work." This does not mean that justification requires him to perform no duties of obedience to God whatsoever — for every person alive is always obligated to every duty of obedience according to the knowledge of God's will that has been given to him. But the expression must be understood in light of the subject being addressed. "The one who does not work" means the one who does not work with respect to justification — not that the person intends to do no works, but that the nature of the thing itself is what Paul has in mind. To say "the one who does not work is justified through believing" is to say that his works, whatever they may be, have no influence on his justification and that God, in justifying him, has no regard for them. Therefore the only subject of justification — the only person to be justified — is the one who does not work in this sense: God considers no one's works, no one's duties of obedience, in the act of justifying them, since we are justified freely by His grace. When God expressly declares that He justifies the one who does not work — and that freely by His grace — I cannot understand what place our works or duties of obedience can possibly have in our justification. Why trouble ourselves inventing roles for them in our justification before God when He Himself declares they have none at all? The words admit no escape. "The one who does not work" is the one who does not work, whatever distinctions people may wish to draw. To rise in opposition against such clear divine testimony — however well-armed with philosophical concepts and arguments, which are nothing but thorns and briars that the word of God will cut through and burn — is an unjustifiable boldness.

Paul adds a further element to his description of the subject of justification: God justifies the ungodly. This expression has stirred up great indignation in many people, some of whom seem personally offended at the apostle himself on its account. If anyone else dares to say that God justifies the ungodly, he is immediately accused of teaching a doctrine that destroys the necessity of godliness, holiness, obedience, and good works. After all, what need could there be for any of them if God justifies the ungodly? Yet this is precisely Paul's way of describing God — that He is the one who justifies the ungodly. It is His prerogative and distinctive attribute. As such, He is to be believed and worshipped, which only adds weight and force to the expression. We must not give up this testimony of the Holy Spirit, no matter how angry people become.

The disagreement is really about the meaning of the words. If that is so, we may differ without causing each other offense, even if we misunderstand the precise sense. But this much must be conceded: God justifies the ungodly. Some say this means those who were formerly ungodly — not those who remain ungodly at the time of justification. And this is certainly true. All who are justified were previously ungodly, and all who are justified are made godly at that same instant. But the question is whether they are godly or ungodly in the moment — or in any moment — prior to their justification. If they are considered godly and are actually godly before justification, then Paul's words are false — that God justifies the ungodly — because the opposite would be true: God justifies only the godly. For these two propositions are contradictory: "God justifies the ungodly" and "God justifies none but the godly."

Therefore, although in and with the justification of a sinner he is made godly — for he receives faith, which purifies the heart and is the living root of all obedience, and the conscience is purged from dead works by the blood of Christ — yet prior to his justification he is ungodly and is treated as ungodly. He is also treated as one who does not work, as one whose duties and obedience contribute nothing to his justification. As he does not work, all works are excluded as the cause through which he is justified; and as he is ungodly, they are excluded even as a necessary prior condition.

The qualification of the subject — or the means on the person's part by which he becomes actually justified — is faith, or believing: "but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly." That means it is faith alone. For it is the faith of the one who does not work; and beyond that, its specific object — God as the one who justifies the ungodly — rules out the accompaniment of any works whatsoever.

This is faith alone — or it is impossible to express faith alone without literally using the word "alone." Faith is asserted in direct opposition to all our works, to the one who does not work, and its specific character is defined by its specific object: God as the one who justifies the ungodly — that is, freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. This leaves no room for any works to make the slightest approach toward our justification before God, under the cover of any distinction whatsoever. The nature of justifying faith is also established here. It is not mere intellectual agreement with divine revelation; it is not even a firm agreement that leads to obedience to all Scripture's commands — though these things are included in it. It is a believing in and trusting the One who justifies the ungodly, through the mediation of Christ.

Concerning this person, Paul says that his faith is credited as righteousness — that is, he is justified in the way and manner previously described. But there is disagreement about what these words mean. Some say faith is credited as righteousness in the sense that faith itself, as an act, a grace, and a duty or work of ours, is what is imputed. Others say it is faith as it lays hold of Christ and His righteousness that is properly imputed to us — that faith justifies, or is credited as righteousness, in a relative sense (with reference to its object) and not in a direct sense, and they acknowledge a figure of speech in the words. This view is fiercely opposed, as though these people were denying the plain words of Scripture — when in fact they are simply interpreting this one expression by the many other passages that declare the same thing. But those who hold the first view all affirm that faith here includes obedience or works — either as the form and essence of faith, or as necessary accompaniments that share the same influence on justification. In doing so, they also introduce a figure of speech in the very words they so fiercely criticize others for using, and they arrive at this reading of the whole: "To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith and works are credited to him as righteousness" — which not only denies what Paul says but assigns him a plain contradiction.

I am genuinely surprised that any fair-minded person would interpret this single expression in a way that contradicts the apostle's stated purpose, the words of the same sentence, and the entire context that follows. The proposition Paul sets out to confirm — which is the heart of his entire argument — is that we are justified by the righteousness of God through faith in the blood of Christ. That this righteousness cannot be faith itself will be shown immediately. And in the words of the text, all works are excluded — if any words can exclude them. But faith as a simple act, grace, and duty of ours is itself a work — and if faith includes obedience within it, it is all works. Furthermore, in the context that follows, Paul proves that Abraham was not justified by works. But "not to be justified by works" and "to be justified by some works" — which is what those who say faith itself is imputed as a work are claiming — are contradictory positions. I will therefore offer a few arguments against this invented reading of Paul's words.

First: faith considered as an act and duty of ours in the absolute sense, and works, are not opposed to each other — for faith is itself a work, a particular kind of working. But faith as the means of our justification and works — or working — are opposed: "to the one who does not work, but believes" (Romans 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8).

Second: what is imputed to us is the righteousness of God. "We became the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). "The righteousness of God for all those who believe" (Romans 3:21-22). But faith considered in the absolute sense is not the righteousness of God. God credits righteousness to us apart from works (Romans 4:6), but there is no hint of a double imputation — as if two different kinds of righteousness were imputed, one that is the righteousness of God and one that is not. Faith considered absolutely is not the righteousness of God. Here are the reasons:

First sub-point: that to which the righteousness of God is revealed — that by which we believe and receive it — is not itself the righteousness of God, since nothing can be the cause or means of itself. But the righteousness of God is revealed to faith (Romans 1:16) and received through faith (Romans 3:22; 5:11).

Second sub-point: faith is not the righteousness of God which is through faith. But the righteousness of God that is imputed to us is the righteousness of God which is through faith (Romans 3:22; Philippians 3:9).

Third sub-point: that by which the righteousness of God is to be sought, obtained, and submitted to is not itself that righteousness. But faith is precisely that means (Romans 9:30-31; 10:3).

Fourth sub-point: the righteousness that is imputed to us is not our own prior to that imputation — "that I may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own" (Philippians 3:9). But faith is a person's own: "Show me your faith; I will show you my faith" (James 2:18).

Fifth sub-point: God credits righteousness to us (Romans 4:6), and that righteousness is the righteousness by which we are justified — it is credited to us in order that we may be justified. But we are justified by the obedience and blood of Christ: "through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:19); "much more then, having now been justified by His blood" (Romans 5:9); "He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Hebrews 9:26); "By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities" (Isaiah 53:11). But faith is neither the obedience nor the blood of Christ.

Sixth sub-point: faith, as we said, is our own. And what is our own can be imputed to us. But Paul's discussion concerns what is not ours prior to imputation — what is made ours through it — because it is of grace. And the imputation of what is already genuinely ours, prior to any such imputation, is not a gracious imputation in Paul's sense. What is imputed in that case is simply credited for what it is and nothing more — it is simply God's judgment about the thing imputed in relation to those whose it already is. That is how the act of Phinehas was credited to him as righteousness: God judged and declared it to be a righteous and rewardable act. Therefore, if our faith and obedience were imputed to us in this sense, that imputation would be nothing more than God's judgment that we are believers and obedient people. As the prophet says, "The righteousness of the righteous man will be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked man will be upon him" (Ezekiel 18:20). Just as the wickedness of the wicked is on him — meaning God judges him as wicked as his works are — so the righteousness of a righteous person is on him, meaning God judges his righteousness for what it is. Therefore, if faith considered absolutely — whether as containing works within itself or as accompanied by works of obedience — is imputed to us, it is imputed either as a perfect righteousness (which it is not) or as an imperfect righteousness (which it is); or the imputation is a judging of what is imperfect to be perfect. But none of these can be affirmed.

First: faith is not imputed to us as a perfect righteousness — the perfect righteousness required by the law — for it is not such a thing. Episcopius himself acknowledges in his Disputations (Disp. 43, sections 7-8) that the righteousness imputed to us must be "most absolute and most perfect" (absolutissima et perfectissima). He then defines the imputation of righteousness to us as "the gracious estimation of the divine mind by which He reckons the one who believes in His Son as if he were perfectly righteous and had in every way always obeyed the law and His will." No one will claim that faith is a righteousness so perfect and complete that through it the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us, as it is fulfilled by the righteousness that is actually imputed to us.

Second: faith is not imputed to us for what it is — an imperfect righteousness. First, this would do us no good, since we cannot be justified before God by an imperfect righteousness, as the psalmist's prayer makes plain: "Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for in Your sight no man living is righteous" (Psalm 143:2) — meaning no servant of God, however high his measure of imperfect righteousness, will be justified. Second, crediting something to us that was already ours prior to that crediting, for exactly what it is and nothing more, is contrary to the kind of imputation Paul describes, as has been proved.

Third: this proposed imputation cannot be God judging as perfect what is in fact imperfect. For God's judgment is according to truth. But without judging a thing to be perfect, He cannot accept it as such. To accept anything for more than you judge it to be is simply to be deceived.

Finally, if faith as a work is imputed to us, it must be as a work done in faith — for no other work is accepted by God. Then the faith in which that work is done must also be imputed to us, for that faith is itself faith and a good work. That faith would then need yet another faith from which it proceeds. And so on without end.

There are many other things in Paul's further explanation of Abraham's justification, the nature of his faith, his righteousness before God, and the application of all this to all who believe, that could be pressed in support of the same point. But if every testimony the Holy Spirit has given to this truth were examined, there would be no end of writing. I will note one more thing and then conclude the discussion of this chapter.

Romans 4:6-8: Paul continues his argument to prove the freedom of our justification by faith — apart from any regard to works — through the instance of the forgiveness of sin, which is an essential component of justification. He does this through the testimony of the psalmist, who describes a person's blessedness in terms of the forgiveness of sins. His purpose is not to declare the full nature of justification — that he has already done — but only to prove its freedom from any respect to works in this essential component of it. "Even as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works" — which is the only point Paul intends to prove from this testimony — "'Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered'" (Romans 4:6-7). David describes their blessedness by this, not meaning that their entire blessedness consists in forgiveness alone — but this element of it is one in which no regard to any works can possibly be had. Paul may rightly describe a person's blessedness this way because the crediting of righteousness and the non-crediting of sin — both of which he mentions distinctly — are inseparable, and together they constitute that person's entire blessedness with respect to justification. Because the forgiveness of sin is the first and principal aspect of justification, and the crediting of righteousness always accompanies it, a person's blessedness may fittingly be described in terms of that forgiveness. Since all spiritual blessings go together in Christ (Ephesians 1:3), a person's blessedness may indeed be described by any one of them. Yet the crediting of righteousness and the forgiveness of sin are not the same thing, any more than righteousness credited and sin forgiven are the same thing. Paul does not present them as identical — he mentions them distinctly, since both are equally necessary for our complete justification, as has been proved.

Romans 5:12-21

Romans 5:12-21: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned — for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

In Romans 3:27, Paul had declared that in the matter of justification all boasting is excluded. But here he allows a boasting — and not only that, he says: "we also exult in God." He excludes boasting in ourselves, because there is nothing in us to earn or advance our own justification. He permits boasting in God because of the surpassing excellence of the way and means of justification that God in His grace has provided. This boasting in God has special reference to what Paul intends to discuss further. The phrase "and not only so" includes what he had mainly treated of up to that point — our justification as it consists in the forgiveness of sin. While he does assume and mention the crediting of righteousness to us, his main focus in the earlier chapters had been justification through the pardon of sin and our freedom from condemnation, which excludes all boasting in ourselves. But now he intends to go further — to the ground of our glorying in God on the basis of a right and title freely given to eternal life. That ground is the imputation of Christ's righteousness and obedience for the justification of life, or the reign of grace through righteousness to eternal life.

Some have complained greatly about the obscurity of Paul's argument in this passage, on account of various omissions, incomplete sentences, reversed constructions, and other figures of speech — whether real or merely imagined — within it. But I cannot help thinking that anyone familiar with the basic principles of the Christian faith, and personally aware of the nature and guilt of our original fall from God, who would read this passage without prejudice, would grant that Paul's purpose is to prove the following: just as Adam's sin was imputed to all people to condemnation, so the righteousness and obedience of Christ is imputed to all who believe for the justification of life. Theodoret gives the substance of it well (Dialogue 3): "See how the things of Christ are compared with the things of Adam — medicine with disease, a bandage with a wound, righteousness with sin, blessing with curse, acquittal with condemnation, obedience with transgression, life with death, a kingdom with the grave, Christ with Adam, man with man."

The differences among interpreters about this passage relate to certain particles, prepositions, and the connection between one clause and another — none of which affects the confirmation of the truth we are arguing for. Paul's plain purpose and his express statements are such that, if people could simply accept them, this controversy might be settled.

Socinus acknowledges that this passage of Scripture gives the greatest occasion, as he puts it, for our position in this matter — he cannot deny that at least the strong appearance of what we believe is represented in Paul's words. He therefore makes his utmost effort to twist and distort them. Yet though most of his devices have since been carried into the annotations of others on this passage, he himself produces nothing of substance that is not already taken from Origen and the commentary of Pelagius on this epistle — the latter found in Jerome's works — which had been pressed before him by Erasmus. The essence of his argument is this: Adam's actual transgression is not imputed to his descendants, nor is a corrupted nature communicated to them through him. Rather, since Adam incurred the penalty of death, all who derive their nature from him in that condition are also made subject to death. As for the corruption of nature in us — the tendency toward sin — this is not derived from Adam but is a habit acquired through many repeated acts of our own. Equally, on the other side, the obedience and righteousness of Christ is not imputed to us. Rather, when we make ourselves His children through obedience to Him, and since He obtained eternal life for Himself through His obedience to God, we become partakers of those benefits. This is the substance of his lengthy argument on the subject (De Servatore, lib. 4, cap. 6). But this is not an exposition of Paul's words — it is a direct contradiction of them, as will become clear in the examination that follows.

My intention is not to expound Paul's entire argument here, but only those passages in it that clearly declare the way and manner of our justification before God.

Paul here presents and develops a comparison between the first Adam, through whom sin entered the world, and the second Adam, through whom it is taken away. It is a comparison between opposites — similar in some ways and different in others, with both the similarities and the differences illuminating the truth he is declaring. The general proposition is stated in verse 12: "Just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." Sin and its punishment entered the world through one man and through one sin, as Paul later makes clear. Yet they were not confined to that one man — they extended equally to all. Paul expresses this by inverting the order of cause and effect. In describing the entrance of sin, he first states the cause and then the effect: "through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin." But in applying it to all people, he states the effect first and then the cause: "death spread to all men, because all sinned." On sin's first entrance, death spread to all — that is, all people became liable to it as the punishment due to sin. All people who ever existed, exist, or will exist were not personally alive at that moment. Yet on the very first entrance of sin, all of them were made subject to death — liable to punishment. They were so by virtue of God's appointment, on the basis of their federal existence in the one man who sinned. And they actually became subject to that sentence in their own persons when, at their natural birth, they were born as children of wrath.

From this it is clear what sin Paul has in mind: the actual sin of Adam — the one sin of the one common representative while he held that position. Though the corruption and depravity of our nature necessarily follow from that sin in everyone born into the world through natural generation, it is the guilt of Adam's actual sin alone that rendered all people liable to death on sin's first entrance into the world. So death entered through sin — through its guilt, its liability — and that with respect to all people universally.

"Death" here encompasses the whole punishment due to sin, whatever that punishment is — we need not debate it here. "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23) — and nothing else. Whatever sin deserves in God's justice, whatever punishment God has at any time appointed or threatened for it, is comprised in death: "In the day you eat from it you will surely die." Paul lays this down as the foundation of his discussion and his comparison: through and by the actual sin of Adam, all people are made liable to death — to the whole punishment due to sin. That is, the guilt of that sin is imputed to them. For the imputation of sin to anyone means nothing other than rendering them justly liable to the punishment due to that sin. Correspondingly, not imputing sin means freeing people from liability to punishment. This effectively exposes the emptiness of the Pelagian interpretation — that death spread to all merely through natural descent from one who had deserved it, with no imputation of the guilt of sin to them. That is a direct contradiction of Paul's plain words, for it is the guilt of sin, not natural descent, that he says is the cause of death.

Having mentioned sin and death — sin as the sole cause of death, the guilt of sin producing the punishment of death, sin deserving nothing but death and death due to nothing but sin — Paul then explains how all people universally became liable to this punishment. The Greek phrase can be translated "in whom all sinned" — referring to the one man in whom all sinned — which is evident from the corresponding effect: "in Adam all die" (1 Corinthians 15:22). Or as Paul states it here, through his sin death spread to all people. This is the evident sense of the words, with one form used for another as is common in Scripture (see Matthew 15:5; Romans 4:18; 5:2; Philippians 1:3; Hebrews 9:17), and as the best Greek writers often do. So Hesiod uses a similar construction for "moderation is best in all things"; and similarly "it rests with you" and "this rests with me." Augustine contends for this reading against the Pelagians, rejecting their alternative renderings "inasmuch as" or "because." But I will not press the reading of the words. It is the strategy of our opponents to convince people that our entire argument for the imputation of Adam's sin to his descendants rests solely on this one interpretation. I will therefore grant them their preferred reading: "inasmuch as," "because," or "in that all sinned." We simply say that here a reason is given why death spread to all people — namely, because all sinned in that sin through which death entered the world.

It is true that death, by virtue of the original constitution of the law, is due to every sin whenever it is committed. But the present question is how death spread all at once to all people — how they became liable to it on its first entrance through Adam's actual sin. This cannot be explained by their own actual sins. Indeed, Paul states in the following verses that death spread even to those who never actually sinned as Adam did. And if the actual sins of individuals in imitation of Adam's sin were what Paul intends, then people would have been made liable to death before they had sinned — because on sin's first entrance into the world, death spread to all people before anyone but Adam had actually sinned. But for people to be liable to death — which is nothing but the punishment of sin — when they have not sinned is an open contradiction. God in His sovereign power might inflict death on an innocent creature, but that an innocent creature should be guilty of death is impossible, for to be guilty of death is to have sinned. Therefore the expression "because all sinned" — expressing the deserving of death and the guilt of it at the very moment when sin and death first entered the world — can refer to no sin other than Adam's sin and our connection to it: "we were all that one man" (Eramus enim omnes ille unus homo). And this can only be the case through the imputation of the guilt of that sin to us. Since Adam's act was not inherently and subjectively ours, we can be affected by its consequences only through the imputation of its guilt. For the communication to us of what is not inherent in us is precisely what we mean by imputation.

This is the main proposition of the comparison Paul intends, and I have spent more time on it because Paul lays it as the foundation for everything he afterwards infers and asserts throughout the comparison. Some say there is an incomplete sentence here — that Paul states the proposition on Adam's side but does not fully complete the corresponding statement on Christ's side. Origen explains Paul's silence by suggesting that he was careful lest what needed to be said about Christ's side should be abused by anyone as an excuse for laziness and carelessness. For whereas Paul begins with the comparison word "as" — "as through one man sin entered the world and death through sin" — the completion should be: "so through One, righteousness entered the world, and life through righteousness."

Origen acknowledges this as the genuine completion of the comparison, though he says Paul chose not to state it explicitly, lest people abuse it as an excuse for negligence, supposing that what ought to be done was already accomplished for them. But this both plainly contradicts and undermines most of what Paul further asserts in explaining the passage. The apostle did not suppress any truth for such reasons. He plainly states what is implied here in verse 19, and he shows how foolish and wicked any notion is that supposes this doctrine encourages anyone to indulge in sin.

Some therefore grant that Paul does hold back the explicit statement of what is ascribed to Christ in contrast to Adam until verse 19. But in truth it is sufficiently implied at the close of verse 14, where Paul says that Adam in these matters "is a type of Him who was to come." For the way Christ introduced righteousness and life and communicated them to people corresponds to the way Adam introduced sin and death, which spread to all the world. Adam being the type of Christ, what held true for Adam in relation to his natural descendants with respect to sin and death holds true for the Lord Christ — the second Adam — in relation to His spiritual descendants with respect to righteousness and life. From this we argue:

If Adam's actual sin was imputed to all his descendants so as to be accounted their own sin to condemnation, then the actual obedience of Christ — the second Adam — is imputed to all His spiritual offspring, that is, to all believers, for justification. I will not press this argument further here, because we will encounter its grounds again later.

The next two verses contain an objection and Paul's response to it, which do not directly concern our present argument, so I will pass over them.

Verses 15-16: Paul proceeds to explain his comparison in those points where the two sides differ.

"But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many."

The contrast is between the transgression on one side and the free gift on the other. The difference asserted is not in the opposite effects of death and life, but only in the degree of their effectiveness with respect to those effects. "The transgression" — the fall, the sin, the offense — is the "disobedience of one" (verse 19); it is from Adam's first sin that we get the general term "the fall." What is set over against it is the free gift — the grace of God and the gift by grace through Jesus Christ. While in the next verse this word for "gift" refers specifically to the righteousness of Christ, here it encompasses all the causes of our justification set in contrast to Adam's fall and sin's entrance through it.

The outcome of the transgression — the fall — is that "many died." By "many" Paul means only that the effects of that one offense were not confined to one person. If we ask who and how many "many" are, Paul tells us elsewhere: all people universally — that is, all the descendants of Adam. Through this one offense, because they all sinned in it, they all died — that is, they all became liable to death as the punishment due to that one offense. This also shows how futile it is to twist the words of verse 12 — "because all sinned" — to mean anything other than the first sin in Adam, since it is given as the reason why death spread to all, and it is plainly stated here that they died, or that death spread to them, through that one offense.

The power of the free gift in contrast to the transgression is described as something that "abounded all the more." Beyond the plain truth being asserted, Paul seems to me to be arguing for the fairness of our justification by grace through the obedience of Christ, by comparing it with the condemnation that came upon us through Adam's sin and disobedience. For if it was just, fitting, and right that all people should be made subject to condemnation for Adam's sin, it is far more fitting that those who believe should be justified by the obedience of Christ through the grace and free gift of God. Paul explains later in exactly what respects the gift by grace exceeded the fall's power to condemn. And it is by that same means alone — by which we are freed from condemnation more fully than we were made liable to it by Adam's sin and fall — that we are justified before God. And that means is the grace of God and the gift by grace through Jesus Christ alone — which is what we are arguing for. Verse 16 expresses another difference between the two sides of the comparison — or rather gives a specific instance of the general difference asserted before.

"And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification."

"By one who sinned" is equivalent to "by one sin, one offense" — the single sin of that one man. The word translated "judgment" is rendered by most interpreters as guilt or offense — terms related to it. In Hebrew too, the word for "judgment" is used for guilt, as in Jeremiah 26:11: "This man deserves death" — literally, "the judgment of death is on this man, he is guilty of death." The order is this: first the sin, the fall, the one act of the one man who sinned — his actual sin alone. From that followed guilt, which was common to all. In and through that one sin, guilt came upon all. And the outcome to which that guilt led was condemnation — guilt to condemnation — and this guilt to condemnation came upon all through one person's one sin. This is the order of things on Adam's side: first, the one sin; second, the guilt that followed and spread to all; third, the condemnation that guilt deserved. And their counterparts in the second Adam are: first, the free gift of God; second, the gift of grace itself — the righteousness of Christ; and third, the justification of life. Even though Paul distinguishes these things to illuminate his comparison and contrast, what he means by all of them is the righteousness and obedience of Christ, as he states plainly in verses 18-19. In the matter of our justification he calls it a free gift — with respect to God's gracious and free grant of it; a free gift to us — with respect to our receiving it; and righteousness — with respect to its effect of making us righteous.

So then: through Adam's sin imputed to them, guilt came on all people to condemnation. In what respects was the free gift different? "Not as through the one who sinned" — it differed in two ways. First, condemnation came on all through one offense. But standing under the guilt of that one offense, we also incur the guilt of countless additional sins. If the free gift had addressed only that one offense and gone no further, we could not be fully delivered — therefore it is said to be "from many transgressions," meaning from all our sins and trespasses. Second, Adam and all his descendants in him were in a state of acceptance with God, placed on the path to obtaining eternal life and blessedness, in which God Himself would have been their reward. By the entrance of sin they lost God's favor and incurred the guilt of death and condemnation — these being the same thing. But they did not lose an immediate right and title to life and blessedness — for they had never had that yet, since the course of obedience appointed for them had not been completed. What came upon all through the one offense was therefore the loss of God's favor in the approval of their present state, and the guilt and condemnation of death. But an immediate right to eternal life was not lost through that one sin, for it had never been possessed. The free gift is different: through it we are freed not only from one sin but from all our sins, and through it we also receive a right and title to eternal life — for through it grace reigns through righteousness to eternal life (verse 21).

The same truth is further explained and confirmed in verse 17: "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ." Since Paul's purpose has been sufficiently shown in the observations on the previous verses, I will note here only those things that most directly concern our present subject. First, it is worth observing what variety of expressions Paul uses to set forth the grace of God in the justification of believers. Nothing that might in any way express the freedom, sufficiency, and power of grace for that end is left out. Although some of these terms may seem to overlap in meaning and are used interchangeably, each one contains something distinctive, and all of them together set forth the whole work of grace. The word rendered "free gift" seems to Paul in this argument to denote the ground of a case at trial — the matter pleaded on the basis of which the person tried is to be acquitted and justified. This is the righteousness of Christ. "Free donation" excludes all desert and conditions on the part of those who receive it, and it is that by which we are freed from condemnation and given a right to the justification of life. "The grace of God" is the free grace and favor of God, the original and efficient cause of our justification, as was declared in Romans 3:24. "Abundance of grace" is added to assure believers of the certainty of the result — it is that which lacks nothing for our justification. "The gift of righteousness" expresses the free grant of that righteousness which is imputed to us for the justification of life, later called the obedience of Christ. However wise and learned people may be, we all do well to learn our thoughts and words about these divine mysteries — and about this one in particular, concerning our justification — from this blessed apostle, who understood them better than any of us and who, moreover, wrote by divine inspiration.

It amazes me how people can break through the fence Paul has built around the grace of God and the obedience of Christ in our justification before God, in order to introduce their own works of obedience and find a place for them there. The purpose of Paul and the purpose of some men in declaring this doctrine of justification seem to be entirely at odds. Paul's entire discussion concerns the grace of God, the death, blood, and obedience of Christ — as if he could never fully satisfy himself in setting them out and declaring them — with no mention whatsoever of any works or duties of our own, and no hint of any role they play in justification. But others argue entirely for their own works and duties, and have invented as many terms to dress them up as the Holy Spirit has used to express and declare the grace of God. Instead of the Spirit-given words of wisdom that fill Paul's discussion, their discussions are filled with conditions, preparatory dispositions, merits, causes, and every kind of decoration for our own works. For my part, I will choose to learn from Paul and shape my understanding and expression of gospel mysteries — and of this one in particular, concerning our justification — to follow the one who cannot mislead me, rather than trust any other guide, however impressive its claims.

Second, it is plain in this verse that nothing more is required of anyone for justification than to receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness. This is Paul's description of those who are justified — all that is required of them. This excludes all our own works of righteousness, since through none of them do we receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness. It also excludes the crediting of faith itself to our justification as an act and duty of our own, for faith is the means by which we receive the gift of righteousness — and it will not be denied that we are justified by the gift of righteousness, that is, by the righteousness given to us, through which we have a right and title to life. But our faith is not this gift, for what receives and what is received are not the same thing.

Third, where there is abounding grace — and even superabounding grace — at work in our justification, nothing more is required for it. For how can grace be said to abound — indeed to superabound — not only in freeing us from condemnation but in giving us a title to eternal life, if it must in any part be supplemented and made up by our own works and duties? The realities intended fill these expressions with genuine content, even if to some they seem like empty words.

Fourth, there is a gift of righteousness required for our justification, which all who are to be justified must receive. And all who receive it are justified — for those who receive it will reign in life through Jesus Christ. From this it follows: first, that the righteousness by which we are justified before God can be nothing of our own — nothing inherent in us, nothing performed by us. It is what is freely given to us, and this donation is by imputation: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord credits righteousness" (Romans 4:6). By faith we receive what is so given and imputed, and in no other way do we participate in it. This is what it means to be justified in Paul's sense. Second, it is a righteousness that gives a right and title to eternal life — for those who receive it will reign in life. It cannot therefore consist in the pardon of sin alone. First, pardon of sin cannot in any reasonable sense be called the gift of righteousness — pardon is one thing and righteousness another. Second, pardon of sin does not give a right and title to eternal life. It is true that the one whose sins are pardoned will inherit eternal life, but not merely by virtue of that pardon — rather through the crediting of righteousness, which inseparably accompanies pardon and is its very ground.

The description Paul gives here of our justification by grace — set in contrast to the condemnation we were made liable to through Adam's sin, and shown to surpass it in the power of grace over that first sin by the forgiveness of not one but all sins, and by the bestowal of a right to eternal life — is this: we receive the grace of God and the gift of righteousness, which gives us a right to life through Jesus Christ. But this is nothing other than being justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, received through faith alone.

The conclusion of what has been demonstrated through the comparison Paul has been pursuing is fully stated and further confirmed in verses 18-19.

Verse 18: "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." The Greek manuscripts vary here — some read "by one offense" (which Beza follows and our translation gives in the margin), and most read "by the offense of one." The same variation applies to "righteousness" on the other side. But both amount to the same thing: the one offense intended is the offense of one person, Adam, and the one act of righteousness is the righteousness of one person, Jesus Christ.

The way Paul introduces this statement — as a logical inference — shows that what he is asserting here is the very substance of the truth he has been arguing for. The comparison continues in the same manner as before.

On Adam's side: through the sin or fall of one, guilt came upon all people to condemnation. The word is guilt, and that alone. Through the sin of one, all people became guilty and were made liable to condemnation. The guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to all people. There is no other way it could come upon them to condemnation — no other way they could be rendered liable to death and judgment on account of it. As we have established throughout this discussion, by "death and condemnation" Paul means the whole punishment due to sin. This side of the comparison, then, is clear and evident.

On Christ's side, in answer to this, the righteousness of one is set in contrast to the sin of the other, as the cause of justification stands against the cause of condemnation. "By the righteousness of one" — that is, the righteousness that can be pleaded for justification. That is the righteousness pleaded for justification. By this, as our translators supply from the previous verse, "the free gift came upon all" — just as was said on the other side. The Syriac translation renders the words without supplying anything: "Therefore as by the sin of one, condemnation was to all men, so by the righteousness of one, justification to life shall be to all men." The sense is made plain without any additional word supplied. But since the original does not include the full phrase, something from Paul's own preceding words must be supplied to reflect his intention. That something is "the free grant of righteousness" — the free gift of righteousness for justification. The righteousness of the one, Jesus Christ, is freely granted to all believers for the justification of life. For the "all" here is defined and limited to those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness through Christ (verse 17).

Some vainly argue from this passage that righteousness and life are offered to all people universally, most of whom are never actually made partakers of them. Nothing could be more contrary to Paul's purpose. People are not made guilty of condemnation through Adam's sin by some divine arrangement under which they might or might not be liable depending on conditions. Every person, as soon as he exists and by virtue of being a descendant of the first Adam, is personally liable to condemnation — and the wrath of God rests on him. On the other side, exactly and only those are in view who, through faith and their relationship to the Lord Christ the second Adam, are actually participants in the justification of life. The controversy about the universality of redemption through Christ's death is not at stake here, since those who affirm universal redemption do not claim that it therefore follows that the free gift to the justification of life necessarily comes upon all — they know that it does not. Nor does this passage speak of a provision of righteousness and life for people on condition of believing, though that is true in itself. It speaks only of the certain justification of those who do believe and the way in which it comes. Nor will the analogy of the comparison here support any such interpretation. For the "all" on Adam's side means all and only those who derive their existence from Adam through natural descent — any person who did not do so would have no connection to his sin or fall (as was truly the case with the man Christ Jesus). And the "all" on Christ's side means only those who derive spiritual life from Christ. Suppose a person does not — he has no part in the righteousness of the One for the justification of life. Our argument from these words is this: just as the sin of the one that came upon all to condemnation was the sin of the first Adam imputed to them, so the righteousness of the one that comes upon all believers for the justification of life is the righteousness of Christ imputed to them. I do not know how Paul could have stated or confirmed this more clearly. Yet verse 19 states it even more plainly.

"For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."

This verse is well explained by Cyril of Alexandria (Commentary on John, book 11, chapter 25): "Just as by the transgression of the first man, as the firstfruits of our race, we were given over to death; so also through the obedience and righteousness of Christ, in that He subjected Himself to the law — though He was the author of the law — the blessing and quickening that comes through the Spirit penetrated our whole nature." And by Leo (Letter 12 to Juvenal): "In order to restore the life of all, He took upon Himself the cause of all; so that just as through the guilt of one all were made sinners, so through the innocence of one all might be made innocent. Righteousness was to flow to humanity from the place where human nature was assumed."

What Paul had previously called the sin or offense of Adam, he now describes as "disobedience" — and what he called the righteousness of Christ, he now calls "obedience." Adam's disobedience was his actual transgression of God's law. Through this, Paul says, "many were made sinners" — sinners in the sense of being liable to death and condemnation. They could not be made liable to death unless they were first made sinners or guilty. And this could only be the case if they are considered to have sinned in Adam, with the guilt of his sin therefore imputed to them. Paul therefore affirms that Adam's actual sin was the sin of all people in such a way that they were made sinners through it — liable to death and condemnation.

What Paul sets in direct contrast is the obedience of one — that is, of Jesus Christ. And this was the actual obedience He rendered to the whole law of God. For just as Adam's disobedience was his actual transgression of the whole law, so Christ's obedience was His actual fulfillment of the whole law. The antithesis demands this.

Through this, "many will be made righteous." How? By the imputation of that obedience to them. For that — and nothing else — is how people are made sinners by the imputation of Adam's disobedience. And this is what gives us a right and title to eternal life, as Paul declares in verse 21: "so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life." This righteousness is none other than the obedience of the one Christ, as it is called in verse 18. It is said to come upon us — that is, to be imputed to us — for "blessed is the man to whom God credits righteousness" (Romans 4:6). Through this we have not only deliverance from the death and condemnation to which we were liable by Adam's sin, but the pardon of many offenses — that is, all our personal sins — and a right to eternal life through the grace of God, for "we are justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus."

These things are plainly and fully declared by the apostle, and it is our duty to shape our own understanding and expression to his, as far as we are able. What is offered in opposition to this is so full of exceptions and evasions, and leads so far away from the plain words of Scripture in tangled disputes, that the conscience of a convicted sinner finds nothing in it to settle on for rest and satisfaction — and cannot tell what to believe for justification.

Piscator in his commentary on this chapter and elsewhere presses what appears to be a strong argument against the imputation of Christ's obedience to our justification. But the argument rests on an obvious mistake and a false assumption, and it contradicts the plain words of the text. It is true, as he observes and proves, that our redemption, reconciliation, forgiveness of sins, and justification are frequently and prominently attributed to the death and blood of Christ. The reasons for this have been partly indicated already, and a fuller account will be given shortly. But it does not follow from this that the obedience of Christ's life — in which He fulfilled the whole law, having been made under it for us — is excluded from any causal role in our justification, or that it is not imputed to us. Against this, Piscator argues as follows.

"If the obedience of Christ's life were imputed to us as righteousness, there was no need for Christ to die for us — for He had to die for us as the unrighteous (1 Peter 3:18). But if we were made righteous through His life, no reason remained for Him to die for us, since the righteousness of God does not permit Him to punish the righteous. Yet He did punish us in Christ — that is, He punished Christ for us and in our place, after he had lived righteously, as is certain from Scripture. Therefore we were not made righteous through Christ's holy life. Likewise, Christ died in order to acquire for us that righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). He had not therefore acquired it before His death" (Scholia on Romans 5).

But this entire argument, I say, rests on an obvious mistake. It assumes an order of things in which the obedience of Christ — His righteousness in fulfilling the law — is first imputed to us, and then, on that basis, the righteousness of His death would need to take effect and be imputed to us afterward. On that assumption, he says the latter would be pointless. But no such order or divine arrangement is argued or assumed in our position on justification. It is true that Christ's life and obedience to the law preceded His sufferings and bearing of the curse — it could not have been otherwise, since that order was required by the nature of things. But it does not follow that the same order must be observed in their imputation or application to us. That application is an effect of sovereign wisdom and grace, and it does not follow the natural sequence of Christ's obedience and suffering but rather the moral order of the purposes to which they are appointed. I do not assert — nor do I need to — distinct acts of imputation: one of Christ's obedience for the justification of life and a right to eternal life, and another of His suffering for the pardon of our sins and freedom from condemnation. By both together we receive both, according to the ordinance of God, so that Christ may be all in all. Yet as to the actual experience of the effects, in God's way of bringing sinners to the justification of life, the application of Christ's death to them for the pardon of sin and freedom from condemnation is, in the order of nature and in the exercise of faith, prior to the application of His obedience for a right and title to eternal life.

The condition of the person to be justified is a state of sin and wrath, in which he is liable to death and condemnation. This is what a convicted sinner feels, and it is the first thing he seeks deliverance from: "What must we do to be saved?" The first thing presented to him in the doctrine and promise of the gospel — which is the rule and instrument of its application — is the death of Christ. Without this, no imputed righteousness — not even the obedience of Christ Himself — can give him relief. He knows he has sinned, fallen short of the glory of God, and stands under the condemning sentence of the law. Until he receives deliverance from that, there is no point in presenting him with what would give him a right to eternal life. But once that is supplied, he is equally concerned with what will further give him that title — so that he may reign in life through righteousness. In this matter, in its proper order, the conscience is no less concerned than it is with deliverance from condemnation. This order is expressed in the declaration of the fruits and effects of Christ's mediation: "to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness" (Daniel 9:24). There is no force in the objection that Christ's obedience in life actually preceded His suffering, for the method of their application is not determined by that temporal sequence — the condition of sinners to be justified and the nature of their justification require a different order, as God has ordained. Moreover, Christ's obedience and sufferings were intertwined from beginning to end, both equally belonging to His state of humiliation, and cannot be separated in reality — only in our thinking. He suffered in all His obedience, and obeyed in all His suffering (Hebrews 5:8). And neither aspect of our justification — freedom from condemnation and a right to eternal life — can exist without the other, according to God's ordinance and constitution. Therefore the whole effect is rightly ascribed together to the whole mediation of Christ, so far as He acted toward God on our behalf — in which He fulfilled the entire law, both as to the penalty demanded of sinners and as to the righteousness required for life as its eternal reward. There are many reasons why Scripture, by way of special emphasis, attributes our justification to the death and blood of Christ.

First, the grace and love of God — the chief efficient cause of our justification — are most eminently and visibly displayed in Christ's death. Scripture most frequently presents the death of Christ as the supreme instance and undeniable demonstration of divine love and grace. And this is what we are above all to contemplate in our justification, since God's purpose in it is the glory of His grace: "He made us accepted in the Beloved, to the praise of the glory of His grace" (Ephesians 1:6). Since grace is the fountain, spring, and sole cause — both of Christ's obedience and of its imputation to us, together with the pardon of sin and righteousness thereby — it is everywhere in Scripture set before us as the primary object of our faith in justification, and is set directly against all our own works. God's whole design is that grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life. Since this is most plainly and visibly accomplished in the death of Christ, our justification is assigned to it in a special way.

Second, the love and grace of Christ Himself are especially exalted in our justification, so that all people may honor the Son even as they honor the Father. These are often expressed for this purpose: 2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 2:20; Philippians 3:6-7; Revelation 1:5-6. They are most eminently displayed in His death, so that all their effects and fruits are attributed to it in a special way — just as it is common, among many things that together produce an effect, to attribute the effect to the most prominent one, especially when it cannot be conceived as separated from the rest.

Third, Christ's death is the clear testimony that what He did and suffered was for us and not for Himself. Without this, all the obedience He yielded to the law might be viewed as owed only on His own account, and He might seem to be merely the kind of Savior the Socinians imagine — one who does everything for us before God, and nothing with God on our behalf. But His bearing the curse of the law — He who was not only an innocent man but the Son of God — openly testifies that what He did and suffered was for us and not for Himself. It is no wonder, therefore, that our faith with respect to justification is first and primarily directed to His death and blood-shedding.

Fourth, all of Christ's obedience throughout His life had reference to the sacrifice of Himself that was to follow, in which it received its completion and on which its efficacy for our justification depended. Just as no imputation of actual obedience would justify sinners from the condemnation that had passed on them for Adam's sin, so although Christ's obedience was not a mere preparation or qualification of His person for His sufferings, its efficacy for our justification depended on the sufferings that followed — when His soul was made an offering for sin.

Fifth, as was noted before, reconciliation and the pardon of sin through Christ's blood directly address, in the first place, our relief from the condition into which we were cast by Adam's sin — the loss of God's favor and liability to death. This is therefore what a lost, convicted sinner — the kind of person Christ calls to Himself — looks for first. That is why justification is so prominently and frequently presented as the effect of Christ's blood-shedding and death, which are the direct cause of our reconciliation and pardon. But none of these considerations imply that the obedience of the one man Jesus Christ is not imputed to us — through which grace reigns through righteousness to eternal life.

The same truth is fully stated and confirmed in Romans 8:1-4. But this passage has recently been so thoroughly explained and defended by another in his learned and careful exposition of it — Dr. Jacombe, part 1, verse 4, page 587 and following — that nothing of weight remains to be added to what he has argued there. The answers he appends to the main objections against the imputation of Christ's righteousness are sufficient to satisfy the minds of fair and unbiased readers. I will therefore pass over this testimony, since it has been so recently and ably handled, rather than press the same points again — which might, as often happens, only weaken them.

Romans 10:3-4

"For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

What is resolved in these verses, Paul begins to introduce in Romans 9:30. Because what he was about to say was somewhat surprising and contrary to common expectation, he introduces it with the familiar question he uses on similar occasions (Romans 3:5; 6:1; 7:7; 9:14): "What shall we say then?" — meaning: is there unrighteousness with God, as in Romans 9:14? Or: what is to be said about this? His assertion is that the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness attained righteousness — the righteousness that comes from faith — while Israel, which pursued the law of righteousness, did not attain that law of righteousness, meaning actual righteousness before God.

Nothing could seem more contrary to reason than what the outcome demonstrates here. The Gentiles, who had lived in sin and pleasures without ever once striving to attain any righteousness before God, attained it when the gospel was preached. Israel, on the other hand, which had diligently pursued righteousness through all the works of the law and duties of obedience to God, fell short of it and never attained it. All preparations, all dispositions, all merit with respect to righteousness and justification are excluded from the Gentiles' side — for all of them involve, to some degree, a pursuit of righteousness, which is precisely what is denied of the Gentiles. By faith alone in Him who justifies the ungodly, they attained righteousness — or, as Paul puts it, the righteousness of faith. For to attain righteousness by faith and to attain the righteousness that comes from faith are the same thing. Therefore everything that is included in any way in pursuing righteousness — including all our duties and works — is excluded from any influence on our justification. This is expressed to declare the sovereignty and freedom of God's grace: we are justified freely by His grace, and on our part all boasting is excluded. Whatever people may claim and however they may argue, those who attain righteousness and justification before God while not pursuing righteousness, do so by the free imputation of another's righteousness to them.

Someone may say: it is true that in their pagan days the Gentiles did not pursue righteousness, but when the truth of the gospel was revealed to them, they then pursued righteousness and attained it. But first, this directly contradicts Paul, because it says they attained righteousness only when they pursued it — whereas he says the exact opposite. Second, it eliminates the distinction Paul draws between them and Israel — namely, that one pursued righteousness and the other did not. Third, to "pursue righteousness" in this passage means to pursue a righteousness of one's own — to establish one's own righteousness (Romans 10:3). And far from being a means of attaining righteousness, this is the most effective obstacle to it.

If those who have no righteousness of their own — who are so far from it that they never even sought it — yet by faith receive the righteousness by which they are justified before God, then they do so by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to them. Let someone assign another way if they can.

From the other side of the instance concerning Israel, some must hear — whether they like it or not — what they find unwelcome.

Three things are stated about Israel: first, their attempt; second, their outcome; and third, the reason for it.

Their attempt was this: they pursued the law of righteousness. The word used for their pursuit conveys earnestness, diligence, and sincerity. It is the same word Paul uses to describe his own pursuit and what our pursuit of gospel obedience ought to be (Philippians 3:12). They were not negligent in this — they served God night and day earnestly. Nor were they hypocrites — Paul testifies to this, saying they had a zeal for God (Romans 10:2). What they so earnestly pursued was the law of righteousness — the law that prescribes a perfect personal righteousness before God, the things that "if a man does them, he will live by them" (Romans 10:5). Paul has no separate regard to the ceremonial law here, except as it was an extension of the moral law by God's will and as obedience to it belonged to that law. When he speaks of the ceremonial law separately, he calls it "the law of commandments contained in ordinances," but it is never called the law of righteousness or the law whose righteousness is fulfilled in us (Romans 8:4). Therefore their pursuit of this law of righteousness was their diligent performance of all duties of obedience according to the directives and requirements of the moral law.

Second, the outcome of their attempt was that they did not attain the law of righteousness — that is, they did not attain a righteousness before God through it. Though the goal of the law was precisely that — a righteousness before God in which a person might live — they could never reach it.

Third, Paul explains why they failed to reach what they so earnestly pursued. There was a double error: first, in the means by which they sought it; second, in the righteousness itself they were seeking. The first is declared in Romans 9:32: "because it was not by faith, but as if it were by works of the law." Faith and works are the only two ways by which righteousness can be pursued, and they are opposite and incompatible. No one pursues righteousness by both at once. They cannot be blended into a single means of attaining righteousness. They stand opposed as grace and works — what belongs to one does not belong to the other (Romans 11:6). Any attempt to combine them is like a badly sewn patch of cloth: it holds together for nothing and tears apart again. The reason is that the righteousness faith seeks — the righteousness attainable by faith — is what is given to us and imputed to us, and which faith only receives. Faith receives the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness. But the righteousness attainable by works is our own — inherent in us, wrought out by us, not imputed to us — for it is nothing but those works themselves in relation to God's law.

If righteousness before God is to be obtained by faith alone — and that in direct contrast to all works, which if a person does them according to the law he shall live by them — then it is by faith alone that we are justified before God, and nothing else on our part is required for it. And what the nature of that righteousness must be is evident.

Furthermore, if faith and works are opposed as contrary and incompatible when considered as the means of attaining righteousness or justification before God — as Paul plainly declares — then it is impossible that we should be justified before God by both in the same way and manner. Therefore when the apostle James says that a person is justified by works and not by faith only, he cannot be speaking about our justification before God, where it is impossible for both to concur. Not only does Paul here declare them incompatible, but to bring them both in would introduce multiple kinds of righteousness for justification that are mutually inconsistent and destructive of each other. This was the first error of the Jews, from which their failure followed — they did not seek righteousness by faith but as though by works of the law.

Their second error concerned the righteousness itself on the basis of which a person might be justified before God. They judged it had to be their own righteousness. Their own personal righteousness — consisting in their own duties of obedience — they regarded as the only righteousness on which they could be justified before God (Romans 10:3). They therefore set about establishing this righteousness, just as the Pharisees did (Luke 18:11-12). And this error, along with their determined effort to establish their own righteousness, was the chief reason they rejected the righteousness of God — as it is with many to this day.

Whatever is done in us or performed by us as obedience to God is our own righteousness. Even if it is done by faith and with the help of God's grace, it is subjectively ours — and as a righteousness it is our own. But any righteousness that is our own is so far from being the righteousness by which we are to be justified before God that the most earnest effort to establish it — to make it the righteousness by which we might be justified — is actually the most effective means of refusing to submit to and accept the only righteousness by which we can be justified.

This ruined the Jews, and it will ruin all who follow their example in seeking justification through their own righteousness. Yet it is not easy for people to take any other way or to be turned from this one. Paul hints at this in the expression: "they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God." This righteousness of God is of such a nature that the proud human heart is entirely unwilling to bow and submit to it. Yet it can be received in no other way than by a submission of mind that includes a complete renunciation of any righteousness of our own. Those who mock others for saying that people pursuing moral or ethical righteousness and resting in it are not on a good path to receiving God's grace through Jesus Christ are, in plain terms, mocking the teaching of the apostle — that is, of the Holy Spirit Himself.

Paul's plain purpose therefore is to declare not only that faith and the righteousness of faith are incompatible with a righteousness of our own through works — in the matter of our justification before God — but also that any mixing of our own works in the pursuit of righteousness completely diverts us from accepting and submitting to the righteousness of God. The righteousness that is of faith is not our own — it is the righteousness of God, what He imputes to us. The righteousness of works is our own — wrought in us and by us. Just as works have no fitness or aptitude to attain or receive a righteousness that, being not our own, is imputed to us — and are actually opposed to it, since such imputation would undercut their claim to be our righteousness — so faith has no fitness to be an inherent righteousness, or to be regarded and credited as such. The principal nature and power of faith consists precisely in fixing all the soul's trust, confidence, and expectation for righteousness and acceptance with God on another.

This was the ruin of those Jews: they judged it a better, more reliable — indeed, more righteous and holy — course to keep striving for a righteousness of their own through duties of obedience to God's law, than to imagine they could come to acceptance with God by faith in another. For tell them — and those like them — whatever you will: if they do not have a righteousness of their own that they can stand on its feet and make to stand before God, the law in their minds will not have its fulfillment, and so will condemn them.

To demolish this last stronghold of unbelief, Paul concedes that the law must reach its end and be completely fulfilled — otherwise there is no appearing before God as righteous — and at the same time shows how this is done and where alone it must be sought. "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Romans 10:4). We need not labor over the various senses in which Christ can be called "the end" — the completion, the fulfillment, the goal — of the law. Paul defines his own meaning sufficiently by saying not merely that Christ is the end of the law, but that He is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. The matter in question is a righteousness by which we can be justified before God. This is acknowledged to be the righteousness the law requires. God requires no other righteousness from us than what is prescribed in the law. The law is nothing but the rule of righteousness — God's prescription of righteousness and all its duties to us. That we should be righteous by it before God was the law's first and original purpose. Its other current purposes — convicting of sin and condemning for it — were incidental to its original constitution. This righteousness, which the law requires and which is the only righteousness God requires of us, the fulfillment of this end of the law — the Jews sought by their own personal performance of the law's works and duties. But in doing so, however hard they tried, they could never fulfill this righteousness or attain this end of the law — yet those who fail to do so must perish forever.

Paul therefore declares that all of this is accomplished another way — the righteousness of the law is fulfilled and its end, with respect to righteousness before God, is attained in and through Christ. What the law required, He accomplished — and that is credited to everyone who believes.

In this, Paul brings the entire inquiry about a righteousness by which we may be justified before God to its conclusion — and in particular, how the law's demands are satisfied. What we could not do, what the law could not bring about in us because it was weakened by the flesh, what we could not attain by our own works and duties — all of this Christ has done for us, and so He is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

The law demands a righteousness from us; the fulfillment of that righteousness is the goal it aims at, and it is necessary for our justification before God. This cannot be attained by any works of our own, by any righteousness of our own. But the Lord Christ is this for us and to us. How He can be this except through the imputation of His obedience and righteousness in the fulfillment of the law, I cannot understand — and I am sure Paul gives no other explanation.

The way by which we attain this end of the law — which we cannot achieve by our utmost efforts to establish our own righteousness — is by faith alone, for "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." To mix anything with faith in this matter is contrary both to the nature of faith and works with respect to their fitness for attaining righteousness, and is as directly contradictory to Paul's expressed purpose and words as anything that can be devised.

Let people please themselves with distinctions I cannot follow — and perhaps I should be embarrassed to admit that, except that I am convinced those who use them do not understand them either — or with objections, quibbles, and invented implications that I do not regard. Here I desire to fix my soul forever and find rest: Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. I believe that all who rightly understand what God's law requires of them, how essential it is that it be fulfilled and its end accomplished, and the utter inadequacy of their own efforts for that purpose — at the very least when the time for arguing is over — will take themselves to the same refuge and rest.

The next passage I will consider in this epistle is 1 Corinthians 1:30: "But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption."

Paul's purpose in these words is to show that whatever we lack — on any account — in order to please God, live to Him, and come to the enjoyment of Him, we have in and through Jesus Christ. And this is ours on God's part from pure, free, and sovereign grace, as verses 26-29 make clear. We have all these things by virtue of our ingrafting or union with Him — the phrase means "from" or "by" Him. He by His grace is the chief efficient cause. The effect is that we are "in Christ Jesus" — grafted into Him, united to Him as members of His mystical body, which is the consistent meaning of that expression throughout Scripture. The benefits we receive through this union are listed in the words that follow. But first the means by which we are made partakers of them — or by which they are communicated to us — is stated: God has "made" Him all this to us. It is God's ordination that Christ Himself should become all of this to us and for us. Socinus says this refers to a general act of God's providence, by which it has come about that Christ may in some way or other be said to be all this to us. But what is intended is a specific ordinance and institution of God's sovereign grace and wisdom, appointing Christ to be all this to us and for us, with actual imputation following from that appointment — and nothing else. Therefore our entire interest in Christ and every benefit we receive through Him depend wholly on God's sovereign grace and appointment, not on anything in ourselves. Since we have no righteousness of our own, He is appointed of God to be our righteousness and is made so to us — which can only mean that His righteousness is made ours. For He is made righteousness to us in this way: so that all boasting in ourselves is utterly excluded, and whoever boasts should boast in the Lord (verses 29, 31). There is a kind of righteousness — a way of being righteous — that gives grounds for boasting (Romans 4:2) and that does not exclude it (Romans 3:27). And that is possible only when our righteousness is inherent in us. For however it may be procured, purchased, or produced in us, it is our own, as far as anything can be our own while we are creatures. This kind of righteousness is therefore excluded here. The Lord Christ being made righteousness to us by God in such a way that all boasting and self-glorying is excluded — indeed, being made so for that very purpose — it can only be by the imputation of His righteousness to us. That is how the grace of God and the honor of Christ's person and mediation are exalted, and all occasion for boasting in ourselves is completely removed. All we ask from this testimony is this: that since we are in ourselves without any righteousness in God's sight, Christ is by a gracious act of divine imputation made righteousness to us by God — in such a way that all our glorying ought to be in the grace of God and the righteousness of Christ Himself. Bellarmine offers three responses to this testimony. The first two amount to the same thing, and in the third, pressed by the weight of truth, he concedes and grants everything we are arguing for. First, he says Christ is called our righteousness because He is the efficient cause of it, just as God is called our strength — so there is a figure of speech in the words where the effect stands for the cause. I grant that the Lord Christ, by His Spirit, is the efficient cause of our personal, inherent righteousness. His grace produces and works it in us; He renews our natures into the image of God; without Him we can do nothing. So our habitual and actual righteousness comes from Him. But this personal righteousness is our sanctification and nothing else. Although the same internal disposition of inherent grace, along with its corresponding acts, is sometimes called our sanctification and sometimes our righteousness — with respect to those acts — it is never divided into our sanctification and our righteousness as two separate things. But in this passage, His being made righteousness to us is explicitly distinct from His being made sanctification to us — that inherent righteousness produced in us by the Spirit and grace of Christ. And His working personal righteousness in us, which is our sanctification, and the imputation of His righteousness to us, by which we are made righteous before God, are not only consistent but inseparable — one cannot exist without the other.

Second, Bellarmine argues that Christ is said to be made righteousness to us in the same sense He is made redemption to us — and since He is our redemption because He has redeemed us, so He is made righteousness to us because through Him we become righteous, or as another puts it, because through Him alone we are justified. This is essentially the same argument as the first: there is a figure of speech in all these expressions, and the effect stands for the cause. What cause they mean by this, in the phrase "through Him alone we are justified," I am not sure. But Bellarmine is drawing closer to the truth here — for just as Christ is said to be made redemption to us by God because through His blood we are redeemed, freed from sin, death, and hell, by the ransom He paid for us — having redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins — so He is said to be made righteousness to us because through His righteousness granted to us by God (since God's making Him righteousness to us, our becoming the righteousness of God in Him, and the imputation of His righteousness to us that we may be righteous before God — these are all the same thing) we are justified.

His third response, as noted earlier, concedes the whole of our argument. It is the same answer he gives to Jeremiah 23:6, which he joins with this passage as having the same sense and weight, surrendering his entire position in the words already quoted above (De Justificatione, lib. 2, cap. 10).

Socinus prefaces his response to this testimony with an expression of astonishment that anyone would use it in this argument, claiming it is entirely irrelevant. Pretending to hold his opponents' arguments in contempt is in fact the main technique Socinus employs throughout his replies and evasions — and I am sorry to see that most of those who, with him, oppose the imputation of Christ's righteousness have adopted the same approach. And lately, the use of this testimony — which pressed Bellarmine so hard — is treated with the same dismissive tone, on the sole grounds Socinus offers against it. Yet his objections are such that I cannot help wondering, on the other hand, that any learned person could be troubled or misled by them. His entire argument is this: if Christ is said to be made righteousness to us because His righteousness is imputed to us, then He is likewise said to be made wisdom to us because His wisdom is imputed to us, and the same for His sanctification — which no one would allow. Indeed, on the same logic, He would have to be redeemed for us and His redemption imputed to us. But there is no force or truth in this objection. It rests solely on the assumption that Christ must be made all these things to us in the same way and manner — whereas they are of such different natures that it is utterly impossible for that to be so. For instance, He is made sanctification to us in that by His Spirit and grace we are freely sanctified. But He cannot be said to be made redemption to us in the same way — in that by His Spirit and grace we are freely redeemed — because redemption is something external, not wrought in us. Christ can only be made redemption to us by the imputation to us of what He did for our redemption — by reckoning it to our account. Not that He was redeemed for us, as Socinus childishly objects, but that He did what was necessary for our redemption. And if Christ is said to be made righteousness to us because by His Spirit and grace He works inherent righteousness in us, then that is plainly the same as His being made sanctification to us — not something distinct from it. Socinus himself does not believe Christ is made all these things to us in the same way, and that is why he does not specify any particular way but hides his answer in the vague expression that Christ becomes all these things to us through God's providence. But if you ask him specifically how Christ is made sanctification to us, he will tell you it was through His teaching and example alone, with whatever general assistance of the Spirit he is willing to allow. That is no way at all, however, by which Christ was made redemption to us. Therefore Christ is made righteousness to us by God in the way that the nature of the thing requires. Some say it is because through Him we are justified. But the text does not say "through Him we are justified" — it says He is made righteousness to us by God, which is not our justification but the ground, cause, and reason on which we are justified. Righteousness is one thing and justification is another. We must therefore ask how we come to have the righteousness by which we are justified. The same apostle tells us plainly: by imputation — "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord credits righteousness" (Romans 4:6). It follows, then, that Christ being made righteousness to us by God can have no other meaning than that His righteousness is imputed to us — which is what this text undeniably confirms.

2 Corinthians 5:21

The truth we are arguing for is stated here with even greater emphasis: "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Augustine's paraphrase of these words gives their meaning: "He Himself became sin, that we might become righteousness — not our own righteousness but God's; not in ourselves but in Him — just as He Himself became sin, not His own but ours, not in Himself but in us" (Enchiridion to Laurentius, chapter 4). Chrysostom's comments on this passage to the same effect have been cited at length earlier.

To express the greatness of God's grace in our reconciliation through Christ, Paul describes Him with the phrase "who knew no sin." He knew sin intellectually — He understood its nature. He knew it experientially — He endured its effects and suffered them. But He did not know it in the sense of committing it or being guilty of it. So "He knew no sin" means simply: He did no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth (1 Peter 2:22); He was holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners (Hebrews 7:26). Yet there is an emphasis in the expression that should not be overlooked. As Chrysostom observed — noting it as a figure of intensification — and as many learned scholars after him have noted, those who genuinely desire to understand the excellence of God's grace here will find that this emphatic phrase, which the Holy Spirit chose to use for that very purpose, leaves an impression on the mind that should not be dismissed.

"He made Him to be sin" — many expositors take this to mean He was made a sacrifice for sin. Ambrose comments on this passage: "Just as He was offered for sins, He is not inappropriately said to have been made sin, because even the animal in the law that was offered for sins was called the sin-offering." The sin offering and trespass offering in the Hebrew are indeed often expressed simply by the words for sin and guilt. I will not dispute this interpretation, since what it signifies is true. But there is another more precise meaning: the word for sin standing for sinner — that is, passively rather than actively, by imputation rather than by inherent quality. This is what the structure of the expression and the force of the antithesis seem to require. Estius himself, speaking of this sense, adds his own endorsement: "This understanding is to be explained by the commentary of the Greek fathers — Chrysostom and the rest — because they interpret 'sin' emphatically as meaning 'great sinner,' as if the apostle were saying God treated Him on our account as if He were sin itself — that is, as a man marked out as utterly sinful, as One on whom He laid the iniquities of us all." If this is the interpretation of the Greek commentators — as indeed it is — then Luther was not the first to say that Christ was made the greatest sinner, meaning by imputation. I will allow the earlier interpretation, however, provided the true nature of a sin offering or expiatory sacrifice is properly understood. For though such a sacrifice neither was nor could consist in the transfer of the inherent sin of the person to the animal, it did consist in the transfer of the guilt of the sinner to it, as is fully described in Leviticus 16:20-21. I grant this interpretation only to avoid unnecessary argument. For when some say the Greek word for sin can mean both sin and a sacrifice for sin, this requires careful examination. In the first Hebrew verbal stem, the root means to err, to sin, to transgress God's law; in the intensive stem it has the opposite meaning — to cleanse from sin, to make expiation for sin. The Greek word correspondingly carries its most common meaning of sin, transgression, and guilt from the first sense, but sometimes carries the sacrificial meaning from the second — a sacrifice for sin, to make expiation. The Septuagint accordingly renders the sacrificial sense sometimes as "for sins" (Ezekiel 44:27), sometimes as "propitiation" or "propitiatory sacrifice" (Exodus 30:10; Ezekiel 43:23), and sometimes as "purification" or "cleansing" (Numbers 19:19). But used absolutely, the Greek word nowhere in any reliable author or in Scripture means a sacrifice for sin — unless it is allowed to do so in this one passage. For the Septuagint, when translating the Hebrew where it means sin, consistently uses the Greek word for sin alone; but where the Hebrew denotes a sin offering and they retain the Greek word, they use a phrase with a preposition — a construction they coined precisely because they recognized the word on its own neither did nor could mean a sacrifice for sin (Leviticus 4:3, 14, 32, 35; 5:6-11; 6:30; 8:2). They never omit the preposition unless they name the sacrifice itself. The same pattern is followed by the apostle in the New Testament: on the two occasions he expresses the sin offering by this word, he uses the full phrase (Romans 8:3; Hebrews 10:6) — he never uses the word alone for that purpose. If it carries that meaning in this passage, it does so here alone. As for those who think the Greek word corresponds to the Latin Piaculum, this is also a mistake — the first meaning of the Greek word is acknowledged to be sin, and they imagine it is secondarily used to mean a sacrifice for sin. But Piaculum properly means a sacrifice or anything that expiates sin or makes satisfaction for it, and only very rarely and derivatively is it used to mean a sin or crime that deserves public expiation — as in Virgil: "He deferred the atoning penalties to a late death." But we need not argue about words as long as we can agree on the substance.

The only question is how God made Him to be sin. "He made Him to be sin" — so an act of God is intended. This is expressed elsewhere as God laying all our iniquities on Him, or causing them to meet on Him (Isaiah 53:6). This was by the imputation of our sins to Him — just as the sins of the people were placed on the head of the goat so that they should no longer be theirs but his, and he was to carry them away. Whether you take "sin" in either sense previously mentioned — a sacrifice for sin, or a sinner — the imputation of the guilt of sin, prior to and in order to its punishment, must be understood. For in every sin offering there was an imposition of sin on the animal before it was sacrificed and suffered death. Therefore with every offering for sin, the one who brought it was required to lay his hand on its head (Leviticus 1:4), and that this symbolized the transfer of the guilt of sin to the offering is explicitly stated in Leviticus 16:21. Therefore if God made the Lord Christ a sin offering for us, it was by the imputation of the guilt of our sins to Him prior to His suffering. No offering could be made for sin without a symbolic transfer of the guilt of sin to it. That is also why, when an offering was made for the expiation of guilt in the case of an unsolved murder, those responsible by law — the elders of the nearest city to where the man was slain — were not to offer a sacrifice, since there was no one to confess guilt over it or lay guilt upon it. Instead, the neck of a heifer was struck to declare the punishment due to bloodshed, and they were to wash their hands over it to testify to their own innocence (Deuteronomy 21:1-8). But a sacrifice for sin without the imputation of guilt was impossible. And if the word is taken in the second sense — as sinner, meaning by imputation and in God's reckoning — it still must be by the imputation of guilt. No one can be called a sinner in any sense merely from suffering. No one claims Christ was made sin by the imputation of punishment to Him — that has no proper sense. What they say is that sin was imputed to Him with respect to punishment — which is in fact to say that the guilt of sin was imputed to Him. For the guilt of sin is its relation to punishment — the obligation to punishment that attaches to it. That anyone should be punished for sin without having the guilt of it imputed to him is impossible, and were it possible it would be unjust. It is not possible that anyone should be properly punished for sin that is not in any way his own. And if sin is not his by inherence, it can be his only by imputation. One may suffer on occasion of another's sin without that sin being made his in any way — but he cannot be punished for it, since punishment is the recompense for sin on account of its guilt. And even if it were possible, where is the justice of punishing anyone for what does not belong to him in any way? Beyond this, the imputation of sin and the punishment for it are distinct acts — the former precedes the latter — and therefore the imputation is only of the guilt of sin. The Lord Christ was therefore made sin for us by the imputation of the guilt of our sins to Him.

It is objected that if the guilt of sin were imputed to Christ, He is excluded from all possibility of merit, since He only suffered what was due to Him — and so the whole work of Christ's satisfaction is undermined. This would follow if God in judgment reckoned Him guilty and a sinner in His own person. But there is an ambiguity in these expressions. If it means that God reckoned Him inherently guilty and a sinner in His own person, nothing of the kind is intended. What happened is that God laid all our sins on Him and did not spare Him from what was due to those sins. So He did not suffer what was due to Him on His own account, but what was due to our sin — which is impious to deny, for if it were not so, He died in vain and we remain in our sins. And while His satisfaction consists precisely in this — and could not exist without it — it does not in the least diminish His merit. Given the infinite dignity of His person and His voluntary assumption of our sin to answer for it — which did not alter His own state and condition — His obedience in all of this was supremely meritorious.

In answer to Christ's being made sin for us, and by virtue of it, we are made the righteousness of God in Him. This was the purpose of His being made sin for us. By whom are we made so? By God Himself — for it is God who justifies (Romans 8:33) and God who credits righteousness (Romans 4:6). Therefore it is God's act in our justification that is intended here. To be made the righteousness of God is to be made righteous before God — stated emphatically in the abstract form to correspond to what was said of Christ being made sin for us. To be made the righteousness of God is to be justified. And to be made it in Him — just as He was made sin for us — is to be justified by the imputation of His righteousness to us, just as our sin was imputed to Him.

No one can assign any way other than imputation by which Christ was made sin — especially His being made so by God — except by God laying all our iniquities upon Him, that is, imputing our sin to Him. How then are we made the righteousness of God in Him? By the infusion of a habit of grace, say the Roman Catholics generally — but then, following the logic of the antithesis, He must have been made sin by the infusion of a habit of sin, which would be a blasphemous idea. By His meriting, obtaining, and purchasing righteousness for us, say others — but that way we might be made righteous by Him, not righteous in Him. Being righteous in Him can only be through His righteousness, as we are in Him and united to Him. To be righteous in Him is to be righteous with His righteousness, as we are one mystical person with Him. Therefore...

To be made the righteousness of God in Christ — just as He was made sin for us and because He was — can only mean being made righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to us, as we are in Him and united to Him. All other interpretations of these words are both thin and strained, drawing the mind away from their first, plain, and obvious meaning.

Bellarmine objects to this interpretation — it is his first argument against the imputation of Christ's righteousness (De Justificatione, lib. 2, cap. 7): "Fifth, it is refuted because if the righteousness of Christ were truly imputed to us so that we might be held and reckoned as righteous through it — as if it were properly our own intrinsic and formal righteousness — we would certainly have to be held and reckoned as no less righteous than Christ Himself. Consequently we would have to be called and regarded as Redeemers and Saviors of the world, which is utterly absurd." Protestant theologians have given such a full and frequent answer to this objection that I would not have mentioned it, except that some among us have been pleased to borrow it from him and make use of it themselves. They say: if the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us so as to be made ours, then we are as righteous as Christ Himself, because we are righteous with His righteousness. Answer, first: Scripture plainly affirms both of these things together — that in ourselves and as to ourselves, we are all like an unclean thing and all our righteousness is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6); and that in the Lord we have righteousness and strength, and in the Lord we are justified and glory (Isaiah 45:24-25); that if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and yet that we are the righteousness of God in Christ. These things are therefore consistent, whatever objections human cleverness may raise against them. They must be accepted as consistent, unless we choose to follow Socinus's rule of interpretation — that where anything seems contrary to our reason, however plainly affirmed in Scripture, we are not to receive it but must find some interpretation, however forced, to bring the words into line with our reason. Second, notwithstanding the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us and our being made righteous through it, we are still sinners in ourselves — greatly so, as the Lord knows, even the best of us — and therefore cannot be said to be as righteous as Christ. We are made righteous in Him while being sinners in ourselves. Third, to say we are as righteous as Christ is to make a comparison between Christ's personal righteousness and our personal righteousness — if the comparison is between things of the same kind. But this is foolish and impious. Despite all our personal righteousness, we are sinful; He knew no sin. And if the comparison is between Christ's personal inherent righteousness and righteousness imputed to us, it is a pointless comparison between things of entirely different kinds — inherence and imputation are not the same category. Christ was actively righteous; we are passively so. When our sin was imputed to Him, He did not thereby become a sinner as we are — actively, inherently sinful — but only passively and in God's reckoning. As He was made sin yet knew no sin, so we are made righteous yet are sinful in ourselves. Fourth, the righteousness of Christ as it was personally His was the righteousness of the Son of God, which in that respect had in itself infinite perfection and value. But it is imputed to us only with respect to our personal need — not in all its satisfying worth for all, but as our souls stand in need of it and are made partakers of it. There is therefore no basis for any such comparison. Fifth, as for Bellarmine's addition that on this basis we might be called Redeemers and Saviors of the world, the absurdity he points to falls back on himself. He himself plainly states elsewhere (De Purgatorio, lib. 1, cap. 14) that a person may rightly be called his own Redeemer and Savior, which he tries to prove from Daniel 4. And some in his church say the saints may in an improper sense be called Redeemers of others. But this is no concern of ours — for from the imputation of Christ's righteousness it follows only that those to whom it is imputed are redeemed and saved, not at all that they are Redeemers and Saviours. It also belongs to the defense of this passage to answer Bellarmine's seventh argument in the same chapter, which some among us also use: if by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us we may truly be said to be righteous and children of God, then by the imputation of our unrighteousness to Christ He may be said to be a sinner and a child of the devil. Answer, first: what Scripture affirms concerning the imputation of our sins to Christ is that He was made sin for us. The Greek expositors — Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and many others — take this to mean He was made a sinner. But all of them affirm that this designation comes from imputation only: sin was imputed to Him and He bore the punishment due to it, just as righteousness is imputed to us and we enjoy its benefit. Second, the imputation of sin to Christ did not bring with it any pollution or filth of sin to be communicated to Him by transfusion — something impossible — so that no designation can arise from it that includes any reference to such things. Even to think of this is impious and dishonoring to the Son of God. His being made sin through the imputation of the guilt of sin is His honor and glory. Third, the imputation of the sins of fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, and so on — such as the Corinthians had been before their conversion to Christ — does not on any account bring Him under a designation drawn from those sins. They were active, inherent, and subjective sinners and were called so on that basis. But for the One who knew no sin — who voluntarily undertook to answer for the guilt of those sins, which was on His part an act of righteousness and the highest obedience to God — to be called an idolater and so on is a foolish idea. The designation "sinner" from inherent, actively committed, soul-defiling sin is a reproach that marks the utmost unworthiness. But the designation "sinner" by imputation — without the least personal guilt or defilement, undertaken voluntarily by the One to whom it is imputed in an act of the highest obedience, and tending to the greatest glory of God — is supremely honorable and glorious. Fourth, the imputation of sin to Christ was prior to any real union between Him and sinners — on that basis He took their sin on Himself as He chose and for the ends He chose. But the imputation of His righteousness to believers follows in the order of nature from their union with Him, through which it becomes theirs in a special way. The two cases are therefore not parallel — there is no equal reason why He should be considered a sinner as there is for believers to be counted righteous. Fifth, we rest in this: on the imputation of sin to Christ, Scripture says God made Him to be sin for us — which He could only become in that way. He was so by a passing act whose effects lasted only for the time during which He underwent the punishment due to that sin. But on the imputation of His righteousness to us, we are made the righteousness of God with an everlasting righteousness that remains ours always. Sixth, to be a child of the devil through sin is to do the works of the devil (John 8:44). But the Lord Christ, in taking our sins upon Himself when imputed to Him, performed the work of God in the highest act of holy obedience — demonstrating Himself to be the Son of God and destroying the work of the devil. How foolish and impious it is to suppose that any absolute change of state or relationship in Him followed from this.

That by "the righteousness of God" in this passage, some mean our own faith and obedience according to the gospel, is so completely foreign to the context and the meaning of the words that I will not examine it in detail. The righteousness of God is revealed to faith and received by faith — it is therefore not faith itself. And the force of the antithesis is entirely destroyed by this interpretation. For what kind of parallel would it be that Christ was made sin by the imputation of our sin to Him, and we are made righteous by the imputation of our own faith and obedience to ourselves? Just as Christ had no connection to sin except that God made Him sin — it was never inherent in Him — so we have no interest in this righteousness as something inherent in us. It is only imputed to us. Beyond this, the act of God in making us righteous is His act of justifying us. But this is not by the infusion of the disposition of faith and obedience, as has been proved. And what act of God those people have in mind who claim that the righteousness of God we are made consists in our own righteousness, I do not know. It cannot be the constitution of the gospel law, for that makes no one righteous. The persons of believers are the object of this act of God, and that as they are considered in Christ.

Galatians 2:16

The entire letter of the same apostle to the Galatians is devoted to vindicating the doctrine of justification by Christ without the works of the law, and to explaining how that doctrine is to be used and applied. The sum of his whole purpose is laid out in his recounting of the words he spoke to the apostle Peter on the occasion of Peter's failure: "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified" (Galatians 2:16).

What Paul asserts here was such a well-known and foundational truth among all believers that their conviction and knowledge of it was the very ground and occasion of their turning from Judaism to the gospel and to faith in Jesus Christ.

In these words Paul settles the great question: how, or by what means, is a person justified before God? The subject is stated in the most general terms: a man — any person, whether Jew or Gentile, believer or unbeliever. This includes the apostle who spoke, those to whom he spoke, the Galatians to whom he wrote — all of whom had believed and professed the gospel for some time.

The answer is both negative and positive, both stated with the highest assurance as the common faith of all Christians — except those who had been led astray by false teachers. Paul declares this cannot and does not come about by the works of the law. What he means by the law in these discussions has been explained and established earlier. The law of Moses is sometimes specifically in view — not as an end in itself, but as the current form in which people clung to the law of righteousness instead of submitting to the righteousness of God. But the idea that Paul ever excludes the moral law and its duties from his argument is a weak notion. In fact, it would exclude the ceremonial law itself, for observing the ceremonial law while it was in force was a duty of the moral law.

The works of the law are the works and duties of obedience that God's law requires, performed in the manner it prescribes — namely, in faith and from love to God above all else, as has been proved. To say Paul excludes only works that are absolutely perfect — which no one has ever performed or could perform since sin entered — is to suppose him arguing with great urgency and many arguments against a position that no one held and that he never once mentions. Nor can he be said to exclude only works that are considered meritorious, since he excludes all works precisely so that there may be no place for merit in our justification, as has also been proved. Nor were the Galatians he was writing to and correcting seeking justification from any works other than those they were already performing as believers. Therefore all kinds of works are excluded from any role in our justification. Paul places so much weight on this exclusion that he says admitting works would overthrow the whole gospel: "if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Galatians 2:21). It is dangerous to venture too close to that edge.

Not this or that kind of works — not this or that manner of performing them — not this or that degree of involvement in justification — but all works of every kind, however performed, are excluded from any consideration in our justification as our works or duties of obedience. What the Galatians Paul was correcting wanted was simply that, in the justification of a believer, works of the law or duties of obedience might be admitted alongside faith in Christ Jesus. There is no hint that they wanted to exclude faith in Christ and assign justification to works without it — that idea is foolish. In contrast, Paul positively and absolutely attributes our justification to faith in Christ alone. "Not by works but by faith" is equivalent to "by faith alone." That the particle used is not exceptive but adversative has not only been conclusively proved by Protestant theologians but is acknowledged by those in the Roman church who engage with this controversy with any honesty. Estius's words on this passage deserve to be quoted: "Unless through faith in Jesus Christ the little word 'unless' (which the Vulgate renders where the Greek has 'but' or 'but only') makes the meaning obscure — for if it is taken in its precise Latin sense it creates an exception to what precedes, so that the meaning would be that a man is not justified by the works of the law unless faith in Christ is added to them, and if it is added he is justified through the works of the law. But since this sense divides justification, attributing it partly to the works of the law and partly to faith in Christ, which is contrary to the apostle's definite and absolute statement, it is clear that this interpretation must be entirely rejected as contrary to the apostle's meaning and purpose. It is well established that the little word 'unless' is frequently used in Scripture in an adversative sense, meaning the same as 'but only.'" So he, with his characteristic candor and honesty.

There is little prospect of ending these disputes in this world when people will not accept such plain resolutions of them given by the Holy Spirit Himself.

The interpretation given here as Paul's meaning — that people cannot be justified by works they cannot perform, that is, perfectly performed works, but that they can be and are justified by works they can and do perform, even if not in their own strength but with the help of grace; and that faith in Christ Jesus, which Paul sets in absolute opposition to all works, actually includes within it all those works he excludes, and in respect of the very same end for which he excludes them — this interpretation can hardly be thought to reflect the mind of the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 2:8-10

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them."

Unless the Holy Spirit had chosen to anticipate in advance every evasion and escape that human cleverness might invent in future ages to distort the doctrine of our justification before God, and to refute them all, it is hard to see how they could have been more plainly forestalled than they are in this passage. If we approach it with a little honest consideration, I believe the truth of what is affirmed will be evident.

It cannot be denied that Paul's purpose from the beginning of this chapter through the end of verse 11 is to declare how lost and condemned sinners come to be delivered from that condition and brought into a state of acceptance with God and eternal salvation. He begins by fully describing their natural state and their exposure to God's wrath from that state. It was Paul's consistent practice to preface any declaration of God's grace with a consideration of our sin, misery, and ruin. Others today are less comfortable with this method — but that does not change the fact that it was his. He declares to the Ephesians that they were dead in trespasses and sins, describing sin's power over their souls with respect to spiritual life and all its activities — and that they lived and walked in sin and on every count were children of wrath, liable to eternal condemnation (Ephesians 2:1-3). What such people can do toward their own deliverance has attracted many creative descriptions, all beyond my understanding — since Paul's entire purpose is to prove they can do nothing at all. He finds the cause — or causes — of their deliverance elsewhere, in direct and explicit contrast to anything that might be done by themselves for that end. "But God" (Ephesians 2:4) — it is not a work for us to undertake; it is not something we can contribute anything to. "But God, who is rich in mercy." The adversative word sets an opposition against everything on our part and assigns the whole work to God. If people had rested in this divine revelation, the church of God would have been spared many of the perverse opinions and contentious disputes that have troubled it. But people are not easily willing to give up the thought of some role in being the authors of their own happiness. There are two things to observe in Paul's assignment of the causes of our deliverance from a state of sin and acceptance with God.

First, he assigns the whole of this work absolutely to grace, love, and mercy — with an explicit exclusion of anything on our part, as we will see immediately in verses 5 and 8.

Second, he magnifies this grace in a remarkable way. He expresses it by every name and title that signifies it — mercy, love, grace, and kindness — so that we would look only to grace in this matter. He attributes to the divine mercy and grace — the sole cause of our deliverance in and by Jesus Christ — qualities and descriptions that make it uniquely worthy of adoration: "rich in mercy"; "great love with which He loved us"; "the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness" (Ephesians 2:4-7). It cannot reasonably be denied that Paul's design is to fill the minds and hearts of believers with a deep sense of the grace and love of God in Christ as the only cause of their justification before God. I cannot think of words capable of expressing the thoughts that this portrayal of grace evokes. Whether those who barely mention the grace of God — and then only to diminish its power — and for whom such ascriptions as Paul makes here are objects of contempt, think it any part of their duty to have the same mind as the apostle in this, is not hard to judge.

It may be said: these are fine words, but they are only general — there is no real argument in all this adoration of God's grace in salvation. So it may seem to many. But to speak plainly, there is more argument for me in this one consideration — the way God's grace is ascribed to in this passage — than in a hundred clever arguments that suit neither the expressions of Scripture nor the experience of those who believe. Anyone gripped by a proper understanding of the grace of God as it is displayed here, and who senses that the Holy Spirit's purpose in doing so was to render it glorious and to be trusted alone, will not easily be persuaded to supplement it with additions from our own works and obedience, as some would suggest. But we may look further into the words.

The case Paul is addressing — the question he has in hand, on which he declares the truth and instructs the Ephesians and through them the whole church of God — is this: how can a lost, condemned sinner come to be accepted by God and thereby saved? This is the one and only question we are, and intend in this controversy to be, concerned with. We will not be drawn beyond it, either by invitation or by provocation. His position and conclusion about this is: we are saved by grace.

Paul first inserts this truth incidentally while listing the benefits we receive through Christ (verse 5). But not content with that, he asserts it again directly in the same words in verse 8 — as though he had already considered how slow people would be to accept a truth that at one stroke strips away all grounds for boasting in themselves.

What Paul means by our being saved must be examined. It would not hurt but actually advance the truth we are arguing for if eternal salvation were meant here. But that cannot be the primary sense in this passage — except as that salvation is included in its causes, which operate in this life. Nor do I think Paul intends only our justification by "by grace you have been saved," though justification is principally in view. Conversion to God and sanctification are also included, as is evident from verses 5-6, and these are no less the result of sovereign grace than justification itself. Paul is speaking of what the Ephesians, now as believers and by virtue of being so, had been made partakers of in this life. This is evident from the whole context. Having described in the chapter's opening their condition in common with all of Adam's descendants by nature (verses 1-3), he further describes their particular condition as Gentiles — idolaters and those without God (verses 11-12). Their present deliverance through Jesus Christ from this entire miserable state and condition — both what they shared with all humanity and what aggravated their own particular misery — is what he means by their being saved. The main point of describing that condition was that it had exposed them to the wrath of God, leaving them guilty before Him and subject to His judgment (verse 3). In keeping with that account and those grounds, Paul follows the same approach he uses everywhere in declaring the doctrine of justification (Romans 3:19-24; Titus 3:3-5).

From that condition they received deliverance through faith in Christ Jesus — "to as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12). "He who believes in Him is not condemned" — that is, he is saved in Paul's sense here (John 3:15). "He who believes in the Son has eternal life" — he is saved — "but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36). This is how "saved" and "salvation" are frequently used in Scripture. Beyond this, Paul gives such a full description of the salvation he intends from verse 13 to the end of the chapter that there can be no doubt about it. It is our being brought near by the blood of Christ (verse 13), our peace with God through His death (verses 14-15), our reconciliation through the blood of the cross (verse 16), and our access to God with all the spiritual privileges that follow from it (verses 18-20).

Paul's question and his answer therefore concern the causes of our justification before God. He declares and settles them both positively and negatively. Positively: first, the supreme moving cause on God's part — His free, sovereign grace and love, which he illustrates through the attributes and qualities already mentioned. Second, the meritorious procuring cause — Jesus Christ in the work of His mediation, as God's ordained means of making this grace effective to His glory (verses 7, 13, 16). Third, the only means or instrument on our part — faith. "By grace you have been saved through faith" (verse 8). And lest he seem to take anything away from God's grace by affirming the necessity of faith, he adds the corrective phrase: "and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." The communication of this faith to us is no less an act of grace than the justification we receive through it. So he has secured the whole work to the grace of God through Christ, in which we participate through faith alone.

But he is not satisfied with this positive statement alone — he also describes the work negatively, adding an explicit exclusion of whatever might be thought to have a role in it. Three things are stated distinctly here: first, what is excluded; second, the reason for excluding it; and third, the confirmation of that reason, along with his response to an objection that might arise from it.

First, what is excluded is works: "not as a result of works" (verse 9). What works he principally means, Paul himself indicates. Some say works of the law — the law of Moses. But what did the Ephesians have to do with that law, that Paul should tell them they were not justified by its works? They had never been under that law, never sought righteousness through it, and had no connection to it except that they had been delivered from it. Perhaps then he means works done in the strength of natural ability alone, without the help of grace, and prior to believing. But what the Ephesians' works were before they believed, Paul tells us plainly: dead in trespasses and sins, they walked according to the course of this world in the lusts of the flesh, gratifying the desires of the flesh and the mind (Ephesians 2:1-3). It is obvious enough that these works have no influence on our justification, and equally obvious that Paul had no reason to exclude them as though anyone could suppose they contributed to a justification that consists precisely in deliverance from them. Therefore the works Paul excludes here are the works the Ephesians were now performing as believers, made alive with Christ — the very works God had ordained that they should walk in, as he expressly states in verse 10. And he excludes these works not only in opposition to grace but also in opposition to faith: "through faith, not as a result of works." He therefore rejects not only their merit as incompatible with grace, but their concurrent role alongside or subsequent to faith in our justification before God.

If we are saved by grace through faith in Christ, to the exclusion of all works of obedience, then such works cannot be the whole or any part of our righteousness for the justification of life. We must therefore have another righteousness, or perish forever. Many things are offered here, and many distinctions coined, to retain some role for works in our justification before God. But whether it is safer to trust those distinctions or this plain, express, divine testimony, will not be hard for anyone to decide when they make the question their own.

Second, Paul adds a reason for this exclusion of works: "not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." God has ordained the order and method of our justification through Christ in this way precisely so that no one might have any ground, reason, or occasion to glory or boast in himself. This is expressed in the same way in 1 Corinthians 1:21, 30-31 and Romans 3:27. To exclude all glorying and boasting on our part is God's design. Boasting consists in ascribing to ourselves something that is not in others, with respect to justification. And it is works alone that can give any occasion for this boasting — for if Abraham had been justified by works, he would have had something to boast about (Romans 4:2). Boasting is excluded only by the principle of faith (Romans 3:27), for faith by its very nature looks for righteousness in another. Works, when brought into justification, naturally tend to produce this kind of boasting in the human heart. And where this boasting arises, God's design toward us in His work of grace is frustrated on our part.

The main point I draw from this is that Scripture fixes no boundary for the role of works in justification beyond which boasting would not be implied. Roman Catholics make works meritorious of justification — at least of what they call the second justification. Some say this should not be admitted, since merit and boasting are inseparable. Others therefore propose that works are only a necessary prior condition, or our evangelical righteousness before God on which we are evangelically justified, or a subordinate righteousness through which we gain a share in Christ's righteousness, or are included in the condition of the new covenant by which we are justified, or are included in faith as its form or its essence — people express themselves with great variety here. But as long as our works are in any of these ways asserted as contributing to our justification, how can a person be certain they do not include boasting? And that such proposals express the true sense of these words, "not as a result of works, so that no one may boast"? Some kind of self-ascription in this matter is boasting. If someone says they know what they are doing and know they are not boasting in what they ascribe to works, I cannot in general accept that. The Roman Catholics themselves insist they are furthest from boasting — yet I am thoroughly persuaded that merit and boasting are inseparable. The question is not what people think they are doing, but what Scripture says about what they are doing. And if someone argues that what is in us is also the grace and gift of God and is acknowledged as such — which excludes boasting in ourselves — I say that the Pharisee also acknowledged this, and yet he was a terrible boaster. Therefore, however those works may be supposed to be produced in us, if they are also produced by us and so constitute the righteous works that we have done, I am concerned that bringing them into our justification involves boasting — precisely because of Paul's statement, "not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." Therefore, since this is a dangerous area, unless people can give us clear, direct, and indisputable boundaries for the introduction of our works into justification that definitively exclude any boasting, the safest course is to exclude them entirely. I see no danger of error in following the Holy Spirit's plain words: "not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." For if we were carelessly led into this boasting, we would lose all the benefit we might otherwise receive through the grace of God.

Third, Paul gives another reason why justification cannot be by works, and at the same time heads off an objection that might arise from what he declared in verse 10: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." The force of his reasoning lies in this: all good works — the evangelical works he is discussing — are the effects of God's grace in those who are in Christ Jesus and who are therefore already truly justified prior to those works in the order of nature. But what he principally intends in these words — something he is always mindful of wherever he deals with this doctrine — is to head off an objection he foresaw: if good works are excluded from our justification before God, what use are they? We may live as we please, utterly neglect them, and still be justified. This very objection continues to be pressed with great force against the same doctrine by some today. In this cause nothing is more frequently argued than this: if our justification before God in no way depends on works — if they are not required beforehand, if they are not a prior condition — then there is no need for them, and people may safely live in complete neglect of all obedience to God. People tend to enlarge greatly on this theme who otherwise give little evidence of their own practical obedience to the gospel. I find it remarkable that they do not notice to whose party they are effectively lending support in pressing this objection — namely, the very opponents of the doctrine of grace that Paul was teaching. This must be examined more fully elsewhere. For now I will only say: if the answer Paul gives here is not satisfying to them, and if the grounds and reasons for the necessity and use of good works he declares here are not judged sufficient to establish them in their proper place and order, I will not consider myself obligated to attempt their further satisfaction.

Philippians 3:8-9

"More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith" (Philippians 3:8-9).

This is the last testimony I will examine at length. Although it is of great importance, I will be relatively brief, since it has recently been argued and defended by another whose work I do not expect any adequate reply to. What has since been attempted in response by one writer carries no weight. The observations I want to draw from this testimony may be organized under the following headings.

First, Paul's purpose from the beginning of this chapter — and in these verses especially — is to declare what it is on account of which we are accepted by God and have cause to rejoice. He settles this in general as resting in and participating in Christ by faith, in direct contrast to all the legal privileges and advantages in which the Jews he was addressing boasted and rejoiced. "Rejoice in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh" (Philippians 3:3).

Second, Paul assumes that for the acceptance before God in which we are to rejoice, a righteousness is necessary, and that whatever that righteousness is, it is the sole ground of that acceptance. To demonstrate this:

Third, he declares there are two kinds of righteousness that might be relied on for this purpose: first, our own righteousness which is of the law; and second, that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. He asserts these are opposite and incompatible with respect to the goal of our justification and acceptance with God: "not having my own righteousness, but that which..." He acknowledges no intermediate righteousness between them.

Fourth, placing the example in himself, he declares with emphatic urgency — and there is hardly a more forceful expression anywhere in all his writings — which of these two he adhered to and placed his confidence in. In addressing this subject, several things engaged his earnest and holy mind toward an intense exaltation of the righteousness of God by faith and a corresponding rejection of his own righteousness.

First, this was the turning point on which he and others had left their Judaism and turned to the gospel. It had to be pressed as the central instance in the greatest controversy the world had ever seen. He expresses this in Galatians 2:15-16: "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law." Second, this doctrine had faced fierce opposition from the Jews in every place, and in many places the minds of multitudes had been turned away from the truth — toward which most people are naturally prone in this case — and misled from the simplicity of the gospel. This weighed heavily on Paul's holy soul, and he addresses it in most of his letters. Third, the weight of the doctrine itself — along with the natural unwillingness of human hearts to embrace it, since it strikes at the root of all spiritual pride, self-elevation, and self-pleasing — also affected him deeply. This unwillingness has given rise to countless evasions, then and now, to avoid the force of this teaching and to keep people from the complete surrender to sovereign grace in Christ that they are naturally so resistant to. Fourth, he had himself been a great sinner in the days of his ignorance, through his particular opposition to Christ and the gospel. He was deeply aware of this, and correspondingly aware of the excellence of the grace of God and the righteousness of Christ by which he had been delivered. People must have some experience of what he felt in himself regarding sin and grace before they can fully understand his expressions about them.

Fifth, it is for these reasons that in many places in his writings, but especially in this one, he treats these things with greater earnestness and intensity of spirit than usual. On Christ's side, which he would exalt, he mentions not merely knowledge of Him but "the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord" — with emphasis on every word. The repeated expressions — "all loss for Him," "that I may gain Him," "that I may be found in Him," "that I may know Him" — all reflect the working of his heart under the direction of faith and truth toward resting in Christ alone as all and in all. Some measure of this frame of mind is necessary for those who would receive his doctrine. Those who are complete strangers to the one will never accept the other. On the other side, with the same intensity of spirit, Paul casts contempt on everything that is our own and is not Christ — privileges and duties, however good, useful, and excellent they may be in themselves. In comparison with Christ and His righteousness, and with respect to standing before God and being accepted by Him, Paul calls them scraps fit only for dogs — those he calls dogs, that is, evil workers, those of the circumcision, the wicked Jews who clung stubbornly to the righteousness of the law (verse 2). I thought it necessary to give this account of Paul's earnestness in this argument and the intensity of his expressions, as it illuminates his entire purpose.

Sixth, the question being so stated, the inquiry is what anyone who desires acceptance with God — a righteousness on the basis of which to be justified before Him — ought to do. He must choose one of the two paths offered. Either he must agree with Paul's resolution to reject all his own righteousness and commit himself to the righteousness of God by faith in Jesus Christ alone, or he must find — or have someone find for him — some exception to Paul's conclusion, or some distinction that preserves a place for his own works in some way or other in his justification before God. Every person must choose for himself. In the meantime, we argue as follows. If our own righteousness and the righteousness of God by faith — the righteousness through faith in Christ Jesus, namely the righteousness God imputes to us (Romans 4:6) or the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness which we receive (Romans 5:17) — are opposite and incompatible in the matter of justification before God, then we are justified by faith alone through the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us. The conclusion follows plainly from the removal of all other ways, causes, means, and conditions as incompatible with it. And Paul explicitly states the premise: "not my own, but that of God." Furthermore:

That by which and with which we are found in Christ is that by which alone we are justified before God — for to be found in Christ expresses the state of the person who is to be justified before God. The opposite is to be found in oneself. And God's judgment concerning us corresponds to these two different states. As for those who are found in themselves, we know what their portion will be. But in Christ we are found by faith alone.

Every kind of evasion is used by some to escape the force of this testimony. It is said in general that no sane person could imagine Paul did not desire to be found in gospel righteousness, or that his "own righteousness" referred to it — since gospel righteousness alone entitles us to the benefits of Christ's righteousness. I would rather this had not been said. First, this judgment is too sweeping to be leveled without exception against all Protestant writers who have expounded this passage, as well as all others except a few of late who have been shaped by the heat of the controversy they are engaged in. Second, if by "gospel righteousness" they mean his own personal righteousness and obedience, there is a lack of thought in saying he did not desire to be found in it. What we are found in is what we will be judged by — to be found in our own evangelical righteousness before God is to enter into judgment with God on that basis, which those who understand anything rightly about God and themselves will be reluctant to do. And to make his words mean "I desire not to be found in my own righteousness which is after the law, but I desire to be found in my own righteousness which is according to the gospel" — when, as inherent personal righteousness, both are the same thing — does not appear to be a proper interpretation of his words, and it will be immediately disproved. Third, that our personal gospel righteousness entitles us to the benefits of Christ's righteousness with respect to our justification before God is an assertion without scriptural support — not a single testimony of Scripture can be produced that gives the slightest warrant for it. That it contradicts many express testimonies and is inconsistent with the freedom of God's grace in justification as Scripture presents it has been proved earlier. Nor do any of the passages that assert the necessity of obedience and good works in believers — that is, in already-justified persons — in any way prove this assertion or so much as hint at it. In particular, this assertion is directly contradicted by what Paul says in Titus 3:4-5. But I will leave this and proceed to the specific answers given to this testimony, especially those of Bellarmine, to which I have not yet seen anything added with any genuine force.

First, some say that by "his own righteousness" which Paul rejects, he means only his righteousness expressed through the works of the law — and that this was only an outward, external righteousness consisting in the observance of rites and ceremonies, without reference to the inner disposition or obedience of the heart. But this is an impious idea. The righteousness that is by the law is the righteousness the law requires — those works of it which, if a person does them, he will live by them, since the doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:16). God has never given any law of obedience to humanity that did not require them to love the Lord their God with all their heart and all their soul. It is so far from true that God required only external righteousness through the law that He frequently condemns such external righteousness as an abomination to Him when it stands alone.

Second, others say the righteousness Paul rejects is whatever kind of righteousness he had during his years as a Pharisee. Even if he is granted to have lived in good conscience during that period — serving God earnestly night and day, attending to both internal and external duties of the law — all of those works, being prior to faith and prior to conversion to God, may rightly be rejected as having no place in our justification. But works done in faith, by the help of grace — evangelical works — are a different matter, and together with faith are the condition of justification.

Answer, first: that in the matter of our justification Paul sets evangelical works in opposition not only to the grace of God but also to the faith of believers was proved in examining the previous testimony.

Answer, second: he makes no such distinction as the one proposed — that works are of two kinds, one to be excluded from justification and another not. Nowhere else in his treatment of this same subject does he hint at any such distinction. On the contrary, he declares the role of all works of obedience in believers in a way that leaves no room for any such distinction. And in this passage he directly states his rejection of "my own righteousness" — that is, his personal, inherent righteousness, whatever it is and however it was produced.

Third, Paul makes a clear distinction between his two states: his earlier state of Judaism before conversion, and his present state through faith in Christ Jesus. In considering the first state, he declares what judgment he made about its privileges when Christ was revealed to him — "I considered all of them, with all the advantages, gain, and reputation they brought, but rejected them all for Christ, because esteeming and continuing in them as privileges was incompatible with faith in Christ Jesus." He then goes on to give an account of himself and his thoughts with respect to his present condition. For someone might suppose that although he had given up all his legal privileges for Christ, now that he was united to Christ by faith he had something of his own in which he could rejoice and on the basis of which he might be accepted by God — the very thing being inquired about — or else he had given up everything for nothing. Paul, who had no intention of holding anything back to boast about, plainly declares his judgment about all his present righteousness and the works of obedience he was now engaged in, with respect to the ends in question (verse 8). The idea of reading verse 8 as still referring to his pre-conversion Jewish privileges is the result of a very superficial reading of the context. The expression used here is unmistakably a transition word meaning "beyond" or "more than that" — Paul could hardly more plainly signal that he is heightening what he has just said by moving to further considerations or to himself in a different state. Moreover, the change in verb tense from the past — what he had already rejected and left behind — to the present, where he has only his current state in view, makes his advance to a consideration of new matters evident. So he adds to his rejection of all his former Jewish privileges his judgment about his own present personal righteousness. And whereas it might be objected that by rejecting everything both before and after his conversion he was left with nothing to rejoice in, glory in, or rely on for acceptance with God, he assures us of the opposite — that he found all of these things in Christ and in the righteousness of God that comes by faith. When Paul says "not having my own righteousness which is by the law," he is so far from intending only the righteousness he had before his conversion that he is not referring to it at all.

The words of Davenant on this passage of the apostle, which I judge to be not only sober but weighty, I will transcribe: "Here the apostle teaches what righteousness we must rest on before God — namely, that which is apprehended by faith, and this is imputed. He also shows why it rightly becomes ours — because we belong to Christ and are found in Christ; because, being grafted into His body and growing together with Him into one person, His righteousness is therefore reckoned as ours" (De Justificatione, Habituali, cap. 38). For some have begun to interpret our being in Christ and being found in Him as meaning nothing more than our outward profession of the gospel faith — but the faith of the catholic church in all ages concerning the mystical union of Christ and believers is not to be dismissed with a few empty words and unproved assertions.

The answer to the general objection — that Paul rejects our legal righteousness but not our evangelical righteousness — is therefore full and clear. First, Paul disclaims and disowns nothing absolutely — neither the one nor the other — but only in comparison with Christ and with respect to the specific goal of justification before God, of a righteousness in His sight. Second, in that sense he rejects all of our own righteousness — and our evangelical righteousness, in the sense being argued for, is our own, inherent in us, performed by us. Third, our legal righteousness and our evangelical righteousness, insofar as inherent righteousness is in view, are the same thing — the distinction between them refers only to the different ends and uses of the same righteousness. What is evangelical in terms of its motives, ends, and the particular causes of its acceptance by God is legal in terms of its original rule, prescription, and measure. If anyone can point to any act, duty, disposition, or effect that is not required by the law that commands us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves, they will be given a hearing. Fourth, Paul elsewhere excludes from justification the works of righteousness that we have done (Titus 3:5) — and our evangelical righteousness consists precisely in such works of righteousness that we do. Fifth, he disclaims everything that is our own. And if the evangelical righteousness in question is our own, he sets up a different righteousness in contrast to it — one that therefore is not our own except as it is imputed to us. I will add some further reasons that expose the futility of this proposed interpretation or show its falsehood.

First, where Paul does not distinguish or qualify what he says, what basis do we have for distinguishing or qualifying his statements? He says "not by works" — sometimes absolutely, sometimes as "works of righteousness which we have done" — meaning not by some particular kind of works, say those who argue the contrary. But by what authority? Second, the works they claim are excluded — as constituting the rejected personal righteousness — are works done without faith and without the help of grace. But these are not good works, and no one can be called righteous through them alone, since without faith it is impossible to please God. To what end would Paul exclude wicked and hypocritical works from our justification? Who ever imagined that anyone could be justified on the basis of those? There might have been some ground for this interpretation if Paul had said "his own works" — but since he rejects "his own righteousness," to confine that to works that are not righteous, that make no one righteous, that are no righteousness at all, is thoroughly absurd. Third, works done in faith, if applied to our justification, give more occasion for boasting than any others, since they are better and more praiseworthy. Fourth, Paul elsewhere excludes from justification the works Abraham had done after many years as a believer, and the works of David when he described a person's blessedness in terms of the forgiveness of sins. Fifth, the question Paul handles in his letter to the Galatians was explicitly about the works of those who did believe. He was not arguing with the Jews, who would not have felt the force of his arguments at all — that if the inheritance were by the law the promise would be void, and if righteousness were by the law Christ died needlessly. They would readily grant those things. He was addressing those who were believers, with respect to works they wanted to join with Christ and the gospel in order to justification. Sixth, if Paul's intention had been to exclude one kind of works while asserting the necessity of another kind for the same end, why did he never once say so — especially given how necessary it would have been to do so, in order to answer the very objections against his doctrine that he himself acknowledges and addresses on entirely different grounds, without the slightest hint of any such distinction?

Bellarmine addresses this testimony in three places (De Justificatione, lib. 1, cap. 18; lib. 1, cap. 19; lib. 5, cap. 5), and he offers three answers that contain the substance of everything others argue to the same end. First, he says that the righteousness which is by the law — set in opposition to the righteousness by faith — is not the righteousness written in the law or which the law requires, but a righteousness achieved without the help of grace, by knowledge of the law alone. Second, that the righteousness which is by faith in Christ consists in our own righteous works done in faith — what others call our evangelical works. Third, that it is blasphemous to call the duties of inherent righteousness loss and rubbish. But all his cleverness labors in vain. As to the first answer: first, the claim that by "righteousness which is by the law" Paul does not mean the righteousness the law requires is a bold assertion directly contradicted by Paul himself in Romans 9:31 and 10:5, where in both places he declares the righteousness of the law to be the righteousness the law requires. Second, the works he excludes he calls "works of righteousness that we have done" (Titus 3:5) — which are precisely the works the law requires. As to the second answer: first, the substance of it is that Paul should be understood as saying "I desire to be found in Christ, not having my own righteousness, but having my own righteousness" — since evangelical inherent righteousness was genuinely his own. I am sorry that some think Paul was in these words expressing a desire to be found in his own righteousness before God for the purpose of his justification. Nothing could be more contrary to the whole tenor and design of all his discussions of this subject, or to the testimony of all other godly people in Scripture to the same effect, as we proved earlier. I also believe there are very few true believers today whom they will find willing to join them in this desire to be found in their own personal evangelical righteousness — the works of righteousness they have done — when put on trial before God for their justification. We would do well to examine our own hearts as carefully as we read other people's books in this matter. Second, the righteousness which is of God by faith is not our own obedience or righteousness but what is set in direct contrast to it — what God imputes to us (Romans 4:6), what we receive as a gift (Romans 5:17). Third, that by "the righteousness which is by the faith of Christ Jesus" Paul does not mean our own inherent righteousness is evident from the fact that Paul excludes all of his own righteousness — as and when he was found in Christ, that is, including everything he had done as a believer. And if there is not a clear opposition in these words between a righteousness that is our own and one that is not our own, I do not know how it could be expressed. As to the third answer: first, Paul does not call our inherent righteousness rubbish, nor do we say he does — he counts it as rubbish. Second, he does not count it as rubbish absolutely, which would be entirely foreign to him, but only in comparison with Christ. Third, he does not regard it as rubbish in itself, but only as the object of trust for one specific end — our justification before God. Fourth, the prophet Isaiah in the same sense calls all our righteousness filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), and that expression conveys just as much contempt as Paul's does here.

Fifth, some say all works are excluded as meritorious of grace, life, and salvation, but not as the condition of our justification before God. But first, whatever Paul excludes, he excludes absolutely and in every respect, because he sets up something else in direct opposition to it. Second, there is no basis for any such distinction in this passage. All that Paul requires for our justification is: first, that we be found in Christ, not in ourselves; second, that we have the righteousness of God, not our own; and third, that we be made partakers of this righteousness by faith. This is the substance of everything we are arguing for.