places of the New Testament, justification may stand in that sense, because the word in its true signification will bear it; yet in these two Epistles, in which it is largely treated of, nothing is plainer than that the design is to shew us what it is that brings us to the favour of God, and to a state of pardon and acceptation: so that justification in those places stands in opposition to accusation and condemnation.

The next term to be explained is faith; which in the New Testament stands generally for the complex of Christianity, in opposition to the law, which stands as generally for the complex of the whole Mosaical dispensation. So that the faith of Christ is equivalent to this, the gospel of Christ; because Christianity is a fœderal religion, founded, on God's part, on the promises that he has made to us, and on the rules he has set us; and on our part, on our believing that revelation, our trusting to those promises, and our setting ourselves to follow those rules: the believing this revelation, and that great article of it, of Christ's being the Son of God, and the true Messias that came to reveal his Father's will, and to offer himself up to be the sacrifice of this new covenant, is often represented as the great and only condition of the covenant on our part; but still this faith must receive the whole gospel, the precepts as well as the promises of it, and receive Christ as a Prophet to teach, and a King to rule, as well as a Priest to save us.

ART.
XI.

By faith only, is not to be meant faith as it is separated from the other evangelical graces and virtues; but faith, as it is opposite to the rites of the Mosaical law: for that was the great question that gave occasion to St. Paul's writing so fully upon this head; since many Judaizing Christians, as they acknowledged Christ to be the true Messias, so they thought that the law of Moses was still to retain its force: in opposition to whom St. Paul says, that we are justified Rom.iii.28. by faith, without the works of the law. It is plain that he Gal. ii. 16. means the Mosaical dispensation, for he had divided all Rom. ii.12. mankind into those who were in the law, and those who were without the law: that is, into Jews and Gentiles. Nor had St. Paul any occasion to treat of any other matter in those Epistles, or to enter into nice abstractions, which became not one that was to instruct the world in order to their salvation: those metaphysical notions are not easily apprehended by plain men, not accustomed to such subtilties, and are of very little value, when they are more critically distinguished: yet when it seems some of those expressions were wrested to an ill sense and use, St. James treats of the same matter, but with this great difference, that though he says expressly

ART.

XI.

James ii. 24.

that a man is justified by his works, and not by faith only; yet he does not say, by the works of the law; so that he does not at all contradict St. Paul; the works that he mentions not being the circumcision or ritual observances of Abraham, but his offering up his son Isaac, which St. Paul had reckoned a part of the faith of Abraham: this shews that he did not intend to contradict the doctrine delivered by St. Paul, but only to give a true notion of the faith that justifies; that it is not a bare believing, such as devils are capable of, but such a believing as exerted itself in good works. So that the faith mentioned by St. Paul is the complex of all Christianity; whereas that mentioned by St. James is a bare believing, without a life suitable to it. And as it is certainly true that we are taken into the favour of God, upon our receiving the whole gospel, without observing the Mosaical precepts; so it is as certainly true, that a bare professing or giving credit to the truth of the gospel, without our living suitably to it, does not give us a right to the favour of God. And thus it appears that these two pieces of the New Testament, when rightly understood, do in no wise contradict, but agree well with one another.

In the last place, we must consider the signification of good works by them are not to be meant some voluntary and assumed pieces of severity, which are no where enjoined in the gospel, that arise out of superstition, and that feed pride and hypocrisy: these are so far from deserving the name of good works, that they have been in all ages the methods of imposture, and of impostors, and the arts by which they have gained credit and authority. By good works therefore are meant acts of true holiness, and of sincere obedience to the laws of the gospel.

The terms being thus explained, I shall next distinguish between the questions arising out of this matter, that are only about words, and those that are more material and important. If any man fancy that the remission of sins is to be considered as a thing previous to justification, and distinct from it, and acknowledge that to be freely given in Christ Jesus; and that in consequence of this there is such a grace infused, that thereupon the person becomes truly just, and is considered as such by God: this, which must be confessed to be the doctrine of a great many in the church of Rome, and which seems to be that established at Trent, is indeed very visibly different from the style and design of those places of the New Testament, in which this matter is most fully opened: but yet after all it is but a question about words; for if that which they call remission of sins, be the same with that which we call justification;

as

XI.

and if that which they call justification be the same with ART. that which we call sanctification, then here is only a strife of words: yet even in this we have the scriptures clearly of our side; so that we hold the form of sound words, from which they have departed. The scripture speaks of sanctification as a thing different from, and subsequent to, justification. Now ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are 1 Cor.vi.11. justified. And since justification, and the being in the love and favour of God, are in the New Testament one and the same thing, the remission of sins must be an act of God's favour: for we cannot imagine a middle state of being neither accepted of him, nor yet under his wrath, if the remission of sins were merely an extinction of the guilt of sin, without any special favour. If therefore this remission of sins is acknowledged to be given freely to us through Jesus Christ, this is that which we affirm to be justification, though under another name: we do also acknowledge that our natures must be sanctified and renewed, that so God may take pleasure in us, when his image is again visible upon us; and this we call sanctification; which we acknowledge to be the constant and inseparable effect of justification: so that as to this, we agree in the same doctrine, only we differ in the use of the terms; in which we have the phrase of the New Testament clearly with us.

But there are two more material differences between us: it is a tenet in the church of Rome, that the use of the sacraments, if men do not put a bar to them, and if they have only imperfect acts of sorrow accompanying them, does so far complete those weak acts, as to justify us. This we do utterly deny, as a doctrine that tends to enervate all religion; and to make the sacraments, that were appointed to be the solemn acts of religion, for quickening and exciting our piety, and for conveying grace to us, upon our coming devoutly to them, become means to flatten and deaden us; as if they were of the nature of charms, which if they could be come at, though with ever so slight a preparation, would make up all defects. The doctrine of sacramental justification is justly to be reckoned among the most mischievous of all those practical errors that are in the church of Rome. Since therefore this is no where mentioned in all these large discourses that are in the New Testament concerning justification, we have just reason to reject it since also the natural consequence of this doctrine is to make men rest contented in low imperfect acts, when they can be so easily made up by a sacrament, we have just reason to detest it, as one of the depths of Satan; the tendency of it being to make those ordinances of the gospel, which were given us

ART.
XI.

as means to raise and heighten our faith and repentance, become engines to encourage sloth and impenitence.

There is another doctrine that is held by many, and is still taught in the church of Rome, not only with approbation, but favour; that the inherent holiness of good men is a thing of its own nature so perfect, that, upon the account of it, God is so bound to esteem them just, and to justify them, that he were unjust if he did it not. They think there is such a real condignity in it, that it makes men God's adopted children. Whereas we on the other hand teach, that God is indeed pleased with the inward reformation that he sees in good men, in whom his dwells; grace that he approves and accepts of their sincerity; but that with this there is still such a mixture, and in this there is still so much imperfection, that even upon this account, if God did straitly mark iniquity, none could stand before him so that even his acceptance of this is an act of mercy and grace. This doctrine was commonly taught in the church of Rome at the time of the reformation, and, together with it, they reckoned that the chief of those works that did justify, were either great or rich endowments, or excessive devotions towards images, saints, and relics; by all which, Christ was either forgot quite, or remembered only for form sake, esteemed perhaps as the chief of saints; not to mention the impious comparisons that were made between him and some saints, and the preferences that were given to them beyond him. In opposition to all this, the reformers began, as they ought to have done, at the laying down this as the foundation of all Christianity, and of all our hopes, that we were reconciled to God merely through his mercy, by the redemption purchased by Jesus Christ; and that a firm believing the gospel, and a claiming to the death of Christ, as the great propitiation for our sins, according to the terms on which it is offered us in the gospel, was that which united us to Christ; that gave us an interest in his death, and thereby justified us. If, in the management of this controversy, there was not so critical a judgment made of the scope of several passages of St. Paul's Epistles; and if the dispute became afterwards too abstracted and metaphysical, that was the effect of the infelicity of that time, and was the natural consequence of much disputing therefore though we do not now stand to all the arguments, and to all the citations and illustrations used by them; and though we do not deny but that many of the writers of the church of Rome came insensibly off from the most practical errors, that had been formerly much taught, and more practised among them; and that this matter was

so stated by many of them, that, as to the main of it, we have no just exceptions to it: yet, after all, this beginning of the reformation was a great blessing to the world, and has proved so, even to the church of Rome; by bringing her to a juster sense of the atonement made for sins by the blood of Christ; and by taking men off from external actions, and turning them to consider the inward acts of the mind, faith and repentance, as the conditions of our justification. And therefore the approbation given here to the homily, is only an approbation of the doctrine asserted and proved in it; which ought not to be carried to every particular of the proofs or explanations that are in it. To be justified, and to be accounted righteous, stand for one and the same thing in the Article: and both import our being delivered from the guilt of sin, and entitled to the favour of God. These differ from God's intending from all eternity to save us, as much as a decree differs from the execution of it.

47.

ART.

XI.

A man is then only justified, when he is freed from wrath, and is at peace with God: and though this is freely offered to us in the gospel through Jesus Christ, yet it is applied to none but to such as come within those qualifications and conditions set before us in the gospel. That God pardons sin, and receives us into favour only through the death of Christ, is so fully expressed in the gospel, as was already made out upon the second Article, that it is not possible to doubt of it, if one does firmly believe, and attentively read the New Testament. Nor is it less evident, that it is not offered to us absolutely, and without conditions and limitations. These conditions are, repentance, with which Gal. v. 6. remission of sins is often joined; and faith, but a faith that Luke xxiv. worketh by love, that purifies the heart, and that keeps the Acts ii. 38. commandments of God; such a faith as shews itself to be alive by good works, by acts of charity, and every act of obedience; by which we demonstrate, that we truly and firmly believe the divine authority of our Saviour and his doctrine. Such a faith as this justifies, but not as it is a work or meritorious action, that of its own nature puts us in the favour of God, and makes us truly just; but as it is the condition upon which the mercy of God is offered to us by Christ Jesus; for then we correspond to his design of coming into the world, that he might redeem us from all Tit. ii. 14. iniquity, that is, justify us: and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works; that is, sanctify us. Upon our bringing ourselves therefore under these qualifications and conditions, we are actually in the favour of God; our sins are pardoned, and we are entitled to eternal life.