Lecture 13 Justification; Its Relation To Grace, And Works

THE great cardinal question on the subject of Justification,—and that on the right settlement of which the determination of every other mainly depends,—relates to its immediate ground; and amounts in substance to this,—What is the righteousness, on account of which a sinner is forgiven and accepted as righteous, in the sight of God? or, What is the righteousness to which God has regard in bestowing, and on which the sinner should rely for obtaining, the forgiveness of his sins, and a title to eternal life? or in yet another form,—Whether the righteousness which is revealed as the ground of our Justification be the vicarious righteousness of Christ imputed, or our own personal righteousness, infused and inherent? This is the real ultimate question; but the fact that our Justification is, in Scripture, connected, in various ways, with the source from which it is derived,—the manner in which it is bestowed,—the means by which it is appropriated and enjoyed,—the effects which flow from it,—and the evidence by which it is attested and proved, renders it necessary to consider some subordinate questions which have been raised concerning it.

PROP. XXI. When God forgives sinners, and accepts them as righteous in His sight, they are ‘justified freely by His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.’

Some have imagined that these two—Grace and Redemption—are necessarily incompatible with each other, or mutually exclusive; and have held that, if Justification be ‘by grace,’ it cannot be ‘through a redemption,’ or, conversely, that if it be ‘through a redemption,’ it cannot be ‘by grace.’ That the Apostle felt no difficulty in combining them, and no need to harmonize or reconcile the one with the other, is sufficiently evident from the fact, that he speaks of both in the same sentence, and invariably represents our Justification as depending equally, although in different respects, on each of them. ‘Being justified freely,’ says he, ‘by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.’ His language is peculiarly strong; he affirms, not only that we are ‘justified by His grace,’ but that we are ‘justified freely by His grace’ (δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι). Nor is this a solitary instance of the same combination; for he says elsewhere, ‘He hath made us accepted in the Beloved; in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace, wherein He hath abounded toward us:’ both the ‘redemption through His blood,’ and ‘the forgiveness of sin’ which was procured by it, are here said to be, not only ‘by grace,’ but ‘according to the riches of His grace, wherein He hath abounded toward us.’ So that, according to the Apostle, the ‘forgiveness of sins’ is the fruit both of ‘grace’ and ‘redemption.’ In other passages, he speaks of ‘the righteousness of Christ,’ just as he here speaks of ‘redemption through His blood,’ in immediate connection with the riches and freeness of God’s grace. He speaks of those ‘who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness;’ and even of ‘grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.’3 The reason is clear. The grace of God was manifested, not only, nor even chiefly, in the forgiveness and acceptance of sinners, but also, and far more signally, in the divine provision for that end,—in the Father’s gift of His only-begotten Son,—in His ’setting Him forth to be a propitiation,’—in His providing the satisfaction which His justice demanded,—and in His thus making ‘mercy and truth to meet together, righteousness and peace to kiss each other.’ For ‘herein is love, not that we loved God, but that God loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.’ Our sense of the riches and the freeness of His grace, so far from being impaired, is immeasurably enhanced, by the consideration of the costly sacrifice by which our justification was secured; and it is only when that consideration is kept in view, that we feel the full force of the Apostle’s argument, when, founding upon it, he infers that there is no other blessing which the same grace will not bestow, when it delivered up His own Son to die for us. For ‘God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us;’ and ’if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.’2 It may be safely affirmed, that all our highest views of the riches and freeness of God’s grace are derived from the work of redemption; and that those who seek to separate the pardon of sin from a sacrifice of propitiation have comparatively very slight impressions, both of the justice of God in punishing, and of the mercy of God in forgiving, the transgressors of His law. (1)

It is when we take into account both the privilege of Justification, and the divine provision which was made for its being bestowed, that we are enabled to form, not only a right estimate of the riches and freeness, but also a scriptural conception of the nature, of God’s grace. The meaning of the term is fixed by the manner in which His grace has been manifested. Its scriptural import has been misunderstood and perverted, in a way which would have been impossible, had this obvious remark been duly attended to. It has been held to denote, not the free love and favour of God, from which every good and perfect gift proceeds, but merely one of these gifts as bestowed on men,—not the grace which resides in the Divine Mind, and is the fountainhead of every blessing whatever, but the grace which is infused into the mind of man, and becomes subjectively inherent there,—not the mercy which pardons and accepts the sinner, but the divine energy which renews and sanctifies him. That we may neutralize or correct this pernicious error, it is not necessary to deny that the term grace may be legitimately used to denote every one of the gifts which grace bestows,—for, by an easy figure of speech, that which properly belongs to the cause is often applied derivatively to the effect; and we may speak of the grace of pardon, or the grace of adoption, or the grace of sanctification, or the graces of faith, hope, and charity, merely for the purpose of indicating the source from which they flow. But it is a dangerous error, to confound these effects with their common cause,—and still more to restrict the grace of God, which is revealed in the Gospel, as if it meant only the grace which is infused into, and inherently subjective in, the soul of man. It is an attribute essential to the divine nature, and acting freely according to the counsel of the divine will. Some even of the blessings which it bestows on man,—such as the free pardon of sin, and the gracious acceptance, and adoption, of the sinner,—are not, in their own nature, infused habits or inherent graces, but a change merely in his relation to God;—a change which is always connected with a renewal of his moral character, but should never be confounded with it, or supposed to rest upon it, as its ground and reason,—and which implies only an act of God’s grace, of which he is the object through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. But the crowning proof that this is the scriptural meaning of the term is supplied by the fact, that His grace had its first and highest manifestation in the gift of His Son, and in the scheme of redemption through Him,—a manifestation in which there was nothing else than a free, unprompted, unsolicited expression of His sovereign love, and which consisted in a gift bestowed,—not in a grace infused,—yet such a gift as included in it every other fruit of His ‘good-will to men.’ (2)

PROP. XXII. Justification ‘by grace’ is identified, in Scripture, with Justification ‘by faith,’ and opposed to Justification ‘by works.’

Its gracious character, so far from being obscured, is only made the more manifest, by its being connected with faith;—‘Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;’ and the two expressions, ‘by grace,’ and ‘by faith,’ are used indifferently to express the same truth. There can be no reasonable doubt, therefore, that if we are justified ‘by grace,’ we are justified also ‘by faith;’ and, conversely, that, if we are justified ‘by faith,’ we are justified also ‘by grace.’ It is the more necessary to mark the convertible use of these two expressions, as being substantially equivalent to each other, because the Apostle often uses them interchangeably, and sometimes makes use of the first where we should have expected him to employ the second. When he is reasoning, for example, from the justification of Abraham to that of other believers, he says: ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.’ We should have expected him to complete the statement, by preserving the exact antithesis, and saying, ‘The reward is reckoned not of debt, but of grace:’ and when, instead of this, he says, ‘his faith is counted for righteousness,’ it is evident that Justification ‘by faith’ was, in his sense of the expression, equivalent to Justification ‘by grace;’ and that it was so because free grace is necessarily implied in the object of faith as it is here described, namely, ‘Him that justifieth the ungodly.’

While Justification ‘by grace’ is thus identified with Justification ‘by faith,’ both are frequently opposed to Justification ‘by works.’ ‘Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.’ ‘Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we have believed in 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.’2 ’By grace are ye saved, through faith, … not of works, lest any man should boast.’ ‘Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace.’4 ’After that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward men appeared,—not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, … that being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.’ As it is certain, therefore, that Justification ‘by grace’ is identified in Scripture with Justification ‘by faith,’ it is equally certain from these testimonies, that both are placed in contrast and opposition to Justification ‘by works.’ What relation subsists between Justification and ‘works,’ on the one hand, and between Justification and ‘faith,’ on the other, will fall to be considered in separate propositions; in the meantime, we speak only of its relation to ‘grace.’

PROP: XXIII. Justification by the ‘works of the law’ is expressly excluded in the case of every sinner; while Justification by a righteousness not his own, is as expressly revealed.

That a sinner cannot be justified by his own works, might be inferred from the mere fact of his guilt, viewed in connection with the essential nature of law; for law, considered as the rule at once of man’s duty, and of God’s judgment, can only justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. But this conclusion is declared in the most explicit terms, and with the utmost solemnity, in many passages of Scripture:—‘For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.’ ‘Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.’3 ’The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.’ ‘What things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.’ ’If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin.’2

These testimonies are conclusive on three points: first, that wherever sin exists, there can be no Justification by works; secondly, that sin exists wherever there is not perfect obedience to God’s law; and thirdly, that there is no perfect obedience among men, for ‘all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.’

But this conclusion has been evaded in various ways, even by those who cannot altogether affirm their innocence, or deny their guilt. They have had recourse sometimes to a distinction between different kinds of ‘works,’—such as works done in the strength of nature, or by the aid of grace,—works done before, or after, faith,—works of ceremonial observance, or of moral duty,—works of legal, or of evangelical, obedience,—works consisting in mere external conformity, or springing from an inward principle of holiness,—works of human invention, or of divine obligation,—works of perfect, or of imperfect, but sincere, obedience. They have also had recourse to a difference between one class of laws and another; and have imposed a limited and partial sense on the ‘law’ of which the Apostle speaks,—as if he referred only to the Ceremonial, and not to the Moral, Law. But by far the most frequent, and most dangerous, error, is that of those who practically overlook the spirituality and extent of the divine requirements, and seek to palliate the guilt and demerit of sin by plausible excuses or extenuations. Some of these evasions have been applied chiefly to the question as to the justification of believers,—whether it may not be ascribed, in whole or in part, to their infused and inherent holiness, and the works of new obedience which spring from it,—a question which depends, in some respects, on different considerations from those which are applicable to the justification of sinners, considered simply as such; and which will be considered afterwards on its own peculiar merits. In the meantime, as all men are sinners before they become believers, we restrict ourselves to the question, whether, as sinners, they can be justified by works?

Looking to the explicit statements of the Apostle, it might well be thought that no one would venture to answer this question in the affirmative; for the law which condemns a man on account of his sin, can scarcely be supposed to justify him on account of his righteousness. And probably many of those who speak most confidently of Justification by their works of obedience, have a tacit reference, in their own minds, to some moral change, which has been, or may yet be, effected in their character, sufficient, in their opinion, to alter their whole relation to God,—to exempt them from the curse of His law,—and to raise them to the enjoyment of His favour. They think of Justification as the certain effect, if not also as the just reward, of such a change; and do not seem even to entertain the question—how a sinner, simply as such, may obtain forgiveness and acceptance with God. If they could be brought to believe, as Abraham did, in ‘Him which justifieth the ungodly,’ they might also see, that He can only do so by ‘imputing righteousness without works;’ for as yet, at least, whatever may be said of their obedience afterwards, they have no works of their own, except such as are evil and sinful. But here again, at this precise point, they have recourse to a very subtle and plausible evasion; they take refuge from the statement which describes God ‘as Him that justifieth the ungodly’ (τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ), in another statement of the same Apostle, which describes Him as ‘the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus’ (τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ); and, as if these two statements were, or could be, at variance with each other, they argue—that God does not justify any man simply as a sinner, but only as a believer,—that if those who are justified were previously ‘ungodly,’ they cease to be ‘ungodly’ as soon as they ‘believe,’—and that this change in their moral and spiritual character, is the ground of their pardon and acceptance, rather than any other righteousness, imputed to them, and received by faith. There is much that is true in this representation, and yet much, also, that is false and dangerous. It is true, that God never justifies a sinner till he believes in Christ; it is equally true, that the ‘ungodly’ do not continue to be ‘ungodly’ after they believe in Him: but it is not true,—either that there is any contrariety between the two statements, which describe Him as justifying the ungodly and justifying true believers,—or that the spiritual change which is effected on the views and dispositions of a sinner, when he is brought to believe in Christ, is the ground of his pardon and acceptance with God. That change is effected by the grace of the Holy Spirit, but His grace comes to us through the channel of Christ’s mediatorial work, and is dispensed by Christ Himself as the administrator of the covenant, with a view,—not to supersede His own work, or even to supplement it, as if it were insufficient for the end for which it was accomplished,—but simply to apply it, for the saving benefit of His people, by making them willing to receive and rest upon it for their salvation.

The question has been raised—What are the ‘works’ which the Apostle meant to exclude from having any part in our Justification? and what is the ‘Law’ to which he specially refers as being weak and unprofitable for that end? To this question,—for it is substantially one and the same in different forms,—some have replied,—that he meant to exclude only formal outward observances,—and that the law of which he speaks was only the ceremonial law of the Jews, not the moral law, which is of universal and permanent obligation; whence they have inferred, that his statements cannot be applied to the virtuous actions of any class of men, and, still less, to the graces of the Christian character, or the good works of the Christian life. (3) But a conclusive refutation of this reply is supplied by the text, or the context, of every passage in which we are said to be justified ‘without works,’ or ‘without the law.’

Take, first, the Apostle’s discourse in the earlier part of the Epistle to the Romans, where he treats expressly of the two opposite methods of Justification, by works, and by grace, and which may be regarded as the locus classicus on the subject. The question being—what is the law of which he speaks, and what works are excluded from Justification?—we are supplied with ample materials for a decisive deliverance upon it. It is manifest that he does not speak exclusively, or even specially, of the ceremonial law of the Jews; but that he speaks of law in general, including what was peculiar to the Jews, but also what was common to them with the Gentiles; or of that moral law which possesses universal and unchangeable authority. This appears, first, from the scope of his whole argument, which is founded on the principle that ‘where there is no law, there is no transgression,’ or that sin is not imputed where there is no law,’ and directed to prove that both Jews and Gentiles were under law,—the Jews under the law of Moses in addition to the light of nature,—and the Gentiles, who had not that law, under the original, connatural, and indestructible law, by which ‘they were a law to themselves;’—secondly, from the sweeping universality of his conclusion: ‘Now we know what things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God;’ ‘for there is no difference, for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.’ ‘We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin: for there is none righteous, no, not one.’ ‘Therefore, by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin;’—thirdly, from his enumeration of the sins which were violations of the law to which he refers,—every one of which is a transgression of the moral law,—such as ungodliness, violence, deceit, falsehood and evil-speaking, cursing and bitterness,—while no mention whatever is made of any breach of ceremonial precepts;—fourthly, from his answer to the question, ‘Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid, yea, we establish the law;’ for this cannot be the ceremonial law, which was fulfilled, and abrogated, but the moral law, which was fulfilled, and confirmed, by Christ;—and, lastly, from his reference to the cases of Abraham and David; for Abraham was justified when ‘God imputed to him righteousness without works,’ before the ceremonial law was introduced, and before even the rite of circumcision, for ‘he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised;’ and David cannot be supposed to have referred only to ceremonial defilements, if he thought of them at all, when he described ‘the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.’ (4)

Such being ‘the law,’ and such ‘the works,’ of which the Apostle speaks, it is necessary to consider the design and object of his argument. It can scarcely be supposed—that he intended to prove, that men cannot be justified by works which are evil and sinful; for this is self-evident, and could scarcely need to be proved;—nor can it be supposed he intended to prove, that men cannot be justified by works which are good and perfect; for that is untrue, and could scarcely be affirmed in opposition to the terms of the first covenant of life, or to our Lord’s own reference to these terms, when He said to the Pharisee, ‘Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.’ His argument was mainly directed, not to prove either of these doctrines, or to establish any position of a purely speculative kind, but to establish the fact of universal guilt and depravity,—to carry home to the conscience, both of Jew and Gentile, the conviction of their demerit, and danger, as sinners,—to show them that, while God’s law was ‘spiritual,’ they were ‘carnal,’—that while ‘the law was holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good,’ they were themselves unholy, and their works unholy, and unrighteous, and evil,—that, in ‘the judgment of God, they which commit such things are worthy of death,’—and that ‘the judgment of God is ever according to truth.’ His object, in short, was a practical one,—to establish the fact of their guilt and condemnation, in order that they might feel their need of such a salvation as the Gospel proclaims; and if that fact, when established, is applied to prove that ‘by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified,’ this inevitable inference from it is designed to drive them out of those ‘false confidences,’ or ‘refuges of lies,’ which men are so prone to construct for themselves, and to direct them, as convicted and condemned sinners, to ‘flee for refuge to the hope which is set before them.’

This is the great desideratum still. All error on the subject of Justification springs from the defective views which prevail almost universally among men of the spiritual requirements of God’s Law; for these are invariably connected with a slight sense of sin, and a false or exaggerated estimate of the virtues of their personal character. Many speak of ‘good works,’ without considering what is required to make any ‘work’ really ‘good,’ according to the rule of God’s Law. A ‘work,’ to be really ‘good,’ must be itself in conformity to the precept of His law,—it must be done in obedience to His will,—it must spring from a right motive,—it must be an expression of love, supreme towards God, disinterested towards men,—it must be directed to God’s glory as its end. If any work be a violation of the precept of His law, it cannot be a ‘good work,’ whatever may be the motive from which it springs, for the motive cannot consecrate a sin, nor can the end justify the means: if it be not done in obedience to His will, it may be in conformity with the letter of His law, but is utterly destitute of its spirit; for a godless morality, which places conscience on the throne of God, and creates an autonomy within, independent of Him who is the supreme Lawgiver, Governor, and Judge, may indicate some sense of duty, or at least of prudence, while those who practise it have ‘no fear of God before their eyes,’ and may never have yielded, in any one action of their lives, a dutiful submission to His authority;—if it be not done from a right motive, the work may be materially good, and yet morally evil; for prayer to God, almsgiving to the poor, and fasting for the mortification of sin, are actions which are good in their own nature, and yet if they be done ‘to be seen of men,’ they are utterly desecrated by that corrupt motive, and become examples of abominable hypocrisy;—if it be not an expression of real heartfelt love, supreme towards God, and disinterested toward men, it has no right to a place among the duties of either table of God’s Law; for ‘the first and great commandment is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart;’ and the second is like unto it, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;’2—and if it be done with no regard to God’s glory, it is a dereliction of our chief end; for in our most virtuous actions we may ’come short of the glory of God.’ If men could only be brought to understand and believe, that these are really the requirements of God’s Law, and if they would then apply them seriously as tests of their conduct and springs of action, their own conscience would ‘bear witness’ against them, and no other argument would be needed to prove that, as sinners, they cannot be justified by Works.

PROP. XXIV. Justification by ‘works,’ such as are really ‘good’ and ‘acceptable to God,’ is also excluded in the case of believers, excepting only as it may be manifested or declared by them.

This statement includes or implies several distinct truths of great practical interest and importance, which cannot be understood in their true scriptural meaning, or perceived in their right order of relation to one another, without first placing them singly before our minds in the light which Scripture sheds upon them respectively, and then combining them in one general and comprehensive view. They must be considered in the exercise of careful and correct discrimination, and then adjusted to each other, as constituent parts of one self-consistent and harmonious system of doctrine.

The first of these is the reality and necessity of Good Works in the case of every true believer. In Scripture, they are not only required of all believers, but recognised also as being truly acceptable to God, and even rewarded by Him. They are acceptable to Him for three distinct reasons: first, because they are acts of dutiful obedience, on the part of those who have been ‘accepted in the Beloved,’ and whom He has adopted as His own children; secondly, because they are agreeable to His revealed will; and thirdly, because they are the ‘fruits of His Spirit,’ and, as such, very precious in themselves, and very pleasing to Him. No one with the Bible in his hands can possibly believe, that faith is not more acceptable to Him than unbelief,—or ‘a broken and a contrite spirit’ than ‘a hard and impenitent heart,’—or integrity and truth than fraud and falsehood,—or purity in thought, word, and deed, than a prurient fancy and a profligate life,—or that infused and inherent holiness which, however imperfect, is the incipient restoration of His own image, than that habitual sinfulness, which is the image of the wicked one. For both the graces and the good works of believers are expressly declared to be acceptable to Him. ‘The ornament of a meek and quiet spirit’ is said to be ‘in the sight of God of great price;’—believers are commanded, not only to ‘offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually,’ but also ‘to do good and to communicate; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased;’ their ‘prayers and their alms’ are said ‘to come up for a memorial before God;’2 their contributions to the cause of Christ are described as ’an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God;’—all believers are represented ‘as a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ,’4—and they are exhorted ’by the mercies of God, that they present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is their reasonable service.’ Their good works are even said to be rewarded, and that, too, in a measure proportioned to their number and excellence. ‘For God is not unrighteous, to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have showed toward His name, in that ye have ministered to the saints.’ ‘He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.’ ‘Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap…. And let us not be weary in well-doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.’ ‘But he which soweth sparingly, shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully, shall reap also bountifully.’ ‘And every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour.’ ‘The fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon’ (the only ‘foundation that is laid, which is Jesus Christ’), ‘he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.’

From these testimonies it clearly appears,—that ‘good works’ hold an important place in the scheme of Grace and Redemption,—that they are, in their own nature, intrinsically good, as contradistinguished from those which are morally evil,—that they are acceptable to God, both as being in accordance with His revealed will, and also as being the fruits of His Spirit,—and that they are connected with the promise of a divine reward. These truths are so clearly revealed, that could they be proved to be necessarily exclusive of Justification by grace through faith alone, we should be obliged either to abandon that doctrine altogether, or to modify it, so as to bring it into accordance with the express teaching of Scripture on the subject of good works. But there will be no difficulty in reconciling the two doctrines if we take a sufficiently comprehensive view of the whole ‘revealed counsel of God.’ Let us bear in mind,—that the ‘good works,’ which are said to be acceptable, and even rewarded, are those of true believers, who have already been justified and ‘accepted in the Beloved,’—that while believers are not now ‘under the law’ as a covenant of works, because it has been fulfilled by Christ as their substitute and surety, they are still ‘under the law to Christ’ as a rule of life,—that they are, and ever must be, the subjects of a moral government, even after they have been brought into His kingdom,—that while He promises to reward their obedience, and to relieve them entirely from the punishment due to them on account of sin, He still says even to His redeemed people, ‘As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous, therefore, and repent,’—that the ‘rewards of grace,’ which are peculiar to the Gospel, are expressly contrasted with the ‘rewards of debt,’ which belong only to the Law,—and that the same afflictions which, in the case of the unbelieving and impenitent, are properly penal inflictions, embittered by the wrath of God, are converted, in the case of His children, into paternal chastisements, and even classed among their chartered privileges, while they are sweetened by a Father’s love;—let us give due weight to these considerations, and we shall see at once, that their free Justification by grace through faith only is not inconsistent, either with their being governed now according to law, or with their being judged hereafter according to works. (5)

This will become more evident if we further consider, how Good Works stand related to Faith, and to Justification, respectively. They are the effects of faith, and, as such, the evidences both of faith, and of justification. That they are the effects of faith is clear; for ‘whatsoever is not of faith is sin;’ and ‘without faith it is impossible to please God;’ and ‘the end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.’ It is equally clear that, being the effects, they are also the evidences, of a true and living faith; for ‘a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works;’ and all the good works, which are ascribed to believers under the Old Testament, are traced to the operation of faith.2 But if, besides being the effects and evidences of faith, they are also, as such, the evidences of Justification, it will follow that Justification is connected inseparably with faith, so as to be the privilege of every one as soon as he believes, and simply because he believes, in Christ,—otherwise good works might prove the existence of faith, without proving the possession of that privilege; whereas they are applied in Scripture as evidences of both. For example, the good work of the poor woman who anointed the Lord with ointment is adduced first as an evidence of her love to Him,—then her love is adduced as an evidence of her faith in Him,—and then all the three are applied as an evidence of her justification. But if her good work, and her great love, were both the effects and evidences of her faith, and if, as such, they were also the evidence of her Justification, then her justification must have been connected immediately and directly with her faith in Christ, and not with her love and obedience; for these are spoken of, not as its ground and reason, but as its manifestation and proof. For this reason we have said, that ‘Justification by good works is excluded in the case of believers,’—but with this limitation, ‘excepting only as it may be manifested or declared by them;’ for in this purely declarative sense, the term is unquestionably used by the Apostle James, when he says, ‘Was not our father Abraham justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?’

Good works being the effects and evidences of faith, and, as such, the signs or tokens of Justification, they cannot form any part of the ground on which faith relies, or on which Justification depends. Nor can they come in, as an intervening cause or condition, between faith and justification, for they follow after faith, whereas every believer is justified as soon as he is united to Christ. They are the works of believing and justified men; and no work can be acceptable to God while men remain in a state of unbelief and enmity.

There is another important question in relation to the ‘good works’ of believers: Are they perfect, or imperfect? Are they pure and spotless, or are they defiled and polluted by sin? In answer to this question, those who have contended, either in the Popish or Protestant Churches, for Justification on the ground of good works, or of the infused and inherent righteousness of the believer, have generally contended also for the doctrine of Christian perfection, and denied, or modified, the doctrine of indwelling sin. In answer to the same question, those who have contended for Justification on the ground of the Mediatorial work of Christ, and His righteousness imputed to the believer, have maintained the imperfection of his best works, and their defilement by much remaining sin. On this point, it may be affirmed with undeniable certainty, that the good works of believers, although they are so far in conformity with God’s revealed will, as to be more pleasing to Him than the evil works of the wicked, cannot be more perfect than are the inward principles or graces from which they spring; and that neither the faith, nor the repentance, nor the love, nor the holiness, nor the new obedience, of the most mature believer, is such as to fulfil the spiritual requirements of the divine Law; while, imperfect as they all are in themselves, they are invariably soiled and contaminated by some ‘spots of the flesh,’ and defiled by the constant presence, and frequent pollutions, of indwelling sin. (6)

The testimony of Scripture on this point has been abundantly confirmed by the experience of all believers in every age of the Church. They have ever been ‘a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people,’ and they have ‘shown forth’ by their lives, as well as by their lips, ‘the praises of Him who called them out of darkness into His marvellous light;’ and yet one of their most striking and peculiar characteristics has ever been, an abiding sense of sin, and ‘a broken and contrite spirit’ on account of it. Read the biographies, or examine the diaries, of the most eminent saints, and you will discern no more marked feature of a family likeness between them all, in every country and in every age, than their frequent confessions of unworthiness, and their ceaseless conflicts with the evil which was in their own hearts. Day by day continually they have prayed for ‘mercy’ to pardon, as well as for ‘grace to help them;’ and day by day continually they have had recourse anew to the ‘fountain which has been opened for sin and for uncleanness.’ Some of them may have lived outwardly in the regular discharge of all religious and relative duties, without being chargeable with any signal act of overt transgression, like Zacharias and Elisabeth, who were, in this sense, ‘righteous before God, walking in all the ordinances and commandments of the Lord blameless;’ others may have fallen,—like Noah, David, and Peter,—into gross and scandalous offences, which, when ‘they were renewed again to repentance,’ they could never remember without ‘weeping bitterly,’ as Peter did, and confessing their sin, as David did in that Psalm2 which every penitent believer has made his own in all ages and in all lands. So far from regarding their sins as mere ‘infirmities’ or ‘imperfections,’ because they were committed by the children of God, they would have felt them to be, in some respects, more highly aggravated than those of the children of this world, and to deserve what, but for God’s pardoning mercy, they would infallibly incur, ‘everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.’ If such has been the uniform experience of all true believers, how can the presence and power of indwelling sin be denied, while the continued authority of a spiritual and perfect law is still affirmed? or how can either their inherent holiness, or their ‘good works,’ form any part of the ground of their pardon and acceptance with God? How scriptural, and how true to Christian experience, is the saying of Bernard: ‘So far from answering for my sins, I cannot be answerable even for my own righteousnesses;’ and that of Augustine: ‘Your sins belong to yourselves; leave your righteousness to God!’

The most inconsistent and contradictory charges have been brought against the Reformers and their successors, in regard to their teaching upon the subject of ‘Good Works.’ Sometimes they have been assailed, especially by Popish writers, as denying either the reality of good works in the believer altogether, or at least their necessity to his salvation; at other times they have been assailed, especially by Antinomians, as subverting or impairing the doctrine of Justification as a gift of free grace, by insisting on good works as the fruits of faith and the evidences of a justified state. It would seem as if, at the present day, not less than in primitive times, the teachers of ‘the whole counsel of God’ must lay their account with the most contradictory objections. ‘Whereunto,’ said our Lord, ‘shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, and saying, We have piped unto you, but ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, but ye have not lamented. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners: but Wisdom is justified of her children.’ The charge against those who maintain the doctrine of a free Justification by grace through faith only, that they deny either the reality of good works, or their necessity to salvation, is a mere calumny; for while the Reformers rejected many works which were considered ‘good’ in the Romish Church,—such as works of supererogation,—works done in fulfilment of counsels of perfection or monastic vows,—works of penance and self-mortification for the pardon of sin; and while, moreover, they denied the merit of all works, whether performed in obedience to the commandments of men, or even to the Law of God itself,—they never denied the intrinsic excellence either of those inherent graces which are ‘the fruits of the Spirit,’ or of those external actions which flowed from them in conformity with the requirements of God’s Law; and so far from teaching that they were not necessary to salvation,—in the case of all who are capable, and have opportunity, of manifesting their faith by its proper fruits,—they represented the sanctification of the believer as an indispensable, a constituent, element of his salvation,—since Christ came to deliver His people, not only from the punishment, but also from the power, of sin,—and to ‘present them to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that they should be holy, and without blemish.’ It may be safely affirmed that those who have most strenuously defended the doctrine of a free Justification by grace through faith only, have also been the most earnest, and the most successful, teachers of the doctrine which affirms that ‘except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;’ and that ‘without holiness no man shall see the Lord.’

When the doctrine of the Reformers began to be abused by the Antinomians, the Puritans were raised up, in the good providence of God, to give the same prominence to Sanctification as Luther had given to Justification; to insist as strenuously on the work of the Spirit in applying salvation as he had done on the work of Christ in procuring it: for although both doctrines were taught at an earlier period, and represented as constituent and co-ordinate branches of the same scheme of grace, it was reserved for their successors, when controversy arose, to expound them more fully in their necessary connection and mutual relations. Such writers as Owen, and Goodwin, and Charnock, and Howe, and Trail adhered firmly to the doctrine of Justification as proclaimed by Luther and Calvin, while they checked every tendency to Antinomian licence by the firm assertion of the indispensable necessity of personal holiness as one of the essential parts of the great salvation, and by the full and masterly exposition which they were honoured to give of the office and work of the Holy Spirit. (7) These great and good men taught that the good works of believers were really acceptable to God and agreeable to the divine will, while yet, being imperfect and defiled by much remaining sin, they could form no part of the ground of Justification, but were themselves accepted through the only merit of Christ. When it is said that the same works cannot be consistently described both as ‘an odour of a sweet smell, holy and acceptable to God,’ and yet as ‘dung,’ or as ‘filthy rags,’ it seems to be forgotten, that these are the words of Scripture itself and that there need be no contradiction in the case, unless they are applied (eodem respectu) with reference to the same uses and ends. Considered as fruits of our sanctification, and as evidences of our ‘MEETNESS for the inheritance of the saints in light,’ they cannot be too highly commended; but considered as the ground of our Justification, or as forming any part of our TITLE to that inheritance, they are to be utterly rejected, and treated as ‘dung’ and ‘filthy rags’ with reference to that end; for they cannot be regarded as such, without dishonour to the redeeming work of Christ; and for this reason the Apostle, speaking of himself as having been, ‘as touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless,’ declares that he had renounced all dependence upon it, and upon everything else but Christ alone. ‘For what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yes, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge 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.’ (8)